November 9, 2011

that the parcel is the last on the block. It was created before the current ordinance standards. It was not identified as being on Eagle Rock Avenue. Lot 6 is “L”- shaped to Lot 5. Mr. Daniels said that the positive criteria was that the un-maintained lot would become developed as opposed to being an eyesore. Negative criteria would be that the subdivision would not necessitate creating any new roads, it would not be upsetting or setting a precedent to developers. The subdivision would essentially recreate Lot 6. Mr. Greenberg asked Mr. Daniels if it would be better planning to separate the lots and make them rectangular in shape. Mr. Daniels said the lots looked to be trapezoid in shape, not rectangular. Discussing the height of the proposed house, Mr. Weston said that the code is 35 feet; he suggested that since the surrounding homes were two stories, the height of the new building could not be any taller that 30 feet. Mr. Daniels said that architect’s planned height was less than 30 fect. Mr. Weston said that the side yards had 10 feet on one side; the site plan states 8 fect setback. If the Board were to grant approval, would it not be better to put the 10 feet sctback near the neighbor’s house. Would it not be more beneficial to the neighbor on Lot 7 to have larger side yard. Director Borg said that she made the recommendation for an extensive landscaping buffer because the layout was not like a traditional subdivision. Mr. Greenberg said that the property was on two merged lots and was being taxed as two lots. ‘The lots were bought under one deed. Director Borg said that the zoning had not changed since the applicant bought the property. Mr. Gurland asked if any neighbors had made comments regarding the plan. Chairman Bagoff said that the public would have the opportunity to ask questions. ‘There were no further questions for Mr. Daniels from the Board. Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate, referred to the minor subdivision map - Exhibit PA-1. Mr. Grossman stated that the Exhibit was conceptually Lot 5 on Valley View Street. Mr. Daniels said he did not prepare the document but did review it. Mr. Grossman asked if Lot 5 fronted Valley View Street. Mr. Daniels said that no, Lot 5 fronted Eagle Rock Avenue. Mr. Grossman stated that Lot 6 is the lot with the proposed structure. He asked if Lot 6 fronts Valley View Street; and in connection with

t. Mr. Daniels said that no, Lot 5 fronted Eagle Rock Avenue. Mr. Grossman stated that Lot 6 is the lot with the proposed structure. He asked if Lot 6 fronts Valley View Street; and in connection with the application, would the barbeque structure be removed. Mr. Daniels said that the barbeque would be removed and a new driveway would be coming in. Chairman Bagoff asked if there were any questions from the public. Wendy Finerly, 6 Valley View Street, West Orange. Ms. Finerty identified herself as the owner of Lot 7, the property adjacent to the proposed sub-division. Ms. Finerty said that she had looked at the application; the new lot would be forty-percent smaller than the other lots in the neighborhood, Ms. Finerty wanted to know the size of the new house and its distance from her property. Ms. Finerty stated that there were five homes on Valley View Strect; all those homes met the required 75 feet minimum lot width, Ms. NAPLANNING. BRIAWPAMINUTES\ 201 1\H-9-11 Mimttes.doe