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

March 19, 2009


The March 19, 2009 Regular 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, Moberg, Struncius, Leonard and Reilly Alternates: Reynolds, Ardito and Kelly
Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Reynolds to memorialize the minutes of the March 5, 2009 Board of Adjustment meeting.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: None
Application #2008-14 – Jude Delane, 50 Sanborn Avenue – Block 152, Lot 7 – Applicant wishes to convert detached garage to a cabana.
Application withdrawn
Application #2008-32 – Ken Stewart – 65 Sanborn Avenue – Block 157; Lot 13 – Applicant wishes to remove one deck and construct a family/library room, extend the kitchen and dining area and add to existing deck on east side.
Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Ken Stewart, applicant, sworn. Applicant stated that when he retired he received his office furniture as a retirement gift and would like to have some extra room for an office to place his office furniture in. When the home next door went from one story to two stories it created a lack of privacy in his family room. Neighbor’s can look right in the applicant’s family room from their deck. Colored rendering entered as A-3; portrays home as it will look with addition. Photos entered taken fall of 2008; A-4 through A-14; package shows all sides of home and existing setbacks.
No audience question/comments
Wolfersberger – Lot is a little larger than normal. Where is the line that you draw in the sand for building coverage? Is it 34% then 36% will be alright? Where do we stop?
Mr. Reynolds – I believe we go by case by case. I can see where you need privacy. The decking is open and none of the proposed addition can be seen from the front of the house. I see this as deminimus I am in favor.
Mr. Reilly – I also have Mr. Wolfersberger’s concerns about where we stop with this. We have to look at this as a case by case basis. This is a modest proposal. If this was a two story addition I would have a different feel about it. This does not add significantly to the volume. The fact that 3.8% is deck which allows for the runoff, I can get comfortable with this. I am leaning in favor of this.
Mr. Moberg – If 34.5% coverage was all building I would be against it, but the total building is only 30.7 I don’t have a problem with this at all.
Mr. Struncius – Mr. Wolfersberger has a good point, but again I think here with the low single floor addition; it is modest. I do think you are making the house more useable. This is one of those times that I think it works without detriment.

Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Reynolds to approve application #2008-32
In favor: Wolfersberger, Moberg, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito
Opposed: Leonard

Application #2009-05 – Chef’s International – 62 Broadway – Block – 164/165/170/171 Lot – 1 & 10/,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 & 15/16/1,2,3,4,5,& 6 – Applicant seeks amended preliminary and final site plan approval to permit the replacement of the temporary bathroom facility at the site with a permanent bathroom structure in the same location.
John J. Jackson, attorney for applicant. Prior approval has been granted from Planning Board to build a Pavilion, but timing, economics and business considerations are keeping the applicant from going forward with the Pavilion at this time but they plan to in the future. The applicant is looking to install the temporary permanent bathrooms into the plumbing system. Jeffrey K. Carr, Licensed Professional Planner/Licensed Professional Engineer, sworn. Credentials accepted. Proceeded to review Engineer’s letter; Exhibits A- 3 existing conditions and A – 4 colored rendition of the proposal entered. Jeffrey K. Carr stated the following:
1. Bathrooms will not be able to be seen from the street.
2. The bathrooms will be in a secure area.
3. Patrons will not be able to access the docks or parking lot directly from bathrooms.
Bob Cooper, President of Chef’s International, sworn, employed with them since 1983. Bob Cooper stated the following:
1. Bathrooms will allow patio Bar customers to stay on the patio instead of leaving to go inside the Wharfside restaurant.
2. The permanent bathrooms will eliminate the need for a pump out truck to come every day to empty temporary bathrooms.

Audience questions/comments
Richard Bilotti – Commented on “Pavilion approval” and the need for the applicant to secure liquor license approval from Mayor and Council. Richard Bilotti suggested placing bathrooms right on the patio.
Joseph Bilotti – Commented on why the bathrooms are so important. Prior to them being installed patrons would urinate on his property. Joseph Bilotti stated that he believes the Patio Bar continuously violates the fire Code capacity regulations.
Mr. Leonard – I see a need to have facilities on the Patio. I think it is better to have a more permanent structure and eliminate the need for the truck to pull up to empty them. I am in favor of the application
Mr. Wolfersberger – I think it is critically important for them to have the bathrooms. This way they can have more control of the outside area and keep the count of patrons more accurate.
Mr. Moberg – It is always better to have a crowd contained in an enclosed area. I believe this will be an improvement for safety in the area.
Mr. Reilly –I too am in favor of this. I am in agreement with all previous testimony.
Mr. Reynolds – This reduces any chance of an accidental spill from the truck. In favor
Steve Ardito – I am also in favor. I think this is a definite benefit to the neighborhood.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2009-05.
In favor: Wolfersberger, Leonard Moberg, Struncius, Reilly, Reynolds and Ardito.
Application approved

Application # 2009-06 – Jeffrey S., Catherine L., John J. Jr., and John J. Campbell Sr. – 1312 Ocean Avenue and 1313 Ocean Front – Block 17.01 Lot 20 and Block 17.01 Lot 33 - Applicant is appealing the zoning officer’s Interpretation that these lots are merged under the “Loechner Doctrine”.
John J. Jackson, attorney or applicant. Applicant is appealing the ruling of the zoning Officer based on the fact that the applicant has have been paying taxes on (2) two separate lots for 37 (thirty-seven) years and that neither lot is undersized. John Jackson believes the Board should look at the law, weigh the facts and make the determination. The question is does it makes sense to merge two pre-existing lots where the ocean lot is the one that is developed and that there is an existing easement that gives the ocean front lot street access?
John J. Campbell, applicant. On September 8, 1972 applicant purchased the ocean front lot (lot 20) and built a home. October 17, 1973 the builder asked the applicant if they would like to purchase the street lot with the easement to their lot. Their intent was always to sell or build on the second lot. For 37 years they have paid taxes on two separate lots. Never did the applicant think that the second lot was not a buildable lot.
Dennis Galvin – Thinks the merger Doctrine is the most complicated land use issue and believes the original planning act was meant to clean up small non-conforming lots. Both lots have sufficient area but the one lot in the back would require a “c” variance because it does not front on a road. These cases are highly fact sensitive.
John Jackson stated that the boardwalk was considered a street and the easement gives adequate access. Mr. Struncius commented that the aerial shows that all similar lots in the area have homes built on them.
John Campbell stated that he believes this problem occurred because he appealed the taxes and his expert testified that the taxes would be lower if it was one lot. John Campbell never agreed to merge the lots but he believes that is what precipitated the lot merger.
Mr. Reynolds – My impression is that we are here to interpret the law. My interpretation is that this law implies to undersized lots. You have paid taxes for 37 years on two lots; I find it ridiculous that we are here. I believe it is two lots.
Mr. Reilly – When you look at the pattern of development in this area it seems hard for me to understand how this would be a violation of the original concept behind the Loechner Doctrine. I have a tough time seeing why these lots should be merged. I am in favor of the applicant.
Mr. Moberg – I think Mr. Campbell’s aerial view speaks volumes; there are 8 or 9 lots on the block developed the same way. It seems simple.
Mr. Leonard – The lots do conform as far as the size; looking at the pictures it is the character of the whole area. With all that put together I lean towards not agreeing with the Zoning officer.
Mr. Wolfersberger – I can see where the non-conformity exists; the only thing that makes him feel he should grant this is that all the properties in the area are consistent with this.
Mr. Ardito – Well over 50 years since the town should have merged these lots. He thinks since the area has been developed like this that these two lots remain separate.
Chairman Struncius – When the Zoning Officer brings forth something like this it is important to ere cautiously. Legally this is difficult. The Doctrine is not strictly meant for undersized lots. When you look at this zone every other lot has been built this way. Common sense over all view says this fits and makes sense.
Motion by Mr. Leonard second by Mr. Reilly to reverse the zoning officer’s ruling and state that the lots are not merged.
Application #2008-26 – Long Point, LLC, 803 Long Point Lane, Block 118; Lot 20 – Applicant wishes to construct a new single family dwelling with new tennis court.
Jay Reynolds has stepped down from the following application
John J. Jackson, attorney for applicant David Bassinder. Configuration of lot makes it necessary for a variance. Tim Lurie, Engineer/Planner. A-3 – Mounted plans. Tim Lurie states:
1. Each lot goes out to middle of lane.
2. Looking to build single family home with tennis court.
3. Low density zone; provides 17, 731.95 square feet where 15,000 square feet is required.
4. Meets all bulk requirements except rear setback.
5. Tennis court will be set on a surface which will make it 50% impervious coverage which will eliminate an impervious coverage variance.
6. Home will be aesthetically pleasing.
7. He believes it can be granted without detriment to the surrounding area.

J. Craig Solitis – neighbor to the rear stated that he believes that this will be a great addition to the neighborhood.

1. Tennis court will have a 50% impervious base.
2. Tennis court fence will have landscaped screened buffer.
Mr. Wolfersberger – We have an upgrade of an older home in a private area. Tennis court will not be concrete and it will be easy to be removed. In favor
Mr. Leonard – Setback has been improved and we have a new home. In favor
Mr. Reilly – One of my concerns is the reaction of the neighbor’s and there is only one here and he is in favor.

Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Kelly to approve application with conditions.
In favor – Wolfersberger, Leonard, Moberg, Struncius, Reilly, Ardito and Kelly
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 10:49pm
Attest: Karen L. Mill, clerk of the Board

Published April14, 2009 | Board of Adjustment Minutes | 773

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