June 9, 2022 Special Meeting

APPLICATIONS 1.) ZB-22 ZB-22-02 - Monarch Development Group JV LLC co Michael Glynn (Mayfair Farms Holding Corp.) - 481 Eagle Rock Avenue Block:152.01 ; Lot:1445.01 ; Zone: B-2 481 Eagle Rock Avenue Seeking ‘“‘c” and “d” variances to subdivide the existing property and create construction of a multi-level senior housing facility. Mr. Antimo DelVecchio, Esq. entered on the record on behalf of the applicant. Chairperson Neuer announced that the day prior he raised a question to Mr. DelVecchio regarding whether or not this application should proceed as a bifurcated application or if it should go forward with all the required relief i.e., Site Plan and Subdivision approval. BOARD DISCUSSION Chairperson Neuer made a statement about how New Jersey case laws allow bifurcated applications was amended to allow an applicant to elect to seek only variances in the initial stage and then after variances were approved to proceed with a subsequent application for approval of subdivision and Site Plan approval may be required. By just stating the facts of the application, there is no issue in his opinion. However, according to the Superior Court of New Jersey there are other issues and factors that have to be taken into consideration. Chairperson quoted from two cases decided by the Appellate Division “Meridian Quality Care Inc. V. Board of Adjustment of the Township of Wall” and “House of Fire Christian Church V. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Clifton” that factors such as traffic flow, traffic congestion, ingress, egress, building orientation, and nature of the surrounding properties are highly relevant to both the determination of whether to grant the use variance and the later decision approve the site plan with bifurcation would not be appropriate if the Board considers that the use variance and the site plan issues are interrelated that both applications should be considered in a single administrative proceeding at which the Board would also decide the negative criteria based on the entire plan submitted. Chairperson then opined to say that this application fits the latter description. He then said Mr. DelVecchio is going to present his case on the bifurcation then the Board will decide on whether to proceed with the application. Mr. DelVecchio said that he disagrees with Chairperson Neuer stating that the cases cited are not as clear as they are

ifurcation then the Board will decide on whether to proceed with the application. Mr. DelVecchio said that he disagrees with Chairperson Neuer stating that the cases cited are not as clear as they are read in their totality. Starting with the statutory starting place of 76B “Developer may elect” to submit separate applications lays responsibility in the first right to the developer to make that decision. It doesn’t say that the developer makes the elections subject to the Board’s approval or election unless certain factors are considered. Mr. DelVecchio said that in regards to “Meridian Quality Care Inc. V. Board of Adjustment of the Township of Wall” the case law sometimes relies on passages from Land Use are not necessarily what they appear to be when fact checked and its sites are looked at in their totality. In Mr. De/Vecchio’s opinion this is one of those