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


April 3, 2008

Minutes

The April 3, 2008 Special meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:35pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Wolfersberger, Pasola, Struncius, Moberg and Leonard Alternates: Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito

Motion by Wolfersberger second by Moberg to approve the minutes from March 20, 2008.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Reynolds and Reilly

Motion by Mr. Moberg, second by Mr. Reilly to approve the extension of Resolution #2006-38 or Railroad Square.

In favor: Struncius, Moberg, Wolfersbrger, Pasola, Leonard, Reynolds and Reilly.
Opposed: None

Application #2008-10 - 1301 Ocean Avenue, LLC, 1 Ocean Avenue – Block 176, Lot 44; Applicant wishes to construct a three (3) story commercial structure with retail/professional space and two (2) residential apartments above with an in ground swimming pool.

Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant.
John C. Amelchenko, Professional architect stated.

1. Current restaurant approx 4 feet off property line and not conforming to
FEMA regulations.
2. Garage apartment is approx 1900 square feet. Sits 1.9 feet off south property line. Not conforming to FEMA regulations.
3. Bldg. #3 sits on Eastern property line of Ocean Ave.; 1240 square feet; 2-story residential structure.
4. All structures have various forms of non-conformity.
5. Previous application eliminated commercial component and has 2 residential structures.
6. This application makes the commercial component significant part of
proposal.
7. A-3 - three dimensional representation of proposed structure.
8. A-4 – Colored rendering
9. Enhancing safety of site by placing the parking in front so you do not have to back out.
10. New Structure will be further off property line improving site triangle.
11. A-5 - Revised third floor plan.
12. Structure is close to the 1/3 of the floor below for 2 ½ stories, but is still more than the 500 square feet.
13. 856 square feet per unit includes the stairs.
14. Exterior will be cedar shingles and a copper roof.
15. Small shed in rear of property for residential storage.
16. Small pool in rear for residential use.
17. Enhanced space around building creating significant setbacks providing for more light and air.
18. Substantial reductions of building and impervious coverage.
19. Setback improved from 6 ft; 4 ft; and 1.9 ft
20. Overall impact of building will not be detrimental to neighbors.
21. The present site is void of green space.
22. Building will be 35 feet in height; cupola is 38.5 feet. Architectural details are an exception for height.


Audience Questions

Diane Mc Govern – Why is a pool required for two apartments? (JA – It is an amenity) You say there are only 4 parking spaces? (JA – 6 spaces, 4 for residence – 1 handicap and one regular for retail.) Does the 35 foot height include the FEMA requirement? (Yes)

Alita Weinstein – I saw the brick foundation was much higher on the Olde Seaport. (JA)Lowest floor will be a concrete slab. Finished floor will be at base flood elevation. Voiced concern about traffic; Building seems to be very large.

Harvey Weinstein – I love the rendering, but to me it seems like a very large building, almost as large as the Coast Guard Station. (JA – not as large as the Coast Guard Station)

Carolyn Kelly – What is the depth of the building? (JA – about 46 feet deep)

Miriam Lowe – Concerned about the parking. How are the fumes going to affect me?
(JA – closest space to your property line would be about 10 feet. Landscaping will be added for a green buffer).

Joe Grueber – Is the sidewalk a different level than the parking lot. Will the pool be open all night? (SP – residential pool, not open to public)

Ann Marie Rossi – Will there be access to the cupola? (No) Which floor are the balconies on? (2nd). They are step out balconies. How many bedrooms in each unit? (3)

Robert A. Burdick, Professional Engineer/Professional Planner, stated

1. Mixed use building with retail use that has the flexibility to go to office use on first floor with 2 residential units above it.
2. Residential pool and shed.

Dennis Galvin stepped in to clarify that offices are not a permitted use in the MC zone.

3. Requesting bulk variances for lot area and lot depth. Requesting 3 stories instead of two.
4. Building will be compliant.
5. All existing variances will be eliminated.
6. Reduce impervious from 96% to 46%.
7. Building will be CAFRA compliant
8. Zoning officer had determined that the western property line is the rear yard and we are requesting a variance.
9. Advantages – Air, light and open space. Building and impervious are significantly reduced. All consolidated into one building. Neighbors will have better site lines.
10. Eliminating commercial restaurant.
11. Recharge structures located under site.
12. Pool size – 10 feet x 18 feet
13. Pool mechanicals will be located in southwest corner of structure.
14. Shed height – 14 feet
15. Side fence – 6 feet
16. Board on Board fence
17. a/c will be located 10 feet away from the property line and 20 feet away from the closet home



Audience Questions

Carolyn Kelly – Inquired where the pool would drain? (Hose to street drain).
Voiced her concern in reference to sink holes.

Joe Gruber – Will the pool need to be fenced in? (yes)

Rick Striano, applicant – Stated how he and his family are looking forward to be part of this community.

Mr. Pasola inquired if the pool was something the applicant could do without? (Striano- I can but I would rather have it)

Alita Weinstein, 40 Harborhead – Resident for 40 years. Concerned about the character of the neighborhood. She is worried that it will start a domino effect. Building is nice but it looks massive.

Carolyn Kelly – 4B Inlet Drive – Design is beautiful but my concerns are pool parties and also the large building creating bigger shadows.

Joseph Gruber – 621 Trenton Avenue – Get rid of the second floor and the pool.

Marion Lowe, 1 Inlet Drive – I am concerned of the noise level and the disruption to my family in the summer. It is a lovely design. Picture entered N-1

Ann Marie Rossi, 12 B Inlet Drive – This feels good compared to the other plans. It does seem massive, but it is beautiful. I hope it helps the whole area.

Steven A. Pardes - Closing statement

Deliberations


Mr. Wolfersberger – I think this pool is a puddle and not a concern for me.

Mr. Moberg – The pool is not a concern for me either

Mr. Pasola – I do have concerns about the pool. The pool could become a policing problem. It is a beautiful building and I have no other concerns.

Mr. Reilly – I agree it is a beautiful building. The coverage and safety are positive. I have concerns about the mass and the height, but if it is not this building under the current zoning it will be another. I do have a concern about the pool.

Mr. Leonard – I think you listened to what the board said and I do appreciate it. You are moving the structure off the street. I am not concerned about the height because it is allowed. I would like you to get to the one third with the second story. I am concerned with the pool; being a rental you cannot control what goes on.

At this time Mr. Galvin suggest that they bifurcate the principal use and the pool.

Mr. Reynolds – I have no problem with the pool. I think this is beautiful and exactly what I was hoping for.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I think you have corrected a number of variances. The pie shape is a unique piece of property. You made an extra special effort to conform. We are getting rid of three older structures. I think it will look perfect in that location. In favor with the pool.

Mr. Moberg – We listened to the concerns of the neighbors and the words we hear are massive and height. This building is smaller than what he could build. He could have a structure that is 20% larger. This applicant has changed his plans upside down to comply. I classify this as a residential area even though it is Marine Commercial. I have no problem with this application as it stands.

Chairman Struncius – I don’t think I need to add anything. The one thing that might not of been mentioned is the lot size; area and depth; and I do not believe there is anything we could do.

Conditions


1. Home is to comply to FEMA requirements

2. Building is to be constructed according to testimony and include cedar shingles and copper roof.

3. Applicant is to add resident only parking sign

4. Applicant is not to rent to businesses that omit noxious odors

5. Shed will comply with ordinance

6. A/c units will be located in southwest corner.

7. Board on Board fence

8. Cedar shingles and copper roof

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Pasola to approve application #2008-10 with conditions.

In favor: Wolfersberger, Pasola, Struncius, Moberg, Leonard, Reilly, and Reynolds

Application Approved with conditions

Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Reilly to deny the application for the pool.

In favor: Pasola, Leonard and Reilly
Opposed: Wolfersberger, Struncius, Moberg and Reynolds

Pool denied




Meeting adjourned

Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board


Published April21, 2008 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 552


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