January 18, 2007

MINUTES

The January 18, 2007 Regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30 pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Chairman Moberg, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mr. Struncius Mrs. Tooker and Mr. Cangelosi Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Reynolds.

Application#2006-51 – Thomas D. Leach, 322 Richmond Avenue. Block 110; Lot 7. Applicant wishes to replace his garage that was destroyed by a tree in its exact location. Thomas D. Leach, applicant, sworn. Picture board entered as A-3. Large tree in neighbor’s yard was knocked over during a storm on Memorial Day and totally destroyed his garage. Applicant is looking for relief of 3-foot side-yard setback and also to go up an additional 2-feet (18 feet) to block view of rear yard and buffer noise. The garage will not have plumbing or heat. Storage will be accessed by pull down stairs. Garage will match look of home. Applicant will try to use existing foundation. Garage will be more modern with roll-up doors. Mr. Moberg commented that the homes along Richmond pre-dated zoning; Applicants home dates back to late 1800’s. Garage will be vinyl sided with scalloped roof. The roof pitch will create the added height.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Cangelosi –
Applicant is not looking for much; just to exceed the height a little. Aesthetically it will be a nice addition. In favor.

Mr. Struncius – This home is located between two major highways; the home behind you is obviously very large. Garage going over existing location. In favor.

Mrs. Tooker – I think this is a very unique situation. This house is beautiful. In favor.

Mr. Reilly – Normally I would be opposed to this. Do to the uniqueness of the situation I am in favor.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I think it is important that I am on record that if this was anywhere else in town I would be opposed to going eighteen (18) feet. I am in favor.

Mr. Leonard – Being anywhere else in town I would be against it. I am glad you are putting it over the existing foundation. I would like the stipulation that 18 feet is the limit. In favor.

Motion by Mr. Leonard second by Mr. Reilly to approve application #2006-51 with conditions

Vote: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Reilly…………………………………………………Yea
Opposed: None

Conditions

1. Attic storage is to be accessed by pull down stairs only.
2. The garage is not to be used for habitation.

Mr. Struncius will be stepping down from the following application.

Application #2006-35 – Antonio Nobre, 300 Chicago Avenue. Block 108; Lot 11. Applicant wishes to demolish existing single –family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling with in-ground swimming pool. Steven A. Pardes attorney for applicant. Applicant is now looking for a variance for a front-yard setback; home is located on a corner lot. It would be impossible to build a home that complies with both setbacks. Home will be complying with setback on Parkway and need a variance for setback on Chicago Avenue. Home will be nice addition to Point Pleasant Beach. Mr. Leonard inquired if Mr. Nobre would be occupying this home. Mr. Nobre replied at this time that he is not sure. Mr. Moberg requested that a condition of foundation plantings be added.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Leonard – I am glad to see this home will be facing Chicago Avenue. We haven’t mentioned the fencing around the pool or where the mechanicals will be placed.

Mr. Nobre – The pool fence will comply and the pool mechanicals will be placed in the Southeast corner of the yard.

Mr. Wolfersberger – The pool needs to be moved 2 ½ inches to comply. The home is beautiful and conforms but seems to be massive. It is taking me awhile to get used to the size of the new dwellings that are being erected in town. In this case the only relief needed is a front setback because it is a corner lot so I guess I will have to vote in favor.

Mr. Reilly – I think with the conditions we have cited that this is rather deminimus for a variance and I am willing to vote for it.

Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2006-35 with conditions.

1. The applicant is to submit a Landscape Plan, which is to provide foundation plantings to the Board’s Engineer for his review and approval.

2. Any fencing shall comply with the ordinance, except it is not to exceed four (4) feet in height along the Chicago Avenue frontage and will not come further forward than the southeast corner of the house.

3. The pool is to be relocated to comply with the rear yard setback

Vote:

IN FAVOR: Wolfersberger; Cangelosi; Moberg; Tooker; Leonard; Reilly and Reynolds

OPPOSED: None

Mr. Struncius has returned for the following application.

Application #2006-41 – Vito Rutigliano – 235 Boardwalk, Block 120; Lot 9.05. Applicant wishes to add a bedroom to expand the main level of the existing single-family structure. A previous variance indicated that this structure was a single story structure. Current interpretation is it is a two-story structure. Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant. Applicant has owned home since 1998. Applicant would like to add a 178 square foot addition on the Limroth side of the home. Current interpretation of home is that it is a two-story home. Concrete staircase at rear of home will be removed and replaced with interior stairs, which will be an aesthetic improvement. Pictures entered as A-3and A-4 taken a month ago. This home is not used for rental. Family is getting bigger and an extra bedroom will add to their comfort. Living space next to garage will be used for storage. Present impervious coverage is 81%; will be reduced to 70%.

No audience questions

Deliberations
Mr. Struncius – Rather small addition; 50% allowed; aesthetically pleasing. We are removing bedroom from downstairs and getting rid of a cement staircase. Cannot make the lot any wider, with those things said I would be in favor.

Mr. Leonard – Addition is not over powering and I would like to see them get rid of that cement staircase. In favor.

Mr. Reilly – I also looked at the property and it is very well maintained. In favor

Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Struncius to approve application #2006-41 with conditions.

Vote:

Conditions:

1. The first floor of the home is limited to storage and the parking of cars and there is to be no habitation on this floor.

2. Impervious coverage is not to exceed seventy (70%) percent.

IN FAVOR – Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Reilly…………………………………………………Yea
OPPOSED – None

Application #2006-48 – Jenkinson’s South (Roller Coaster) – Ocean & Trenton Avenue; Block 83.01; Lot 1 & part of 2. 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. Lawrence McIver from Gilmore & Monahan, attorney for applicant. Application entered as A-1; Plans A-2; Aerial photo entered as A-3; Architectural Color rendition entered as A-4. Restaurant use will be raised and removed and the roller coaster will be relocated to that space. Application was amended to seek a variance to place a roof on the compactor; this will add health benefits and be aesthetically pleasing. There will be a loss of 6 parking spaces. Anthony Storino, Vice-President of Jenkinson’s South, sworn. Anthony Storino stated that they are requesting to move the roller coaster approximately 50 feet south to where the restaurant is presently located. It will be the exact same roller coaster. He does not believe this will affect the noise level. Applicant is willing to consolidate lots 1 & 2 if the board wishes. New entrance ramp depicted in A-4 will be ADA compliant, landscaped; wall will be reconstructed in neutral sandstone masonry wall. Mr. Wolfersberger stated that he is worried that the noise will increase when the roller coaster is moved. Mr. Wolfersberger believes the restaurant acted as a noise buffer. Mr. Reilly commented the renderings with the colors are very attractive; he inquired if the applicant plans on hanging signs on the walls. Mr. Storino replied that they do not plan on hanging signs (advertisements) and would agree to that condition. The only sign they will need is the one over the entranceway. In reference to the roof on the compactor, Mr. Storino testified that the compactor has been located there for 20 years and the purpose of adding a roof is to keep the seagulls out. Compactor roof will be a standing seam roof. John N. Ernst, Professional Engineer and Planner. Credentials accepted. He testified that his office prepared the site plan and it complies with the Point Pleasant Beach Zoning and Site plan ordinance. John N. Ernst commented that there is already an existing entranceway; the new one will be an improvement due to the fact that the ramp will be ADA compliant and the new entranceway will be more visible and aesthetically pleasing. Six parking spaces will remain for employees. Area will be landscaped and lighted to beautify entranceway. Retaining wall will be 4 –5 feet tall with decorative fencing; landscaped; recharge system will be constructed to handle runoff under roller coaster. Corner will be streetscape with pavers and retaining wall that will act as bench area; Site will continue to be appropriate for roller coaster. Applicant agrees to comply with everything in Engineers letter. Mr. Struncius pointed out that he feels we should go through the Engineers letter point by point to clarify and avoid different interpretations. Lighting and site plan will be submitted to Board Engineer. Applicant has already received conditional approval from county and has received soil erosion permit.

No audience questions/comments

Deliberations

Mr. Struncius – We are removing a restaurant that I do not think I have seen 2 people use; pretty run down building; beginning improvement. I do not think the building lowers the sounds. All the other things we are getting; the aesthetic improvements; entrance; ADA compliant ramp; upside improvement of the resort area, overall look of it are the special reasons. I do not see any negative affects. These are the special reasons

Mr. Wolfersberger – Would the people within two hundred feet of this be noticed? (Yes) My first concern is the hardship created for the people in the area. The rendering is lovely; they usually are. If we get 50% of what is there we will be fortunate. I am compelled to approve the application.

Mr. Cangelosi – I have a hard time finding anything negative with this application. I think we are getting in return, as a community, a beautiful improvement to the town as a trade off. I believe we are going to get what we are looking at.

Mr. Leonard – Only negative I see is that by moving it south, it is getting moved closer to the houses across the street. If we get what is in the renderings that far out weighs any negative improvement that roller coaster moving south causes. I think it will give a good look to that area. The ramp will now be handy-capped compliant.

Mr. Reilly – I thought in the beginning that this has great potential for improvement for that part of town. But I must say early on I had concerns; but the applicant has come forward and agreed to conditions to deal with those concerns. The rendering is great so I am in favor of this application.

Conditions

Conditional D3 variance

Motion by Mr. Reilly second by Mr. Leonard to approve application #2006-48 with conditions

IN FAVOR – Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Reilly…………………………………………………Yea
OPPOSED – None

January 23, 2007 Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board