May 6, 2026 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

- Ms. Apte noted that one of the problems in the letter was that the board needs to see floor plans, especially for the conversion of the current building into two units, as well as the new building that's going to come. PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS - Ms. McGovern asked the zoning official, Ms. Gary-Adams, whether front-yard parking was permissible. Ms. Gary-Adams explained that parking areas must remain at least 5 feet from side property lines. Parking cannot occupy more than 30% of the front yard. - Ms. McGovern questioned whether a 50-foot-wide lot could realistically accommodate the required parking. © It was estimated that the proposed two-family dwelling would require four parking spaces, which appeared difficult to fit within the ordinance's limitations. GENERAL DISCUSSION - Several possible solutions regarding parking were discussed: 0 Parking in the rear of the property © Acommon driveway o Returning for a parking variance if necessary - Chairman Bagoff noted that a common driveway would require: o A permanent easement. © Ongoing maintenance obligations that would remain in effect if ownership changed. - Mr. Perez indicated there was space in the rear, but the board emphasized that more detailed plans would be necessary before evaluating the proposal. - Board members agreed that the applicant should provide: © A plot plan showing driveway locations ©. Parking layouts © Vehicle circulation - Mr. Trembulak argued that preparing complete architectural plans at this stage would be an unnecessary expense because the application concerned subdivision approval. - Ms. Apte asked who determines whether two nearby houses are "substantially similar," as prohibited by the ordinance. © She characterized the standard as subjective. - The board explained that: © The ordinance requires meaningful architectural differences beyond simply changing colors or creating a mirror-image design. © Differences could include porches, window arrangements, rooflines, and other architectural features. - Chairman Bagoff discussed separating the application into phases: o Approving the subdivision and conversion of the existing home first. © Leaving the new dwelling on the vacant lot to be reviewed later with complete building plans. - They explained that if the future house could not meet parking or other zoning requirements, the applicant would need to return for additional

lot to be reviewed later with complete building plans. - They explained that if the future house could not meet parking or other zoning requirements, the applicant would need to return for additional variances. - Another option discussed was approving only: © The subdivision. © The variance to convert the existing single-family home into a two-family dwelling.

- The future development of the second lot would then be determined in a later application. - Ms. McGovern emphasized that they could not grant a blanket approval for an unspecified future two-family dwelling because too many design and compliance issues remained unresolved. - The board reviewed the parking requirements based on the applicant's testimony: o The converted existing house would require four parking spaces. © The proposed new building would also require parking based on its two-bedroom units. - Discussion focused on: o Whether parking would be arranged beside the existing house. o Whether tandem parking might be necessary. o Whether two separate driveways would ultimately work better than a shared driveway because of property line constraints. - Several members noted that the conversation would be much easier if a basic site plan showing driveways and parking locations were submitted. - Mr. Trembulak agreed to submit: o Aplot plan © Parking layout o Impervious coverage calculations - Chairman Bagoff stated that while complete architectural plans were unnecessary, the planner needed sufficient information to determine compliance with zoning standards. - Ms. Apte asked about the size of the existing home. - Mr. Trembulak stated that township tax records list it at approximately 1,700 square feet. - Ms. Apte noted that since each apartment must contain at least 1,100 square feet, the existing structure would require an addition. o Mr. Trembulak confirmed that the building would indeed be expanded. - Mr. Trembulak identified planner Matt Flynn as the applicant's expert witness. - Chairman Bagoff recommended postponing the planner's testimony until additional plans and calculations were prepared, since additional variances might ultimately be necessary. - Mr. Alper raised concern that the new house should be positioned far enough away from the existing house to satisfy fire department spacing requirements. - Mr. Trembulak responded that they intended to design the new house with greater setbacks to provide sufficient separation. NO PUBLIC QUESTIONS NO PUBLIC COMMENTS - The application will be carried to the next Planning Board regular meeting on June 3, 2026, without further notice, starting at 7:30 pm via Zoom. ADOPTED: 4 N26 Lb. Planning Board Secretary