March 16, 2017

The vote was as follows: Buechler ‘Yes to deny Schwarzbaum: No to deny Gabry: - Steinhart: No to deny D. Nash: Yes to deny Straker: - Quentzel: - Sussman: No to deny Sanders: - Weiss: - Chairman Neuer: Yes to deny The vote was 3 to 3 and did not carry. Mr. Sussman said he would like to make a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: ¢ The Township’s building department will inspect all mechanicals, the structure and the footings of the addition. e The applicant will be required to obtain all building permits. The applicant will have to resolve all violations. The applicant will be required to bring the shed into compliance. Mr. Steinhart seconded the motion to approve with said conditions. The vote was as follows: Buechler No to approve Schwarzbaum: Yes to approve Gabry - Steinhart: Yes to approve D. Nash: No to approve Straker: - Quentzel: - Sussman: Yes to approve Sanders: - Weiss: - Chairman Neuer: No to approve The vote was 3 to 3 and did not carry; the application was denied. 11

Ms. Weiss asked Chairman Neuer if the Board could give the applicant the opportunity to come back with a professional engineer; he said that once the Board makes a decision they cannot hear it again. Chairman Neuer called for a recess at 9:39 pm. Chairman Neuer resumed the meeting at 9:51 pm. 2. ZB-16-11/Facey Carried from 2/16/17 Block: 85.03; Lot: 8; Zone: R-5 233 Mt. Pleasant Avenue “D” variance to repurpose an existing garage to be utilized as a den Kenneth Brown, attorney for the applicant, approached the podium. Mr. Brown stated that his client innocently purchased their home where the garage was converted into a living room/den. He said that his clients had no idea there was any zoning violation even after they went to Town Hall and were granted a certificate of continued occupancy. Mr. Brown stated that the solution for the problem is granting a “d” use variance; to permit the den/living room to remain instead of the garage. Mr. Brown stated that the property is suitable for the use; the structure is residential and the neighborhood is residential. He said that the conversion is not an eyesore and is not causing any substantial detriment to the ordinance or the residential use. Mr. Brown said that the conversion is hidden in the rear of the property and his client does not park their two cars in the front of the house. Mr. Brown stated that there is no other location on the site to put a garage because there is not enough room. He said it is an undue hardship and if the Board votes to tear down the living room and build a garage, it would be a major construction and landscaping project because of the incline of the property. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Brown if he has any witnesses because everything he said, as the attomey for the applicant, is argument and not testimony. Mr. Brown said he does not have any witnesses but what he says should prove his case; he said that he would have to subpoena the original owner. 12

Mr. Brown said that the town granted his client the certificate of continued occupancy and acted in good faith. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Brown if he had any case law that could justify the Board granting the variance; he replied no. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that the Town has an ordinance that says you cannot convert a garage into living space. Mr. Brown stated that the certificate of continued occupancy was issued by the town when his client purchase the house. Chairman Neuer said that, as the attorney for the applicant, he cannot testify; he can only argue. Mr. Brown asked if he could adjourn so that they can bring a professional expert to testify; Chairman Neuer advised Mr. Brown that this is his case and he can do what is best for his client. Mr. Brown asked if he could consult with his client. Chairman Neuer stated that Jeffrey Kantowitz, Esq. and Peter Steck, P.P. are present for an objector. Chairman Neuer stated for the record that this application does not require a “d” variance; he said the application requires a “c” variance for parking. Chairman Neuer asked Mr, Brown if he would like to amend the application; he replied yes. Mr. Brown asked if this application could be carried over to the May 18, 2017 regular Zoning Board meeting. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Kantowitz if he would be available on May 18, 2017; Mr. Kantowitz approached the podium and stated that he is involved with another case in Sussex County but he will make every effort to be here. 13

Chairman Neuer stated that this application will be carried over to the May 18, 2017 meeting, subject to Mr. Kantowitz’s availability or to the June 15, 2017 meeting. Ms. Beirne stated for the record that the notice did not state what type of variance was required for this application but, in her opinion, it is sufficient. Mr. Kantowitz stated that the notice should state what variance is required. Chairman Neuer advised Mr. Brown to notice for the May 18, 2017 meeting. 3. ZB-16-14/Sumrak Carried from 2/16/17 Block: 159.09; Lot: 33.03; Zone: OB-1 421 Northfield Avenue “c” variance to install a 6” privacy fence in the front of the property Joshua Sumrak, applicant, approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Ms. Beirne stated that the date on the notice was 2016 and asked Mr. Sumrak if he wanted to amend the notice to read 2017; he replied yes. Chairman Neuer advised Mr. Sumrak that his neighbor, Sandra Mukete, is one of his clients, He said that she never talked to him about this application and asked Mr. Sumrak if he wanted him to step down; he replied no. Mr. Sumrak detailed his application stating that he considers the front of his house the back of his house because of the unique location of his property. He said that he started putting up a fence unaware that he needed a permit. Mr. Sumrak said that they installed a six (6) foot fence in the front of the house because there is a dangerous drop at the front of the property and it would be for safety reasons. Mr. Sussman stated that the survey shows an easement and asked Mr. Sumrak what it was; he said that he thinks the easement is if the town needs to do maintenance there but he is not sure. Ms. Weiss asked Mr. Sumrak if any of the neighbors said they were opposed; he said no. There were no further questions for Mr. Sumrak. There were no members of the public present for public comment. 14

Chairman Neuer declared the public portion of the hearing closed and asked for a motion. Vice Chairman Buechler made a motion to approve the application and Ms. Weiss seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler Yes Schwarzbaum: - Gabry: - Steinhart: Yes D. Nash: - Straker: - Quentzel: Yes Sussman: Yes Sanders: Yes Weiss: Yes Chairman Neuer: Yes The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Neuer at 11:01 pm. Adopted: April 20, 2017 vb, 7 Rose DeSena Zoning Board Secretary 15