October 20, 2016

was seeking to separate two uses in order to create a “saleable” residential lot. Mr. Petry detailed the negative and positive criteria and stated that the sizes of the lots in the neighborhood were comparable to this site. He said that the variances can be granted without any substantial detriment to the neighborhood or impair the zoning ordinance. Mr. Petry said that the improvements to the site will enhance the neighborhood and that the owner is bringing the site further into conformity with this neighborhood. There were no further questions for Mr. Petry from the Board Professionals. There were no questions for Mr. Petry from any members of the public. Chairman Neuer called for a recess at 9:37 pm. Chairman Neuer resumed the meeting at 9:47 pm. Chairman Neuer opened the floor up for questions from the Board Members. Mr. Schwarzbaum asked Mr. Petry, in regards to the improvements being made, if the benefits to the community outweigh the financial benefits; he said that the improvements being made are beneficial to the lots. Mr. Sussman asked Mr. Petry if his testimony is that by making two non-conforming lots from one non-conforming lot will make the site more aesthetic plus the owner would have financial benefit; he said that is one way of describing it. Mr. DarConte asked Mr. Petry if they could curb the parking spaces; he said no. Mr. Petry said that they are proposing a gate at the driveway entrance and that a gate would not open over the curb. Chairman Neuer advised Mr. DarConte that he could impose a condition upon approval that the applicant install a slide gate and provide landscaping in that area. Mr. Steinhart asked Mr. Petry if, in his opinion, the sub-division did cause a negative impact would it be measurable to the surrounding neighborhood; he said that he does not think so. Mr. Steinhart asked Mr. Petry if this mitigates the current negative impacts of this property; he said that any improvements benefit a property. Mr. Steinhart asked Mr. Petry if his testimony is that this will make a positive impact on the neighborhood; he replied yes. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Petry if zoning should be accomplished by zoning and not variances according to the Land Use Law; he replied yes. Mr. Williams called his next witness. Tom Critella approached the podium and was sworn under oath. He stated that his wife is the applicant and he is

s according to the Land Use Law; he replied yes. Mr. Williams called his next witness. Tom Critella approached the podium and was sworn under oath. He stated that his wife is the applicant and he is the general manager of the business. Mr. Critella stated that the business is basically a wholesale business but they do get walk-in 8

business occasionally. Mr. Critella gave some background as to how the business was obtained by his family. He said that they have made some improvements to the site but the residential property needs a lot of work. Mr. Critella stated that they were denied insurance because of the two uses on the property. He said that his mortgage company said that if they “slid” the business over to one lot they would give him a mortgage for the residential property so that they could do the repairs. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Critella to explain how they load the trucks for the business; he said that they back the truck up to the loading dock and the ice comes down from a conveyor belt on to the truck. He said that the ice business slows down during the colder months and from now until March they will run only one van. Mr. Schwarzbaum asked Mr. Critella if he knew that the business was a non-conforming use when they purchased it; he replied yes. Mr. Critella stated that he is trying to get a second mortgage to put a new roof on the house and do some repairs. He said that he is estimating that he will need approximately $50,000 to put a roof and siding on the house. Mr. Critella stated that it was not his intention to sell the house. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Critella if he applied for a line of credit from his other investments; he replied no. There were no questions for Mr. Critella from the Board Members or the Board Professionals. There were no questions for Mr. Critella from any members of the public. Mr. Williams summed up and stated that this is a very unusual application. He said what exists today will be upgraded if approved but if not, it will still be there tomorrow. Chairman Neuer closed the public hearing. Chairman Neuer asked if any members of the public had any comments; seeing none the Chairman opened up the meeting for comments from the Board Members. Ms. Weiss stated that from a zoning aspect the application might not be perfect but the benefits outweigh the detriments. She said she agrees with Mr. Williams’s summation. Mr. Quentzel said that he also agrees with what Mr. Williams said and with Ms. Weiss. He said nothing is going to change between today and tomorrow and by approving this application there will now be two clean lots. Mr. Steinhart said that there is no down side to this and he urges the other Board Members to vote yes. Ms. Gabry

day and tomorrow and by approving this application there will now be two clean lots. Mr. Steinhart said that there is no down side to this and he urges the other Board Members to vote yes. Ms. Gabry said that she will approve this application but she would like the work done quickly; she said the property should be cleaned up immediately. Mr. DarConte stated that this neighborhood is not visually appealing and that this would benefit the neighborhood. Mr. Sussman said he also agrees that the property should be cleaned up right away.

Mr. Schwarzbaum stated that he disagrees. He said that cleanliness of a property is not contingent on granting a variance. Mr. Schwarzbaum said that there is no logic to this and the applicant has an obligation to clean up the property regardless. He said that he would not approve this. Ms. Nash stated that she agrees with Mr. Schwarzbaum. Chairman Neuer stated that he echoes Mr. Schwarzbaum’s commentary. He said that he has not heard one reason why the property has not been maintained since the applicant purchased it. Chairman Neuer said that this is a self-created hardship because they chose not to get a home inspection when they purchased the property. Chairman Neuer stated that twenty eight (28) variances is very meaningful and that the purpose of the Zoning Board is to uphold the zoning ordinance. He said that the business will continue to operate and the applicant can collect rent even if the application is not approved. Chairman Neuer said that the Urban case was cited in Mr. Petry’s report but that case has no basis on this application. He said numerous Superior Court decisions do not favor the expansion of two non-conforming uses. Chairman Neuer said that, according to Land Use Law, better zoning is the basis for an approval and receiving money is not better zoning. He said that the Zoning Board must uphold the zoning ordinance and that he urges his fellow Board Members to vote no. Chairman Neuer asked for a motion. Vice Chairman Buechler made a motion to deny the application; he said that the applicant did not meet the “D” variance criteria. Chairman Neuer seconded the motion to deny the application. The vote was as follows: Buechler Yes to deny Schwarzbaum: - DarConte: No to deny Steinhart: No to deny Gabry: No to deny Sussman: Yes to deny D. Nash: - Weiss: No to deny Quentzel: - Chairman Neuer: Yes to deny The vote was 3 — 4; the motion did not carry. Ms. Weiss stated that she would like to make a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: Landscaping on entire site Survey to show no easements or restrictions Add spot shots on the residential lot Provide screening on the southerly side of the property Change the driveway gate to a slide gate Cleanup of the site to be done in a short period of time 10

e Pave the driveway as soon as possible e No storage inside of the trucks or on the outside of the building Ms. Gabry seconded the motion to approve. The vote was as follows: Buechler No to approve Schwarzbaum: - DarConte: Yes to approve | Steinhart: Yes to approve Gabry: Yes to approve | Sussman: No to approve D. Nash: - Weiss: Yes to approve Quentzel: - Chairman Neuer: No to approve Motion did not carry; the vote was 4 to 3. The “d” variance application requires a 5 affirmative vote. Therefore, the application was denied. 2. ZB-16-09/Birnboim Carried from 9/15/16 Block: 154.17; Lot: 140; Zone: R-5 10 Dockery Drive “c” variance for a front yard setback to expand the width of an existing front landing. Judy Birnboim approached the podium along with her architect, Lawrence Quirk, and they were both sworn under oath. Mr. Quirk detailed his professional background as a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey. Chairman Neuer accepted Mr. Quirk as an expert in architecture. Mr. Quirk detailed the application stating that they are proposing to remove the existing landing in the front of the home and expand it. Mr. Quirk said that the current landing is non-conforming; he said it currently measures 5’ x 5” and was grandfathered in. He said that the applicant is requesting to keep the existing 5’depth of the landing and expand the width. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. Birnboim if any of her neighbors commented on this; she replied no. There were no questions for Mr. Quirk or Ms. Birnboim from the Board Members of the Board Professionals. There were no members of the public present to ask any questions. Chairman Neuer asked for a motion. Vice Chairman Buechler made a motion to approve the application and Chairman Neuer seconded the motion. 11

The vote was as follows: Buechler Yes Schwarzbaum: - DarConte: Yes Steinhart: Yes Gabry: Yes Sussman: Yes D. Nash: - Weiss: Yes Quentzel: - Chairman Neuer: Yes 3. ZB-16-06/Zamora Carried from 9/15/16 Block: 113.01; Lot: 69 & 70; Zone: R-T 43 Park Terrace Kg variances for rear and side yard setbacks Chairman Neuer asked the applicant to approach the podium. Chairman Neuer noted the time was 10:55 pm and explained that the Zoning Board meetings end promptly at 11:00 pm. He advised the applicants that they will be carried over to the next Zoning Board meeting held on November 17, 2016 and that no further notice will be necessary. Chairman Neuer asked the applicants to sign the form with the Board Secretary giving their consent to a continuance. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Neuer at 10:58 pm. Adopted: November 17, 2016 Wh iL LA 7 Rose DeSena Zoning Board Secretary 12