PB-18-04/Jay Maharaj Realty, LLC

communication system. Applicant introduced Albert Arencibia, RA who was sworn and qualified as an expert in architecture. Mr. Arencibia testified that the proposed architectural design was intended to “tie into” the adjacent existing building. The existing building would be power-washed. Similar awnings and entrance doors would be used for the new building. A gate would be installed at street level to control entrance into the alleyway where stairways to the second floor apartments would be accessed. Responding to questions from the Board and its professionals Mr. Arencibia stipulated that (i) the finish on the outside of the building would be cement plank type board and not vinyl siding, (ii) the hydraulic platform lift would have a canopy, (iii) the roof would be light in color and/or use “cool roof” solar reflective technology to help reduce solar heating. Discussion was had whether to eliminate or raise the three windows on the east side of the building but the issue was left to the discretion of the Applicant. Applicant called David Karlebach, PP who was sworn and qualified as an expert in planning. Mr. Karlebach noted that the subject lot was a vacant gravel lot in deteriorated condition in need of upgrading. In his opinion the proposed project would provide benefits which would justify the variances requested in accordance with Municipal Land Use Law §70(c)(2). Reviewing the variances needed Mr. Karlebach testified as to the positive and negative criteria. Based on changes in the plans the variances needed were: Maximum Lot Coverage, 75% permitted vs. 118.69% proposed. (The “effective lot area” under the Ordinance is reduced by the steep slopes, see §25-28(d)) He testified that meaningful improvements cannot be made on this site if the lot coverage requirement is strictly applied and that most of the lot coverage occurs at the rear of the site behind the buildings and is not visible from the street. Maximum Wall Height, where 6’ is allowed but 10’ proposed he stated that the wall would be 50° from the rear property line and therefore have little impact on the neighborhood; Sidewalk required between building and parking lot, none proposed, he stated that it is a small lot and there is another access from the lot to the street; Minimum curbing setback from structures, 5’ required but none proposed, (revised plans now comply with this

d, he stated that it is a small lot and there is another access from the lot to the street; Minimum curbing setback from structures, 5’ required but none proposed, (revised plans now comply with this requirement). Minimum parking aisle width, 24’ required, 23.6’ proposed (20’ proposed in revised plans, which was sufficient for the volume of traffic anticipated). Minimum number of trees in the parking lot, 2 required, 1 proposed, and 0 on the revised plans. (zero trees are internal to the parking lot but that two street trees are proposed which meets the intent of the ordinance).