May 7, 2025, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

What Mr. Steck did is superimpose in a red line where the shadow falls at 9 AM. This is without the third story going on. Mr. Steck states because the shadow pattern typically goes to the north, there is obviously an impact. And it will be a more severe impact when another story is added. In terms of the backyard of the Barton’s, there's one small evergreen that's in the left of center. But there's essentially no screening in the wintertime and the trees are fairly old. In Mr. Steck’s opinion, there is no effective screening at the moment that blocks the subject building from the Barton property. On Page 5, shows 2 photographs from the view of Mr. Steck in his car as if he was driving out of the driveway. There's been a lot of discussion about this sight line. Since Mr. Steck has an SUV, his eye height is probably four feet, five inches off the ground rather than the 3.5 feet. But because there are so few parking spaces on site for the residential uses, Mr. Steck has never been by there where the curb line is free of cars. Below those photographs is a sight line exhibit that the applicant's engineer has presented. The sight line that's required to be shown is highlighted in red. The rectangle to the left is where a car would be positioned. But the applicant's engineer said those cars are movable so there aren't always going to be there. Even on the applicant's diagram, you have to look through six cars in order to get the sight distance that is recommended to see a car coming. The sight line is difficult because there are always cars, in Mr. Steck’s judgment, parked along the curb line. That's both looking to the left and to the right as you're leaving the site. And during rush hour in the evening, typically there's a backup of cars. Mr. Steck states that if you're going to leave this property and turn left, oftentimes there are times where you have to wait for a courtesy gap. So it's not that there can't be any development on the property, but more intensive development has to, in his opinion, meet the negative criteria. And part of that is the level of traffic activity and the difficulty of seeing cars that are in the through lane. Mr. Steck went over the sum and substance of his testimony before going to Page 6. This property is already non-conforming because it has excessive pavement. It has a significant violation of the rear setback, as well

the sum and substance of his testimony before going to Page 6. This property is already non-conforming because it has excessive pavement. It has a significant violation of the rear setback, as well as the rear buffer. And it has parking that is, at least by county standards, too close to the front right-of-way. The county site plan resolution says you shouldn't have cars backing up within 20 feet of the right-of-way of Main Street. So there are significant non-conformities at the moment. The applicant has more building than they're entitled to. So when Mr. McDonough says there's a hardship, the answer is this building couldn't be built today, and Mr. Steck is not sure they would get the same amount of square footage. If you conform to the impervious coverage, that would shrink some of the parking. There's not a hardship due to existing conditions, because the applicant has more building than they're entitled to today, in Mr. Steck’s judgment, looking at the limits on impervious coverage. The applicant wants to put on a third story, having the same footprint as the rest of the building, which is 3,303 square feet. The applicant wants to convert the first floor left for medical office use, which produces about 9.57 parking spaces. Mr. Steck notes that both the traffic report and the architect's plans used a generic multiplier for the office space, but it's higher, and that's statistically true for the medical office space. That's one space per 150 square feet. There was a lot of debate last time about how much parking is really required, and it's clear that the applicant has to rely on some kind of shared parking, even though the

applicant says they’ll have limit residential tenants to one parking space. There still has to be a place for guests to park and the difficult day is Saturday. That's when the medical offices are going to be open and that's the day when a lot of people don't work. So it's not clear, in Mr. Steck’s opinion, that the applicant has met its burden in terms of the supply of parking. Part of Mr. Steck’s analysis was to look at the surrounding area. This is a fully developed area. This building is unique, and it's the reverse of what is normally required. If you look at the design standards, you're supposed to have a building that's up toward the street to have pedestrian traffic. If that was the case, there'd be parking in the rear, and in Mr. Steck’s opinion, that's the appropriate scenario because that parking would be depressed in elevation, and it could be buffered, but the building can't be buffered. There are historic characteristics of the area that ought to be taken into account. In 2019, the re-examination report recommended that the zone be changed from OB1 to B1, and the rationale was consistent with existing land uses and desired future use. To be consistent with land uses, it would be a dwelling or a multiple dwelling up toward the front. Mr. Steck took a look at the downtown alliance designs guidelines that are in the ordinance, and it says that roof shapes should be like the surrounding structures. The new building, any new building, in this case, is the third floor, would have the same relative placement as other structures in the area. It says that new construction ought to respect the established rhythms of the streetscape, and you should use materials that are common in the area. So for someone to say that this is consistent with the area, in Mr. Steck’s opinion, is not correct. Mr. Steck went over 2 definitions from the ordinance. One is what a mixed-use development is, and it says a building or buildings that include one or more dwelling units above one or more non-residential uses on the ground floor. So Mr. McDonough says the master plan encourages a mixed use, and the zoning ordinance has it as a conditional use, and a mixed use doesn't say you need seven dwelling units. A mixed use says as long as you have a dwelling unit on the second floor, that's a mixed use. If the applicant didn't construct a third story, and had three or four

say you need seven dwelling units. A mixed use says as long as you have a dwelling unit on the second floor, that's a mixed use. If the applicant didn't construct a third story, and had three or four dwelling units on the second story, that's a mixed use, and that's one that is encouraged by the zoning ordinance. There's also a definition of a mixed use, it shall mean the dual use of a single parcel of land, all parking, yard, buffer, and other requirements applicable to each individual use shall be applied to the combined use. Mr. Steck thinks that relates to the issue of whether a density variance is needed. The burden is on the applicant to provide testimony, and so Mr. Steck reviewed briefly Mr. McDonough's testimony, and said why he respectfully disagree with what he says. Mr. McDonough first says that because the third story meets the linear height limit, that the only variance they need is for the number of stories. Mr. Steck believes that’s wrong. The back 30 feet of the property is supposed to have a building height of zero feet. There’s not supposed to be a building there. In addition to needing a variance for the third story, the applicant needs a linear height variance for the back 30 feet of the property. Mr. Steck said Mr. McDonough was silent on that part. He only had the statement that the only variance in terms of height was the third story instead of two and a half stories, and Mr. Steck said that's incorrect because there's not supposed to be any height in the back 30 feet. Mr. McDonough said that the downslope of the property mitigates the variance here. On the lower left-hand side of Page 6, visually, and again, the land slopes downward, but visually from the pavement in front of the building and at the bottom of that retaining

wall to the parapet is 40.7 feet, much more than the 35 feet that is the average. And that's what faces the public, even though you can't see this building very easily. Mr. Steck states that the applicant's attorney said, that you start about 18 feet higher, and Mr. Steck calculated 15 feet higher than the sidewalk. Therefore, when you're standing on the sidewalk, looking toward the top of this building as proposed, it's 15 feet plus 40 feet. The buildings across the street to the very top of the parapet are about 47.5 feet, but again, they start at the street level. While these might be comparable in terms of height, just looking at the facade, Mr. Steck states this is actually significantly taller in terms of elevation above sea level. The slope downward is a steep slope, it's about 12%. And that's an uncomfortable slope for parking areas, because that means when you open the door on the side of your car, it's going to go all the way out and potentially hit the car next to you. If you're opening the door uphill, it's going to be a little difficult. Mr. McDonough says that the building acts as a buffer to the rear. Mr. Steck doesn't agree with that. The ordinance says that a buffer is a vegetated area. To suggest that this building is some kind of a buffer is absurd in Mr. Steck’s opinion, because it casts a shadow, it has a presence, and you might mitigate some of the privacy, but it's still there. People are going to be able to open windows in the summertime potentially. There is a crowding, blockage of light air and open space that the neighbors to the rear should rely upon. The building already violates that, but in Mr. Steck’s opinion, adding another story is further an intrusion into what the ordinance wants. To say that the property owners to the rear ought to provide the buffer, that's not what the ordinance intended. And Mr. Steck asked why should someone that has an open rear yard that wants a play area for the kids have to eat up part of the rear yard with landscaping that benefits someone else. The master plan encourages mixed use. Mr. McDonough said that multiple times. But Mr. Steck said mixed use doesn't mean a third story with seven dwelling units. Mixed use says a two-story building with one to four dwelling units on the second floor. On the upper left-hand side on Page 6, Mr. Steck described what a buffer is in the ordinance, and

lling units. Mixed use says a two-story building with one to four dwelling units on the second floor. On the upper left-hand side on Page 6, Mr. Steck described what a buffer is in the ordinance, and it says a buffer strip shall be planted and maintained in perpetuity with trees and shrubbery of such sizes and densities as to adequately screen the building from such a budding residential district or use. There is zero screening on this property, and it's not going to be possible to plant there to block the offensiveness of the third floor. On the lower right-hand of Page 6, Mr. Steck has a quote from the International Building Code, the New Jersey edition, and it says that when you have three or more stories and the footprint is more than 3,000 square feet, which is the case here, it's 3,303, you're required to have an elevator. The plans don't show an elevator, which means there got to be changes to this unless the applicant takes off the third story. Mr. Steck states this building will be required to have an elevator, and that's not on the plans, that hasn't been discussed, that unless the applicant is going to dig into the ground, that's going to have an elevator override on the roof, which obviously adds to the visual impact of what's going on. Mr. McDonough says that the density standard, which is a maximum of four units, doesn't apply because it's not listed in the conditional use requirements. But Mr. Steck said that the conditional use requirements don’t talk about building height, about impervious coverage, or about setbacks. Just because the density standard is not a

conditional use standard doesn't mean it doesn't apply. This property, if you look at just the residential component as seven units, the maximum it's permitted as four units, in Mr. Steck’s opinion, that's a density variance and that's serious because that's not the type of variance that the planning board can grant. That changes the jurisdiction to the board of adjustment. Mr. Steck reiterates that the applicant is suggesting that there is some kind of a hardship with existing conditions. The applicant today has more building and more paving that is permitted. Mr. Steck said that's not a hardship. Mr. Steck mentions that Mr. McDonough said be careful because you're going to get other uses there that could be more active, such as like a fast food restaurant or a bar. Mr. Steck states that Mr. McDonough forgot to tell the board that for instance, in the regulations in the B1 zone, a fast food restaurant is a conditional use. And one of the conditions is that it can't be within a thousand feet of a residential district. That would not be permitted on the site. Mr. Steck also stated that Mr. McDonough talked about municipal land use law purposes A, G, I, and M under NJSA 4055 D-2. He said that this use promotes the general welfare by revitalizing a building and it provides sufficient space in an appropriate location. Mr. Steck states by not adding a story, but converting the second story into residential use, you have a mixed use. And the applicant can still adjust the architecture of the building. The applicant says that this promotes a desirable visual environment. Mr. Steck said this is a building unlike anything in the area. It has no sensitivity to the historic surrounding properties. It is set back in an uncharacteristic area location on the property that doesn't contribute to the pedestrian traffic. This does not promote a desirable visual environment, in Mr. Steck’s opinion, and especially because of the rear setback. Mr. Steck believes that by going to the third story, there are not a lot of negatives. The applicant is going to have to put in an elevator, that could cost another $100,000 to put in an elevator. But Mr. Steck said the applicant can be more efficient if he converts the second story to residential use, therefore no longer needing an elevator, and he's likely to have sufficient amount of parking even on a Saturday. In Mr. Steck’s

be more efficient if he converts the second story to residential use, therefore no longer needing an elevator, and he's likely to have sufficient amount of parking even on a Saturday. In Mr. Steck’s opinion, the applicant has not met the burden of proof. The third story violates the buffer, it violates the setback, and even beyond the setback, it's a half story more than what is permitted. This is a difficult land use environment because of the traffic and the site distance on Main Street. The applicant is relying or suggesting that you plant on the neighboring property to mitigate the adverse effects of this. Mr. Steck thinks that doesn't make any sense. And it suggests rather than McDonough saying there's no substantial detriment, but Mr. Steck said there has to be, there is some substantial detriment. Mr. Steck thinks it's unfair to say the applicant should provide the buffering that the ordinance requires on the subject property. Mr. Steck states that a two-story building with three, four units on the second story, commercial use on the first floor promotes all the purposes of the municipal land use law. While it doesn't remedy the narrow rear yard setback of 6.8 feet, it minimizes the impact. In Mr. Steck’s opinion, if the board grant these variances as requested, there would be substantial detriment to the public good, and that would be substantial impairment of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Mr. Steck reiterates that the ordinance says that when you have a mixed use, you look at the requirements for each of the components and the residential density in this zone isa 10

maximum of four units. If the board grant more than four units, in Mr. Steck’s opinion, the board does not have the power to approve this application. BOARD QUESTIONS FOR OBJECTOR Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Steck that is it his testimony that this building was in violation of a zoning ordinance when it was built. Mr. Steck said he doesn't know whether it was or not. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Steck if is it his understanding that pre-existing non- conforming is a violation. Mr. Steck said no, it's a non-conforming. Rather than using a violation, Mr. Steck will say there's a non-conformity and there's no evidence that the building placement was conforming at one time. Councilperson Scarpa asked how common is it that an ordinance like this for mixed use would not have a density limitation. Mr. Steck said there's not a standard way in his judgment of writing a conditional use. Mayor McCartney asked Mr. Steck to clarify the variance on height due to previous testimony that the height of the building would be 34 feet, which is a foot less than the standard 35 foot. Mr. Steck said if the applicant had a one story building and it was 6.8 feet back from the rear property line, there's no height limit. But because the applicant is outside of the building envelope, in Mr. Steck’s opinion, you need a variance from both the story height and the linear height. Mayor McCartney asked Mr. Steck to clarify about parking on a Saturday since there has never been a complaint about parking or traffic and it is by appointment only. Mr. Steck said except you look at the number of rooms there are in the site and you look at the number of seats in the waiting room. The ordinance doesn't say that it doesn't apply if there's no complaints. The applicant has attempted to show that there's enough parking, at least if you take into account shared parking. But in Mr. Steck’s opinion, the shared parking philosophy does not apply on a Saturday because most residential people will be home. Mayor McCartney asked Mr. Steck what he meant by a wrong standard that applied during technical review. Mr. Steck said both the architect's plan and the initial traffic report talked about a parking standard of one space for every 250 square feet. That applies on the right side of the building for generic offices. But during the initial review, it was not picked up that the medical offices has a

standard of one space for every 250 square feet. That applies on the right side of the building for generic offices. But during the initial review, it was not picked up that the medical offices has a higher standard, one per 150 square feet. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Steck is it his testimony that the building itself, if it is found to be built within a variance or at the time the zone plan allowed it. Mr. Steck said the applicant has presented no proof that this was permitted by zoning or that a variance was granted in the past. PROFESSIONAL COMMENTS FOR OBJECTOR Mr. Haizel said in terms of the density, this is something that they did look at before this application got to this point. The subsequent is correct, the ordinance is, in Mr. Haizel’s opinion, silent on that. They do provide the density standard for the dwelling units, but in terms of the density standard for a mixed use building in most of the other ordinances that Mr. Haizel’s familiar with, that there is a separate where there is a density measure listed. It is different and it is articulated for the mixed use as opposed to the individual. This ordinance does not do that. And one can take the position that Mr. Steck is taking that the density of a residential use by itself should be applied and it's not a residential use 11