November 21, 2013

7 Ms. Weiss asked Mr. Rosenberg what would happen to the group home if the variance is denied; Vice Chairman Buechler said that they would have to remove the ramp and that the State of New Jersey addresses what happens after that. Ms. Weiss asked Mr. Rosenberg if he had any personal contact with the neighbors; he replied yes. Mr. Rosenberg said that the staff also reached out to the neighbors. He said that he had a barbeque on the block and invited the neighbors because he wants to be a good neighbor. There were no further questions for Mr. Rosenberg from the Board of the Professionals. Vice Chairman Buechler asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Rosenberg. Sandra Adams approached the podium and stated that she lives at 26 Devon Drive. She asked Mr. Rosenberg when he had any contact with her; he said that Yvette Hall reached out to her. Ms. Adams said that no one has reached out to her. Ms. Adams asked Mr. Rosenberg if he was aware of the letter she sent him about the parking; he replied yes. Ms. Adams asked Mr. Rosenberg how often they are required to have fire drills; he said once a month or once a quarter. He said that every shift must have a documented fire drill and he advised the staff to do them early morning. Candace Pryor Brown approached the podium and stated that she lives at 27 Devon Drive. She asked Mr. Rosenberg why the staff told the police that the neighbors were liars; he said that he was not aware of that. Mr. Merklinger asked Mr. Rosenberg if any of the residents are disabled veterans; he replied no. There were no further questions for Mr. Rosenberg. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Vena if he would like to sum up. Mr. Vena stated that this application is for the granting of a variance. He said that if a stairway is allowed in a side yard then a ramp should be allowed because it is an accommodation to a disabled person for a stairway. Mr. Vena said that he is asking the Board to interpret if the ramp should be permitted. Vice Chairman Buechler said that the applicant originally sought a variance and that the Board will hear it as a variance. He said this is how the Board will deal with it. Mr. Vena said that the applicant is seeking a variance for the side yard. He said that the ramp is not visible to anyone except if someone is in Ms. Adams side yard or looking out her window. Mr. Vena said the parking is a police

ant is seeking a variance for the side yard. He said that the ramp is not visible to anyone except if someone is in Ms. Adams side yard or looking out her window. Mr. Vena said the parking is a police issue and the issue regarding the gurney not being able to get in and out is not an issue because they were issued a Certificate of Occupancy by the

8 Township. He said that the ramp is not a detriment and that you cannot put the ramp at any other location. Mr. Vena said that the house is too narrow and that is why they need the variance. He said that he is very concerned about the comments from the neighbors but Ms. Adams is the only property owner that would have any effect from the ramp. Mr. Vena said that this is the same as a family living in the house that has many cars that have to be maneuvered at times. Mr. Vena said he is asking the Board to approve this application with conditions such as widening the driveway, put in pathways and putting up a fence. He said that the ramp is required by the State of New Jersey and that it is for safety. Mr. Vena said that the applicant did not know he needed a permit to build the ramp. He said that he hired an architect and a builder that did not advise him and that once he found out that he needed a permit, he came right to Town Hall to get it. Mr. Vena asked the Board to just consider if the applicant is entitled to the variance. Vice Chairman Buechler called for a recess at 9:35 pm. Vice Chairman Buechler resumed the meeting at 9:43 pm. Vice Chairman Buechler opened the meeting for deliberation. He stated that it is always better to ask for permission rather than forgiveness, as Mr. Neuer always says. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Grygiel, in his opinion, what the Board should focus and base their opinion on regarding this application. Mr. Grygiel said that the application before the Board is for a side yard variance, the plans focus only on the ramp and that the Board should focus only on the ramp and the testimony regarding it. He said that the applicant must prove the positive criteria and that the Board needs to be convinced. Mr. Grygiel said that the negative criteria must also be met. He said that all the discussion regarding the driveway and parking issues are not part of the application today and that is not what is before this Board. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Grygiel if the applicant must prove the negative criteria because they have a Certificate of Occupancy that was issued by the Township. Mr. Grygiel said that every variance needs to address the negative and positive criteria. Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Grygiel if it would be permissible to have the applicant install a sidewalk; Mr. Grygiel said that he would recommend that the Board see

ress the negative and positive criteria. Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Grygiel if it would be permissible to have the applicant install a sidewalk; Mr. Grygiel said that he would recommend that the Board see what they are proposing. Vice Chairman Buechler said that the Board could make it a condition. Mr. Grygiel said that he disagrees because this application is limited to a side yard variance for a ramp. He said that sick people are living in the home and the ramp is for getting them in and out of the house. He said that the Board should not turn a blind eye to the reason for the ramp. Mr. Grygiel also said that he is not saying that they should not take the other things into account; he said that all he is saying is that this is not the issue before this Board. Vice Chairman Buechler stated for the record that Chairwoman Gabry and Ms. Weiss will not be voting on this application.

9 Mr. Merklinger said that he views the ramp at that side door as an extension of the stairs that were originally there. He said that the parking issues and fire drills are irrelevant and that they are based on feeling. Mr. Merklinger asked the neighbors to look into their hearts and advised the homeowner to meet the conditions. He said that he votes in favor of this application with the condition that the applicant extend the walkway out to the street. Mr. Merklinger said that fire drills are for safety reasons and that everyone should be happy that they are practicing safety. He said that he would not suggest the lattice along the ramp and reiterated the fact that the variance that they are seeking has nothing to do with the parking. Mr. Bullock stated that he is a member of another advisory group for a group home in West Orange and that he listens very carefully to the logic. He said that the group homes he sits on the Board for never have fire drills at 11:00 pm and that the neighbor's comments cannot be brushed aside. Mr. Bullock said that he sees problems with this application and, with what Mr. Grygiel said is before this Board, he will have to vote no. Mr. Sussman said that he is concerned with the impact this has on the neighbors such as the parking and the fire drills. He said that he would like to see the fire drills restricted and that he will listen to what the other Board members have to say before he decides how to vote. Mr. Neuer said that personal feelings do not take precedence and that it is the obligation of the applicant to establish his case. He said on that factor alone the Board cannot approve this application because it is defective. Mr. Neuer said that the applicant is a for-profit entity that bought the property not knowing if they can use it and built the ramp. He said they never should have bought the property. Mr. Neuer said that he finds it difficult to believe that the applicant did not know that they did not need a permit to build a ramp. He said that the house is too narrow and that they are taking sick people and putting them in life threatening situations. Mr. Newer said that Mr. Marucci testified that the egress is not safe if two cars are parked in the driveway. He read the definition of a group home from the 2013 edition of the New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration written by William M. Cox and Stuart R. Keonig

if two cars are parked in the driveway. He read the definition of a group home from the 2013 edition of the New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration written by William M. Cox and Stuart R. Keonig which said that a group home has children as residents. Mr. Neuer said that there are no children in this group home. He said that as a group home this application fails because it is not a group home. Mr. Neuer said the definition under the statute does not apply to this application. He said that safety and public health are not being met in this application. Mr. Neuer said that Mr. Marucci was required to satisfy the negative criteria and he did not. He said that there is not a drawing of the widening of the driveway or a walkway and that it is the applicant's responsibility to show the Board those drawings. Mr. Neuer said that he will vote no and urge the other Board members to vote no. Mr. Quentzel said that the applicant did not consider any other alternatives for the ramp and they just based it on what the State of New Jersey told them. He said that the ramp could have been built on the other side of the house. Mr. Quentzel said that he is abstaining from voting on this application. Vice Chairman Buechler said that the ramp was already built and that the application has other issues that impact the neighborhood. He said that the parking issues and the cars parked on the front lawn are valid but the ambulance issue is not valid according to the photos that were

1 0 submitted. The Vice Chairman said that he agrees that the ramp functions as stairs and that it is difficult to see. He said that Mr. Vena should have brought back documents from the State of New Jersey instead of having Mr. Rosenberg read an email from them, but he did not. Vice Chairman Buechler said that there are ways to approve this if the applicant fixed the defects. He said that the Board would need to see drawings and measurements for the walkway or the widening of the driveway. The Vice Chairman said that the applicant demonstrated a hardship but it is not this Boards domain to second guess the State of New Jersey as to whom the occupants in this home are. He said that if the ramp is removed then maybe the State can place different type of people in the house. Vice Chairman Buechler said that the applicant has not met the negative criteria and that he would suggest coming back at a different date after meeting with the neighbors with something that is acceptable. Vice Chairman Buechler asked for a motion; Mr. Neuer made a motion to deny for reasons he stated and in reference to the statute. Vice Chairman Buechler said that the resolution will state what the Board said and that if the applicant wants to come back the Board will consider it. Mr. Neuer disagreed and said that if the applicant wants to come back the Board will not advise them what to do but they must make changes. Mr. Sussman seconded the motion to deny. The vote was as follows: Buechler: Yes to deny Bullock: Yes to deny Merklinger: No to deny Neuer: Yes to deny Quentzel: Abstained Steinhart: Sussman: Yes to deny Weiss: Chairwoman Gabry: