Borough of Point Pleasant Beach MINUTES
The October 19, 2006 Regular Board of Adjustment Meeting opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Tooker, Leonard, Spader and Reynolds.
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve the October 5, 2006 minutes.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard and Spader…………………….Yea
None: Opposed
Motion by Mr. Simon to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-24 of Cindy Rodriguez.
Vote: Simon…………………………………………………………………………Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to amend paragraph 9 to have the trash cans stored in the utility building and to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2005-32 with conditions.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker and Leonard…………………………………Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the action and vote denying application #2006-11 of Ocean’s III.
Vote: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Leonard, Spader……………………………………..Yea
Motion by Mr. Leonard second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-25 with conditions.
Vote: Wolfersberger, Tooker and Leonard…………………………………………Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-30 of Kathleen Wolffe.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker and Leonard……………………………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Palisi to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-34 of PLRJ, 504 Sea Avenue with conditions.
Vote: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Leonard and Spader………………………………..Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Leonard to amend application #2006-18 to reflect the front variance being 10 feet to the stairs.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Leonard and Spader……………………………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote amending application #2006-18.
Vote: Wolfersberger, Leonard and Spader……………………………………….Yea
Opposed: None
Application#2006-12 – Miguel C. Diaz, 711 Atlantic Avenue; Block 57/ Lot 6; Applicant wishes to add addition 10′ x 28′ addition to rear of home. (Carry without notice to February 15th 2007)
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to carry application#2006-12 to February 15, 2007 without notice.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Tooker, Leonard, Spader and Reynolds……Yea
Opposed: None
Application#2006-33 – Martin & Darlene Motto, 207 Trenton Court; Block 91.03/Lot 4; Applicant wishes to add a new second story addition with a full attic to be used for storage and in ground pool. Martin Motto applicant, sworn. Building 36.6% and impervious coverage will be 59% including pool and surrounding pavers. Attic will have pull down stairs and store mechanicals. Attic will only be 6 feet at ridge. Dormers will be added to keep look of house. Requesting setback variance for pool of 5 feet off of the fence. Pool mechanicals will be placed at rear of property. Footprint of home will remain the same accept for porch. Addition will be aesthetically pleasing; home will be resided with vinyl shakes and the whole home will have new roof. Shed is being removed. A/c will be placed on driveway side of home. (Spader) What will the garage look like? I haven’t decided if I will side it to match the house or do stone, but it will be redone. (Palisi) One of the challenges is that you want it all – but you cannot always have it all. (Motto) Will change pool to 12 x 24; recalculate percentages and bring into office. (Spader) I would like some sort of clarification on garage to match home. (Galvin) I have the front of the garage will be redone to match the character of the house. Pool is to be moved to be 10 feet from the side property line and 5 feet from the rear property line. (Motto) There is an existing 6-foot stockade fence that will remain. Pool will be enclosed with matching fence. Yard will be fenced according to code.
No audience Questions/Comments
Deliberations
Wolfersberger – based on discussions – some concern with setback of pool – remove the shed, footprint to remain the same, make the pool a little smaller – I do not think it will infringe on the neighbors. In favor.
Tooker – Glad to see that you are building up – In favor
Leonard – I agree with what Mr. Wolfersberger said. Willing to make concessions. I am still not comfortable with it not being 10 feet off the rear.
Conditions
1. HVAC is to be screened with lattice.
2. The shed is to be removed.
3. Front of home and peaks are to be sided with vinyl shakes. The remainder of the home is to be resided with vinyl.
4. Applicant must comply with the front yard setback of 25 feet.
5. Pool mechanicals are to be placed between the garage and the pool.
6. The front of the garage is to match the character of the house the balance of the garage is to be painted.
7. The pool will be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the rear and 10 feet from the side.
8. The plan is to be revised to reflect the reduction of the pool to 12 x 24 feet.
9. The building and impervious coverage percentages are to be recalculated. The approval of building and impervious coverage is only granted to the extent of these revised calculations.
10. Prior resolution 2005-13 is abandoned.
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mrs. Tooker to approve application #2006-33 with conditions.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Tooker, Spader and Reynolds………………..Yea
Opposed: Leonard…………………………………………………………………..Nay
Application #2006-39 – William & Kathleen Fabian, 306 Central Avenue; Block96/Lot 17; Applicant constructed a new conforming single-family dwelling. Rear porch and stairs were not plotted in original survey. William Fabian, applicant sworn. Original survey depicted building coverage at 29.9%. Final survey came in at 30.5% . Was not aware of the discrepancy until Mike Geller advised him of the problem in September. He believes the problem lies with the architect who did not realize that the porch and stairs are calculated in as Building coverage. Professionals handled all meetings with Building Department. Total impervious coverage is 49.7%. Yard is not all pavers; there are plantings around yard. Board has decided that they would like to hear directly from the Building Department.
No audience questions/comments
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Spader to carry application #2006-39 to October 25, 2006 without notice.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Tooker, Leonard, Spader and Reynolds……Yea
Opposed: None
Application#2006-28 – Chong Barron, 302 Hawthorne Avenue; Block 109/Lot 18. Applicant relocated existing "permanent cosmetics" (tattoo) Business from one location in Point Pleasant Beach to another. John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Exhibits entered: Application, A-1; Plans, A-2; Sheets of paper with 2-3 photos per page, A-3, A-4, and A-5. Chong Barron, sworn. She performs cosmetic micro pigmentation surgery. Board of Health classifies it as tattoo, really sub-specialty and very narrow. Pictures entered show clients who have received services. 14 year-old who has Alopecia (a condition where hair does not grow). Services are provided by appointment only. Strictly cosmetic. Hours are generally 11am to 3:30pm. Bob Burdick/Professional Planner– Not a tattoo parlor. Well-needed cosmetic surgery for people in need. All medical waste is deposed of with a licensed disposal. Only negative impact might be slight increase in traffic.
Deliberations
Wolfersberger – Provides valuable service. I have lived here all my life and never knew you were here. New location on a highway; no negative impact on neighbors. In favor
Leonard – Would be against it if regular tattoo parlor, but feel it provides a valuable service.
Spader – I think that the fact that it has been here for 17 years without a problem speaks for
itself.
Palisi – I just wanted to say thank you for providing this valuable service.
Conditions
1. This use is specifically limited to the cosmetic micro pigmentation surgery as described to the Board of Adjustment on October 19, 2006.
2. This approval is not intended to grant permission for the use of this site as a tattoo parlor, body piercing or other non-cosmetic skin art.
3. Business hours will be limited to 10am to 5pm.
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mrs. Tooker to approve application #2006-28 with conditions.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Tooker, Leonard, Spader and Reynolds……Yea
Opposed: None
Application#2006-21 – Owen and Donna Henry, 52 Channel Drive; Block 164/Lot 8 & 9; Applicant wishes to add two small additions and an entire second story to existing single family dwelling and re-construct roof of existing garage. (Carried without notice) Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Dean Daley, Professional Architect/Planner. Variances required: Front and rear yard setback and front yard of accessory structure. Garage being renovated to store train collection; no living space. Triangular lot causes hardships. Rear yard 21′ to deck, new addition will be 25′. (Pardes) If this were a rectangular lot we would not be dealing with these issues. (Daley) Correct. Home next store has second story addition. Owen Henry, applicant, sworn. (Henry) Summer home, and weekends in the off-season. Would like to be full-time resident. Home needs to be updated. Has no intention of having living space in the garage but might need climate control for his train collection. Home will be resided with some kind of coastal siding (vinyl or cedar shake siding).
Alex Hahn – Fisherman’s Co-op – Henry’s have been wonderful neighbors – 100% behind them – feel it will be a plus.
Deliberations
Wolfersberger – Not increasing any setback or infringement. I believe it is going to benefit the area. Based on the fact that they are going to have to comply with FEMA I am inclined to vote in favor.
Pardes – Should be clear that the addition is not coming out as far as the deck.
Spader – I agree with Mr. Wolfersberger. Application improved the housing stock. In favor
Leonard – I also agree. An irregular lot always poses problems. I think the house will look nice.
Palisi – Seashore design. Aesthetically I think it works well in the MC zone.
Tooker – I agree with my esteemed colleagues. It is very nice.
Conditions –
1. Attic space in garage will be limited to storage accessed by pull down stairs.
2. Garage is to have no plumbing or heating other than climate control for the train collection.
3. Home is to be constructed in accordance with the testimony of Mr. Daley and the plans submitted to the board at the time of the hearing.
4. Home will comply with FEMA regulations
5. Applicant is to file a deed of consolidation to combine the two lots and to be reviewed by the board attorney.
6. The home and the garage will be resided with vinyl or cedar shakes.
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve application #2006-21.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Tooker, Leonard, Spader and Reynolds……..…Yea
Opposed: None
Application#2006-23 – Richard & Valerie Hall, 8 Water Street; Block 120/Lot 17.06; Applicant wishes to demolish existing single-family dwelling and construct a new two-story single-family dwelling. Applicant would like to retain existing deck on east side but cut back to property line. Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Pictures entered as A-3. Christopher Rice and Brian Collins Professional Architects, sworn, credentials accepted. Mr. Rice testified that they wish to eliminate pre-existing non-conformities. They will be building a smaller home and just moving bedroom space to second floor. It will be seashore colonial architecture. Mr. Hall is one of the most high-end builders this area has seen in a long time. It is about real cedar shingles and real cedar light trim. Roof will be constructed with heavy timberline. Home will comply with all current codes. (Mr. Leonard) There are two-houses, one to the South and one on the west that this house will tower over. I believe it will affect their light and air. I have also seen quite a few people hanging out there. Mr. Hall stated that he will rent it out in the summer and they will use it in the winter.
(Ray Savacool) Building coverage calculations do not include the deck and stairs. Total building coverage is 61%.
Public Questions/Comments
Bruce Palmer – Owns house at 7 Water Street. It appears the home has moved 1 foot towards Water Street. I think the one-foot would cause a problem. All setbacks are the same. The fire trucks park there in the summer for the fireworks. I own part of the driveway. It is a beautiful looking home. As far as the height is concerned, I have a fireplace, with the house moving back a little bit the houses will be much higher where the chimney is. I do not know what your fire ordinances are.
William A. Dixon, 205 Boardwalk. – It is a lovely house. Lives right next door to the applicant. It says 44.75. Why was it measured from of crown and not curb? First floor from floor to ceiling is 9 foot. Second floor is 8 feet – Why do you need a 10-foot attic. I have no objection to the second floor but I object to the height. Is foundation going to be same height? (Yes)
Mr. Palisi questioned why the first floor couldn’t be 8 feet. (Rice) Architectural reasons. (Spader) Being that the home fronts the boardwalk, is there anything that can be shaved off the roof and still retain the seashore feel? (Rice) can lower the peak and take another foot out. But I would rather take 6 inches off of each floor.
Roberta Yuzek – All homes line up on Water Street. Do not want to lose my view of my ocean. Anything going out will block the view. In the past the house was not rented, the woman lived there year round. It does seem like a nice house.
Pardes – I think I understood that no one objected to the two stories, but they object to the height. (Correct) We can accept the condition that the home will not move closer to Water Street. We still need a variance for building coverage, even though we are reducing it. Home will now comply with flood regulations.
Deliberations
Leonard – Home looks really nice. I have a problem with continuing to build two-story homes along the waterfront when it is not zoned for that. We are starting a trend of zoning by variance. You have done a good job of reducing building coverage. You have addressed the neighbors concerns, but I have having trouble with the 2-stories.
Wolfersberger – Commend for addressing pre-existing variances and setbacks. I have concerns when it comes to building coverage at 61%, even when it is down from 69% – Not convinced that the plusses outweigh the negatives.
Palisi – I appreciate not wanting to zone by decisions made here. We need to take every application at its own merits. We are a resort community. We have a lot of influence as to the direction this town takes. Can take a current home and elevate it to phenomenal level. Eliminate the prospect of this home becoming an animal house. Can redefine that neighborhood. The fact that it is on the street makes the impact less than in the middle of the block. If willing to lower it and move it back on Water Street, I have no problem.
Tooker –
Conditions
1. The home construction is to comprised of real cedar shingles, real cedar white trim and a heavy timberline roof.
2. The home is to be constructed according to the testimony of Christopher Rice and the architectural plans submitted to the board at the hearing on October 19, 2006.
3. The plan is to be revised to show a front yard setback of 6 feet. This home is to maintain the front yard setback along the Water Street street scape.
4. The home is to be reduced one foot in height.
Motion y Mrs. Tooker, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2006-23 with conditions.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Tooker, Spader and Reynolds………………..Yea
Opposed: Leonard…………………………………………………………………..Nay
Meeting adjourned 10:49pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
