May 7, 2025, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

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