March 7, 2019

         MARCH 7, 2019 SPECIAL MEETING
 
The March 7, 2019 special meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm.  The clerk read the notice of compliance with the "Open public meetings act." Present were Board members:  Mr. Kelly, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Schneider, and Mr. McGee

Also present: Dennis Galvin, Ray Savacool and Karen Mills

Court Reporter – Denise Sweet

Absent – Secretary Spader, Mr. LePore, Mr. Davis, Mr. DePolo and Ms. Crasper.
 
Minutes
Motion by Vice Chair Reynolds, second by Mr. Dixon to memorialize the minutes of January 17, 2019
 
In favor:  Kelly, Reynolds, Dixon, Schneider and Struncius
Opposed:  None
 
 
Abbreviations
KM – Kerry Morgan
RS – Ray Savacool
CC- Christine Cofone
JD – John Doyle
JJ – John Jackson
 
 
AGENDA
Application #2018- 05 – Point Pleasant Packing, Inc. i/c/o – Daniel Cohen – 205 Channel Drive – Blocks 172/173 : Lots 1,5, & 5.01/1, 2 & 2.01 – Applicant wishes to reconstruct existing fishery and make 2 stories and erect a new 109 room hotel/restaurant and banquet facility supported by parking and associated site amenities.
 
Carried without notice from December 6, 2018 without notice
 
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, introduced the planner – Christine Nazzaro Cofone, Professional Planner, sworn, credentials accepted. Presented Planning testimony and reviewed Engineering letter. Restaurant and fishing use is permitted but the hotel/banquets are not a permitted use. She questioned the banquet not being a permitted use because the Lobster Shanty has banquets. CC stated that this is area that is particularly suitable for the proposed use; there are other banquet facilities that gravitate to the water.  This is the largest assembly of parcels in the MC zone as stated by Greg Cox and it is large enough to rebrand this area while accommodating an area for pedestrians. They presently have the fishing operation, 500 feet of frontage on the water; a large semblance of parcels in the MC Zone; the ability to have 13 foot wide promenade that is available to the public so the public could get their morning coffee and walk their dog. If the hotel and banquet hall were packed to capacity it would not impact the commercial fishing operation. From a planning point of view when you look at all those factors together we certainly substantiate our burden of proof with respect to particular suitability. CC – So then we move on to special reasons – anyone going for a D1 use variance would have to advance one or more purposes of the land use law. She will site 5 purposes that she believes are advanced by this application. Thinks that this will really shape the area. Criteria A – to guide appropriate user development. Master Plan is very clear about continued viability – certainly this does promote the general welfare. Criteria B – Secure Safety – fire , flood and hazard – Height gets the building out of the flood zone; structure that will withstand a storm. Chairman Struncius inquired “why from a Planning perspective does a hotel have anything to do with making a fishing business better”. There is nothing that says you need a hotel to run a profitable fishing business. CC – Sometime you need the critical mass of multiple uses to make them all successful. If you look under the MC Zone under general regulations the first general regulation reads that one building make contain more than one permitted use provided the total building coverage goes on. It is not unusual from a Planning Point of view to have mixed uses to get a critical mass to make a site successful. That is probably why the very first requirement in the MC Zone allows for a multiplicity of general uses. Sometimes in a redevelopment zone you need a little more to get it going; I can’t think of a better site for this. Needing multiple uses is not a negativity; it is something the ordinance calls for. Chairman Struncius – Agrees with mixed use and critical mass but one of the things here is a hotel that the council took out of the MC Zone. The Master Plan was re-examined in 2015 and they didn’t make any changes; that is the biggest thing here is to get to that understanding. CC- reviewed the history of the zone and believes there has been policy change through the years on allowing hotels. Stated that she believes this hotel is different from any hotel the beach has seen. The applicant believes that the commercial fishing industry will be a draw for the hotel and adds another level of tourism.  CC- says the Borough list 23 prohibited uses and hotel is not one of them.

Exhibit A-18 – Power Point – Entered – Referenced Lobster Shanty aerial view – commercial fishing and restaurant – CC believes it is a compatible use. Does not impact the banquet facility. Yacht Clubs are permitted in this zone and Yacht clubs/Marinas have weddings. Criteria G – sufficient space for recreation.
Other than the height they meet the criteria – no disruption of light, air and open space. Criteria I – Desirable vision environment – Different types of finishes – coordinate with fishing operation. Extensive landscaping. In Christine Cofone’s opinion – Criteria A, B, G and I are advances by this application. According to the MLUL the applicant only has to advance one of the criteria to prove positive criteria. Negative Criteria – Public good/detriment to the zone – Hotel is not permitted in the zone but the lion’s share of this applications permitted in the zone. Challenged to find where this would be a substantial detriment. In Chritines Cofone’s opinion – knowing how hotels function – this would not have a negative impact on the zone plan. This open’s up the views to the public. Could have done a shorter building but believe this layout is the most efficient. 2015 Master Plan reexamination stated the importance of the marine/fishing industry; their continued presence should be supported. This is a great opportunity to revitalize the MC Zone. Undisputed fact that you are looking to promote, protect and enhance the fishing industry.  Planning is not a black and white science – the Borough has certainly been back and forth with what they want to do here. Findings have to be based on the land use – we have demonstrated that there is adequate site circulation, adequate parking, landscape properly – no substantial detriment. Allows for intense commercial uses – have events and facilities. I only see an opportunity to revitalize the MC Zone.
CC – Stated that the majority of the homes in the MC Zone lack curb appeal. There has been some reinvestment in the area but most of the area overall is an area that has struggled to keep itself viable. John Jackson inquired if the zoning has spurred development on the waterworks side? CC- No – It has not spurred any development that would bring people to that area. The buildings are old and tired and unless you are eating at the eastern end there is not much reason to go back there. There is not really a big draw there. I would think in the Planning term that the properties are underutilized. The properties have great attributes but are really limping along.  It is unusual that the client has been able to assemble multiple lots to rebrand the area.

Mr. Schneider – excellent presentation but what is the criteria for the three stories. CC- Allows the applicant to open up the views to the water. The shadow video showed that even at 3 stories there is no negative impact on the neighbors. JJ – If the concern is the 109 room they would be able to reduce the rooms. They already have the liquor license. Mr. Dixon – What is the “V” Zone flood elevation. RS – It is in a V12 – Lowest horizontal structure has to be above that. Lowest structure would have to be at V15 so that lends itself to parking underneath – V Zone is required for the entire building. Kerry Morgan, Esq. asked for clarification of the 1 to 4 ratio (Room to banquet seats). Applicant is not married to 109 rooms – Majority of roof line is at 42.5 feet.

John Doyle – questioned Christine Cofone’s testimony and inquired if she is a tourism expert. CC- No – licensed Planner. JD questioned if each site should only have one use – CC – Building may contain more than one use if building coverage is not exceeded. JD said permitted uses. JD – Read form ordinance book pertaining to use. CC – stated that we are here for a use variance. John Doyle – Referenced LED screen – CC – Not a moving billboard – Will depict art. JD – questioned how it will promote the general welfare – CC – Zoning is not to control the market. You can develop as of right a restaurant on every lot. Zoning does not control the market. JD- Economics of fishing business will impact the hotel. CC – We hope so. Especially when 25% of jobs (per the US Census) in this town are connected to the fishing industry. JD – referenced photo of Jack Baker Site where there are boats right next to the Restaurant to show that they can relate – JD stated that it is not the same as 13 boats that are a fleet that are packed and loaded is different. JD inquired if there were ever any yacht clubs in Point Pleasant Beach?  CC – Burden of proof of negative criteria – underlying zoning envisions some synergy between the zones – never said there were yacht clubs – but there could be. Exhibit O1 entered – letter sized site plan. John Jackson objects – does not believe this is a proper depiction of the site.
JD – questions that there is a negative criteria standard – case law would indicate the larger the site the larger the impact. JD – doesn’t the whole site become a non-conforming use because of the hotel? CC – it becomes a non-conforming site – the uses that are conforming are not – the use on the western portion is conforming – Just because it sits on the site of a non-conforming use does not render it non-conforming. CC – Obviously we are here for a use variance. JD – clarified that the applicant would reduce the units. Would Mr. Lurie lop off the top floor to meet the requirement? Would the proposal be more efficient? CC- It would still fit – do not understand the question. JJ – We do not have to beat this horse. The variance would be reduced. Chairman Struncius stated that it has been established that the scale here is very different from the neighborhood.  JD – How do you define how much critical mass is enough? CC – I didn’t say the fishing operation needs critical mass – I said in order to revitalize the site that we needed certain critical mass of activity which this applicant is proposing to be the restaurant, banquet hall and hotel together with the commercial activity. JD – The restaurant is a permitted use so they could just have the restaurant? CC – We could have.  JD – Would that have revitalized the site to some degree? CC – I do not know if that would be sufficient to revitalize and the necessary engine to keep the commercial fishing operation viable. Chairman Struncius – wants clarity and her stance on that – but you do believe that the whole facility as proposed could help to promote and support the industry (CC- I do) – as a board we can weigh that somewhat but we still have to from a planning point of view decide with a lot of the things you stated whether a non-approved hotel use is the right thing for this zone or not. Separate from the fishing – it could be a restaurant – it could be a yacht club – it could be other things. We have to weigh whether it would work in this area. CC – I don’t think you can cherry pick what would work – you have to look at this application as a totality. You have to look at all aspects because that is the application that has been filed.  JD – You don’t believe that by having a hotel that the fishing industry will catch more fish do you? CC – that was absolutely not my testimony.  JD – how does the hotel economically help the fishing business?  CC- It makes the site overall a more economically viable site. Chairman Struncius said there was previous testimony about the repairing of the bulk head – the need and how we balance that.

Mr. Kelly said that this is a big business. We need to look at this as a business and this business counts on the docks. Chairman Struncius said 18 wheelers are constantly rolling down this street. Is this the best operation with boats, fork lifts and trucks from planning point of view – is this something you have experience with. CC-You could be in the hotel and not even look at that commercial aspect of the site – right now it is occurring – the hotel across the street it occurs – you have two very busy venues right down the street – I do not see why any of those things would detract from the ability to run the business. You have the testimony of the then operator of the commercial fishing industry that even if the banquet and hotel were packed it would not negatively impact the ability to run the commercial fishing operation, so I don’t see why they can’t operate synergistically. Chairman Struncius questioned the parking lots across the street. CC – The greater good is to have the parking spaces there would outweigh the detriment. Mr. McGee – Will the hotel run as a separate business – are those rooms going to be reserved for the banquet facility. JJ – Banquets will be run as a package. Chairman Struncius – Inquired what the agreement or condition is about the educational aspect? JJ – Mr. Cohen certainly made that part of the agreement about the educational terms. We would make that part of the approval to be available to the schools and public for educational tours of the operation. Chairman Struncius – There would be a way to manage it, promote it and book it. (JJ – Yes)

Tim Prestorius – We presently give tours – Rutgers has been here many times. Chairman Struncius inquired how that comes about. Tim Prestorius said that they call. Vice Reynolds questioned if Christine Cofone believed that would benefit the use. CC- Absolutely   Mr. Kelly said that area is a jewel – at the rate we are going that business cannot make it with that dock. I believe the hotel will be a secondary use to the fishing business. It is a fishing business location – legitimate use.
 
Motion by Mr. Kelly, second by to carry application #2018- 05 – Point Pleasant Packing, Inc i/c/o – Daniel Cohen – 205 Channel Drive – Blocks 172/173 : Lots 1,5, & 5.01/1, 2 & 2.01 to April 11, 2019 without notice.
 
In favor – Kelly, Schneider, Vice Chair Reynolds, Dixon, McGee and Struncius
Opposed:  None

John Jackson waived the time for the application to be heard
Motion approved

Meeting adjourned at 10:40pm

Attest:  Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board