Planning Board Minutes from 02/22/2007

Borough of Kenilworth

Planning Board Minutes

February 22, 2007

The meeting began with an affirmation of the Open Public Meetings Act requirements and the Pledge of Allegiance.�

A motion to accept Mr. Wm. Lane, Esq. as Planning Board Attorney was made by Mr. Soos, 2nd by Mr. Beninati.� All in favor.� Mr. Lane took the Oath of Public Office and was sworn in as the Planning Board Attorney later during the meeting.� The minutes of February 22, 2007 were approved.� Approval was given to pay the Recording Secretary and the Board Attorney.

Roll Call:�� Present:� Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Beninati, Mr. David, Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Soos, Mr. Corcione, Mr. O�Malley, Mr. Pantina, Mr. Schielke, Mr. Dick, and Mr. Mancino.� Absent:� Mr. Michitsch and Mr. Peters

Communications:� Mr. Beninati stated for public record that he had the following communications regarding Application #300 (Brahmatt/Neri):� two letters from Mr. Harvey Fruchter, Attorney for Neri (dated 2/ 5/ 2007 and 2/11/2007), two letters from Mr. Thomas Romans, Attorney for the Kenilworth Inn (dated 2/1/2007 and 2/20/2007), and Berenson Capital, LLC (dated 1/24/2007.

Regarding Application #297, Union Baptist Church, he has a letter from Ragut McCarthy LLC (dated 1/25/2007).�

Regarding Application #275, Paparato, two letters were received from the PMK Group (dated 2/7/2007 and 2/21/2007).�

All communications were distributed to the Board Members.

Resolutions:Application #34-06, Cuppari, 103 So. 25th Street, Block 139, Lot 15, Variance for a 2nd floor addition and a deck.� A motion to approve this resolution was made by Mr. DeLuca, 2nd by Mr. O�Malley.� All in favor:� Mr. Deluca, Mr. Beninati, Mr. O�Malley, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Schielke.

Application #300, Brahmatt/Neri, 131 So. 31st Street, Block 179, Lots 4 and 5.� The attorney for this application has requested the Board to reopen the hearing for the Use Variance, prior to adopting the Resolution from the January meeting.� Mr. Lane explained only the Regular members are allowed to vote on Use variances.� At the January meeting only six members (who were allowed to vote) were present; a vote was taken to deny this Use, three members approved of denial, three members voted against this motion.� This motion failed.� A second motion was made to grant the Use; four members voted in favor, two voted against this motion.� Five affirmative votes were necessary to pass a Use variance, so this was denied.� The applicant, Mr. Neri, asked for re-consideration before the vote to approve the Resolution for Denial was taken.� Mr. Romans objected by saying this is not a permitted practice.� Mr. Lane said reconsiderations have been allowed, in a few cases.� Mr. Cirillo is concerned that this re-consideration may set a precedent for future application denials.�

Page 2

A simple majority vote would give this applicant another chance to appear before the Board.� Only the six members who voted in February could vote for re-consideration of this application.� Mr. Michitsch, one of the original voters, is not present at this meeting.

�Mr. Fruchter, attorney for Mr. Neri, said Mr. Butler (the prior attorney) did not thoroughly explain why the use variance should be granted. The present Industrial Use would be detrimental to this �gateway� area.� There was no discussion about bifurcation of the application.� He said every court has a right to re-consider before the final decision (in this case, the adoption of the Resolution).� This Board has nothing in their ordinances that prohibits reconsideration.� This proposal was noticed to all within a 200� area as well as published in the local paper.�

Mr. Lane suggested to Mr. Fruchter: if the Board grants reconsideration, a �condition of approval� would be to have another hearing within sixty days.�

Mr. Romans said the applicant had ten months to address several questionable issues.� Unless there is an issue of fraud or deceit, there should not be a reconsideration of this application.� The previous Board Attorney explained the Board would be voting on the Use variance, therefore the reconsideration should not be granted due to a possible mistake.� Mr. Romans asked the Board to memorialize the Resolution for Denial.�

Mr. Furchter stated that traffic and access to the property has no bearing on voting for the Use variance.� Mr. Lane said if there is a �mistake� or �new evidence�, the Board could grant reconsideration.� Even if the Board reconsiders their decision, the applicants� future request for the use change could be denied.� Mr. Beninati made a motion to allow reconsideration.� There was no second to the motion.

�The vote for Resolution for Denial proceeded.� Mr. O�Malley voted to memorialize the resolution for denial.� This Resolution is memorialized.

New Business:Application #30-06, Pellino, 170 S. Michigan Avenue, Block 132, Lot 9, Variances for an addition and a deck on a corner lot.� Sworn in:� Mrs. Gina Pellino.� She had changes made to the architectural plans, since her last appearance in August.� There was a mistake on the original plans.� The original survey shows 13�6� from the front and 13�4� from the rear of the property lines.� The proposed porch would 5� closer to the property line.� Mr. Soos said the elevation of 30� is not shown on the blueprints, as required by the building code.� Mr. David Dugasz, Fords, N. J., Architect, said the roof pitch would be 29� high, and would not exceed the 30� requirement.�� The variance relief is required for the front and side yard setbacks.� The second floor addition would not increase the present first floor structure setbacks.� The proposed side porch would increase the side setback.

Page 3

�The applicant would be willing to bifurcate the application: one vote for the side porch and one for the addition only.� A motion was made by Mr. Schielke to approve the three present existing, non-conforming setbacks for the addition, and to deny the proposed side porch. The motion was 2nd by Mr. O�Malley.� All in favor:� Mr. David, Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Soos, Mr. Corcione, Mr. O�Malley, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Schielke.

Application # 36-06, �Maas, 622 Summit Avenue, Block 150. Lot 33, a variance for a front yard setback for a porch with a roof.� Sworn in: Ms. Dianne Maas.� She said the eves on her front porch are sinking.� She is requesting a roof over the existing 66� x 72� porch and open sides.� She wants to repair the existing step, but not expand it.� The porch roof would not extend beyond the steps.� The present not-conforming stoop creates a 19�6� setback.� Mr. Mancino questioned the Borough why it was necessary for this applicant to request a variance.� Mr. David stated: an attached overhang is considered an extension of the fa�ade.� Mr. Lane said the code official requires approval of the Planning Board to construct the roof.� A motion to approve this application to resolution was made by Mr. Beninati, 2nd by Mr. Soos.� All in favor:� Mr. David, Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Soos, Mr. Corcione, Mr. O�Malley, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Schielke.�

Application #303,� United Fire Protection Corporation, 1 Mark Road, Lot 17, Block 2, a Site Plan and alterations application.� Mr. David was recused.� Sworn in:� Mr. Joseph Paparo, Attorney, Heil & Heil, Esq...�� He said a prior application (#296) was approved for the site plan and variances.� His client is requesting an amendment to that approval.� He has reviewed the Board engineers� requests.� In addition to amended Site Plan approval, United Fire Protection Corporation is seeking a parking variance.� (71 spaces required, 34 previously approved, 30 spaces requested).� Sworn in:� Mr. Joseph Savino, representative of United Fire Protection.� Currently, there are twenty-two employees, with a future expansion of eight more.� There are no �walk-in� customers.� Thirty spaces are sufficient.� PMK engineers made a comment about storage of �hazardous� materials.� Mr. Savino six propane tanks will be removed when the HVAC system is completed.� There are no hazardous other materials on the property.� PMK Group also cited a possible need for an oil/water separator.� Mr. Savino said there is no need for that, as truck delivery is less than once a month and other small deliveries are made by UPS.� Sworn in:� Mathew Neuls, professional engineer at Harbor Consultants.� He displayed exhibits of the parking spaces, a grassy area (originally to be paved) and a modification to the handicapped grading.� There are two drainage modifications.� Mr. Paparo made a reference to PMK suggestions of February 1, 2007.� Regarding refuse storage (item #3Z), it will be stored inside.� The sewerage is sufficient, and will comply with the County drainage requirements.� The proper number of bollards will be provided for sufficient protection.� Footings of fence posts will be addressed.� A handicapped ramp and railings will be installed in front.� Handrails for the stairways will be provided.� The area on Columbia Avenue will be paved.�

Page 4�

Mr. Swayze, Board Engineer, said he would approve of making his letter as part of the Resolution.� Detail will be provided for the driveway.� Regarding Engineers� note #14, an oil/water separator device is not necessary, since the enclosed loading area will not receive additional water run-off.� Item #16 deals with the changing grade.� There is a breakaway flange is above grade, causing this item to not be an issue.� Item #17 deals with the ramp slope with handrails, and will be constructed according to state code.� Mr. Swayze is satisfied with these answers.� Open engineering issues can be part of the Resolution.� Item #14 agrees with the applicant and does not apply.�

Sworn in:� Mr. Frank Savino, president of United Fire Protection Corporation.� Some extinguishing agents are stored, and are all non-flammable, non-combustibles.� United Fire complies with OSHA regulations, and they are insured, and will comply with all building codes.� Mr. Beninati made a motion to accept this application to Resolution, abiding with the PMK letters and fire codes (eliminating oil/water separator, PMK Item #14).� Mr. DeLuca 2nd the motion.� All in favor:� Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Beninati, Mr. Soos, Mr. Corcione, Mr. O�Malley, Mr. Cirillo, Mr. Pantina, and Mr. Schielke.� Opposed:� Mr. Mancino.

Other Business:� Mr. Cirillo said that he, Mr. Soos, Mr. Dick, Mr. Beninati, attended this years� Planning Board Workshop.� He said the workshop discouraged Site Review Committees that meet with the applicants.� Mr. Lane said any outside influences could �taint� the Board�s decisions, but publicized meetings could be arranged.� Mr. Mancino asked if Mr. Lane could review the bye-laws.� Prior to this year, the last approval of the Master Plan was in 1997.� Mr. Swayze said any roads that need to be made wider should be stated in the Master Plan.� If poles must be moved because of roadway widening, and it is not in the Master Plan, the Borough must pay for that extra expense, instead of the Utility Company.� Mr. Lane will be given the bye-laws.� Mr. Mancino said the Resolution for Application #34-06 (Cuppari) lacked many of the items that were discussed at the meeting.� Mr. Cirillo said the Board must be more careful in the future.� Mr. Soos said the reasons for denials should be stressed.� Other issues were discussed concerning inspections.

A motion to adjourn was made at 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Janet M. Murphy,

Planning Board Recording Secretary

ADS - Applied Dynamic Solutions, LLC ADS, LLC   email webmaster