Point Pleasant Beach board approves downtown gym and retail use with parking, noise and use limits
July 02, 2026 | Point Pleasant Beach, Ocean County, New Jersey
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
At a special meeting, the Point Pleasant Beach Board of Adjustment voted to approve application 2026-14 of 804 808 LLC, permitting a gym on the first floor and additional permitted retail/ commercial uses on the first and second floors, subject to conditions the board and applicant agreed on during public comment and deliberations.
Attorney Michael Orbino Jr., appearing for the applicant, told the board the proposal was revised after prior hearings to remove a concrete driveway along West Laurel and convert that area to a maintained lawn, to add a small amount of impervious area at the front of the property for about four parking spaces, and to reduce overall impervious coverage “to about 66%,” under the 70% maximum permitted by the zoning ordinance. “At the end of the day, weve now reduced the impervious coverage to about 66% where 70 is permitted,” Orbino said in presenting the changes.
The board and professionals examined a parking exhibit (A4) that allocates parking by tenant: the gym (tenant one) was calculated at roughly 52 spaces and a possible second commercial tenant at about 110 spaces (the exhibit lists the retail calculation as about 110.2 spaces). Board members and the applicant agreed the site would be capped at the submitted formula; any future tenant whose proposed use would push the site beyond the capped parking would need to return to the board. As the board summarized, ‘‘if the parking demand increases above the number were approving, they have to come back and reobtain new parking approval.’'
Several residents testified during public comment, pressing the board to uphold parking standards. Peter Fishbine, who owns a nearby house, said, “Parking is very tight in that area,” and urged respect for the zoning code and master plan. Attorney and resident Terry Brady argued from land-use law that prior resolutions (March 2, 1995 and March 6, 1997) had limited the buildings second-floor use to storage and urged caution, saying variances “are to be granted very sparingly under the law” and reminding the board that variances run with the land.
Applicant counsel and the projects planner responded that the recent reductions in impervious coverage, the removal of the driveway, and the addition of two parking spots for the single-family residence behind the commercial building materially changed the proposal from the earlier matters and thus required fresh consideration rather than dismissal on res judicata grounds.
After extended deliberation about the negative and positive criteria for a D2 variance, board members said they were persuaded the concessions and conditions would limit adverse impacts while allowing a use aligned with the towns downtown revitalization goals. The board and applicant agreed to a set of conditions to be included in the resolution and memorialized on the revised exhibit A4:
- No outdoor gym exercise classes or outdoor training on the converted West Laurel lawn; no vehicle parking allowed on the lawn and the lawn must be maintained by the owner.
- Any amplified music must comply with the municipal noise ordinance.
- The parking allocation set on exhibit A4 governs the maximum parking available for the site; tenant-two is effectively capped at the retail-calculation amount (about 110 spaces as listed on A4) and the gym is limited to the gym allocation (about 52 spaces). If a future tenants proposed use requires higher parking, the applicant must return to the board for additional relief.
- The applicant offered and the board accepted time-window limits on the gym operation (the applicant referenced morning and afternoon/evening time blocks in testimony; the board directed staff to capture exact hours in the written resolution so they are enforceable).
The board moved to close deliberations and then voted to approve the application with the stated conditions. Roll-call votes recorded the board members present voting in the affirmative.
The board chair closed the special meeting after the vote. The board directed staff to draft the final resolution incorporating the agreed conditions and the exhibit revisions for memorialization at a future point.
The record includes prior board resolutions from March 2, 1995 and March 6, 1997 that limited second-floor use to storage; those resolutions were cited repeatedly by public commenters and considered by the board in weighing res judicata and the current application.
What happens next: staff will prepare the written resolution reflecting the conditions discussed today, including exact gym hours and the parking caps tied to exhibit A4; the applicant may not change the hours or tenant uses in ways that exceed the approved parking or hours without returning to the board.
Attorney Michael Orbino Jr., appearing for the applicant, told the board the proposal was revised after prior hearings to remove a concrete driveway along West Laurel and convert that area to a maintained lawn, to add a small amount of impervious area at the front of the property for about four parking spaces, and to reduce overall impervious coverage “to about 66%,” under the 70% maximum permitted by the zoning ordinance. “At the end of the day, weve now reduced the impervious coverage to about 66% where 70 is permitted,” Orbino said in presenting the changes.
The board and professionals examined a parking exhibit (A4) that allocates parking by tenant: the gym (tenant one) was calculated at roughly 52 spaces and a possible second commercial tenant at about 110 spaces (the exhibit lists the retail calculation as about 110.2 spaces). Board members and the applicant agreed the site would be capped at the submitted formula; any future tenant whose proposed use would push the site beyond the capped parking would need to return to the board. As the board summarized, ‘‘if the parking demand increases above the number were approving, they have to come back and reobtain new parking approval.’'
Several residents testified during public comment, pressing the board to uphold parking standards. Peter Fishbine, who owns a nearby house, said, “Parking is very tight in that area,” and urged respect for the zoning code and master plan. Attorney and resident Terry Brady argued from land-use law that prior resolutions (March 2, 1995 and March 6, 1997) had limited the buildings second-floor use to storage and urged caution, saying variances “are to be granted very sparingly under the law” and reminding the board that variances run with the land.
Applicant counsel and the projects planner responded that the recent reductions in impervious coverage, the removal of the driveway, and the addition of two parking spots for the single-family residence behind the commercial building materially changed the proposal from the earlier matters and thus required fresh consideration rather than dismissal on res judicata grounds.
After extended deliberation about the negative and positive criteria for a D2 variance, board members said they were persuaded the concessions and conditions would limit adverse impacts while allowing a use aligned with the towns downtown revitalization goals. The board and applicant agreed to a set of conditions to be included in the resolution and memorialized on the revised exhibit A4:
- No outdoor gym exercise classes or outdoor training on the converted West Laurel lawn; no vehicle parking allowed on the lawn and the lawn must be maintained by the owner.
- Any amplified music must comply with the municipal noise ordinance.
- The parking allocation set on exhibit A4 governs the maximum parking available for the site; tenant-two is effectively capped at the retail-calculation amount (about 110 spaces as listed on A4) and the gym is limited to the gym allocation (about 52 spaces). If a future tenants proposed use requires higher parking, the applicant must return to the board for additional relief.
- The applicant offered and the board accepted time-window limits on the gym operation (the applicant referenced morning and afternoon/evening time blocks in testimony; the board directed staff to capture exact hours in the written resolution so they are enforceable).
The board moved to close deliberations and then voted to approve the application with the stated conditions. Roll-call votes recorded the board members present voting in the affirmative.
The board chair closed the special meeting after the vote. The board directed staff to draft the final resolution incorporating the agreed conditions and the exhibit revisions for memorialization at a future point.
The record includes prior board resolutions from March 2, 1995 and March 6, 1997 that limited second-floor use to storage; those resolutions were cited repeatedly by public commenters and considered by the board in weighing res judicata and the current application.
What happens next: staff will prepare the written resolution reflecting the conditions discussed today, including exact gym hours and the parking caps tied to exhibit A4; the applicant may not change the hours or tenant uses in ways that exceed the approved parking or hours without returning to the board.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
