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


June 21, 2007

MINUTES

The June 21, 2007 Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Chairman Moberg, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Simon, Mr. Struncius, Mrs. Tooker Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Reilly Mr. Ardito and Mr. Reynolds

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialized the minutes from May 17, 2007.

In favor: Simon, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard, Reynolds, and Ardito
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-16 of Paul Miccio, 214 Harvard Avenue with condition.

In favor: Simon, Moberg, Tooker, Reynolds and Ardito………………………….Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-40 of Judith Troia, 629 New Jersey Avenue with conditions.

In favor: Simon, Wolfersberger, Leonard, Moberg, Tooker, Reynolds, and Ardito…..Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-50 of CVS Minute Clinic with conditions.

In favor: Simon, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard, Reynolds and Ardito………………………………………………………………………………..Yea
Opposed: None

Application#2006-52 – Ron Keller, 53 Sanborn Avenue; Block 157, Lot 19;Applicant installed sliding glass patio door in side of garage for cabana purposes. Applicant stated that his contractor installed glass doors in his garage without securing a permit. Applicant had siding, windows and doors added to home and he does not know why the contractor did not include the garage doors in the permit. Garage will not be used for habitation and only has electricity.

Deliberations:

Mr. Leonard – Although I have never seen a 16 foot glass door on the garage I do not see anything prohibiting it. I would just like to have a deed restriction stating that it will have not have any habitation to keep it from being used for that in the future.

Mr. Wolfersberger – My only concern is that it looks like a house with pavers. If it complies I have no problem with the doors. The safety of the pool is a concern if the garage doors are left open but that is your liability.

Mr. Moberg – I have no problem with that. I am sure it was just an oversight on the part of the contractor. As long as we are not having plumbing and heat I have no problem with the garage being used as a storage area.

Mr. Reilly – I am fine with this with the condition that Mr. Leonard sited.

Conditions

1. The garage is not to have any utilities other than the existing level of electrical service.

2. The applicant is to record a Deed Restriction as follows: “The garage is not to have plumbing or heating, and is not be used for habitation.” The Deed Restriction is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Attorney prior to it being recorded. The applicant is to record the Deed Restriction within thirty (30) days of the memorialized resolution


Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mrs. Tooker to approve application #2006-52 with conditions.

In favor – Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Tooker, Moberg, Leonard and Reilly
Opposed - None


Application #2007-03 – Dennis & Denise Gesumaria, 415 Richard Avenue; Block 161, Lot 21; Applicant wishes to add a second story to existing single family dwelling and install a 15 x 27 foot in-ground swimming pool. Board considered the application and thought further consideration should be put into centering the pool and reducing building coverage. (Carried to July 19, 2007 without notice)


Application #2006-53 – The Residences at Bay Point, LLC, 320 Maryland Avenue; Block 6 & 11.02/Lots 24 & 46; Applicant wishes to convert laundry and storage rooms in Buildings B, C & D into a total of 3/2 bedroom units and provide laundry service to all units individually.

Based upon the sworn testimony of the Developer of the Residence at Bay Point, LLC, Albert Dweck, the Board made the following finding of facts:

A. The applicant seeks to convert the existing laundry/storage rooms within existing Buildings “B,” “C,” and “D,” into two (2) bedroom apartment units.

B. The electricity and plumbing will be renovated in the three (3) apartment units.

C. The property is in close proximity to the Bay Head Train Station.

D. Since the acquisition of the property there have been several renovations made to the apartment units.

E. The large walk-in closets of the apartment units will be converted into laundry rooms.

F. The one (1) bedrooms apartments unit will cost approximately $300,000.

G. The two (2) bedrooms apartments unit will cost approximately $400,000.

H. The proposed additional units will have no substantial negative impacts on the surrounding property owners, as the building is not changing, just the internal configuration.

2. Based upon the sworn and qualified testimony of the Applicant’s Architect, Richard Tokarski, the Board made the following finding of facts:

A. The applicant seeks to convert the existing laundry/storage rooms within existing Buildings “B,” “C,” and “D,” into two (2) bedroom apartment units.

B. The large walk-in closets of the apartment units will be converted into laundry rooms.

C. An extensive landscaping plan has been devised to enhance the aesthetic look of the property.

D. There will be a covered gazebo in the courtyard and new barbecue grills installed on the property.

E. All signage will comply with ordinance requirements.

F. The applicant seeks a density variance for tract one of 16.1 units per acre, whereas 10 units is the maximum permitted and for tract two of 16.9 units per acre, whereas 10 units is the maximum permitted.

G. The overall increase in density is de minimis.

H. The overall impervious coverage has been decreased on site.

I. There will be no increase in the footprint of the existing structures, as all improvements will be made internally to the building.

J. The applicant will comply with the recommendations of the Borough Engineer.

K. The proposed units will be aesthetically pleasing and will have no substantial negative impacts on the surrounding property owners.

3. Based upon the sworn and qualified testimony of the Applicant’s Professional Engineer, Douglas Grysko, the Board made the following finding of facts:

A. The applicant will be installing an additional seven (7) parking spaces on site, however it will still remain noncompliant at 74 parking spaces, whereas 88 spaces are required. However, some of the units may be used as vacation units and require less parking.

B. Two (2) additional handicap spaces will be added to the site, for a total of three (3) handicap spaces provided on site.

C. All parking spaces are nine (9) feet by eighteen (18) feet.

D. The applicant seeks a density variance for tract one of 16.1 units per acre, whereas 10 units is the maximum permitted and for tract two of 16.9 units per acre, whereas 10 units is the maximum permitted.

E. There will be a total of 48 apartment units, as a result of this proposal.

F. There will be white vinyl fencing along the property line adjacent to the railroad.

G. The fence gate will be configured to permit residences to access the Bay Head Train Station.

H. The applicant will be providing a one-way flow of traffic, as a result of this proposal.

I. There will be no increase in the footprint of the existing structures, as all improvements will be made internally to the building.

4. Based upon the sworn and qualified testimony of the Applicant’s Professional Planner, James Miller, the Board made the following finding of facts:

A. The subject property is located along Maryland Avenue 700 feet west of Route 35 in the HR zone where garden apartments are a permitted use.

B. This site can easily accommodate the increase in density as there will be no increase in the footprint of the existing structures and that all improvements will be made internally to the building.

C. The proposal is an expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use.

D. The proposal advances the Municipal Land Use Law, as aesthetic enhancements will be made to the property, as a result of this proposal.

E. The proposal is consistent with the surrounding properties in the nearby vicinity.

F. The proposal advances the Municipal Land Use Law, and it will provide sufficient affordable housing to the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach.

G. The proposal advances the Municipal Land Use Law, as it is more efficient to have laundry facilities within all of the existing units in the buildings.

H. The deficient number of parking spaces on site will not have a negative impact on the surrounding property owners due to the proximity to mass transportation and the fact that some of the nits will be used for vacation purposes.

I. The proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinances and Master Plan of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach.

J. The renovations to the grounds will be aesthetically pleasing.

K. This proposal will not negatively impact the surrounding property owners.

5. The Board found the applicant’s proposal attractive, and that the renovations to the buildings will improve the housing stock of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach.

6. The Board concluded that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinances and Master Plan of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach.

7. The Board found that the proposal advances the Municipal Land Use Law as it is more efficient to have laundry facilities within all of the existing units in the buildings.

8. The Board found that the proposal advances the Municipal Land Use Law as the it will provide sufficient affordable housing to the Borough of Point Pleasant.

9. The Board found that this site can easily accommodate the increase in density.

10. 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.

11. The benefits of this proposal outweigh its detriments.


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 June 21, 2007.

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 the obtaining of any other approvals or permits from other governmental agencies as may be required by law and the applicant shall comply with any requirements or conditions of such approvals or permits, including but not limited to the municipality’s and State’s compliance with the COAH regulations.

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

5. A concrete sidewalk is to be provided along the Route 35 frontage.

6. The applicant is to correct the curb and the sidewalk detail to call out NJDOT Class ‘B’ concrete for use in curbs.

7. The paving detail is to be amended to define the pavement section as six (6) inch soil aggregate or dense graded aggregate base course, 2 1/2 inch hot mix asphalt base course, Mix I-2 and 1 ½ inch hot mix asphalt surface course, Mix I-5.

8. The public offering statement is to be submitted to the Board’s attorney prior to the issuance of the memorialized resolution.

9. All plantings are to be planted at the minimum height as shown on the Landscaping Plan.


Deliberations

Mr. Moberg – I think what is taking place here is a small project compared to the major complete condo projects we have been seeing. The over all make over of the site is a positive and aesthetically pleasing. I feel it has no negative impact what so ever on the area and the community. We always talk about parking; there is never enough. I feel it is a deminimus deficiency. I feel some of these units will be seasonal. The parking does not bother me. The laundry will be a plus in the units.

Mr. Reilly – I agree with Mr. Moberg except on one point where I do think this is a big deal because you are improving something that was almost an eyesore.

Mr. Struncius – I was going to commend you on your preparedness on what you are putting into the project. It has similar residences and density around it. You are reducing the impervious coverage. I think over all what you are doing to improve the property is a plus; there is nothing negative that I can see.

Mr. Wolfersberger – 33 years ago you would have had a problem. It is a preexisting condition; it is an improvement. Surrounding area is similar. In favor.

Mr. Leonard – I agree with everything that has been said. I hope that what is done is what I see here. I do not want to get something different.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2006-53 with conditions.

In favor – Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Moberg, Leonard, Reilly, Reynolds…Yea
Opposed - None


Meeting adjourned 10:02 pm


Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published July23, 2007 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 445


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