Kenilworth planning board denies proposed two‑lot subdivision at 530 Monroe after public opposition and procedural concerns

The Kenilworth Planning Board on the evening of the meeting considered Application 25007, a proposed minor subdivision at 530 Monroe Avenue, and voted to deny the version of the application that was presented to the board.

Gary Goodman, speaking for Elk Creek Enterprises, introduced the application and called surveyor Ed Deck and architect Roger Charles Winkle to describe the proposed two‑lot split and house designs. Deck told the board his neighborhood survey covered about 35 lots in the R‑5 zone and found roughly 20 lots with front setbacks under the 25‑foot requirement. Developer Henry Elsheik said he wanted to divide the parcel into two equal 65‑foot lots and build two center‑hall colonial houses, arguing the block already contains many nonconforming setbacks and estimating the two houses would generate about "$2,223,000 dollar in revenue to the town."

The board and its planner pressed the applicant on alternatives and code compliance. Board members asked whether the owner had considered an as‑of‑right split (for example, 50/75 feet), accessory‑structure and tree impacts, required buffering for HVAC equipment, parking/garage dimensions and whether the two proposed houses would be "substantially different" as required by the town ordinance. Architect Roger Winkle described the plans (one house he said totaled about 2,959 sq ft) and acknowledged that some design features — including proposed garage sizes and a chimney bump‑out — would need waivers to meet the Kenilworth ordinance's bulk and parking rules.

During public comment, longtime neighbor John Lobianco (540 Monroe Ave) urged the board to uphold the 25‑foot setback rule and flagged traffic and sight‑line safety near the corner, saying, "It's a danger" for children and drivers if houses are set close to the curb. Neighbors also raised concerns about the proximity of HVAC units to bedroom windows and about a mature tree that had been removed from the site.

After closing public comment the applicant's counsel said the team could withdraw its variance and waiver requests and seek an as‑of‑right subdivision line. The board discussed procedural options — including bifurcating a ministerial subdivision vote from variance approvals — and whether allowing a 65/65 split would leave design comparison to the building department rather than the board. Following that discussion a board member moved "to deny the application as it was submitted and presented." The roll‑call vote was recorded by the clerk and the chair announced the motion carried; the board stated the application was denied in the form presented to them that night.

What happens next: the applicant withdrew variance and waiver requests during the hearing and indicated an intention to pursue an as‑of‑right subdivision line. The board's denial applied to the submitted package with variances and architectural designs; the applicant may choose to refile a revised application consistent with the board's guidance or pursue ministerial subdivision steps through the borough processes.

The board also briefly discussed scheduling a public hearing on the master plan and then adjourned.