April 6, 2006

MINUTES

The April 6, 2006 Special meeting of the Point Pleasant Beach Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:30 pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act". Present were Regular members: Mr. Simon, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Palisi, Mr. Moberg, Mr. Cangelosi and Mrs. Tooker Alternates: Mr. Spader, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Vacarro. Absent: Mr. Struncius and Mr. Leonard

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve and memorialize the minutes of March 16, 2006.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker…………..Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2005-36 – Mike Terpak, 302 New York Avenue; Block 32; Lot 19; Applicant wishes to construct a 12′ x 38′ deck.
Carried without notice

Photos entered as A-6 & A-7 taken today. John Youman, still under oath. Albert Morris surveyed the property and found the existing impervious coverage to be 64.4%. Lower than previously calculated. Proposed deck will be built out of ACQ treated lumber (2 by 8 joist), timber teck decking with white vinyl railing. Stairs will also be built out of timber teck. Exact size of deck is 12 by 38 feet. Mr. Vacarro: Inquired if they were going to replace the concrete patio with pavers? (Youman: yes) Mr. Palisi explained that the deck is included in building coverage and now building coverage is over 30%. Previous calculations have it in impervious coverage. Mr. Palisi inquired if the area of pavers is larger than the deck (Youman: Yes) Mr. Cangelosi inquired about the height of home (Youman: 30 feet to ridge) Mr. Cangelosi: Home looks lower than 30 feet because it is a bi-level. Mr. Youman: You are right, it is lower. I was thinking of two stories with 4-foot foundation. Mr. Moberg: It looks like building coverage is coming in at 36%. Mr. Palisi inquired why the deck had to go the length of the home. Mr. Youman replied that the more room the better for them to watch their grandchildren. This way they do not have to go up and down the stairs. Mr. Wolfersberger inquired about removing one of the sheds. Mr. Moberg: If the shed were removed and the deck was 38 feet by 10 feet they could get the building coverage down to 34%. Mr. Terpak agreed that he could live with that. Mr. Vacarro commented that if the walkway was pavers and under the deck were stones it would improve drainage. Mr. Moberg commented that he does not believe that the steps have been figured into building coverage.Mr. Simon informed them that they could have the steps within the deck. Mr. Moberg: The deck will be 380 s.f. Including the steps.

No audience questions

Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger: After visiting the location, I do not think this deck will make much of an impact. In favor.

Mr. Reilly: I agree with that, but would also require the pavers.

Mr. Moberg: I believe the entire renovation will be an aesthetic improvement to the area.

Conditions: 1. One shed is to be removed
2. Deck is to be 380 s.f. Including stairs.

Motion by Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to approve Application #2005-36 with conditions.

Vote: Mr. Simon, Mr. Palisi, and Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Moberg, Mr. Cangelosi, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Vacarro. …………………………………………………………………………………………Yea

Opposed: None

Application #2006-05 – William & Denise Mayer, 705 Cedar Avenue; Block 118; Lot 10; Applicant wishes to install a 14′ x 28′ in-ground swimming pool in the front yard. Applicant currently has an existing (5) foot fence in the front and side yard area.

William and Denise Mayer, sworn. Pool will be 10 feet off property line. Pool mechanicals will be next to the garage surrounded by landscaping. Current fence height is five feet and will remain 5 feet. Pool will not be visible from street. Mr. Wolfersberger commented that the pool does not look like it is 10 feet from the garage. Mr. Cangelosi inquired if it would be a problem to move it 10 feet from the garage. Denise Mayer: No that would not be a problem. Bill Mayer: Actually that would be a problem because the pool is close to the porch.

No audience questions

Deliberations
Mr. Palisi: It is going to be a beautiful addition. There are preexisting conditions. I think the design matches everything else, aesthetically it is going to be outstanding. In favor.

Mr. Wolfersberger: I do not think you will even know it’s there. In favor as presented.

Mr. Reilly: Property looks great. Won’t change the appearance. In favor.

Mr. Vacarro: I see no problem. It looks great. In favor.

Mr. Moberg: Mechanicals will be buffered by some sort of greenery.

Mr. Cangelosi: I support this application. Unique property that will be enhanced by this. No negative impact. In favor.
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Palisi to approve application #2006-05 with conditions.

Condition: 1. Mechanicals are to be surrounded by landscaping.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Reilly…Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2005-22 – Wallace & Sons Properties, LLC; 413 Railroad Square, Block 94; Lots 13-19; Applicant is looking to construct 13 town homes. (Is withdrawing application).

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Palisi to allow Application #2005-22, Wallace and Sons to withdraw their application without prejudice.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Reilly……….Yea
Opposed: None

#Boylan Letter – Variance was granted in 2003. He is requesting a second extension on a resolution that is expired. Mr. Galvin: This was a complicated application. Mr. Palisi: We are sitting here considering a resolution that expired in August 2005. Mr. Galvin said we could ask him to appear to explain why he needs the extension.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to request that Mr. Boylan appear in person to explain his extension request.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Reilly……….Yea
Opposed: None

Final Report 2005

Mr. Galvin: Mrs. Mills and myself feel that the application needs to be revised. There should be a category for building and impervious. There is an issue that the calculations should be done and certified by a professional.
Mr. Palisi: It should be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure the calculations are correct.
Mr. Galvin: You can request a certification from a professional.
Mr. Cangelosi: My own feeling is to put some attention into revising the application first. I would be happy to volunteer my own time.
Mr. Wolfersberger: What you say is true. They put down any number they feel like. Is there a house person to check these figures? Homes are becoming larger and higher. These homes should be measured when they are framed.
Mr. Vacarro: They do measure the home when it is framed; you have to have the surveyor shoot the building so it can be signed off on.
Mr. Simon: The Building Department requires a grading and drainage report, which would require a surveyor. Then they could have him do the calculations.
Mr. Cangelosi: The application needs upgrading.
Mr. Wolfersberger: Ratio of floors; the more I sit here, the more boxes come in. Pretty soon it will be three floors of box.
Mr. Reilly: What is required, what is allowed and what is proposed. These questions should be answered on application. Is it possible that we indicate that these numbers are expected to be accurate and that they are subject to random checking?
Mr. Galvin: I believe that the Building Department is checking on what we tell the applicant.
Mr. Vacarro: We can include in the cost of application to have our Borough Engineer check the figures.
Mr. Moberg: Inquired who would like to step up to help revise application. (Mr. Cangelosi, Mrs. Tooker and Mr. Reilly volunteered to work with Mr. Galvin and Building Department to develop revised BOA application).
Mr. Galvin: We can suggest to Mayor and Council to let us update BOA application.
Mr. Reilly: How about certification of building height?
Mr. Galvin: As a Board member, if there is something you question you have the right to request that the Building Department check it out. While the applicant is in front of you is a good time to explore anything in question.

Discussion continued on floor area ratio.
Considerations: Revise forms; Check list for Lot coverage and FAR

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to approve 2005 Final Report with considerations.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Reilly……….Yea
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned 9:15pm Attest: Karen L. Mills, BOA Clerk