Borough of Kenilworth
October 22, 2009
The meeting began with an affirmation of the Open Public Meetings Act requirements: The schedule of meetings is on file in the Borough Clerks’ office, was posted on the bulletin board, and has been mailed to the Cranford Chronicle, the Kenilworth Leader, and the Star Ledger. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The Board approved the September 24, 2009 minutes. Approval was given to pay the Recording Secretary.
Roll Call: Mr. Lepore, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Sica, Mr. Laurie, and Mr. Cammarota. Excused: Mr. Pantina and Mr. Picerno. NOTE: Mayor, councilmen, and mayors-designee are not eligible to vote on Board of Adjustment matters.
Communications: Ms. Bogus said there were no communications to report.
Minor Sub-division Committee Report: Mr. Cammarota said there were no minor sub-division applications reviewed this month.
Resolutions: Application #7-09, Badali, 10 N. 24th St., Block 74, Lot 25,
Resolution for a Certificate of Non-conformity. A motion to approve this to resolution was made by Ms. Bogus, 2nd by Mr. Herbert. All in favor: Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Sica, Mr. Herbert, and Ms. Bogus.
Application #08-09, Mod-Fran, RE: 547 Boulevard, Block 117, Lot 21, Use Variance-4 one bedroom apartments-2nd floor-(LC zone). A motion to approve this to resolution was made by Mr. Herbert, 2nd by Mr. Sica. All in favor: Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Sica, Mr. Herbert, and Mr. Lepore.
Application #09-09, Palmadesso, RE: 550 Boulevard, Block 83, Lots 2 & 24. A Use Variance for four 1-bedroom apartments on the 2nd floor (LC zone). A motion to approve this to resolution was made by Mr. Sica, 2nd by Mr. Pugliese. All in favor: Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Sica, Mr. Herbert, and Mr. Lepore.
Application #09-02, Rizzo/Hanley, RE: 227 North 20th Street, Block 42, Lots 6 & 7,
Minor Sub-division, A motion to approve this to resolution was made by Ms. Bogus, 2nd by Mr. Sica. All in favor: Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Sica, Mr. Herbert, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Lepore, Mr. Laurie, and Mr. Cammarota.
Application # (90-03), Paparatto Realty, RE:234 N. 18th St., Block 38, Lot 8, Minor sub-division. A motion to approve this to resolution was made by Mr. Cirillo, 2nd by Mr. Herbert. All in favor: Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Sica, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Lepore, Mr. Laurie, and Mr. Cammarota.
Application # (09-04), Paparatto Realty, RE:234 N. 19th St, Block 39, Lot 8, Minor sub-division. A motion to approve this to resolution was made by Ms. Bogus, 2nd by Mr. Cirillo. All in favor: Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Plugliese, Mr. Sica, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Lepore, Mr. Laurie, and Mr. Cammarota.
New Business: Application #9-05, RAF, Inc., RE: 657 and 653 Michigan Avenue, Block 1, Lots 3 & 4, Minor sub-division. A motion to rescind application #09-05 for a subdivision was made by Mr. Pugliese, 2nd by Ms. Bogus. All in favor: Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Sica, Mr. Herbert, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Lepore, and Mr. Laurie.
Application #11-09, RFA, Inc., RE: 657 and 653 Michigan Avenue, Block 1, Lots 3 & 4, Variance for existing/non-conforming in CI&I zones. Mr. Joe Papparo, of Heil & Heil, is the attorney for the applicant. He said (in regard to the sub-division) a settlement agreement (re: a lot line adjustment) was made by court order concerning a lawsuit between the property owner and the business.
One of the buildings on the property is a non-conforming use. However, by shifting the lot line, this made one of the parcels smaller. This is an “expansion of a non-conforming use”, which requires a D-2 Variance. There is no change in the original uses. The boundaries between lots 3 and 4 will be re-aligned. There will be a shared parking arrangement, and there is a sanitary sewer in question.
Sworn in: Mr. James Watson, EKA Associates, licensed planner. He said two zones are involved (CI and I). He showed a plan (exhibit A-1) and (sheet #2) the elevations
( showing a 5’ pitch). Sheet #3 depicted the 50 x 100 lot line for lot #4; the rest of the area comprises lot #3. The square footage of the land will be divided into equal parts. Sheet #4 is a parking agreement and cross-access for multiple uses for a single parking lot. The rights to connect to the sewer (from the middle of the parking lot) must go to the county for approval.
Mr. Tripodi, Board attorney, said the Board needs a copy of the court order and easement agreement.
Mr. Watson said the court-ordered lot line adjustment affects the zone line. Lot #3 has a split zone. The present uses will not change, all is grandfathered. A denial will affect the present use. In the CI zone, the restaurant and office is a permitted use. The present (grandfathered) contractors’ yard requires a use variance, (lot #4) because of the lot line change. The contractors’ yard must have 11.6 parking spaces and the office use requires 8.4 spaces. The restaurant has 96 seats, which requires 37 spaces. Currently, five of the spaces are only 14’ deep, and could be marked “for compact cars only”. Some of the spaces are 47’ deep, and cars could be “stacked” in that area. The businesses have been in use for fifty years, and have had no trouble with traffic on Michigan Avenue.
Mr. O’Brien, Board Planner, asked if the plans are accurate. Mr. Watson said the outdoor tables are only seasonal and the construction equiptment is movable. Mr. O’Brien suggested using all the spaces in front of the restaurant for compact cars would not be practical. He suggested all of the spaces be striped for the required length (18 spaces). Mr. Herbert said he would check to see if the restaurant is approved for outside seating. Mr. O’Brien said there is only one ADA parking space. Mr. Watson said another could be added; one on each side of the aisle. Mr. O’Brien asked if there was a hazardous substance on the property (re: first page of the application). Mr. Papparo said he would withdraw that part of the application (it was a typing error). Mr. O’Brien asked about landscaping improvements. Mr. Watson said his client could put added potted plants or small trees, but there is not too much room.
Mr. O’Brien suggested some large rectanglar planters on the paved area by the restaurant. Mr. Sica suggested placing the planters 5’ from the front of the building and possibly up to the rite-of-way. Mr. Pugliese suggested some planter boxes could be placed in areas that would block the street view of the parked cars. Mr. Watson said there is 18’4’ leeway between the front of the building and rite-of-way. Mr. Herbert feels that additional improvements are not necessary, such as additional planters and standard parking stripes. He said the bushes would create a safety issue. Mr. O’Brien said the police chief approved the improvements (3’ shrubs) at the nearby Blackthorne restaurant. He suggested shrubs across the front of the office building and in front of the first parking space, as well as in front of the Cuban Rose (restaurant) and other plants could block some of the view of the fence. The applicants’ attorney agreed to this. Mr. O’Brien said dumpsters are taking up some parking spaces. Mr. Watson suggested the dumpsters could be placed where the present shed is located. The shed would be removed. There would be a slatted fence, with the gate on wheels. Mr. Pugliese asked what is on the lot.
Mr. Watson replied there are three uses: a restaurant, contractors’ storage, and an auto repair facility. Mr. Laurie asked if there is enough parking for all three uses. Mr. Watson replied that the arrangement works presently. Fifty-two spaces are required, with 37 spaces available; therefore, a parking variance is needed. Mr. Herbert asked if Mr. Barone (the owner) plans to extend the indoor storage. Mr. Watson there would be no changes. Mr. Cirillo said the previous restaurant owner did not have outside tables. He said the shared parking would be affected, since both the restaurant and the construction business work both day and night. Mr. Watson said the “peak” hours of the construction company is during the day, and the “peak” hours of the restaurant is at night. The meeting was opened up to the public. A motion was made to approve the application to resolution (with the changes in addional shrubs and other improvements, (shed removal for dumpster site), extended parking striping and a parking waiver, site plan waiver, and the court order document). Ms. Bogus made the motion, 2nd by Mr. Herbert. All in favor: Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Sica, Mr. Herbert, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Lepore, and Mr. Laurie.
Application #03-09, Locorriere, RE: 515 Springfield Road, Block 3, Lot 11, Use variance – Food sales in I zone.
Sworn in: Mr. Frank Locorriere, owner. He is seeking a use variance for a food concession stand in an Industrial zone. The property is under-utilized and is too small for an industrial use. This property was previously granted a variance for a garden center. He proposes a mobile concession stand (8 x 20), comperable to a camper. The water could be obtained from his nearby office. There is a parking lot nearby. Mr. Herbert asked if his lot was rented out for trucks. Mr. Locorriere said all the equiptment is his. He would re-locate the equiptment, if necessary. Mr. Tripodi asked if the proposed concession would be seasonal. The applicant said he would see what would be the most profitable. He would make the mobile structure appear permanent by removing the wheels, and he will take down two sections of fencing. Mr. Laurie asked if he would place the concession on blocks and the code official would have to inspect this. Mr. Locorriere said the unit would be self-contained.
Mr. Tripodi asked if the food would be sold “to-go”, since tables may trigger other requirements. Mr. Locorriere agreed, and said he may call the concession “Franks’ Franks”.
Mr. O’Brien did not have the application or the site plan. He reminded the Board this is another “Gateway” area, and it should be improved to comply. He must also comply with any signage ordinances.
The meeting was opened to the public. Sworn in: Mr. Alan Wagner, 605 Springfield Road. He asked if this area would become retail. Mr. O’Brien said this property may be granted a use variance, but any other requests for a variance from the I zone would be treated individually. The Boards’decision for this application does not change the zone law. Mr. Wagner said a hot dog stand near his property created a traffic problem some time ago, and tractor trailers blocked his lot. He suggested signage be erected to direct people to park in the right location. Mr. Locorriere said he does not want problems with his neighbors and could put up a sign: ”no tractor-trailer parking”. Mr. Wagner suggested additional fencing, or a barrier. A hot dog stand was in operation nearby for a few weeks, but parking was a problem; therefore, it was shut down by the town. Mr. Laurie inquired about the signage. Mr. Locorriere said there would be a sign on the trailer. Regarding parking, Mr. Locorriere said tractor trailers already park at Black Brook Park, and he has parking for 17 spaces. The hours of operation would be from 5:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. The unit must comply with building department and Board of Health requirements.
A motion to accept this application to resolution, with attention to the parking situation,
was made by Mr. Sica, 2nd by Mr. Herbert. All in favor: Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Sica, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Lepore, Mr. Cirillo, and Mr. Laurie. Ms. Bogus was recused.
Other Comments for the Good of the Board: If there are no required variances or expansions, the Board must look at the ordinance for Minor Site Plans, and treat it in a similar way that minor sub-divisions are treated in the new Master Plan. Also, the application fee ordinance must be changed and updated. A vote was taken to suggest this to the Mayor and Council.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Janet M. Murphy,
Planning Board Recording Secretary
|ADS - Applied Dynamic Solutions, LLC email webmaster|