August 17, 2017

Vice Chairman Buechler asked Ms. Phillips if the township’s tax records show the house as being taxed as a four (4) bedroom; she said yes. Ms. Phillips stated that the site can easily accommodate two (2) to three (3) parking spaces: she said that no off-site or on-street parking is offered on this road. She stated that the “c” variance can be justified because it is an undersized lot which creates a hardship. Ms. Phillips stated that when the owners purchased the home they were provided with a certificate of continued occupancy from the Township. She stated that granting the variance will cause no detriment to the public good. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. Phillips why she did not measure the height of the doorway; she said that she was not tall enough to measure the height. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. Phillips if there was any evidence of an overhead garage door installed in this home at one time; she said no. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. Phillips if the tree in the front of the property obstructs the view and is it an unsafe situation; she said if a car is backing out of the driveway it creates an unsafe situation. Mr. Quentzel asked Ms. Phillips who owns the fence shown in the photos in the rear of the house; she said she does not know. Ms. Gabry referred to Exhibit A-3 and asked Ms. Phillips if the macadam was changed in any way; Ms. Facey answered the question and said no. She said that they added crushed stone and mulch. Ms. Gabry asked Ms. Facey if they added or removed any blacktop in the driveway since they purchased the property; she said no. Ms. Facey stated for the record that the stockade fence in the rear of the house is owned by 17 Jones Place. Mr. Kantowitz referred to Exhibit A-1 and asked Ms. Phillips if it was evident that the width of the garage was narrowed during construction; she said yes. Mr. Kantowitz stated that Ms. Facey testified that they purchased the house as a four (4) bedroom but the plans state that it was going to be a recreation room. Mr. Kantowitz asked Ms. Phillips if she went inside Ms. Facey’s house; she said yes. Mr. Kantowitz asked Ms. Phillips if there were four (4) bedrooms besides the recreation room; she said no. Ms. Phillips said that the proposed recreation room is the fourth bedroom and it is used as a bedroom.

Mr. Kantowitz asked Ms. Phillips if she ever witnessed how the two owners park their cars on the property; she said no. Mr. Kantowitz asked Ms. Phillips if she did any analysis to see if a detached garage can be erected on the property; she said yes. Ms. Phillips said that to erect a detached garage on the property they would probably need a variance. Vice Chairman Buechler referred to Exhibit A-2 and asked Ms. Phillips if the property tax record was current; she replied yes. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Ms. Phillips how many bedrooms are listed on the tax record; she said four (4). There were no further questions for Ms. Phillips. Ms. Berkenwald called her next witness. Nastaran Sigari approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Ms. Sigari stated that she lives at 235 Mt. Pleasant Avenue and that her property borders the Facey driveway. Ms. Berkenwald asked Ms. Sigari if she objects to Ms. Facey keeping their house as is; she said no. Ms. Berkenwald asked Ms. Sigari if there is a negative impact on her property when the Facey’s park their two cars in their driveway; she said no. Ms. Berkenwald asked Ms. Sigari if her property is affected by the Facey’s not parking in a garage; she said no. Ms. Sigari stated that the prior owner of the property did have a garage and that they would park their vehicles the same way that the Facey’s park their vehicles now. She said that she does not know if they ever parked in the garage. Mr. Kantowitz asked Ms. Sigari if her property has a garage; she said yes. There were no further questions for Ms. Sigari. Ms. Berkenwald asked the Chairman if she could have Mr. Facey testify to the height of the garage door. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Kantowitz if he would allow Mr. Facey to testify to this; he said yes. Devon Facey approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Ms. Berkenwald asked Mr. Facey if he submitted the application; he said yes. 10

Ms. Berkenwald asked Ms. Facey if he measured the height of the doorway; he said yes; Mr. Facey said that he used a tape measure to measure from top to bottom and the height of the doorway was 6’5”. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Facey if he measured the inside of the room; he said no. Mr. Facey said he just measured the outside and the width of the patio door was 5’ wide. Ms. Berkenwald stated that she has no further witnesses. Mr. Kantowitz approached and called his first witness. Peter Steck approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Steck detailed his educational and professional background as a professional planner licensed in the State of New Jersey. Chairman Neuer accepted Mr. Steck as an expert in professional planning. Mr. Kantowitz asked Mr. Steck if, in his opinion, hardship was demonstrated in any of the testimony provided by the applicant and their professionals; he said no. Mr. Steck provided a handout of photographs along with an aerial view of the site and survey of the property which was marked as Exhibit O-1 for identification. Mr. Steck referred to Exhibit O-1 and stated that the flood light mounted at the rear of the property and the vehicles lights have an impact on the Stiles property. Chairman Neuer stated that lights are not part of this application. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck if the flood lights were there when the applicants purchased the house; he said he did not know. Mr. Steck stated that the house was conforming at one time. He referred to the paved area in the rear of the house and stated that if a car was in the garage, there would be plenty of room to maneuver a car without backing out of the driveway. Mr. Steck stated that the stones in the rear may be impervious coverage; Mr. Grygiel stated that stone like that does not constitute impervious coverage. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck if the applicant puts the garage back are they required to use it; he said no. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that if the applicant puts the garage back and they are not required to use it then nothing will change. Mr. Steck stated that garages have multiple purposes and could also be used for storage and not for cars only. 11

Mr. Steck stated that because the conversion was done by the prior owner, this is not a hardship for the applicant. Mr. Steck stated that by expanding the house to a four (4) bedroom there will typically be more cars associated with that and would need more parking to accommodate that. Chairman Neuer stated that, according to the township ordinance, a four (4) bedroom house requires two (2) parking spaces; Mr. Steck said that it requires 2.5 parking spaces. Mr. Steck stated that by not having a garage it limits the maneuverability in the rear of the property and encourages someone backing out on to Mt. Pleasant Avenue. Mr. Kantowitz asked Mr. Steck what affect the current parking arrangement would have on the Stiles property; he said the stockade fence in the rear does not help the Stiles property at all. Mr. Steck said by not having a garage is less convenient to exit the property in a safe manner. Mr. Kantowitz asked Mr. Steck if he visited the site at night; he said yes. Mr. Kantowitz asked Mr. Steck if the extension of the stockade fence would lessen the disturbance of the lights at the back of the building; he said yes. Mr. Kantowitz asked Mr. Steck if there is any detriment to the Stiles property from what he has witnessed in the past few months; he said it is his opinion that there is. Mr. Steck said not having a garage creates a need for additional car movements and the positioning of the lights to light the driveway. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Steck if he witnessed any cars coming in and out of the Facey’s driveway at night; he said no. Ms. Weiss asked Mr. Steck what would change if they had to put the garage back; he said the Town’s ordinance requires a garage for different reasons. Chairman Neuer stated that the Board is trying to figure out what the reasoning is for having a garage when you are not required to use it and it would not affect the neighborhood in any way. Vice Chairman Bucchler stated that the purpose of the Zoning Board of Adjustment is to grant relief from the Township’s ordinance. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that he does not feel Mr. Steck’s testimony is credible for the following reasons: e He did not know when the lights were installed on the Facey’s house e He did not know if the Facey’s installed the lights e He is nota traffic engineer 12

Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck if he is qualified to testify about turning movements; he said yes from a planning perspective. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Steck if he took site measurements; he said no. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Steck if he tried to pull a vehicle in or out of the driveway during the daytime or the nighttime; he said no. Mr. Kantowitz asked Mr. Steck if there are any conditions that would eliminate the spillage of car lights on to the Stiles property; he said that the construction of a 6’ stockade fence would help. Vice Chairman Buechler stated for the record that lights are not part of this application. Chairman Neuer stated that Mr. Steck did not take any foot candle measurements and is not qualified to testify as to how much illumination is at the back of the house. Mr. Steck stated that the rear of the Facey’s house is illuminated and a solid fence can be a remedy. Ms. Weiss asked Mr. Kantowitz if Ms. Stiles has asked the applicant to put up a fence or provide buffering; he said that the applicants refused to focus the lights downward. Mr. Kantowitz stated that those efforts were made before an application was filed. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Steck if hoods and focusing the lights downward would also eliminate the problem; he said yes. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Steck if this type of application even requires a hardship or just special reasons; he said that the applicant’s testimony was only based on a “cl” argument. Chairman Neuer stated that the Board has the power to determine if this is a “c2” variance and asked Mr. Steck if that is the case is there standard special reasons; he said that only applies to a use variance. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Steck how the turning movements would be any different if there was a garage; he said if there was a car in the garage there would be 28” to park and maneuver. Mr. Quentzel asked how close Mr. Steck was to the Facey’s house when he took the photos from Ms. Stiles house; Mr. Kantowitz replied and said that there is 20’ from the property line to the house. Chairman Neuer noted for the record that it was passed 11:00 pm and asked the Board Members if they wanted to stay to finish hearing this application; all Board Members replied yes. 13

Ms. Berkenwald asked Mr. Steck if he saw any outdoor storage on the Facey property; he said yes. Mr. Steck said he saw a wheelbarrow. Ms. Berkenwald asked Mr. Steck if an undersized lot is a hardship; he said no because the house did have a garage. Ms. Berkenwald summed up. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. Berkenwald to confer with her clients to see if they are willing to put up a stockade fence or if they would do something to make sure that the lights are not spilling on to the Stiles property. Ms. Berkenwald said that her clients are willing to change the wattage of the bulbs and turn them off when they come into the house at night; she said that they cannot afford to install a fence. Ms. Berkenwald said that originally, in an effort to resolve this matter, the Facey’s wanted to install a fence but Ms. Stiles did not want a fence. She said that the Facey’s will only accept a condition regarding the lights, Mr. Kantowitz summed up and recommended that the Facey’s provide an appropriate barrier as a condition and install shields on the light so that they are directed downward and to reconfigure the light that is concealed with a curtain. There were no further comments and Chairman Neuer declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Neuer stated that it will cause a hardship for the applicant to bring the room back to a garage. He said that they obtained a certificate of continued occupancy from the Township when they purchase the property and that the hardship was not created by the applicant. Chairman Neuer stated that there is no purpose to converting it back to a garage because the applicant is not required to park in the garage and the same condition will exist. Chairman Neuer made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: ¢ Install hoods on the lights in the back of the house and redirect them so they are pointed downward e Reconfigure the light that is concealed by a curtain to point downward and install hoods or shields. ¢ All outdoor lights at the rear of the property must be properly shielded or hooded and pointed downward to prevent them from shining directly into the Stiles property. Vice Chairman Buechler seconded the motion to approve the application with said conditions. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that there is plenty of space for two cars to park on the site, the applicant’s planner was credible and this does

otion to approve the application with said conditions. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that there is plenty of space for two cars to park on the site, the applicant’s planner was credible and this does not impair the zone or the town’s master plan. 14

The vote was as follows: Buechler Yes Schwarzbaum: - Gabry: Yes Steinhart: - D. Nash: - Straker: - Quentzel: Yes Sussman: Yes Sanders: - Weiss: Yes Chairman Neuer: Yes The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Neuer at 11:40 pm Adopted: September 14, 2017 , LE ae Z WV WE Wh, 9 “Rose DeSena Zoning Board Secretary 15