Heat. Heat. Yes. Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting of the city of bail and zoning board of adjustments. Secretary Lombardi, please call roll call. >> Thank you.
>> Commissioner D. Ross is out today. Uh Commissioner Cis Galvin >> here. >> Commissioner Fra temporarily is out. Uh Commissioner Elgari. >> Commissioner >> Frra is here. >> Fra's here. >> Commissioner Commissioner Garvey is who we
>> is here. I'm sorry. Commissioner >> here >> and commission is out. I am here >> here having a quorum. Please rise for the pledge of >> allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stand indivisible with liberty and justice for all statement. with regarding the open public meeting of the sunshine law. This
regular meeting of the city of Bayon zoning board of adjustment has complied with the open public meetings act sunshine law. Annual notice of the schedule of regular meetings were published in both the Jersey Journal and Star Ledger newspapers. The schedule of
regular regular meetings for calendar year 2025 is filed with the city clerk's office. A copy of the agenda of tonight's meeting is posted on the bulletin board in the lobby of the municipal building and on the city bound website.
Okay. If there are no other amendments, can we have a motion to adopt the minutes? >> Uh there there are no minutes tonight, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >> Communications. >> Communications. Uh Commissioner Labari, I I'll take that. Uh we have a
communication from uh Mr. Chetchanini dated November 13th regarding Z-25- Z005 the Boulevard 1224 uh LLC. The site is 1224 Kennedy Boulevard. And that was uh a request to
carry the matter from the November 17th meeting to tonight's meeting. >> Okay. >> No action required on the part of the board. The next is a uh letter from Mr. Uh Paul Weekes asking that uh the matter
Z-25-00006 SRL Realy LLC site is 78 West 16th Street block 245 lot 33 and he's requesting that this matter uh be adjourned this evening and be carried to our next meeting which would be
January 26, 2026. uh he is requesting that no further notice on the part of the applicant be provided uh with the board's permission. So can I get a motion in a second to carry that matter to January 26, 2026?
>> I'll move Z25006 to January January 26th meeting. >> Second. >> Can we have a second? >> Oh, we did. >> I second. >> And for a vote, Commissioner Sisgalvin >> I. Commissioner Fra I
>> Commissioner Elgari >> I >> I vote I vice chairman Panero >> I first application >> we we are the uh item number seven has been taken care of. We're at item number six. Mr. Labari if you want to read that
into the record. will do. So for 2026 calendar for the zoning board of adjustments meetings, they are going to be as followed. January 26th, February 23rd, March 16th, April 20th,
May 18th, June 15th, July 20th, August 17th, September 21st, October 19th, November 16th, and December 21st. Thank you. >> Can I get a motion and a second to adopt
the calendar for next year? >> I will make a motion to adopt the calendar for 2026. >> Second. >> And for a vote, Commissioner Sis Galvin. >> I. >> Commissioner Frame. >> I. >> Commissioner Elgari. >> I. >> I vote I. Vice Chairman Panero.
Okay. Empress application Z-25-005 Boulevard 1224 LLC site 1224 Kennedy Boulevard 25 lot 7 and 8. The applicants proposed interior
operations of the existing front commercial space which operates currently as a deli and convenience store to incorporate a new commercial kitchen and a pharmacy service area. This matter was September
council please. >> Good evening uh board Peter Chetchini on behalf of the applicant. >> Uh so thank you. Um before we uh move the exhibits into evidence, um it was pointed out to me that there the tax assessor had a typo on exhibit A9. Um
they had the addresses 1225 instead of 1224. Uh but the notice was correct. So they just had a typo in what they gave to the board, but the actual notices went out to the correct 200 foot list. I just like to correct the the the record before we move those into uh evidence.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chani. So, the um the applicants are commercial tenants. They're tenants of the uh landlord who uh owns the building. They've been there for a while. Uh you probably passed it. It's the Tiger Deli on the corner there um on the boulevard.
Uh they currently operate a small deli and convenience store. And uh most of their uh customers are walk-in traffic. A lot of them are from the building across the street which has a lot of senior citizens. And uh our clients have been there a while and they've been getting a lot of requests to be able to
serve hot food and also to have a walk-in pharmacy for the convenience of uh a lot of the people who just can't really drive. Um so that's what this application is about. And uh we have our first witness is Steve uh Kallik who so
I would uh ask to call him and get started. >> Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. if we could enter the exhibits officially. Thank you. >> I do. >> Steven Kowallik K A W A L D K
>> Mr. >> Thank you. You've seen him once or once or twice before, although not not like this, >> right? >> Um so Mr. Mr. K, if you could just maybe explain what uh what changes are going to be made if the application is
approved. >> Happy to do so. Um, so the the subject property is a is a roughly 71 square 7100 square foot parcel cons consisting of two lots at the corner of West 55th Street in Kennedy Boulevard in the R2
zone with a 4,000 foot lot fully occupied by a mixeduse building containing the subject uh property, a deli and an auto repair facility behind that on the ground floor and apartments on the second floor alongside an open
lot roughly 3,000 ft in area which is used by the auto repair shop. The applicant uh is a tenant in the building operating the deli at the front portion of the ground floor. The the applicant proposes to partially reconfigure the interior of the deli in order to add a
small commercial kitchen and to create a pharmacy counter and related retail area. The reconfiguration will be limited to utilizing the smaller retail space at the front corner of the building along with a portion of the existing work area behind the deli counter in order to create the pharmacy
space. The new kitchen would be created at the interiormost corner of the deli where a small utility room currently exists and utilizing the remainder of the existing work area. No changes to the main portion of the deli or adjacent tenant spaces are proposed. The existing
utility and trash storage areas of the basement will remain as is. And the applicant also proposes new awnings and signage at the building exterior. No other exterior improvements are proposed. While the existing commercial use uses are considered legal pre-existing non-conformities, creation of the
pharmacy use requires variance approval for expansion of a non-conforming use. The site is also characterized by a number of existing non-conformities, namely with respect to lot coverage and minimum front, rear, and sideyards. We would request that these be included in
any variance relief granted tonight. The property complies with relevant bulk standards for height, lot area, and lot frontage. The site has no off- streetet parking except for those areas used for vehicle storage by the repair shop. And based on square footage, the retail use does not require any parking. and the
proposed change does not trigger a requirement for additional parking. The building currently hosts several existing non-conforming signs. The deli's existing projecting sign is proposed to remain with new graphics and new signed awnings are proposed to
replace those at the deli's frontage and in an extended form along the side facade. The auto repair shop signs and awnings are proposed to remain. Since no signs are permitted in the R2 zone, variance relief is sought for these signs and awnings. Planners report also calls out a design
exception for the existing sixoot chain link fence at the front of the open lot, and we would ask that that be included in an annual relief granted tonight. A further design exception for the street tree would be eliminated by installation of a new tree on Kennedy Boulevard subject to Hudson County
approval. I believe there's sufficient cost to grant the relief being sought tonight. As for the use variance, taking into consideration the quality, character, and intensity of the use viewed in its totality, and with regard to the overall effect on the neighborhood and the zoning plan, I would suggest that this change will result in no appreciable increase in
intensity together with some modest aesthetic improvements and the satisfaction of the need for a pharmacy in the neighborhood. I would suggest that this application, if approved, will have a net positive impact on the neighborhood and will not serve as a detriment to the zone plan. The building has already existed for decades as a
mixeduse structure with other mixed uses in the immediate vicinity and it already provides much neededed conveniences for the neighborhood including the large high-rise building directly across the street. I believe the project satisfies the positive criteria by advancing several stated purposes of zoning namely
encourages municipal action to guide appropriate development. It promotes a desirable visual environment and it provides for a variety of uses including commercial. As for the negative criteria, I believe an approval can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Nor would an approval substantially impair the intent and
purpose of the zone plan, the zoning ordinance, or the master plan. And that, uh, concludes my direct testimony. >> Okay. Um, does the board have any questions for Mr. Qu? >> I have a question on this. Um,
the kitchen, >> um, I see the applicant, uh, he was making cold sandwiches. It was basic basic like cold food serving, right? Uh so he wants to put a kitchen in um to make hot foods, right?
>> Correct. >> Is there a fryer that he's looking to install? Is there an exhaust uh fan that's part of this also? >> Yeah, there is an exhaust uh Stephen. >> Right. So that so this we what you know we've shown a basically a pretty minimal kind of a kitchen setup
um where you know our our building codes require a certain number and type of sinks. So a three compartment sink, a hand sink, a mop sink um and uh and any cooking equipment has to have a a commercial exhaust hood which also brings in fresh air for for combustion
purposes and exhausts to to uh to the exterior. So, we're showing like an eight foot hood that would be over whatever cooking equipment they have there. Could be a fryer, could be a griddle. The the applicant can actually um testify to that better than I can as to the types of equipment that they
would have. Um but we're we're showing an 8ft hood, which would which would basically cover probably two or three pieces of cooking equipment >> with the How would that work? >> So, they're they're completely separate. So, there's there's there's a uh there's
a new new wall proposed in between those two spaces that would obviously be uh have to be designed to meet to meet codes for fire separations between uses. So, you'd have a fire separation uh constructed between those. The kitchen is only accessible through the deli.
doesn't have any direct connection to to the to the pharmacy workspace. Um, and it's connected to the deli by an existing, you know, there's an existing door and there's an existing kind of pass through window already um into that into the area behind the counter.
>> So, the pharmacy would have its own entrance, >> the right so there's there's there's multiple entrances that exist already. So there's an existing entrance which is actually on the side on the 55th street side and that would serve as the entrance to the pharmacy. Um and there's an existing wall there now that
separates kind of a narrow space from from the deli space and that has another door there. So there's you know if you if you walk into the pharmacy space you you don't have any u visual or physical uh connection to the deli at all. you
you know there's there's a wall separating both uses completely. >> I do Mr. Vice Chair. Thanks. Yes. Thank you. Um so between the tire shop, the pharmacy and the deli/kitchen roughly how many employees would there
all be in that complex? >> Um that's a better question for the applicant. I don't know what the I don't know what the total count is. >> Quick question. You did mention between the deli and the pharmacy that there was a pass through window, but you also
mentioned that you couldn't see from the pharmacy into the deli. So, is that going to be closed off? >> No, there's the pass through is between the kitchen and the deli. >> The kitchen and the deli. Okay. I misunderstood. Thank you. >> Yeah, no problem. Yeah. I I uh can you just confirm that
the utilities in the building can support the proposed uh kitchen or are you going to have to do any upgrades? >> I don't believe that we would that we need any upgrades at this point. Uh there's there's there's sufficient electrical service and gas service as far as I'm I'm aware.
So regarding the parking um we know on uh item 2.3 of our report that there is a parking variance needed um because of the different uses it generates for example the auto repair has a requirement of 13 spaces
um and there's no retail there's no parking requirement for retail but uh will any of lot seven be used for off- streetet parking? No, because right now it's strictly used by the by the auto body shop and it's accessed through the shop. >> Okay. >> As far as I'm aware.
>> So, we do recommend um for the lots to be consolidated because right now there is portions of um lot 8 encroaching onto lot 7. So, we would recommend that the lots be consolidated um as a condition of approval. And then we just note that a parking variance
would be needed because of the the parking deficiency for the various uses. Uh if I uh if I could just address uh because the applicants don't own the property. Um they have spoken to the landlord. They don't they have no affiliation with the tire shop either. I mean that's nothing to do that's their
landlord's you know uh tenant. Um they're unable to uh consolidate the lots. They tried to sell them on. It makes sense even business-wise I would think but um he the the landlord would not agree to let them do that. So
>> if we condition this on the uh lots being consolidated, it can't get done is what you're telling us. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> Okay. So you're asking us not to follow our uh planners.
>> Well, I think recommendation >> I think if um if the if the applicant owned the property, it would make sense. Um in this case, it I don't I don't believe it's absolutely necessary to consolidate the lots. These are two lots that have been like that for a long time and maybe the tax assessor is going to
consolidate them at some point, but um they do not have the ability to consolidate the lots and the advantage of doing so. They're not making any changes to the outside of the building other than putting this um vent uh for the cooking equipment. There would be no changes that they're making to the
outside. So, it seems just a little unfair to kind of, you know, make hold them responsible for something that they're not really making changes to the outside of their landlord's building that are going to affect this. >> The uh vent on the side of the building going to encroach in the adjoining lot.
>> And there's a bunch of other stuff that is also already encroaching on the adjoining lot. So, when this landlord does one day want to sell this lot, he's going to have to deal with all this for sure. Um but to to force him try to force him to consolidate it now >> but but it is your client's change that
uh one of your cl your client's change that's adding another uh encroachment on >> it's not encroachment if he owns if they're owned by the same propert same person right I mean um so it's not it's
not really encroaching uh would be my argument it is if he sells it >> and if he sells it someone's going to go there with the you know for part of the contract and they're going to have to figure that out. Um there are going to be if he tried to sell the two lots separately I think you'd have a lot of
other problems with that too. Um, if you look at the layout there, because of the way that the the shop >> I understand what you're saying, but we're a land use board and we're not supposed to exacerbate problems with our uh with our approvals. >> I I I guess I would argue it's not going
to exacerbate anything. It's a pre-existing condition here that, you know, by having a vent, really the only change is they have a vent going another vent and there's multiple there already. So they they'd have a vent coming out the side of the building and that's the only change they'd be doing. Um I guess
I could ask Steve if it's possible to move that vent so it's not on the other lot. Is that is it possible to do that? >> Um I mean the only way would be to go up through the building, but you have residential uses above. So I don't believe that would work.
Um you know I will just to kind of go on the record state that they're There are two existing chimneys and five large existing projecting lights that are that are all on this on that side of the
building that do that do um project into the adjacent lot. >> So, um if he sold this if the landlord sold this building, he'd have to address those existing chimneys, too. >> Those would all have to those would all have to to be removed, I would imagine.
Yeah. So, and and the existing chimneys are presumably feeding uh mechanical equipment that's >> for the residential >> that's servicing the that's servicing well one one of them is servicing the the the auto shop, one of them is servicing the residential uses.
>> Um so, one way or another that stuff would all have to get reconfigured no matter what. >> Uh so, we we do have the landlord's permission to put that chimney uh next to the other chimneys that already exist. then it's up to the board to do their job, but we would argue that it's
not an actual problem here. Um, you know, and again, they if they could have their landlord agree to consolidate the lots, they would. It's just not an option for them. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, it it's up
if you condition it on the chimney, you're making it impossible for them to actually complete their approval. >> Okay. >> So if for them to complete their approval, if you vote in favor of this application, you can't condition it.
>> Okay. >> On that is what Mr. Chanini is saying. >> It would be the same as a denial basically. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Quick question. Sorry. No.
landlord isn't an applicant. He wouldn't be back if we condition it that >> they couldn't complete >> the process. Quick question. Do you is there any existing photos of what it looks like now with that duck area?
You're saying there's a bunch of stuff already there. >> Maybe it will help us make like, you know, understand the situation a little better. >> Yeah. I I mean it's >> um >> it's depicted on the drawings. Um
>> I don't know. I don't have any photos. Did we Did Peter did you submit any photos of that side? >> There's there's photos on your drawings. If you if we could expand this one maybe. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It is actually Yeah.
On the on the >> Yeah. >> Alicia, I already shared mine with this side. Do you need it? Commissioner, was that satisfactory? >> Okay. >> Are you are you is the board able to see
the condenser and all the stuff that's there? >> We we looked at uh Mr. Qualik's plans and the commissioners are satisfied that the problems are depicted in the uh pictures. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions for the commissioners? >> Any other questions?
>> I do have >> question. >> Um yeah, I just have a couple of questions about the existing signage. Um we know in our report in item 3.1 that there's some existing non-conforming signs. Um, can you just
uh provide some testimony about whether any of these permits have received uh permits for the existing canopy signs and the projecting signs? >> I don't know. You know, I'm assuming that the projecting signs were put up many years ago and and I doubt that there's any record of permits on those.
I can't speak to the to the canopies either because they're they're also uh probably a couple decades old at least. Um, but you know, just just by the age of the of the the projecting signs and
the awning also, um, they've they've obviously been there for a long time. I just can't tell you exactly how long or whether or not they were done with permits. >> Got it. We I just want to note for the for the board that if there is no approvals of the existing signs, then that they would need a variance for the
for the existing signs as well as the proposed signs. And I do have a quick question about um the the length of the new canopy sign. Um there's some variation between the sign detail provided on sheet four
and the length of the canopy sign provided on sheet three. This is on the west 55th uh frontage. There's um the the length of the sign is either
23.5 feet or 27 feet uh depending on where it's being measured to. So the existing canopy on the west 55 frontage is about 10 ft and that's being extended. I just want to confirm can you
confirm the actual length of the sign? >> You you're looking at the at the the actual sign drawings. So yeah, we're comparing the actual sign drawings to sheet three which has proposed side elevations. >> If it's easier if
>> by sheet three by sheet three, do you mean A301? >> Yes. >> Okay. That's I was getting a little confused because I don't know what sheet number you're referring to. >> Um so on the on the drawn elevations there's no length depicted,
>> right? We just did a quick measurement and it doesn't seem to match the length uh provided in the sign detail. I think a a good way to address that would just be to provide the dimensions on the elevation and then make sure that
matches >> Yeah, we can the sign detail. >> Yeah, that's Yeah, I mean it's it's it's it's just kind of uh on the on the elevation it's it's not >> Yeah, >> it's not necessarily 100% uh >> so we'll agree to that as a condition. Yeah, that's no problem.
>> Thank you. >> Yep. And then just we know just one last thing, item 4.2, we do recommend that a street tree is provided. Um and then the type of three the type of tree can also be worked out during resolution compliance.
>> All right. Yep. I did mention that >> and we have no further comments. >> Thank you. Secretary had a question he wants to ask the owners. >> Yeah, I was just going to call um so I called the applicant um
ideal Aslam. >> Hello. >> I do. >> My name is Adilam. A D E Lum A S L A M. >> Thank you.
>> Oh, do you want to go right into it? >> You You go ahead. >> Okay. I was just going to have them um if you could could you tell the board, they've heard me tell the story, but um tell the board what you're trying to do here and why. >> Sure. So um we opened up the deli and uh
a lot of our customers a lot of them are senior citizens and uh they requested that something be had like sandwiches you know it's a deli so they they expect sandwiches something hot um they don't want to travel too far a lot of them
don't have cars um and since I said they're senior citizens um they did um uh uh tell us their desire to have a closer pharmacy. Um, uh, I have experience in the kitchen. We're not
going to do too grand of a kitchen. It's going to be small. A fryer, a grill, uh, fries, sandwiches, uh, small, you know, just to, um, satisfy our local community. Um, same as the pharmacy as well.
>> Um, and and you would have an operator of the pharmacy, I'm guessing. >> Sure. Uh as all pharmacies uh the we're required to have a certified uh pharmacist on hand and a technician. Um there will be one person in the in the
deli and one person in the kitchen. >> All right. As far as the pharmacy, what type of pharmacy is it? Was it going to is it like a mail out pharmacy? Is it in person or >> in person? >> So flu shots. um just medicine, you
know, uh any scripts that come in, we'll just fill it out for them and uh delivery to the building, all our neighbors, you know, free delivery for them. >> Thank you, >> Secretary Labardi. >> Well, I think he uh the the tire shop is
not yours, right? >> It's not ours, >> but do you know roughly how many employees are at the tire shop? >> Um I believe uh four maybe, but I I can't say. That's okay. So, so roughly about four and in the deli you'll have
how many? Just one person. >> So, in the deli there will be two people. >> Uh there's one person right now. Once the kitchen opens up, there'll be another person in the kitchen. >> Okay. >> And uh two people in the pharmacy. Yes, sir. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions? Any other questions? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, uh, yeah, that concludes our presentation. Um, the applicants seek to bring a an inherently beneficial use to
the, uh, area that's been requested by the the inhabitants of the area. So, we do hope the board will see, uh, this as a, as a positive application, and we'll grant the approval. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. At this time, we're going to go into close session. Um after that we'll come out
and uh we'll give our decisions. Okay. So we'll start uh start here. >> Yeah. Uh I mean after looking at the photo I don't see I don't think it'll make that much of a difference. There's a bunch of other junk on the side here as well. And that being said, I don't
think that's the main reason. But also uh you guys put an emphasis on a lot of walk-ins and a lot of like you know uh serving the community in that area. I don't I think the whole point of joining the lot was kind of to get more parking, right? Because they'll be they'll be have they'll have to provide parking spaces. I'm assuming, right? It'll be
more than 2,000 square feet. >> Question to to you guys. I'm assuming that's the uh the hardship of enjoining the lots. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So, I I I in my opinion, I don't think they'll have an issue with parking since if what they're saying is true and a lot of walk-ins are coming by, they
get a lot of traffic. So, um I think I'd be in favor for it as long as it's not like an Uber Eats thing and like, you know, they're getting a bunch of people coming by, you know, parking their cars there. It's already rough with the tire shop around the corner already with all those cars double parked.
>> Okay, next. >> Yeah, I um I agree. I think it's, you know, an improvement uh to the business um and for the neighborhood, which is great. Um, I definitely understand the concerns with the lot, but yeah, like we said, there's a lot of existing things there, and I don't think the right solution is to necessarily punish the
tenant here um for the landlord's actions potentially. So, >> thank you. Commissioners, >> well, I already see this um as a congested area to begin with. Um, adding another business to it. Uh, and I
know you there's only two employees, but it's already going to increase the flow of people, whether they're going to be drive-ins, walk-ins, and I do feel that parking is an issue. I also feel that um
that would definitely create a negative impact to the neighborhood. And um I know the area, I know it very well, and I do think that that is an issue. Uh, so I will not be in favor of this application.
>> Commissioner, >> I I agree with Commissioner Lombardi. Um, I do believe that the lack of parking and the increased um traffic that's going to happen, whether it be foot traffic or in addition to vehicles, I think it's going to be both. I don't think it's just going to be a delivery
service. And I do think that parking is is a huge concern and a negative impact for the um I would not be voting in favor for this application. >> Okay. Thank you. testimony and I've been around that area
a number of different times and I do have to agree with my fellow commissioners that it is a congested area at times and adding another pharmacy it's a lot of traffic coming in and out ordering and stuff like that having hot
food now delivered or having hot food now made at the site uh it's just that more added traffic So at this time I would be in favor of the application. Okay. >> All right.
>> Then we come out of close session and we're going to vote on this application. >> Yes. >> So for a vote, Commissioner Sis Galvin. >> Uh nay. So, I will make a motion for Z25-00005. >> This will be uh in the affirmative. So,
if you're >> if you're voting in favor, you say yes. If you're voting against, you vote no. >> And for a second, >> I second. >> And for a vote, Commissioner Cisgalin, >> no. >> Commissioner Frame,
>> I. Commissioner Elgari, >> yes. >> I vote no. Vice Chairman Panero, >> uh, the application has been denied. >> Thank you, board. >> Next on the agenda, Commissioner Labari. >> I think we're through it. I think we can
take >> adoption of the resolutions. There are no resolutions. >> Then we need an executive session which there is none. >> So at this point there is the end of our meeting. So happy holidays to everyone. >> Happy holidays. >> Merry Christmas. >> Motion to adjourn.
>> I >> and a second. All in favor? >> All in favor? >> Thank you. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Happy holidays. Merry Christmas to everyone. And happy Hanukkah. Thank you. Good night.