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

February 5, 2009


The February 5, 2009 Special meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:32pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Moberg, and Spader Alternates: Reynolds, Ardito and Kelly
Mike Palisi was acting Chairman in Mr. Struncius absence
Motion by Mr. Ardito, second by Mr. Reynolds to approve and memorialize the minutes of January 15, 2009 meeting.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Palisi, Moberg, Reynolds, Ardito and Kelly
Application #2009-01 – Joseph A. Miele – 66 Harvard Avenue; Block 131; Lot 3 – Applicant wishes to construct a three story single-family dwelling.
Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Jim P. O’Brien, Licensed Professional Architect. Office located in Morristown, NJ. BA and Masters in Architecture. Credentials accepted. Jim O’Brien did not anticipate variances. Conceptual sketch entered as A-3. Jim Wolfersberger questioned the roof lines because they were not all depicted from the rear elevation. Mr. Leonard inquired if decks off of attics are permitted? (RS - Not sure, will research) Mr. Leonard suggested that it adds to living space. Jim O’Brien believed at the time of designing the home that he was within code. Steve Ardito inquired as to the square footage of the second floor? (1994 square feet) General rule of Zoning is that if it is not included it is excluded. Steve Pardes commented that he believes that rule is just used in pertaining to “uses”. Mr. Leonard believes an attic is somewhere that you store things. We might allow 500 square feet of habitable space, but I do not believe it should be surrounded by decks.
Mr. Leonard inquired if they were raising the house. (No) Jim O’Brien stated that building coverage has been increased by 4%. Rear deck accounts for 4% increase. Mr. Palisi said that Jim O’brien had stated that he designed the home to code and clearly he had not. Jim O’Brien stated that they needed a deck that size to accommodate a lift for the mother-in-law in the future. Mr. Palisi said he did not see the lift in the drawings. Jim O’Brien said it isn’t depicted but that they might need it in the future. Mr. Palisi wanted clarification as to why they should approve excess building coverage for something that the applicant does not need at this time. Applicant agrees to scale down the deck and get request to get credit for the calculations of the shed that has been counted twice (80 square feet) and remove pavers (500 square feet) on the side of the home which reduces impervious coverage to 51.8%. Mr. Leonard inquired if that is also a deck on the third story in the front of the hone. (JO - Yes) Mr. Palisi stated that it looks like the third story deck goes around the entire home. (JO - Yes). Mr. Palisi inquired why there are so many decks? (JO – for the view) Mr. Galvin stated that open decks are not to be constructed in the front yard. Mr. Leonard would like the applicant to remove all decks on the third story. Mr. Wolfersberger agrees; He thinks the front is fine but the rear is not. Steve Pardes states that the a/c units are placed where they would be most efficient and the units are the quietest ones manufactured. Mr. Moberg comments that they are located only two feet off the neighbor’s property line. Joe Miele stated that they are quiet units (62 decibels) and will be located at the FEMA required height. Mr. Moberg would like to see them somewhere that they will not affect the neighbor’s. Hand out on Lennox a/c unit is marked A-4. Mr. Reynolds suggested that since part of the deck is being removed that the a/c units could be moved to the rear yard.
The Board would like to see impervious coverage reduced to 51% and building coverage not to exceed 35.2%.
Board would like to see all third decks removed except the rear deck.
Mr. Moberg thinks that we are redesigning the applicant’s project and thinks maybe the Board is going to far.
Comments/Questions from audience

Candace Donoghue - 1304 Baltimore – commented on what a beautiful home it is.
Leonard – I agree it is a beautiful looking home. I am glad we have reduced some variances. The main thing that bothers me is the issue of the third floor. I do not believe what is here meets the intent of the ordinance. I am not in favor of this application as proposed.
Wolfersberger – I think with the changes of the roof lines and other things I might be in favor but I want to see the drawings before I approve anything. I think the front of the home is beautiful and I have no trouble with a small deck in the rear.
Reynolds – I thank you for your wiliness to work with us. With the changes to the roof lines, rear deck and the small third floor rear deck I would be in favor.
Spader – I do not want to vote on anything until I see the final plan.
Ardito – You have made significant compromises and changes. I believe you have a good feel for what we are thinking. I would like to see the rendering before I bless it.
Palisi – This is wonderful. We do embrace this kind of change. We are over sensitive to the intrusion on the neighbor’s. I appreciate your concessions.
Motion by, second by to carry application #2009-01 to March 5, 2009 to give the applicant time to make required changes.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Spader, Reynolds, Leonard, Palisi, Moberg and Ardito
Clarification of Application #2006-10 – Anthony and Maureen Haddad; 203 Forman Avenue. Applicant is wishing to get clarification of condition #8.
John J. Jackson, attorney for applicant, states that the applicant in the previous hearing always intended to serve food. Jeanette Kellington, attorney, has been retained to represent the Galinskie’s who are objectors. John Jackson stated that the condition in the resolution states “That food may not be served in the owner’s unit”. Meaning that they wouldn’t serve it in their private unit, but they always intended to serve food outside of the unit. The discussion in the record stated that you cannot serve food in a rooming house and that statement is erroneous. The owner’s have a room set up on the second floor where they always planned to serve breakfast. He read from state statue NJSA 40:55-68.1 - that stipulates that any hotel, guest house, bed and breakfast that operates in a class 5 & 6 towns may operate on a full year basis not withstanding any municipal ordinance. Mike Palisi questioned if that meant we cannot create our own rules. Mr. Galvin said he would have to check to confirm that we are a class 5 town.
Mr. Haddad, applicant sworn, stated that he would like to say that he is the only site that is pre-certified as a historic site in Point Pleasant Beach. He commented that they have a small sitting room on the second floor with small tables to serve breakfast and high-tea. He had previously stated that he wanted to be a high end establishment. Mr. Haddad said he is bringing in Honeymooners, people from Europe and people that are celebrating anniversaries. We are competing with upscale Inns in Spring Lake and Bay Head. Pictures submitted show the interior of the renovated Inn. He stated that he never said that they would not serve food. Tom Spader pointed out that his attorney stated food would not be served.
Mr. Galvin reminded the parties that this is not a variance hearing. It is just clarifying the previous resolution.
Jeanette Kellington, attorney for objectors agrees that the applicant pulled the Bed and Breakfast off the table and that it would be a rooming house. The applicant stated that it would be “less intense”. The concerns of the objectors were the parking and the common area; the applicant stated they would have club chairs in the common area; there was no talk of having tables there and that food would be served. The testimony did not exist because food was never an issue. Mr. Palisi questioned what the concern of serving food was? (The traffic) Mr. Palisi believed that food service will not be open to the public; the food will just be for the guest. Jeanette Kellington stated that there was not any testimony in reference to food service. Mr. Moberg said that it was probably because they are already permitted by ordinance to serve food. He believes that is why it was not discussed. Jeanette Kellington referred to the transcript on page 167 where Mr. Galvin states that “there will be no service of food on the premises”. John Jackson refers to page 145 of the transcript where it says no one will be served in the owner’s unit. John Jackson believes that the issue got confused between serving meals to the guest in the common area and serving them in the owner’s unit. Mr. Galvin pointed out that Mr. Pardes never objected to any of the conditions when I read them into the record at the end of the transcript.

Mr. Leonard – I read the transcript. There is a specific line that the applicant states that food would not be served. I believe that it was loud and clear that there wasn’t going to be any food served. In my mind it was never any part of the deal.
Mr. Spader – Knowing the way this board works; if there was an issue of food in a residential area that there would have been a lot of questions and that didn’t happen. If the applicant would have said that it was going to be a Bed and Breakfast there would have been more questions. Listening to the testimony I believe it was something that was off the table.
Mr. Reynolds – Through research we know that food is permitted in a rooming house; I think the only issue is where it would be served and that we decided it would not be in the owners unit. I think the way the resolution was written; I think the only issue was where the food would be served. I have ten people in my home on the weekend and cook for them and there is not that much more garbage.
Mr. Wolfersberger – This is unfortunate and I believe the intent is fine. I believe that back 2006 my vote was based on the fact that there was no service of food.
Mr. Moberg – I really believe the intention that night was to allow breakfast to be served to the guest which is allowed by ordinance.
Mr. Ardito – It seemed like the bigger issues that night were the ones that needed the variances. I recall the testimony about the food and it stated that there would not be cooking facilities in the individual units. The condition just states that there would not be serving of food in the owners unit.
Mr. Palisi – My gut and what I want are not what I can factor into this decision. Unfortunately our decision is based on previous testimony. We are not a perfect board, but we do not miss much. If we had known food was going to be served we would have talked about the garbage and deliveries. I cannot tell you yes because I do not believe that we considered it. That does not mean we would not consider it and I hope that we see you again.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard that upon clarification of the resolution the board finds “that there was not an intention to serve food to the guest”.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Spader, Leonard, Palisi, Moberg
Opposed – Reynolds and Ardito

Meeting adjourned at 10:58pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board

Published March09, 2009 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 754

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