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


March 6, 2014

Minutes

The March 6, 2014 Special 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. Kelly, Mr. Reilly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ardito, Mr. Dixon and Mr. Davis

Absent - Spader, Loder, Renner and Ferguson
Also present – Karen Mills, Dennis Galvin and Ray Savacool
Court Reporter – Denise Sweet
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of January 22, 2014
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Ardito, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application #2014-02 – Carl/Elizabeth Erickson – 107 Riverside Place – Block 157; Lot 22 – Applicant elevated home in accordance with #3890 and moved air conditioner into side yard setback
Carl Erickson, applicant, sworn, stated that he relocated a new air-conditioner condenser unit after his existing unit was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. He is in the process of raising his house and his contractor built a platform for the new unit to be located on the side of his house. He was not aware that he needed a variance to move the unit. The air-conditioner condenser unit was previously located underneath his bedroom window.
Audience questions/comments
Andrew McDaniel, the applicant’s neighbor - does not approve of the location of the air-conditioner unit because it is now located underneath their bedroom window. He explained it is noisy and causes difficulty for the neighbors to sleep with their bedroom window open.
The Board found that the air-conditioner condenser unit is 30 feet in the air and is the only thing that protrudes from that side of the house. The Board concluded it does not look attractive at this location. The Board finds that the placement of this unit right next to the neighbor’s bedroom window projects a substantial negative impact. The Board determined that the property is large enough that the unit could easily be placed in a conforming location that would alleviate any noise issues for the neighbor or the applicant. The Board determined that there are negative impacts arising from this proposal. The detriment of this proposal outweighs its benefit.
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to deny application #2014-02 of Carl and Elizabeth Erickson.
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Ardito, Dixon, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application denied

Application #2013-09 – Siyan Motels d/b/a Dunes Motel – 1601 Ocean Avenue – Block 179.02; Lot 6 – Applicant increased floor area of both first and second floor by enclosing a second story deck and a first story entry area. A new canopy was constructed above the entrance door. Applicant also wishes to construct a 10 foot 10 inch by 24 foot storage room to the rear of the building and a new balcony. Applicant will also need to amend condition #1 on prior resolution #1979-01
Carried without notice from February 20, 2014

Mr. Ardito has listened to the audio of the previous meeting that was held on February 20, 2014 and signed a certification that will enable him to vote on this application.
John J. Jackson, Esquire, attorney for applicant. Robert Burdick, Applicant’s Engineer/PP reviewed the revised site plan and explained the parking configuration and modifications that have been made. He explained that if need be they could fit two cars for employees at the north/west rear of the building along with the four (4) existing spots at the south/east corner of property.
Ray Savacool commented that one of the added parking spots on the property appeared to be located right behind a telephone pole. (Yes) Ray Savacool also inquired if any of the added spots effect on street parking. (No) Robert Burdick stated that an employ will now be on the site 24/7 while the motel is open. The revised site plan adds an additional five (5) parking spaces for a total of twenty-seven (27).
Chairman Struncius asked for clarity in the accessibility of the property manager. Pramaad Saggi, owner, stated that there will be a bell in the office. Mr. Kelly inquired if there will be designated parking. (No) Each room will receive one parking pass.
Patricia Bahmer, 210 Carter – Inquired what stack packing means. Robert Burdick explained how the valet would stack the cars and park the few in the rear while navigating around the telephone pole. Pat Bahmer also inquired if ADA compliant accessibility is required? No, not if there are not any ADA accessible rooms. This is an old site.
Barbara Sarzillo – lives next to the motel questioned where the gravel is located. (In the rear) John Jackson explained that this is the only solution to add additional parking. The cars do not need to park in the rear. She also inquired when the exterior renovations will be completed. (By the end of the year)
Gary Stivally – 205 Carter Avenue, inquired as to how many parking spaces are required. He was informed that the formula that is used (1.25 spaces per unit) would only apply if the motel was brand new. Since this motel business has been operating since 1963 with the present number of parking spaces (22), and although it does not comply fully with the Ordinance, the parking was thought to be adequate.
He also inquired if the suite would be rented as 1 or 2 units. He was informed it would be rented as one unit. Mr. Stivally asked why the applicant needed so much storage room. Since a lot of neighbors complained in the past that the applicant stored items on the property which was unsightly, he was informed that this would enable the applicant to clean up the site. He inquired as to what was the maximum permitted occupancy per room. He was informed that a regular room would have a maximum occupancy of 2 adults and the suite will be able to hold 3 or 4 adults.
Roland Serwin, of 302 Carter Avenue, asked if the stacked parking area will be located in the front of the motel. He was informed the stacked parking area will only be in the southeast corner of the parking lot. He also asked if the applicant was going to install sidewalks. He was told they would not.
The Board acknowledged the concerns of the neighbors regarding the unsightly condition of the motel, the lack of completing repairs and home improvement projects by the applicant, the excess of occupancy and underage drinking that occurs on the property, and the parking problems. The Board determined that imposing conditions that the applicant will have to adhere to with respect to aesthetically improving the motel and cleaning up the property by a specific deadline will be a benefit to the surrounding neighbors and to the community.
The Board found that some of the concerns of the neighbors with respect to over-occupancy, underage drinking and public rowdiness are beyond the scope of duty of the Board of Adjustment. The Board informed the neighbors that the Code Enforcement Office is responsible for making sure that the rented rooms do not exceed the maximum occupancy. The Board encouraged the neighbors to call the police if there are issues relating to underage drinking and rowdiness. The applicant will distribute only one (1) parking tag per unit for the parking lot; however, the applicant is not responsible for policing where motel customers park. The Board determined that it is in the best interest of the neighbors and the community to permit the applicant to add onto the building a storage room which will alleviate the existing problem of storing things outside in plain view on the property in an unsightly manner. By permitting the storage room addition, the Board imposed a condition that there is to be no outside storage on this property.
The Board determined that the new 2-bedroom suite that will be configured in the motel will attract families which the Board thinks will provide a better clientele for the motel and an improvement for the surrounding property owners.
The Board was concerned that if the application was to be denied, the same problem would exist or continue to degrade and get worse. There will be imposed time deadlines for the improvement that the applicant has to meet which will be monitored by the Board Engineer to ensure that the improvements are done appropriately and in a timely manner.
There are negative impacts arising from this proposal but the negative impacts are mitigated by the conditions of approval. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.

Deliberations
Kelly –
Reynolds – two options…do nothing and it remains the same – or allow it and hope that you have heard what is going on and that you become a better neighbor. You need to step up your management game
Reilly - Dittos Mr. Reynolds comments - Feel we have a hostage kind of choice – We either say no and things get worse or we can say that you can do some of it with conditions. It is a tough choice,
Ardito – We do listen to what you say and take everything into account. We try to do what is best for the community. We are going to schedule things; control occupancy. We can put conditions on things which will be enforced by code enforcements. The twenty five tags issued are for parking. I should not see cars parking on Carter with tags in their windows; they should be parked on the property. We are not going to give everybody a perfect solution here; we need some give and take. We are putting in a mechanism to control parking by only allowing 22 tags. It is your neighborhood and you have to take steps. It is going to take some time for him to finish his project.
Dixon - We have a business that can do very limited things to change what he has. You have no right to tell his patrons where to park; it is a public street. Obviously the owner is having some financial problems. We have to have some faith that he will so what he says he will do; we cannot leave it the way that it is.
Davis - I am a property rights advocate. We are deciding on the occupation of an owner occupied unit that has been rented for ten years. I am concerned with the argument that the majority of revenue is based on these two suites. I would expect then for the owner to have requested to have more suites if that was the case. I am not too convinced that the positive criteria has been met. The real conflict is that if we choose not to approve this application are we falling backwards. I am concerned with this valet parking idea is going to become a cluster of errors. I cannot imagine a Saturday afternoon where one guy is trying to manage a motel and then is backing cars out into a crowded street to move another car. I am very concerned that that solution is no solutions at all. The real conflict of all of this is if we choose not to approve this are we falling backwards instead of moving forwards. I think it is very clear the message we are sending. We want it to improve the neighborhood and be part of the community.
Struncius – Lets first talk about what we are getting. Some of what we are getting that are immediate – better garbage control, (vermin proof bags) aesthetic values; match elevations. There is a level of aesthetic enhancement. Fencing is immediate; Plantings are immediate and add some greenery. You will have an available set of minutes of what we go through that arms you in proving this is a habit. What this case has done is brought it to another level of acknowledgement. Your voices have been heard. Parking has stayed pretty much the same but has been improved as to safety eliminating those front spot. I see this being a beneficial thing for the motel. I look at this from a zoning perspective; would I want to take away the best revenue source? The ability that makes it a more desirable location; I start to balance it from a zoning aspect and it is not a bad thing. The town has been issuing a CO that suite for a number of years. The town has been giving that right to the applicant. Unfortunately is has not been a good way; I am hoping that change is going to take place. I think it helps the motel if used properly.

Conditions

1. There is to be no unenclosed storage on this site.
2. Garbage is to be stored within a vermin-proofed bin enclosure which is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer.
3. The fence is to be extended to the south as described and each elevation is to be matching prior to May 1, 2014.
4. Every unit must have a notice posted on the inside door showing the room’s occupancy limit. The suite’s occupancy limit shall be no more than 6 and the other units are not to have more than 2 adult occupants.
5. The suite is to be operated in the same fashion as the existing motel rooms between Memorial Day and Labor Day; otherwise it may not be rented for more than fourteen (14) consecutive days at a time.
6. The property must have full-time on-site management with 24-hour availability.
7. The facade of all four sides of the building are to be uniform; therefore, the rear façade is to be upgraded to match. This improvement must be completed prior to the end of the year 2014 and prior to the construction of the storage area.
8. In order to provide adequate parking, the owner has created a stacked parking area which must be utilized whenever the facility is more than 90% full. Parking in the stacked area will only occur when stacking is required and parking will be means of valet service (management will be responsible for parking the cars in the stacking rea). Parking in the rear beyond the fence will be for employees only.
9. The plan is to be revised to indicate that 6-foot high arborvitaes will be planted along the westerly property line in consultation with the Board’s Engineer.
10. Formal landscaping is to be planted and must be inspected and approved by the Board’s Engineer prior to May 1, 2014.
11. The plan is to be revised to remove the parking space along Carter Avenue closest to the right-of-way. This area will be delineated as “no parking”.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito o approve application #2013-09 of The Siyan Motel d/b/a the Dunes Motel with conditions
In favor: Reynolds, Reilly, Ardito. Dixon, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: Kelly
Application approved with conditions

Application #2013-55 – Chester Barritta – 247 Boardwalk - Appealing what the applicant believes to be an error by the Zoning Officer in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance and in the alternative, seeking and interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to neighbors fence. The neighbors at 249 Boardwalk raised their deck and erected a new fence that is in excess of three feet high from the adjacent right of way.
Motion by Mr. Reynolds, second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2013-55 of Chester Barritta to May 15, 2014 without notice
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Ardito, Dixon, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application carried to May 15, 2014 without notice
Application #2013-62 – Stephen Beer – 34 Central Avenue – Block 99 Lots – 16 – 18 – Applicant wishes to make modifications to five existing buildings as follows – Bldg A – Elevate to be FEMA compliant and add a third story and deck; Bldg B – Elevate to be FEMA compliant and add deck; Bldg C – Elevate to be FEMA compliant and add deck; Bldg D – remove shed roof and construct a deck with covered stairs to second floor; Bldg E - remove shed roof and construct a deck on second story and modify first floor deck and stairs.
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Ardito to carry application #2013-62 of Stephen Beers to April 17, 2014 without notice. Time has been waived on this application.
In favor: Kelly, Reynolds, Reilly, Ardito, Dixon, Davis and Struncius
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 11:25pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published April07, 2014 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 1840


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