We're recording. We're live. >> And it's a good sound system now. They can hear you. >> Watch what you say. >> My opinion. >> Best of great. What's funny, I was listening to the newer sound system though and I was like, "Oh,
>> oh yeah, though people don't realize how early it's on at the council meeting." >> Thank you. >> And they don't realize >> I'll rip the out. >> I'm so sorry. >> That's okay. Are you okay?
You don't remember. >> Like to open the irregular meeting of the pointless beach board of adjustment for May 21st, 2026. Get a reading of the open public meetings act. Please. Adequate notice the time of this meeting was given under the provisions of the open public meeting act and was posted
to the official designated newspapers in compiance with the law. >> Roll call please. >> Secretary Davis. >> Yes. >> Mr. H. >> Vice Chair here. Stretches >> without just realized without his glasses he's going like this.
>> 10 pairs of >> 10 pairs of readers. Yeah. >> Go get your >> here. But here I can't see. Can't see. Here >> I have the one set of minutes. Your initials are listed if you may vote. I have a motion.
>> First move. >> Second. >> Mr. Fen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Vice Reynolds. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> And >> yes. >> Be it resolved by the board of adjustment that hereby memorialize the action voteing application 2026
of four builders at 209 Avenue with conditions. Motion. So second >> secretary Davis >> yes >> m >> yes >> Mr. McGee vice chair Reynolds >> yes >> Mr. Sam >> yes >> be resolved by the board's adjustment that hereby memorializ the action vote
approving application 2026-06 at 307 Chicago with conditions >> so move >> second >> secretary Davis Matt yes >> Mr. McGee vice chair >> yes Mr. Yes. >> Calling the agenda. First application
2026 represented by Matt. >> The second application is represented by M. Jackson. All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, my name is Matt Dolan. I am an attorney with the law firm of Miner and Landis LLP and I
am here tonight representing the applicant Joseph or applicants I suppose Joseph and Mary Deiani were the owners of 708 Foreman Avenue located in Point Pleasant Beach here um directly across from the the high school over there. So, um, the applicants are here tonight
seeking certain bulk variance relief for what I think are relatively modest residential improvements in the rear yard of their pre-existing residential home. Um, the application concerns the the reconstruction really replacement of of a pre-existing deck that existed in
their backyard along with a slight enlargement of that pre-existing deck, the addition of a pergola on top and uh the installation of a rubber type plastic rubber shed um in their rear yard. Um, just as an aside, I because I
think there was some questions that were raised with respect to the reconstruction of the deck and and this will come out during the course of Mr. Deian's testimony. Um, but the deck in question, we we weren't able to find any permits for the deck, since it was constructed. Um, but um, it had been
there since Mr. Deany uh, purchased the home many years ago. Uh, I personally I've known Mr. Danny since I was about 14 years old from here in town and I remember the deck being there 25 years ago. Um it was there for a long time. It was falling apart and uh as he'll
testify to during the course of the application, Mr. Deian replaced the deck um and as indicated slightly expanded aside part of it um in order to in order to continue to use it moving forward. So
um uh I have I have here with me tonight Mr. Diani. He'll be my only witness. Um he'll testify as to the photographs that that you saw all have copies of. He'll testify as to the plot plan that was submitted um and address some of the uh
bulk variance or in this case C variance proofs that Mr. Dian is seeking in connection with this application. Um uh the proofs that we'll present to you tonight I I think will establish that Mr. Deian maybe potentially meets the
the standard for C1 variance relief based on uh based on this property. The fact that it was uh constructed in the early 1900s. It was constructed without a garage. He he needs some storage space in his backyard which he's utilizing uh with the sheds that a pre-existing shed
and now the new shed that's been constructed. Um but more importantly the C2 variance proofs. Uh Mr. Daniel testify how the benefits of this application outweigh any any detriments that um there's no substantial detriment to the public good and it's really an
appropriate and visually appealing use of of his property the improvements. So um with that being said I would like uh to call my one and only witness Mr. Deany who's sitting to my right here if that's okay. Mr. Chairman
>> sworn in raise your right hand. Do you swear from a testimony give before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Please state your name for the record. >> Joseph D. >> Please proceed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Danny,
are you the owner of 708 Foreman Avenue? >> Yes. >> Wait till I done with my question. I know. >> Don't jump the gun. Um, so are you the owner of 708 Foreman Avenue located in Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey? Yes. >> Uh and that's the uh property that is
before the board on the application here tonight? >> Yes. >> Approximately how long have you owned this property? >> 23 years. >> And um during the course of that uh that 23 year period, um was there a deck located on the property?
>> Yes. >> And and where was that deck located? >> Behind the house. >> And is that deck located in the same location it's in now? >> Yes. Same same footprint. Um, approximately when was your home at 708 Foreman Avenue constructed?
>> I believe like 1900 originally. >> And um, and during the course of your ownership, have you ever performed any renovations to the property? >> Uh, we put new water line in, new sewer line in. Um we did we just recently did
inside the house >> and and in connection with that um in connection with that process the inside you you obtained your permits and everything. >> Oh yeah. >> Um you obtained all the permits for the town and during the course of that process did anything come up with this this deck the pre-existing deck before you replaced it?
>> No. Um, as part of your application here tonight, uh, briefly describe to the board what what relief you're seeking and, um, you know, what what type of work was completed on the property. >> We redid the deck because it was falling
falling apart. And then we added a pergola for shade and we put um a little plastic shed in the corner for to store our bikes because they were sitting in the yard tarped over and they looked terrible. So, I thought be okay to put
that up. Um, so we get the so the yard will look a lot nicer, cleaner. Um, safety reasons, too, because I've had a few bikes stolen, but um, we lock them, but now I put them in a shed behind there. So, really can't even see from the road. Um, we've lost a tree in the
backyard, so we thought if we put this, we have a little bit of shade back there because it's like now in the middle of the summer, the sun just beats right back in the yard. Okay. Um, Mr. Chairman, I' I'd like to
mark as uh A1 a copy of the site plan that's previously been submitted, which which all of you should have a copy of. And >> the application submission of applications A1 and plans are A2 previously submitted. So,
>> all right. Perfect. So, I'll refer to that plot plan then as as A2. I have a blown up copy of it which I'm going to hand to Mr. Diani to testify to if that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, um, Mr. Diani, I just handed to you what's been previously been
marked as indicated by the board secretary as A2, which is a copy of, uh, site plan or plot plan that was submitted by you in connection with this application. Do you recognize that document that I handed to you? >> Yes. Um, can you uh explain to me what
it is? >> Um, shows my property and where everything basically is on the property. >> Does that uh that document that's been marked as A2, as far as you're aware, fairly and accurately uh evidence the the layout of the property, including
the your house, your your two-story house, the rear yard, deck, sheds, etc. >> Yes. Um, does that that plan additionally show the uh the fencing along the property?
>> Yeah, wood fence, vinyl fence, wood fence. Yep. >> Okay. >> And then yeah, another the wood fence in front. >> And for purposes of the board, so they understand, with reference to A2, can you direct the board to the location of the pre-existing shed and the shed that
was uh recently placed on your property? That's sub that's part of this application tonight. >> Yeah. Um the shed on the east side that's been there since I bought the house. Um still standing. Um and then the one on the right is the little the
plastic shed we put the bike. That's the one we put up. >> Um the shed that's located on the east side of the property you said >> was assisting my house. >> Okay. So approximately 25 years old. >> Oh probably more than that. Um and and um that shed you're saying
you said is still standing. You you haven't replaced that shed. >> No, just had to fix the roof because when the tree fell, hit the roof patch on that roof fix it. But other than that, that shed been there. >> Okay. And the shed that's on on the west side of your property, is is that the
shed that um you recently placed on the property and which and for which you're seeking approval for tonight? >> Yes, that's it. Similarly with uh with reference to this plot plan or site plan that's been marked as previously marked as A2. Can
you explain for the board uh the existing where the existing deck was and and the new uh pergola area that was constructed? >> Yeah, the the wood deck itself was just replaced. It had some rotting wood and
stuff. We replaced it with um the wood there and then we just added that pergola area to it roof on it for the sun keep the sun off us. >> Um and as it relates to the the deck that was replaced, do you know how high
that deck is? >> Uh 16 in from the dirt in the ground. So, is it fair to say that the uh deck that was replaced is is close to grade level, almost akin to a a patio? >> Yeah, pretty close.
>> And and that's approximately the same height it was before. >> Yeah. Mhm. Exactly. >> Um and as it relates to the area that was recently constructed, the the pergola area, is that the same same um height? >> Same height. Yes.
>> Okay. Um I guess while we're on the uh while we're on the subject of the of the deck, um one of the uh board engineers comments from from Mr. Savoc was uh a question with respect to the
permeability of the area below the deck. Can can you advise the board what exists below the deck? >> Alter underneath and then the slats are more than an eighth and they're like a quarter inch of a board >> the the slats you're referring to
>> in between each board. Yes. >> Okay. >> That's all right. In in between each board is more than a quarter or around a quarter of an inch >> at least. Yeah. But yeah, it's around. >> And how do you know that? >> Um I was out there helping them put it together when we're putting the pieces when we put them in. And then that's
what we said. Even said make sure we have this much space between each one when you screw it in. >> And did you measure it as well? Yes, I did. >> Okay. >> Um, so is it fair to say that that storm water as it exists as a deck exists now
um presently drains down through the deck? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. Um, and as it relates to the the pergola that you're referring to, um, can you describe that pergola to the board? >> Um, just has a little tin roof on it and
then it's all wide open. Um and uh so that's a couple chairs there. >> Does the pergola um is the pergola enclosed? >> No. >> So um is it fair to say it's open on three sides? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And does the pergola have any form of plumbing in it? >> No. No. >> Any form of electricity in it? >> No. I run an extension cord out there to get a little bit of electric. >> Okay. And um do you run an extension cord out there for purposes of lighting?
>> Well, I I put a little string light out there. >> Okay. So, the the lights that you have on >> There's no lights per se. Yeah. Not just the string lights. >> So, there is it fair to say there's no lights that are um potentially intrusive upon your neighbors? >> No, I don't believe so.
>> Um and when you refer to string lights, you're referring to those string lights with the little bulbs. Yes. Correct. >> Okay. And um but nothing of any permanent nature. >> No. >> Um just getting back to the shed, I I had a couple other questions with
respect to the shed. You uh advised the board that the shed is being used for purposes of storing bicycles. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And um previous to having that shed, where did you place bicycles? >> They're in the yard. sharp over them.
Um, and yeah, because I don't have a basement to use. I have a have a Yankee basement. It's like I'm just for mechanicals down there. So, and so there's really nowhere to put them. I have more multiple bikes
because we have family members come over ride in the summer and things. So, um, gets them out of the way, makes yard look nicer. So, is it fair to say that uh the addition of this shed in your rear yard uh makes your overall property
uh look more attractive to to the neighbors? >> Yes, I believe so. Yes. >> Um and and it avoids having to place uh outdoor items under tarps. That that might be um something that might be a bit of an eyesore. >> Yeah. >> You can see from the street.
>> So, I'm not saying this will help you with building coverage because it won't. So, I'm putting that aside, but did you ever think of just getting one compliant shed >> rather than two undersized sheds? >> Um, never thought of that. Uh, but um,
yeah, that mean that'd be something I would have to consider, I guess. But, um, I didn't even consider. I just thought I'd something up that wasn't, you know, just in the corner. >> Sometimes when you come here, you get >> considerations put in your head and that's one that you can think aboutward.
>> Yeah. which is one compant which is bigger. the the the one shed is 10 by 7.9 it looks like and you can go 10 x 12 I believe right >> 10 by 12 >> so you get about five six feet extension out of that which would fit bikes and it
would now again >> building coverage would probably be about the same with the two sheds versus one that's maybe a little bit less because the other shed probably is a little bigger than if the if the one plus you would sounded
semi amazed that that shed still standing Yeah, I know. >> Well, >> continue. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think that's something that um the applicant could consider if that's something the
the board is inclined to to suggest. Um, we are here though seeking seeking approval for both sheds. And in in that case, Mr. Chairman, he'd have to take down both sheds and and put up a a new larger one and >> Oh, yeah. Z around. >> I know what I'm asking. >> No, I know. All right. Um,
so going back to uh going back to the sheds, Mr. Danny, uh, >> yes. >> You you advised that you believe that um the installation of of this new shed uh makes your yard more orderly and attractive. Is that is that fair to say?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um, >> do you recall uh while while we're on the shed thing because I guess I'm just >> No, absolutely. >> Overly shedding here. >> Why did you put it a foot off the property line, too? So, it's not in a
compliant spot. >> So, you shed that's not allowed and then put it in a place that's not allowed. So, we're not we're we're failing checklist. >> Yeah. Honestly, we just thought, "Oh, this would be a good spot." not you know not thinking about the property at the
time. >> Got it. Please proceed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Um Okay. So, Mr. Danny, did you have an opportunity to review the the engineering letter um from Mr. Savocle? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. And do you recall in there there was a there was another comment that was made with respect to your rinsing station or outdoor shower on the side of your house? >> Yes. Yes. >> Is that is that area uh covered in any way? >> No. >> Okay. So, there's no roof on this?
>> No. >> Um and Mr. Dian, do you recall that there were some comments with respect to the the height of fencing in and around your property? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, just to to begin the as it relates to the fencing that surrounds
your property, can you describe for the board where that fencing is is located with reference to uh A2? >> Um, well, the fencing in the front is 3 ft. It's all just white picket fence.
That's all mine. Um, all the other fences in the back were put up by neighbors. So, the one um wood fence, if you're looking to the left, it's that neighbor. And then the back fence, another neighbor put up that fence. And then um the house next to me, the newer
house they built, they put a brand new uh fence up there a few years back. >> Okay. Um and sorry, >> I didn't I didn't put a fence another fence. I don't need to because they put their fence up, so it was fine. >> Sure. Um and how do you know that that fence in the front yard is 3 feet?
>> Measure it and be replaced soon. >> Um, do you recall there being a uh a notation by Mr. Savocle about the references to and calculations to building coverage in his engineering report? >> Yes.
um and he noted a discrepancy between the building coverage shown in the application and and the site plan calculation. Do are you aware of that? >> Yes. >> Um and in connection with that, did you have um your engineer uh recalculate
that that total building coverage? >> Yes. And and do you know if he submitted something to to the board in advance of this hearing that addressed that uh that change? >> I believe he did. >> Yeah. >> I'll just note uh note Mr. Chairman I
guess for for purposes of the record that um that discrepancy was addressed and to the extent that Mr. There was a I think there was a revised plan that you all don't have a copy of only revised to to note that change to the building coverage which was recalculated um and
it was recalculated at 32.6%. Um, and to the extent it wasn't submitted 10 days prior, but um, we would respectfully request that, uh, to the extent that you you'd like us to, um, we and to the extent the application was approved, we could submit that
revised plan or or the engineer could review that plan with the board engineer. um since that that was the only change to to recalculate the building coverage which is nearly uh cons nearly identical and consistent with uh the board engineers calculation of 32.94.
>> Yep, we're good. >> Okay. >> Right. Where did the the no tiki bar not permitted? Is that because they have that pergola covered with something. So, got name. >> Oh, yeah. I think so. I think that's what the zoning officer's referral seemed to say. Yeah.
>> Right. >> Can we add some testimony to how that's >> to confirm that it's done? >> How how the pergola is used and and not to be too specific about it, but a pergola is t typically a open roof
rafter structure. And we put we put a lot of fun. >> That's all. Just just a clarification on that. But could could you give us some testimonies how you use this? >> Yeah. I I use it to get out of the sun. I I put a there's a metal roof on it and then it's just open all three court
sides basically just um and I have stools and then just sit out there. I have a little TV out there and watch some stuff out there. I want to expand on that a little bit because you're talking you're talking about getting out of the sun and as a redhead I understand um and it's you know it's hard for me to
put structures on my property because I don't have enough shade for example on my top deck >> and the pergola is for shade but you also have a retractable awning out there. Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> And that's >> that comes off the house and then it Yeah. Comes off the house too. Yes. But
most of the yard is like in super sun. Yes. >> Although that pergle is not in most of the yard. No, it is. It's right by the the deck, right? Correct. >> Right. It's only It's >> It's just going to be more shade. >> It's on the west side. Yes. Yes. >> The pergola is on the west side. Okay.
>> The awning comes up the north. >> I just I'm thinking about shade. That's all. And how you're using >> the back of the house. The back of the house. >> So, it comes Yeah. So, it would be on the north side of the deck. >> It's on the >> Yes. Yes. >> I'm thinking of sun direction. That's
all. Yeah, but the in the summer the sun is directly over here hitting my yard like this. And so there's trees on this side. So even sometimes that shade from the trees blocking a little bit of shade by the house, but that the rest of the
yard is in flames basically. But >> that was part of the reason that we wanted to go with that. And then obviously it's just it's you know quality of life too. >> Praise that. Um was that roof calculated in the building
coverage? >> Yes. Yes, it was. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The pergola was uh the pergola is uh specifically included as well as the decking decking area, the two sheds. I do note on the revised plan that the applicants engineer
also included the shower. Uh but Mr. Deanna just indicated that the shower is uncovered. So that amounts to about like a half a percent. So, so the building coverage is actually slightly lower than percented than presented at 32.1 than
like a half% lower since it's not covered the shower itself. But everything else was captured in the calculation. Do you have anything else, Miss McFen? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, so Mr. Danny, then uh you'd said
partially this for shade, but also um is it fair to say that you you use this for purposes you said quality of life? It's it's a place for you to go and sit outside, >> correct? Yes. >> And um and it does it uh provide more uh
functional space for for you and family and friends to to enjoy themselves during the summer months? >> Absolutely. Yes. >> And as previously indicated, there's there's no uh There's no electrical or or plumbing running to the structure, right?
>> Um, Mr. Danny, in your opinion, does this uh this addition to your deck um and and the shed uh does it create any additional noise in your property that that would otherwise be there? >> No. >> Um Do these improvements
actually withdraw would would those improvements um make your property more visually appealing than it would be if you didn't have them? >> I believe so. Yes. >> In your opinion, are these types of improvements uh ordinary and customary
uh residential type improvements? >> I think so. Um, I'm going to Miss Mills, do so are the photographs pre-marked as well? >> Yeah, it was part of the application submission.
>> All as part of A2 submitted. >> Okay. Um, so Mr. Diani, in connection with your application, >> you also submitted a number of photographs for the board's consideration. Is that accurate? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm going to hand you a copy of
the photographs that you previously submitted. I understand the board has considered as marked as A2. Can you take a look at those photographs for me? >> Sure. >> Um, are these Well, let me ask you a different question. Who took these
photographs? >> I took them. >> Okay. And do these photographs uh accurately depict the condition of your property as exists today? >> Yes. Um, do they do they accurately depict the sideyard of your property,
rear yard, pergola, and shed? >> Yes. >> For purposes uh of the board, can you uh direct the board to what they're looking at in in each of the photographs that have been previously marked as A2?
>> Um, yeah. That you see the original shed to the picture on the top left and That's the grass all in the grass in the backyard. >> Let me just ask it. >> I don't want to derail to your testimony. >> I am so clear on what every picture is. I don't know.
>> Perfect. >> Mr. Chairman, I do have a question. I don't see the three-foot fence on this picture. I see it on Google Street View, but I don't see it on this picture. >> There is none of the side of that side of the house with the three foot.
>> Well, that's the front yard. The three-foot fence is in the front yard. And so these photos, well, Mr. Daniel, are do these photos um depict any of your front yard or are they only in your backyard? >> This is just the back. >> This is the view that
>> So the three foot fence is like that picket fence in the >> Yeah. And it's not here. I think I think I see a little part of the three-foot picket in front of where the bike in front of where the bikes are. Is that the where the three-foot starts? >> Okay. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, yeah. It start Mr. Danny. So, um it
starts there on on the left side and then it it goes into your front yard. Is that accurate? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yes. Um I mean, this isn't overly complicated, right? I think we've heard a lot of testimony. We understand what's going
on. Uh, is this an appropriate time before deliberations to propose again what I think would be >> a reasonable offer of modification? >> Yes. But I would say why don't you open it to the public first just to see in
case there's anyone here. I don't think there will be, but just in case there's anyone here that wants to be heard on it >> before uh giving any thoughts. >> Absolutely. I'll let you I'm not cut you off before that public. So finish up. But I also
think we have a very good handle of everything that's happening here. Um, but anyone else on the board have any other questions, comments? Agree with that statement that >> we kind of get it? >> Yeah, I agree with that. >> Do pergula itself
is that still part of the same original footprint of the original? >> No, >> that was added. >> No. Uh, and Mr. Reynolds, if you if you look on the uh site plan, you can see where it says pergola with roof. That's that's the added part. The wood deck, as
Mr. DNA testified to, is in the same condition that's always been for the past or the same location as it's always been for 25, 30 years, whatever it's been. >> Mr. McGee. >> Yeah. Um the new shed, >> is that large enough to fit the bikes that you have?
>> Um yeah, it could fit like five or six bikes basically. >> And you don't have more than five or six bikes? No, I do. I because I keep them for relatives come down, my nieces come down and family. >> The reason I ask >> usually bike because there's no apartment in town in summer. So,
>> yeah, I I live right here. Um, the reason I asked is >> um I'm just thinking out loud if it might make sense to just get rid of the antique shed and just keep what you've put and put it in a conforming spot. This way,
>> um, >> we wouldn't have to go buy a bigger one. >> Let them fish. Just some fish >> trying to help this way. You wouldn't have to go get rid of this one and buy another. I'm just spitballing. >> You know, I know we're not I'm not here to offer solutions, but just kind of thinking out loud.
>> Then he has no place to put the things that are in the antique. >> Yeah, >> that's why he might need the bigger one. >> Fair enough. >> But one is starting to get down the right path. >> There's a theme here, Mr. >> Um,
>> anything else? Uh um >> before I call public. >> Sure. I don't have any I don't have any other testimony for for Mr. Deiani. Um unless the board has any other questions for him. I understand that um one of Mr. Deian's neighbors is here um for
purposes of public comment. Um and I'll just also ask you, Mr. Dian, uh have you had any conversations with your with your neighbors with respect to this application? >> Um but yeah, I just said it was coming here and she because she approached me about this. a letter in the mail.
>> Okay. But has anyone complained to you about this? Any of your neighbors? >> No. >> Okay. I don't have anything else. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thanks. >> Anyone from the public that wants to come on up and we'll just go right to both combo questions and comments. So,
you're going to get sworn in as well and then you can tell us how you feel about the case or ask any questions. >> Sit or stand. >> Do whatever you want. >> Can I can't really tell the difference. C E S L A Word E C H S6
>> Do you swear a form of testimony here before this board the truth the whole truth about the truth? >> Yep. >> We're the eastern neighbors so we're on the east side with the wooden fence and uh we're thrilled with the improvements. We've not had any issues with it. We're actually very happy that the bicycles
are no longer covered by tarps and sitting on the sideyard, but we're instead in a, you know, covered shed and safe as well since they did have some thefts. Um, we've been there since 2015. We've never had any issues whatsoever with these neighbors with respect to any
sort of, you know, outside lights, outside noise, entertainment. They've done entertainment and even the other day I was putting that garbage out. I didn't even realize that they'd been outside looking at the TV out on their deck. Like, we didn't even know that there was anybody out there. So, as far as we're concerned, everything seems
fine to us. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Anyone on the board have any other questions? I just got one clarification
on the uh on the report from the engineer. Everything that's listed for a variance also says existing. I just want clarification on that. Uh let's see. We got second page.
So yeah, first page front yard. Those are all existing conditions. sideyard setback. The house predates the ordinance requirements. Um yeah, so they're listed as existing um because they already do exist. Um however,
they don't exist for such period of time as they are legally pre-existing accessory structures. So we did list them as existing even though the applicant is here seeking variance relief for
and to legalize their current location and status. >> Thank you. But as it just as a point of clarification I think Mr. Reynolds as it relates to the accessory sideyard setback for the shed on the east
accessory rear yard setback for the shed on the east. um that shed hasn't moved and wasn't h hasn't been as he testified to as Mr. Danny testified to hasn't been altered in 2530 years. Um so I suppose
we're still seeking I I would agree with Mr. Mr. Dolan on Mr. Dolan on that testimony has been that the shed was there when the applicant purchased the property. I wouldn't necessarily, if the board wasn't inclined, I would just recognize it as an existing condition
rather than grant relief. You know, unless the testimony is compelling that you feel that the shed in its location should violate the required setbacks. >> Good. Then, now can I uh and again, I'm one person on board. You certainly can
do your own analysis of where you think people are at, but for me, I'm just wanting to see one shed in a compliant spot. And that shed has the ability to be bigger than either of the other two sheds because I don't think from a zoning perspective, although the
neighbor had no issue, that's fine. We know this decision will sit with this lot forever and I just don't think it's a smart decision to create a variance when it doesn't need to be, especially when it's put one foot on the property line. So, that's where I'm coming from.
And I'm not looking at the perola thing. I'm okay with everything else. it's the sheds and having two sheds because it's also by adding the second shed creating some building coverage overage that would probably disappear and I'm even willing to look beyond that. So it's not
like I'm not willing to give >> but I think that's my one area that I'm going to ask for otherwise you know where I'll be betting. I understand Mr. Chairman I and I I appreciate your comment and maybe that's a reasonable solution. And I think in that case he
might be back if he still needs a shed that's bigger than 12. How how big can it be? 120 square feet. >> 120 square feet. No wall greater than 12 feet in length. >> So I don't know. These two together aren't much over that are they right.
>> The two together they're 80 and 72. That's so they're 153 square feet. >> Yeah. So it's a little >> Right. And that being said one that looks like a barn. It doesn't It may have the floor space of 100, but it doesn't have the storage space a new
shed. >> I mean, just piggybacking off what he said, two sheds on property, it seems to me, we've been on the board for 20 years. It seems like it's always been a no no. >> Okay. >> You'll be hardressed to find property
that we had anything to do with that has two sheds on it. >> Yeah. Can I speak with my client for a second? >> If you want to do it right over there, if you want to go in the hall to in the room. >> Just give me two minutes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Going to take two minutes. >> The longest five minutes of your life. Oh, you flew >> in yesterday. >> Where we come from? >> Where?
>> I have a place. >> Yeah, right outside Charleston. >> Oh, nice. >> They have always around that way. If you ever have like a bad situation, I have a real down there that actually my first place down there like he was just actually over there the other day
cuz my all my uh my smoke detector needed a new battery. Get a roll call, please. >> Everybody's here. >> Yeah, I'm here. Mr. Vice Chair Mate
here. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to have a discussion with my client and um my client uh agrees with with your suggestion to the extent that the the board is inclined to approve the application with uh a condition that the
new shed be removed. Um and if Mr. and would like to then uh replace the old shed um with a bigger shed that's in compliance with the code and and within the setback. Um he'll he'll file for a building permit to do so and
and remove that old shed. >> That's good with me. I again I'm not making this for everybody but I >> I think people would be jumping up if they felt strongly in some other way. So, um,
understood. So, >> I'll let you, uh, >> close it up with a summation and then we're going to go to deliberations and then that'll end our negotiations and back and forth. So, >> wrap it up. >> It's a collaborative process, right? Um,
>> we try to be >> and I appreciate that. Um, so I don't I don't have much to say. I won't be long. I There's a lot of testimony. Um, you heard Mr. DN as as it relates to the the purpose for the construction. The fact that the this deck existed primarily in
the same place that that's in now safe put a little extension that that he put on. Um he hasn't had any complaints from his neighbors. It creates a more visually appear a more visually um beneficial backyard. It uh it's or you
know helps with organization in the backyard. Um, as indicated, he's willing to agree to uh the condition with respect to the removal of the shed. Um, and I think based on Mr. Deian's testimony as well as um as well as the
testimony from one of his neighbors that that came here, there's there's no substantial detriment to the public good. The benefits outweigh the detriments on this application. And um I believe Mr. Deiani satisfied the standard for C2 variance relief. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else on the board? Anything else? Good. Get a motion to close for deliberations, please. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Well, um, so nice that we got a a resolution about the um the two shed
issue. I think that that was probably the major sticking point on the case. Um, somewhat of an oversized lot. Uh, so going over on coverage, um, that's always one of those things that that catches our attention and so
I'm glad we're going to be reducing that. Um, with respect to the the pergola and and the deck, um, we didn't really have any testimony as to why they were done with without permits. Um, other than it was it was a restructure
of it, but since it was an addition, it it really should have been addressed. Um, but regardless, it's um I I think they're a a benefit to the backyard, providing some additional shade, some enjoyment for outdoor living space,
which I'm I'm always in favor of. Uh I certainly don't see it as a detriment to the zone, and the neighbors confirm that as well. So, um with with the resolution in hand, I think it's I think it's a a good application.
Yeah, I as usual I agree with um Mr. Davis. Um you know I see the the benefit of providing additional shade for your family. Um again you know doing it without the permit not the greatest thing but um you know as long as we have
this compromise now uh removing the smaller sheds and getting that shed basic it was on the property line practically and getting it off the property line and having the one larger one. Um, I'm good with it. >> All right. >> Okay. In regards to the pergola, I think
it's actually a great idea because the option would be a giant umbrella, right? To get the shade, it would be an umbrella. The wind blow it over. You got to maintain. You got to replace every a couple years. I think that is a good situation. Um, in regards to the shed, I
really appreciate you taking in consideration, do one shed, get rid of the two sheds. It makes me feel better just because of our 20 year history of not doing. Other than that, I think it's great. I think the backyard looks great.
>> Yeah. Uh, no problem with the pergola. Um, I think if the the goal is to kind of tidy up the yard and avoid um tarps on on bikes and and kind of needing meeting making things a little
bit neater. I think the idea of one conforming shed is going to look a lot better. two out buildings on separate corners of the yard. So, um, with that compromise, I'm I'm fine. >> Clay, >> uh, short and sweet. I'll just piggyback off of Mr. Davis's comments. Um, I'm
good with the resolution and also appreciate the, uh, the neighbor's comments. >> Mr. Smovich, >> I have nothing substantive to add, Mr. Chairman. >> Me either. We can close deliberations. So move >> second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> I >> uh Ben, >> uh the only condition would be the agreement to uh remove the new shed being the plastic shed and either keep the one old existing or uh submit for a
permit and get a single shed in a compliant location in size. And again, if they want to take the old shed down and keep the new shed and put that in compliant >> theoretically goes down from two to one >> two to one >> either one in a compliant location compliant size
>> size. Yep. Can can I ask one question and and maybe this is a question >> for sure Mr. Montenegro or Mr. Savocle. Um maybe Mr. Savocle is better with math and could do this quickly off top of his head, but if the if the uh new shed is
removed and Mr. Deiani takes down the old shed and puts up another shed at the maximum size limit that's permitted in the zone. Is he still going to be over building coverage? And is he going to have to come back before this board? And if the answer is yes, could we agree as part of the condition that he's
permitted to install a shed so long as it remains in compliance with setbacks and is in compliance with the code as to size? Um, but if he's but if he's over building coverage, the the variance extends to that. probably that's
definitely the intent of >> I I agree it's intent. I just want to make sure it's covered so we're not back here in in six months on on that issue. >> So So the uh um yeah it would be slightly less with
the maximum size single shed but it would still be over. So that that's certainly an appropriate um in write it up that way and we recognize that that would be the case. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. >> I'll cover it.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With stated conditions, get a motion for approval, please. So move >> second by60. >> Secretary Davis. Yes. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair. Yes.
Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you everyone. >> Appreciate it. Have a good night. >> You too. >> You too. >> Go. >> Yeah. Right. >> The same. You're on.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Jillian McClear from John Jackson and Associates here tonight on behalf of the applicant for 119 Parkway in Point Pleasant Beach. Uh I have here with me tonight Miss Amy Ryzenberger who is uh one of the applicants as well as
our architect Mr. Paul Rugarber. Before we begin I would respectfully request that I uh that we have marked into the record my PowerPoint exhibit uh as A1 and I >> A3. Thank you. And I do have copies to pass around to the board members.
I have to break this up. >> Thank you. The application before the board tonight involves a thoughtful renovation of an existing detached garage located at 119 Parkway. And our proposal tonight seeks
to modernize this structure to include a more functional space that better serves the residential needs of this property. And we look forward to walking the board through our testimony tonight uh from Miss Risenberger and also Mr. Rugarber
uh regarding the architectural plans um to show why this proposal is a good fit for this property and for the community. And with that being said, I'd like to introduce my first witness, Mr. Uh, Miss Amy Ryzenberger, >> do you swear from testimony that you're
before this board? >> Miss Risenberger, can you please uh advise the board how long have you Well, first of all, you are the owner of 119 Parkway, correct? >> Correct. >> And how long have you owned this property? >> Uh, it'll be 10 years this fall. And can you describe the current layout
of the existing detached garage? >> Yes. So, our house um the front of the house is on Parkway and then the garage is on Baltimore and we have a rock drive that separates the house from the
detached garage. >> Okay. And how is the garage currently being utilized? >> Um we fit a car in. We can fit two in there. And it just it's, you know, it's kind of old inside. And it has all my
son's toys, bikes, patio furniture, holiday decorations. It's just we have a very tiny house, so it's just a big kind of storage space right now. >> And um why are you proposing to add a storage area to the back of the garage?
>> Just because currently it's it's very rough. Like I go in there a lot. We do keep a lot of things because I not have a finished basement. Um, and our house is maybe not even 1,600 square feet. So, we just store a lot of things in there and I'm constantly going in and it's,
you know, it's there's bugs, you know, there's been mice in there and we just like to have like a nicer spot to keep all of our stuff and know that it won't be destroyed um year round. Okay. And um just so we're clear for the record, can you explain how you intend to use that um storage portion of the building if
this application is approved tonight? >> Yeah. So, I'd like to put up a wall and separate um the front of the garage where the car goes in and then just, you know, build cabinets and have some heating and cooling. And so, can have my son's toys in there, maybe throw in like
a ping pong table or just you make it more of like a a neat space for the family. So, um, in other words, you would be carrying out activities, um, typical to that, um, that would typically occur in a detached garage in the community.
>> Yes. >> And do you believe that this renovation, this application, uh, will allow you to better enjoy your property without interfering with your neighbors enjoyment of theirs? >> Yes, the properties exist, the structure is existing, so they wouldn't even
really know anything different. Okay. And um will the storage area ever be rented out to third parties or used for any commercial purposes? >> No, absolutely not. >> And will anyone, including family members or guests, ever be um residing or sleeping in that storage area?
>> Absolutely not. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Those were all the questions I had of Miss Risenberger at this time. >> I have I have one question. Is there a plan to have a gate between the pool area and the um this uh what would be
the doors to this garage storage area? >> Um there's a there's a gate already on the pool and then the driveways in between and there's a door already to go in >> and that's going to remain. >> Yes, the door is going to remain. >> Okay. >> Right. What's the ruling? I I know we
allow electric. Um, no plumbing typically in a detached garage, but I've never heard the heating and cooling aspect of it. Is that a normal amenity to a garage? >> I wouldn't say it's normal. Um, I
wouldn't say there's a prohibition against it. >> Um, there's there's certainly folks who don't like to get in a cold car in the morning. Um, so I have seen garages that that
actually are climate controlled. >> Okay. >> There's there's nothing that states it can't be. >> That is correct. >> That's what I want to know. >> And just to confirm, no water. >> No. No water. >> Correct. Um, and Mr. Chairman and members of the board, Mr. Rug Garber will be providing further test uh, more
specific testimony shortly about uh, you know, what the proposal itself, the ins and outs of it. We're ready for him. >> We can further comment on that now. >> Unless there's any other questions by the board for the N.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to now call as my second witness, Mr. Paul Rubber. >> Swear affirm testimony here before the floor. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth. >> I do. Just enough for the record as
you've been here many times. Paul Garver, PDR designs architecture 501 Laura Beach registered architect state of New Jersey here for this board. >> You have we accept. Please continue. >> Mr. Rugerber, can you please take us
through a brief history of the property specifically uh regarding the history of the garage? >> Sure. The existing garage is a very old structure. If you look back in time on the Google maps, you can see old shingle roof and uh been there a long time. Uh so we're
altering the roof line on it which is in the setback. Therefore triggering variances on the front uh the west side which is Baltimore A facing where you have 25 feet is required 4.1 feet is existing there. That's not changing on
the rear north facing where 5t is required 1.2t two feet is existing there that's not changing and the right side setback where five feet is required 1.5 feet exists and that's not changing there. Uh there are regarding zoning are
those are the setback requirements building coverage we're fine on that as far as 30% is required we're existing 24.2 two impervious coverage 50% is the maximum. We're at 51% 51% existing. Uh
we actually get a reduction because there is a little retaining wall in that back east corner that we're going to be taking out. Therefore, it drops us down to 50.9%. Uh so it is a reduction there. Uh off- streetet parking spaces, we have two
required. There are three existing uh three to remain although we do have space for more there. The building height accessory structures one story which is remaining and height of 16 ft max is allowed. The current roof is at
13. The east side portion we are going to reframe the roof in there make it more decorative. That's going to push us up to about 15.56 which is still under the 16 foot that's allowed on accessory structure. So the main roof line I said is main
remaining on the east side facing or the west side facing Baltimore. We are adding a decorative gable on there. Uh we wanted to dress up this long long railroad style home or garage structure. Uh the gables in the setback uh that
will be fire rated construction there. the roof at the rear of the structure. Uh the east side of the property will be removed and rebuilt taller with a gable end and the north gable on that will be fire rated due to proximity to the
existing property line. We're going to be doing new gutters and leaders installed. Uh this will be draining the water to the west um which is Baltimore A rather than right currently the the back of that goes onto the property next door the neighbor's
property there. Uh the portion of the existing planter wall I said will be removed on the east end of the driveway. Uh the exterior materials it has existing vinyl siding on it. Uh we're going to add some board and batten accents and the gables. Uh, asphalt
roofing is going to be all new on there, and we're going to add in the aluminum gutters. The portion of the garage interior will be converted into a new storage space that'll be accessible from the driveway. Uh, the large door gives us a benefit of being able to move things in and out.
Also brings in natural light, and more importantly, it makes it more attractive. One of the goals was to make this a little bit more attractive on the outside, make it a little more cottage style. The existing home is from about the 1920s. Uh so this will help make it more decorative as the existing house
is. The square footage of the garage structure does not change. Any new materials used are going to be flood resistant as the designed flood elevation is 12 in this area and the garage slab is at about elevation 6.4.
I don't feel that this creates any detriment in any way what we're proposing. It helps increase the look at a neighborhood and a more functional space. >> No water, no sewer. >> What's that? >> No water, no sewer. >> That's correct. >> I have one one question. Um, you have
these beautiful glass doors on a storage space. >> Yes. Again, we want to try and blend in the aesthetic of the home and make it nicer looking so it just doesn't look like one big long railroad building which is currently. >> So, it's a sort of a design thing.
>> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Am I am I correct as far as when I look at the pictures, you know, when the those nice doors, the pulling in one of the cars is going to be right, you know, in in front of it. Will the parking if you look on the site plan,
the parking is not shown up that far. So those doors are here toward the back and they face the house and the pool area in there. And then here we have on the site we have two cars, one here and here and then the other one in the garage. So here this is the Baltimore. So we
have the two cars here, the other the garage doors are you address um >> number seven and the recommendation from Ry on that and if that's an acceptable piece and how you feel whether that should be
something that's in there. >> Uh yeah, I think it's appropriate. I'm assuming it's your opinion that the uh the proposed use does not violate the flood damage prevention ordinance. >> That's correct. >> And you're not seeking any variance related for that, right?
>> That's correct. >> Okay. And yeah, I I think it's appropriate to have it as a condition and by way of deed restriction. And the reason is is if the owner and they may stay there for a long time, but let's say they sold in a couple of years
during the course of doing real estate closings, most whether it's the realtors or the closing attorneys do not go to Karen and ask for the old resolutions. Uh so if it isn't in a deed restriction and it's just in a resolution,
it usually won't get picked up by the new buyer and they might not be understanding of what the limitations are or what the presentation was here today. But if it's in a deed restriction, when they run the title work, it will pop up on the title work
and then everybody would know exactly what was presented and what was approved here. >> Is that an acceptable condition? >> Yes, we're fine with that. And Mr. Rubber, um, can we please go through Mr. Savool's letter and just, um, confirm for the board that we're okay with all of his comments?
Otherwise, >> I think one of variances that was done. >> Two was done. >> Um, number three is correct with the existing tables and existing nonconformities.
or you're certainly not going for a C1 here. C2, right? >> Correct. >> Yep. Uh benefits outweigh the detriments as I stated. I agree with that one. Uh item five, believe we covered that one in what we
testified. Applicant number six shall provide testimony regarding reconfiguring. We did that. Seven as a condition deed restriction. That's fine. Uh eight approval to structure substantial improvement uh doesn't apply to this situation since it's not part of
the house even an accessory structure can have an substantial improvement. Just read the FEMA guidance document. >> Okay. So, believe it or not, because your actually your garage
has is part of your flood insurance policy up to 10% of your coverage. So, your detached garage actually is covered under your flood insurance policy. I didn't know that. That's until I just read it to know very recent. So, you can
have substantial improvement on your detach. So, as long as this is not a substantial improvement and you don't have to put in the flood. >> Yeah. So, we wouldn't be triggering anything that would we wouldn't be going over at 50%. >> And Mr. Rugber, can we agree to number
eight regarding the um the driveway? >> Number nine. Sorry. Correct. We will be replacing all the broken concrete in front of it on the west side on Baltimore and the driveway itself is gravel.
Anything else from the board? >> Questions? Anything else you want to finish up with? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, as you heard tonight, uh, we are seeking variance relief for a thoughtful renovation to a pre-existing detached
garage on the property. Um, we're trying to reconfigure a portion of its interior footprint to create a functional storage space. You heard tonight that the uh space will have no uh running water, no kitchen facilities, no sleeping quarters. Um, we're certainly fine with
the deed restriction. Um, this is uh simply a storage area. Um, Ms. Risenberger testified that, you know, there might be some activities as uh any family typically do in a detached garage in in town. Um most importantly, we feel that this
application must be viewed in the lens of this specific community. By definition, coastal living dictates unique relationship with accessory structures. Um the applicants do have a pool. They have a beautiful backyard. This will provide a space for them to store their pool equipment. Um and uh
certainly it's going to provide very much an aesthetic upgrade to the property um in keeping with the beautifully maintained home on the property. Um so for these reasons, we do that this application satisfies the criteria for
relief that it advances the purposes of zoning by promoting an orderly and efficient use of the property without any substantial detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. We thank you for your time tonight and respectfully request that this application be approved with the conditions as noted.
Thank you very much. What do you got there, Ben? >> Uh, really the only conditions are the compliance with the Ray's report, the items in Ray's report and specifically that deed restriction. Uh, no other special conditions. And I would just let
the record reflect that there uh is no public here to be heard on the application. >> Very good. >> If we threw that out there, I missed it. But >> all right. Um, get a motion to close for deliberations. >> So, move second. All in favor?
>> I Mr. Davis. >> Yeah, I think this is kind of a smart use of a a dead space garage. Um, it's not like we're adding an extension onto an existing structure. It's It exists.
Um, setback issues exist. Um, I'll I'll just comment that this is one of my favorite houses in town. It's an absolutely charming house. I think revitalizing this is is is smart zoning. It adds some improvement to what
is otherwise a dead space within that garage. There's there's not room for a car to turn into that space. So, why not use it for some cleaned up storage? I think that makes good sense. Uh certainly no detriment to the zone. I see no reason to stand in
>> objection. Yeah, I think it's um it's a very attractive plan which is really good for the neighborhood. It advances the purposes of the zoning. Um you mentioned how it's going to be fire rated and flood resistant. Um and also I I walk that area a lot. I I know the house very
well. Um and I I walk there a lot and I'm very happy that you're going to be replacing the sidewalk and the driveway. I wish more people would do that. So I I'm in favor of this application. >> I'm the only grow up a block away the
>> at 219 Parkway >> J Reynold >> thank you I I believe that other than the aesthetic upgrades nobody in the neighborhood can know the difference basically we're putting a wall up separating the car from the storage
making an existing building and I emphasize existing look better instead of Mr. McGee. >> Yeah. Uh I'm inclined to agree and um have nothing much to add.
>> Ditto. >> Mr. I have a few words this evening as well. Nothing else for me. >> No, I think it's all been stated um very well in terms of how we're improving the look and certainly there's no negative
effect here. Get a motion to close deliberations. >> So move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> uh get a motion for approval. Please >> make a motion that we approve with the
said condition of the D restriction >> and replacing the sidewalk. >> That's part of the >> part of the application. Okay. >> Second. >> Motion by vice chair, second by Mr. McGee to approve application 2026-1 of Michael Andre Scavage and Amy
Risenberg at 119 Parkway with conditions. >> Secretary Davis, >> yes. >> Matt, yes. Vice Chair, >> yes. >> McGee, >> yes. >> Clayton, >> yes. >> Mr. Monovich, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much.
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I got to wear this shirt more often. Listen, keep that as a record. >> Turn down.