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: Mr. Simon, Mr. Wolfersberger, Tooker and Mr. Cangelosi Alternates: Mr. Leonard, Mr. Spader, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Reynolds.
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reilly to nominate Mr. Wolfersberger as acting chairman for the evening.
Vote: Simon Cangelosi, Leonard, Spader, Reilly and Reynolds……………….Yea
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Cangelosi to approve the minutes of October 19, 2006.
Vote: Simon, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard, Spader and Reynolds…………..Yea
Opposed: None
Application #2006-32 – Joseph Auriemma & Majoree McGhee, 111 Arnold Avenue; Block98/Lot6; Applicant wishes to remove existing garage and replace with a 24′ x 36′ two-car garage with workshop and storage areas. Peter Kearns, attorney for applicant. Applicant has owned property since 1983. Never altered existing garage. No commercial use of workshop. Home has rooming house license. Last used as rooming house in 1987. One of the reasons we maintained the license is for when we retire we would have income. It would be an asset for resale. Requesting height variance for new garage of 19 feet. New garage will conform to rear and side setbacks. Would have permanent plumbing. Mr. Auriemma said the footing would be adjusted for flooding. Exhibit A-3 entered/Proposed garage plans; Exhibit A-4 Revised survey; Exhibit A-5 – Photos. Mr. Simon questioned if the applicant could make the garage 16 feet in height. Marjorie McGhee answered that they were trying to match the principal structure. Mr. Leonard "You are asking for over 30% coverage with a garage that has a porch.
No audience questions
Mr. Wolfersberger – You home is already over on coverage. Mr. Simon – You could keep the height a 16 feet. You would just need to change the pitch of the roof. Mr. Leonard – This looks like a house to me. It is supposed to be a two-car garage. I am having a problem with this. Mr. Cangelosi – I love my garage –I love this garage as proposed. Your garage has some unique features (bathroom, height, heat) and all of that requires a lot of coverage. Peter Kearns stated that he is realizing that the board has a problem with this garage and requests to have the application carried so they can make some adjustment to the plans. Mr. Spader inquired if they should be taking parking into question because they might reactivate the rooming house license. Mr. Galvin – We can condition it so that when the reactivate the license they need to come back. Mr. Wolfersberger – I have no problem with them replacing the garage. I would be inclined with replacing it as is and moving it to comply with the setbacks. Down the road you get an owner who is not as honest and will be tempted to rent it as a small house because it has plumbing, heating and a bathroom. I am inclined to vote. We already are meeting more than we should. Peter Kearns request to carry application to a future date. Time element is not that important.
Motion by Mr. Cangelosi, second by Mr. Reilly to carry application #2006-32 to February 15, 2007 without notice
Vote: Simon, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Leonard and Tooker
Opposed: Spader
Railroad Square Partners, LLC, 413 Railroad Square, Block 94/Lots 13-19 – Ordinance Interpretation of uses permitted in the GC Zone. Does the Ordinance permit a three-story building that does not exceed the height limitations that would consist of a two-story apartment over retail/office use?
Dan Popovitch, attorney for applicant. Looking for interpretation if they build structure 3 stories but not over 35 feet. What they are looking to do is GC (retail) on the first floor with the 2-story apartment above with the height not exceeding 35 feet. Ordinance reads GC retail on first floor with apartment on second floor.
Mr. Savacool -D-Variance in bases on number of feet in the building not the number of stories. GC list permitted uses in zone. I interpret that to be exclusionary of all other locations other than the second floor. It states apartments to be located on the second floor only meaning apartments are limited to the second floor. Mr. Savacool interprets as a D1 use variance. Mr. Galvin said he thinks the issue is where the apartments are to be located. Mr. Wolfersberger said that anything over retail on the first and an apartment on the second floor is a use variance. Mr. Galvin – What you are deciding is what was the governing bodies intent when this ordinance was passed?
Deliberations
Mr. Leonard – I agree with our engineer Mr. Savacool. I believe they meant that they wanted the apartments on the second floor only.
Mr. Wolfersberger – I agree with Mr. Leonard. I believe that this was the intent of the people who developed this ordinance. There have been discussions but nothing at this has officially changed.
Motion by Mr. Leonard, second by Mr. Reilly that the ordinance is interpreted to mean apartments are limited to the second floor.
Vote: Simon, Leonard, Cangelosi, Wolfersberger, Tooker, Spader and Reilly…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)
Mr. Galvin was pleased to announce that Mr. Simon. Mr. Leonard, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Spader had all on their own time listened to the First Baptist meetings and had signed certifications stating that. Exhibits marked as following; A114 Alternate site plan, A115 Revised Elevation, A116 Revised Building Elevations, A117 Revised basement plan, A118 Revised first floor drawings. Steven A. Pardes, attorney for applicant stated that after listening to the neighbors at the last meeting they took their concerns and have once again revised the plans. John Amelchenko has supplied him with a memorandum as to the changes to the plans. He can read the memorandum or have testimony of witnesses. He leaves the decision to the board. Mr. Galvin recommends to the board that they allow the testimony and that they open to the public and allow them to question/comment as to only the modifications to the plan. Steven Pardes said he was just made aware of the objection about the plan not being available 10 days prior to the meeting. I do not feel the 10-day rule applied in this situation; we were responding to the board’s request to consider a reduction in the building. However to be certain that we have no technical objection that could overturn the boards decision one way or the other, I think that the procedure recommended by Mr. Galvin is appropriate. I am not conceding that there is any defect. John Amelchenko, professional architect, previously sworn. In response to comments of the board we attempted to reduce the size of the over all project. Reduced square footage of first floor 648 sq feet from 4797 sq. feet to 4148 sq. feet. Further reduced square footage of basement 4979 to 4273 square feet and reduced square foot age of building 15521 sq. feet to 14165 square feet. Approximately 1500 square feet of this space is essentially unusable space in the existing church basement. Reduced length of building along McLean Avenue and decreased depth of building (north to south) by 10 feet and eliminated the encroachments in the rear yard. Existing enclosed entrance to the basement on McLean Avenue has been removed; added reduction in building and impervious coverage. Reduced classrooms in basement from 8 to 7(one classroom has been replaced by an office). Mr. Spader inquired if reductions had changed the roofline or pitches. John Amelchenko – Yes subtly; main ridge still the same height. Mr. Cangelosi requested that he repeat the changes. Multi-purpose room is really where most of the reduction is. Reduced occupancy from 190 to 150. Ceiling of all-purpose room 20 feet high at the highest point; 1-story cathedral volume space. Significant reduction of square footage. Also the building has been reduced by about 20,000 cubic feet.
Audience questions
June Monticello, 405 River Avenue – What are the dimensions of the kitchen? Where are the kitchens exhaust fans going to be located?
John Butow, 709 Grove Street – Where are the air conditioning units going to be located? (South side of existing building and screened)
Tom Neumaier, 707McLean Avenue – What’s frustrating is they are always comparing this to the original concept plan that was never considered. I think it should be compared to what exists. (JA – We are more than doubling the size of the existing structure).
Chris Pederson, 807 Orchard – Will the a/c units be a commercial grade unit. Do you know the decibels? (JA- we would have to meet the ordinance)
Mr. Wolfersberger requested that the questions be kept to the previous testimony this evening by the professional.
John Monticello, 405 River Avenue – If it is not a commercial kitchen, why is it so big?
Doug Johnson, 54 Grove Street – Inquired about the size of the kitchen and then commented that it is about the size of his which he feeds 6 people out of. He thinks it is a reasonable request.
Diane Mesgleskie, 712 McLean Avenue – You said you took away an exit from the church, how many exits will there be? (JA – There will still be 2 exits)
End of Audience Questions
Robert Burdick, Professional Engineer – Exhibit A-114 – Alternate Site Plan – % of lot coverage reduced from 49.9 to 47.8 impervious. Provides routing of rear sidewalk
Audience questions
Chris Pederson, 807 Orchard – Inquired how rear and side yard was interpreted?
Mr. Reynolds – Can the parking lot be moved?
Ray Savacool – Manse still violates the rear yard set back.
Mr. Wolfersberger – Inquired as to the parking lot measurements.
Bob Burdick – 103′ to rear, 115′ to sidewalk. County has to approve parking lot.
Darryl Monticello, Arbutus Avenue – Is the assessory building part of your pervious and non- pervious calculations. What are the setbacks?
Audience Comments
The following audience members made lengthy comments to their position on this application. Audio is available at Borough Hall for anyone who wants to hear meeting in its entirety.
Douglas B. Johnson, sworn – Beautiful facility. Thinks neighbors should be ashamed. No Bingo, no alcohol, I don’t get it. There is no traffic on Sunday.
Tamary Gates – McLean Avenue – We have seen a lot of changes. I would hate to see this done.
Robin Lostetter, sworn – Associate Pastor at Point Pleasant Presbyterian Church. Beside the intangible of a church there are some tangible benefits. Religious land use and institutional persons act. I feel there have been several places here where questions have been asked that interfere with our rights.
June Monticello, sworn – Exhibits entered N-1, picture of propertyN-2 through N-5, N-7 Photo packet. It is a beautiful building. I want to clearly state this is my opinion on the plan, not the church. I have many concerns. It has been blown into an enormous structure. We do not have a specific number of children who will be attending. I know the church could use more space but this leaves room for potential increase.
Frank Taranova – (Mr. Galvin) not appropriate witness because council represents the church. He should find another piece of property.
Steven A. Pardes, sworn – Noted objection.
Mike Warner, sworn, Curtis Avenue – Not a member of the church. John Helm has been a good friend and neighbor. First met him Christmas Caroling at my door. I have seen a lot of good he has done for the community. I have been to weddings and special events there, all this stuff has been going on there. This is not wild stuff going on there. I do not see it being much different.
Gina Burn, sworn, 400 River Avenue – Concern is for amount of traffic if this construction is approved.
Eric Rasnussen, sworn, Toms River – Concerns simple. It is a very big building. With no revenue, how do they pay for it? What happens when Rev. Helm retires?
Joseph Miller, sworn, 505 St. Louis Avenue – I think we are all for a little religion. My problem is the all purpose room and the commercial kitchen. I think they should start on a much smaller scale,
John Butow,sworn 709 Grove Street – Primary concern is any variance granted goes with the property. Board must consider what will happen if church relocates. Exhibits entered – Photos N – 8,9,10,11,12 N-13 Tax Map N-14 size comparison.
Julie Noack, sworn – Inquired what year the map was from? (JB)October 2006
Albert Barnes, 711 Grove Street – Home is directly behind the church. Have been neighbors of the Helms for 15 years. Plethora of negative factors that would accompany an approval. Head counts do not have anything to do with it, but there are many who have concerns over proposed modification. I hope you take into account the concerns.
Mary Kronwetter, sworn – Concerned about traffic.
Exhibit N15 – Entered as Lostetter 1
Mr. Galvin – Explain why Church members cannot comment due to the fact that they have legal representation. Mr. Cox 27-3:3.1, 2006 Edition. Objectors can only be heard through their attorney.
Steven A. Pardes – Exception noted for the record.
Tom R. Neumaier, sworn – Clarifying that nothing is meant personally towards Rev. and Mrs. Helm. They have been the nicest neighbors. His concern is the parking and the enormity of the building addition.
Joseph Rogers, sworn – Thinks church is a wonderful historical building. Plan is way to aggressive. Traffic is going to create problems. Functions at night might have parking lot lights disturbing neighbors.
Lorna Williams, sworn – I would like to address the point of quality of life. I love Point Pleasant Beach, I love this community. I can’t understand the attitude that when you have 3 tattoo parlor’s and a witches coven that you are against the expansion of a church.
Mr. Galvin: The ruling is the public hearing is closed but we are holding off the decision until December 7, 2006. Any questions about the revision should be entertained.
Meeting adjourned 11:15 Attest: Karen L. Mills, Clerk of the Board
