December 7, 2006 - Borough of Point Pleasant Beach

MINUTES

The 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: Chairman Moberg, Mr. Simon, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Palisi, Mr. Struncius, Mrs. Tooker and Mr. Cangelosi Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Spader, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Reynolds.

Motion by Mr. Leonard second by Mr. Wolfersberger to approve and memorialize the minutes of October 25, 2006.

Vote: Simon, Leonard, Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Reilly, Spader and Reynolds…..…Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Leonard second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve and memorialize the minutes of November 2, 2006.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Tooker, Leonard, Spader and Reilly………..Yea
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to approve the Board of Adjustment 2007 Regular and Special Meeting dates.

Vote: Chairman Moberg, Mr. Simon, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Palisi, Mr. Struncius, Mrs. Tooker and Mr. Cangelosi Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Spader, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Reynolds…………………………………………………………………………………..Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2005-31- National Sign Service (CVS), 1201-03 Richmond Avenue; Block 35.01, Lot 2; Applicant wishes to remove existing free standing pylon sign and replace it with a new 63.61 sq. ft. pylon sign with an electronic message board. (Applicant requesting to withdraw application without prejudice)

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Wolfersberger to allow Application #2005-31, National Sign Service (CVS) to withdraw their application without prejudice.

Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Palisi, Moberg, Tooker, Cangelosi and Leonard………Yea
Opposed: None

Application #2005-12 – First Baptist Church, 708 McLean Avenue; Block 203, Lot 25; Applicant wishes to construct a new building to provide the Church with classroom space in the lower level and a multi-purpose room with kitchen facilities in the upper level. The applicant is also seeking preliminary and final site plan approval. (Carried without Notice)

Mike Palisi will be acting Chair since Chairman Moberg has stepped down from this application. Mike Palisi has listened to the CD from the November 2, 2006 meeting and signed a certification stating that.
Mike Palisi explained that Steven A. Pardes, Attorney for applicant will deliver his summation and then the Board will go into deliberation and vote.

Steven A. Pardes delivered his summation addressing the Board and the neighbors concerns.
Mr. Pardes began his summation by stating that there have not been late submissions on this application. Then he addressed the comment that there were numerous variances. What the applicant is trying to do is meet the modern needs of the church. The fear that the neighbor’s have is that it will go beyond what is proposed. Parking is designed to provide one space per 6 seats. The applicant has agreed that the building can only be used for one use at a time. It will not have multiple uses occurring at one time. The applicant is not proposing a commercial kitchen. There might be one dinner a month, which will basically be covered dish dinners. Some objectors complained that the parsonage was too big. Surrounding homes are bigger than proposed parsonage. Clearly a manse of 2600 square feet is average for this area. This is not a gym or a homeless shelter. This will not be a nursery school. The Board can be assured that we will not be increasing number of people or parking. Applicant has had a disadvantage because once the attorney represents the church the members may not speak. There is a lot of the community that has not been able to speak that are in favor of this application. Throughout the testimony you have requested reasonable conditions. The church has a critical need for additional space. The church realizes that this building seems large, but it has been here since 1888 and needs to be updated. We believe that you have ability to address the needs of the church to expand and to address the needs of the neighbors. We think the variances are limited in nature, we recognize there is impact on the neighbors. The statute says substantial impact, I submit that this application is not substantial and can be controlled with conditions.

Mr. Palisi has listened to the previous meeting and signed a certification to that fact.
Mr. Galvin read proposed conditions.

Deliberations:

Mr. Simon: There is one large church and four small churches in town. Three of the small churches have multi-purpose rooms with little or no parking. Two of these churches are in my neighborhood and I do not see any negative impact so I am in favor of this application.

Mr. Cangelosi – This application gives us an opportunity to participate in grass root democracy. Thank you for including me in this process. The church seeks expansion in a residential neighborhood and requires a "D" variance. I think the church meets the positive criteria because it is an inherently beneficial use. The Board must identify the detrimental effects of this application. I believe the large facility will draw a significant increase in car traffic that is already burdened. I think the grand scale of the plan will have a negative effect on the sleepy neighborhood. The mass and scale of the plan will disrupt the balance of the existing church and the neighbors. There is a 60% shortfall in parking. I believe a professional traffic study would of helped to alleviate concerns. I believe the application has been given a fair hearing. I would not be in favor of this application.

Mr. Leonard:

I drove around town and most of the churches have multi-purpose rooms. This is the difficult part; rendering a decision on something we haven’t seen yet. If the church wasn’t there and we put up 35-foot houses it would eat up quite a bit of space. I have not heard enough substantially negative things. Hearing everything that was proposed to us I would be in favor of this application.

Mr. Wolfersberger:

There is obviously a need for expansion, but the mass of the building concerns me. The 7-Eleven size parking lot concerns me. The light and air would be a concern. Schools solve problems with space by having mechanical partitions that can change a classroom into a multi-purpose room with a push of a button and would not require seven classrooms and an office. I have heard enough substantially negative things. We all agree there is a need, but the size of this project would have a negative impact. I do not believe this would be in character with the neighborhood. I would be opposed to the application as it stands now.

Mr. Reynolds:

I would like to commend the applicant for the concessions they have made along the way. But I have a problem with size of the building itself. When I come around that corner and visualize it, that big straight wall, I do not see how it cannot affect the light and air of the neighborhood. I also would like to see a study done on the parking lot on River Avenue before that is approved.

Mr.Spader:

I also agree with Mr. Simon with the need of the church and the other churches. The applicant came back twice reducing the volume. I think the restrictions placed on the church will alleviate some of the concerns and I would be in support of it.

Mr. Palisi:

We have a great choice before us. We upset a good portion of our neighborhood or we upset a great man in the community. The courts clearly have ruled that there is inherently beneficial value to churches. The community needs to understand that we have got to bend over backwards to make this work. The church has to understand that RLUIPA does not mean that you have a free pass to do anything. Reverend Helm was kind enough to let me tour the building and clearly there is a need. The building is a firetrap. Clearly there is a need for classrooms, nursery and a office. Where I struggle is with the multi-purpose room. You have a large area where people can sit on Sunday and with some vision you could come up with a plan that would not have such a negative impact on the neighborhood. We have all said that if this were strictly for the classrooms you would have my vote. Adding the kitchen and multi-purpose room I think you are imposing too much on the neighborhood. The intensity of that use will grow much larger than it is today. I just cannot see this in the neighborhood.

Mr. Reilly:

I would like to vote for this; however I would like to vote for something that provides the church with additional space. The classrooms are fine, but the classrooms and the multi-purpose room are too much. It should be one or the other; I do not think we need both. You have made an attempt to lower the scope but it never got down to what I would like to see. I would not be in favor.

Motion by Mr. Spader, second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2005-12

Vote: Simon, Leonard and Spader
Opposed: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Cangelosi, Reilly

Application Denied

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Cangelosi to deny application #2005-12

Vote: Wolfersberger, Palisi, Cangelosi and Reilly
Opposed: Simon, Leonard and Spader

Application Denied

Application#2006-36 – Dennis & Stacy Mc Glinchy, 614 Forman Avenue, Block 58, Lot 16; Applicants wish to install a 16′ x 28′ in-ground swimming pool.

Let the record reflect that Mr. Leonard has been excused and that Mr. Moberg and Mrs. Tooker have returned.

John Jackson, attorney for applicant. Applicant wishes to upgrade for their growing family; rooms are too small. There is not one room that they can all sit in. Testimony is going to show that this is not a massive home. This is one of the smaller profile homes on the block. They maintain it in an immaculate manner. We are requesting 32.6% bldg coverage; 46% impervious. The applicant is slightly over on building, but under on impervious. Stacy McGlinchy, applicant, sworn. Pictures taken June 22, 2002 entered as A-3 (Shows how home looks today).

Bob Burdick, Professional Engineer and Planner, sworn. Requesting to build 16 by 27 ½ foot addition off rear of existing home. Existing variances that will remain; front yard, stairs are 8 ft, deck 11ft. and the house is 17.06 feet. Existing garage separation of 3.25 feet versus 5 feet required will remain the same. We are also proposing a swimming pool to be surrounded by pavers. Portion of driveway will be changed to pavers. Aesthetics of addition will match existing home. Will provide benefit to township. We are proposing a reduction in impervious coverage. Based on these reasons I believe the positive criteria is conforming to the MLUL. Mechanicals of pool will be located in rear by garage.

Stacy McLinchy stated that she has lived in the home since 1998. She and her husband reside there with their 4 children. There oldest has been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease and is residing at home and requires privacy. They will be using Aquatecture as their architect. They want to keep the garage for storage. Home will be sided with vinyl cedar impressions in front and back.

Deliberations:

Conditions:

Mr. Palisi: I think it is beautiful and I understand your need to expand. It has been done tastefully. I am 100% in favor of this application.

Mr. Moberg: I agree with Mr. Palisi’ s comments. I see no negative impact to the neighborhood at all. I see the slight increase in the coverage will be minimal and a definite asset. I have no problem with it.

Mr. Struncius: I think the sensitivity here is building coverage. Most of the improvements are to the rear of the property where they are unnoticeable. This is a slight overage in the sense that we are improving the usability of the home. I am in favor.

Mr. Wolfersberger: This is a deep piece of property; 125 feet opposed to 100ft. Expansion will not be noticeable to anyone other than the homeowners. I would be in favor.

Motion by Mr. Palisi, second by Mrs. Tooker to approve application #2006-36 with a condition.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker………Yea
Opposed: None

Application#2006-45 – Jenkinson’s South, 204 Broadway, Block 159 Lots 3, 4, 5 & 6; Applicant wishes to subdivide and build (3) 2-story homes.

Application#2006-46 – Jenkinson’s South, Block 159, Lot 7; Applicant wishes to build 2-story single family home.

Application#2006-47 – Jenkinson’s South – Block 159, Lot 8; Applicant wishes to build 2-story single family home.

Application #2006-45, #2006-46 and #2006-47 will be heard as one application. Larry McIver, (Gilmore & Monahan) attorney for the applicant. Applicants are seeking a height variance. They are seeking a maximum of 35 feet height where 20 feet is required. Lots are located in the "LC" zone. John N. Ernst, Professional Engineer/Planner has appeared before, Jackson, Dover, Berkley and Brick Township boards. Credentials accepted. Mr. Ernst office has prepared the major subdivision for lots 3 and the prepared the use variance plans for Lot 7 and 8. There is an existing retail center located on Lot 3; Lot 7 there is a parking area; Lot 8 there is a one-story masonry building. Existing structures will be removed if subdivision and use are approved so the lots will be available for the building of the single-family homes. No other variances will be sought for the construction of these homes at this time. Lots will be 50 feet by 125 feet. Exhibits entered: A-2, Modified sub-division plan; A-3 Plot plan for Lots 7 &8;A-4 Photographs; A-5 master plan review committee report; A-6 Exhibit homes in immediate area; A-7 letter from Environmental consultant. Mr. Cangelosi inquired if there are any underground tanks. (No) A L & S performed Phase 1 on lot 8 for the former dry cleaner and didn’t find anything. There are no other environmental concerns for the property. Mr. Struncius inquired what Phase 1 means. Anthony Storino, applicant, sworn. Mr. Storino is Vice President of Jenkinson’s South. It is the initial investigation for potential environmental hazards. An Environmental consultant performed the test on April 27, 2005. It was determined by the consultant that no further testing was needed. Mr. Storino stated that they will not be building the homes, but the homes will be more desirable at 2-stories and the lots will be easier to sell. Jenkinson’s South would not be building the homes. They are just applying for the sub-division and "use" variance and will be selling the lots.

Audience questions

John Szfranski inquired if there is a time limit to the land remaining empty. We are not collecting taxes on the other empty lot on Broadway.

Mr. Galvin explained that is not the Board’s place to take that into account.

Mr. Moberg asked what kind of assurances can the board can attain through a resolution that if the 6 homes are approved that they will be different in character.

Mr. Galvin cited the following:

Conditions:

Homes are to be stick built with a Victorian look and not to look alike. If the Zoning officer is uncertain if the individual home complies with this provision the application for the individual home will be referred to the zoning board of adjustment for direction.

Mr. Wolfersberger stated that he couldn’t see himself voting on a subdivision when he does not know what will be sitting on it. Mr. McIver said that the applicant is will to adhere to the suggested conditions.

Mr. Szfranski, Yale Avenue- inquired if demolition will occur before they sell the lots.

Mr. Cangelosi explained that the Board is looking for assurances that the homes will be built with a certain quality of integrity. That they will be Victorian in nature and have a distinctive look to them. How do we get that comfort level? Mr.Galvin stated that an important element of approving this case is aesthetics. You need a special reason to grant this variance. Mr. Cangelosi inquired if we could approve the height and specify that they will have to appear before us with the plans before they build. Mr. Moberg inquired if we have a legal right to require seeing the plans. That is where we are at. Subdivision is acceptable but we are worried about 6 of the same homes. Mr. Galvin replied that they could. Mr. Struncius agreed that they should come before us for aesthetic review. Mr. Galvin replied that when you grant a "D" variance you have to have special reasons and the aesthetic value is a special reason.

Audience Questions-

John Szfranski, Yale Avenue, sworn- how did we control the architecture on Riverside Terrace?

Larry McIver said that the conditions on an individual lot basis would fly. Mr. Struncius repeated that the homes would need to come before us for aesthetic review. Larry McIver replied that would be fine. Mr. Wolfersberger said he would be fine with that.

Deliberations

Mike Palisi – There clearly has been a transition in town. The history is we worry about selling homes. The commercial success on Broadway has been challenging. This is a great opportunity to enhance what is a gateway to our town. We will do it in a mannerism that is consistent with what we are looking for. Stick built homes of the highest class that do not go beyond the ordinances. In favor of the application.

Mr. Cangelosi: Mr. Palisi said it well. This will be a clean slate with a chance to get it right the first time. We can plan the best looking properties within the confines of the ordinances. This is a perfect opportunity for our board. We usually do not get the opportunity to critique along the way. I am for this.

Mr. Struncius: The homes along Broadway are very nice looking and are occupied. We keep hearing all these things re not occupied. Not true, these homes were built recently. We were comfortable with the subdivision, but that was the do diligence of this board to make sure that there is some control over what goes up there.

Mr. Wolfersberger- I would prefer a mixed use there, but I think the dye is cast. In light of that fact I would be in favor.

Mr. Moberg – I have to agree with the comments that have been made. Broadway abuts the SF5 zone. Once again the master plan review is just a review. I see no negative impact. I would be in favor.

Mr. Reilly – Simply put I think that the ability to help control this area provides us with special reason to grant this application.

1. The public improvements along the proposed lot is to be presented as a unified plan and shall include sidewalks along the entire of lots three (3) through eight (8), removal of concrete curbs and depressed curbs as necessary and the installation of shade trees between the sidewalk and property line of lots three (3) through eight (8). All of which are to be bonded and no certificate of occupancy is to issue until the improvements listed herein are completed for the lot seeking the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

2. Existing sewer and water services are to be abandoned at the main not at the curb line. A note shall be added to the plans accordingly.

3. Sewer and water connections shall be added to the plans. All sewer and water connections will be made with an approved saddle; all water services shall be copper.

4. Roadway restoration shall be in conformance with Ocean County requirements, which require infrared patching after an approved settlement time.

5. In lieu of providing for infiltration on individual lots as required by the Ordinance, the Applicant may choose to provide for a system of infiltration common to development.

6. All lots accessing Broadway will have turn-around driveways.

7. The air conditioning units for each home are to be screened.

8. The grading and drainage will be managed on a lot-by-lot basis. Each lots grading and drainage plan is to be review and approved by the Board’s Engineer.

9. The homes shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height.

10. The homes are to be stick built with a Victorian or Seashore Colonial look and are not to look alike, each home is to be subjected to aesthetic review by the zoning board of adjustment which will review and approve said design at their sole and exclusive discretion. The Board expects to administratively review all four sides of the proposed home, and approval will be by a majority vote only.

11. Each individual home is to provide the Board’s Engineer a landscape plan for his review and approval to ensure appropriate foundation plantings.

12. A copy of this resolution is to be provided to the purchaser of each of the within lots; and further, the purchaser is on notice that the Board is of the opinion that newly constructed homes should stay within the boundaries of the ordinance requirements and should not require any additional variance relief.

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2006-45, #2006-46 and #2006-47 with conditions.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker
Opposed: None

Application #2006-48 – Jenkinson’s South (Roller Coaster) – Ocean & Trenton Avenue; Applicant wishes to remove existing 1 ½ story frame building on Lot 1, relocate portable roller coaster towards Trenton Avenue and construct a new decorative wall and entrance.

Motion by Mr. Cangelosi second by Palisi to carry application #2006-48 To January 18, 2007 without notice.

Vote: Simon, Palisi, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Cangelosi and Tooker
Opposed: None

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mrs. Tooker to memorialize the action and vote approving application # 2006-39 of William Fabian.