August 17, 2023 Regular Meeting

- the impact of the proposed landscaping storage yard use would carry no detriment to surrounding properties greater than that posed by the existing adjacent Environmental Center; - the proposed storage bins, fencing, and landscaping would effectively mitigate any physical impacts to surrounding properties; and -the anticipated hours of operation and scope of activity of the proposed landscaping storage yard use, both on a daily and seasonal basis, are relatively modest in intensity and so pose minimal impact to surrounding sites. - Mr. Steck opined that the Applicants have satisfied the "substantial impairment" of the negative criteria for the requested items of (d)(1) use variance relief because although the R-2 Zone is primarily a residential zone, the proposed landscaping storage yard use is consistent with uses that are permitted in the Zone, specifically greenhouses and nurseries. - Mr. Steck also opined that, while, under the requirements of the Ordinance, landscaping storage yards are not permitted uses in the R-2 Zone and no more than one (1) principal use is permitted on any lot, granting the requested (d)(1) use variances here could be reconciled with the fact that this is a unique circumstance wherein there is a high degree of non-conformity amongst uses within the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed uses of the Property matches the character of those non-conforming uses. - Mr. Steck opined that the Applicants have satisfied the positive criteria required for the grant of their requested (c)(2) bulk variances because they have demonstrated that the proposal promotes the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law. He said that the proposal constitutes an appropriate use of land, in a manner that promotes the general welfare, because it will result in an overall enhancement to the Property, in terms of aesthetics and efficiency, thereby also enhancing the character of the surrounding neighborhood. He also opined that the proposal provides sufficient space in an appropriate location for both commercial and residential use because the Property's configuration effectively enables the lot to support both proposed principal uses and such uses are relatively consistent with other uses in the surrounding neighborhood and the R-2 Zone. Mr. Steck also opined that these benefits substantially outweigh the relatively modest detriments associated with

elatively consistent with other uses in the surrounding neighborhood and the R-2 Zone. Mr. Steck also opined that these benefits substantially outweigh the relatively modest detriments associated with the proposed excess impervious coverage and lack of parking area paving, curbing, and markings. - Mr. Steck opined that the Applicants have satisfied the "substantial detriment" prong of the negative criteria for (c)(2) bulk variance relief because: - the proposed excess impervious coverage can be mostly attributed to the laying of crushed stone throughout the Property, which, despite being considered impervious ground cover, still allows stormwater to penetrate into the earth instead of running off onto surrounding properties; - the Applicants propose to install an underground drywell system, which will further mitigate the potential for stormwater to runoff onto surrounding properties; and - the proposed parking area that is the subject of the requested bulk variance relief will not be open to the public and be effectively screened to surrounding properties by landscaping and fencing. - Mr. Steck opined that the Applicant has satisfied the "substantial impairment" of the negative criteria for (c)(2) bulk variance relief, because: