February 1, 2012

APPLICATION PB-11-04/John Galante Block: 177.5; Lot: 6; Zone: R-5 739 Prospect Avenue Minor subdivision with six (6) variances, EXHIBIT(S A-1: Aerial photo of the Zone district; A-2: Aerial photo with Lot boundaries shown; A-3: Planning report with photos in Exhibit 2 with photos of the site and houses on the street. DISCUSSION Steven Greenberg Esq., attorney on behalf of the Applicant explained that the Application had been continued from the November Planning Board meeting. Mr. Greenberg gave a brief description of the Application and then introduced the Applicant, John Galante. Mr. Galante was sworn in. Mr. Galante told the Board he was the owner of the property located at 739 Eagle Rock Avenue, and had owned it for sixteen (16) years. Mr. Galante said that when he purchased his home, the survey identified his lot as “Lot 5”; he subsequently obtained “Lot 6”, which was an undersized lot that he maintained but used infrequently. The Board bad no questions for Mr. Galante. Mr. Greenberg called George Wheatle Williams, P.P., Nishuane Group, as witness for the Applicant. Mr. Williams was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert witness. Mr. Williams stated he had reviewed the Municipal Engineer’s Report, the Plannet’s Report and the Application. Mr. Williams described the property and presented three (3) exhibits, He told the Board that the Application was for a subdivision of lots on Valley View Street, Referring to Exhibits A-1, A-2, and A-3, Mr. Williams said the photos showed the properties located R-5 Zone District. The exhibits indicated there were approximately twenty-seven (27) lots similar to the proposed lots. Mr. Williams said the lot lines on Valley View were perpendicular, indicating that the proposed subdivision of the lots might have been the original plan for the property. Mr. Williams said the proposed subdivision would be a better alternative to the existing shape of the lot. The non-conformity of the proposed lots would be minor, Mr, Williams said the subdivision would create a more appropriate density and create a more traditional lot, thereby meeting the positive criteria. Mr. Williams said he did not believe there would be any substantial harm to the public good; the new lots would not be out of scale with the surrounding lots. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had any questions

he did not believe there would be any substantial harm to the public good; the new lots would not be out of scale with the surrounding lots. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had any questions for Mr. Williams, Mr. Eben said that this would be the only lot with 50-feet frontage; he was concerned with how it would visually impact the look of Valley View Street. He said the existing lots conformed to the 75-feet minimum lot width. He said he would prefer a variance that would NAPLANNING. BRI\WP\MINUTES|\2012\02-01-2012 Minutes.doc 3