March 1, 2007

MINUTES

The March 1, 2007 Special Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:35 pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members: Chairman Moberg, Mr. Wolfersberger, Mrs. Tooker, Mr. Cangelosi and Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Reilly, and Mr. Ardito

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the minutes of February 15, 2007.

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

Motion by Mr. Wolfersberger, second by Mr. Reilly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-12 of Miguel Diaz with conditions

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

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Leonard to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2006-32 of Joseph Auriemma and Marjorie McGhee with conditions

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

Application #2006-42 Coastal Points Construction, 728 & 732 Arnold Avenues; Block 91.01;Lots 22 & 21. Applicant wishes to demolish two existing single family dwellings and construct a 4,830 square foot building with 3 retail units on the first floor and 7 dwelling units on the second floor and 7 dwelling units on the third floor for a total of 14 units. John J. Jackson, attorney for the applicant. Mrs. Tooker has stepped down from this application. Exhibits entered. A-1 application, A-2 plans, A-3 color right elevation, A-4 right elevation, A-5 rear elevation, A-6 First floor plan, A-7 Second floor plan, A-8 Third floor plan 9/9/2006, A-9 overhead aerial, site over view, A-10 Site plan 2/27/07. John J. Jackson stated that the two homes on the proposed property are rather elaborate older Victorian style private residences. I will concede that this is an ambitious application. The 1992 Master Plan recommended removal of strictly residential uses from the GC zone. The Zoning Board, Planning Board and Governing Body have made great strides to enhance the retail character and overall ambiance and beauty of the downtown area, breathing new life and vitality into the downtown district. The board is aware the downtown area peters out when you head west. This is an opportunity to eliminate a strictly residential use (something that sticks out like a sore thumb) they are beautiful homes but not right there. It will increase pedestrian traffic and enhance overall health of the downtown. Mr. Greg Cox, Professional Architect and Planner, credentials accepted. A-3 Color right elevation. Lot coverage 53%; Designed a mansard roof; Steep slope and gentle slope. No mechanicals will be on roof. Building will bring downtown to the west. Took cues from significant buildings in town (Johnson’s hardware). Historically the older buildings had brick patterns. We are all Point Beach residents and want to see nice buildings. Colored metal roof and shingles on gables. Very attractive and will help to anchor the commercial aspect in the west end. Great attention has been given to detail A-6, Depiction of first floor plan 5800 square feet, 3 potential retail uses. (3) 1600 or it could be 2 stores or one store. Units are not feasible for restaurants or bars; would need area for venting. Second floor will be built over some of the parking. There will be an elevator for handicap accessibility. Applicant can conform to building coverage by eliminating 3% by modifying bit and pieces out of the length of the building; then the only variance would be a "use" for the third floor. Mechanicals will be located in the rear yard on the ground. Parking located in rear is for the residents.

Audience Questions

George Miksis, 623 New Jersey Avenue – Inquired if parking was included in square footage? (GC – That is an engineering question.) Building is beautiful – obviously money is no object. The other thing I am concerned about is the density.

Ann Marie Ireland, Trenton Avenue – My mother’s home sits on 504 Cramer and her deck is 6 feet from the setback of where the parking will be. I do think the design is beautiful.

Greg Cox – Exhibit A-9 – Composite photo of downtown area. Showing the parking near mother’s property line.

Mr. Wolfersberger inquired if there will be any negative impact on the property they are discussing? (Cox – no) Tim Lurie, Professional Engineer and Planner, credentials accepted. Gave brief overview of project and addressed Mr. Savacool engineering letter. Dumpster will be located in Southwest corner of property. There will be a 6-foot board on board fence along property line with a 5-foot gas line easement. The fence will help buffer Mrs. White’s property. Lights around property will be 12-feet high. There will be a recharge system with new sewer and water connections. The two current systems will be disconnected. The two existing curb cuts will be closed creating more on street parking. Mr. Wolfersberger inquired about the recreational area? Mr. Savacool said the ordinance states 250 square feet of recreational space per unit. John Jackson said there is an area for a grill and some tables. Mr. Reilly inquired if one parking space is assigned to each apartment? John Jackson – Yes. Commercial waste will be stored inside until placed in the 9 foot dumpster. Tim Lurie stated that 12-foot lights will disburse less light and we will have light shields to keep light glare from Mrs. White’s property. Mr. Leonard inquired if they could have a building with 7 units. John Jackson replied it would not be feasible. Mr. Wolfersberger said 14 are too many. Mr. Reilly looks at it differently; 14 might be all right but not with 14 parking spaces.

Engineering Question

Ann Marie Ireland – Questioned the dumpster location? That might run the whole length of my mother’s kitchen window.

Elaine Hennessey – Inquired the age of the homes to be removed? (1875) History is good. Is there a possibility that the owner would donate one of the homes and we could move it to the parking lot for the historical society? (John Jackson said he contacted Jim Malone months ago to suggest it and he said there was no where to put it) I said you could put it in the parking lot. I also have a love for trees and all I hear is cutting down trees and replacing them with little shrubs. That does not flow with me.

John Jackson said the applicant is willing to provide money to plant trees even if it is somewhere else in town. We will agree to have it bonded subject to the approval of the Engineer. It would be inconsistent with this application to skimp.

Joshua Demaso, applicant, resides on Cramer within 200′ feet. I have a project in Jersey City and Asbury Park. It will take 12 to 14 months to complete this project after paper work is done. Based on Market research –potential buyers will use them primarily in the summer. There is not much for sale in Point Beach at this price range (low 3’s and 4’s). I feel strongly that the residents and shoppers can use the 280 spaces available.

Mr. Wolfersberger – Have you done a study to see who would rent the Office space. I do not want another Antique store, tattoo parlor or Real Estate Office.

Joshua Demaso – I think a day spa would do well there based on the clientele.

Applicant Question

George Miksis – I would be in favor of this project it is just the density. It is a big change. If these fellows could reduce the units it would be a good thing for the town.

George Coluni, applicant – I know parents of friends (late 50’s) who would be interested. I am envisioning empty nesters younger professionals. I envision no problem selling these units. Will create a better walking flow of people who will spend money. I think it is important to put a quality building up.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I am for the retail mixed use, but I would like to see less than 14 units. That dumpster in back, parking and trees are an issue. The add on in back looks stuck on. I think you need to address those things to get my vote.

Public Comment

George Miksis, sworn – My thought is that density is a big issue. There is a possibility to save a building and the overall landscape plan can be improved. It seems that these issues will be addressed except the density.

John Jackson has talked to his clients and they are willing to amend the application to 12 units. Greg Cox explained they could remove the 2 southern most units (2 bedroom) reduce lot coverage well below the 50% and leave 8 (1) bedroom and 4 (2) bedroom units. Secondary stairway relocated. Parking would remain. Trees will be planted along streetscape. Applicant will also donate 5 (3 inch) trees to the beautification committee. Mr. Moberg said he would like that as a condition of approval. Dumpster will also be relocated away from Mrs. White’s home. Mr. Cangelosi inquired about the donation of the home. Mr. Galvin replied that the hardship is the moving of the home. The applicant is only donating the home; delivery is not included. The town might not be willing to pay the cost. It is only a meaningful gift if we can actually receive it. Mr. Miksis added that maybe the applicant would be willing to donate the cost of demolition to the moving of the home.

Deliberations

Mr. Leonard – I like the project, we need more retail downtown. Three stories do not bother me at all. I think you did a good job with the positive and negative criteria. I thought we could combine some 1 bedrooms and the number of apartments could shrink. I struggle with the density of having 12 units.

Mr. Moberg – I don’t have a problem with the project at all in general. It is what the Master Plan advised. It is the wave of the future. There is a parking problem everywhere in town unless it is the dead of February. Hopefully the commercial uses are thriving. Applicants have agreed to do a lot of things we asked. I do not see any negative impact. I appreciate the offer to reduce the apartments.

Mr. Reilly – I think it is a terrific project, especially when I look at all the conditions. I have only struggled with the parking. I don’t think there is a real solution to the parking. I have come around to that I will support this project.

Mr. Cangelosi – I have found the positive side is greater than the negatives. I believe it to be an enhancement to the downtown area. I like the mixed use of the project and I think it is well designed and rich looking and I think it will be the focal point of the downtown area. I think the applicant has made substantial concessions and I am in favor of the project.

Mr. Ardito – I am pleased with what you have presented this evening. I like the mixed use, the parking is a concern; your willingness to work with us on other issues and to make changes to secure you neighbor’s quality of life, I am in favor.

Mr. Wolfersberger – I am skeptical and nervous about the success of this project. I am getting bad vibes about the way this town is going. It is conceivable that the apartments will get rented. You have made concessions; dumpsters, trees and lights have been addressed. I do not think it will interfere will the neighbors light and air. Parking is now a 24-hour problem instead of an 8-hour problem. I am leaning to vote in favor of the project because I think it will benefit that end of town in appearance. If it looks anything like the rendering (which they rarely do) it will be a great improvement to the area.

Conditions

1. Building will be constructed with real wood and real brick to the extent described at the time of the hearing.

2. The condominium documents are to be submitted to the Board’s attorney for review and approval. The master deed and by laws should be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.

3. The roof leaders should be tied directly to the proposed recharge system. The piping connecting discharge points to the recharge system should be shown on the site plan.

4. Existing water and sewer system should be terminated at the main.

5. The building is to be revised to meet the building coverage requirement of the ordinance.

6. The applicant is to file a deed of consolidation for the two lots.

7. The lighting plan is to be revised and submitted to the Board’s Engineer for approval. Specifically the plan is to utilize bollard lighting in order to prevent light spillage onto the neighboring residential properties.

8. Any trees that can be saved that must be removed should be offered to the Beautification Committee. The applicant is to revise its landscape plan to save as many trees or replant trees as possible. All of this is to be identified on the revised plan, which is to be submitted to the Board’s engineer for his review and approval. Included shall be the installation of street trees the will match the existing type and variety of existing trees. Maximum caliber width at the time of installation shall be based on practicality and survivability.

9. The dumpster should be moved as far to the east as possible.

10. The applicant is to enter into developers agreement with the Borough to allow the Borough to remove the Historic homes on this lot to another location of its choosing and the applicant is to contribute $10,000 towards this relocation.

11. 5 (3) inch trees are to be donated to the Shade tree Committee.

Motion by Mr. Reilly, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve application #2006-42of Coastal Points, LLC with conditions.

Vote: Wolfersberger, Leonard, Cangelosi, Moberg, Reilly and Ardito…………..Yea
Opposed: None

Meeting adjourned at 10:45 pm

Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board