Ice cream and confections envisioned in Cross River

By NEAL RENTZ

The owners of the restaurant at 873 Route 35 in Cross River are seeking a change of use for a detached building on the site from indoor recreation to a restaurant selling ice cream and items such as candy and frozen items to go, such as smoothies and cinnamon buns.

Skaz Gecaj and John Swertfager own the Boro Café and Market, and want to open the proposed creamery on the same property. The applicants are seeking a waiver of site development plan approval from the Planning Board. 

The main building has a café on the first floor, a yoga studio on the second floor and an office on the third. The plan is to convert an existing detached garage, now used for storage, to an ice cream and candy store. 

Mark Schulman, the project’s architect, told the Planning Board in January that representatives of the applicant met with the board in November and in December and comments were provided by representatives of the town, including a memorandum from KSCJ Consulting, “which we have already addressed.”

The applicant also recently received a memo from the office of Town Planner and Wetland Consultant Jan Johannessen, Schulman said. Some of the comments in the memo included a request for site details regarding signage and curbs. The applicant’s engineering firm is preparing the answers, Schulman said. 

Planning Board Chair Janet Andersen said she was concerned about the proposal to extend the parking lot closer on one side to the Baccio restaurant, 12 North Salem Road.

“I remember that being a pretty steep exit,” she said.

Schulman replied that the proposal does not call for a cross slope of more than 5% for regular parking which are not required to be Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant spaces. 

“We’re not even close to 5%,” he said. 

Planning Board member Charlene Indelicato said a concern of the board has been traffic. 

“This would make a big increase in traffic,” she said. 

Gecaj said the creamery would not increase traffic, and his current business has not increased traffic. 

“Our numbers show something else,” Gecaj said. “Both businesses are staggered.” 

Indelicato said the operating hours of the current businesses in the building do not have staggered hours on weekends. The weekend hours of his businesses are noon to 4 p.m., Gecaj said. If the creamery is approved, he did not know if the noon to 4 p.m. would be year-round hours because he does not know if people would be interested in buying ice cream, Gecaj said.

“Traffic has intensified,” Indelicato replied. “It’s a dangerous intersection.”

“There’s nothing really I can do about that,” Gecaj said. “It’s off of Route 35 and Route 121.” Routes 35 and 121 are state roads.

Gecaj said he would not object to a traffic study in the area.

There have been state and county approvals for The Creamery proposal, Gecaj said. “It’s ready to operate,” he said. “They’re waiting on a final inspection.”

Andersen said Building Inspector Kevin Kelly had some zoning compliance-related issues related to the application to research. 

“I don’t think we have to decide on the waver now. Kevin has work to do,” Indelicato said. 

Andersen said the planning office has received many comments, both positive and negative, from residents about the proposal and she asked the board if there should be a public hearing on the plan. Indelicato said she supported holding a public hearing on the project. 

“I don’t want this to be ugly between me and a neighbor,” Gecaj replied. 

Critics of the plan could organize many people to attend a public hearing, he said. “It is something that will cause a ruckus. That’s all I’m trying to avoid.” 

Gecaj said he does not oppose public comment or a public hearing, but if one is held, he will organize 100 people who support the project to attend. 

While Andersen and Indelicato favored holding a public hearing, the three other Planning Board members — John Gusmano, Bruce Thompson and Paul Fusco— said a hearing was not necessary and voted against scheduling one, resulting in a 3-2 vote against holding a public hearing. Even though there will not be a public hearing, the board is still accepting written comments on the application from residents, Andersen said. 

“It’s not going to be a muti-step site plan approval,” Andersen said.

The proposal would not return to the Planning Board’s February meeting agenda, if town staff determines the project first needs Zoning Board of Appeal approval, Planning Board Administrator Ciorsdan Conran said last week.