416 New Jersey Avenue, Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742 • 732-892-1118 • www.pointpleasantbeach.org
Welcome to Point Pleasant Beach

Point Pleasant Beach News

Printable Version

October 21, 2010


The October 21, 2010 Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Palisi, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Kelly Alternates: Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Ardito

Application #2010-23 – Thomas Highton, Jr. – 400 Central Avenue – Block 95; Lot 12 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling. There is a two-story detached garage apartment on lot.

Application carried from the October 7, 2010 meeting without notice.

Thomas Highton thanked the board for their consideration and suggestions. Applicant has submitted updated plans reflected reduction of building coverage. Thomas Highton reviewed and explained how building coverage was reduced.

1. The applicant informed the Board that the plans were revised to reduce the width of the house by 1 foot; and on the west portion of the house, reduce the length of the house by 2 feet.

2. The plan was revised to remove the side door along with the landing and the steps.

3. The left elevation of the house will have cedar impression siding as previously promised.

4. The landing will be recessed inside the house on the left elevation.

5. The fireplace will now be imbedded into the living room.

6. The windows in the rear of the house will be changed to 2 smaller windows instead of 3 larger ones.

7. The applicant added a landing and steps to the back of the house to allow a sliding glass door to be installed.

8. The large oak tree facing St. Louis Avenue will remain. The applicant will move the rhododendrons and will remove the tree on the corner to improve the site line. The applicant will plant a Japanese maple tree to fill a gap between the windows. A row of foundation plantings will be planted along the entire front of the structure. The applicant will add a series of Japanese Holly trees as well.

9. The applicant determined that there is no need to extend the gravel driveway. There are 3 parking spaces across the front of the garage apartment and entry into the garage bays is accessible creating a total of 5 parking spaces.

10. The house will be setback one foot.

The Board appreciated all the changes the applicant made to this proposal and felt that the applicant addressed the concern the Board had with the building coverage percentage. By reducing the size of the house, the applicant reduced the variance necessary for building coverage from 34.1% to 32.52%.

The board found the following conclusions -

a. Although this property has two (2) dwellings and is a non-conforming use, the Board felt that the apartment has been used at this location since 1976 without detriment. The Board acknowledged that other rentals exist in the area.
b. The Board found the improvement to the site triangle to be a major community improvement, which improves traffic safety.

c. The Board concluded that bringing this house up to code, including the flood hazard regulations, also benefits community safety.

d. The Board sees this house and the proposed landscaping to be attractive.

e. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal and will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners.

f. The Board determined that the property has been able to exist over a long period of time without a negative impact to the surrounding property owners.

g. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.


Mr. Leonard – He really appreciates all the changes the applicant made. The applicant trimmed the house down and brought it further into conformity Mr. Leonard is still bothered by the fact that the garage does not match the home.

Mr. Spader – Thinks it is a nice application. Stated that he is in favor of having a deed restriction stating the garage apartment will be a yearly rental/not seasonal.

Mr. Wolfersberger – In favor of application as presented this evening, still concerned with building coverage but feels better with deed restriction and conditions.

Mr. Reilly – Also appreciates applicant’s attention to the board’s concerns and the fact that they gave some leeway with the height. Doesn’t see the need for the deed restriction but will agree to it if that is how the board members feel.

Mr. Reynolds – Also appreciates what the applicant has done, likes the recessed door. Mr. Reynolds liked the application two weeks ago. Mr. Reynolds does not feel that the applicant needs a deed restriction; I feel the applicant should be able to rent it as he needs to.

Mr. Ardito – Thanked the applicant for making the changes. Community benefits by removing non-compliant structure. Inclined to vote in favor.

Chairman Struncius – In terms of a modular applicant has done a real nice job aesthetically. In favor

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2010-23 of Thomas Highton with the following conditions.

In favor – Wolfersberger, Leonard, Struncius, Reilly, Spader, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed - None

Application approved with the following conditions

Motion by second by to approve application #2010-23 with the following conditions

1. The attic of the home facing Central Avenue is not to be used except for storage.

2. The architectural features are to be constructed as testified by the applicant at the time of the hearing. Specifically, the two street facing sides will consist of cedar impression shingles with white Aztek trim.

3. The new house is not to be rented. The garage apartment is to be rented on a yearly basis only. A Deed Restriction to this effect is to be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. The form of Deed must be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Attorney prior to recording.

4. The applicant is to record a Dedication of a site triangle easement prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Board’s Engineer is to review and approve the dedication.

5. The landscape plan, as presented to the Board, is to be planted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Application #2008-20 – Jenkinson’s North – Beachfront - Block 180; Lot 2 & 3 – Applicant has installed “flooring” to the beach area adjacent to the building in order to hold banquet/reception type functions. Applicant is appealing the decision of the zoning officer. If the applicant’s bid for an appeal is denied, then the applicant will proceed with a request for a Certificate of a Prior Non-Conforming Use. If that bid is unsuccessful the applicant will proceed with the use variance application as well as site plan approval for the proposed renovations.

Application carried without notice from the July 15, 2010 meeting without notice

Roger McLaughlin, attorney for objectors presented his summation. Thanked the board.

Roger Gasiorowski, attorney for applicant presented his summation. Thanked the board.

Chairman Struncius clarified how the Board would proceed and inquired if the board had any further questions.

Mr. Leonard inquired to have the reserved parking clarified.

Mr. Galvin read the condition for parking and how it would read in the resolution –

The applicant is to provide sufficient parking spaces for contracted events on the lot on the corner of Broadway and Ocean Avenue as offered by applicant during closing argument to be considered banked parking. The site plan is to be revised to show this banked parking. Mr. Gasiorowski requested that it not be made part of the site plan and agreed to submit any other document requested. 19-11.7 states that one parking space is required for every four (4) people. That would mean that the maxi mum that would be attending an event would be 280 people so seventy (70) parking spaces would be required. Mr. Galvin suggest that the condition might read – The applicant will record an parking easement to make seventy (70) parking spaces available during contracted events at the parking lot owned by this applicant at the corner of Ocean and Broadway. The site plan will note this easement.

Mr. Reynolds questioned if the event only was a 100 people? Mr. Galvin explained then the parking requirement would be less. One (1) parking space for every four (4) people attending. 100 people would require twenty-five parking spaces reserved.

Mr. Spader specified that the decking for banquets should not be utilized for general events (everyday patrons) or bar spillage; it should only be utilized for contracted events.

Mr. Gasiorowski stated that on non contracted days those 25 tables have been available for anyone to sit at. A family could sit there and eat their Jersey Mike’s if they wanted to. There is no food service or bar available on the sand deck when there is not a contracted event. Mr. McLaughlin stated that he had not heard that testimony before.

Mr. Galvin stated that the condition will read that the beach deck roped area is to be used only for contracted events and is not to be used as an extended bar/restaurant area. Mr. Gasiorowski replied that the use of the sand deck tables can be limited to day use and the tables can be removed at 6pm when there is not a scheduled contracted event.

Mr. Gasiorowski addressed security and said that off duty police officers from other municipalities will be provided for events.

Mr. Galvin read proposed conditions for review. –

1. There is to be no live music on the site after 10pm.
2. There are to be no more than to instruments; no brass instruments and no drums. Re – Resolution of ABC license per Mayor and Council in 2009
3. All beach deck parties are to end by 10pm.
4. Banquets, weddings and reunions are to occur in the beach deck roped in area on the beach as shown in Exhibit A -19.
5. The seating is to be limited as documented to the board at the time of the hearing. The restaurant maximum of 220 people
6. The beach deck roped in area will consist of 294 seats and 49 tables; not withstanding these facts the applicant agreed that this area will never exceed 280 people/guests. The temporary wood platform has to be set up as shown in exhibit A-33 and located exactly where shown on site plan marked as exhibit A – 19.
7. There is to be no public seating or service on the north side of this structure.
8. In addition to these conditions the applicant shall also be bound to all the conditions of the liquor license issued by the Borough Council in 2009.
9. The conditions of approval are to be recorded against lots 2 and 3 by means of a deed restriction which must be viewed and approved by the Board’s attorney and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. The board’s Engineer is to examine the temporary deck and determine the likelihood that it might become a hazard during a severe weather condition. The applicant agreed to anchor the temporary beach deck if the Engineer determines it is necessary and if a practical method exists to adequately anchor the deck.
11. The beach deck roped area is only to be used for contracted events and is not to be used as an extended bar/restaurant area.
12. The applicant is to record a parking license to make 70 spaces available during contracted events owned by the applicant and located at the corner of Broadway and Ocean. The site plan is to be revised to note this parking easement.
13. The weddings and reunions catered or other events contracted shall only occur in the beach deck roped area. I addition the owner is not to utilize the beach deck roped area for any other purpose than the contracted events.
14. The restaurant is limited to operation from Palm Sunday to October 15th from 10am until 2am.
15. There are to be no contracted events on the black out days of the Fourth of July, Labor and Memorial Day.
16. On non -contracted days 25 tables may remain on the beach deck for the general public use and be removed at 6pm.


Mr. Palisi – commended the professionals. He finds this decision tough due to the fact the residents are affected by this. At the same time you have a business that has served the community and you try to work with both and then think of the town and answer if it serves the welfare of the community and I believe it does and then it comes back to balance. This is a tourist town with a family slant to it so when we look at does it meet the positive criteria. Is this an element that enhances these elements? – I look at the aesthetics – does it attract the clientele that we want in this town and I think it does. From a negative stand point I think actually what we have done is put some restraints and controls on what exists and helped balance it. Without the controls I would have been opposed but I think we have considered all involved and have been consistent with the Master Plan.

Mr. Wolfersberger – Does not agree. Does not think the burden of proof has been met. I do not think this site is suited for a banquet hall. Negatively – I think there will be a difference in traffic pattern and parking. We are expanding a small daytime operation into a full 10am to 10pm operation. It is not the intent of the ordinance. Unfortunate, but I get a feeling that this deck has become a permanent feature instead of a temporary feature. My understanding is that the deck was always removed and now it is never removed. Right now I am opposed.

Mr. Spader – part of our job is to go look at the properties. I have seen the weddings and events and I believe the restrictions that have been put in place will control it. The building looks good and the parking being addressed gives him the comfort that it is a positive thing for the town. In favor

Mr. Leonard – Agrees with Mr. Palisi. You have a business owner that has a right to do business and home owners that have the right to a quality of life. This is a beach town and over the years the demographics have changed where more people are coming down and the level of noise has changed. The Master Plan talks of continuing the resort development and not obstructing views. I believe this site is suitable; it is unique because it is at the Inlet and you have a view of the ocean. The parties will help the motel owners; the negative side you have noise and you have parking. If there was nothing down there you would still have a parking problem. I do not think that I would notice 70 more cars. We have made a condition to have those spaces reserved; there is an agreement restricting the noise and it can be monitored. In favor of application.

Mr. Kelly – Stated that he has been here through the years at different events. He said there are not any banquet sites in town. Parking was an issue and feels that has been addressed. He feels that some of these things could be avoided if prior to doing this they had gone to the building department and received approvals prior to expansion. Is very pleased with the outcome and is in favor.

Mr. Reynolds - Clear that the board knows what a sensitive issue this is to both parties. There has been a lot of give and take with Jenkinson’s. It is a unique and beautiful spot for banquets. Positive criteria are we are going to get a new building up to standard code, safer for our residents and fireman and safer for our guests. Believes it promotes the general welfare of the town. Thanked both parties and in favor.

Mr. Ardito – Long case but I think it was handled well. We all have lots of notes and we listened and have a good sense what the concerns are. There are positives that outweigh the negatives. We have tried to keep the negatives to a minimum. Believes the applicant should have come before the board first before having these activities.

Chairman Struncius – There two very important points – One is to have a balance and second is the fact that this is Point Pleasant Beach which is a tourist destination. The first thing I will discuss is the D-3 variance – Parking was addressed and parking will be reserved for events and does not believe 70 cars would make a difference in an area that gets 10’s of thousands of visitors. The expansion and criteria that we need to meet of an expansion of a non-conforming use; we need to look at the particular suitability of a site. This case defined a portion of the beach front and asked if it is particularly suited and it is because of its unique location and because it sits adjacent to a preexisting condition. It does not have adverse effect on light and air. There is derived income that comes from tourism and this seems to fit. Let’s now talk aesthetics; Building will be upgraded and the whole reformatting of the interior so there is a buffer. We have been able to live with things that have gone on there. We have a Miranda of understanding and have not heard any violations. When it comes to a balance from a difficult point of view there was nothing that the negative criteria seemed to challenge. In favor…

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Spader to approve application#2008-20 of Jenkinson’s North with conditions.

In favor: Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Spader, Kelly and Reynolds
Opposed: Wolfersberger

Application approved with conditions

Meeting adjourned at 11:40pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published December03, 2010 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1117

Municipal Forms Download for Android Download for Iphone
Download for Iphones
Download for Android

Add/Remove/Update Your Contact Information
SwiftReach Networks, Inc.

Municipal Forms

Power Outage

Hurricane Sandy Information