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

February 4, 2015


February 4, 2015 regular meeting of the Point Pleasant Beach Planning Board opened at 7:00 pm. The Clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act. Present were Board members Mr. Gagnon, Vice-chair Paesano, Mr. Winter, Councilman Migut, Mr. Dooley, Chairman Highton, Ms. Devon and Mr. Cavagnao
Absent: Ritchings and Corbally,
Also present: Karen Mills, Dennis Galvin and Ray Savacool
Motion by Mr. Winter, second by Ms. Devon to memorialize the minutes of January 7, 2015 Reorganization meeting

In favor: Winter, Paesano, Highton, Migut, Devon and Cavagnaro
Opposed: None

Planning Board member Lawrence Dooley took his oath of office

The following Board members stepped down from the following application – Gagnon, Highton, Winter, Dooley and Devon

BOA members – Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Struncius are serving as Planning Board members to ensure a quorum

Application #2014-377 - 1500 Richmond Avenue – Preliminary and Final Major Subdivision, Parkway Estates, Lots 15, 16 and 22 – Block 107 – Applicant seeks preliminary and final major subdivision approval so as to create six proposed new single family residential lots from three existing lots.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant, stated that the applicant seeks to subdivide the three existing lots into six (6) single-family lots. The applicant plans to demolish two (2) existing dwellings and construct six (6) single-family homes.

Jeffrey J. Carr, P.E., credentials accepted, stated the following:

The three (3) existing lots are irregularly shaped. Exhibit A-3 entered – Photograph of existing lot with homes plotted. A-4 – Aerial photo A-5 – Aerial photo with lot lines A – 6 – Tax map of property and surrounding area

Two (2) of the proposed lots will contain single-family homes with frontage directly on Parkway. These two (2) proposed lots will be approximately 7,700 sq. feet each.

A. The applicant agreed that the Parkway lots will only have driveway access by means of the private lane.

B. Four (4) of the proposed lots will be to the rear of the two (2) homes fronting on parkway. These four (4) proposed lots will be a minimum of 5,000 sq. feet each.

C. The proposed rear four (4) lots will be accessed by a proposed private lane off of Parkway.
D. The proposed private access lane will be 16-feet wide, with an added 1 foot gravel strip on either side of the lane.

E. The proposed development would not have any street lights, but only standard residential lights.

F. Each of the proposed lots will have a recharge system that the roofs will drain into to prevent storm water runoff onto adjacent properties.

G. Three (3) rain gardens are to be constructed to help manage and maintain storm water runoff from the property.

H. There is an existing fire hydrant at the end of the proposed private lane

I. The proposed private lane would provide adequate space for emergency vehicle access to the four (4) homes on the in the rear.

Mary Ann Ortman, Professional architect, stated the conceptual site plan of the six (6) houses is based upon the maximum potential footprint of each house. Each of the proposed houses will not have driveways exiting out onto Parkway. Each house will have a driveway exiting onto the private lane, so only one curb cut will be made on Parkway. The proposed homes on the two (2) lots directly facing Parkway would be narrower in comparison to the other proposed homes along the private lane. The proposed homes on the two (2) lots directly facing Parkway would be taller in comparison to the other proposed homes along the private lane.

Frank Storino, applicant sworn, stated that the proposed homes would be designed similarly to the existing homes in the neighborhood. The proposed homes will be built in a mix of the Craftsman, Cape Cod and Sea-Shore Colonial styles.

Christine Anne Nazzarro-Cofone, applicants P.P., credentials accepted stated the proposed development would allow for a greater number of off-street parking spaces on Parkway and the development plan would create a desirable visual environment for the neighborhood. The proposed development would provide for a more efficient use of the land. The existing dwellings are somewhat neglected and broken down, providing little visual appeal to the neighborhood. The new homes will positively impact this neighborhood.

Audience questions/ comments

Max Gagnon, 304 Parkway, expressed concerns about storm water run-off onto adjacent properties, and having adequate parking. He was informed that the proposed developments would not cause any storm water runoff onto the adjacent properties because of the added grate at the perimeter of the property, by means of the rain gardens on the various lots. Further, each house will have a driveway and a garage which will provide adequate parking.

Ben Dispoto, 311 Parkway, expressed concerns about trash removal and potential hazards of having a potential 24 cans out on Parkway. The applicant agreed to limit each house to two garbage cans per house. When ready for pickup, six (6) cans will be placed left of the lane and six (6) cans will be placed to the right of the lane.

Tom Highton Sr., 314 Parkway, questioned whether a deed restriction for “No summer rentals” on the properties could be required. He was informed that that would restriction would be legally unenforceable under these circumstances.

Maria Hayes, 306 St. Louis Avenue, expressed concerns about safety and the impact on traffic conditions in and out of the private lane. The applicant’s engineer responded that he did not believe there would be any significant impact or safety concerns with the addition of the private lane. Also, the Board finds that safety is improved by restricting all access to Parkway through the private lane.

Greg Steinhauser, 315 Parkway, questioned how the proposed developments would affect the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. The applicant’s attorney informed him that it would have a positive impact on the neighborhood, and upgrade the overall look of the area on Parkway.

Janice Aportela, 307 Central Avenue, expressed her concerns about the flooding on her property as a result of the proposed homes. She was informed that the applicant intends to have a grate near her property and will provide a storm water management mal to the Board’s engineer that shows no additional runoff.

Joe Potaski, 300 Parkway, asked about impervious coverage. He was informed by the applicant’s engineer that 30% maximum building coverage is allowed, and that this proposal complies.

John Jackson gave his summation


Reynolds – Commends the architect – Garbage removal, EMS and Fire has been addressed. Lives on a lane with 7 houses and the grand kid and dogs play in the lane and the neighbors look out for each other. Never has there been seven (7) cars on the lane at one time. There will be a diminimus amount of traffic. Professional have made a very good case. A cull-de-sac would open it up for traffic. Over all believes it is a really good idea and the homes will be beautiful. Have seen other Storino projects and they are attractive.

Struncius - I am sure that as neighbors you somehow feel violated. You have this piece of space that has been there and is now being filled in with homes. We have to take emotion out of it. Does not feel in this case it is warranted to take the ability to rent out of this equation. Very familiar with Parkway; Know the area very well. This is a driveway pulling out on Parkway; the residents will look. Believes this does a good job on how it is laid out. Believe that title 39 is important and that Police have access to enforce the law. All the homes are towards the primary road and there is space. The positive criteria far outweighs the negative criteria.

Councilman Migut – It is a large piece of land. To underutilize it would lend itself to a large group rental situation. Adequate egress for emergency vehicles; Emergency personnel will review the plans. Drainage issues have been adequately addressed. What exist there is in desperate need of upgrade. The applicant has been before us in the past and has done beautiful projects. Is in favor of the application.

Cavagnaro - Commends the professionals. Agrees with Mr. Reynolds that anything the Storino’s do has come out looking gorgeous and far better than it ever was. Biggest concern living in that area is the intensity of parking on the street and the competition for it. Most homes in that area are on 50 by 150 foot lots. The private lane will produce four 50 by 100 foot lots. Homes will be competing for on street parking and that is a big obstacle for him.
Reluctant at this point to approve.

Acting Chairman Paesano – Believes the applicant has met all the criteria. Still concerned about the access and the need for the turn around. Also knows that everything the Storino’s touch comes out perfect. Little concerned about not seeing the true plans to approve; have never done that before since I have been on the Board. Based on what has been presented by the professional; I think it will be very attractive and will be in favor.

Motion by Councilman Migut, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2014-377 of 1500 Richmond Avenue, L.L.C. with the following conditions

In favor: Reynolds, Struncius, Councilman Migut and Vice-chair Paesano
Opposed – Cavagnaro

Application approved with conditions


1. The applicant shall be bound by all exhibits introduced, all representations made and all testimony given before the Board at its meeting of February 4, 2015.

2. The applicant shall provide all required Site Performance Bond and Inspection Fees in accordance with the Municipal Ordinance.

3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any other approvals or permits from other governmental agencies, as may be required by law, including but not limited to the Municipality’s and State’s affordable housing regulations; and the applicant shall comply with any requirements or conditions of such approvals or permits.

4. 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.

5. The applicant is required to provide for any and all of the regulatory approvals required by law including, but not limited to the Ocean County Planning Board.

6. The applicant is required to post all necessary site performance bonds, inspection fees and all professional review fees in accordance with the Ordinance.

7. Applicant has agreed to create a Home Owners Association to provide for the common maintenance of the private lane, and drainage facilities. In addition to recording the Master Deed which is to incorporate conditions 8 through 22 of this approval the applicant is to record a driveway easement for the private lane and an easement preserving fire access along a 14 foot strip of lawn area. The Master Deed is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s attorney and must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Driveway and fire easement is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s engineer, in consultation with the Board attorney; and must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the six lots.

8. Each house in this development shall be limited to four (4) bedrooms.

9. Each house is to provide foundation plantings.

10. The storm water management plan is to be submitted to Board’s Engineer for his approval.

11. The applicant is to obtain a grading and drainage permit.

12. The applicant is to request that the governing body impose Title 39 on the Private Lane.

13. There is to be no parking along the lane and the subdivision plan is to be revised to show “No Parking” signs and “Stop” signs as the lane enter onto Parkway.

14. At no time will there be more than 12 garbage cans in total set out on Parkway, with 6 cans on one side and 6 cans on another. This provision is to be part of the easement.

15. Each home is to have a two-car garage, and provide for a minimum of four (4) parking spaces per lot.

16. None of the homes first-floor elevation is to exceed 13 feet in height.

17. All of the homes are to be accessed from the private lane, including the two houses from Parkway.

18. The interior homes shall be limited to 2,800 sq. feet of habitable area, exclusive of garages and porches, with a height limitation of 32 feet.

19. The two lots on Parkway shall comply with all SF-5 setbacks.

20. The four (4) interior lots shall comply with all SF-5 setbacks, except for their front yard setbacks which shall be a minimum of 25-feet from the center line of the private lane.

21. Each of the interior lots is to have lamp post styled lighting, to remain on in the evening for safety.

22. The applicant’s Engineer shall provide a turning template showing that the stone piers will not impact emergency vehicle access. Within the area of the turning movement template, the applicant shall provide and easement to the Borough providing that no impediment either manmade natural shall be constructed or maintained with the exception of the curbing along Parkway. Parking shall also be restricted 14 feet west of the private lane, in order to allow space for emergency vehicle access.

Meeting Adjourned at 11:15 pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published March05, 2015 | Planning Board Minutes | 2047

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