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 19, 2008

Minutes

The June 19, 2008 Regular 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, Struncius, Moberg, Palisi, Reilly and Leonard Alternates: Reynolds, Ardito and Kelly
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the minutes from the May 15, 2008 meeting of the Board of Adjustment.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg and Ardito
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2008-07 of Point Lobster located at 401 Channel Drive.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2008-12 of Kadri Mirzo with property located at 106 Forman Avenue.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2008-09 of Dennis and Adele Ellison with property located at 316 Elizabeth Avenue.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2008-08 of Catherine and Margaret Loughran with property located at 19 Danby Place.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2008-05 of Judy Finnegan with property located at 504 Laurel Court.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving application#2008-06 of Andrew Seaman and Barbara Garcia with property located at 334 Curtis Avenue.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Moberg and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to memorialize the action and vote approving the extension of application #2006-45; 46; 47.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg and Ardito
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote amending Resolution #2007-11(2) of the Presbyterian Church.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg and Ardito
Opposed: None
Application #2008-11 – John Olson – 215 Randall Avenue – Block 130; Lot 18 – Applicant wishes to construct an open front porch to existing family dwelling.
(Carried without notice) Applicant is requesting to be carried to July 17, 2008 without notice
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reynolds to carry application #2008-11 of John Olson to July 17, 2008 without notice.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Leonard, Struncius, Moberg, Reilly and Reynolds
Opposed: None
Application #2008-17 – Michael P. Knorr – 800 Briarcliff Avenue – Block 1; Lot 37.01 – Applicant wishes to construct a front entrance open portico.
Applicant Michael P. Knorr, sworn, stated the following:
Trying to improve the aesthetics of his home.
Provide a measure of safety in inclement weather.
Neighbor’s on both sides of his home volunteered to speak on his behalf.
Picture entered as A-3.
Proposed portico will go over existing landing.
Deliberations
Mr. Leonard – I think what you want to do will enhance the look of the home. You are not intruding on your neighbor’s. In favor.
Mr. Reilly – I do not think it is unreasonable. In favor.
Mr. Reynolds – I went by the house; it is really nice. I think the portico will enhance the aesthetics. In favor
Mr. Wolfersberger – There are not any change in setbacks. In favor.
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2008-17 of Michael Knorr.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg, Reynolds and Ardito
Condition
The portico is not to be enclosed
Application #2008-19 – Chef’s International, Inc. – 107 Channel Drive; Block 171 ; Lot 1 – 6- Applicant would like to replace canvas awning with fiberglass roof; create a doorway connecting the loft to the outdoor deck area. Resolution 2007-322 before the Planning Board required that all existing non-conforming dwellings be removed from the property. That has not yet occurred.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Bob Cooper President of Chef’s International. Greg Sonto, Architect and Frank Bayer, Planner/Engineer.
Paul Struncius has stepped down from this application.
1. According to the application, the applicant is seeking the following variances:

A. To install a new roof to match a patio to be installed along with the addition of sliding glass doors and other improvements to the second floor restaurant of the property.

B. Applicant seeks re-approval of the existing variance for impervious coverage of 82.5% whereas 70% is permitted.


Based upon the sworn testimony of Gregg Sonnenfeld, A.I.A., the applicant’s Architect, the Board made the following finding of fact
1. The applicant proposes to install a translucent fiberglass roof with a wood structure.
2. The proposed roof will match the existing structure.
3. The structure is to remain open on three sides.
4. The existing floor is presently 21” higher than the deck. The floor will be lowered to improve the direct access to the outside deck area.
5. The proposal does not increase the load or use of the building.
6. The proposed roof will be more durable then the canvass roof that is presently in place.
7. The proposed roof will be a stronger and safer structure and will improve resistance to wind.
8. The applicant will not be expanding the deck area.
Based upon the sworn testimony of Robert Cooper, President of Chef’s international, Inc., the Board made the following findings of fact:
a. The addition of the new roof and sliding glass door will allow the loft area to be open for summer time use.
b. The proposal will not increase the number of seats. There are presently 208 seats and that number shall remain the same.
c. The canvas awning has been in service at this location since 1980.
Deliberations
Conditions
1. The structure is not to be enclosed.
2. Lots 1-6 shall be merged into a single lot through the filing of a Deed of Consolidation.
3. The adjacent parking lot owned by the Applicant is to be deed restricted against any use other than to serve the parking needs of the restaurant facility. The deed restriction is to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s engineer and attorney. This restriction may be exscinded by the Planning Board, Zoning Board or the governing body, as may be appropriate.

Mr. Leonard – I believe a permanent structure will look better. I am for consolidating the six lots and have a deed restriction on the parking lot.
Mr. Moberg – I agree with Mr. Leonard as far as the awnings. Parking needs to remain the same do to the size of the structure.
Mr. Reilly – We are supposed to look at the positive and negative. I cannot find a negative. I think the big positive is not only the appearance but the safety. I would be in favor.
Mr. Reynolds – I find this will be a great improvement. I am in favor
Mr. Wolfersberger - I agree with everyone.
Mr. Palisi – I think anytime we can do something to benefit the corporate community it is a win. It will expand the business but not impact the community.
Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2008-19.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Reynolds, Moberg, Reilly and Ardito
Opposed - none
Application #2008-18 – 308 Boardwalk LLC – Block 212; Lot 1.01 - Applicant has installed an animated sign on front of building and has expanded the business use to hold banquet/reception type functions on the beach.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant stated that they will show that this banquet/reception activity has been occurring on the beach for thirty years. I do not know of any other place in Monmouth or Ocean that you can eat on the beach. This portion of the operation is invisible to anyone on the boardwalk. Applicant’s argument is that it is not an expansion of a non-conforming use. We believe that there is no building. We do not believe that conducting a banquet in place of a restaurant is any different. Mr. Bassinder wanted to know what the difference is. The liquor license has allowed food and liquor to be served on the beach for thirty years. We believe this is all grandfathered.
Gordon Gemma, Professional Planner, sworn. Credentials, accepted. Gordon Gemma stated:
1. Uses permitted; recreational and restaurants as a conditional use.
2. The sign is permitted but a lit flashing sign is not.
3. No structure or building is allowed east of the boardwalk.
4. Add banquet and restaurant facility to an existing non-conforming restaurant use. That would be a D-2.
5. A-3 entered as picture of existing illuminated sign in question.
Mr. Moberg suggested getting right to Mrs. Petrillo’s questions.
Has there been any increase in size to the property (no). Has this activity taken place for many, many years? (Yes)

Chairman Struncius inquired about the Definition of restaurant versus banquet?
Gordon Gemma replied;
Any retail food establishment where food is sold primarily for consumption on premises.
Banquet – retail establishment that sells food, the ordinance does not separate.
What triggered this is that the establishment is located east of the boardwalk.

Gordon Gemma stated that Martell’s is a riparian grant. It is in an area that is given to Mr. Bassinder. The property will not increase; it is at its limit. Aerial photo entered as A-4. You can see that the property has natural boundaries. Mr. Palisi questioned if the next question will be a temporary roof structure and then want it to be permanent. I would like to know what the end game will be.

Based upon the sworn testimony of Gordon Gemma, P.P., the applicant’s Professional Planner, the Board made the following finding of fact:

A. The restaurant is in an RC zone which permits recreational uses and restaurants.

B. A sign is permitted in an RC zone, however, an illuminated, or flashing sign needs a variance.

C. This sign is located on the boardwalk along with flashing rides and is across the street from a fun house.

D. There is no negative impact on surrounding properties.


Based upon the sworn testimony of the applicant, David Bassinder, the Board made the following finding of facts:

A. The applicant seeks approval of a scrolling electric sign over a portion of the property, which is located east of the Boardwalk.

B. The applicant is also seeking approval to continue to operate in the same manner as it has for the past thirty years since he has owned Martell’s Sea Breeze Restaurant.

C. When the applicant purchased the establishment thirty years ago, it was used as a bar and restaurant on the beach. The year following the purchase he started serving food on the beach.

D. The applicant’s change of use was questioned by the Zoning Officer as it appeared that banquets were being conducted on the beach area.

E. The applicant agreed that at times there may be a large group of people that are seated together which may constitute a “banquet”. However, restaurants are permitted to configure the seating any way the desire.

F. The applicant stated that most of his banquets on the beach are a hundred people or less.
Conditions
1. 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.

2. No tables or banquet operations are to occur beyond the jog in the pier and the plan is to be modified to delineate the area to be used.

3. The applicant will sign a Developer’s Agreement which will allow for regular and emergency police and community use, in a form acceptable to the Borough Attorney.

4. Usage will be provided to community organizations and non-profit organizations.

5. There will be no messages regarding alcohol.

Deliberations

Mr. Wolfersberger – Has been there for thirty years. I do not believe it has a negative impact. I would be in favor. Martell’s is a mainstay and reflects class and I have no problem as long as the Bassinder have the property. If the property is sold that would be different. I have no trouble with the use but I am not in favor of the sign.

Mr. Leonard - I agree with Mr. Wolfersberger with the use. When I first saw Martell’s I thought it was just a bar. I do believe it is an expansion of use but I do not think it has a negative impact. I did not even notice the sign and I was sitting right across from it. I am in favor of the use and sign.

Mr. Palis – I agree with Mr. Wolfersberger that we have to be careful where we put the sign. It is not reflecting off residential uses. Knowing the operation and how it is run, I am not concerned. I think the restaurant is a great amenity; you run a first class operation. I am in favor.

Mr. Moberg – As far as the sign goes, if it was going on Central and Ocean it would be a concern, but it is fine where it is going. As far as the operation I do not see it as an explanation; I see it as a continuation of the use that has been there. I am in favor.

Mr. Reilly – Like Mr. Moberg I have a problem calling it an expansion because it has been there for 28 years. As far as the sign goes, my only gripe is that it should have received approval before it went up. I am in favor.

Mr. Ardito – I appreciate the testimony. I am in favor of the sign; important to have for emergencies.

Mr. Struncius – I agree with Mr. Moberg and Mr. Reilly and do not really call this an expansion but I do call it a definition of an existing use. Our role is to protect everyone’s interest. We are able to understand how it is run and what you expect to run there and that is important. The sign is not intrusive in anyway. There are many positives from the availability to the police for emergencies.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to approve the electronic sign with conditions.

In favor. : Leonard, Palisi, Struncius, Moberg, Reily and Ardito.
Opposed: Mr. Wolfersberger

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to approve the expansion of a pre-exisiting use. Site plan will show delineation of banquet area not to go past last step in pier.

In favor: Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. leonard, Mr. Palisi, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Moberg, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Ardito

Opposed: None

Application approved with conditions

Meeting adjourned 10:04 pm


Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board


Published September05, 2008 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 640


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