January 20, 2005

01-20-2005

The January 20, 2005 meeting of the Board of Adjustment was opened at 7:35pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open Public Meetings Act". Present were Board members: Simon, Wolfersberger, Struncius, Cangelosi, Moberg and Tooker. Alternates: Leonard and Dyer. Absent: Palisi.

Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve the minutes of January 6, 2005 meeting.

VOTE: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard and Dyer………..YEA
ABSTAIN: Simon, Struncius
MINUTES APPROVED

Motion by Mr. Dyer, second by Mr. Leonard to approve the action and vote memorializing the extension of application#2003-22, Donald and Marie Canastra, 12A Inlet Drive.

VOTE: Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard, Dyer…………….YEA
ABSTAIN: Simon, Struncius
EXTENSION GRANTED

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Leonard to carry application #2004-46, Rose-Lynn Bernstein, 8 Broadway, Block 121, Lot 25.01 to March 3, 2005 without notice.
VOTE: Simon, Wolfersberger, Cangelosi, Struncius, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard, Dyer………………………………………………………………………………….YEA
MOTION APPROVED

Application 2004-39, Congregation of Jehovah’s Witness Inc., 301 River Avenue, Block 112, Lot 52; Applicant wishes to do additional paving in the parking lot to increase the number of parking spaces for the Point Pleasant Beach Congregation of Jehovah’s Witness.

Keith Henderson, attorney for the applicant, credentials accepted by the board. Witness for applicant, Robert Burdick, architect for the applicant, credentials accepted by the board. Mr. Burdick stated that the property in question is located in the SF5 Zone and is surrounded by residential property. It is located on River Avenue, South/west of the intersection at Cedar Avenue. A Church is not a permitted use in a SF5 Zone. It is an expansion of a non-conforming use that requires a "D" variance. Applicant is proposing to widen intersection as it comes into Cedar Avenue slightly to make better circulation of traffic. They will reconfigure parking lot and they will be installing parking lot lighting and an upgraded drainage system. Ex. A-2, Color diagram of property and proposed upgrades. Mr. Henderson asked Mr. Burdick if he was familiar with any particular cases and special reasons for granting a "D" variance. Mr. Burdick replied that the criteria requires proving that it will be beneficial to the community. Case law states that churches and houses of worship are proven to be inherently beneficial and should satisfy the positive criteria for a use variance. Keith Henderson inquired about other land use requirements are needed from this board this evening? Mr. Burdick replied lot impervious coverage from 67.3% up to 68%. Ordinance requires dense vegetation not less than 4′ high between residential property and parking lot. Currently there is a 6′ board on board fence along southwest and Southern property line, which effectively provides a buffer. There is a post rail fence along the northern part of the westerly parking lot and the western part of the northern parking lot. They plan to put a 6′ board on board fence along the North-northwest extension. Along the residential side there are healthy arborvitaes. The other variance would be for relocating the shed. We will be relocating the shed to the southwest corner off the lot. Mr. Cangelosi: How many parking spaces will you be adding. Mr. Burdick: two, there approximately twenty-two spaces now, we will be providing twenty-four. Mr. Galvin: I will need to be clear on how many variances we will be requiring; usually we use the referral for that. Mr. Henderson: I came onto the application later. You will see that on the notice, all the variances are listed. Mr. Burdick: The last variance we will be requesting is for parking lot drives. They are limited to 35%, we are requesting 50% with additions. Parking improvements will provide a safer pedestrian/vehicular access. It will also be more aesthetically pleasing. We will be improving this facility and making it safer. They only negatives I can come up with are the small non-conformities. The positive improvements will out way the negatives. Mr. Leonard: Why can’t the shed be five feet from the fence? Mr Burdick: We would lose a parking space. There is a solid board on board fence, which blocks the view and is buffered. We will provide the details on the lights to the engineer. We do plan on increasing the buffers on the western spur. We will post performance bonds and inspection fees as required. Mr. Cangelosi: You are moving the parking lot closer to the building. Mr. Burdick: Yes, to provide additional parking. Mr. Cangelosi: Expansions you mentioned are figured into lot coverage? Mr. Burdick: Yes Mr. Dyer: Everything is paved except for the addition you spoke about. Mr. Henderson: Yes Mr. Cangelosi: There are trees in the back? Mr. Burdick: Yes, and they will be saved. Mr. Moberg: Do you need handicap parking spaces? Mr. Burdick: They are provided and there is a ramp. Mr. Dyer: You are providing a new drainage pipe? Mr.Burdick: Yes, in the extreme southwest of the property. Mr. Dyer: What is the size of the pipe Mr. Burdick: 15"pipe along the southwest property line. If the pipe system failed it would overflow to River Avenue and the applicant would know that he has a problem. Mr. Galvin went over the following variance requests; 1. Expansion of a non-conforming use. 2. Lot coverage of 68% where 50% is allowed. 3. Waiver of evergreen buffer requirement. 4. Assessory structure moved to 2 feet where 5 feet is required. 5. Parking area and driveway combined not to exceed 30%, but is at 50% 6. Board on Board fence is at 6 feet in some locations where it is not supposed to be. Mr. Dyer: What is the water table? Mr. Burdick: We went down 70" and did not encounter water

Audience questions/Comments: None

Deliberations:

Mr. Struncius: One of our concerns was the 7% increase in impervious coverage, but with the upgrades you are making I think that alleviates any of our concerns. What we are doing is modernizing a property that is a little run down in sense of the parking area. We are just making the parking lot safer and aesthetically pleasing with board on board buffer and vegetation. Overall I see it as an improvement to the property and I am OK with that. Mr. Leonard: I agree with Mr. Struncius. I think you have satisfied the positive and negative criteria. The only thing I have a problem with is that shed being 2 feet off the property line. I think it is a good improvement to the property. Mr. Dyer: I agree with Mr. Struncius and Mr. Leonard. I like the drainage. Mr. Moberg: I think the low westerly corner could use some lighting for security. Some lighting that would not affect the neighbors. I feel the repaving and the striping will make for a more organized parking lot. Mr. Burdick: If the shed is an issue we will do what the board wants Mr. Cangelosi: I would rather see the shed where it is instead of in the front.
Close Deliberations

Motion by Mr. Strucius to approve application 2004-39, second by Mr. Cangelosi with the following conditions. 1. Lighting detail to be submitted to Borough Engineer for review. 2. Repave and re-stripe parking lot.

VOTE: Simon, Struncius, Cangelosi, Moberg, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard.YEA
NO: NONE

APPLICATION #2004-39 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

Application 2004-52, Kenneth Poray, 705 Ocean Avenue, Block 67, Lots 2 and 3: Applicant wishes to change existing non-conforming use (real estate/insurance) to retail service. Kenneth A. Poray, sworn, states that he is the owner of the property. His purpose is to seek a "use" variance to open a coffee shop. I will not be making any structural changes. Gordon Gemma, professional planner, sworn. Mr. Struncius: I am confused, the information we have states that you are opening a internet café’ Mr. Poray: After further research we have decided just to open a coffee shop instead of a internet café’. We think it will better serve the public. Mr. Gemma: The applicant wants to open a regular run of the mill, nothing-special coffee shop. Ex. A-2, Color pictures and survey. 1st floor, 1250 s.f.2nd floor, 2 bedroom apartment, stone driveway, 5100 s.f, parking area can accommodate required parking. Property has a non-conforming front yard setback of 2.9 feet where 25 feet is required. The building is going to remain as is. It is located in a mixed zone. The applicant owns the Victorian house in the rear. Overall intent is to service the neighborhood year round. Parking need pursuant to the ordinance is adequate. It is conditionally permitted in the zone. If it were part of the hotel next door it would be a permitted use, but since it stands alone you need a variance. Given the sites location being next door to a hotel you are accommodating the residents of the hotel. I do not think you possibly say that it would have a negative impact on the surroundings. It has sufficient parking. This allows a viable use of the property. The only other use of this building would probably be a more intense use. Mr. Wolfersberger: Does the parking back up to the residents. Mr. Gemma: The end of the parking area seems to be10 feet from the residence. Mr. Cangelosi: Any plans to change exterior lighting? Mr. Gemma: There are no plans to change anything of the exterior. The applicant understands that he has to stay within the ordinance. Mr. Cangelosi: What about the garbage. Mr. Gemma: The residents upstairs use a residential container. The commercial aspect will store their garbage internally and have a commercial pick up. Mr. Struncius: What aesthetic changes are you making? Mr. Poray: Replace 70’s carpeting with tile. Add a few couches and tables, seating bar at window. Somewhere the residents will enjoy having a cup of coffee. Mr. Struncius: What changes to the exterior. Mr. Poray: Maybe just a fresh coat of paint. Mr. Struncius: How about signage Mr. Poray: My thoughts are to adhere to whatever the town allows, just something that will let people know it is a coffee shop. Mr. Gemma: Just something in the window or above, and again you will conform to what the ordinance allows. Mr. Struncius: No canopies or lit canopies Mr. Poray: No Mr. Wolfersberger: Are you doing anything with the parking lot? Mr. Gemma: The parking lot will remain the same. Mr. Wolfersberger: Are you serving lunch? Mr. Poray: There will be no cooking on premises. Just coffee and bagged sandwiches Mr. Wolfersberger: You mean it will be like walking into Dunkin’ Donuts without the donuts Mr. Poray: The hours will be 5:30 am to 7pm, whatever the demand is. Mr. Cangelosi: Are you leasing or buying? Mr. Poray: Buying Mr. Cangelosi: What is the living configuration? Mr. Poray: 2 bedroom, small kitchen Mr. Wolfersberger: What is the new "use". Mr. Gemma: The use being a coffee shop. The board is worried that it will be a more "intense" use. If the resolution were strictly drafted, if there were an expansion, the applicant would have to come before the board. Mr. Moberg: No thoughts of live music? Mr. Poray: No Mr. Wolfersberger: I see the restaurant use as a potential future problem. If we limit it I do not have a problem. Mr. Leonard: I do not feel comfortable not seeing how it is going to be laid out. Mr. Galvin: I know it is relatively simple, but when you cannot visualize something, it becomes a problem. The board likes to see how things are on the inside and out.

Any audience Questions/ None

Mr. Moberg: I agree with Mr. Leonard’s comments. When we are establishing a new business we like to see how it will be operated. Mr. Gemma: I have spoken to the applicant and he has no problem going to an architect and getting a lay out. Mr. Galvin: At this point we have no plan at all. Mr. Gemma: If the applicant gets a rough draft of the plan in 10 days could you approve it now. Mr. Galvin: That is not our practice; we see things before we approve them. Mr. Struncius: You are hearing that overall we are OK with it, but we would like to see a finished application. Mr. Galvin: Usually a survey has been submitted and the engineer has submitted a report. Nothing has been submitted. Mrs. Tooker: Do you think you are going to be open year round Mr. Poray: Yes I do. I have been speaking quite a bit to the local folks and there seems to be a lot of demand.

Audience comments: Ted Sobieski, Trenton Avenue. That area is strictly homes and motels, and I feel if they let him open a retail establishment it will open a floodgate.

Mr. Gemma: The applicant understands that the applicant needs to come back with a rough draft of what the layout is. Mr. Moberg: Maybe the curb stops might be an improvement. Mr. Galvin: We can probably carry this to March 3, 2005 without notice.

Motion by Mr. Dyer to carry application 2004-52 to March 3, 2005 without notice, second by Mr. Leonard.

Vote: Simon, Cangelosi, Moberg, Struncius, Leonard, Tooker, Wolfersberger..YEA
No: None

Motion carried without notice

Motion by Mr. Leonard to adjourn, second by Mrs. Tooker. Meeting adjourn at 9:18pm.
Vote: Simon, Struncius, Wolfersberger, Moberg, Tooker, Leonard, Cangelosi, Dyer..YEA

DATE: January 21, 2005 Attest: Karen L. Mills
Clerk of the Board