Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Tony Board of Production November 25th, 2025. to the fire. All right, your hands by advertising in the Hall News Tribune, notifying the Sentinel Publishing
Company and the Star Ledger, and also posting on the bulletin board and filing with the Burough Clerk. The zoning board had no meeting in the month of October 20ou 20125.
What I would like to do first, we have two resolutions that we had in September and has everyone had a chance to look over the resolution at 48 Cedar Terrace Portland, New Jersey.
>> Yes. What's the pleasure of the board concerning this resolution? >> Mr. Chairman, I move that the resolution be adopted as written. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second to approve
the resolution. Roll call. >> Mr. Green? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kazinski? >> Yes. >> Mr. Emma? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Scottstein? >> Yes. >> Mr. Castle Grant? >> Yes. I have a second resolution
of 20 Orchard Street. Has everyone had the opportunity to read that resolution on that September meeting? >> Yes. >> It's the pleasure of the board concerning that meeting. >> Move the resolution be approved as written. >> Second.
>> I have an approval and a second. Roll call. >> Mr. Green. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kazenski? Yes, >> Mr. Emma. >> Yes, >> Mrs. Godstein. >> Yes, Mr. Casselberry. >> Yes. >> Has everyone had the opportunity to read
the minutes of the September 24th, 2075 meeting? >> Yes. >> The pleasure of the board concerning that. >> Move the minutes be approved. >> Second. I have a motion and a second to approve
the minutes of the meeting of September 24th, 2025. The next application >> Oh, I'm sorry. Roll call. >> We can do all in favor here. Hold on a minute. >> Okay. Mr. Green,
>> yes. >> Mr. Kazinski, >> yes. >> Mr. Emma, >> yes. >> Mrs. Scott, yes. >> Mr. Cast, >> yes. >> Okay. Our first case tonight is 2515 Ltock Properties, Johnson's Lane.
um myself and I'm sure that there's other members of the board who have a conflict of interest and I am excusing myself from this application and I'm going to uh turn the meeting over to the vice
chairman Tom Kachinsky to take over this meeting at this time. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And uh if anyone else wants to excuse themselves uh please bring it up now. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yes. >> Anthony needs to recuse themselves should uh leave the and uh either leave the meeting or head into the audience watch decision. Um pursuant to section 69.1 of
the municipal land use law uh when there uh is not a full board for the zoning board based on refusals the board members planning and so we have uh four members of the planning board here with
us tonight who will be helping the board uh reach its full sevenerson membership. So, if you guys want to leave and planning board members, come on up. >> Mr. Right. >> Toms
69. >> Okay. All right. Thank you gentlemen for coming and um let's just go starting with from my left. Please introduce yourself. Give your name. >> Shaw planning board member. >> Barry Muller.
Tom, planning board chairman. You can do >> Okay. And we have a sternographer here. So, let's give her a second to get all the names um oriented. And if the applicant can step up, we can
get going. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, >> members of the board, council. Uh, Andrew Maize, MA, evening attorney for the applicant, Leto Properties LLC. Here tonight is the principal, uh,
George Blesstock. Um, my main witness, uh, is an engineer and planning, uh, expert, Joseph Buch, and, uh, he is going to make the presentation to the board tonight. >> Okay. Thank you. Just make sure you use
the microphone so we're picked up because we're we're being zoomed or whatever you want to call it. Please raise your right hand when ready. >> Do you swear? Tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth tonight.
All right, you are sworn. >> Thanks. Um, so as stated, excuse me, my name is Joseph Fuch. That's Victor UIC. I'm a licensed engineer, professional engineer, and professional
planner, as well as a certified municipal engineer in the state of New Jersey. All my licenses are in good standing. Um, for the benefit of the board, my credentials, uh, background in civil engineering from Lehigh University in 2006, we're working in private and
then municipal engineering. Um, since that time, so over 20 years, I've been primarily representing municipalities and do so on base with with you and others in in other municipalities throughout the state. That includes mostly primarily currently Morris
Township, uh, engineering, planning, and zoning, uh, Long Hill Township, Chester Burrow, Opacong, as well as a number of others throughout other municipalities. >> Okay. Okay. Any board members have questions of the engineer? >> Move we accept his credentials.
>> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Anybody oppose? Okay. You're approved. >> Thank. >> So, for tonight's presentation, I brought with me um the submitted plans that were entered in and and this works as well. All right. Great. uh submitted
plans a minor subdivision plan set prepared by uh my office under my direction and my seal Van Clee engineering that is revision 930 2025 uh submitted as a revision you know well
in advance of the 10 days prior to this hearing and and the prior hearing that we had postponed. Uh, also included in our submission was a uh, reference survey as well prepared by my
prepared by my office. uh and that plan being dated June 20th, 2025 uh signed by Pamela Matthews from our Hillsboro office. U and I will start with utilizing that for our reference beginning of the
presentation. We are here tonight uh seeking a minor subdivision approval along with a bifocated use D1 use variance application. Uh there are also bulk variances related to uh the
entirety of the application for the individual lots once they're supposed to be created u along with the use variance being requested for each of the each of the lots. Um and so principally the intent of this application
minor subdivision uh change in use what you all are probably familiar with as the location of Buddy's Tavern which has been uh dormant use on the property and shut down for at least 7 8 years uh under utilization of the property with a
existing single family dwelling that is also located on the property. Um and one thing that we found um very suitable to our presentation and and the overall proposal of the subdivision is that when we look at the
lot history here, uh there this is currently block 371 lot 3 as one lot. Um however, there was an original tract one and track 2 that had separated the residential use on the property uh and
the commercial use on the property. And so in the consolidation at some point it is one lot. What we're looking to do is first in that subdivision re reestablish that original track line and um recreate the single family
property by itself. And then we're proposing with our use variance as well the uh conversion of the remainder of that lot into two additional residential parals. Um, we find that to be a
particularly suitable opportunity for the the property in in that it is located in an area of your municipality that is, as many are familiar with, adjacent to a school in the rear yard. um as well as in an area of a B1 zone
that is neighboring to both an R10 zone uh across the street across Johnson Lane as well as as you come down the street to Washington Road and the county route, you're into the R5 zone. So, we are in an area that is a a relatively
um isolated section of a business zone against a school educational use. um particularly in the corner of the property being the an area of recreation and activity on the property with the playgrounds at the school. Um and rather
complimentary to converting what was an underutilized dormant uh commercial use and um you tavern opportunity for a restaurant liquor license into uh something a little more suitable for a buffer to the the school zone. um and
providing some alignment with the R5 and R10 zone. So one of the things we did with our our plan set is and so let me get to sheet two here. We looked at our zoning in the
municipality. Um one for you know the the zone that we're in. we need to identify our variances relative to the to the B zone. But then we also looked at the requirements in the R5 and the R10 zone because um we're proposing a
residential use. most appropriate to then compare yourself to those residential standards to uh identify the appropriateness of the size of the lot and create some consistency with your master plan, your zoning opportunities uh so that the property is holistic to
the vision of the municipality and and the adjoining residential zones. Um so you know with that we identify existing nonconformities in the B1 zone. um as well as what would be existing
non-conformities to the R5 and R10 zone and those mainly being relating to uh the existing structures that were on the property and the existing lot. And then as we look to establishing what I'm I'm going to identify as from plan left
to plan right lot 3.01 01 proposed 302 in the middle and 303 to the plan right which is the eastern side of the plan. Uh again, reestablishing the existing frame dwelling with
essentially a plan at this time for establishing this lot, demolishing the existing structure and leaving it pad ready for the opportunity to do plot plans under site plan exemption for um conforming applications under the zoning
with the uh variances that we're requesting. At this time, um, we're proposing the what would be essentially a C1 hardship proof on the existing sideyard setback on uh, this side of the
dwelling, which is at 2.97 existing configuration the lot, existing configuration of existing improvements. um proposing the reestablishing that lot line that existed in the first tract historically
with 4.41 as the setback. So that would be a C2 variance request. um as well as then establishing uh 10-ft sideyard setbacks on both of the lots.
That would um in itself be conforming in the B1 zone. Um notably that would be in a in an R5 zone that would be an 8ft setback. So that would be uh comparable to a twoft sideyard um
or in excess of the 8 8 ft to 10 feet and then also compliant in an R10 in the other adjacent zone at 10 ft as well. Um combined with front yard setbacks of 20 ft on the respective lots
that again is conforming to the zone uh with the exception of the R10 zone which would so the B1 that we are in and the R5 provide conformity at 20 ft setback and in the R10 zone
where we have a 10,000 square foot lot area as a five as opposed to a 5,000t lot area uh we have a slightly larger proposed setback that is a setback that we essentially can provide from the from
the street. Um, however, we are providing a dedication in the rightaway for consistency of the rightway to expand the variable width of the rightway to conform with the adjacent lots on all sides, consistent with some of the recent approvals of the planning
and zoning boards in recent years on adjacent lots in the area. um cleaning up the rightway, perfecting it and and with that we have an effective depth that is greater than the proposed 20 foot setbacks in the front yard. So, in
comparison to an an R10 where there's a 25 ft setback, you would uh essentially be able to have the same visual impact um and and plan development of these homes at a consistent setback, which as you can see, consistent with the frame
dwelling next door to the west. um and and then consistent with the existing dwelling on the home to apply a consistent set or a um a compliant setback.
Um so the um existing non-conformities we have on the subject properties uh see bulk variances related to east west and both sideyard setbacks are
7.82 82 and 2.97 7.38 respectively where as I was just saying 10 10 and 20 is required in the B1 zone. Um and building coverage was at
32 30.2% where 25 was allowed. Um so looking to reduce that footprint and that those non-conformities and then reestablish with new lots and new sizes based on the variance requests. Um we're
making requests on seabbulk variances on the east west and both sidey yards for lot 301 as I said plan left uh at existing 4.41 41 2.97
that would be the 4.41 41 on the east, 2.97 on the west and then a combined of 7.38 where 10, 10 and 20 are required. Um that is a hardship variance on the west side. I
see two variance on the sorry on the on the right side. Um the looking at lot area as well where 10,000 square ft is required in the zone and all three lots
would be undersized. Those those lots being undersized to the B1 zone at at 10,000 would be respectively again left to right on the plan. uh 6472 square ft, 6171
square feet, and 5870. So roughly all the same size and and and the variation in the square footage is that we're establishing consistent 50ft widths. And with the variable right ofway that we're offering in in dedication, that that changes our depth
of the lots, respectively. So, they're all in that that ballpark of essentially a a 6,000 square foot lot. Um, comparing to the R5 district, you have an a 5,000 square foot requirement. So, we're exceeding that R5 requirement, we're
looking to then the R10, which matches the B1 at the 10,000. And so as we compare the proposal of establishing the three lots compared to your zoning in both R10 and R5, we find consistencies
with lot sizing setbacks, other bulk standards particularly suitable to the R5 in the neighboring area. Um and some undersize undersizing comparison to the R10. But um what I'd draw your attention to on
the site location map on our cover sheet is in the R10 zone um we have relatively narrow lots with depth to them. So the overall lot size of that 10,000 is made
up in mostly in depth of lot rather than in width and sideyard and neighboring sideyards to neighbors. So proximity of homes set back from structure to structure is um more comparable when we look at the homes in the area from doing
our drivebys and our planning analysis. So uh and then we also obviously we're the most important part of the night, right? We're here to discuss the D1 use variance. Three residential uses proposed on each individual lot. So it's
essentially three three lots with the D1 use applied um in an area where we have a B1 neighborhood business zone. Um, and as I was noting, you know, this particular section of the B1 zone between Johnson and Washington is
somewhat segregated from the other parts of that zone that go down the county route. Um, it's it's in a different corridor, particularly more suitable for this conversion. Uh I've found in in in driving through the neighborhood and looking at the comparable R5 and R10
zone uh specifically because of the school and the proximity of the school, the neighboring and the buffering of a residential opportunity to take an underutilized business uh in the area, convert that into two homes that would be comparable to the existing structure
that's been there for decades and the existing single family dwelling that's been there for decades. Um, so I'll uh perhaps pause in case there's any questions at the plan the proposal and then I can go into some planning proofs. Kind of switch my hats real quick for
everybody. >> Did a lot with the uh sideyard uh variances, the ones that are needed. >> Yeah. >> Next, just want to get this on the record to the left. >> Yes. >> And that that is not residential,
correct? It is not. No. Um it's a frame story dwelling. Uh there is a larger setback on that property to the property line. So that buffer we have the benefit of that buffer to the residential property that exists ex
currently as an existing non-conforming use on that on that property. A second principal use essentially on the existing property. Um, and as I was saying, we have a C1 hardship on the existing conformity, existing location
of the home relative to the existing lot line, which is our outer boundary as opposed to our inner where we're electing to create this conformity of the 50 foot widths to the lots. >> Mr. Chairman, if I might, the lot you referenced and the the dwelling you
referenced is has received approval to be demolished. There's an existing physical therapy center on the corner. They purchased the adjacent property. They got approval to demolish that and construct a parking lot and there were buffers anticipated along the property
line next to your lot 3.01. >> Thank you. Uh you had pointed that out during our technical review meetings. Um yes. So in >> what I'm getting at is that that uh short sideyard isn't going to affect any residents.
>> No, absolutely. In fact, the it's is is a bit of the opposite is that in planning and approval of the the approvals over here to the to the west, the considerations of existing non-conforming residential on this property were observed to create that
buffer on the adjacent property with the the the particularly the the parking lot that would be in that that portion of the lot. There were some large diameter trees that were present along that property line and they're being supplemented with some evergreen plantings adjacent to the proposed
parking lot. >> Any other members have questions of the when he has his engineering hat on? >> I can go back and forth all night. It's okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So, um half of you are normally a zoning board,
some of you are normally on other boards, right? So, uh, just to cover the bases, right? So, zoning boards have the power to to grant D1 variances on, um, non-permitted uses, you know, specifically under what we call the D1, right? Because of the MLUL
and the citation in reference to the D1 70D1, uh, in particular cases and for special reasons, uh, so-called positive criteria proofs. Um and you know this has been held through the courts uh that
the promotion of general welfare and the zoning purposes that are most clearly amplified as meaning the special reasons under the Medici case um for non-inherently beneficial uses. The benefit of the general welfare comes
from the development of the site in the community that is particularly suited for the proposed use. Um and provided that those that the proofs providing proofs that the proposed application promotes at least one purpose of
the zoning found in the MLUL section 40 col 55D2 right so that's that's when we rattle off the the A through right um sections um and then we we also must satisfy a
negative criteria right discussing two parts of proof that being the proposed use can be granted without substantial detriment to the public and that the proposed use will not substantially impair the impair the intent and purpose of the master plan in the zoning ordinance. Right? So that's our D1 use
standards. Um and so first let's uh discuss some of the particular suitability and the positive criteria right um as I was mentioning earlier through canvasing the area looking at
the proximity to R10 and R5 existing residential communities in the area the neighborhood being um inherently tied to the school being in that area as well and providing a a more appropriate
buffer to the school and some of the recreational areas and the playground areas on that site being immediately adjacent to this subject lot has a certain particular suitability for an opportunity for use variance in a business district um where we're coming
into a section in a curve where we have the board of education property immediately adjacent to us. So, we're surrounded on two sides with the development that's now planned for the other corner. that anchor to your corner. Not to speak for, you know, your
professionals and your plan, but is complimentary to the Washington Road County route corridor and that business district and that opportunity provides an opportunity for breaking away and bifurcating from the zone and providing
continuity with the educational use and the residential neighborhoods in the area. Um, so I find that to be particularly suitable as well as starting to address some of the um positive benefits uh in in our criteria. And you know, we
look to then the purposes of municipal land use law. Um, and I personally choose not to overdo it when it comes to, you know, a A through Q. um a to encourage municipal
action to guide the appropriate use or development of the lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Um again, you know, it's talking about the existing neighborhood you have an opportunity for infill
development and underutilization of the existing property and an opportunity for the consistency of adding some homes in that area. I think is particularly suitable to meeting that purpose. A as well as E to promote the establishment
of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities and regions and preservation of the environment, right? Um the persons, the neighborhoods, the communities. Um that's we see this as an infill
opportunity taking underutilization providing buffer to the school providing consistency to cross over Johnson Lane from the residentials on the other side and providing that tie into the public facilities the public education opportunity of the the property next
door. uh as well as then m to encourage coordination of the various public and private uh procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of land right you guys are all very familiar
with municipality to the extent that it's built out to the extent of density that you have infill development is the most practical reutilization and revitalization of areas when you have underutilization you have a property propert that has some dormcancy on it. The opportunity to
rejuvenate that and to do that consistence consistent with an opportunity that reduces cost is not cost generative and provides for um holistic opportunity to complete the neighborhood is the way we look at this.
Um and then when we look at negative criteria, right, negative criteria realistically here I think is losing a business opportunity, losing an opportunity for commercial uses in the area. Um, I don't believe there are any in
particular because of the location of this site, the fact that you have a corridor on the county route that is supporting your business area, your business zone, the B1 zone, and it's a strong enough zone as it stands in that corridor, and then this this leg of the
zone being more complimentary for this opportunity to flex with the school as well as the the residentials across the street. So I don't find any negative criteria um with the granting of this variance for the respective D1 use variances.
Um, as we then discuss the bulk standards that we're requesting on on some of these, we have, as I said, a C1 hardship on the existing dwelling and the proximity to this 2.97 on the sideyard where 10 ft is required in the
B1 zone and comparatively in our R5 or R10, it is respectively 8T or 10 ft. Um on the opposite side we have a proposed 4.41 ft there. Um that's to allow us
under C2 hardship proof to reestablish that original track line. Um and doing so allows us to provide conformity on the other two lots. So there's a bit of a balance here to the best planning alternative and the opportunity we have
available to us um to rather than rather than shift everything over and create and and comply on that side and then create non-compliance on the other or having multiple non-compliances
across three lots for C2 bulk variances. Um, we're looking we're looking at that area as an opportunity to reestablish an existing prior historic track line and then from there observe the full sideyard setbacks
on the respective neighboring lot. So that ne that existing dwelling will gain some setback from their neighbor that's compliant on their neighbor's side and and they're the one imposing on the new structure so to speak. Um, comparatively
to the existing arrangement, you know, we see that it's really a welcomed opportunity to take what is about a 10-ft setback from the existing commercial structure and
welcome in a residential neighbor uh as a comparable land use to that existing structure and and that existing um tenency. Uh and so you know under the C2 hardship proofs we look at the proposal being the
the better zoning alternative to which is permitted by the ordinance. And I feel that laying this out in this manner and like I was saying providing the two compliant sideyard setbacks on the other two proposed lots
in light of the variance being requested on the eastern side of the existing dwelling. uh provides that better planning alternative to um kind of condense those requests into the existing non-conformity and preserving that with the with the proposed lot to
remain as lot 3.01 and then proposing the most compliant opportunity for bulk standards on the other two lots. Then I'll open up to questions. Okay, board members have questions
about our professionals. Any do you agree? Jay, >> Mr. Chairman, we had a report that was submitted uh first item had to do with construction of curbing and sidewalk along the frontage as well as street trees. The adjacent property that I mentioned was going to be expanded as a parking lot. They were required to
construct sidewalk along their frontage. So, we're recommending that be continued along the frontage of these three properties. >> Yes. So, uh we're aware aware of that. Um we are supportive of that. Um we would request essentially
uh we could acknowledge that during this this approval and then we would address it during design of the individual plot plans. >> That kind of leads into the next comment. What the board is being asked tonight is to create these lots. They're not proposing any construction on the two new lots.
>> Correct. So what that means is when they want to go through and file for building permits, they're going to have to comply with the requirements of the R5 zone. They'll have to submit a grading plan, a soil erosion plan, a tree preservation plan. They'll have to comply with RSI requirements for off- streetet parking.
So that'll be handled not before this board, but as a function of going for building permits. For some reason, if they aren't going to meet the sideyard setback requirements, they'll have to come back to the board to get a variance for it. But at this point, they're not proposing any variances on the two lots
that are vacant. The only two variances are on the existing lot because of the sideyard setbacks. >> Correct. And uh it reminds me just to clarify for the record for the board and with the approval um as I was mentioning, we were observing
the at this time the the 10- foot setbacks on the existing B1 zone is what we showed on our plan. It would be our request that the R5 bulk standards be applied to the property as part of the approval so that the two lots being
created could have the benefit of that flexibility when working through the architecturals that if there's an element of the building that undulates on the side that that 10 to 8 what is an 8 foot compliance setback in the R5 zone I find to be particularly suitable for
the establishment of the bulk requirements on these two lots. And the last item had to do with how you're going to file your subdivision, whether it's going to be done by map or whether it's done by deed. We would need descriptions and you just have to get lot numbers confirm that they're approved by the tax assessment.
>> Yes. So, uh, same comments that we shared with Jay during TRC. Um, same comments that I always hold everybody to as well. We will be filing by deed. Um, as a minor set division, we think it will be the most convenient. will be preparing meets and balance descriptions, providing those to your
professionals along with the deed in draft for the board attorney and the municipal attorney if necessary to review uh and then filing them appropriate and providing a copy of the recorded deeds to the municipality. That will be done in concert with speaking
with the tax assessor, making sure that we identify the lots on those deeds in the conformities in the preference that they have. I've shown them on the plan as 301 through 303, but uh we can change those. They could remain lot three and
then the others, whatever the preference is of the tax assessor. >> And for the planning board members, this is consistent with how the planning board has approved subdivision applications where you've granted approval subject to uh filing grading plans and so erosion plans and tree plans when they go for their building
permits. >> Yes. And uh while we will be filing by deed uh it was the intent of our plan set to conform to the MAC filing law as well. So the record set that is with the approval would then also then conform which makes it much easier for us to
work with your professionals and review the meets and bounds for final closures. >> Chair could he address the issues identified by Mr. his report in miscellaneous section. >> Um,
I apologize. I might have dropped it out of my notebook here. Um, sorry. just in the miscellaneous section you said right? >> The comments section in the back but you agree that you're going to comply with
my comments. I have just a few points to bring up. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Michael, do you need a >> Yes. So like so as we're noting so number one miscellaneous here um yes I mean I agree
and just stated that we would request the R5 zoning standards to the area. >> Go touch on that for a second if we could. >> Yes. >> If you you're going to agree to construct according to the R5 standards and it'll meet all of the standards in the R5 zone except the fact lot 3.01
when you have sideyard issues and you have a combined sardo issues, the only barance you would really required to be have if you were R5 zone would be the sideyards for the existing dwelling. >> Correct. >> And the the while the R5 zone does allow
an 8 foot sideyard setback, the combined sideyard is still 20. So if you did eight on one side, you have to do 12 on the other. >> Correct? So this a suggestion since the sideyard is so close on lot 3.01 you
only have like four feet. If you do 12 feet on that side of the lot next to it >> and 8t on the other side. So you have your total 20 but then you have 12 feet plus four you have 16 feet from the new dwelling structure. >> Yeah. And so that yes I think we're
we're comfortable with that. Looking at providing on the westerly side of both 302 and 303. Well, just it just would be >> or just just for the middle lot. >> Yes. Where the sidey yard on 3.01 is >> 4 point something. >> This way you'd have
>> it would help us make up the difference between the two. >> Yes, we could we could stipulate that. >> Is the board okay with that suggestion also? >> Yeah. Very good. >> Um >> and the other statements in there about meeting certain sections of the zone
requirements. >> Yes, absolutely. is concerned when you do your plot plan Jay will be looking you know a lot of those things so I think >> yes cover yes I'm comfortable with all of these >> Mike any comments on that the proofs the positive and negatives
>> I think it's blinding it's a better planning alternative than I think trying to go with another commercial project there and the bold variances better planning alternative to go with an R5 zoning so I think it makes sense also for the C1 and the C2, but I have
no problem with the schools to the rear residential on most areas around the property. The other question I had was the actually directly across the street is a rather parking lot I guess that the bar and restaurant used to utilize. Just one of
my questions what was going to be the disposition of that lot since I guess it was parking associated with the restaurant. Now the restaurant is gone. So what happens with that lot? Yeah. So that that lot was not provided as part of um as part of the contract.
So um it is still a separate matter. It would essentially be what I would term it you know a vacant dormant use and uh to put up keep my planning hat on you know it's a accessory use without a principal use on the property. So, uh,
in itself to be used as a parking lot arguably would need to get a approval from the boards to be able to be used as a parking lot for the neighborhood or some other principal use on another lot in the area. >> That's basically what I want on the record that yes, not going to be a parking lot.
>> It's not going to be a parking lot. It's not part of the um the transaction between my client and the current owner. Uh, so it is still in their ownership and would be addressed under separate applications. It's all true. Okay.
>> Any other questions from members or professionals? So, uh, this is a little bit new to me. So, we're sort of changing the zone. You're not really changing the zone. >> Well, can you explain that? I don't
think we've like done that in the past. So um first off initially if uh if this board grants the application it will have to grant the C variances under the existing business zoning. However, it
can also choose to apply uh a certain type of zoning uh as part of its approval to the property. Um, and so what's been said is that the most applicable type of zoning seems to be the nearby R5 zoning. So that in the
future if they have to come back, it'll be under the standards of the R5 zone for their sideyard setbacks, their bulk bulk setbacks and variances um rather than under the um the B1 zone.
So the board has three use variances. Uh it has what one, two, three bulk variances. Is that correct? Uh Mike, >> this um three plot area, >> right?
>> Three lot width and then the side yards and 3.01. And >> those bulks are because we're we're applying the the R5. >> No, no, those bulks are are from the B1 B1. Okay? >> Because you can't you can't technically
reszone >> the lot. However, you can give an approval saying that in the future, you know, as a condition of your approval that the lot the property will comply with the R5 standards.
>> Mr. As an example, a B1 zone allows 25% coverage for a building and 85% for impervious, which means you could have basically a house, a bigger house that's all paved, as opposed to the R5, which has the 20% coverage and 45% impervious.
That's why you want to have the residential standard since it's going to be constructive or residential. All right, one more time. Any questions from board members or professionals? All right, I'd like to open this up to the public.
Any comments from the public? I don't see anybody coming forward, so I'll close the public portion. You want to wrap up or are you finished? The only thing he didn't do I believe the engineering and planning information is spot on
the board just for the record of the property as the entire area. >> Okay. Thank you. So, uh, we'll vote on this. Uh, I don't think we made any changes except for Mike, your comments
about adjusting the >> Yes, this the sideyard. So, there's there's a 12oot sideyard set back next to lot 3.01 8 foot on the opposite side. Is that something we want to include in the uh >> as a condition? >> As a condition.
>> Okay. So, we're going to include that as a condition of approval. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Lesterly in the middle lot will be larger compiance on the >> and compliance with the uh engineering and planning letters as well. Our
conditions. >> Okay. Any other conditions? I don't think there were any >> condition would be that it's also in the future as part of this approval would adhere to the R5 uh zone standards with the exception of uh the variances that
it would create right now if it were part of the R5. Okay. Okay. With all those uh I'd like to have a a motion on this application. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. That motion's been made and
seconded. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Kazinski, >> yes. >> Mr. Emma, >> yes. >> Mr. Cooper, >> yes. >> Mr. Toy, >> here. >> Mr. Mueller, >> yes. >> Mr. Candle, >> yes. >> Mr. Shaw, >> yes.
>> Hey, thank you. You're approved. >> And read the resolution. Are we >> uh Yeah, I mean at the next meeting. Um >> Okay, you're going to do it. That's it. Okay. >> You don't need a full ordery form of the board to approve the resolution. All you
need is a majority of the eligible members who order it. Um >> if the three of us are here, that's okay. >> If if uh only two are here, that's fine. Then there's there's two voting for it. And if only one, well, one is a majority
of one. >> Okay. >> So, in two weeks, we'll have the the resolution approved. Please please provide me with the transcript uh in advance of that to assist with the uh resolution drafting.
>> Sooner the better. >> Tom, you got to close the meeting. >> Oh, wait a minute, guys. Wait, >> wait. One more. One more item. One more item. Okay. Can I uh having no other business uh come before the board, can I have a
motion to adjourn? >> Make a motion. >> Made motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor. >> I Okay. Thank you. Thank you, planning board members for showing up. >> Thank you. You're welcome. >> Welcome. >> Don't lose my stuff.