Planning Board Minutes from 9/22/2005
 

BOROUGH OF KENILWORTH

567 Boulevard

Kenilworth, N. J. 07033

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

SEPTEMBER 22, 2005

The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance and an affirmation of the Open Public Meeting Act requirements.  Approval was given to accept the minutes, and pay the Attorney and Recording Secretary’s fee. 

Roll CallMr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Peters, Mr. Soos, Mr. Deluca, Jr., Mr. Candarella, Mr. Cirillo, and Mr. Russo.  Absent:  Mr. Rappa, Mr. Vitale, Mr. David, and Mr. Laudati.

Communications:  Board Attorney, Don Fraser, will formalize an August decision and have a Resolution prepared for the October 27 meeting.  RE:  Any non-conforming Bulk Conditions must be reviewed by the Board for variance approval.  The results are to be given to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and to the Building Inspector. 

Resolutions:  Application #13-05, Krayowski, 37 North 12th Street, Block 77, Lot 8, for a Variance (with modifications of original Application).  A motion to accept the Resolution was made by Mr. Peters, 2nd by Mr. Michitsch.  All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Peters, Mr. Soos, and Mr. Deluca, Jr.

Application #14-05,  Mazzeo, 223 North 22nd Street, Block 44, Lot 5, for a Variance (with modifications of the original Application).  A motion to accept the Resolution was made by Mr. Peters, 2nd by Mr. Deluca, Jr.  All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Peters, Mr. Soos, and Mr. Deluca, Jr. 

New Business:  Application # 11-05, Lamera/Metro Auto Electronics, 10 Market Street, Block 179, Lot 6, for a Variance (proposed School in an Industrial Zone).  Mr. A. Markson is requesting a postponement (due to a question of off-street parking and access) of this application until the October 27 meeting, to be carried without further notice.  All in favor.

Application #10-05, Locorriere, 438 North 16th Street, Block 11, Lot 4, a variance for a porch overhangs into the front yard setback. No one was present to represent this application.  The Board made a motion not to dismiss, but to carry this application to a future date (with public notice). Mr. Peters made a motion to carry, 2nd by Mr. Russo.  All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Schultz, Mr.  Peters, Mr. Soos, Mr. Deluca, Jr., Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Russo.  Opposed: Mr. Michitsch.

Application #12-05, Candarella, 320 North 21st Street, Block 17, Lot 20, for a Minor Sub-division and a Variance.

Page 2

 Mr. Candarella has a 100’ x 100’ lot to be sub-divided into two 50’ x 100’ lots.  He is also requesting a temporary variance for his present home, which sits on the proposed sub-divided line. He would like to live in his present house and build another house in the new sub-divided lot.  He would then demolish or move his existing home.   He handed out an aerial view of the neighborhood (A-1).  Mr. Don Fraser, Board Attorney questioned the time-frame needed to complete this project.  Mr. Candarella requests about 18 months to two years.  Mr. Tango suggested a submission of a revised plan which would include for Conditions of approval:

1. Utility services for both homes

2. Existing ground elevations (to ensure there are no drainage issues)

3. The plans should show how both homes would discharge to a “dry well”

Mr. Candarella agrees to the request of Mr. Tango.  He stated the existing “steps” will be removed, and the ground leveled. 

Sworn in:  Carmine Rosetti, a nearby resident of North 21st Street.  He asked if the Board Members saw the grading of this property (about a 45 degree slant).  Mr. Peters said the Board engineer can address the water run-off and other issues.  Drainage calculations will be submitted.  Mr. Tango stated the reason for the “dry well” and grade survey is to ensure the water run-off does not go onto the neighboring properties.  An alternative would be to possibly tie into an existing Municipal Storm Sewer. 

Sworn in:  Phil Ventre.  He is concerned about his mothers’ house at 321 N. 20th Street and asked how the water run-off would be controlled during construction.  Mr. Tango said he would request placing bales of hay or a “silt fence” (a fabric placed along the property line, used to hold back mud run-off).  The Soil Conservation Authority may require certain measures to be taken. 

Mr. Candarella said he may also need a decorative grading wall.  He plans to construct a house in zone conformance; less than 30’ high (averaged 15’ back from the front, back, and sides of the house).  His present house is 3-story in the rear, and 2-story in the front. 

He may “move” his present house to a conforming area.  Mr. Fraser suggested a “sunset date” would mandate removal of the existing home.  It would be necessary to obtain a T.C.O. from the Building Department.  A motion to accept this application into resolution was made by Mr. Schultz, 2nd by Mr. Russo.  This motion includes approval of a sub-division with a temporary two-year side-yard variance.  The Resolution must meet Mr. Tango’s request of a revised plan to meet his “Conditions of approval”.  Also, a “silt fence” must be in place before construction. All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Peters, Mr. Deluca, Jr., Mr. Cirillo, and Mr. Russo.  Opposed:  Mr. Michitsch and Mr. Soos. 

Application #15-05, Morino, 334 S. Michigan Avenue, Block 172, Lot 11, for a Variance (a 2-familly house exceeds the zone height requirement).  Mr. Andril represents Mr. Moreno, who is requesting a height variance for his house.  His client applied for a building permit in July, 2004.  He received a permit in August, 2004.  He could not obtain a Certificate of Occupancy because of a change in the zone laws. 

Page 3

The height of new houses or additions must be 30’ or less, calculated from 15’ away from the base of the house.  Mr. Andril is requesting “extraordinary relief” of this zone law.

Sworn in:  Mr. Nevis, Architect, who prepared the plans for the building at 334 South Michigan Avenue.  He said he designed the house to comply with the then present building codes.  A permit was issued on August 29, 2004.  At the framing inspection, the inspector mentioned the building was too tall.  Mr. Morino went to the Building Department to resolve this issue.  He was told the building was allowed to proceed.  The present zone officer would not issue a C.O. when the house was constructed.  Under the “old ordinance” the home was only 10” over the limit, and, according to the new ordinance, it is almost 5’ over limit. The old ordinance allowed a 3-story building in this zone.  Under the old formula, the tip is not to exceed 33’ to the “mean elevation” (see Ordinance #197-38, item G).  Because of the grading around the building, the house was not built in accordance with the plans to comply with the old or new ordinances.  There were no spot elevations at the time of the application.  Mr. Tango asked if the property be re-graded to make up the deficiency.  This may be possible in the back of the house. The applicant said the Building Inspector gave his approval to continue building. 

Sworn in:  Mr. Fred Moreno, 334 S. Michigan Avenue.  He said Mr. Joe Lima, Zoning Inspector, inspected the framing in January, 2005, and said the house was “too high”.  Subsequently, he said the Building Department Secretary, Ellen, informed him that Joe Lima gave his approval to continue.  All of the other inspections passed, except the Building inspection.  Mr. Malanda, Building Inspector, said the completed house does not conform by over 4’ and would not issue a C.O.   The architect said the roof would have to be ripped out to comply with even the old ordinance.  Mr. Tango said the Board may give the applicant three options. 

1.  Adjust the roof pitch to comply

2.  Grant the ordinance for the 6” deviation

3.  Have the property re-graded 6” higher from the foundation, (which may not be possible if there is a stream encroachment)

There was a concern with the Board that residents build against zone requirements and come before the Board “after the fact”.  Mr. Cirillo suggested the roof height should be lowered to conform to the ordinance, and the applicant fined $500.  The attorney for the applicant wished the request be carried until October 27.  Mr. Soos suggested Mr. Malanda and Mr. Lima be present at the October 27 meeting.  The Board granted the request for an extension to explore their options.

Application #296, United Fire Protection Corporation, 1 Mark Road, Block 2, Lot 17, for a Site Plan and Alterations for light manufacturing.  Mr. Joseph Propano, an attorney with Heil and Heil Esq., stated the applicant’s property is located in an Industrial Zone.  He will make Site improvements, and renovation of the interior and exterior.  There will be thirty-four parking spaces (71 spaces are required for the buildings’ square footage).

Sworn in:  Frank Savino, 207 Cranford Avenue, Cranford, a representative of United Fire Protection Corporation.  He stated there will be an office staff of twenty-two. 

Page 4

The thirty-four parking spaces can accommodate the twenty vans and two shop vehicles employed and used by the staff. 

The new warehouse will store the hi-low vehicles.  A new sprinkler system will be installed.  Mr. Tango suggested the Resolution should specify there should be no outdoor storage of any kind permitted on this area.  Sworn in:  Nick Sottos, Engineer, 28 Leppers Lane, Clark.  He said there are several pre-existing, non-conforming conditions.  This site is about 40,000 sq. ft. in an Industrial area, and this use is permitted.  The previous tenant employed over eighty people.  The plans comprise a complete interior and exterior overhaul.  The parking spaces will increase from twelve to thirty-four spaces.  He has complied with Mr. Tango’s suggestions.

Sworn in:  Albert Bossert, 886 Sunset Ridge, Bridgewater, owner of a neighboring industry, approves of this new applicant.  The previous owner may have had copper contamination on this property. Some impervious surface will be removed and shrubs planted. There is no drainage issue.

  Proof of DEP approval is a condition of this Resolution.

A motion to accept this application was made by Mr. Peters, 2nd by Mr. Michitsch.  All in favor: Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Peters, Mr. Soos, Mr. Deluca, Jr., Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Russo. 

Application #294-A, WPK Enterprises, 624 North Michigan Avenue, Block 2, Lot 11, for a Revised Site Plan.  Sworn in:  Arthur Henn, Architect, 20 E. Sumner Avenue, Roselle Park.  He showed the present deteriorating building appearance.  He plans to renovate the front façade, creating parapets, showroom windows, and using stone and stucco on the existing footprint.   The footprint (except the vestibule) comprises about 318 sq. ft.  The present “lean-to” covered storage area will be re-furbished and screened.  Sworn in:  Ed Dek, Planner, 131 N. Michigan Avenue. This is not a retail store.   He stated the following variance is necessary:  for an (existing condition) impervious surface requirement waiver (over by 1%).  Parking spaces are consistent with Borough requirements with handicapped access to the building.  There are no drainage issues.  Shrubs are proposed around the building.  The dumpster will be surrounded with a board-on-board fence and it will have a gate.  Mr. Tango stated: six parking spaces in front of the building are opposite the driveway, which means vehicles would “back out” into traffic entering the site.  He suggested the entrance driveway could be aligned with the access driveway.  The architect said he would give this idea consideration, but would prefer to leave the plan as is, and keep the vestibule area. 

A motion to accept this application was made by Mr. Peters, 2nd by Mr. Deluca, Jr.  All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Me. Beninati, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Peters, Mr. Deluca, Jr., Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Russo.  Mr. Soos was recused.

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Murphy,

Planning Board Recording Secretary



ADS - Applied Dynamic Solutions, LLC ADS, LLC   email webmaster