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


September 11, 2013

Minutes

The September 11, 2013 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. Kelly, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Renner, Mr. Shamy and Mr. Davis
Absent – Struncius, Wolfersberger and Loder

Memorialization of Resolutions
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-35 of Andrew Penrod with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-40 Of Stephanie Gurgo with conditions
In favor: Spader, Kelly, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reynolds, of Carolyn Angioletti with conditions second by Mr. Spader to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-42 with conditions
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Kelly and Reilly
Opposed: None

Application #2013- 49 – Catherine Blinn – 1321 Oceanfront – Block 17.01; Lot; 16 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at the ABFE.
Mr. Spader will be stepping down from this application.
Michael D. Shaller, Esquire, the applicant’s attorney stated that the applicant is requesting the following variances: lot frontage of 0 feet, whereas 50 feet is required; front yard setback of 16.2 feet (to dwelling) and 15 feet (to stairs), whereas 25 feet is required; building height in feet of 40.64, whereas 35 feet is the maximum height permitted.
The applicant’s home was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy and the applicant will be replacing the home with a modular home which will be smaller in size. The existing garage will be removed. During the storm, the ocean water came over the 19 foot dune on the east side of the home and through the first floor. The height of the proposed new dune is going to be constructed at 22 feet; The applicant proposes a first floor elevation at 22 feet to promote safety from future floods and to become FEMA compliant. The house is uniquely situated as it currently sits 125 feet from the curb and has a neighboring house in front of it. The actual height of the proposed house is 27 feet, 8 inches.The house has been a family owned house since 2966 and the applicant bought it from her mother in 1971. The applicant lived in the house until 1978 and has rented it out since that time.

Based upon the sworn testimony of the applicant’s Builder, Craig Alsdorf, the Board made the following findings of fact: The storm water came across the dune, went through the front wall and deposited 4 feet of sand in the living room. The proposed house will be built on piles and the existing house is a 1 ½ story house and the proposed house will be 2-story. The proposed house will be smaller and will take up less space on the lot and the attic space will be used for storage only and will have pull down stairs. The garage was used for storage and will be removed. The area will be maintained with gravel and will be used for parking. The house will be aesthetically pleasing and no views will be impaired.
The Board found that the house will now be compliant with the base flood elevation and the house will be brought up to code both of which improve public safety. There are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal as the front porch will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.
No audience questions/comments
Deliberations

Wolfersberger – We have gained something in this unfortunate loss. House is attractive; I do not see it blocking anyone. I do not see any negative impact. In favor
Kelly - I have no problem; I am happy to see it will be a smaller home. With the garage removed there will be more room in the back and that is a plus. In favor.
Reynolds – Modest home; very nice design and the town benefits from a new flood compliant home.
Davis - Sorry for the applicant’s loss. Believes it is a beautiful improvement; all positives
Chairman Reilly – It was very clear that this is a different situation; this home fits in there nicely and it is a very attractive home. In favor

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2013-49 of Catherine Blinn with conditions
In favor: Wolfersberger, Kelly, Reynolds, Davis and Reilly
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
Conditions
1. The first floor is only to be used for storage and parking of cars.

2. The applicant must comply with the Development Fee Ordinance of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, if applicable, which Ordinance is intended to generate revenue to facilitate the provision of affordable housing.

3. The applicant has one (1) year from the date of this Resolution to obtain a building permit.

4. The home is to be constructed as shown on the plans and described to the Board at the time of the hearing.

5. Subject to the applicant’s Attorney confirming with the Board’s Attorney and Engineer that the property has adequate access.

6. Access to the attic space will be by means of pull-down stairs only.


Application #2013- 43 – Marian Talian – 100 Niblick Street – Block 102; Lot 20 – Applicant wishes to demolish existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at the ABFE.

Michael Shaller, attorney for applicant stated that the applicant is looking for a building coverage and setback variance. Home is modest at 3200 square feet. Home is on a corner lot which is a hardship.
Robert, Woodcock, Professional Engineer, has testified in Brick and Little Egg Harbor. Credentials accepted. Robert Woodcock reviewed the plans.
After professional and applicant’s testimony and reviewing submitted plans the Board determined that the home needs to be reduced in size and has asked the applicant to submit revised plans.
Dennis Galvin advised the applicant that if they reduced the length of their living room by 5ft it would rectify the problem. Mr. Reynolds also feels that the building coverage needs to be reduced.
Audience questions/comments
Mark Sweli, mother in law lives next door - New construction – Why can’t the a/c be in the attic? (A/c moved to attic) – 2nd – new construction why can’t the height be met? 3rd concern is building coverage

2 minute recess
Roll call
After discussion with his applicant Michael Shaller is requesting that the application be carried without notice to allow the applicant a chance to revise the plans.
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reynolds to carry application #2013-43 of Marion Talian to October 17, 2013 without notice
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Kelly, Reynolds, Davis and Chairman Reilly
Opposed: one

Application #2013-39 – Martell’s Tiki Bar, Inc. (Jake’s Crab Shack) – The applicant has filed an appeal of the Zoning Officer’s ruling. Applicant has also filed in the alternative for a site plan application to convert existing candy store to a restaurant.

Mr. Reynolds has stepped down from this application.

Ronald S. Gasiorowski , attorney for applicant stated that the appellant is requesting a waiver from any and all Site Plan requirements.


The building is located on the southwest corner of the Boardwalk which is presently being used as the Sweet Shop (a candy and ice-cream store). The applicant proposes to change the use to a crab shack type restaurant which is a permitted use in the Zone.

The applicant will not expand the exterior walls of the building; will not change the façade or the lighting. All changes will be internal. The occupancy of the restaurant will be lower than what is permitted by the code. There will not be any catered events or social functions held at the restaurant.

Based upon the sworn testimony of the applicant’s Architect, Gregory L. Cox, AIA, the Board made the following finding of facts:

A. The only change to the building will be the signage, but it will not be expanded. The slope of the roof, the windows, the doors and the color will remain the same.

B. The interior back portion of the building will remain as is which consists of a walk-in cooler and storage rooms.

C. The applicant will add a full-service open kitchen and a service bar towards the east of the building.

D. The building code allows a maximum of 126 occupants. The owner has proposed to limit the maximum occupancy number to 98.

E. The change of use will be from a candy store to a sit-down dinner facility that serves alcoholic beverages.

F. The applicant will provide one (1) unisex bathroom for patrons of the restaurant. The Board would prefer two (2) bathrooms but understood that it might not be feasible.

G. The hours of operation are reflected in condition a. of the Alcoholic Beverage Control expanded portion of the license which is as follows: “New patrons shall not be admitted to the area after 11:00 p.m.; No alcoholic beverages shall be served in the area after 11:30 p.m.; No customers shall be present in the “Crab House” after midnight.”

H. The applicant will amend the plan to indicate that the maximum number of barstools will be eight (8).

I. There will be no outdoor dining.

Based upon the sworn testimony of the applicant’s Professional Engineer and Professional Planner, Peter Steck P.P., the Board made the following findings of fact:

A. The proposed restaurant is located on the east side of the Boardwalk.

B. There is no parking requirements attached to businesses on the east side of the Boardwalk because you cannot drive to them.

C. The Boardwalk is pedestrian dependent.

D. In Section 19-9.6b. Conditional Uses states the following conditional uses shall be permitted subject to the provisions of subsection 19-12.3: 2. “Restaurants, including drive-in and takeout restaurants, provided the condition and operation of any restaurant will not result in reduction of any existing off-street parking serving uses in the RC Zone.

E. He opines that the applicant is changing the use of the building, but is not expanding the building nor changing any door or window locations. All the changes are interior so no site plan change approval is required either because there is no physical change to the building.

F. In both cases – the candy store and the crab shack restaurant customers come by foot. The restaurant is not a destination use, it is a convenience use. The clientele is unlikely to come to the Boardwalk just to go to the restaurant.

G. Mr. Steck substantiated that line of thinking because parking for the Boardwalk can be as high as $50.00. People tend to pay that price to come to the Boardwalk for the other businesses and to spend time. It is unlikely people will pay that much to park and then just come to the restaurant.

1. Based upon the sworn testimony of the applicant’s Traffic Expert, John Rea, the Board made the following findings of fact:

A. This use will be another food option for people who are already on the Boardwalk. The Boardwalk and the beach are what attract people to this area – not restaurants on the Boardwalk.

B. There is no accessible vehicular traffic on the east side of the Boardwalk and there is no ability to provide parking.

C. The change in use will not have any impact on the parking in Point Pleasant Beach as the restaurant is not a destination use and will not generate additional parking needs.

Based on the sworn testimony of Scott Bassinder, a managing member of Jake’s Crab House, LLC, the Board made the following finding of facts:

A. The applicant will not have any defined social functions at the restaurant.

B. Since it is not permitted to serve alcohol past the threshold of the building, the applicant will not have tables outside beyond the building.

James Miller, owner of Chippy’s French Fries, asked what kind of provisions the applicant is going to have for the increase in garbage. Mr. Bassinder informed him that the garbage and recycling will be properly dealt with and he agreed to present the Board’s Engineer a disposal plan for his review and approval.

Roger Stone, Manager at the Boardwalk Bar and Grill, asked if the applicant will be installing a bathroom in the restaurant facility. He was informed that one bathroom will be added.

The Board determined that a crab shack type restaurant is a good idea and fits in nicely with the ambiance of a Boardwalk. The Board likes the change the restaurant will bring to the Boardwalk and finds that the change of use is a reflection of the change of times. The Board agreed that most of the patrons of the restaurant will be people who are already at the Boardwalk and will not be a destination place; as such, the Board concluded that this restaurant is a conditionally permitted use. The Board was confident that the applicant will satisfy the concerns of the nearby businesses in dealing with their trash and recyclables and appreciated the applicant’s willingness to work with their concerns. The Board carefully considered the impact of this proposal and there are no substantial negative impacts arising from this proposal because the proposal will not impinge on the light, air, or privacy of the surrounding property owners. The benefits of this proposal outweigh the detriments.

Deliberations
Wolfersberger – I think the zoning officer did the right thing because of the parking. I think there might be some parking in the off season. The building is not changing; I will be in favor.
Spader – I agree with the comment about it being referred to the board. I agree that the majority of business will be from the boardwalk. I agree with the limitations of events being held there. It is a changing world and we need new things besides pizza and boardwalk food.
Kelly - I hate to see the family orientation of the boardwalk disappear; there are many families that eat at Martell’s. The additional seats will be a plus. I trust the supervision will be the same as in the bar area; I am concerned about underage drinking. I think the Crab Shack is a great idea.

Davis – Agrees with Mr. Spader that the change in the use is a sign of the changing times. I think it is great to have another restaurant with an alternate type of food. Final comment I appreciate Mr. Bassinder willingness to work with his neighbor about the garbage issues. I think this is a good application.

Shamy – Agree comments with the other Board members’. I believe this is a conditional use and the conditions have been met. I think this is a nice change with no negative impacts.

Chairman Reilly – I thought it was sad to lose the Candy Store; but thought it was nice to get a Crab Shack. I would not know how to sort out the few cars. I know the Bassinders will do a good job. In favor.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve application #2013-39 of Jake’s Crab Shack LLC. With conditions.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Kelly, Davis, Shamy and Chairman Reilly
Opposed: None


Application approved with conditions



Conditions
1. The applicant is to provide at least one (1) restroom within the crab shack section of the building to serve their patrons.

2. The applicant will comply with the Director of Division of Alcohol Beverage Control, John G. Holl’s special conditions on the expanded portion of the license which follows:

a. New patrons shall not be admitted to the area after 11:00 p.m.; No alcoholic beverages shall be served in the area after 11:30 p.m.; No customers shall be present in the “Crab House” after midnight.
b. Only individual services of alcoholic beverages are permitted in the Crab House area.
c. Package goods sales are prohibited from the Crab House area.
d. No live or amplified music of any kind, other than “piped in” music for dinner patrons is permitted in the “Crab House” area.
e. The bar area is limited to eight (8) barstools in the “Crab House”. (The plan is to be amended to reflect only eight (8) barstools.)

3. There is to be no seating or dining on the Boardwalk.

4. The restaurant is not to be used for catered events or functions such as weddings.

5. The applicant shall ensure that their garbage and recyclable facilities are maintained to limit odors. The disposal plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer.


Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published November13, 2013 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1714


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