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 4, 2007


The October 4, 2007 Special 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: Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Simon, Chairman Moberg and Mrs. Tooker Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Ardito.

Motion by Mrs. Tooker, Second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the minutes of September 20, 2007.

In favor: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Chairman Moberg, Leonard, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote denying application #2007-01 OF Elie and Pierre Chedid, 103 Forman Avenue.

In favor: Simon, Wolfersberger, Leonard, Chairman Moberg, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2007-10 of Thomas and Dawn Heanue of 207 Curtis Avenue.

In favor: Simon, Wolfersberger, Leonard, Chairman Moberg, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed: None

Application #2007-18 – 1301 Ocean Avenue, LLC; 1 Ocean Avenue LLC; Block 176; Lot 44; Applicant wishes to demolish existing two single family dwellings and a restaurant and construct two, 2 ½ story single family dwellings. Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer/Planner. Credentials accepted. This application is for removal of 2 single family structures and 1 restaurant structure to be replaced by 2 new residential structures. Site is located along curve in Ocean Avenue, which turns into Inlet Drive. Property has numerous pre-existing bulk variances. Bob Burdick stated that for a use variance to be granted the applicant must show how the advantages requested outweigh the detriments. Property is mainly surrounded by residential properties. Most allowed uses in Marine Commercial are not feasible. Parking on site is limited and does not provide adequate parking for retail use. Appropriate use of site is limited and applicant believes proposed use is most practical. The average density in this area, excluding Harbor Head is 17.5 units per acre; applicant is proposing a density of 11.4 units per acre. Lot is fully compatible with 89% of uses in the area. Proposed homes will meet all flood and FEMA requirements. Parking requirements will be less with removal of restaurant. I believe the proposed plan will improve existing conditions. Proposed structures will be pulled back from the road and meet side yard requirements. Surrounding homes will be minimally affected by the added story. All surrounding lots are fully developed, leaving no additional property to be added. The only negatives I can see is the additional noise from the kids playing in the pool. Applicant is eliminating the need for a variance for impervious coverage. Present impervious coverage is 93.8%. The new proposal calls for 37.4% impervious coverage. Mr. Wolfersberger questioned Mr. Burdick’s references to the MC-2 zone since this is the MC zone.

Audience questions

Carolyn Kelly, 4B Inlet Drive – Inquired how this plan fits in with the NPP plan.

John C. Amelchenko, professional architect. Credentials accepted. Colorized Site plan board marked as exhibit A-3 dated 9/19/2007. A-4 – colorized elevations (architects site plan). Existing structures are old and substandard. Applicant proposes to demolish all three structures and build two-single family homes. They will have a consistent architectural theme, there will be a court yard between the homes and the structures will be compliant with building codes and FEMA. Living area of second floor is about 720 square feet. Third floor will be 309 square feet of livable space (master bedroom, closet and bathroom); about 50 feet more than permitted by ordinance. Condensers will be located internally in courtyard. Site will be substantially greener. Plans are an aesthetic upgrade to property. Very similar to homes being built on Manasquan side of inlet and will be a nice identifying marker to the area. Homes are to be about 34 feet I height. Chairman Moberg questioned the surrounding home heights. Bob Burdick answered 17 feet and 19 feet; approximately 15 feet higher than what is there now.

Audience questions

Nina Halter, 16A Inlet Drive – What do you see when you drive down Ocean Avenue? All the pretty stuff is in the front. (JA – You are right you will not see the detail) Nina Halter – You will just see a big wall. How many parking spaces? JA – 4 parking spaces.

Carolyn Kelly – 4 B Inlet Drive – Are there any fences or retaining walls planned? BB – There will be fences around the pool but there will not be any retaining walls. CK -Where will the garbage be kept? (JA – I would imagine by the back door.) Carolyn Kelly inquired occupancy. JA - Legal occupancy is one person per 200 square feet.

Maryann Lowe – When people park will they be entering at the corner by Inlet and Ocean? (JA – Yes)

Richard Striano, applicant, sworn. When property is renovated and rebuilt it will be beautiful and owner occupied. I plan on occupying the one closest to Ocean Avenue.

Audience comments

Carolyn Kelly, 4B Inlet Drive – The building and design is impeccable; but beautiful for here or Boston? My question is the height. It is not in character with the surrounding properties. Pictures entered as N-1 and N-2. My concern is loss of future commercial use. The NPP letter states that they are looking to support tourism in Point Beach. Once the potential is gone you cannot get it back.

Maryann Lowe, sworn – My husband and I have been home owners since 1978. Maryann Lowe read prepared statement stating that smaller homes are being replaced homes that are excessive. Maryann Lowe stated that her retaining wall has been taken down many times by cars traveling too fast. Entered picture N-4. Concerned for pedestrians walking by. Proposed height of 35 feet next to hers at 16feet will affect the circulation of air and sunlight. Multiple monster houses (and these are beautiful) on undersized lots are out of place.

Nina Halter, sworn – the phrase air, light and privacy keeps getting kicked around but all the cottages are around 15 feet high and I think these homes will infringe on our privacy, light and air.

Steven A. Pardes – Summation


Mr. Wolfersberger – Mr. Amelchenko’s firm always does an attractive job. Positive – No more restaurant. Violations reduced. Negatively I am concerned about the height for the neighbors. I am really concerned that I should not be rezoning. If the town fathers wanted this they would have them. As much as I would like to approve it I do not have enough information to spot zone. I would be opposed.

Mr. Reynolds – I have lived here all my life and there have been successful restaurants there. They are requesting 9 variances and I do not see any good putting these two large homes there. It is not our job to second guess the town fathers; they passed an ordinance removing homes from the MC zone. If they rezone the area I would revisit this.

Mr. Moberg – In my opinion single family homes are suited for this location. We are replacing two living units with two homes. If the applicant were thinking of putting a restaurant or bar on the corner he has no place to park. That is why I think single family homes do fit. I don’t see a commercial use of any size or capacity making it, but the town fathers said no homes and I feel we are bound by their requirements.

Mr. Leonard – I feel the same way as Chairman Moberg. I think the traffic is worse off with commercial traffic. I wish it were different because I think this is more suited for residential.

Mr. Reilly – I would agree with what is proposed, (except for the height), that it is an improvement. Very recently the town fathers specifically removed residential uses. I cannot support it.

Mrs. Tooker – I agree with my colleagues. The height is too much for the bungalow community.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to deny application #2007-18 of 1301 Ocean Avenue LLC, 1 Ocean Avenue.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Chairman Moberg, Tooker, Leonard, Reilly and Reynolds
Opposed: Simon

Meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm

Attest – Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published October26, 2007 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 471

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