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


October 23, 2013

Minutes

The October 23, 2013 Special meeting of the Point Pleasant Beach Planning Board opened at 7:30 pm. The Acting Chairman read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act. Present were Board members Mr. Winter, Councilwoman Tooker, Tom Migut (Acting Chairman), Mr. Highton and Mr. Paesano.
Absent: Chairman Neumaier, Mrs. Loder, Mr. Pasola and Mrs. Koscinski
Motion by Mr. Winter to nominate Tom Migut as acting Chairman, second by Tom Highton


APPLICATION #2013- 359 Vitollo Subdivision/Variances
Property: 122 Randall - Block 149 Lot 38
First Hearing

Carried without notice from October 2, 2013 hearing


Ben A. Montenegro, Esquire, applicant’s attorney explained that the applicant has listened to the concerns of the Board and made the following modifications to the plan: Revised the front yard setback for the stairs on 38.01 from 0 to 4.07; Revised the rear yard setback for the stairs on 38.01 from 27.9 to 32 feet; Revised the building coverage on 38.01 from 38.8% to 37.8%.; Revised the front yard setback on the house for 38.02 from 15 feet to 18 feet, and for the stairs from 0 feet to 7 feet; Revised the side yard setback on 38.02 from 4.68 feet to 5.18 feet; Revised the rear yard setback on 38.02 from 33 feet to 30 feet for the porch, which is conforming, and from 27.33 to 26.50 feet for the stairs. A variance for the stairs is required; revised the building coverage on 38.02 from 37.5% to 36.1%. The attorney pointed out that there have been no objectors at either of the meetings which he believes speaks volumes.

The Board found this request troubling while the two proposed lots are seriously undersize, the existing lot is non-conforming as to the structures that currently exist, and they have the right to be reconstructed. The Board was faced with the choice either to continue the existing nonconforming use, or permit a grossly undersized subdivision. The Board concluded after serious consideration that the latter was the better alternative in this instance, based upon the existing neighborhood conditions.
The Board would have preferred to encourage the creation of one structure, instead of two at this lot, but there was no way of compelling the owner to do so, and in light of the impact of Super-storm Sandy, the Board recognized the need to make reconstructions economically viable. The homes to be constructed will comply with FEMA regulations and represent a safer condition than previously existed. The Board determined that the new homes will be attractive and the renewed structures improve Point Pleasant Beaches Housing Stock. The Board agrees that this proposal is consistent with the existing conditions on this street.
The Board found that the houses will be compliant with the base flood elevation and the houses will be brought up to code both of which improve public safety. The benefits of granting this subdivision with a variance outweigh its detriments.



Conditions
1. The applicant needs to obtain council approval for two curb cuts.

2. While the length of on street parking will decrease, the applicant has demonstrated that the number of on street spaces will be maintained.

3. The attic is not to be habitable and is to remain unfinished and only used for storage. It shall be accessed by means of pull down stairs only.

4. The garage is to be demolished at the same time as the home on lot 38.02.

5. The homes are to be built or renovated as explained to the Board at the time of the hearings.

6. The subdivision is to be filed by map and shall comply with the map filing law.

7. The applicant must obtain grading plan approval.

8. The applicant must plant street trees as shown to the Board.

Findings of Fact

Migut – believes the revisions that have been made are good and believes that it is a good application.
Councilwoman Tooker – I appreciate the changes and the aesthetics but stated that it is still SF 5 and the lots should be 50 feet by 100 feet. Does not like the tiny little lots.
Winter – Feels the same about the lots being split.
Highton - I agree with the concept to get compliant homes when possible but this just is not the case with this application. Hopefully the Master plan changes this zone.
Paesano – Agrees with everyone. With the changes and modifications that have been made to the plan he will be in favor.

Approval of application
Motion by Mr. Highton, second by Mr. Paesano to approve application 2013-359 of John Vitollo with conditions
In favor: Migut, Highton and Paesano
Opposed: Tooker and Winter

Application approved with conditions

Memorialization of resolution
Motion by Mr. Highton, second by Mr. Paesano to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2013-359 of John Vitollo with conditions.
In favor: Migut, Highton and Paesano
Opposed: None


Meeting adjourned at 9:41pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published December11, 2013 | Planning Board Minutes | 1743


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