Plg Dir Memo ZB 21 01 M Vega Investments LLC updated 8 8 22

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER www.westorange.org 4 along the front property line to the south of the driveway, an area of Little Bluestem ground cover to the south of the shrubs and 21 Common Juniper shrubs with a planting height of four feet along the length of the rear property line. New site lighting is proposed: two 18-foot tall light poles adjacent to the parking lot, two building lights mounted at 10 feet on the south building wall, and one building light mounted at eight feet on the west building wall. DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS Variance Proofs In B-1 and B-2 Districts, mixed-use developments are permitted as a conditional use in accordance with the requirements of Section 25-24.2b2(m). The proposal complies with all of these requirements. Commercial vehicle parking is not a permitted use, however. The applicant has requested a “d(1)” use variance to permit commercial vehicle parking on the subject property. The Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70d(1) enables a board of adjustment to grant a variance for a use or principal structure not permitted in the zoning district. A “d” variance may be granted only “in particular cases for special reasons.” In addition, the MLUL at N.J.S.A 40:55D-70c permits a board of adjustment to grant variances from the bulk regulations of a zoning ordinance and other zoning deviations that do not require a “d” variance. A “c(1)" variance is for cases of hardship due to factors such as shape or topography, or due to “an extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structures lawfully existing thereon.” A “c(2)” variance may be granted where the purposes of zoning are advanced and the benefits of deviating from the ordinance requirements outweigh any detriments. The benefits derived from granting a “c(2)” variance must include benefits to the community as a whole, not just the applicant or property owner. A variance applicant also must address the “negative criteria,” and affirmatively demonstrate that the variance can be granted “without substantial detriment to the public good” and “without substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance” of the municipality. The applicant’s planner should provide testimony as to how the above variance proofs are addressed. It is noted the applicant submitted a planning report with the

oning ordinance” of the municipality. The applicant’s planner should provide testimony as to how the above variance proofs are addressed. It is noted the applicant submitted a planning report with the original application, but it has not been updated to address the currently requested relief. Site Plan and Architectural Issues The Township of West Orange Site Plan Review Advisory Board (SPRAB) held a virtual meeting on February 9, 2020. At this meeting, the SPRAB reviewed the above application with the applicant and its attorney, engineer, architect and planner. It was noted at that meeting and in the SPRAB meeting summary memorandum dated February 9, 2021 that the originally submitted plans only included a rudimentary site plan as part of the architectural plans. The applicant has