Borough of Kenilworth
May 27, 2010
The meeting began with an affirmation of the Open Public Meetings Act. 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 April 22, 2010 minutes. Approval was given to pay the Recording Secretary.
Roll Call: Present: Mr. Picerno, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, Mr. Cuppari, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Cammarota, and Mr. Candarella.
Absent: Mr. Lepore (excused), Mr. Pantina, Mr. Pugliese, and Mr. Manee.
Communications: Ms. Bogus had no communications to report.
Resolutions: Application #312, Scott VanPelt, RE: 120 Market St., Block 131, Lot 1, Minor Site Plan/ Cheerleading School in Industrial zone.
A motion to approve this Resolution was made by Mr. Sica, 2nd by Mr. Cammarota. All in favor: Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, 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.
A motion to approve this Resolution was made by Ms. Bogus, 2nd by Mr. Cuppari. All in favor: Mr. Picerno, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, and Mr. Cuppari.
Denial of 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).
A motion to approve this Resolution of Denial was made by Mr. Cammarota, 2nd by Mr. Sica. All in favor: Mr. Picerno, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, Mr. Cuppari, and Mr. Cammarota.
New Business: Application #316, St. Theresa School, 540 Washington Ave., Block 49, Lot 1; Minor Site Plan- day care center in existing school.
Ms. Bogus and Mr. Picerno were recused.
In the absence of Mr. Lepore and Mr. Picerno, Mr. Cammarota was nominated as temporary chairperson for this application hearing. He said the school is presently used as an educational facility, and he did not believe this application was necessary. Mr. Tripodi responded: although the area is zoned for a school, a day-care center is not considered in the same user-group as a school. Because of this BOCA code, the official did not sign off on the permit.
No variances are required, so the application is submitted as a minor site plan.
Sr. Emmy was present for questions regarding the day care center. A motion to approve this minor site plan was made by Mr. Candarella, 2nd by Mr. Cuppari. All in favor: Mr. Sica, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Cuppari, and Mr. Cammarota.
Mr. Picerno returned as chairperson.
New Business : Application #10-01, Juzefyk c/o Justino Construction, 916 Fairfield Ave., Block 164, Lots 8 & 9 : Minor sub division
Mr. Cammarota and Mr. Sica, as the minor sub-division committee, met prior to this hearing. They deemed this application is a minor sub-division. Mr. Tripodi asked if there were any “conditions” to be met. Mr. Cammarota said this application meets all critera for a minor sub-division.
A motion to approve this application for resolution was made by Mr. Cammaroto, 2nd by Mr. Cuppari. All in favor: Mr. Picerno, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Cuppari, and Mr. Cammarota.
Comments for the Good of the Board:
Mr. Cammarota said a memo should be sent to the Building Department noting Application #316 was approved. Mr. Tripodi noted the Resolution would be in effect at the June meeting.
Mr. Herbert, zoning officer made a request. The dimensions (width) of a driveway should be included in the plot plan. In these plans, this is often not included. He recommended, at the Work Sessions, the Board put a memo (to the applicant) stating the driveway dimensions must be on their drawings. Mr. Cammarota said this is an existing ordinance. Mr. Tripodi said complying with the driveway ordinance is a “general condition” and, therefore, is a requirement for approval. Mr. Herbert said, failure to include the driveway dimensions delays issue of the permit. He said the ordinance for a single-car garage states the driveway can be expanded up to 18’. For a two-car garage, the driveway width may extend up to 24’. Driveway dimensions are not stated on a plot plan or on a sub-division.
Some people do not apply for a driveway permit and expand their driveway up to 35’. Others, who do apply for a permit, do not always state the required width of the proposed driveway. This unlawful driveway expansion takes away from street parking.
Mr. Picerno asked if the building inspector sees this omission, when reviewing the plans. Mr. Herbert said most plot plans and sub-divisions do not indicate the driveway. He said dimensions should be on the foundation survey. New sub-divisions do not have driveway dimensions stated on plot plans. Mr. Cammarota said approval of sub-divisions and site plans are subject to all zoning ordinances. Mr. Tripodi said it is the Boards’ discression if they want to notate this particular requirement to applicants. Adding to the package, a simple memo to the applicant should be sufficient. Mr. Candarella said enforcement of this issue lies with the building department.
Mr. Tripodi said Mr. Herbert is just recommending that a note be added to site plan approval or sub-division approval, although contractors should be aware of the town ordinances.
Mr. Picerno said this could be discussed at a Work Session; he was not aware of this problem. Mr. Cammarota asked if the ordinance states maximum footage. Mr. Herbert said it does, as he mentioned earlier.
Mr. Tripodi said “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. If an applicant does not obey an ordinance, a fine could be issued to that person on a daily basis, until he complies.
Mr. Cammarota does not agree with a memo from the Board. Ms. Bogus said this could be discussed at the next Work Session.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Janet M. Murphy,
Planning Board Recording Secretary
|ADS - Applied Dynamic Solutions, LLC email webmaster|