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


August 20, 2015

Minutes

The August 20, 2015 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. Kelly, vice chair Reilly, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Dixon and Mr. Renner

Absent: Spader, Reynolds, Loder and Davis

Also present: Dennis Galvin, Board Attorney, Ray Savacool Board Engineer and Eileen Farrell filling in for Karen Mills

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet

Resolutions
Motion by vice chair Reilly, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2015-34 of James C. Wittig – 113 New Jersey Avenue with conditions
In favor: Kelly and Reilly
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by vice chair Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2015-35 of David Schlosser, 304 Washington Avenue with conditions.
In favor: Kelly and Reilly
Opposed: None

Application #2015-48 – Jenkinson’s Pavilion – 300 Ocean Avenue – Block 211; Lot 1 – Applicant wishes to replace existing sign with a LED message sign.

John Jackson attorney for applicant stated that the applicant is looking for the following variances

A. For a16mm digital LED message sign, whereas animated, flashing or illusionary signage is not permitted.

B. For a façade sign on the street frontage of (72.23 square feet), whereas signage shall not exceed 10% of the façade or 50 square feet – whichever is smaller.

Justin Auciello, the applicant’s Professional Planner, sworn, credentials accepted stated the following:

C. The site for the proposed sign is in the resort commercial zone.

D. This proposed sign is consistent with existing signs in the area.

E. The applicants seek a variance to place a digital sign in the center of the resort commercial zone.

F. Additionally, the applicants require a variance, per ordinance, for square footage exceeding 50 square feet.

G. The size of the proposed signage is the appropriate scale for the location.

Frank Storino, applicant, sworn, stated that the existing sign is old and inefficient, containing fluorescent tubes that require frequent replacement. Replacing the tubes requires the use of a tall ladder, creating a safety hazard. The proposed LED sign will be more efficient, as the lighting levels and message can be controlled. The proposed sign will be used solely for advertising. Currently, the applicant advertises alcoholic drink specials and would like to continue to do so with the proposed new sign. The proposed sign has the ability to display any type of message, and would be available to aid police officers, firemen, and first aid responders in the event of an emergency situation within the town. The applicant proposes a 6’5’’ x 11’3’’ x 8’ sign, which is not substantially larger than the existing sign. The minimum hold time a message will be displayed on the sign will be 10 seconds, and no less. The proposed sign will stay on throughout the night, however, the lighting will be dimmed, after hours.

Conditions
1. The LED sign is not to flash, blink, scroll, or have animation.

2. Once the premises is closed to the public, the sign lighting shall be turned down to the minimum standard.

3. The message shall be maintained for at least 10 seconds.

4. There shall be no advertisement of nonaffiliated businesses.

5. The sign will be made available to the police department for
use in the event of an emergency. The applicant is to make this commitment to the borough by means of a developer agreement.
Deliberations
Kelly -has no problem with this application.
Reilly – Has no problem with this application. Sign is being updated and is safer. Will be available to emergency personnel. In favor with conditions in place.
Dixon – Also in favor. Sign will be easier to see and safer.
Renner – Also in favor with conditions in place.
Struncius – Not a use – safer updated sign – with conditions in place also in favor.


Motion by vice chair Reilly, second by Mr. Dixon to approve application #2015-48 – Jenkinson’s Pavilion – 300 Ocean Avenue – Block 211; Lot 1 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Reilly, Dixon, Renner and Struncius
Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Application #2015-29 – Frank Cocuzza Sr. /Frank Cocuzza Jr. – 12A Inlet Drive- Block 176; Lot 40.03 - Applicant wishes to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new FEMA compliant single family structure.
John J. Jackson, Esquire, attorney for applicant. Paul A. Rudda, applicant’s builder, sworn, stated that the pilings for the proposed new structure will be augured and that the proposed new structure will be 30 inches above the curb. The applicants have agreed to close in the base of the proposed new structure with slats. A white trim accent will be added to improve the aesthetics of the proposed new structure. The pilings for the proposed new structure will be wrapped so they remain out of sight. The proposed new structure will meet all current codes and will comply with FEMA requirements.

Tiffany Cuviello, applicant’s Professional Planner, stated that the applicant is requesting a use variance because the property is located in a Marine Commercial zone, where residential uses are not permitted. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and to rebuild a new structure, given the fact that the existing structure was substantially damaged during Superstorm Sandy. The new structure will meet the height requirements for residential structures in the Borough. The size of the proposed residential structure will be substantially similar to the prior structure. The proposed structure will be one and a half stories. A new front deck will be constructed on the existing concrete area in front of the home, to provide entrance into the home, once elevated. This will not impact any of the existing parking easements. This property is unique because it is landlocked, and is located in the center of existing residential structures. If the property were to be brought into conformity with the Marine Commercial zone, it would have a great detrimental impact on the existing established residential homes that surround this property. There would be continuous traffic and an influx of consumers, disturbing the community in this court yard area. Many properties on Inlet Drive are two stories, thus the height of the proposed new structure would not interfere with any views or vistas. The proposed lot depth cannot conform to the ordinance, but that is consistent with the development pattern in and around the area. The new structure will have a diminimus impact on the building’s footprint. The proposed building coverage of 35% and impervious coverage of 46% are substantially lower than what would be permitted if conformity use was constructed on the lot.

Frank Cocuzza Jr., applicant sworn, stated that he purchased the property in 2008 to be used as a rental property. In the first two years of ownership, the applicant rented out the property for the summer. Since then, the property has been rented out on a year to year basis.

John W. Kornick, P.E., the applicant’s Professional Engineer, stated that there is a single point of entry on Inlet Drive, with cross access easements. The existing property is not impervious, being predominantly stone. The existing property suffered greater than 50% of damage due to Superstorm Sandy. The proposed new dwelling will be a one and a half
story, 650 square feet home, which will include an additional 17 square feet of living space. It will have vinyl siding, and will be stick built. There will be three bedrooms and a bathroom on each floor. The property will have a 61 square foot covered front porch. There is an 8 foot parking easement that benefits the neighboring property on the east side, and an 8 foot parking easement that benefits the applicant’s property on the west side. The proposed new dwelling would not impact either easement. The expansion of the proposed new dwelling is in the southwest corner. The existing home slab elevation is 7.2 feet. The outside grade elevation is 6.9 feet. The finished floor elevation will be 11.7 feet, approximately 5 feet above the grade. The proposed new dwelling does not impact any existing variances as the new construction is relatively within the same footprint as the existing dwelling. The proposed new dwelling is below the impervious coverage as well as below the new height ordinance.


Audience questions/comments

David Margentino, Jr., 9A Inlet Drive, expressed concerns about him and his grandfather potentially having issues gaining access to his grandfather’s bait shop and property during times of construction. The Board informed him that as a condition of the applicant’s approval, the applicant will submit a construction staging plan for the Board Engineer’s review and approval.

Carolyn Kelly, 4B Inlet Drive, expressed concerns about the access to her property being restricted due to the construction of the proposed new dwelling. Additionally, she expressed concern about the raised elevation of the proposed new structure creating issues with snow pile up during the winter. The Board determined that the applicants have agreed to close in the structure with slats, therefore preventing any potential snow pile up.

Anne Rossi, 12B Inlet Drive, expressed concern that the height of the proposed new structure would be too extensive. The Board determined that the elevation is necessary for flood prevention purposes, and the height is actually lower than that of typical elevated homes in residential areas.

Maryanne Lowe, 1 aka 4 Inlet Drive, commented that in 1990, her application to construct a one story addition on her home was denied due to the adverse effects of light and air circulation. The Board informed her that there are new elevation standards due to the flooding damage caused by Superstorm Sandy.

Conditions

1. The applicant will submit its construction staging plan to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

2. The plan is to be revised to show the first floor elevation to be at 13 feet.

3. The applicant agrees to include language in its lease, limiting the home to two parking spaces and prohibiting parking in the easement areas. The applicant agreed that if a future tenant is noncompliant after being warned by the applicant/homeowner, it will seek eviction.

10. The piling holes are to be pre-augured.

11. The home’s façade is to have a decorative band board mid-way up the building façade. The change in the façade is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer.

12. The applicant agreed to enclose the base of the building with louvered planking.

13. The Board Engineer is to confirm all changes to the plan prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Deliberations
Kelly – Now I see about ten homes on Randall that are like this home. It is a two story safer home; it is an improvement over what is there. Any construction on this home will have to be this high. It is a modest home in almost the same footprint. No objection
Reilly – I too thought the planner did an excellent job with the use issue. This is happening all over town; if it doesn’t happen this year it would happen next year. It is a modest home and I am in favor of this.
Dixon – Obviously people do not like change; but change is happening whether you like it or not. All of these lots are too small and you should probably shouldn’t be able to build on them but there have been homes here for years and people love their homes. As to who lives here if you have a problem call the police or code enforcements. The house is probably going to be shorter if the other homes elevate. It is a modest home – I understand the neighbors’ concerns but I will be in favor.
Renner – The owners have received a letter of substantial damage and I agree with everything that has been said. It is a modest home and the owners have agreed to conditions. It will be a much safer home. In ten years there will be homes that are higher.
Struncius – The planning testimony was excellent; it was concise and to the point. You weight the negative/positive criteria and decide. It is hard to except change. From a zoning point this is a slam dunk. It is in the same foot print and it is modestly done. They are doing things to make it aesthetically nice; that is important to the neighborhood. We are rolling with the change – different day and age – see no problem.

Motion by vice chair Reilly, second by Mr. Renner to approve application #2015-29 of Frank Cocuzza Sr. /Frank Cocuzza Jr. – 12A Inlet Drive- Block 176; Lot 40.03 with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Reilly, Dixon, Renner and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions

Next meeting September 3, 2015

Meeting adjourned at 10pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA, Clerk of the Board


Published October02, 2015 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 2184


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