Planning Board Minutes from 10/27/2005
 

BOROUGH OF KENILWORTH

567 Boulevard

Kenilworth, N. J. 07033

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

OCTOBER 27, 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 to pay the Attorney and Recording Secretary’s fees.  The Attorney will submit his voucher at a later date.

Roll Call:  Present:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Vitale, Mr. Peters, Mr. Soos, Mr. DeLuca, Jr., Mr. Candarella, Mr. Cirillo, and Mr. Russo. Absent, Mr. Rappa, Mr. Schultz, and Mr. Laudati. Mr. David arrived later.

Communications:  Mr. Beninati, Secretary, read a letter from Attorney A. Markson, addressed to Mr. Clementi.  His clients, who own the two buildings at 131-135 North Michigan Avenue, would like to meet with the Planning Board at the next Work Session or Regular Meeting.   It is a request for a Zoning change.  Mr. Don Frasier, Board Attorney, suggested this request to the Board should be detailed in writing.  To be on a Planning Board Agenda, it must be published and noticed.  Mr. Markson agreed to send a letter with the request to the Board, and to meet with Mr. Beninati to schedule this at a future Planning Board meeting.

Resolutions:  Application #296, United Fire Protection Corporation, 1 Mark Road, Block 2, Lot 17, for Site Plan Approval and Alterations.  A motion to accept this resolution was made by Mr. Soos, 2nd by Mr. Peters.  All in favor: Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Peters, Mr. Soos, Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Russo.

Application # 12-05, Candarella, 320 N. 21st Street, Block 17, Lot 4, for a minor sub-division, with conditions of a Board approved Variance.  Mr. Candarella suggested an error was made on Page 3 of the Resolution concerning the expiration date of the Variance.  Mr. Frasier will make the correction and change it to the year 2007.  A motion to accept this Resolution was made by Mr. Peters, 2nd by Mr. DeLuca, Jr.  All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Peters, Mr. DeLuca, Jr., Mr. Cirillo, and Mr. Russo.

Application # 294-A, WPK Enterprises (Woodbridge Builders), 624 N. Michigan Avenue, Block 2, Lot 11, for a Site Plan.  A motion to accept the Resolution was made by Mr. Candarella, 2nd by Mr. Michitsch.  All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Peters, Mr. DeLuca, Jr., and Mr. Candarella.

Resolution on Non-Conforming Bulk ConditionsOnce a property is pre-existing- non-conforming, any further development on that site will be requiring additional review by the Board.   A Motion to accept this Resolution was made by Mr. David,

Page 2

2nd by Mr. Michitsch.  All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Peters, Mr. David, and Mr. DeLuca.  Opposed: Mr. Beninati, Mr. Soos, and Mr. Candarella.

Old Business:  Application #15-05, Morino, 334 S. Michigan Avenue, Block 172, Lot 11, for a height Variance for an existing new 2-family house.  Mr. Andril, Attorney for Mr. Morino, called on the Building Inspector to be sworn in.

Sworn in:  Richard Malanda, 1891 Morris Avenue, Union, and Building Inspector for Kenilworth.  He stated the new zoning requirements (regarding the height definition of homes) were in use as of May 26, 2004.  The application (for block 172, Lot 11) was received on July 22, 2004 and the permit was picked up and paid for on August 24, 2004.  The plans indicated the new house would comply with the ordinance. RE: 30’ to the ridge, measured 15’ from the foundation.  Mr. Limma and Mr. Malanda performed the required inspections prior to the final inspection.  On August 1, 2005, he informed the owner the building appeared to be too high.  On the following day, the architect met with the building inspector.  The architect had a laser-measure and it indicated a height of thirty-four and one-half feet high.  A laborer dropped a tape down to confirm this.  At that point, he informed the architect the building exceeded the height requirements. 

Mr. Andril, attorney for Morino, asked if the plans are required to indicate what method is used to show the height of the building.  Mr. Malanda said it is not, and it is the responsibility of the architect to adhere to the local zoning laws.  He did seek all of the necessary inspections (plumbing, electrical, framing).  Mr. Lima inspected the framing, but the grading was not completed.  The height would not be measured until the final inspection (August 1, 2004). 

Sworn in:  Mr. Joseph Limma, 685 Thoreau Terrace, Union.  He performed the insulation and framing inspections for 334 S. Michigan Avenue.  On July 14, 2004 he told the owner this building appeared to be too high (by sight), and he agreed.  He also received a complaint before the framing.  It is the responsibility of a site plan surveyor to confirm the measurements.  He went to this site three times: the first time on a complaint, the second on a framing, and the third on an insulation inspection.  It is the owner’s responsibility to be sure the height is correct. 

Mr. Malanda was asked if every house is measured.  There is no practical way for the Building Inspector to measure prior to the completed grading at the framing inspection.  Mr. Andril said if there was a serious doubt that the building exceeded the zone codes at the time of the framing inspection (when the problem could have been rectified), the owner should not have been allowed to proceed.  Mr. Peters asked if a framing inspection could be approved (adhering to all of the Building Codes), and still fail the Zoning Codes.  Mr. Malanda said yes, if there is no Building Code issue.  Mr. Michitsch suggested the owner and the architect should have taken steps to measure the height before proceeding to complete the structure.  The owner picked up the old zone book, prior to when the plans were submitted.  Mr. Fraser stated the Board is within its’ legal rights to enforce the new zone law, or rule the building may comply with the old zone law (as a hardship) in this case.

Page 3

According to the new zone laws (revised on May, 2004) this building exceeds the height requirement by over 4 feet.  According to the old zone laws (dated October, 2003); the building exceeds the height requirement by one-half foot.  Although the height of the building remained at 30’, the method of determining this measurement was changed in the new zone code. 

Mr. Soos made a motion to rule the new ordinance be applied to this case, 2nd by Mr. Vitale.  Roll call:  All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Soos, and Mr. DeLuca.  Opposed:  Mr. Beninati, Mr. Peters, Mr. Vitale, Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Russo.

A motion to rule the old ordinance be applied to this case was made by Mr. Russo, 2nd by Mr. Peters.  All in favor:  Mr. Beninati, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Peters, Mr. Vitale, Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Russo.  Opposed:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Soos, and Mr. DeLuca, Jr.

Mr. Fraser said the owner will comply with the old ordinance by lowering his house at least one-half foot.  He must submit new construction plans that show the roof line will be lowered.  He will not elevate the grade to augment the difference.  Mr. Peters suggested Mr. Malanda should be present, upon completion, when the height measurement is taken.  When the plans are re-submitted, the method of height measurement should be included on those plans. 

Mr. David suggested the Building Department should have up-to-date zone ordinances.  The Borough must insure these new updated inserts are included with the Zone books.  He and Mr. Soos are the liaisons to the governing body and will make sure this problem is addressed.

Discussion of Bulk Requirements for 2-family houses:  Mr. Fraser handed out print-outs of the new Proposed Ordinance language in zone code Section 197-3.  A type error in section B should read 35’, not 50’.  It was decided this proposal would be discussed at the next Work Session on November 3, 2005.

Application #11-05, Metro Auto Electronics, 10 Market Street, Block 179, Lot 6, a Variance for a School in an Industrial Zone.

Mr. A. Markson, Attorney for Metro Auto Electronics, stated this school would be “inherently beneficial” to this site.  Part of the building encroaches on Railroad property easements. Sworn in:  Mr. Lamera, 29 Upper Warren Way, Warren, N. J., proprietor of Metro Auto Electronics.  The licensed school is presently located at 111-115 Market Street, since March, 1995.   His sixteen daytime students and eighteen evening students are taught to install after-market electronics in vehicles.  His school has grown, and it is necessary to include more training space in the new school.  He plans to keep his offices at 111-115 Market Street, and the Training area at 10 Market Street. Metro is a trade school and would fit well in this area.  Cars will be used for instructional purposes only.   It will be behind Columbia Leather.  Mr. Kelly, the property owner, will work out issues with the railroad, since there is no road to access on the site plan.  The Railroad and the state must agree to give the owner an easement for access to the Training school.  

Page 4

Mr. Marsden, acting Borough Engineer, said a letter was sent on August 3, 2005 to the applicant.  It requested the site plan should reference the survey and be based on the survey.  It does not appear that is the case.  Students must cross-over railroad tracks to access the school.  The proposed parking spaces appear to be on the rails. A “circulation plan” is necessary to show access, parking, and exiting.  The proposal should indicate what other facility will be there to insure safe crossing over the rails.  The assurances of the Railroad and State should be given in writing to the Board.  Mr. Clementi said revised plans and Railroad approval is necessary to continue this Application.  It must meet the requests of the Borough Engineer. Mr. Alden requested this Application be continued to the November meeting.  Re-notification is not necessary. 

New Business:   Application #16-05, Margeton, 273 Lincoln Drive, Block 96, Lot 10, a front and side Variance for an attached garage is postponed until the November meeting.

Application #17-05,  Ferrari, 361 Roosevelt Avenue, Block 103, Lot 5, a front yard Variance.  Sworn in: Mr. Ferrari.  He purchased his house in 1999, and became aware that his house is built on an angle, and the proposed add-a-level addition will be 1” in violation of the front yard zoning law.  No neighbors raised an objection to this Application.  An overhang is part of this application, and not changing the present footage. He is changing the design only of the porch overhang.  A motion to approve this Application was made by Mr. Soos, 2nd by Mr. DeLuca, Jr.  All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Peters, Mr. Vitale, Mr. Soos, Mr. David, Mr. DeLuca, Jr., and Mr. Candarella.

Application #19-05, Stafford, 230 Faitoute Avenue, Block 152, Lot 5, a Variance for a front and side setback for a fence.  Sworn in:  Patti Stafford, 230 Faitoute Avenue.  She stated a stream runs through her property, and an old fence was destroyed.  She is requesting a picket fence be constructed around her property, as this is necessary to deter a dangerous situation.  The side of the house (facing Union Avenue) is actually the front of the house.  A motion to accept this Application was made by Mr. Soos, 2nd by Mr. DeLuca, Jr.  All in favor:  Mr. Clementi, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Peters, Mr. Vitale, Mr. Soos, Mr. David, Mr. DeLuca, Jr., and Mr. Candarella.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Murphy,

Planning Board Recording Secretary



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