Borough of Kenilworth
March 25, 2010
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 March 4, 2010 minutes. Approval was given to pay the Recording Secretary.
Roll Call: Present: Mr. Lepore, Mr. Picerno, Mr. Herbert, Ms. Bogus, Mr. Sica, Mr. Pugliese, Mr. Candarella, Mr. Cuppari, and Mr. Cammarota.
Absent: Mr. Pantina, Mr. Manee, and Mr. Murphy
Communications: Ms. Bogus had no communications to report.
Review of Application #313, Harding/Brearly schools Board of Education
426 Boulevard, Block 54, Lots 1 & 12. Site Plan at Boulevard to construct 2 one-way driveways for child drop off and pick up
Mr. Lepore was recused, and Mr. Picerno replaced him for this review.
Mr. Gornella represented the Kenilworth board of education. Last year, internal renovations were made; this was part of the 3-year improvements operation, utilizing the 2008 Bond referendum. This year, Harding school parking will be addressed, specifically designating drop-off areas. Presently, there are only 157 parking spaces, most of which are used by school employees. In 2011, the Brearly parking lot will be addressed.
Ms. Kelly Glasko is the architect, and Kevin Smith, the engineer.
Mr. Smith showed the site plan of Harding School and the parking lot. The proposal is to add a drop-off area along the Boulevard; this will involve two curb cuts for a one-way flow. The Boulevard is a county road, and the county reviewed the plans. With minor changes, the plans will comply with county requirements. In the rear of the building, a sidewalk will go around the perimeter of the parking lot. The Brearly parking lot will be re-surfaced.
Mr. Gornella said the Board had guidance from the police chief, concerning safety issues.
Visitors to the school must use the front entrance, not the rear. Mr. Candarella asked about the number of cars that could fit in the drop off area and the actual child drop off location. Mr. Gornella said there will be two lanes (a wide driveway), and drop off will be by the gym. Mr. Picerno was concerned about illegal left-turns into the entryway of the driveway. Mr. Gornella said, crossing the double yellow roadway line is not allowed, and sineage may be utilized indicating “no left turn”. Only a right turn into the driveway, and a right turn out of the driveway will be allowed. Mr. Sica suggested a “no left turn” sign be secured by the traffic light. Mr. Herbert asked where the new area will begin and end. It will extend from the Boulevard to the gym, and exit 200’ from the corner. The 20’ wide driveway will have room for pulling around parked cars.
Children may be dropped off only on the right side.
Mr. Herbert suggested speed bumps. Mr. Smith said that parents usually are careful. Mr. Sica said there is an aide to assist younger children into the building. Mr. Herbert asked if any additional drainage would be added because of the increased impervious surface. There will be no overnite school bus parking in this driveway. Mr. Picerno asked if there were any questions and opened the meeting to the public.
Mr. Gornella will refer the Boards’ suggestions to Chief Dowd.
New Business: Application #1-01, Ben Ed Building Corp., RE: 158 N. th St., Block 62, Lot 3, a variance for Apartments in the Industrial zone on the 2nd floor of an Office/Industrial building.
Ms. Bogus, Mr. Candarella, and Mr. Cammarota were recused. Mr. Cuppari will sit in to vote on this application.
Mr. Nelson Wolf represented the Ben Ed Corporation. He said his client is proposing 2 two-bedroom apartments, and 2 one-bedroom apartments at this address.
Sworn in: Mr. Peter Palmadesso. He testified there is one store in front (Supplys-Supplys) and two in the rear of his building on the first floor. He wants to raise and install a new roof to accommodate the new apartments. He said it is a problem to rent the present office spaces on the 2nd floor. Mr. Wolf said Commercial use is permitted in an Industrial zone. Other areas on Washington Avenue were zoned Industrial at one time. The area now is “mixed use”. Mr. Herbert said there is residential use from the Boulevard to the rear of the property. Landscaping trucks are parked in the rear of the building, and the driveway is 40’ wide. Mr. Wolf said “Buffys” has apartments over the bar. Mr. Herbert asked if Mr. Palmadesso would agree to not expand the industrial/commercial use on the first floor, as a condition of approval. Mr. Pacerno asked if the present store (Supplys-Supplys) would move out, would Mr. Palmadesso create an Industrial use on the first floor. To prevent this, would the applicant agree to not allow industrial use as a “condition of approval”. Mr. Palmadesso said he did not think the present store will not move out. The Board Attorney said any “change of use” must come before the Board. Mr. Pugliese said the property could become Commercial, Industrial, and Residential; this would be a problem. There are trucks parked on the property, a store, and now proposed apartments. Mr. Wolf asked Mr. Palmadesso if he is willing to forefeit the Industrial Use of the building. Mr. Wolf read the uses allowed in an Industrial zone. Mr. Palmadesso said the building is presently set up for Commercial use, although it is listed as being in an Industrial zone. The Board Attorney said, as a condition of approval, Mr. Palmadesso could relinquish the right of Industrial Use. The Board does not have the power to change the zone. Mr. Wolf asked Mr. Palmadesso again: would he relinquish the right to the Industrial use as long as apartments exist on the second floor. Mr. Palmadesso said the present store has a ten year lease. Mr. Sica said the Board is reluctant to pass this application if there are three uses in place.
Mr. Picerno said the Board must be careful as to how this variance is worded, if granted. Mr. Palmadesso could be granted a residential use on the 2nd floor, if he agreed to forefeit the Industrial use. The Board Attorney said it is a “mixed use”—if the apartments are still in place, an industrial use may not be allowed.
Mr. Sica said the property could still be used for parking trucks, but the building only would be affected. If the apartment use is “abandoned”, the variance for residential would also be forefeited.
Sworn in: Mr. D’Agustino, a Real Estate Broker. He showed the Board pictures of the residential uses in the area of the applicants’ building. He said the site is suitable for the proposed use, subject to the condition that the Industrial use would not be permitted on the property.
Mr. Tripodi said this could be a “condition of approval”, and subject to the town engineers’ conditions. He said a site plan should have been reviewed prior to coming before the Board. He said one parking space per unit would be required.
The meeting was opened to the public.
Sworn in: Ms. Gail Snyder, resident. She is a 2 family home owner. She works in the area of 15 N. 8th Street, and is aware of the physical size of the building. She asked how four apartments (18 rooms) could be constructed on the second floor; it is a small space for so many rooms. She said in this commercial area, trucks are in the back yard. The apartments above Buffys are not in an industrial zone. She is concerned about the safety of the renters.
Mr. Herbert said across from Buffys is an industrial -looking building that is used as apartment units. It is a truck route, and the area is a mixed use. Mr. Picerno told Ms. Snyder that Mr. Palmadesso would be required to pass all necessary building and fire inspections for permits. Ms. Snyder is concerned about the renters’ quality of life; trucks running through the lot may be hazardous. Mr. Herbert said the trucks rarely are in use on Saturdays and Sundays, when the residents are home.
Mr. Tripodi said (19) designated parking spaces should be shown on the plan.
In addition, the following are “conditions of approval”:
Mr. Herbert wanted to clarify the conditions that apply to the Industrial zone restrictions: a manufacturing facility, an industrial facility, or a scientific or research lab would be prohibited. Storage and office space would be permitted.
A motion to approve this variance was made by Mr. Picerno, 2nd by Mr. Sica. All in favor: Mr. Picernno, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Sica, Mr. Pugliese, and Mr. Cuppari. Opposed: Mr. Lepore.
Application #09-06 & 15-09, Paparatto Construction Company. A Bifurcated use and minor sub-division for 17 & 19 S. 21st Street, Block 118, lots 20 & 21. A Use Variance for two 2-family homes in a “L/C” zone.
John Wiley is the attorney representing the applicant. He said this use requires a D-1 variance. Sworn in: Mr. Kastrud, a professional engineer. This application involves some property behind a dental office. The proposal is to sub-divide two vacant lots - a 25’ x 100’ and a 75’ x 100’ lot, to create two 50’ x 100’ lots. The property is located in a L/C zone and boardered on the west by a residential zone. The aeral image shows the adjoining two family lots. Public utilities are on South 21st St.
Parking will consist of a 2-car garage at each dwelling, and a 20’ driveway. Mr. Wiley referenced the existing water main and a grading plan. Regarding the Board Planners report, he indicated additional improvememts, such as a 6’ fence and buffer.
Mr. O’Brien was concerned about the possibility of placing a pool in the rear yard, but, since that is only a 20’ area, a small deck would be more probable. The sidewalk is in disrepair, and that should be paved. A bulk variance is not needed, since the height will not exceed 35’ (about 34.8’). The plan will be amended to state any changes.
Sworn in: Dennis Hudacsko, a professional Planner. He showed pictures of the surrounding areas: two dwellings next door to the site. He said a “mixed use” (L/C) does not fit into the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Herbert stated this property begins 100’ from the Boulevard (a L/C zone). Mr. Hudacsko said any commercial development would not accommodate the parking needs. Residential housing would be more appropriate. The setback is 25.5’ to the stoop, not including the steps.
Mr. Ed Colling, is representing Mr. O’Brien, Board Planner. He said this plan will conform to the neighborhood, and the fence and landscaping will be an appropriate buffer. The rear yard will have a patio area, and the storm water issue must have the approval of the town engineer. Additional landscaping and three trees along a new sidewalk will improve the site.
Mr. Tripodi said approval of eight waivers needed for this application.
Sworn in: Dr. Foreman, local dentist. His building is next to the Paparatto site. He is in favor of the proposed changes.
Mr. Herbert said, although the Board planner suggested planting three sidewalk trees, he believes two trees would be sufficient.
Mr. Tripodi said, although the application was bifrucated, the vote would apply to the variance and the sub-division. The applicant consented to adding a new sidewalk, a six-foot fence with shrub buffer to the adjacent property, and two sidewalk trees. A height variance is not required.
A motion to approve this application (both the sub-division and the variance) was made by Mr. Herbert, 2nd by Ms. Bogus. All in favor: Mr. Lepore, Mr. Picerno,Ms.Bogus, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Sica, Mr. Pugliese, and Mr. Cuppari.
Other comments from the Public: There were no comments.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Janet M. Murphy,
Planning Board Recording Secretary
|ADS - Applied Dynamic Solutions, LLC email webmaster|