e e in the following ways notice published in The Courier News notice posted on the bulletin board of the municipal building notice made available to the Township Clerk notice sent to the ker news well no longer The Star Ledger I guess uh
will the clerk please call the role mayor Waller presid thank you councilwoman K here miss corkran here Miss Saunders here Mr Atkins here Mr ahemed yeah here
okay Mr aaria he just emailed me his Zoom was updating here he comes okay no I'm here thank you he's here thank you I Phil and Madam chair here uh Mr Barlo would you please read the open public meeting
notice certainly Madam chair in keeping with the Department of Community Affair guidelines the plan board is going forward in this virtual platform the appropriate login information was set forth in the notices that were sent out if any member of the public wishes to be
heard during a particular application please raise your hand and the chair will recognize you and it's appropriate to go forward at this time Madam chair okay thank you uh the American flag is visible over my right shoulder can we all uh cross our
hearts and salute the flag I pledge allegiance to FL to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God
indivisible with liberty and justice for all for all um can we have the swearing in of the professionals can you please raise your right hand have do you swear that do you swear that the testimony about the gar will be
the truth and nothing but the truth I do I do thank you thank thank you are there any changes to tonight's agenda Mr Baro Mr Barlo I think your mic is off you are correct uh no changes Madam
chair other than a reminder that with regards to number 10 the River Crest matter I have a conflict and Mr canel is here to handle that matter okay then the rest of our agenda stands um can I have a motion to pay the duly uh audited
bills Madame chair this is Carol Saunders I make a motion to pay to duly audited bills do I have a second second councilwoman kill thank you roll call please M mayor Waller yes councilwoman kahill yes Miss Corin yes Miss Saunders
yes Mr Atkins yes Mr ahamed yes Mr aaria yes and Madam chair yes item number eight adoption of resolutions to memorialize action taken for January 8th Madam chair I like to memorialize
the resolution for appliation 24 pb20 ribon Metals urban renewal LLC preliminary and final site plan do I have a second Mr ains second roll call please mayor
Waller yes councilwoman kill yes Miss Corran yes Miss Saunders yes Mr Atkins yes Mr ahamed yes Mr aaria yes and Madam chair yes Miss Saunders item number
eight adoption of minutes okay Madam chair I'd like to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of January 8 2025 uh do I have a second thank you roll call please mayor Waller yes councilwoman kahill yes Miss
Corran yes Miss Saunders yes Mr Atkins yes Mr ahamed yes Mr javaria yes Madam chair yes item number 10 discussion regarding the Redevelopment plan for lock 7305
Lots 19.01% uh to lead the discussion yes thank you very much Jim everyone see that and can you hear me yes yes yes all right then let's get rolling so yeah as Jim said I'll be presenting the River Crest Cabana Club Redevelopment plan uh if you recall back
in December last year I presented the study so that paved the way for us to uh or for me to prepare this plan on the board's behalf and I will run through it um so just a quick plan overview so this
proposes age restricted residential Town Homes as permitted as really the only permitted use within the designated area of this Redevelopment um so this proposed you use fits in uh I believe with your current r10 residential Zone which is
where uh River Crest uh resides at least in within that zone um and I think that the density will match the low density residential character of that zone so I'll run through this plan it's really just going to go through the physical and structural nature different
standards that I put together um I won't read this I think most of you are familiar with the River Crest Cabana Club at the end of River Crest Drive um the total lot area is 2.14 acres and just as a quick reminder your
r10 Zone uh only allows single family detach dwellings um it allows some accessory uses like pools or private garages um some conditional uses and then these are the current standards um actually I just noticed a
typo I'll fix that uh for your r10 residential zone so so I'm just going to run through the plan goals and objectives really fast so we want want to create land use requirements specific to the Redevelopment area so that we can
effectuate um that development of underutilized parcels that was found from the study that I presented back in December uh in such a way that really improves the area and benefits from such a Redevelopment plan um so we want to encourage Redevelopment for tax ratables but also uh construct appropriate land
uses within the Zone in pasca way um and we can leverage different Financial tools such as tax abatement through the Redevelopment process um but really uh the reason why we're going with modern age restricted residential units is because uh of the high demand for such a
use um but the added benefit is is that we can set aside three units as affordable so that we can um help the township with its compliance for the fair share obligation uh for your affordable housing master plan
um so now I'll run through the L use plan if there's no questions um as I said only principal permitted use allowed is residential Town Homes restricted to age 55 and over uh I put in permitted accessory uses that are pretty typical your off
street parking signs Gates patios electric charging stations for parking um and then your prohibited uses are basically anything that's not written here or storage or warehousing of hazardous or dangerous materials so bottom of page four you'll
see the proposed area yard and bulk requirements so we're going with minimum lot area of 90,000 square feet your minimum lot width and depth of 250 and 200 um so that fits in well with the two roughly two acres size parcel that we're
talking about um and the minimum rear and sidey yards are pretty typical um for Town Homes but also fit well within the context of the r10 Zone uh they're pretty similar uh they can't be any higher than 35t these town homes so no
more than two and a half or three stories um and then your max impervious coverage and Max building coverage are pretty typical as well um in terms of density so since it's only two units um we're proposing a
total of 16 units in four residential town home structures so basically you would have four units per building for a total of 16 and as I said three of those will be affordable units I'm going to skip ahead on the
plan the this section is really just your the relationship of this plan to your existing development regulations um and your relationship to local objectives is making sure that the density is appropriate so as the land
use traffic Etc um in terms of traffic circulation there's really not much there's uh a proposed one parking lot in and out um we're proposing two spaces per residential units so that roughly works out to 28 spaces six of which will
be plug in electric charging stations stations and will be fully operational when it is built as a requirement of this plan and then you'll also have 5 foot wide pedestrian sidewalks not only along River Crest Drive but throughout the complex to connect the four structures um so that the residents can
get into their units uh easily from the parking area and just a few more sections that I think are worth going over utilities are pretty straightforward uh Solid Waste Disposal there will be an enclosure with a dumpster um and you know this just lays
out that no uh PES waste or anything like that no bulk storage is allowed signage design standard are pretty straightforward we're allowing one freestanding Monument sign just for the overall development um can't be any higher than 5 feet no more than 50
square feet in size and it has to be set back 10 feet then you have your T typical directional signs that you find in parking lots um nothing or they may be illuminated as long as they're not flashing or anything like that
um lighting shall be led and shall not spell over to neighboring um residents Landscaping we usually keep pretty um basic in landscape plans because we're are excuse me Redevelopment plans as we we trust in fisc Township staff to make
it landscaped um as desired and I think that's really it the additional design stand is really just make sure fences are no more than six feet and they're not chain link um and that they meet your property maintenance
code um yeah environmental assessment there was no environmental concerns during the study so it does not seem that the R developer will have to do anything but if something does come up this just says that they are responsible for that and I
really think that's it so quick summation this is a Redevelopment plan for River crust or um the River Crest Cabana Club total of 16 age restricted town homes in four structures with three affordable units and that is the plan
that we are proposing for this lot so with that I can take questions uh members of the board do you have any questions of Mr Clarken um Madam chair it's uh councilwoman kahill um yeah Mr Clark
and just a quick question um and I'm sure you said it but I wasn't clear on it the age restricted units are only the town homes or the entire development the entire development okay thank you very much let me jump in and apologize I had
it in my calendar at 7:30 I don't know what the mistake was Larry la laender I apologize I thought it was at set for 7:30 tonight you didn't go yet Mr lavender thank you oh we didn't go yet you're on next so good
timing uh any other questions if I may Madam chair I this one's for um Mr canel um I just want to make sure you know the age restricted because I know in uh at the senior housing we had problems with people qualify for the senior housing
and the next thing you know you have extended family members living there and it turns into you have to go to court to get them out um do we address this now or in the site plan that would be I just want to make sure
age restricted means age restricted that somebody buys the units age restricted and they don't take off and then next thing you know you have somebody not not age restricted there living in a unit where the the principal owner is not there anymore yeah mayor that's even though
they own unit that's a valid consideration but it's not a valid consideration for this discussion that would come up later at site plan is all right I want to make a note to the planning staff that when we go to do when the do the site plan that has to be a condition of approval and I want uh
the attorneys to work on that so we don't have an issue that we're having around town right now okay um any other questions for Mr canel or Mr Clarin I should
say Okay um let's open it up to the public for any questions uh members of the public you've heard uh Redevelopment plan for age restricted housing by Mr Clarken uh does anyone in the public have any questions for the testimony of
for Mr Clark's testimony regarding this matter no one Madam chair thank you close to the public uh Madam chair in anticipation of a positive uh reaction to this discussion I have prepared a resolution uh recommending the adoption of this Redevelopment plan for the
consideration of the planning board well um do we have to vote on it first Mr they do it different here Jim they do two votes oh okay just on okay okay uh members of the board does anyone have a motion at this time
regarding uh how to proceed with this motion for redevelopment Madame chair this is councilwoman Cahill I would recommend that we move forward with the recommendation of the um age restricted housing as laid out by Mr
Clarken in the Redevelopment plan uh do I have a second D Corr I'll second uh U roll call please mayor
W yes councilwoman K yes Miss cofrin yes Miss Saunders yes Mr Atkins yes Mr ahed yes Mr aaria yes Madam chair yes now that the board has reacted favor
I do have a resolution Madam chair I like to memorialize the resolution for recommending adoption of the Redevelopment plan for riverest Cabana Club rivest Drive block 735 L
19.1 20 and 21 do I have a second [Music] one second roll call Mayor Waller yes councilwoman K yes Miss corkran yes Miss
Saunders yes Mr Atkins yes Mr Ahmed yes Mr jaria yes Madam chair yes okay thank you and I will return the meeting to Mr Barlo thank you see you tomorrow night you thank you see you
tomorrow thank you Jim item number 11 on our agenda tonight uh 24 PB 0809 V is inv Victor lrn Properties LLC okay here we
go before Mr lavender begins Madam chair I just want to indicate for the record this is a continuation of a matter that was heard on December 11th 2024 at that time chairwoman Smith mayor
Waller councilwoman Cahill Miss Coran Mr ahamed um who are on the meeting tonight were present during that hearing Mr Foster and Mr Kenny who were there in December are not present tonight so
those five members heard the testimony also Mr Atkins has reviewed the transcript and signed an affidavit indicating um that he did so so we have six members um this evening that um if the matter comes to a
vote can vote ERS uh was not present unfortunately at the December meeting and Mr Sharia was not present so I just want the record to reflect those are the six members who um will be able to vote okay yes thank you Mr lavender I turn it
over to you sure Mr bar did did the uh so there's six members who are able to vote are there did the members uh any of the other six did they listen to the transcript are they able to vote because uh they heard the transcript or no they were well five
were there at the meeting five were and then the last one the sixth one was the transcript gotcha okay I just there's two members that are unable to vote of we have eight members on so six can vote that's all I wanted the record to be
clear thank you and are my professionals on I'm just looking through yep Les is here gotcha okay all right um okay good evening everyone my
name is Larry lavender I'm the attorney for the applicant uh property at issue is located at 60 Normandy Drive scataway New Jersey applicant is requesting approval from the planning board to subdivide an existing the
1548t parcel in the two lots uh there's presently a single family dwelling on the property applicant is proposing to construct a new single family dwelling on the newly subdivided portion with Frontage on Hancock Road the existing single family house will be renovated
with a two-story addition and a rear patio will be testimony given by the applicants engineer and planner uh to address questions and comments from the board's professionals as well as those from the board and the community uh with the board's permission if there are no questions for myself I'd like to
have our first witness sworn in I believe our first witness will be less M Mr Walker can you please raise your right hand do do you swear that the testimony about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth of course I do
thank you so so at the last hearing I believe um I got my full testimony in um there are a handful of changes um we we resubmitted um a couple of weeks ago and
there are a a couple of changes um we heard the concern over the lot coverage and um the the house the proposed house on Lot B um that the additions to the
existing house being um a little bit excessive um so so we the architect U worked with the the owner and um got the building down to a 19.9% coverage so we comply now U with building coverage
we're 20% allowed we're at 19.9 and what that did was um by compacting the footprint it also eliminated a need for a side variance um on the garage side we had 5.7 feet before and now we're fully compliant um
and in the front um the the existing house sits 9.7 feet um back um into the property from the right of way um and that's um we were proposing previously 6.7 feet for a
porch and we have since rework the architectural plans and um we are holding the 9.7 feet uh where the existing home currently sits so so no longer need it's still a variance but it's it's not um we're not exacerbating
the VAR the the uh variants were kind of holding the existing um house setback um so so that's that's the highlights um I have the updated reports from um the board
professionals um and and you know with with the exception of a couple of items I I think we can we we'll be fully fully complying with those letters um and uh so if there's any questions or if you want me to go through the letters
um however you want to proceed Madam chair I guess Mr W Walker what don't you think you can comply with obviously the plan is you've reduced some of the variances that were needed in keeping with the comments from the board members
uh what is it that um you you don't feel you can comply with no so so um we had a um there were there were a few items pointed out in Miss letter um she identified that we
did not show um the FI twin fiber optic Conduit on Hancock um that was a drafting error it was a misunderstanding and those will be provided they'll be added to the plan um there was a discussion about um
uh one of the comments was about um needing a RightWay dedication at the intersection of Hancock and Normandy um where the property um boundary currently goes out into what will be the the uh improved intersection
um there there's a a plan uh by Remington Vernick that for for improvements and and where that that curb the curb between the two roads um meets um our property goes out into that road and we will make that adjustment um
it changes the lot area for um lot a from uh 90 uh 9,596 ft that would be 148 foot square foot um
uh dedication RightWay dedication so it reduces lot a to 9,448 square feet um and uh and then there was a question whether or not giving that dedication would cause a lot
coverage for um lot coverage violation for lot a and it just changes from 15.4 the way it was shown up plan to 15.6 still um considerably below 20% Which is allowed so it doesn't it doesn't cause a problem there um and we
will make that that RightWay dedication Mr Walker can I just for have those numbers again I realized it's at 9596 that Dedication that was requested by Miss Corker and the staff is how many
square feet 148 Square feet it's a small triangle where the where the property goes out into the road the right the roadway um so that that the net number will be 9,448 square feet on lot a okay thank you so it's it's a minor change it
doesn't and it doesn't impact anything else okay but the applicant is willing to do that dedication as per the request that's correct um there was a couple other places where um our our plan had slightly different numbers than um than
Miss corran's letter and we'll we'll fully compliant update our plan to uh to match the her numbers [Music] and other not there was a there was a question about the location of the air
conditioning units and screening um the on lot a the condenser is shown in the sidey yard um there's there's really it's two front yards and and a side yard it's a triangular shaped lot with no rear yard um so obviously it can't be behind the home um but it'll be on the
side um it it complies with setback and we will provide the required screening um in the form of a short um screening fence and some some Evergreen U shrubs and then on the the addition for the new home um we showed it behind the home but
that puts it closer than 10 feet to the rear property line so to fix that um same thing we'll move that to the side yard um alongside the garage and um and provide the same screening and then it won't require um any any
U relief for screening uh or location and you agree to work with the the professional staff adds to the Landscaping correct that's right that's right and Mr lavender I think you probably saw in Miss in the staff report
their requested deed restrictions yeah the applicant has no issue with regards to compli with that no sir that was I forgot to mention that so so that on both homes and our architect is on on both homes the the second um
the second kind of main um entrance uh was eliminated um it was the it's the uh the existing front door on Lot B on the existing home is is um is now eliminated and then it was a a a external egress um
with with stair not not a billco door but but like a full set of stairs um to the to the home on lot a and that's also been eliminated so so in hearing that the concerns over you know illegal two families that kind of just pop up um
those those external doors had also been miss Corran do you have any other concerns you would want to address I do not Tom I think they've addressed everything in the staff report and um no further comments on our
end lar do you have anything else I believe we have one other professional if I'm not mistaken do we have um our planner well do you need that do you need to see the architect plans the updated architectural
plans he's he's here Reggie's here if you need to to see the homes um if not yeah Justin the uh planner is also one Madam chair I wouldn't mind seeing the plans if they're gonna be okay then let's call um
witness give everybody a chance to see what we're look what they're talking about Mr lavender you want to call the architect yeah I'd like our architect come up be sworn in please hi I'm Reggie P I am the
AR uh can you please raise your right hand first sure um Mr P um do you swear to testimon about the give we the truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you so what I can walk you through which are
the plans that have been sent to the to the township for review and for record um I can bring up uh first this I'll try and stay in the same order that Les did um with the uh Lot B
as first if I can share my screen sure I would like to do that so just to to give you some orientation of where the location of it is again lot lot B is here which is in this circle we submitted two set of documents to kind
of delineate the and and not confuse the two lots so the first lot we're discussing which is where the existing dwelling is is where the addition addition has been been made um I will just quickly walk you through what the
existing dwelling um look like for now it is Mr P if you want to maybe go to the the changes you made from the last plans you did testify and when over the the old plans and the existing
conditions you just want to highlight for the board the the changes you made from last time sure sure so the changes the difference from from the last time the last time we had
an entrance at the the ground level just for the um with a bedroom and had had a kind of a its own own Suite um with the bath forer and then there was this was the
kitchen and then the living and dining room so now that the based on all the comments that we received we removed this utility room um since then we have made all this the same level which is the first floor um
and I will show you here which is now it's you enter in from this side of the of the dwelling and this all is all on one level you have the living room dining room a powder room and then the
eatin kitchen uh one car garage whereas before we had um the dwelling and then we had a we had a a two-car garage on the side as well um
and we also had a a basement under the addition portion uh which I guess we would consider that a seller now we still remain with somewhat of a seller um utility room and wck room on the
ground then on the Upper Floor very much so we have changed we have the primary Suite here walk-in closet um primary bath initially the whole primary Suite consumed basically the whole second
floor of this and then there we had other rooms on the um actually I think I'm referencing an older plant but very similar this was we made this a study it's not a bedroom
but anyway this was the old older plan and then so now we have um more of an office two bedrooms it's a small office two bedrooms and then the primary Suite is
is over the garage and then um with a its own bathroom and then there's bathroom um for the main here in the laundry room and then uh that's and then we have the The Loft space with a powder Ro you
know Loft attic storage powder mechanical closet those are the primary changes that we made for the um for B any questions related to B
members of the board do you have any questions of the testimony so far you need any clarifications Madam chair if I may I just want to just I don't I apologize I don't have the architectural in front of me and they're very small on the screen but the proposed garage that that does
comply with the size requirement in terms that it has to be 12T by um 20 fee with no obstructions correct yes okay perfect thank you okay any other clar members of the board need clarification okay just send your test
testimony um Mr lavender it's not my testimony I'm the I don't I don't mean you're a testimony you're you're witness's testimony if there no further if there's no further questions from the either the audience or the board yeah we could bring on our I believe our final because I believe
before we post it to the uh uh to the public we should get the the next witness my man absolutely believe is uh I believe Justin is our planner tonight can you un share your screen
please sure thank you okay you can call your next witness Mr Justin I believe is our planner for tonight I'm here good evening hello Justin and do you swear that the testimony about to give we the
truth or nothing but the truth yes ma'am thank you Mr Mr lavender Justin did not testify at the last hearing so if you could just qualify him the other two witnesses were qualified but Mr wasn't Justin you want to give a back of your
qualifications your resume yes absolutely and uh thank you and uh good evening to everybody um I have a master's degree in in City Regional planning from Ruckers University uh I've been a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey since 2008 uh I
have approximately 20 years of experience in this profession uh I've appeared in front of your board on multiple occasions but um I've appeared in 20 counties in the state of New Jersey on hundreds of occasions on different matters I've done everything
from Master planning to Redevelopment I've done a lot of uh you know zoning ordinance work on Residential Properties commercial Etc and I'm very familiar uh with uh this type of testimony as well you're acceptable sir thank you madam chairman thank you madam
chair um so I guess we can just get right into it uh I did of course had the opportunity I've been on I think this is the second hearing I've been working on this project now for I think approximately two years so I'm you know quite familiar um with the the Genesis
of this work and and obviously the changes um or the the changes to the plans that have occurred um since uh Hearing in December uh
but one thing that remain um is that we're dealing with uh one lot and you know as proposed you know two lots if the subdiv Vision uh is approved that are uh irregularly shaped I mean these are some of the oddest
shaped lots that that I've encountered um in my 20 years uh of of planning experience um so I think um you know from a planning standpoint uh these variances and I'll you know go through them one by one but I'll be very brief
um these variances can can be processed under the C1 and C2 criter IIA the C1 criteria uh being a hardship that's relating to the nature of the shape of the property uh and the C2 criteria
which is the uh the you know public benefit test um you know what are the benefits of here to the community um so I'll just get you know right into it um as I just said you know under the C1 criteria um these are Ali this is one
Ali shaped lot it's essentially um if the subdivision is approved it's two double triangles essentially um this is the only lot that's in the area that's shaped this way and which is also
very different about this lot and unique is that um this overall lot has Frontage on three roadways two roadways uh you know predominantly so there are some um you know there's some
qualities of of this overall lot that are that are inherent here that are really driving these hardships um I'm going to reference just for for ease of going through things I'm going to reference the uh the the staff letter dated June 25th 2024 last revise uh
23225 um does a nice job of of brevity and um you know really going through the um the variances uh you know that are required um for um propos lot a there's a variance for uh for minimum lot area
10,000 sare feet is required proposed lot area is 9,448 that has just changed obviously as you heard the uh our proposed medic a slight decrease even though this slot does not
comply with his Z requirement of the area uh my argument here is that consistent with the character of the properties across from Normandy Drive um 55 Normandy Drive is 9,500 square feet
59 Normy Drive is is 9,500 square feet so we're we're right in the um you know the ballp part so really you know that goes to establishing um the consistency with the immediate character of the
area um also consistent with a property that's adjacent on uh Hancock uh seven Hancock road is uh 6,000 square F feet so obviously we exceed the size of that lot approxim 100 square feet so all bu Springs getting
bad be freezing up required is uh is one 100 foot lot depth proposed is uh 55.8 n feet lot depth again this is an ally shaped lot it's triangular in nature um the the um you
know the character of this lot is you know no fault to the owner whatever you're going to put on this lot uh whether it's this or something else you're going to need a variance because of this condition there's really no way to cure uh this condition uh in terms of
the front yard setback uh 35 ft is required as proposed is 25 ft on Hancock Road and 44 for uh I'm sorry 24.45mm drive again um we're dealing with uh two
front yard setbacks here that goes to the C1 hardship uh due to that and also the Triangular shape of the lot um conformance is very difficult here for any type of um dwell that is going to be reasonable um in
size uh you know to accommodate a single family unit um and I believe the next variance that relates to the the the conduit lines um has been addressed uh by Mr walker uh in terms of proposed Lot
B um the minimum lot uh that's that's required is 10,000 square ft uh proposed is uh is 5,812 square ft um you know what's interesting about lot a and Lot B is that both of them because
they're kind of existing both Lots you know from the naked eye kind of exist on separate eyes because the point at which they combin is you know very narrow so if you're standing on the street and you're looking at both lot a and Lot B or proposed lot a and Lot B they're
going to appear um you know to be separate lots and that goes to the unique nature of this overall lot but I would say what's important here uh you know even though the proposed lot area of Lot B is approximately uh 4,000
square feet under um you know what's required as a minimum in the zone um this lot area is predominantly consistent with the neighboring property at uh to to Bristol Road um that lot
area is 5,967 square feet compared to the proposed lot area of 5,812 square feet so when you look at you know the impacts on the adjacent properties here uh the the property that that is actually contiguous um with this
property it's not creating a condition of uh one small lot or one undersized lot next to a much larger lot they're pretty consistent in terms of size um the next is the the lot width uh
100 foot lot width was required and 83.5 lot width is proposed again um you know we're dealing with a lot that for all intens of purposes um even though there it's one overall lot today um they
still kind of appear to be separate Lots uh and again this is not in my opinion uh this is really not discernible to the eye uh and it's really not going to compare uh to be uh you out of character um you know with the area or you know
with the requirement of the 100 foot um lot width the next variance is required is lot depth like lot depth it's 100 feet and 76.5 is proposed again same argument here we're dealing with with
this Ali shape lot that's uh triangular in nature um and there's really no way to cure this condition um the next is the front yard setback uh 35 fet is required and 9.7 feet which is to the
covered porch is proposed um this front yard setback is actually uh consistent with the uh with the a current condition of the lot um the proposed improvements do not exceed the existing and proposed front yard which I would say from a
planning standpoint and from an impact standpoint is is quite uh you know pertinent here um and and also um for the for the a rear yard setback which is is 25 uh feet required uh proposed is uh
1.2 what's what's unique about this variant is that um there were two encroachments actually onto the adjacent property um for the principal rear rear yard and the the accessory side and rear yards both of them are being cured even
though a variant is still required I think from a planning standpoint uh again this is a pretty uh unique condition where we have a portion um of the structures on this property encroaching onto an adjacent property so I think um you know through this plan uh
you know curing that that deficiency or that impact uh to the adjacent property is is really proper planning um and and lastly there's a variance for uh for the lot Frontage uh as required it's it's uh
it's 100 feet and as proposed is uh is uh six 6.4 of a foot to Bristol Road I really see this more as a technical variance uh it is a tiny bit of Frontage on on Bristol Road and really in terms of this this proposed subdivision um
there's really no impact at all to Bristol Road because this house is uh you know the the orientation of the house and the driveway uh and really pretty much everything that's proposed to be developed on this property is is pushed towards um a Normandy Drive um
and lastly I believe uh the the AC unit issue um has been cured as you heard from from Mr Walker um so that's the overall kind of gist of the the technical justifications for the variances I would say under the the C2
criteria um I would say there are at least two purposes of the municipal land use law U that would be Advanced uh through this application and that's uh purpose G uh to provide for uh sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses in this
instance uh it's residential um I think as I said um a lot of these variances are are driven by C1 conditions uh this is a proposed use uh the the the house that's currently existing on the property today is permitted and if the
subdivision is successful um the other house uh will be permitted as well um and it's my you know professional opinion and I would say that that opinion is supported and you know buttressed um you know by the opinion of
the site engineer I would say that there there is sufficient space to accommodate the subdivision and also uh purpose I which speaks to a uh desire visual environment and good Civic design um as you heard from you know from the
architect um you know what's proposed is going to be a vast improvement over um what's currently on the site uh today um and there's going to be a lot more functionality on the site than uh than than is currently situated as well so all in all from the C2 standpoint I
believe what's proposed is a better planning alternative um than than what you know currently sits on the site um you know despite of course the the variances um that are required this evening also I think it's important as well and this is referenced in uh in the
the board planner letter uh the uh through lot condition uh is is cured uh in this application as well again you know we're dealing with a very oddly shaped lot uh which for all tens of purposes appears to be two separate Lots
um that has Frontage on three roadways two you know two roadways predominantly a sliver of of Bristol uh but we always look to uh to uh to eliminate um you know through lock conditions and I think this is an application um that serves
that goal relative to the the master plan and I believe the latest update was was 2020 um there are some purposes that I think are pertinent uh it does speak to uh high quality design and residential and other uses I think this this meets
that goal uh preservation of the character and the quality of of uh of neighborhoods um again I think um the um the the Adaptive reuse of the existing structure on on this property and the
new structure as well certainly goes to the preservation of you know providing for two modern dwellings um in this neighborhood um and possibly this can be a you know shot in the arm which I think is always important from planning standpoint also which is which is also
very pertinent as you heard at the the you know last hearing um you know the applicant's father is uh you know elderly and infirm and um there is a purpose of um or a a goal of of the 2020
uh update um which speaks to providing a variety of seniors senior citizen uh housing Alternatives uh and I think this this proposal really really goes to the heart of meeting that goal um so that's
all the positive criteria I'll just very briefly touch on the negative criteria and as the board is aware uh there are two prongs and Ne criteria the first is a showing of whether or not the variances that are that are presented
will propose will present a substantial judgment to the public good and the second is a showing of whether or not the variances will impair the purpose of the Zone plan the master plan the zoning ordinance uh in terms of the uh you know the first PR I think it's important as
well to also stress that the law states that there just can't be any detriment because two reasonable PE two reasonable people can disagree whether something's a detriment um that's why it's kind of a higher level of being uh substantial um I think
in this I think in this proposal um the you know proposed uses on these two separate lots are permit it and they're also obviously compatible with the single single family character of the area one thing especially when I'm on the public side doing you know Plan
reviews I always look at um lock coverage or or building coverage in this instance um you know per your per your Zone Zone and this is an application uh that doesn't require a variance uh for building coverage and that really speaks to I know um we've all been experiencing
seemingly you know you know 100-year storms on multiple occasions of of the year and I know that's a big concern of this board but we do not require a variance for that and I think that really speaks to um you know an application that is not overdoing it so
to speak uh with the proposed development of this lot so I think that really goes to you know the heart of the negative criteria that we're not creating or we're not proposing uh subdivision or or you know two separate dwellings that are going to create a condition that would have a negative
impact um on the neighbors um you know the applicant as you heard from the first hearing to to you know to now has made substantial efforts to improve the site um we we we've you know made efforts we've gone back to the drawing
board and we've made efforts to either uh reduce variances or uh you know remove them all together um and I think we're really proposing a plan here that's going to mesh well with the character of the area I'm not going to reiterate all the testimony from the
engineer or the architect uh but I think their their you know testimony was very clear that which's proposed you know will be an asset to the neighborhood in the township as well and and lastly uh whether or not there's going to be a negative impairment to the intent in
purpose of the Zone plan the zoning ordinance um the purpose of the township zoning ordinance uh meshes or um you you know propels the same purposes of the ml um and there are at least two criteria here of the ml that are
Advanced so I would say that um you know there's no impair um you know to the to the zoning ordinance and lastly we are proposing two permitted uses this evening um so we're not in any way going to fracture um the intent of the Zone
plan of this Zone as well all in all I think I think my testimony has has made it clear that my professional opinion um we're dealing with uh C1 hardships uh and also in terms of the C2 uh the benefits do outweigh the detriments and
if there are any detriments they're not um substantial in nature thank you thank you Mr lavender I think that's the extent of our Witnesses this evening the board has any
questions for myself or any of the witnesses or we could with uh your permission open it to the public board members do you have any questions of this witness oh just one comment if I could
Madam chair absolutely I mean I respectfully disagree that there's a C1 hardship here um if this applicant was coming in to do something with the existing home and they were um they they had a hardship because of a front yard
setback at agree but they're subdividing this lot so I mean there is case law talking about the I mean the raspberry decision talked about subdivisions and it had to do with D2 use variants but the the spirit was if you subdivide a lot you're kind of
exacerbating the existing uh non-conforming conditions so at that point I don't think there's a c it's almost like a self-created hardship um I would just defer that you know the applicant has provided uh um testimony
about the C2 um if you if you wish toh consider that and weigh it I I think you know he has provided uh Clarity on that but I uh just respectfully disagree on the C1 and uh basically just I always put the footnote in there about
c2s U and I I'll you know the the planner wants to offer this it says that the focus on a C2 shall be on the characteristics of the land that presented opportunity for improve zoning and planning that will benefit the community I think he's kind of addressed
it if he wants to provide anything more I I'd offer him that floor but you know I'll defer to you madam chair thank you members of the board any other questions or comments um okay I'm going to open it to the public do anyone in the public wish
have any questions yes um so if I may may oh you want to respond okay sure yes please yeah um thank you for that comment um I you know would say in you know terms of the the C2 criteria here um you know I do understand your point
about the C1 but um you know respectfully I I I would say I you know do understand uh you know the point of you know having an extra house in the slot but I would say that you know having having these kind of double triangles in itself the the overall lot in itself uh I would say presents a you
know hardship um in terms of the the C2 criteria um you know thank you for the opportunity to address this further um I would also add uh criteria M which speaks to the uh the efficient use of land um I think I think what's proposed
this evening uh where we have um a lot which obviously has the two D two two two dble double triangles the one portion the larger portion of the triangle which is undeveloped um I would say what's proposed is actually more
efficient in terms of if you look at the um the the um the parcel map and the Lots in the area this is really filling in a hole of the neighborhood and it's creating a condition which I would say is actually more consistent uh with the you know
layout of the area as well um you know so I do think from a C2 standpoint what's proposed is actually creating a condition um that is is more so conditioned with the fabric of the community despite the fact of course that we do need the variances but but I
think these variances are all Justified um you know through the points I made in my testimony thank you for that appreciate it thank you members of the board comments questions okay let's open it up to the
public at this time members of the public do you have any comments or questions uh of this witness or about this application would you indicate by showing your hand waving your hand that you want to have a
question no one Madam chair thank you close to the public right members of the board what is your pleasure comments thoughts or you can make a motion Madame chair this is councilwoman kahill
I mean I think based upon the fact that the applicant has uh come back and uh complied with all of the comments from the staff and addressed the issues of um sort of the intense size of um the
aition I I mean I would put a motion forward um that this board take a vote tonight um and I'm of the mind to approve but obviously that would be up to everyone else to decide but I'd make the motion to approve
it obviously subject to all the conditions they agreed to on the record and the staff reports right yeah absolutely yeah that was my intent by saying they made all the adjustments they came back um um Miss corkin noted that the staff had no further comments
because the applicant had agreed to um make the changes that had been suggested by the staff to make it not such an intensive um sort of use there or land usage so yes with with all of the compliances everything that was agreed
to we need a second yes we need a second um what about the mayor's concern about um assuring that uh there would be no oh no that was the other application I'm sorry do I have a second Madame chair
this is D corren I agree with councilwoman Kel there have been substantial um changes to the plan um at this point they've agreed to basically everything all of the concerns they agreed to all of the reports so I would be comfortable making the
second okay thank you roll call please mayor Waller yes councilwoman kahill yes Miss Corran yes Mr Atkins yes Mr ahamed yes and Madam chair yes thank you all very
much thank you good night appreciate it good night everyone have a good night thank you L reminder that the meeting starts at 7 o'clock in case anyone may not remember was that directed towards me Madam
chairman might be someone for us my staff is is going to get it tomorrow thank you all take care have a good night right is a jing okay good e