Borough of Point Pleasant Beach MINUTES
The September 21, 2006 Regular Meeting of The Board of Adjustment came to order at 7:40pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "open Public Meetings Act". Present were Regular Board members: Simon, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker Alternates: Leonard and Spader
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve the minutes of September 7, 2006.
Vote: Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Leonard and Spader…………………..Yea
Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve the request to amend application #2006-18.
Vote: Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi, Leonard and Spader…………………..Yea
Application #2006-24, Cindy Rodriquez (LaManna Building), 210 Homestead Avenue; Block 126, Lot 4; Applicant wishes to add a 14′ x 30′ deck to existing single family dwelling.
Carmine Villani, attorney for applicant. Cindy Rodriguez wishes to square off the rear of the home and be able to utilize the deck, which would result in 32.5% building coverage. Builder calculated home at 30% without including decks and stairs. Plot plan entered as A-4, Photos A-6, Photo A-7, A-8 (2 photos), A-9, (2 photos) taken today. Mr. Wolfersberger commented that the lot is oversized to begin with. Builder built the home knowing that 30% is allowed and built to the max and then gave you a crapshoot on the variance. Mrs. Tooker commented that everyone is building first and then coming for a variance. Buyer has to beware. Mr. Cangelosi " you had a nice big piece of land and are already asking for a variance". Total area of house was grabbed first and hoped that we would say yes to the variance for the deck. Mrs. Rodriguez said that it would be a hardship to have to go down seven steps with her child if she is not granted a variance for the deck.
No audience questions
Deliberations
Mr. Cangelosi – I think it is a beautiful home and an improvement to the neighborhood. I think you made some mistakes in your design. I agree with your counsel. It isn’t a detriment to anyone. It is not affecting anyone’s light and air. However I think the objections voiced here are all-valid and reason enough to deny the application. But I am going to reverse myself and vote in favor.
Mr. Spader – I do not have a big problem with 32.5%, but I do have a problem with the balcony. I would like reassurance that the balcony is safe.
Mr. Wolfersberger – My position is that you started with a clean slate and the ordinance says 30%, you had enough professionals involved. I think you can reduce the deck. I am not in favor of the application.
Mr. Struncius – The home is aesthetically pleasing. It does not hurt the zone. I think the decking of this sort is deminimus. I think it fits with property. No one will even know the deck is there. In favor.
Mr. Leonard – I also look at this as you came with a clean slate. I would of voted no if you came before you built. I believe you could build a smaller deck. Not in favor
Mr. Moberg – Clean slate and 100’s of thousands of dollars on this project. . We have seen too many of these situations when they know what they can have and they try to grab us by the neck and shake us for everything they can get. With that said I am going to let another one go through.
Motion by Mr. Struncius, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2006-24
Condition: Second floor balcony to be checked by the Construction Department for safety.
Vote: Simon, Struncius, Moberg and Cangelosi
Opposed: Wolfersberger, Tooker and Leonard
Application#2006-30, Kathleen Wolffe, 208 Trenton Court; Block 91.04, Lot 5; Applicant wishes to construct a 12′ x 18′ patio enclosure on a new insulated deck. Steven Caccavale, attorney for applicant. Kathleen Wolffe, applicant, sworn. Requesting 22-foot rear yard setback variance to install and insulated sunroom over existing concrete slab. Setback is preexisting.
Joan Koidl, 206 Trenton Avenue. Has no problem with application.
Deliberations
Wolfersberger – We do not have a problem with building coverage. It is a preexisting condition. In favor.
Mrs. Tooker – It is a beautiful little room. In favor,.
Moberg – No negative impact. In favor
Leonard -I agree. In favor
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2006-30.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Leonard….Yea
Opposed: None
Application#2006-25, Antonio Nobre, 22 Parkway; Block 100, Lot 25; Applicant wishes to demolish existing garage and install an in ground swimming pool. Applicant would also like to construct a second story to existing single-family dwelling. Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Antonio Silva Rendeiro, professional architect, credentials accepted. Applicant wishes to add second floor over existing footprint and demolish garage and install an in ground swimming pool. Architect stated that there would be no alterations to the first floor. The board requested that the pool be turned so it meets the setback requirements and eliminate those variances. White vinyl fence will be installed to match existing fence.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Wolfersberger – Everything is preexisting. Balcony is not a problem. Pool is a catch basin and they are getting rid of the garage. In favor.
Leonard – I agree with Mr. Wolfersberger – My concern was the building coverage. Taking away a structure and replacing it with a catch basin, in my mind is less than before. In favor.
Moberg – I would like to condition the location of the mechanicals. I prefer them in the rear of the property; 5 feet off the property line. In favor.
Struncius – Overall height is only 27.6 feet. Aesthetically pleasing. In favor
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve application #2006-25 with conditions.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Moberg, Cangelosi, Tooker and Leonard….Yea
Opposed: None
Application #2005-32 – Lands End Condominium, 101 New Jersey Avenue; Applicant wishes to expand 2 – story building footprint dimensions (20 ft. x 75.1 ft.), attached in rear to existing building. (Carried without notice)
Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Mr. Housten, Professional Engineer, previously sworn. Applicant was advised by the board to revise the plans to include more parking. Mr. Housten addressed Mr. Savacool’s review letter. A-10 entered, manufacturers catalog showing open turf stone. He stated that the utility building could not be sacrificed due to the fact that it house the laundry, lockers, pool equipment and electrical service. All service panels are located within the building. A-11 – Alternate plan A entered. New plan depicts 4 additional parking spaces and additional landscaping. Photos entered A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-19, A-20, A-21 and A-22. Photos taken today. Previous building coverage calculations did not include the porch and pool in calculations. Building coverage is now 33.6%. New parking on Boston Avenue side will need a curb cut. Parking now complies with RSIS standards. Waiver is requested for curb cut and site triangle will be requested. Garbage collection was addressed and decided that the dumpster or trash cans would remain.
Deliberations
Wolfersberger – 33.6% building coverage, but 2.6% is pool. Porch area is 3.1% but it is open. Willingness of condo group to make sure there is screening and place is kept well. In favor.
Moberg – I remember when this was an old apartment house. It was an old dirty looking brick building. The association has brought the aesthetics up to a high level. Larger investment. I hope it continues. In favor.
Struncius – You have done a nice job with the adjustments. With the additions of the screening and approval of the curb cut, I am in favor.
Leonard – Building has been kept nice. Biggest issue was parking. A lot of work went into figuring this out. I think you have made a better choice. In favor.
Conditions
1. Applicant to submit landscaping plan to the Board Engineer.
2. Light spillage is to be screened except around the pool.
3. Utility building is to be screened to house trashcans or dumpster.
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Struncius to approve application#2005-32 with conditions.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker and Leonard….Yea
Opposed: Cangelosi
Meeting adjourned 10:45pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board
