May 7, 2025, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

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