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

February 16, 2012


The February 16, 2012 Regular meeting of the Point Pleasant Beach Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30 pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act. Present were regular members: Mr. Spader, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Kelly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Ardito
Alternates: Mr. Renner and Mr. Loder

Absent: Mr. Wolfersberger and Mr. Reilly

Memorialization of January 19, 2012 minutes –
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the minutes of the January 19, reorganization and regular meeting.
In favor – Struncius, Spader, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed - None
Memorialization of Resolutions –
#2012-01 – Timeless Beauty –
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2012-01 of Timeless Beauty with conditions.
In favor: Loder, Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Struncius and Renner
Opposed: None
#2011-19 – Paul Bergstein –
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2011-29 of Paula Bergstein with conditions.
In favor – Struncius, Spader, Reynolds, Kelly, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None

#2011-20 – Fiumano Denial – GL, TS, LK, PS, JR & SA
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote denying application #2011-20 of Dominick Fiumano
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Struncius, Ardito and Loder
Opposed: None
#2012-50 Memorialize the attorney resolution
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize resolution #2012-50 approving Dennis Galvin as Board attorney
In favor: Spader, Ardito, Kelly, Struncius, Reynolds, Loder and Renner
Opposed: None
#2012-51 Memorialize the Engineer resolution
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Loder memorializing the resolution #2012-51 appointing Ray Savacool of T & M Associates as Board Engineer.
In favor: Spader, Ardito, Kelly, Struncius, Reynolds, Loder and Renner
Opposed: None

Letter to amend – Whille (Richmond Family Ltd. Partnership) #2010-06 - Requesting to change wood signs to back lit signs
Kathleen Whille, sworn, stated that she is requesting to have two back lit signs instead of the goose neck signs. She believes it will make the business more visible. Kathleen Whille stated that she wants to be part of the ordinance and have 25% window coverage. Chairman Struncius requested Dennis Galvin’ to clarify if she had been previously restricted. The board had been previously concerned with the use of temporary signs. Kathleen Whille stated that she never had temporary signs and that they were all permanent signs that were painted on the window and had been approved by Elaine Petrillo. She said there were people who didn’t like the painted signs, but they were not temporary. The Board engineer disagreed with her statement to 25% coverage of windows and read from the development ordinance. Ray Savacool said that the temporary sign ordinance is where 25% is aloud. Permanent signs permitted are only 10% of the face of the wall or 50 square feet, whichever is smaller. Kathy Whille disagreed and stated that she believes it is 25%. Chairman Struncius clarified that our professional knows the ordinance but Kathleen Whille kept disagreeing. Chairman Struncius emphasized that our professional just read from the ordinance. Mr. Kelly stated that the applicant still has their Grand Opening signs up. Mr. Kelly stated that Tom Bergstrom had agreed to the wooden signs. Kathleen Whille replied that it his building, but not his business and he does not know what we need. Kathleen Whille stated that when she signed the lease they didn’t even know that Tom Bergstrom had agreed to those signed. Mr. Renner clarified that it sounds like two issues, they want back lit signs instead of wooden signs, and that they are willing to follow the town ordinance in reference to window signage. Dennis Galvin stated that he believes that Kathleen Whille does not understand the window signage ordinance and that the board wants to ensure she understands the ordinance. Kevin Coheeney from Co-sign stated that the back lit signs are 50 square feet.
Chairman Struncius stated that the Board is willing to consider the backlit signs but the Board wants to see exactly what the backlit signs will look like and what color they will be. Dennis Galvin said that you can give a variance to exceed the percentage of signage allowed by ordinance but it would require a notice. Kathleen Whille stated that they now sell soup, tacos and pizza and how will anyone know that if they are not allowed to put up signs. Chairman Struncius stated they can discuss the upper backlit signage now, but if they want to put up temporary signs saying they have tacos and soup that they will need permission from the zoning officer and the signs will need to come down in two weeks. Mr. Kelly stated that he would have trouble with the gaudy sign that is up there now. He also mentioned there is a neon ATM sign in the window now; is that permanent? (Yes) Mr. Reynolds stated that the Board worked very hard to come up with a solution on what previously had been a problem corner. Mr. Reynolds has no intention of changing what was previously agreed upon. Mr. Ardito also stated that the Board worked very hard and does not understand why they want to keep putting up the same words over and over again which is making the windows so busy.
Dennis Galvin stated that Kathleen Whille should get photos of what the backlit sign will look like to the board secretary prior to the next meeting and the Board will consider it. Kevin Coheeney said he could do a photo shop rendering of what it will look like.

Application #2011-21 – Nacimento and Maria Ruela – 319 Richmond Avenue – Block 111; Lot 8 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing three-family dwelling and construct a new two-family dwelling.
Tina and Nacimento Ruela, sworn. Tina, applicant’s daughter explained that they wanted to build a new two family home reducing density by one unit. Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer addressed Board Engineer’s letter. Lot is uniquely shaped; it is a through lot between River and Richmond Avenue. Units are attached at rear with a large front yard for parking. Both units are located on heavily traveled roadways and the large frontage will add to traffic safety and will allow for open space for both units. The proposed plan will bring the site closer to complying with the ordinance with the reduction of units and variances. He believes the plan complies with the Municipal Land use law by providing a safer property by reducing units and having a safer ingress and egress. Will amend plan for thirteen foot curb cuts. Any damaged curb and sidewalks will be replaced. Impervious coverage will not be exceeded with front turn around. Property is not being rented at this time. Ray Savacool inquired if any alternatives were considered such as a one family home? (No) Property was purchased in May of 2011 for rental income. Single family homes would be too small. Mr. Spader inquired about the square footage of the units. Mr. Spader would like to know why we cannot build to code at 30%. The applicant replied that they purchased the property for income. Mr. Spader said it looks very nice and although they are giving back a unit you are maximizing the space. It is going from little rental units at 26% to two large units at 38.6%. Richard Tokarski, Professional Architect, stated it did not make sense to build a three family because the units would be small, a one unit would not be economically sound since they purchased it as an investment. They wanted to provide family residences. They believe this design will enhance the street. It will appear to be single family home from both views and they are 20 feet shy of what would be needed for two lots. Robert Burdick stated that some coverage could be reduced. The percentage of both porches is approximately 4% coverage. The porches are designed so you can sit on them and enjoy them and they will always remain open. Mr. Spader inquired how you would sell one of the units when they are attached, how would something like that work? Richard Tokarsky replied that you would have to establish a condominium agreement because there is shared property. Each unit is approximately 2,700 square feet including the garage. Dennis Galvin stated there is a way to make these separate structures and create a rear yard between them and believes it is something to be considered. Mr. Renner believes it is better to have a large front yard to be able to turn the car around. Chairman Struncius inquired why it had to be a duplex. Dennis Galvin replied it was just the design the applicant chose. Chairman Struncius believes it is a significant massing and would like to see it reduced and the backyard space increased. Mr. Spader said we are reducing by one unit but the two they are proposing are huge. Robert Burdick stated that they will redesign and try to get closer to the 30% coverage.

Motion by Mr. Reynolds second by Mr. Loder to carry application #2011-21 to May 17, 2012 without notice

In favor: Spader, Ardito, Kelly, Struncius, Reynolds, Loder and Renner

Meeting adjourned at 9:40pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published April09, 2012 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1345

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