PB-19-02/Sonria Kitchen LLC

@ The Board also received; A Memorandum from the West Orange Fire Department dated April 8, 2019 The following Exhibits were admitted into evidence: Ex. A-1 Photograph of the building from Prospect Avenue Ex. A-2 Photograph of the rear of the building Robert C. Williams, Esq. introduced the application on behalf of the Applicant. He stated the application was for minor site plan approval. Applicant seeks to add a walk in box so that they may use the site for the preparation and packaging of foods for individuals with severe food allergies. Applicant called John Buchholz, RA who was sworn and qualified as an expert in architecture. He testified that the site has two buildings on it, 492 and 494 Prospect Avenue. Applicant proposes to add a small addition to 492 Prospect Avenue. The addition will be a 136.3 sq. ft. walk in box type refrigerated room. The addition would “fill in” the rear corner of the building which presently jogs inward. The a/c units which currently occupy the area would be relocated to the roof of the addition. Mr. Buchholz noted that installing the addition would intensify an existing side yard setback nonconformity. The side yard setback requirement in the zone is 10 ft. and the existing building is only 2.3 fi. from the property line. The addition would also be 2.3 ft. from the property line. Mr. Buchholz testified that the proposed addition would also increase lot coverage above the allowable limit and a variance would be needed. He stated that the property currently has two signs which will remain. Applicant introduced J. Michael Petry, PP, RA, PE who was qualified as an expert in planning. He testified that the property is located on the northwest corner of Prospect Avenue and Marcella Avenue in the B-2 zone. The existing building is only 2.3 fi. from the side yard property line to the North where 10 ft. is required. The Verizon building is the northerly neighbor. The addition would intensify the setback violation by extending the existing building at the same 2.3 ft. from the property line. Mr. Petry testified that the lot coverage and side yard setback variances could be granted on both MLUL 70(c)(1) and c(2) grounds. Regarding the c(1) grounds he stated that the location of the existing building was already in the setback and that the proposed location of the addition was in “the only logical place” by filling in the rear

g the c(1) grounds he stated that the location of the existing building was already in the setback and that the proposed location of the addition was in “the only logical place” by filling in the rear corner of the existing building which jogs inward. Regarding c(2) grounds he stated that the benefits outweigh the detriments. The proposed use benefits the