Borough of Point Pleasant Beach NJ

The Master Plan Review Committee was formed in February 2004 to begin the process of updating the Master Plan for Point Pleasant Beach. The original members of the Committee were Chairmen Tim Lurie, Jim Liotta, Mike DiCicco, Sal Pepe, Martin Vaccaro, Vincent Barrella, Jeff Dyer, Ed McGlynn and John Tesauro. After Tim Lurie resigned from the Committee, Mike DiCicco and Jim Liotta became co-Chairmen. The Committee was tasked to review the Master Plan and the most recent re-examination report and to prepare recommendations regarding the land uses and zoning in Point Pleasant Beach.

The Committee examined each zoning district in Point Pleasant Beach and has made recommendations concerning issues in the zones, changes in the boundary lines of the zones, bulk requirements of the zones and other issues. Meetings have been held from March 30, 2004, which was the first meeting date, through January 31, 2006. This Report constitutes the findings of the Master Plan Review Committee together with its recommendations.

The format of this Report will track the zoning districts that were analyzed by the Committee. The Report memorializes the majority opinion of the members of the Committee. Any Committee member is invited to attach exceptions to the Report setting forth the parts to which the member disagrees and wants that disagreement to be part of the Report.

General Commercial Zone constitutes the area traditionally known as “Downtown.” One of the goals of the new Master Plan will be to encourage commercial revitalization in the Downtown area. This goal may be accomplished by: 1) making it easier for property owners to improve their property by streamlining and simplifying the regulatory process; 2) bringing more people into the Downtown area to live and to work; 3) providing more entertainment venues; and 4) adding a new residential component to the area.

The only boundary change recommended for the zone is the westernmost portion of the zone which is now zoned “Highway Commercial.” It is proposed that that area on Arnold Avenue between Woodland Avenue and Lincoln Avenue be changed from Highway Commercial to General Commercial.

The Committee recognizes that to attract investors, a new residential use would be required in this zone. It was agreed that developers would build retail and other commercial uses but only if they were guaranteed a residential component as part of the development. To accomplish this, the Committee recommends that three story structures be permitted uses in limited locations to be designated by the zoning ordinance. Three story structures allow property owners more options in their development. The residential component would consist of one or two bedroom units so that there would be no appreciable increase in enrollment in the school system with an average of 1.5 bedrooms plus square footage limitations.

Three story structures would be permitted with the first story dedicated to retail use, the second story dedicated to office space and residential and the third story limited to residential. Parking will be required in onsite areas with parking impact fees to be assessed against the developers. The Committee believes that this mixed use environment will bring new residents to the area such as young couples, “empty nesters,” and single commuters. The plan would also attract more visitors.

A group of Downtown property owners attended the January 25, 2005 meeting of the Master Plan Review Committee. The property owners were excited about the potential for three story structures. They agreed with the uses proposed by the Committee, that is, first story retail, second and third stories residential, and second story offices. A proposal was made by the property owners to form an Architectural Review Committee to ensure that the aesthetics of the buildings would be complimentary but not uniform. The legality of the Architectural Review Committee was discussed with pros and cons offered on both sides. No definitive recommendation is made by the Committee regarding the formation of an Architectural Review Committee. Diagonal parking was also discussed. After review by the Committee, it was determined that because of the size of Arnold Avenue, diagonal parking could not be implemented.

III. Highway Commercial Zone (“HC” Zone”):

The Highway Commercial Zone constitutes what is commonly known as the Route 35 corridor running from the Manasquan River Bridge to Bay Head. The Committee believes that this zone should be different from the Downtown area and have a unique identity. The uses in this zone are not intended to compete with the uses in the General Commercial Zone. The zone is viewed as a high traffic, retail area with new residential uses not permitted. Thus, the recommendation is to eliminate new residential use as a permitted use in the zone. Residential use will be a permitted use for existing residences and lots that because of their bulk dimensions can only support single family residences. Except as set forth above, no new residential use will be permitted in the HC Zone.

The HC Zone with its high traffic, retail uses like Brave New World, Dunkin Donuts, Exxon and Valero service stations, CVS Pharmacy and Surf Taco is viewed as a “destination” zone. It would be out of character with the development of this zone and the plan for the zone to allow residential uses to be inter-mixed with these high volume commercial uses.

A boundary line change is recommended by the Committee for this zone. The portion of Central Avenue bordering Jaeger Lumber would be changed from the HC Zone to the SF 5 Zone. This area bordering Central Avenue has developed into a residential area and this recommendation acknowledges that change. The HC Zone, therefore, would run along the eastern edge of the railroad tracks.

The LC Zone runs along the South side of Broadway. The Committee proposes to eliminate the LC Zone and include it as part of the SF 5 Zone. The natural development tendencies in the LC Zone have been towards single family as those are the predominant uses now being constructed on the South side of Broadway. This proposal acknowledges this tendency.
The 7-11 which is currently located in the LC Zone will not be located in the SF 5 Zone. The 7-11 will be included as a permitted use in a new zone to be created and named the “MC 1 Zone.”

Hotels and motels formerly located in the LC Zone and now located in the SF 5 Zone on Broadway will be conditional uses in the zone based on their current conditions and will be designated as conditional uses based on their lot and block numbers.

The Marine Commercial Zone runs from the North side of Broadway to the Manasquan Inlet. The Committee proposes splitting the MC Zone into two zones known as “MC 1” and “MC 2.” The MC 1 Zone would be comprised of the properties adjacent to the Inlet. No residential uses will be permitted in MC 1. Uses should be limited to those that promote the fishing, boating and marine industries located in Point Pleasant Beach. The zone would run from Inlet Drive to Loughran’s Point.

The MC 2 Zone would include the North side of Broadway and the cross streets through to Channel Drive as well as the interior lots, that is, non waterfront lots on Inlet Drive and Ocean Avenue. Mixed uses comprised of commercial, residential and offices will be permitted. Hotels and Motels, which are the dominant uses today, will remain permitted uses. No new single family residential uses will be permitted in this zone but existing single family residences will be permitted uses. Multi-family (town homes and condominiums) will be permitted and limited to one and two bedroom units. Density will be studied by a professional planner.

Both the MC 1 and MC 2 Zones were viewed as primary areas for open space and active and passive recreational uses. The zones are the ideal locations for a Community Center. Gull Island, which is currently owned by Ocean County, creates a prime opportunity for active and passive recreation. The Committee recommends that access to Gull Island be provided from the mainland via a foot bridge. The Committee believes that the expanded use of Gull Island needs to be pursued.

a) RR 2 Zone – The Committee recommends making hotels and motels conforming uses again in the RR 2 Zone. The Committee also recommends changing the North side of Arnold Avenue, which is currently in the RR 2 Zone, to SF 5 Zone. There are no commercial uses other than the office building and parking lot located on Arnold and Baltimore Avenues in this zone. The direction of this area is single family housing which the Committee encourages by this boundary change.

b) RR 3 Zone– The Committee recommends moving the RR 3 Zone line South to exclude two lots that are currently in the RR 3 Zone and will now be located in the RC Zone. The Committee recommends that hotels and motels be permitted uses in the RR 3 Zone and that the RR 3 Zone be extended West to include the White Sands Hotel located on the western side of Ocean Avenue. Thus, all current hotels and motels located in the RR 3 Zone, as extended by this recommendation, would now be permitted uses but new hotels and motels would be conditional uses. The conditions will be established by a professional planner.

c) RR 1 Zone – The Committee struggled with the RR 1 Zone. Some members and guests believe that the RR 1 Zone should remain as is. Others believe that new development and incentives should be provided to property owners in the RR 1 Zone to encourage them to improve their properties. Ideas discussed regarding this zone were the combination of lots, relaxation of height restrictions, creation of an historic district, and splitting the zone into 2 separate zones to be known as “RR 1 East” and “RR 1 West.”

The Committee recommends creation of an RR 1 East Zone and an RR 1 West Zone. The RR 1 West Zone would include properties West of Ocean Avenue that are currently in the RR 1 Zone. The lot sizes of these properties are generally larger than the lot sizes East of Ocean Avenue in the RR 1 Zone. Although the exact bulk requirements for a buildable lot in the RR 1 West Zone were not finalized by the Committee, the Committee believes that, conceptually, construction of single family residences in the RR1 West Zone should be governed by the approximate bulk requirements that currently exist in the SF 5 Zone. Therefore, to the extent that the lot size in the RR 1 West Zone equals the conforming lot size in the SF 5 Zone, the same size house could be constructed in the RR 1 West Zone as would be constructed in the SF 5 Zone except that the maximum height in the RR 1 West Zone will be limited to 32 feet.

Appropriate adjustments in bulk requirements will be made taking into account the extent to which the lot size is smaller than the conforming lot size in the SF 5 Zone. Two story houses, currently, are not permitted in the RR 1 Zone.
The Committee believes that garages as part of any construction in the RR 1 West Zone should be encouraged so that further pressure is not put on on-street parking. A different percentage of lot coverage will be permitted on a lot that includes a garage as part of the construction.

The Committee recommends the creation of an RR 1 East Zone. This area is commonly known as the “bungalow area.” The same uses as permitted in the RR 1 West Zone will be permitted in the RR 1 East Zone but different bulk requirements will be in place in the RR 1 East Zone because the lot sizes are smaller and there is an aversion to making the RR 1 East Zone lots non-conforming. Conceptually, the Committee believes that the RR 1 East Zone should be similar to the RR 1 West Zone in that if the size of the lot equals the size of a lot in the SF 5 Zone, a two story house with a maximum height of 32 feet can be constructed on that lot. Likewise, appropriate adjustments in bulk requirements should be made taking into account the extent to which the lot size is smaller than the conforming lot size in the SF 5 Zone. To the extent that garages can be constructed, the same bulk standards that will be applicable in the RR 1 West Zone will be applicable in this zone.

VII. Resort Commercial (“RC Zone”):

The Resort Commercial Zone includes what is traditionally known as the “Boardwalk Area.” It extends from Broadway to Atlantic Avenue along the Boardwalk. The Committee recommends that the two most northerly lots in the RR 3 Zone be removed from that zone and included in the RC Zone. This will not affect the area that can be used for amusements as that area is specifically defined by Ordinance 19-9.6 (b) and Ordinance 19-12 (e). No changes are recommended for the Resort Commercial Zone. The Committee recommends that the Resort Commercial Zone continue as is and that residential uses not be permitted in that zone.

Hours of debate were spent regarding parking facilities in the RC Zone. Some members of the Committee believe that more off street facilities are required in the RC Zone while others believe that more parking was not required. Options discussed by the Committee included: 1) deck parking at the eastern portion of the Silver Lake parking lot through a hybrid facility that affords recreational opportunities when not in service for parking; 2) deck parking at the Inlet; 3) designated off site and off street parking for boardwalk employees; and 4) parking as a permitted/conditional use on the West side of Ocean Avenue with emphasis on buffering and access only to and from Ocean Avenue. Resolution of this parking issue involves issues beyond the expertise and charge of this Committee. It is anticipated that further study will be forthcoming.

VIII. Single Family Residential and Low Density Residential (“SF 5” and LR Zones”):

The Committee recommends no changes with respect to the uses and boundary lines of these areas except as noted above.

a. Open Space/Community Facilities/Recreation – The Committee encourages preservation and acquisition of open space, community facilities and recreation facilities, particularly, in the Marine Commercial Zones and in other waterfront areas.
b. Historical Preservation – The Point Pleasant Beach Historic Preservation Commission appeared before the Committee and provided a recommendation to be included in the Report. That recommendation is adopted and provides as follows:

The objective of any property improvement or development should include the preservation of our historic structures as part of our local heritage. To accomplish this, the Committee recommends:

c. High Density Zone (“HD Zone”) and Density of Multi-Family Housing – In its review of the zoning ordinance and particularly the high density zone, the Committee found inconsistencies regarded density for multi-family housing like town homes, apartments and condominiums. The Committee discussed the “ideal” density regarding future multi-family development projects in zones where this use is permitted. The Committee believes that recently approved development projects were too dense and recommended that this issue be referred to a planner for input regarding ideal density that will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the new Master Plan. No changes are recommended to the HD Zone but, as set forth above, the ideal density permitted requires study by a professional planner.

The Committee recognized the legitimacy of re-zoning the property located at Broadway and Baltimore Avenue, commonly known as “Stretches” to permit multi family residential use rather than single family use. The Committee believes that single family use is inappropriate for the North side of Broadway. The density permitted at that property approximates the density approved by the Board of Adjustment in recent development applications. The Committee, however, does not endorse this density as “ideal” in this zone or other zones.

This Report was adopted by the Committee at the January 31, 2006 meeting of the Master Plan Review Committee. The Committee will submit the Report to the Governing Body, Planning Board and Board of Adjustment and recommends that it be posted on the Borough’s website.

Respectfully submitted,

MASTER PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE

By: __________________________________
COUNCILMAN JAMES F. LIOTTA,
Co-Chairman

By: ___________________________________
COUNCILMAN MICHAEL M. DiCICCO,
Co-Chairman