Planning Board Minutes from 02/23/2006
 

Planning Board Minutes

February 23, 2006

The meeting began with an affirmation of the Open Public Meetings Act requirements and the Pledge of Allegiance.  The minutes from January 26, 2006 were approved, and approval was given to pay the Recording Secretary and the Board Attorney.

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

Resolutions:  Corrective resolution regarding National Tool/LOCC, Application #05-04, & #25-05.  A motion was made to accept the corrections to this application, made by the Board Attorney. A faxed copy of the deed for this sub-division was submitted by the Attorney for LOCC, which Mr. Fraser will duplicate and give to the Secretary and the Board members.  A motion to approve this correction was made by Mr. Soos, 2nd by Mr. Candarella.  All in favor:  Mr. Soos, Mr. Beninati, and Mr. Candarella.

Resolution for a Recommendation to Ban Duplex Housing:  The Board will submit a recommendation to the Mayor and Council to ban duplex housing.  A motion to approve this Recommendation was made by Mr. Beninati, 2nd by Mr. Peters.  All in favor:  Mr. Peters, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Corcione, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Schielke.

Application # 24-05, Lucadema, 251 North 21st Street, a Variance to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure.  A motion to accept this Resolution was made by Mr. Peters, 2nd by Mr. Beninati.  All in favor:  Mr. Corcione, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Schielke.

Application #05-05, Siragusa, Crisitello, and Sica, RE: 137 North 21st Street, for a Minor Sub-division.  A motion to accept this Resolution was made by Mr. Beninati, 2nd by Mr. David.  All in favor:  Mr. O’Malley, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Schielke, and Mr. Cirillo. 

Application #01-06, DuBeau, 58 South 19th Street, for a Variance to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure.  A motion to accept this Resolution was made by Mr. Beninati, 2nd by Mr. O’Malley.  All in favor:  Mr. Schielke, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Pantina, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, and Mr. Cirillo.

Page 2

Application # 02-06, Herbert, 363 Coolidge Drive, a Variance to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure.  Mr. Fraser, Board Attorney, mentioned this applicant believes the survey he presented at the January hearing was erroneous and the front porch may not need a variance.  Mr. Fraser said the Board has already voted to deny the porch.  A motion to accept the Resolution (approve the addition, but deny the front porch) was made by Mr. Beninati, and 2nd by Mr. O’Malley.  All in favor:  Mr. Candarella, Mr. Pantina, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, and Mr. Cirillo.

NOTE:  The applicants must notice the local newspaper their application was made into resolution, before a building permit is issued.

Old Business:  Application #26-05, Harms, 33 Wilshire Drive, a Variance to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure (with sealed calculations).   Mr. Harms brought the plans to a surveyor, who drew the new dimensions and stamped the plans.  This application was previously heard at the January 26, 2006 meeting.  The garage will be

1’5/8” in violation of the 5’ side yard setback.  A motion to accept this into Resolution was made by Mr. O’Malley, 2nd by Mr. Schielke.  All in favor:  Mr. Schielke, Mr. O’Malley, and Mr. Peters.  Opposed:  Mr. Candarella, Mr. Pantina, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, and Mr. Cirillo.  This Application is denied.

New Business:  Application #03-06, Karwowski, 525 Clinton Avenue, a front and side yard Variance for a second floor addition.  Sworn in:  Mr. Karwowski.  He said the left side of the house will be only 3’ from the side property line.  It is presently 15’ from the left side line. Presently, the existing right side is 4.6’ from the property line.  The front steps protrude into the front yard setback (this will create a 7’5” overhang from the front of the house).  There will be a 3’4” second floor cantilever.  There is a concrete slab in the rear of the house, which the applicant said he will remove and show this on the plans. Mr. Fraser summarized the following variance requirements:

1.  Two front yard setback variances:

A 7’5” porch roof protrusion into the front yard setback

A 3’4” front cantilever (2’ is allowed)

2.  A 2nd floor addition that will be on the pre-existing, non-conforming right side

3.  A left side yard variance extending the addition up to 3’ of the property line

  Mr. David said the survey does not state the proper footage; the plans and survey must be consistent.  He suggested this case continue at a future meeting, if this requirement is met. The meeting was open to any comments from the nearby neighbors.  Sworn in:  Mr. Tom Hogan, 529 Quinton Avenue, a next-door neighbor.  He objects to the large size of the house, as it would not be consistent with the neighborhood.  Also sworn in:  Richard LoForte, 520 Quinton Avenue.  He is not in favor of the side-yard setback infringements.  He suggested a rear addition, not to infringe on the side yard.   Mr. Karwowski requested the Application be continued to the March 23, 2006 meeting.  Mr. Soos made a motion to carry this Application to the March meeting (with the proper dimensions clearly stated on the survey and plans), 2nd by Mr. Peters.  All in favor.  No notification is necessary.

Page 3

Application #04-06, Panichi, Re: 330 Boulevard, a Variance for a front yard addition.

Sworn in:  Mr. John Panichi, 320 Boulevard.  He wants to make improvements: to add a bedroom, dining room and a sitting room.  The existing front steps are twenty feet from the front.  The new additions will not affect the present footprint.  A motion to accept this Application to Resolution was made by Mr. Beninati, 2nd by Mr. Russo.  All in favor:  Mr. Russo, Mr. Schielke, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Corcione, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Cirillo. Opposed:  Mr. Soos.  Mr. David was recused.

Application # 05-06, Miklas, 122 Park Drive, a Variance for a front portico and a side addition.  Sworn in:  Mr. and Mrs. Stan Miklas.  They are requesting a variance for a side addition: an overhang for steps (into the basement).  The property is “pie-shaped”, and this will extend 3’2” into the front setback. There will be a 21’9” side setback.  Mr. Soos said this area presently has flood conditions.  The applicant said the side addition will go over an existing patio and part of the driveway.  Sworn in:  Mr. Herbert, 363 Coolidge Drive, commented that the pool ordinance requires a distance of 6’ from the property line.  A motion to approve the application to resolution was made by Mr. Soos, 2nd by Mr. Beninati.  All in favor:  Mr. Russo, Mr. Schielke, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Corcione, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Peters, Mr. Soos, and Mr. Cirillo.  Mr. Pantina was recused. 

Application #06-06, Corcione, RE: 140 North 24th Street, front and side yard variances for an addition. Since Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Corcione, and Mr. Beninati were recused, Mr. Candarella was asked to chair this part of the meeting. Sworn in:  Frank Corcione, 529 Springfield Ave, Springfield.  His father owns this property and wants to construct an addition.  The house presently is an existing, non-conforming with a front setback of 23.9’.  There are existing steps and he wants to add a front porch overhang. From the property line to the front of the overhang would be about 19 feet.  He wants to widen the steps (they are currently 5’ wide).  It was suggested the front width should be no more than 6’ wide, and this figure should be added to the plans.  Mr. Soos said the house may not exceed 30’ in height. (Measuring 15’ from the front and back).  A shed in the back has a rejection letter; it is not 3’ from the property line.  Mr. Corcione agreed to move the shed to be in zoning compliance.  A motion was made to approve this Application with the following provisions:  The front step width may be no more than 6’ wide, and this figure must be included in the plans; the shed must be moved to be in zoning compliance (at least 3’ from back and side yard property lines).  The motion to approve this application to resolution was made by Mr. Soos, 2nd by Mr. Peters.  All in favor:  Mr. David, Mr. Soos, Mr. Peters, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Schielke. 

Application # 07-06, Pinto, 248 North 17th Street, a Variance to construct a garage.  Sworn in:  Mr. Pinto.  He wants to build a garage in the back of his property.  It will be 15’ high, which complies with the height ordinance.  It will be 5’ off the property lines.

 Mr. Soos said the resulting double driveway will extend to the rear of the property, creating a large amount of impervious surface.

Page 4

 There is a side entrance in the mid-section of his house.  If the garage would be constructed on the side of the house, the tenant would not have access to his apartment, unless he entered through the garage. He presently has a shed on the proposed site, and he wants this larger structure to replace it.  Mr. Cirillo asked if there were comments from the public.  Sworn in: Mr. Paris, 231 N. 16th Street.  His house is located behind the applicant’s property.  He objected to the size of this proposed garage (26’ x 15’ x 15’), and the lot coverage (a double-wide driveway).  He presented four pictures showing top, side, and back views of the proposed site.  The present shed is 10’ high, and the nearby fence is 6’ high. The applicant would consider lowering the height of the shed to 12’ at the peak, if this is an issue.  Mr. Pantina wanted to know if there is an impervious surface maximum in the town zoning laws.  A large portion of the applicant’s land would become impervious.  A motion to deny this application, as it stands, was made by Mr. Beninati, 2nd by Mr. Soos.  All in favor of denial:  Mr. David, Mr. Soos, Mr. Peters, Mr. Corcione, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Candarella.  Opposed to the denial:  Mr. O’Malley.  The Applicant can re-apply with modifications, (possibly using less lot coverage and a lower roof height).

Comments for the Good of the Board:  Mr. Fraser said some applicants’ plans do not have basic dimensional information. In Garwood, the town engineer would notice these deficiencies before Planning Board review.  Mr. David said the applications should not be scheduled for a regular Planning Board meeting unless they do have the correct dimensional information. Mr. Peters said the Planning Board should review all plans at Work sessions (held the first Thursday of each month) and determine if they are complete.   Also, Mr. Pantina suggested a “check list” be given to applicants to ensure all necessary information is provided and correct on their plans and surveys. 

The Board members discussed the need for zoning clarification. Mr. Herbert, a resident, suggested a “land use” rule should be expedited.  

 Also, Mr. Corcione (App. #06-06) wants an 8’ porch, not a 6’ porch.  The architect’s plan appears to be only 6’.  He may submit another application for a larger porch, but the present application can not be changed.

A motion to adjourn was made at 10:45 p.m.  All in favor.

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Murphy,

Planning Board Recording Secretary 



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