August 17, 2023 Regular Meeting

NO BOARD QUESTIONS PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS -Mr. Hess asked about how agreeable the applicant is to soil testing. Mr. Marucci said that the applicant is agreeable. -Mr. Grygiel asked about the noise of the bins loading and unloading. Mr. Marucci asked to defer to the applicant as he was unsure of the frequency of unloading/loading of materials. NO PUBLIC QUESTIONS -Redirect by Mr. Dusinberre brought Mr. Ciottariello back on the record. Mr. Ciottariello testified about loading up with materials taking place in the morning and afternoon with the noise of such being less than five (5) minutes in total each time. PRESENTATION -Mr. Peter Steck, Planner, entered the record, was sworn under oath, and was accepted as an expert in the field of Planning. -Mr. Dusinberre asked Mr. Steck to comment on the increase in impervious coverage. In response, he stated that it is being handled by the applicant handling it and it is not visible from the street. -Mr. Steck testified referencing his Planning Report (Dated- February 9, 2023) with a display of photos, graphs, and a description of each. He testified stating that the current use of this property is not particularly suited for what it is classified as. He described the negative criteria of this application site being as visual (residential lot shielded by fencing) and landscaping (with activities in the rear of the property such as a plant nursery with no public policing) - Mr. Steck opined that the Applicants have satisfied the positive criteria for both items of (d)(1) use variance relief. In this regard, he opined that the Property is particularly suited both for the proposed landscaping storage yard use and for the two proposed (2) principal uses because: - the proposed landscaping storage yard use is relatively consistent with similar surrounding existing uses in the neighborhood, most notably the existing adjacent Township Environmental Center; - the proposed landscaping storage yard use is relatively consistent with permitted uses in the R-2 Zone, most notably nurseries and greenhouses; and - the composition of the Property, by way of the location of the existing dwelling towards its front and the location of the proposed landscaping storage yard towards its rear, sufficiently supports the co-location of the two (2) proposed principal uses of the Property. - Mr. Steck also opined that the Applicants have

f the proposed landscaping storage yard towards its rear, sufficiently supports the co-location of the two (2) proposed principal uses of the Property. - Mr. Steck also opined that the Applicants have satisfied the "substantial detriment" prong of the negative criteria for the requested items of (d)(1) use variance relief because: - the proposed landscaping storage yard use will be well screened from the view of neighbors via the placement of the existing dwelling, the topography of the Property, proposed landscape screening, and proposed fencing;