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

June 5, 2013


JUNE 5, 2013
Chairman Neumaier stated that this is a regular meeting of the Point Pleasant Beach Planning Board and adequate notice of this meeting was given by publication in the Ocean Star and by posting a copy of said notice in the front office of the Borough Hall.
Members present: Tom Neumaier, Thomas Highton, Jr., Elaine Koscinski, Glen Paesano, Councilwoman Kristine Tooker. Also present was Dennis Galvin, Esq., Planning Board Attorney and Raymond Savacool, P.E., Planning Board Engineer.
Motion by Mrs. Koscinski, seconded by Mr. Highton and unanimously approved by roll call vote of those members present: Vouchers submitted approved for payment.
Motion by Mrs. Koscinski, seconded by Mr. Highton and approved by roll call vote of those members present: Planning Board minutes of April 3, 2013 meeting approved. (Members not voting: Councilwoman Tooker.)
Motion by Mrs. Koscinski. seconded by Mr. Highton and approved by roll call vote of those members present: Resolution memorializing approval of application adopted. (Not voting: Councilwoman Tooker.)
Property: 801 / 813 Arnold Avenue
Clerk advised the Board that the Affidavit of Service on property owners and Affidavit of Publication in the newspaper were received, reviewed and found to be in order. Additionally, the Municipality confirmed that all taxes, water, sewer and assessments are paid to date.
Raymond Bogan, Esq., applicant’s attorney, stated that at this time the applicant is requesting approval for Phase I of the project to permit the vacant portion of the existing building to be occupied with a conforming use; prospective tenants would not then have to wait while the owner obtains approval from the Board; there are several permitted uses and the applicant is only requesting approval for a tenant that is a permitted use and that there is adequate parking. Mr. Savacool advised the Board that although the applicant is not proceeding with subdivision or site plan approval for the construction of a new building (Phase II) ordinance requires action by the Planning Board because of the change of use. Further discussion was held regarding parking situation and the fact that Phase I has everything to do with Phase II.
Marked into Evidence
A-1 Drawing of first floor plan of existing building dated August 7, 2012
A-2 Plan of proposed striping of existing portion of Lot 1 for 10 by 20 parking stalls dated May 9, 2013
A-3 Plan of proposed striping of existing portion of Lot 1 for 10 by 18 parking stalls dated February 25, 2013
Charles Gilligan, PE, applicant’s engineer was sworn in and on questioning from Mr. Bogan stated the following:
1. Phase I is existing Dollar General Store with a medical billing office in the front and a vacant are in the ear of approximately 3,728 sq. ft.; striped parking plan will provide 54 spaces and 2 entrances for the new tenant
2. A-3 proposed parking with 10 by 18 parking stalls is much safer; present use provides 10 ft walkway along the eastern portion of the parking area; walkway will run north to south the entire length of the Dollar General building; 14 more spaces provided;
3. tenant of rear vacant area would be a permitted use allowed in the zone with a shared entrance with other tenant; would interact with parking of other tenants; shared entrance with other tenant

In response to review letter dated June 3, 2013 of Raymond Savacool, PE, Planning Board Engineer and calculation for parking should the building be fully utilized for retail use, Mr. Gilligan stated he felt there was an excessive amount of space for parking for one building; typically the parking lot is ˝ half empty; that in his experience what is provided for retails sales based on 1 space per 200 sq ft is adequate in terms of permitted uses although admitted that it is not adequate in terms of meeting the Ordinance requirements of 1 space per 100 sq. ft. Mr. Savacool questioned about the fact that restaurants, bars, taverns, drive thru food establishments are permitted in the H.C. zone. Mr. Bogan represented on behalf of the applicant that as a condition of approval they would agreed not to have a restaurant or drive thru facility as a tenant.. Mr. Bogan reminded the Board that at one time the west side of the property had an AP supermarket and a theater on the east side. Mr. Galvin went through the list of permitted uses for the RC zone and Mr. Gilligan provided testimony to show what uses the existing proposal can support and after discussion it was agreed that the existing site would be able to support the following uses as a tenant: retail sales of goods & services, including real estate offices, department stores, banks but not with a drive-in facility, offices and also providing there is no outdoor storage or outdoor storage of equipment: building supplies, wholesale, storage & warehouse facilities, contractor and builder’s offices.

Mr. Paesano questioned that since we don’t know the tenant how do we calculate and don’t we have to plan for the future. Mr. Savacool stated the maximum should be required and that the total parking required per the Ordinance is 235 and the proposal is for 147. Mr. Gilligan indicated his calculation for retail use would be 38 spaces and for office would be 19 spaces making a difference of 18 spaces between a retail tenant and office tenant. Chairman Neumaier questioned whether or not the proposed striping plan is safe the spot in the corner. Mr. Gilligan referred to Exhibit A-3 and the six spaces located in the southwest corner and in his opinion there is not a safety issue.

Chairman Neumaier opened the hearing to the public for questions of Mr. Gilligan:
Evelyn Ogden, 816 Grove Street: asked for clarification of parking for possible new tenant and parking plan for the other side. Mr. Gilligan stated the applicant at this time is only seeking approval for Phase 1 to allow a tenant and the applicant will return and appear before the Board at a later date for Phase 11.

Scort Kennel, McDonugh & Rea with offices at 1431 Lakewood Road, Manasquan, NJ was sworn in as a traffic expert and on questioning from Mr. Bogan stated:
1. He has lived in the area for over five years.
1. Conducted traffic counts; maximum cars on site was 52; utilization of parking spaces is less than 50%
2. Industry standards followed for retail space is 4 spaces for every 1,000 sq. ft; Dollar General is approximately 9,000 sq ft and 24 spaces would satisfy industry standards
3. Property is located in center of business district allowing for pedestrian traffic; also on street parking if available
4. Site can support existing uses and an office or retail
5. Based on permitted uses in HC zone retail would be the most intense
6. He has no issue with 18 ft vs 20 ft parking stalls as this size is a industry standard; 25 ft aisles propsed; no safety issue

7. Any portion of Phase I of the application will not have a negative impact on Timber Lane; property runs along entire length of Timber Lane where parking is prohibited; if parking occurred it would probably be on the residential side of the lane by the residents
8. Proposal would have a negative impact on Arnold and Lincoln Avenues; in his opinion, proposed layout better organizes traffic flow, occupancy of vacant space can be supported by lots
9. In response to questions of Mr. Paesano, traffic study was done on Tuesday, May 14th at 9:00 a.m. and Wednesday, May 15th between 3 & 6 p.m.; was also at site yesterday (June 4th) at 11:45 a.m.; Mr. Paesano further questioned whether this was a fair and reasonable count since it was conducted during the week; what about holidays, i.e. fourth of July etc.; response was that ou don’t take into consideration holidays

Chairman Neumaier opened the hearing to the public for questions of Mr. Kennel:
Evelyn Ogden, 816 Grove Street: questioned Timber Lane and right side; as shown 1 way would exit and 1 way would not; Ans. It can be made 2 way but in his opinion there would not be a problem with 1 way; also questioned whether there would be 2 openings onto Arnold Avenue; Ans. Yes, 2 openings will remain
Mike Ogden,816 Grove Street: questioned about delivery trucks; Timber Lane is used; Ans. Proposed new tenant would have smaller type of delivery trucks – vans

Mr. Paesano expressed concern regarding the difference in parking – 235 is required 147 proposed. Mr. Bogan stated they acknowledge and agree with Mr. Savacool’s computation but also as testified industry standards are acceptable.
Discussion was held regarding parking computations and requirements for project.

Matt Nagel, 808 Grove Street: we all have to park on Grove Street; Phase I you are asking for permitted uses minus those that were stipulated.

Mr. Highton expressed concern of three lanes moving in both direction and onto Timber Lane and whether it was necessary. Discussion was held regarding traffic pattern possibly coming out onto Lincoln instead of Timber Lane. Mr. Bogan stated that the lane is used by property owners and is a natural part of the traffic flow. Also, Mr. Paesano questioned with the restriping the effect of headlights on residences. Mr. Kennel stated that the spaces run east to west, residences are located towards the northeast of the property, already have this same traffic pattern. Discussion continued. Regarding delivery vehicles, Mr. Gilligan indicated that the small retail space would generate small delivery vehicles which would park in retail space. Mr. Savacool stated that if I am a delivery man I am going to park on Timber Lane. Mr. Kennel stated that they could define an area.

James Clayton, applicant, was sworn in and in response to Mr. Paesano’s concern about the dumpster stated that the dumpster is located on the easterly side of the existing building; westerly side there is none; tenants bring garbage to dumpster; Dollar General has dumpster; can use signage.

Mr. Galvin read list of permitted uses and applicant agreed to limit to the following: retails sales; department store, banks but no drive in facility, offices, building supplies with no outdoor storage, wholesale, storage and warehouse facilities with no outdoor storage of equipment; contractor and builder offices with no outdoor storage of equipment.

Evelyn Ogden asked Mr. Clayton if something could be done with the garbage at the end of the Dollar General Store and gate so that it does not block area – doors are broken. Mr. Clayton stated he would speak with his tenant to correct the problem.

15 minute recess

Board reconvened and discussion was held regarding the parking lot and concerns Board members had regarding Phase I and Phase II; approving applicant’s request for approval for permitted use under Phase I at this time without any information on Phase II. Mr. Paesano expressed his concern about setting a precedent. Mr. Highton expressed his concern about fewer parking spaces. Mr. Galvin stated that if the site was not subject to a Phase II adequate parking for uses. Mr. Paesano stated that with the parking requirements of our Ordinance how can we make a call regarding the request without hearing everything. Mrs. Koscinski agreed with Mr. Paesano.

After discussion with his client, Mr. Bogan requested that the Board carry the hearing to the July 3, 2013 meeting at which time they will present testimony to include Phase II of the application. Mr. Bogan also confirmed the applicant waives any time period requirements. Motion by Mrs. Koscinski, seconded by Mr. Paesano and unanimously approved by roll call vote of those members present: hearing carried to July 3, 2013 meeting without the applicant having to renotice.

Application #2013-351 TD Bank: Clerk advised Board letter and supporting map received dated June 3, 2013 from applicant’s engineer, Bohler Engineering regarding request for location of trash enclosure along the west portion of the building for storage of a trash receptacle, which will be screed with evergreen landscaping and screen fence approximately 5’6” high to provide additional screening. The proposed fence is considered a design waiver from the 3” tall fence Ordinance requirement. After discussion, on a motion by Glen Paesano, seconded by Mrs. Koscinski and unanimously approved by roll call vote of those members present, administrative approval was granted for the change.
Application #2013-358 – 524 Arnold Avenue Associates (Point Pleasant Hardware Building) Clerk advised the Board that she has spoken several times with John Bezzera, applicant, regarding his request to have the application scheduled for hearing at the Board’s next meeting, July 3, 2013 or could he request a special meeting date. I advised Mr. Bezzera I could not confirm a hearing date of July 3, 2013 at this time. I further advised Mr. Bezzera that the Board’s special meeting date is no longer available at this time as the Board of Adjustment as a result of the hurricane, the Board of Adjustment has scheduled extra meetings for the fourth Wednesday of the month. After discussion and due to the fact that the Clayton application has been carried to the July 3,2013 meeting and is anticipated to be a lengthy hearing as testimony for both Phase I and Phase II of the application will be presented. The next available date would be August 7, 2013 for scheduling provided the application is deemed complete.
Motion by Mrs. Koscinski, seconded by Mr. Paesano and unanimously approved by roll call vote of those members present – Karen Mills appointed as Planning Board liason to the Environmental Commission.

There being no further business to come before the Board, on a Motion by Mrs. Koscinski and seconded by Mr. Highton, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane F. Johnson, Clerk

Published August29, 2013 | Planning Board Minutes | 1663

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