Planning Board Minutes from 01/26/2006
 

Planning Board Minutes

January 26, 2006

The meeting began with an affirmation of the Open Public Meetings Act requirements and the Pledge of Allegiance.  The chairman, Mr. Cirillo, requested a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Charles Vitale, past chairman of the Board.

Roll Call:  Present:  Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Beninati, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, Mr. David, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Laudati, Mr. Schielke, and Mr. Russo.  Absent:  Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Corcione, and Mr. Soos.

Vote for Board Attorney:  The vote for Board Attorney was postponed from the re-organization meeting.  Mr. Cirillo asked for any comments or nominations.  Mr. Beninati made a motion to approve Mr. Donald Fraser as Board Attorney, 2nd by Mr. David.  All in favor: Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Beninati, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, Mr. David, Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Candarella.

Communications:  A letter from Alden Markson, attorney for Metro Auto, was read by Mr. Beninati.  His client wishes to proceed with a prior application (#11-05), and have this application heard at the February meeting. 

Mr. Cirillo, Chairman, noted the members are required to attend a workshop for Planning Board members at the County Vo-Tech school.  The registration deadline is February 17.

On another matter, Mr. Cirillo mentioned a note from the Board of Education, requesting a meeting with the Planning Board.  It was suggested a copy of any important information be distributed to the Board members.

Resolutions:  Application # 22-05, Elshiekh Enterprises, LLC, 247 North 8th Street, Block 24.01, Lot 10 (there was a typo error on the Resolution number).  All in favor of Resolution:  Mr. Candarella. Mr. Laudati, and Mr. Russo (Mr. Beninati was recused)

Application # 23-05, Frederico, 645 Monmouth Ave, Block 123, Lot 21.  All in favor of Resolution:  Mr. Candarella, Mr. Russo, and Mr. Beninati.

Application # 05-04/ 25-05, LOCC Properties/National Tool & Manufacturing Co., RE: 100-124 North 24th Street, Blk 55, Lot 4; Blk 56, Lot 9; Blk 58, Lot 4; Blk 59, Lots 1, 2, 3.  All in favor of Resolution:  Mr. Beninati, and Mr. Candarella. (Mr. Russo was recused).

Page 2

New Business:  Application #24-05, Lucadema, 251 North 21st Street, Block 20, Lot 3; Requesting a variance to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure.  Sworn in: Mr. and Mrs. Lucadema; they want to build an addition over their garage, making an extra bedroom and storage area.  The house was built in 1923, and was a non-conforming corner property.  Mr. David said this expansion will not increase the non-conformity.  A motion to accept this application into Resolution was made by Mr. Peters, 2nd by Mr. David.  All in favor:  Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Laudati, and Mr. Schielke.  Mr. Candarella was recused.

Application #26-05, Harms, 33 Wilshire Drive, Block 70, Lot 7; Requesting a variance to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure.  Sworn in:  Bruce Harms and Brian Harms.  Mr. Harms wants to add an extra bedroom suit, a bathroom, and an existing garage expansion. The frontage and side (1’ 6”) are in violation of zoning setbacks.  He wants to expand the garage to fit a full-sized car.  There is presently a 4’ interior wall that would have to be removed to expand the garage and avoid the need for a variance.  This would be cost prohibitive.  The new calculations were not done by a surveyor or an architect.  Mr. Harms said Mr. Lima did the calculations for him on the proposed drawing, created by Mr. Harms. The distance of the new addition to the property lines are not stated on the plan.  Mr. David stated the Application calculations are incomplete, and should be done by a surveyor or architect for accuracy.  Mr. Pantina said these plans were not “sealed” as a legal document.  Mr. Peters suggested Mr. Harms delay this Application to the February 23rd meeting, and return with the proper dimensions clearly stated on the survey and “sealed” by the original surveyor.  A motion was made to hold this case to the next Planning Board meeting (with a stipulation the proper footprint calculations and setbacks are clearly stated and sealed). Mr. Beninati requested these changes be presented to the Board at least one week before the February 23rd meeting.  Re-notification is not necessary.  All in favor.

Application # 05-05, Siragusa, Crisitello, and Sica, RE: 137 North 21st Street, Block 50, Lot 8; for a Minor Subdivision.  Mr. David said a side-yard variance is needed for the existing house on the present lot to grant the sub-division.  He suggested a modification of the application include an infringement on the side yard setback.  The sub-division will be in conformance with the zone requirements.  Mr. Sica said demolition of the present house will be made when the building permit for the new house is issued.  He also agreed with Mr. Peters to use the present house for a “fire drill” before demolition.  A motion for approval to Resolution was made by Mr. Candarella (with a temporary side yard variance), 2nd by Mr. O’Malley.  All in favor:  Mr. O’Malley, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Laudati, and Mr. Schielke.  Mr. Peters was recused.

Application #01-06, DuBeau, 58 South 19th Street, Block 114, Lot 5; requesting a variance approval to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure.  Sworn in: Mr. and Mrs. DuBeau. 

Page 3

 A representative of the applicant stated there is an existing front setback, and there would be no infringement on the rear setback.  They wish to raise the roof and construct an addition (not exceeding 29’9”), which will not increase the present non-conformity.  Mr. Peters questioned the front/side archway; a variance for front and side would be necessary if the overhang goes over 5’ from the house.  Mr. Candarella made a motion to accept this application to Resolution (with the stipulation the application be modified to include a front and side variance), 2nd by Mr. Peters.  All in favor:  Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Laudati, and Mr. Schielke.

Application #02-06, Herbert, 363 Coolidge Drive, Block 101, Lots 16 and 34; requesting a variance to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure.  Sworn in:  Mr. Herbert.  His home presently has a ¾ dormer and he wants to change this into a full second story.  Presently, his house has the following non-conformity: the left side 3”, the left rear 4”, and the front yard 1”.  An overhang will expand from 6’ wide to 20’ wide (the length of the house), and will increase the front yard non-conformity.  Mr. Herbert said there was an error in the zoning officers’ letter of denial; it did not state the necessity of a front yard (20’9”) variance for the additional overhang length.  Mr. Herbert said he will eliminate the front porch, if necessary, for approval.  The Board attorney said the front porch would need an additional variance.  A motion to approve the Application to Resolution (a second floor addition) was made by Mr. Peters (without the 20’ front porch), 2nd by Mr. Beninati.  All in favor:  Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Laudati.  A second vote was taken to deny the 20’ front porch variance.  This motion was made by Mr. David, 2nd by Mr. O’Malley.  All in favor of denial:  Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Laudati.  Mr. Herbert can apply for an expanded porch if it is different than the one suggested in the present plans.

The Board attorney said this re-application must be “substantially” different.  An appeal to reverse this decision (for the 20’porch) could be made to the town council or a superior court. 

Comments concerning Metro Auto:  Mr. Beninati said it will be necessary for the new Board members to review the minutes and tape recordings of Application #11-05 for Metro Auto, (which was previously heard in October and November of 2005) before the hearing, tentatively scheduled for February.  Mr. Fraser suggested a new application be made as an alternative.  The Board agreed on this suggestion.  Mr. Fraser will notify Mr. Markson, attorney for Metro Auto, to have his applicant re-apply, in lieu of having the new members listen to the tapes.  The applicant must re-notify. 

Motion recommending a bon on Duplex housing:  A copy of a proposal was given to all Board members by Mr. Fraser.  The Board has the authority to recommend to the town Council a change in ordinances.  Mr. David said builders are constructing “massive structures” on oversized lots.  Building guidelines need to be addressed.

Page 4

 Mr. Peters suggested an increase of side yard setbacks to be at least 10’ on each side on these oversized lots.  The Board engineer suggested only a percentage of the lot width be used for the structure on these lots.  There was a question of the legality to prohibit duplex houses.  The present code on 2-family houses is ambiguous.  The codes are inadequate, and Mr. O’Brien had suggested the code book be re-written and clarified.  A number of the members would like to prohibit duplex and oversized houses. According to the present ordinance, a duplex is a detached building, divided by a common center wall.

Kenilworth is not zoned for condominiums, just two-family homes.  Side-by-side two-family houses can be prohibited. A motion was made for recommending to the Council a ban on duplex housing.  The motion was made by Mr. Laudati, 2nd by Mr. Peters.  All in favor.  Don Fraser will present to the Council the Planning Boards’ recommendation to ban duplex housing.

Comments for the Good of the Board:  Mr. Daniel Swayze, newly-appointed Board Engineer, introduced himself, and asked about “lines of communication”.  Mr. Candarella was in favor of an e-mail system.  Mr. Beninati said he would supply any information regarding applications to Mr. Swayze. 

Also, Mr. Beninati asked Mr. Fraser for advice on a proposed Application to be made by Mr. Neri.  This applicant would like to rent out his property to a restaurant.  Mr. Fraser replied Mr. Neri can apply for a “use variance” and site plan approval.  The Building Inspector denied approval for a roof, because it must be approved for restaurant use.  Mr. Fraser said he would inform Mr. Markson, the attorney for Mr. Neri, about the application for a use variance. 

Another issue, regarding expansion behind the Boulevard Dunkin’ Donuts, was made by Mr. Beninati.  The proposed doctor’s office must provide its’ own parking area; using this parking area for expansion would exacerbate the parking situation. Therefore, this expansion would probably be denied. 

The meeting was open to the public.  Mr. Herbert asked what procedure would be practical to appeal to a Planning Board decision.  Mr. Fraser said he could go to the Mayor and Council meeting or to a Superior Court, referring to the Municipal Land Use law.  He has a period of forty-five days to try to reverse the Board decision.  A copy of the Municipal Land Use law may be in the Buildings Department. 

Mr. Cirillo urged the Board members to attend the Work sessions the first Thursday of each month.

A motion to adjourn was made at 10:00 p.m.   All in favor.

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Murphy,

Planning Board Recording Secretary



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