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


January 19, 2012

Minutes

The January 19, 2012 Reorganization Meeting and Regular 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. Spader, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito and Mr. Loder
Absent - Mr. Wolfersberger and Mr. Renner

Appointment of Board Chairman
Appointment of Board vice –Chair
Appointment of Board Secretary
Appoint of Board Clerk
Appointment of Board Attorney
Appointment of Board Engineer

Appointment of Officers
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to appoints Paul Struncius to the position of Chairman.
Vote:
In favor - Kelly, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None

Vice-Chairman
Motion by Mr. Kelly, Second by Mr. Reynolds to appoint Bill Reilly to the position of Vice Chairman.
Vote: Kelly, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None
Secretary

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to appoint James Wolfersberger to the position of board secretary.
Vote:
In favor: Kelly, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None

Appointment of Board Secretary/Clerk

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to appoint Karen L. Mills as Board Secretary/ Clerk

Vote:
In favor - Kelly, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None



Appointment of Professionals

Attorney

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to appoint Dennis Galvin from the firm of Galvin and Associates as Board attorney.
Vote:
In favor: Kelly, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None

Engineer

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to appoint Ray Savacool from the firm of T & M Associates to Board Engineer.

Vote

In favor: Kelly, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None


Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the minutes of December 1, 2011.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Struncius, Reynolds, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None




Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2011-18 of Dominick Chirichella with conditions–
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Struncius, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2011-17 of William C. Mullins with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Struncius, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None


Application #2011-19 – Pauline Bergstein – 3 Zilai Road – Block 120; Lot 5.05 – Applicant installed an outdoor shower enclosure.
Applicant previously installed an outdoor shower without the knowledge that they needed a permit. Pauline Bergstein finds the shower enclosure to be attractive. The enclosure is open at the top; does not have a negative impact on neighbor. Mr. Reilly inquired if there was any way to increase distance from property line. (No) Mr. Reilly inquired how the shower drained. (Into the ground, applied gravel) Ray Savacool believes that you can have an outdoor shower that is not hooked into the sewer system as long as the runoff does not impact the neighbors and complies with the ordinance it should be OK. Ray Savacool stated that when they apply for the permit the plumbing inspector will review the plans.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations
Loder – Based on testimony and conditions I will be in favor
Spader – The bungalow section has been noted for adjustments without approvals; the applicant will have to get a permit for the outdoor shower and it will be to code.
Kelly – The applicant has done a nice job with the home. You will get a permit; have no problem with it.
Reilly – Lives in the area and believes that everyone needs an outdoor shower; like what you have done with the home. In favor
Reynolds – Believes this is deminimus; on the record as saying there is a lot of construction without permits and hopes that the applicant does not do it again.
Chairman Struncius – Suitability of the site; the type of activities that go on…In favor
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2011-19 with conditions.
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions


Application #2011-20 – Dominick Fiumano – 210 New Jersey Avenue – Block 42; Lot 15 – Applicant wishes to install a carport attached to existing detached garage.
Applicant wants to install the carport over existing driveway. Applicant believes that it will be an improvement to the property. Mr. Spader does not believe that the carport is in character with Point Pleasant Beach . Dominick Fiumano states that he wants it to park his other car in the carport. Mr. Ardito inquired how this structure will impact his garage. Mr. Ardito clarified that Dominick Fiumano wants to put it in front of his garage as to stack the cars. (Yes) Mr. Kelly questioned the accuracy of the property survey. Mr. Reilly inquired why the carport; why not enlarge the garage. Dominick Fiumano stated that it would block his neighbor’s views and then he would have to get rid of the pool. A double garage would take up too much of the backyard.

Deliberations
Mr. Spader – I have trouble with this. To me it represents something that does not belong in Point Pleasant Beach. It doesn’t fit.. It reminds me of a trailer park.
Mr. Kelly – Has a problem with the survey. The survey is 22 years old and you have done extensive work and do not believe the figures are accurate.
Mr. Reilly – The property is very attractive and I do not believe the appearance fits. If I saw a need for it I might grant a variance, but I do not see a strong need.
Mr. Reynolds - It just doesn’t fit the neighborhood. I picture it becoming a sunroom.
Mr. Ardito – There is a lack of what we like to see when we hear a case. There are no specifications and a survey that is over 20 years old. I cannot see supporting it at this point.
Mr. Struncius – I think the main thing is we are going over on building coverage. If I had a strong reason to approve (decking, aesthetics) I would consider it. This is very disjointed. It is another big structure landing in the middle of the property.
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Loder to deny application #2011-20 of Dominick Fiumano
In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2012-01 – Timeless Beauty/Christine Granite – Applicant wishes to open a permanent cosmetics business.

Robert Burdick, Professional Planner for applicant. Application is for a 300 square foot office space for cosmetic tattooing. Traditional tattooing or body art will not be performed at his facility. All work is by appointment only. There will be no walk in traffic. Hours of operation are from 8am until 7pm. The work is semi-permanent. Touch ups are usually required in a year’s time. Most work is done on eyes and lips. The Board should be aware that the applicant holds a certificate from the American Academy of Micro Pigmentation as a Board Certified Technician. Robert Burdick believes that the proposed use will assist people with certain difficulties. Parking is available on the street and municipal lots. The absolute maximum of clients per day would be 4 clients. Believes the proposed use is consistent with the Municipal Land Use Law and that it provides sufficient space and is in an appropriate location. This application will not have a negative impact and believes it is an inherently beneficial use. Robert Burdick addressed all points on the engineer’s letter. Mr. Reilly inquired how common this practice is. The applicant, Christine Granite replied that it is quite common. It can help people who have lost hair due to cancer treatment and alopecia. Women over 60 years of age are a large segment of her clients due to hair loss. She can only think of a handful of other businesses that perform this service in New Jersey. Mr. Reilly inquired if there is a way to define this business or draw a line. (Mr. Galvin – Yes)Mr. Kelly inquired if she would ever reject a client. Christine Granite replied, yes, she would not do purple eyebrows. She wants to enhance a person’s natural beauty. Mr. Ardito inquired how much education goes into being a certified technician. Christine Granite replied approximately, 120 hours with an instructor and 25 supervised procedures’; 9 supervised apprenticeship procedures. The applicant then had to pass a state exam. The retail products sold; special mascara, skin care products (products that would be gentler) Christine Granite does not expect more than three clients per week at this time, but does not know what the future will bring. Mr. Reynolds asked if her procedures are being referred by medical Doctors. (Yes) All equipment is disposable; topical anesthesia is used. Mr. Spader inquired if the business could be sold (yes) but the variances would follow the land and the future owner would be held to the guidelines in the resolution.
Dennis Galvin does not believe that his is an inherently beneficial use but believes there are special reasons to allow it. Mr. Struncius main concern is future owners and that the resolution will address the Boards concerns.


Deliberations
Mr. Loder – Based on the testimony of the professionals and the applicant and that the negative criteria will be deminimus I would be in favor of this application.
Mr. Spader – I am in favor with the conditions
Mr. Kelly - I have no problem with this application
Mr. Reilly – I would have been opposed if this was traditional tattooing, but I think that we have a better understanding of the difference. I can see this being beneficial but not inherently beneficial.
Mr. Reynolds – I like the fact that this is a state approved procedure. This is not street level with big signs, I believe that you have met the positive criteria.
Mr. Ardito – I like the fact that you are a licensed regulated business. You are certified and educated for what you do. I do believe the positives outweigh the negatives and that you help woman with their self esteem.
Chairman Struncius – We do have a similar business in town but it is a different clientele. I believe that you are serving a purpose and I believe there are special reasons.
Conditions
1. The applicant is granted the right to perform micro pigmentation which will be limited to procedures creating beauty illusions with the purpose of enhancing a person’s natural color and hair. The types of procedures will be limited to: the restoration or enhancement of eyebrows and eyeliner; eyelash enhancement; the application of lip liner and color to lips; lip augmentation; eyelash extensions; and augmentation of breasts to bring about a natural look.
2. No tattooing is ever to be done that would be considered “body art”, as promised by the applicant at the time of the hearing.
3. Signage is to reflect that all sessions are to be scheduled by appointment only.
4. The person or persons who perform this service must be certified with the State of New Jersey, as an American Academy of Micro Pigmentation Board certified technicians.
5. This business will not operate after 7:00 p.m. or before 8:00 a.m.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Spader to approve application #2012-01 of Timeless Beauty with conditions
In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None



Attest: Karen L. Mills


Published March06, 2012 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1319


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