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

August 16, 2012


The August 16, 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, Reilly, Struncius. Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Absent: Renner and Loder
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the July 19, 2012 BOA minutes
In favor: Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly and Ardito
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote denying Resolution #2012-14 of Vincent Cina –
In favor: Reilly, Struncius and Ardito
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to memorialize the action and vote memorializing Resolution #2012-17 of Edwin Goodale with conditions –
In favor - Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application - #2012-13 Tammie Boydell – Block 32; Lot 11 – Applicant wishes to construct an open deck to existing single family dwelling bring building coverage to 36.7%.
Applicant is withdrawing application
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Spader to accept the withdrawal of application #2012-13 of Tammie Boydell.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed - None

Application #2012-18 – Richard/Carol Salgado – 400 Carter Avenue – Block 178.02; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to construct a deck from the existing single family dwelling to the above ground swimming pool.
Anthony Salgado, applicant’s son stated that he has an above ground pool that he wants to put a deck around. Mr. Spader questioned the lack of a fence around the pool. The applicant stated that it was not required for him to have a fence around an above ground pool. The Board questioned the safety of it. Mr. Wolfersberger wants to ensure that the pool is child proof. Ray Savacool stated the Building official will make sure that the pool complies and is safe. Chairman Struncius wants a locking gate (childproof gate). The applicant stated that he will have a locking gate. Chairman Struncius stated that safety is an issue. The applicant agreed to install a board on board fence with a gate to the east side of the yard to enclose the pool. Mr. Wolfersberger is concerned if the applicant ever installs a rear door which would allow direct access to the pool.
Wolfersberger - Has voiced all of his concerns.
Spader - Am comfortable with the conditions in place and that code enforcement will enforce regulations.
Reilly - Has no problem with this mainly because of the location and the shape of the lot. It gives me more comfort with the safety.
Struncius - The setbacks are not much of an issue and with the safety concerns and fencing would be in favor.
Kelly – Thinks the shrubbery does a nice job concealing the property.
Reynolds – I am fine with this as long as it is brought up to code.
Ardito - Do not believe that this would be detrimental to neighbors and with the safety concerns being met am in favor.
1. There will be lattice covering the bottom of the deck with a hinged section for access.
2. The applicant is to add to the existing fencing to enclose the pool and have a locking gate.
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2012-18 of Carol and Richard Salgado with conditions.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito.
Opposed: None

Application - #2012-09 – Roman Barsky (RB Homes) – 622 Trenton Avenue (Antique Emporium) – Block 72; Lot 13 – Site plan approval. Application was bifurcated – Use has been approved for twelve rental units with first floor containing commercial space.
Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant stated that they are now here to discuss the plans for site plan for approval. Steven A. Pardes stated that they have discussed the garbage situation (#7 on Engineers report) with John Trout of Public works and he prefers dumpster pick up versus individual cans.
James Giordano, licensed Engineer, sworn, proceeded to review Ray Savacool’s Engineering letter. At this time the applicant is not sure if this will be condominiums or apartments. If they are apartments the applicant will be responsible for maintenance. Currently there is no new fencing proposed but they have no problem adding additional fencing on the west side to prevent pedestrians and students from cutting through. James Giordano stated that there will be two gates on the dumpster fencing to allow access for recyclables. There will be vegetative screening in the rear and front of the parking lot. Mr. Wolfersberger does not want arborvitae because he stated that they all die. Mr. Wolfersberger likes the way it is screened now and believes they do not need the two additional parking spaces in the front of the lot on Trenton Avenue. James Giordano commented that the vegetation he is recommending will grow to be 15 to 20 feet high for screening. Stated that deliveries will be primarily vans and would use the existing parking lot and back up in the fashion the garbage truck would back in or they would park on the street and use the Trenton Avenue entrance. Parking lot will be a black top pavement. Mr. Kelly inquired about where the wheel stops will be located; James Giordano replied that the wheel stops will be setback about three plus feet. Mr. Reynolds is concerned about snow removal, the parking lot is surrounded by buildings on three sides. The dumpster will be located in the rear corner of the lot. The applicant is not in favor of interior recreational space due to liability and safety issues. James Giordano said they are proposing a bike rack in the rear of the building and in the front on the eastern side they are proposing a 10 by 20 foot paver area with table and benches for people to utilize for recreational space and screen it with vegetation. Chairman Struncius questioned #26, the recreation area; he believes the one place there is room for recreational space is the roof top which is accessible and could be controlled with flower boxes and an outer wall. The applicant agrees that this is a good alternative. Mr. Reilly agrees that this is a good alternative, he stated that they are popular in the city.
Paul Barlo, Professional architect, sworn presented the updated architectural to the board. Paul Barlo does not feel the parapet wall would need to be raised for a roof top garden area. Chairman Struncius wants to be ensured the integrity and aesthetic value being presented is what we get. The entire building has a sprinkler system and it will be updated. Chairman Struncius questioned controlling the noise of a roof top garden. Mr. Wolfersberger questioned extra storage space. (There isn’t any available)

No audience questions comments
1. The applicant is to install the quiet design package with baffling (or equivalent) for the HVAC and for all HVAC units. The HVAC units are to be high efficiency with quiet motor mounts, swept blades, and the compressors are to have sound blockage.

2. The applicant is to record a Deed Restriction containing the following:

A. One (1) parking space must be dedicated to each residential unit and the balance shall be available for residents and non-residents.

B. The exterior of the building is to be restored and maintained as shown to the Board at the time of the hearing. The building façade is not to be altered without the permission of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

C. Restaurants are prohibited within the building.

D. Units shall not be rented for a period of time less than ninety (90) days.

E. The roof top patio is to be limited to the following:

i. The hours of operation shall be between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

ii. There is to be no sound systems on the roof top patio.

iii. The roof top patio area is to be limited to passive recreation.

F. In the event the property becomes subject to the condominium form of ownership, these conditions shall become a part of any such master deed. These conditions are to be incorporated in a Deed Restriction, which is to be recorded approved by the Board Attorney prior to recording.

7. The plan is to be revised to show the removal of the two (2) parking spaces and the installation of the roof top patio area. These modifications are to be submitted to the Board for its review and approval at the time of memorialization of the Resolution.

8. The architectural finish specs are to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer.

9. The plan is to be revised to show a lockable gate along the southern border.

Wolfersberger – Would have preferred 10 units; applicants have made considerable effort to address the concerns of the board. Recreation for the tenants has been addressed; would have liked more storage. Have eliminated 2 parking spaces for more green area; reasonably comfortable that we will maintain the character of the building.
Spader- With these sorts of things there is always give and take. Would have preferred condominiums because I believe there is pride in ownership. With the concessions made and the conditions in place and the professionals being able to review these things will be in support.
Reilly – I think this is an example where the Board and the applicant’s have worked pretty hard together. I believe we are ending up with a product better than we have started with from both points of view. The one concern I have is maintaining the historic beauty of this project, we think it is very important that you concentrate on that. I will be in favor of this.
Kelly – Would prefer to see the condo aspect rather than the apartment that is why my negative vote in the beginning. A plus is the antique business on the first floor. The patio area will enhance the condo very well. The third floor will be a show place; I believe the third floor will rent quickly. Parking will be an issue. Will be in favor of this.
Reynolds – I also agree about the condominium piece of this. I think the roof top garden increases the overall look; two hours ago you would not have had my vote. We are still trying to put 10lbs. of sand into a 5lb. bag. I will be in favor
Ardito – Most of what has been said tonight I agree with especially Mr. Reilly’s comments. At this point we have a better project than you first presented us. The back and forth, give and take concessions made helped get us where we are. A strong issue for me was an iconic building maintaining its same presence. We also get a benefit of a building that is in need of repair being restored and upgraded. I will probably be in favor of this project.
Struncius – Not much more to add, I think talking to the town and getting a solution for the garbage was good, the fact that you already had contact for the retail space is good, having that filled quickly is a positive. Getting some recreation space is a positive. We cannot let the building become something that we do not expect it to be.

Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2012-09 (2) of Roman Barsky with conditions
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reilly, Struncius, Kelly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions

Meeting adjourned at 10:40pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, clerk of the Board

Published October11, 2012 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1460

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