By Matthew Sockol
Staff Writer
FREEHOLD – Business owners in Freehold Borough are continuing to oppose a banquet facility’s use of a valet parking lot.
Exquisite Caterers is seeking approval from the Planning Board to use a parking lot on Hudson Street as a valet parking lot for the vehicles of guests who attend events at the Aurum banquet hall in the Market Yard.
Attorney John Giunco presented Exquisite Caterers’ application to the board on May 24, following appearances on March 22 and April 26. No decision was made that evening. The hearing is scheduled to continue on June 14.
The board granted approval for the use of the Hudson Street parking lot in early 2016 amid objections from business owners on Main Street. After legal action was filed by the objecting businesses, Exquisite Caterers filed a new application seeking use variance relief, which had not been sought in the previous application.
Attorney Edward Liston represented the owners of the Main Street businesses which back up to the Market Yard parking lot, including the Metropolitan Cafe, the American Hotel, Federici’s and the Court Jester.
Valet parking for events that are held at the Aurum banquet hall is available to guests. A valet brings a guest’s vehicle to the Hudson Street parking lot. Guests who do not opt for valet parking may park in the Market Yard parking lot.
Supporters of the valet parking lot on Hudson Street believe its use will alleviate parking difficulties in the Market Yard, and by extension, the borough.
The objecting business owners do not agree with the premise that having a valet parking lot available for the Aurum banquet facility will improve the parking situation in the Market Yard.
Planner David Zimmerman, representing the objectors, testified as to why he does not consider the valet parking lot to be beneficial. In his testimony, Zimmerman contended that the Hudson Street valet lot was exclusively for guests and employees of the Aurum banquet hall.
“That parking area does nothing to impact the need for parking [in Freehold Borough],” Zimmerman said. “It is solely aimed at providing parking for the facility, not public parking. It is solely benefiting the facility, it does not benefit the community at all.”
Zimmerman testified he was at the Market Yard and at the valet lot on May 12 and witnessed valet drivers park 66 vehicles in the Hudson Street valet lot.
He said he only saw guests of the banquet hall receive valet services, while a small percentage of the banquet hall’s guests parked in the Market Yard, which had few vacant spaces.
As previously stated in testimony supporting the applicant, the valet parking lot has 71 spaces.
Zimmerman also spoke about what he described as an adverse effect the valet lot allegedly had on nearby properties.
According to Zimmerman, the Hudson Street parking lot did not have necessary buffering and shielding to prevent nearby residences from being affected by the lights and sounds associated with vehicles.
“[The valet lot] is a nuisance to the residences, in my opinion,” the planner said.
During his cross-examination of Zimmerman, Giunco questioned the planner’s opinion of the valet lot.
“There are few on-site parking spaces [in Freehold Borough],” Giunco said. “How did you come to the conclusion that providing spaces is not a benefit to the public?”
Zimmerman maintained that the valet parking lot did not diminish the need for additional parking spaces and did not solve the issue of congestion in the Market Yard. He reasoned that the valet lot contributed to the parking problem because some guests of the banquet facility were still parking in the Market Yard.
When Giunco asked if the valets moving 66 cars out of the Market Yard had no benefits, Zimmerman said it did not.
During a discussion about who has access to the valet parking lot, the board’s attorney, Ronald Cucchiaro, noted that Dave Esquenazi of Exquisite Caterers previously testified that anyone can use the Hudson Street lot when it is open.
Zimmerman responded by saying the Hudson Street parking lot is closed when the banquet hall is closed, which Esquenazi had acknowledged.
Giunco asked Zimmerman if he saw anyone denied service from the valets; Zimmerman said he did not.
Zimmerman told Giunco he could not comment as to whether other businesses were open when he observed the two parking lots. He said there appeared to be an event at the American Hotel, after the questions were raised by the attorney.
Another topic raised during the cross-examination was the number of spaces in the valet lot. Giunco noted that the valet lot, which has 71 spaces, exceeds the space requirement for a banquet hall, which is 55 spaces.
“Are additional spaces a benefit?” Giunco asked Zimmerman. “The lot exceeded the parking requirement. Why not build only 55 spaces?”
In response to Zimmerman’s assertion that the Hudson Street lot is a nuisance to nearby residences, Giunco asked about a tarp at the lot. Zimmerman responded by saying the tarp was too flimsy and did not block glare from lights.
After Giunco asked if it was the obligation of the applicant (Aurum) to solve the parking issues in Freehold Borough, Zimmerman said he could not speak to the issue of obligations because it was not related to his testimony.
Board members questioned how the provision of a valet parking lot was not beneficial when it provides parking spaces in the borough.
“How can parking spaces anywhere not be a benefit?” board member Cornelius Begley asked. “The cars [in the valet lot] would have had to go to the Market Yard.”
“The applicant has provided more than the necessary 55 parking spots,” board Chairman Adam Reich said. “Where do these spots go?”
Zimmerman said he could not answer Reich’s question, but added that a downtown district is not an appropriate location for a catering facility.
That remark prompted a response from Cucchiaro, who noted that the catering facility had received approval for its location from the Borough Council.
Reich also reasoned that Zimmerman could not have seen where patrons in the Market Yard were going while he was watching the valet parking lot on Hudson Street.
When discussing the types of businesses that could have occupied the space that is occupied by Aurum, board member Jamie Bennett said other uses for the building would have been deficient in parking spaces.
“What could [Exquisite Caterers] have done about this property?” Bennett asked Zimmerman. “You can’t say it isn’t a benefit … It’s better than having the building vacant.”
On a related matter, Cucchiaro said a judge has ruled that a banquet facility is a permitted use in the Market Yard structure which is known as the Rose building. Objecting business owners had challenged the borough’s approval of a catering hall at that location.
