October 20, 2016

Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Petry if he wanted to amend the application to reflect that; he replied yes. Mr. Petry addressed the requested waivers and stated that they provided landscaping plans. He said the following remaining requested waivers are still valid: 5° sidewalks between the residential and commercial buildings Curbing around the parking area Screening of parking area Angle parking with 24’ aisle width 50° entry and exit from parking area Requirement for one (1) tree for each ten (10) parking stalls Environmental Impact Analysis Item #15 — Mr. Petry stated that the existing sign on the street will be removed and not replaced. There were no further questions for Mr. Petry from the Board Members or the Board Professionals. There were no questions for Mr. Petry from members of the public. Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Petry will give his Planning testimony. Mr. Petry detailed his planner’s report that was revised on October 6, 2016 and submitted to the Board Members and the Board Professionals. Mr. Petry stated that the application submitted is for Minor Subdivision approval. He said that the site is located within an R-T zone that includes a two family home and a commercial business and the owner would like to separate the two uses. Mr. Petry stated that the application requires a “D2” variance because the home is a permitted use in this zone but the existing commercial use is non-conforming. He said that the application also requires several bulk variances. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Petry how many of the required variances are existing and how many are new; he said there are seventeen (17) existing variances and eleven (11) new variances. Mr. Petry said there is a total of twenty eight (28) variances that are required for this application. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Petry how the town would benefit from taking one non- conforming use and making it into two non-conforming uses; he said that there are two uses there today and when they sub-divide the property there will still be two. Mr. Petry said all the applicant is asking to do is draw an invisible line between the two uses. Chairman Neuer said that the court case Grundlehner v Dangler, 29 NJ at 263 that Mr. Petry cited in his report had no basis on this application. He said that this case supports the proposition that a Zoning Board of Adjustment should not approve an

ner v Dangler, 29 NJ at 263 that Mr. Petry cited in his report had no basis on this application. He said that this case supports the proposition that a Zoning Board of Adjustment should not approve an application based upon financial benefit to the owner; he said that an approval must support and show the benefit for the Town. Mr. Steinhart asked Mr. Petry what proposed improvements will benefit the neighborhood and the town; he said new curbing and paving of the parking lot and landscaping the site. Vice Chairman Buechler stated for the record that Mr. Petry’s report also noted that the applicant 7