Planning Board

Borough of Kenilworth

April 22, 2010

The meeting began with an affirmation of the Open Public Meetings Act N: 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 March 25, 2010 minutes.� Approval was given to pay the Recording Secretary.

�

Roll Call:� Present: Mr. Lepore,� Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, Mr. Manee, Mr. Cuppari, and Mr. Cammarota. (Mr. Pugliese and Mr. Picerno arrived later).

Absent:� Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Murphy

Communications:� Ms. Bogus had no communications to report.

Resolutions:� Application #1-10, Ben-Ed Building Corporaton, RE: 158 N. 8^th St., Block 158, Lot 3,� Variance � Apartments in an Industrial Zone on 2^nd floor of an Office/Industrial Building.

A motion to approve this Resolution was made by Mr. Cuppari, 2^nd by Mr. Sica.� All in favor: Mr. Cuppari and Mr. Sica.

Application #09-06 & #15-09, Paparatto Construction Co., 17 & 19 S. 21^st St., Block 115, Lots 20 & 21, Use Variance � two 2-family homes in Local/Commercial zone.

A motion to approve this Resolution was made by Mr. Sica, 2^nd by Ms. Bogus.� All in favor: Mr. Lepore, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, Mr. Pugliese, and Mr. Cuppari.

New Business:� Application #312, Scott Van Pelt, RE: 120 Market St., Block 131, Lot 1, Minor Site Plan/ Cheerleading School in Industrial zone.

Mr. Tripodi, Board Attorney, said Mr. Van Pelt is the contract purchaser, not Central Phase Reality.� This is a minor site plan.

Sworn in: Mr. Jack Van Pelt.� Mr. Cammarota said the application conforms to the defination of �minor site plan�.� Mr. Tripodi said a resolution will memorialize this approval. �Any addition to the building would require a formal review by the Planning Board.

A motion to approve this site plan was made by Ms. Bogus, 2^nd by Mr. Manee.� All in favor: Mr. Lepore, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Manee, Mr. Cuppari, and Mr. Cammarota.

Application # 309, Lievre, RE: 522 B Boulevard, Block 82, Lot 6, Site Plan and Parking variance � a cooking school in a Commercial zone.� Mr. Cammarota was recused. Sworn in: Mr. Philip Lievre and Mr. George Maldonado, 117 No. 6^th Avenue, (who assisted Mr. Lievre).

Page 2

Mr. Lievre wants to open a cooking school on the Boulevard.� Mr. Maldanado said the school will be an asset to the community.� Mr. Lievre will be the only instructor and will have a no more than four to six students a session. �The hours will be Monday through Saturday, from 9 am. to 1 pm. daily, and again at 6 pm. to� 9 pm.�� He would like to have a bench and table in front of the school.� It will not be a restaurant, but the students will taste the results of their lessons.�

Mr. Tripodi said permits must be taken out as needed and, since it involves food, the Board of Health must also inspect.� Mr. Maldonado said the improvements will only be cosmetic.

�The meeting was opened to the public.

Mr. Tripodi reviewed the relief to be granted; the cooking school is a conditional use, and because there is a pre-existing condition, a use variance is needed.� Because it is a pre-existing building, the following reliefs are waived: a minimum front yard and side yard setback, maximum lot and building coverage.� The Board is waiving the Site Plan, since everything is existing (grandfathered).�

A motion to approve this application was made by Mr. Sica, 2^nd by Mr. Picerno.� All in favor: Mr. Lepore, Mr. Picerno, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Manee, and Mr. Cuppari.�

Appeal by Mr. Kelly, 10 Market Street, Block 179, Lot 6, to reverse the decision of the zoning officer (Mr. Herbert), concerning Ord. #197-55 and #197-60F (an area not zoned to park certain vehicles).

Mr. Howard Berger is the attorney for Mr. Kelly.

Sworn in : Mr. Joseph Kelly, 28 Oberlin Street, Maplewood.�

Mr. Berger said Ord. #197-60F prohibits the parking of (disabled, unregistered, or unfit for transportation) vehicles exceeding 30 days, unless they are stored inside a building.� He believes the intended use of this statute is to prevent the storage of �junk cars�.� The vehicles, in this case, are not disabled, unregistered, or unfit.� They are registered car-transport carriers.� He gave pictures of the vehicles as evidence.� Mr. Berger said the building was formerly a manufacturing facility, and is currently closed. The building is for sale.� The owners are currently leasing a part of the property to the transport carriers.� These carriers are on their way to dealers, and they occupy the area overnite.� This income is the only source of income that enables the owners to pay the taxes on this property.� The denial was based on the premise that some of the vehicles on the carrier were removed from the transporter, and left on the lot for a short period of time, and put back onto the carrier.� After Mr. Herberts� objection, the vehicles remained on the carrier.� Mr. Berger is not sure why the zoning officer denied the registered transport vehicles to park on the property.� Mr. Herbert said the vehicles were being stored on �state property�.� Mr. Berger researched the ownership of the parking area.�

Mr. Kelly said he purchased the property from the Railroad, and� it is under municipal jurisdiction.� Attorney Fruchter said he had a title search, and did not find it was state-owned.�

Mr. Cammarota asked if� the applicant is the tenant or owner.� The owner rents part of the building to Metro and also part of the parking area.

Page 3

Sworn in: Mr. Herbert, zoning official.� He displayed a tax map for Block 179, lots 5,6,&7.� He also had some photos.� Mr. Kelly purchased property from Mr. Joe Neri.� The lot in question is bordering state property.�

Mr. Herbert showed photos of� signs saying �state property, no dumping� in the area.� He does not remember telling Mr. Kelly it would be okay to park the cars, even if they remained on the carrier.� Mr. Herbert believes the cars on the carrier would be considered �unregistered�, since there are no tags on them.� In addition, vandals go through the parked cars;� He believes this could be a fire hazard.� He gave the attorney photos of the area in question, and they were marked as exhibits.� Mr. Herbert observed the vehicles in question are parked behind the building, part of which is state property.� Mr. Berger asked if that is state property, the municipality would have no jurisdiction.� Mr.Kelly said both the zone map and site plan are out-of-date. Mr. Kelly can provide the new survey.� He said the Garden State Parkway does not own the property.� Mr. Berger said the applicant owns the property, and it is subject to the municipal rules.� State property would not be subject to the local ordinances.�

Mr. Herbert said the ordinance is �ambiguous�; this law prohibits parking � unregistered or unfit� vehicles for more than 30 days.� He considers this to be a continuous daily use of parked unregistered vehicles (although they do leave and return daily).� The same truck carrier is in constant use.� He said if the Board decides to overturn his interpretation, he suggested they ask the applicant to improve the lot and upgrade the lighting.� He said unregistered and uninsured vehicles must be stored inside.�

Mr. Pugliese said the cars should be under the insurance of the carriers.� Mr. Herbert said this (space rented by the carrier company) would be considered a �business�, and the carrier owner should have applied for a zone application.� He would then require the owner to fix the potholes and improve the lighting.�

Mr. Berger said the vehicle on the municipal property is a registered, licensed carrier (regardless of the cargo on the vehicle).� As long as the cars remain on the carrier, they are not subject to the required registration.�

Mr. Kelly said the pictures Mr. Herbert presented are over a year old.� Since then, the vehicles did remain on the carriers.� Mr. Kelly said 90% of the vehicles are new cars, none of which stay longer than one or two days.� Mr. Sica said this is in an Industrial zone, and large vehicles would not be permitted to park in any other zone.� Mr. Herbert said other trucking outfits applied for a C.O.� In this case, there is no documentation of an application.� Mr. Cammarota said this is a �storage of vehicles�, in his opinion.� He agrees the intent of the ordinance was to prevent storage of junk vehicles.�

The Board Attorney read the Ordinance to the Board.� Mr. Picerno asked Mr. Kelly why he would not obtain the proper zone application.� Mr. Herbert said the trucking company should apply to the town for permission to open a business.� He mentioned the only access to the parking area is via an easement of the state railroad property.� Mr. Pugliese suggested the carrier owner apply for a business license.� Mr. Berger said no one told Mr. Kelly to apply for a business license; he did not know this was needed.� Mr. Herbert denied a zone appeal in February, and Mr. Kelly did not want to go for a variance.

Page 4

�He does have the right to appear before the board for a variance.� Mr. Kelly did not realize he needed a permit to park vehicles.� Mr. Berger said the carrier office is out of the home.

Mr. Lepore said the Board must decide if Mr. Herbert made a correct interpretation, based on his two citations.� A motion to deny the appeal was made by Mr. Percerno 2^nd by Mr. Cammarota.� All in favor or the denial made by Mr. Herbert:� Mr. Lepore, Mr. Picerno, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, Mr. Cuppari, and Mr. Cammarota.� Opposed:� Mr. Pugliese and Mr. Manee.�

Mr. Kelly has the right to come in for a use variance.�

The Board had a five minute break, and went into a Closed Session.�

At 9:30 p.m., the closed session was ended. Some matters were discussed at that session regarding application procedures, and no formal decisions were made.

Other comments from the Public:� There were no comments.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Murphy,

Planning Board Recording Secretary