Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board hears plan for two‑story storage building to serve Point Beach Interiors; drainage and zoning waivers remain

Point Pleasant Beach Board of Adjustment · August 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Point Pleasant Beach Board of Adjustment heard testimony on application 2026F18 to build a two‑story, 7,664 sq ft storage building serving Point Beach Interiors at Route 35/Arnold Avenue. Engineers, the architect and the applicant described operations, site layout and proposed mitigation for an impervious coverage overage; the board moved to deliberate and a motion to approve with conditions was seconded (vote not in transcript).

The Point Pleasant Beach Board of Adjustment reviewed application 2026F18 on Aug. 6, 2026, a proposal for a two‑story, 7,664 square‑foot storage structure to serve Point Beach Interiors at Route 35/Arnold Avenue. Counsel introduced the project team and told the board the facility is intended as an ancillary "backroom" for the downtown store rather than a retail location.

Engineer and planner Jeffrey J. Carr summarized the site plan and circulation changes required by the state, saying, "We're going to raise the existing building and construct a new, a new building on‑site," and explaining the revised single‑driveway configuration agreed with NJDOT. Carr and the team described the operation as low intensity — one to two part‑time workers on site and deliveries by van or box truck several times a week. Applicant testimony said deliveries occur "three trucks a week." The project requires a d‑1 use variance because the borough zoning ordinance does not list warehouse/storage as an allowed use in any commercial zone, and the team requested bulk variances for impervious coverage and modest height and setback deviations.

Board members pressed on stormwater and impervious coverage discrepancies between submitted materials; the engineering team acknowledged differing figures (application vs. engineer calculations) and proposed mitigation measures including roof‑area recharge, dry wells and grass pavers. The board and applicant agreed to conditions requiring a drainage plan with roof recharge, and a revised landscape plan with street trees subject to board engineer approval. After discussion the board moved to deliberate; a motion "to approve with stated conditions" was made and seconded, but the transcript ends before a roll‑call tally appears.