Borough of Kenilworth
Kenilworth, N. J. 07033
Planning Board Minutes
March 23, 2006
The meeting began with an affirmation of the Open Public Meetings Act requirements and the Pledge of Allegiance. The Minutes from February 23, 2006 were approved.
Approval was given to pay the Recording Secretary and the Board Attorney.
Roll Call: Present: Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. David, Mr. Peters, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Corcione, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Schielke, and Mr. Russo. Absent: Mr. Soos and Mr. Laudati
Oath of Office: Mr. Sal Candarella was moved from an Alternate to a (#4) Regular member of the Board and sworn in by the Attorney. In addition, Mr. Schielke was moved to a #2 Alternate.
Resolutions: Application #26-05, Harms, 33 Wilshire Drive, Block 70, Lot 7: Resolution for Denial of an addition to a non-conforming structure. A motion to accept the Resolution for Denial was made by Mr. Candarella, 2nd by Mr. Pantina. All in favor: Mr. Beninati, Mr. David, and Mr. Cirillo.
Application #04-06, Panichi, 330 Boulevard, Block 76, Lot 21: Resolution for a front yard addition. A motion to accept this Resolution was made by Mr. Candarella, 2nd by Mr. O’Malley. All in favor: Mr. Peters, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Corcione, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Schielke, and Mr. Russo.
Application #05-06, Miklas, 122 Park Drive, Block 48, Lot 8: Resolution for a front portico and a side addition. A motion to accept this Resolution was made by Mr. Peters, 2nd by Mr. Candarella. All in favor: Mr. Peters, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Corcione, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Schielke, and Mr. Russo.
Application #06-06, Corcione, 140 North 24th Street, Block 48, Lot 12: Resolution for front and side addition. A motion to accept this Resolution was made by Mr. Candarella, 2nd by Mr. Peters. All in favor: Mr. David, Mr. Peters, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Schielke.
Application #07-06, Pinto, 248 North 17th Street, Block 35, Lot 5: Resolution for Denial of Variance for garage. Note: this Resolution will be revised to state Mr. O’Malley was opposed to the Denial. A motion to accept this Resolution for Denial was made by Mr. Candarella, 2nd by Mr. Corcione. All in favor: Mr. David, Mr. Peters, Mr. Corcione, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Candarella.
Amended Resolution for Application #20-05 and #05-03, Rizzo, 210 and 216 North 21st Street, Block 42, Lots 11,12, and 13: Subdivision of 3 existing lots into three re-configured 50 x 100’ lots, with a side-yard and a front-yard set-back variance. A vote was taken to re-memorialize the corrected resolution. A motion to accept this was made by Mr. Beninati, 2nd by Mr. Candarella. All in favor: Mr. Michitsch, Mr. David, Mr. Beninati, and Mr. Candarella.
Old Business: Application #03-06, Karwowski, 525 Quinton Avenue, Block 142, Lot 2: Variance front and side yards, for a 2nd floor addition. Mr. Karwowski was previously sworn in. He has an existing, non-conforming structure. He changed his original plan (revision was made on March 10), which now eliminates the need for a left-side variance. The existing variances requested are for the front and right side. Mr. O’Malley noted the applicant is requesting a front yard variance of 17’1” (this includes a 6’ portico and a
2’ cantilever). The side yard is an existing, non-conforming 4’8” (requirement is 5’).
Mr. Michitsch said having a portico does not constitute a “hardship”. Mr. Peters suggested the applicant could return with another revision. Mr. Karwowski requested a delay to the next meeting, in order to revise his plans. No further notice to the public will be necessary. All members were in favor of continuation to April 27 to further revise his plans.
New Business: Application #09-06, Spaeth, 11 Park Drive, Block 15, Lot 89: a height variance for a garage (exceeds 15’). Sworn in: Mr. Spaeth, who stated he needs to replace his existing detached garage. He wants to attach the new garage to the house, so the height can be 30’, with an additional 2,000 square ft. This would give the garage a length of 35’, and, with the height, would constitute a major variance. Mr. Pantina and Mr. Peters said the plan and survey does not show the exact scale and dimensions. A motion to deny this Application was made by Mr. Michitsch, 2nd by Mr. Peters. All in favor of Denial: Mr. David, Mr. Peters, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Corcione, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Cirillo, and Mr. Pantina. The applicant was advised he has the right to appeal before Mayor and Council or a Superior Court. He could re-submit, providing the future plans are “substantially different”. His existing detached garage can be torn down and rebuilt, and the proper permits issued. Mr. Peters suggested the applicant talk to the Building Inspector for guidance in amending the plans, so no zoning variances would be necessary.
Application #10-06, Latorre, 23 Wilshire Drive, Block 70, Lot 5: a front and side yard variance (existing non-conforming) for an addition. Sworn in: Mr. Latorre. He wants to add a recessed fourth bedroom with a small 2nd floor deck, which will not increase the non-conformity. A motion to accept this Application to Resolution was made by Mr. Candarella, 2nd by Mr. Corcione. All in favor: Mr. David, Mr. Peters, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Corcione, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Cirillo, and Mr. Pantina.
Application #11-06, Petschow, 25 North 20th Street, Block 81, Lot 7: requesting
the right to build a two-family home in an LC zone.
Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Beninati, and Mr. David were recused. Mr. Michitsch will replace Mr. Cirillo as chairman for this Application. Mr. Al Stender will represent the applicant and presented the necessary published notices. Sworn in: Ms. Linn Petschow. She stated a fire caused over 50% damage to the house, and rebuilding was recommended. The zoning officer denied the request to re-construct a two family house, since the street is part Local Commercial. The maximum height requirement for R1, R2, or R3 is 30’, and the applicant is requesting a height of 30’ 9”. The former home was two-family. The area is “mixed zoning”: LC, R2, and R3. The required setback in this area is 5’, or in line with the “abutting structure”. The two-car garage in back of the house would be allowed only if used by the occupants. Sworn in: Mr. Ed Dec, engineer. His client is requesting a height variance of 30’ 9”, as it would be in zone compliance in an LC zone. The main request is for a variance to re-build a 2 family in this LC zone. The street has single family, two-family, and stores with 2nd floor apartments. The client is seeking a two-family use, but subject to the bulk restrictions permitted in an LC zone. Mr. Fraser suggested the Board might consider permitting the two-family house, subject to the restrictions of a two-family zone (R-3). The required setback in an LC zone is 5’, and 25’ in an R-3 zone. Mr. Dec said the setbacks in this area vary from 20’ to 1’. The structure to the left is 16.5’, and the pervading setback averages 9’7”. The previous setback to the house was 14.5’, and the new request is 13.5’, (the front yard setback to the covered porch was 7.5’). The applicant would be agreeable to re-adjust the roof to a 30’ height. The garage will be constructed in the rear of the yard, and would be restricted to use by only the occupants of the new house. Mr. Dec said the main structure could be setback 16’. There is a “hardship” involved in this case, since the original structure was destroyed by fire. Prior to the vote, the Board Attorney reviewed the following conditions: 1.The height of the house would be reduced to 30’; 2.The front yard setback to the porch would be 12’, and 16’ to the main structure; 3.The detached garage would be used only by the occupant. The other setbacks should be met as per zoning requirements. The applicant is in agreement with these changes. A motion to accept this Application to Resolution (with the above-mentioned conditions) was made by Mr. Peters, 2nd by Mr. Candarella. All in favor: Mr. Peters, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Corcione, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Schileke.
Application #12-06, Metro Auto Electronics Training Institute, 16 Market Street, Block 179, Lot 6; an auto electronics school in an Industrial zone. Mr. Beninati was recused. Mr. A. Markson is the attorney for Metro Auto. He said the Electronics school does not involve children and would be inherently beneficial to this area. A previous application was delayed because of on site state-owned railroad property. This is no longer an issue because this property was sold to the owner of Block 179, Lot 6. Sworn in: Mr. Tom LaMerra, proprietor (11 years) of Metro Auto Electronics School at 111-115 Market Street. He will lease the property at 16 Market Street for the school. The previous location was an issue with the residential neighbors, and this building would now be used for classroom space. The proposed area would be used for the “hands on” training. The average class has twenty-two students and two instructors. They will park in back of the building.
Mr. LaMerra said the parking should be adequate, and he is willing to comply with the Board Engineers’ suggestions. Mr. Dec will meet with Mr. Swayze to assign the parking spaces. Sworn in: Mr. Joseph Kelly, who owns part of the building at this site. He is the owner of a wall covering business that has twenty-two employees. His business utilizes just 6 spaces (because of car-pooling). Prior to taking a vote on this application, the Board Attorney suggested it be subject to these conditions: that both engineers (Mr. Dec and Mr. Swayze) confer and agree on delineation of parking spaces and there be a general clean-up of the entire location. A motion to grant this Use Variance (subject to the above conditions) was made by Mr. Candarella, 2nd by Mr. Corcione. All in favor: Mr. Peters, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Corcione, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Cirillo, and Mr. Pantina.
A motion to adjourn was made at 10:35 p.m.
Janet M. Murphy,
Planning Board Recording Secretary
|ADS - Applied Dynamic Solutions, LLC email webmaster|