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

April 19, 2012


The April 19, 2012 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: Wolfersberger, Spader, Struncius, Reilly, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito Alternates: Renner
Absent: Loder
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the minutes of the April 5, 2012 meeting.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None
Memorialization of the following resolutions:
Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment that it hereby memorializes the action and vote denying application #2010-03 of Mary Faith Nugiel with conditions.
Motion by Spader, second by Reynolds to approve
In favor: Spader, Struncius, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve 71.8% impervious coverage with conditions
In favor: Spader, Struncius, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2012-06 of Scot and Beth Kuzmic
In favor: Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving Application #2012-07 of James and Elaine DeBenedett
In favor: Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2012-11 – LaMannasquan/709 – 711 Arnold Avenue – Block 202; Lot 8 - Applicant seeks amended approval to permit the utilization of the second floor bar and restaurant area for ala carte dining and bar purposes when the space is not being used for banquet purposes.

Kevin Starkey, attorney for applicant, requesting to amend previously approved site plan to allow ala carte dining and bar service which at this time is limited to banquets. There will be no changes to the building, seating or occupancy. The only thing that will change is that patrons will be allowed upstairs to dine. Carl LaManna, owner of restaurant, sworn, reviewed the layout of the interior of his restaurant. There are three accesses to the upper level. Total upstairs occupancy is not to exceed 89 patrons. Since September of 2011 they have had about 100 private parties and events upstairs. Carl LaManna stated that four days a week that the upstairs is not utilized, he would like to alleviate the line of people waiting to be seated and feels it will help parking. His patrons utilize the municipal lots and street parking. Carl LaManna referenced that the veranda on the upstairs deck is well landscaped; they will be adding to it to give it an upscale feel. The bar has twelve bar stools. Mr. Spader inquired if they plan on having any live music (no; there will be no entertainment, just dinner background music). Dinner service will end at 10pm during the week and 11pm on the weekends. Carl LaManna stated that the upstairs will be more upscale then downstairs and feature small plate items and be more private dining then downstairs. Carl LaManna stated that the only problem he has had in the year since he opened is that one of his patrons parked in the Esplanade parking lot. Mr. Wolfersberger ‘s concern is that the customers are upstairs to eat and just not to hang at the bar and drink. Carl LaManna answered that they are not that kind of establishment and that the crowd is upscale and over the age of 30. All original conditions will remain the same.
Audience Questions
Alice Pidduck – questioned if the applicant has a parking plan. Carl LaManna said he does not believe that there is a parking problem and there will not be an increase in deliveries.

Mike Jurusz – Executive Chef at 709. It will be more upscale and will be high end casual; small plate items with really cool appetizers to feed the wait. This is not a hang out; it will be eat and move on. Professional landscaper coming in to landscape and plant fresh herbs; he reviewed the menu. He reviewed the fundraisers they have been involved with and commented that they are a “give back” business.
Mr. Spader is worried about a hyped up new facility now taking the place of a banquet facility. Carl LaManna stated that they will not discontinue having banquets and benefits. Chairman Struncius biggest concern is if they push the numbers upstairs.

Alice Pidduck, 720 Grove Street - She lives on the corner of Grove and Woodland. Was never aware of the original hearing and did not get to comment. She is worried about deliveries and about the people drinking and walking on her lawn. During the summer she called the police at least ten times about the dangerous conditions with the deliveries. Carl LaManna stated that his deliveries are made on his property and the trucks in her pictures are not trucks for his business. His deliveries trucks come on the easement on his property. Alice Pidduck said there has never been a bar in this area and it has changed the area dramatically. She has had a change in her life, her husband is a physician and needs to sleep, and the people wake them up at night.
Carl LaManna said this is the first he ever heard of someone having a problem, no one has approached him; he told Alice Pidduck if she has any problem to directly call him.
James DeSantis – 319 Carter Avenue – States that he is a patron who likes having an upscale establishment. He stated he is an upper income resident who enjoys the nice atmosphere and having people in his age group.
Mr. Ardito inquired if they had ever considered valet parking. Carl LaManna replied they have talked about it but not in great detail.
Mr. Reynolds believes that valet parking would cause more of an issue.

Mr. Wolfersberger - Believes that not allowing this application would not help the parking. Hopes the applicant keeps holding the fundraisers and benefit programs. Not opposed to the change; biggest concern is people hanging out and drinking for five hours.
Mr. Spader – Agrees with Mr. Wolfersberger‘s comments. People do get excited when things change. Personally have been to this restaurant and the clientele is more refined. They might slam a door once in awhile but I do not see it as a problem. The intensity might pick up a bit in the summer but the whole atmosphere has been a real win for Point Pleasant Beach.
Mr. Reilly – This is a real well run operation and it has helped revitalize the downtown. There is no physical change and it might help the parking situation.
Mr. Kelly – No problem with the application. Believes any problem will be handled.
Mr. Reynolds – Does not believe the parking problem is from 709. You have the Elk’s and many other businesses in that area. Love’s seeing Arnold Avenue lit up and have heard great things about the business.
Mr. Ardito - Agrees with Mr. Reilly you do run a very good business and it has been very good for the down town. It is a numbers game where parking is concerned; does hope that he is happy with the 89 patrons.
Mr. Renner – You guys have delivered on everything that you promised; a positive on top of a very good situation. The whole idea of outside dining is a real plus.

1. A map will added to their web site identifying locations of municipal parking lots.
2. The conditions in application #2003-29 as modified by application #2011-04 shall be in full force with the exception that the applicant is allowed to use the upstairs for ala carte service.
3. The upstairs will still be limited to 89 patrons.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions

Application ##2012-08 – Sweet Escape Bungalow, L.L.C. c/o Frank Dominguez - 115 Randall Avenue – Block 150; Lot 8 – Applicant wishes to demolish and construct a new three (3) story single family dwelling.
John J. Jackson, attorney for applicant. William Stevens, Professional Engineer/Planner, sworn, credentials accepted. Exhibit A-3 entered, aerial map, view of subject property, dated March 15, 2012. The purpose of the map is to show the surrounding area on Randall Avenue. The area is a mix use of two-story homes, and smaller lots. Some homes are upscale and some are older homes. Across the way is a newer development built on an old marina. Exhibit A-4, April 19, 2012, copy of tax map and surrounding residences to give the board a flavor of what is in the neighborhood. One concern is the size of the lot; it is a smaller lot and a challenge to build a residential home. There are other twenty five foot lots in the neighborhood. What the applicant is proposing is not out of character for the neighborhood. A-5 Architectural, colorized plot plan. Architect restricted development of new home by mirroring original footprint. John Jackson questioned the Zoning Officer’s interpretation that this is a three-story home opposed to a two-story home. Exhibit A-6, dated April 19, 2012, colored exhibit, colorized elevations. William Stevens explained why they believe it is a two-story home, but they agree to proceed for a variance for three-stories. Mechanicals will be placed in second floor room. Home is located in flood zone elevation 10; first floor is at 13.17 feet. William Stevens believes it is a benefit having the parking under the home. Mr. Wolfersberger does not believe that this home is in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Spader questioned if the applicant applied for a CAFRA permit? John Jackson does not know if it is required, but they will if needed. William Stevens commented that the garage area is open; not enclosed. Mr. Kelly said he drove down the street and noticed that many of the homes on twenty-five foot lots are in character with the home now; not many of the homes are two-stories. William Stevens believes that this is an appropriate use of the property and is the only use that should be allowed. William Stevens stated that the variances required are hardship variances due to the size of the property and he believes that this is a two-story home. By allowing this third story it allows for parking where none exist. The decks and stairs account for 9% of the building coverage.
Audience questions
Joyce Maraziti – 113 Randall Avenue – Inquired about size of backyard and size of deck. (Bottom of deck will be at about eight feet) Home is one and a half feet off of the property line.
Alex Soffiantin, Professional licensed architect for twenty years, sworn, has appeared before boards in Elizabeth and Jersey City, credentials accepted. Stated that the existing home is older and has flood damage and would need many upgrades. Discussed with applicant about the improvements that he wanted to make and realized that improvements would be more than 50% and that the home would have to meet the updated flood requirements. With the attempt to create parking on the property and improve the aesthetics they came up with the proposed design. It is a four bedroom home; the new home is a 1700 square foot modest residence. Exhibit A-7 entered; colored rendering of architectural. The home will have a magic pack (energy efficient cooling/heating unit) which will be located on the second floor.
Audience questions
Tom Maraziti – Will there be gutters? (yes) Will there be an awning? (no) Questioned the layout of the rear outside stairs.
Joyce Maraziti – Questioned the size of the bedrooms. Questioned size of attic and what would be in there.

Frank Dominguez, applicant, sworn – Home is to be utilized as a family summer home; had been looking for a home in Point Pleasant Beach for six (6) years. Applicant does own rental apartment homes in other towns. At this time he does not plan to rent but does not know what the future holds.

Audience comments
Mary Mc Andrew, 117 Randall Avenue , sworn- Family has been property owners for seventy years. Three major concerns about this application 1.) Feels that the lot being 25 feet wide is too small for this structure. Coverage is double what is permitted. 2.) Side yard setback is too small for fireman to access home in case of a fire and it is a serious safety issue. 3.) Proposed rear setback is much too small and will take away the view, air and open space. It will not be an aesthetic improvement.
Tom Maraziti, 113 Randall Avenue – Pictures entered N-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. John Jackson objected to the fact that Tom Maraziti had drawn on the pictures. Tom Maraziti stated that it shows how their views will be blocked if the home is allowed to be built.
Joyce Maraziti, 113 Randall Avenue - Stated that the home does not meet any of the setback requirements. She believes that a new home should have to meet the zoning requirements.
Jamie Paradise, 119B Randall Avenue, sworn – The biggest issue they have in that area is the parking situation. Most of the homes on that side of the street do not have parking. You are stuck in a situation where if you build you have an eight foot elevation and it will affect the neighbors light. Believes this application being approved would be the first step of the transition. He is not sure if he likes seeing through the garage though.
Robert Gregovich, 115 A Randall Avenue – Pictured entered as exhibits N-8, 9, 10 and 11. N-8 says if the new home is built he will lose his ally. N-9 Shows stairs coming down, states that there is very little room. N-10 Shows his deck and states if the home is built he will not have any view anymore and will not see sunshine. Ray Savacool clarified that the walkway belongs to the applicant…it is not an easement.
Pat Gregovich, 115 A Randall Avenue – I understand that he wants to go up and I agree with the neighbors; the home would block our views. The other homes that are two stories have fifty foot wide lots. I am annoyed by the way they say rentals; they are allowed to rent also if they want to.

John Jackson gave his summation.


Mr. Wolfersberger – Thinks it is virtually impossible to conform to the present setbacks with some of the lots in town. Front yard setbacks bother him; Building coverage with the porch is a concern and the appearance of the garage. Not in favor of the plans that exist.
Mr. Spader – I agree whole heartedly that the plan is unique and clever. However I am in favor of it if it was an adequate sized lot. If the whole block was going to do this I could see making an exception, I do not see the hardship. If he bought the lot next door and the lot was conforming I might consider it.
Mr. Reilly – Applicant seems very sincere in trying to do the right thing. I like the parking underneath and conforming to the flood regulations. I am not so crazy about the building coverage; the big issue is the air and light of the neighbors and the safety issues
Mr. Kelly – I do not feel that the hardship has been shown. I do not see the benefits that outweigh the detriments. As a former fireman there is not a piece of equipment that we could fit in a foot and a half. I do not feel it reflects the area and I do not feel it reflects the master plan.
Mr. Reynolds – Obviously this is a tough one. I think the parking issue is something we should look for. I do not think we would gain much by elimination the back porch. Is kind of leaning in favor of application; really likes getting three cars off of the street.
Mr. Ardito – Certainly there are some positives to the applicants case (flood zone and bringing house up to code). We listen to your neighbors, Views, light and air being lost. You want to improve the house and now you need to elevate, these are all constraints.The design is awesome but it is still twenty-five foot loot. Would be in favor in the deck was removed to bring in some additional light and air.
Mr. Renner – Have some real concerns about the safety. You would not be able to get fire equipment in there. It is a great design if it was a fifty foot lot.
Chairman Struncius – Extremely difficult case. You are really ground breaking with this type of design. It is not often that you would put parking under the house. I would hate this on a larger lot. I believe the applicant did not prove their hardship to go thirty-five feet. The property is a hardship; it is like having a corner lot. Struggling with the height; the light and air argument really affects the home to the south. The photo that showed the shadow is the home that would be affected. Homes two lots away will not be affected. I like the concept of this; difficult decision to make. It may pushing the height limit; maybe a setback half story to give it some dimension.
Motion by Wolfersberger second by Mr. Reilly to deny application #2012-08 of Sweet Escapes Bungalow, LLC.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Struncius and Kelly
Opposed: Reynolds and Ardito

Meeting adjourned at 11:26pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published May08, 2012 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1371

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