Planning Board Minutes
began with an affirmation of the Open Public Meetings Act requirements
and the Pledge of Allegiance. The Minutes from
Roll call: Present: Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Peters, Mr. Candarella, Mr. O’Malley, and Mr. Schielke. Mr. Corcione arrived later. Absent: Mr. David, Mr. Soos, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Laudati, and Mr. Russo.
Resolutions: Application #35-06, Laurie, 412 Coolidge Drive, Block 108, Lot 12, Variance to replace existing front porch roof. Mr. Candarella made a motion to approve this Resolution, 2nd by Mr. Peters. All in favor: Mr. Peters, Mr. O’Malley, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Michitsch, and Mr. Cirillo.
#302, Haag, RE:
Business: Application # 300, Neri/Brahmatt, RE: 131 So.
Until he arrives, Mr. Fruchter will represent the applicant in lieu of Mr. Butler. In light of Mr. Butler’s absence, Mr. Cirillo called for a 10-minute recess.
Mr. Swayze, Borough Engineer, stated he met with representatives of Mr. Neri (Parker and Stewart).
revised plans on
Mr. Swayze suggested the following:
1. The Board review past Resolutions concerning this site to see if any variances are applicable.
2. The parking ordinances require 198 parking spaces, and the applicant is providing 136 spaces.
3. Storm water management is still an open item to be addressed by the applicants’ engineer.
4. He is unsure if the Fire Department reviewed this application, and did not have those comments.
5. There are minor concerns about the loading zone impact on traffic.
6. He is
concerned with the future use of
7. The Borough engineer needs one, complete, coherent, bound set of drawings.
Application #300, continued
Mr. Fraser, Borough Attorney, suggested Mr. Butler may wish to address most of these issues, and he should arrive soon. Concerning the parking issue, Mr. Fruchter stated there is a progressive attitude for “shared parking” in many municipalities. He suggested a waiver to have multiple uses (office and restaurant) for a parking lot, and duplicity of utilization: daytime, night time, and weekend use.
Mr. Butler, Applicants’ Attorney, feels it is not incumbent on his client to verify previous approvals, since the structure is already built. Mr. Michitsch suggested the applicants’ attorney comply with the engineers’ request. Mr. Butler will try to produce the documents from the original site plan. Mr. Fraser explained that Mr. Butler is asking to proceed by way of an “amended” site plan. If the client wants to re-apply with a new site plan application, then it would not be necessary to produce that former site plan. At present, the applicant is requesting an amendment to a prior approval. Therefore, it is incumbent on the applicant to produce that prior approval.
Mr. Terry Parker, Architect for Mr. Neri, said the PMK notes (concerning parking requirements) were not consistent with the applicants’ calculations. He referred to the letter of December 7, from PMK Group. He said there is no “fixed seating” in the banquet hall. Therefore, one space for every three “fixed” seats does not apply to this situation. The Banquet Hall is 4,870 square feet. He noted the occupancy load that is required by the State Uniform Construction Code. The engineer calculated one person for every five square feet of floor space. Space for actual footage (with tables and chairs) would be one person for every fifteen square feet. Divide 4,870 square feet by fifteen square feet equals approximately 325 people. Mr. Michitsch said his drawing calls for 360 people. Mr. Parker said he may not have the most recent drawings. The Board Attorney asked Mr. Parker if there were any physical changes to the plans that would account for the capacity reduction.
Mr. Parker totaled the calculations: The twenty-five employees are not required to have parking spaces. The restaurant capacity is seventy-six patrons. Adding 76 restaurant patrons to 330 banquet hall patrons equals 406 people, divided by three people per parking area results in 136 parking spaces. Mr. Parker said the plan allows for 160 parking spaces.
Mr. Parker said the original suggestion of 360 patrons was in error. Mr. Cirillo said that on July 27, Mr. Neri stated 200 parking spaces would be available. Mr. Swayze calculated about 198 spaces are needed (includes more parking for patrons, 8 spaces for patrons on the outside deck, 25 spaces for office use, 15 spaces for the warehouse). Mr. Fraser asked the engineer, without the offices and warehouse use, would 160 spaces be enough for the patrons of the restaurant and banquet hall. Mr. Swayze agreed that “different uses at different times” could be taken into consideration.
Mr. Parker quoted code #197-82, “Multiple Use Requirements”. A reviewing Board may allow a specific number of parking spaces, not to exceed 30% of the total parking spaces designated for the joint use ….if peak periods of use do not coincide. Mr. Fraser suggested, if the issue is factual, the applicant could produce factual testimony to support the contention the areas in use will not conflict in terms of parking demands.
Page 3, Application #300, continued
Mr. Parker said the restaurant will be in operation with the office hours. The restaurant and catering hall will be open at the same time periodically. Mr. Cirillo asked about plans for Valet parking. The response was affirmative.
Romans, attorney for the Kenilworth Inn, asked if the applicant would
be using any parking along
Mr. Peters asked if the applicant intends to set the “occupancy load” to not exceed 330 persons in the Banquet Hall and 76 persons in the Restaurant.
Mr. Fraser suggested a “condition of approval” be that the maximum occupancy be no more than 330 Banquet hall clients and 76 restaurant clients; these figures must to be displayed and posted in each area of use. Also, any banquet over 200 clients must have valet parking.
stated comment #29 (of the December 12 letter) requires the existing fence
located along the westerly property line be removed. Mr. Parker agreed.
Mr. Cirillo noted comment #37, the “catch basin”, is not shown on the
site plan. Mr. Parker said the catch basin will be relocated by the engineer
outside the landscape area. He said there will be two catch basins: one
on the southeast side and one on the southwest side. Water will run down
trench drains along the driveway. Mr. Fraser suggested this is engineering
testimony; Mr. Parker is not an engineer. He suggested Mr. Swayze have
an opportunity to address the drainage concerns. Mr. Swayze commented
new seepage pits may be needed and the existing seepage pits be checked
for their condition. He is waiting for calculations from the applicants’
engineer. Mr. Butler said water on the south east side will drain to
an inlet leading to a manhole on
asked the applicant to submit a complete bound set of drawings. The attorney
agreed. Mr. Parker addressed the issue of the loading zone; it will not
block access to the parking lot because it is near a 24’ aisle. Mr. Neri
stated: access to
the drainage issue, Mr. Romans, representing the Kenilworth Inn, asked
if part of
suggested the applicant comply with any requests the Fire Department may
issue. Mr. Butler agreed. This will be a condition of approval. Mr.
Michitsch asked who owns
Sworn in: Ms. Judy Knap, (Director of National Development) of A & P. She has a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering. She stated the A & P has a long term lease on the property in question that is owned by Benenson Developers.
Application #300, continued.
She is authorized
to speak on behalf of both Benenson and A&P. A portion of the vacated
reminded the Board about the traffic study (given by the applicant) directed
the Banquet Hall traffic to enter via
with his client, Mr. Butler said this matter is critical and requested
a delay until the next session (
At this point, motion was made and approved to go into an Executive Session.
The meeting was adjourned at .
Janet M. Murphy,
Planning Board Recording Secretary
|ADS - Applied Dynamic Solutions, LLC email webmaster|