The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Mr. Beninati, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Vitale, Mr. David, Mr. Peters, Mr. Soos, Mr. Clementi, Mr. Laudati, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Deluca, Jr., and Mr. Russo. Absent: Mr. Rappa, Mr. Schultz, and Mr. Lepore.
COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Beninati read a letter from Sprint Spectrum requesting their Application #278 (for the wireless tower at the Beth David Cemetery) be carried to the June 24, 2004 meeting. (This application is contingent upon the second application (#286) being passed.) A letter regarding the second application from Sprint and co-applicant (Verizon), Application #286, (for a wireless tower at 201 South 31st Street), requested a Special Meeting on June 3, 2004. The public notices will be published in the local papers. Both Verizon Wireless and Sprint Spectrum will comply with the escrow fees and the $1,000 special meeting fee.
Mr. Beninati said the four neighbors at this new site on South 31st Street are to be notified of the meeting on June 3. Mr. Vitale announced the special meeting will be held on Thursday, June 3, at 7:30 p.m. and he congratulated John Beninati for his diligent work with this application and site.
NEW BUSINESS: Application #05-04, for Mr. Manee, 660 Summit Avenue, Block, 150, Lot 29, for an insufficient side yard for an Addition. Mr. Lane’s interpretation is that, although this addition was denied by the Zoning Officer, deemed it was not necessary to go for a variance. The new addition would not increase or decrease the present setback. Mr. Peters stated the Board should have the final say on an “interpretation” of a Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Lane said the Board does not have a procedure or a “Board of Appeals” for handling an interpretation. We do not charge a fee and not have a form (ex. We disagree with the Zoning Officer because…). The Board Attorney can give his opinion or advice, but it should be up to the Board to accept or reject the ruling of the Zoning officer.
RESOLUTIONS: Application #02-04, Rapczynski, 339 Roosevelt Lane, Block 115, Lot 9, for a variance for a pool setback. In favor: Mr. Vitale, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Clementi, Mr. Laudati, and Mr. Deluca, Jr. Resolution passed.
Application # 06-04, Swanson, 26 B, 13th Street, Block 77, Lot 20, for a front yard setback variance on a rear deck. In favor: Mr. Beninati, Mr. Vitale, Mr. Clementi, Mr. Laudati, Mr. Deluca, Jr. Resolution passed.
Application # 04-02, Paparatto Construction, RE: 101 N. 23rd Street, Block 48, Lot 1, for a Subdivision of two lots. In favor: Mr. Clementi, Mr. Laudati, and Mr. Russo. Resolution passed.
NEW BUSINESS: Application #04-04, Glynos (Diner and Apartments), 614-618 Boulevard, Block 86, Lots 17 & 16, a variance for insufficient front setback and awing.
Mr. Peter Tutulis, Attorney, 2401 Morris Avenue, Union, N. J., stated his client is applying for two “C” variances.
Sworn in: Richard Gascoyne, Architect, Maplewood, N. J. He said all the buildings are in violation of the front setback on the Boulevard, but uniform. The existing awning across the front of the diner currently “masks” an existing structure, which would be removed. An awning covering the entryway would be included in the new plan. Mr. Peters asked if the Board can grant variance relief, even if the additions extend over Municipal Property. Mr. Lane said the “awning”, evening though it extends onto Borough property, can be approved by the Board. It is not increasing in the original non-conforming size.
A motion to approve was made by Mr. David, 2nd by Mr. Peters In favor: Mr. Beninati, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Vitale, Mr. David, Mr. Peters, Mr. Clementi, Mr. Laudati, and Mr. Candarella. Application approved for a Resolution. This resolution will be memorialized on June 3, (the Special Sprint/Verizon Meeting) with no notice requirements.
OTHER BUSINESS: Sworn in: Michael Westervelt, 660 Union Avenue. His appeal is an interpretation of a zoning ordinance regarding an Industrial zone (10 North 26th Street). Mr. Lane said the “I” zone allows “recreational uses”, but does not allow “personal services”. Therefore, the issue is weather or not the proposed physical fitness area would be considered “recreational” or “personal services”. Mr. Lane suggested a fitness service can be either category. A site plan for a “change in use” (from warehouse to recreational use) and parking requirements may be necessary. Mr. Lane suggested the Mayor and Council establish a “reasonable fee” for an “interpretation”. Mr. David and Mr. Beninati re-stated Mr. Lanes’ suggestion that Mr.Westervelt come back before the Board for Site Plan approval because of a change in “use” (parking must be determined).
A motion to grant the Westervelt appeal (that his proposed fitness center is “recreational use”) was made by Mr. Soos, 2nd by Mr. Deluca. All in favor: Mr. Beninati, Mr. Michitsch, Mr. Vitale, Mr. David, Mr. Peters, Mr. Soos, Mr. Clementi, Mr. Laudati, Mr Candarella, Mr. Deluca, and Mr Russo.
Mr. Beninati read a letter from Z. K. Associates, 718 Jefferson Avenue, regarding a zoning question. The area was a warehouse and a” vehicle lease storage” garage is proposed. The Zoning Official is unsure if this Vehicle Storage is considered a Warehouse or a Parking Garage. Mr. David quoted from a resolution for this site: “the applicant indicated a willingness to appear before the Board for approval when it secures a tenant”. Therefore, Z.K. Associates must submit an Application to the Board.
A motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 was made by Mr. Beninati, 2nd by Mr. David.
Janet M. Murphy,
Planning Board Recording Secretary
|ADS - Applied Dynamic Solutions, LLC email webmaster|