Town CrierWest Orange, New Jersey
← Back to search

Supporting Documentation · Sep 15, 2022

00 Cover Letter

Preserved file SHA-256115a2badcf811a45edf9f588e9b5a8bd95789c8fb0efc6184d06d88252152954

Indexed text · page 2

Show all pages
Page 2

STONEFIELD Municipal Response Letter Proposed Renovation & Addition West Orange, New Jersey September 1, 2022 Page | 2 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. Acknowledged. 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 original application, but it has not been updated to address the currently requested relief. Testimony will be provided regarding the variance proofs. 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 complied with the request to provide a more detailed site plan providing information on grading, drainage, lighting, landscaping and other site improvements. Nearly all of the issues raised in the SPRAB memorandum have been addressed. The only outstanding site plan issue is a request to provide additional information regarding the vehicles proposed to be parked on the site and the parking spaces,

Page 2

RAB memorandum have been addressed. The only outstanding site plan issue is a request to provide additional information regarding the vehicles proposed to be parked on the site and the parking spaces, including which spaces are intended for commercial vehicles. As noted, two of the parking spaces will be designated as resident-only spaces. Testimony should be provided confirming the usage of the other spaces. Testimony will be provided regarding the usage of the proposed spaces. With regard to the architectural plans, two issues raised in the SPRAB memorandum have not been directly addressed: • The architect was asked to confirm whether the plans provide a second means of egress from the second and third floors as required by code. Testimony will be provided regarding egress requirements for the development. • Questions were raised about the attic and its use, as a floor plan of it was not provided. The architect stated it is only intended for storage. The attic floor plan has been provided. In addition, the design of the building has been modified to change the roof from gambrel to gable style, to remove proposed dormers with windows and to make the attic only accessible using pull-down stairs. Acknowledged. The applicant’s architect should confirm the above through testimony. Testimony will be provided confirming the above. It is recognized the upgrades to the building, reduction in impervious surface and additional landscaping represent improvements over existing conditions. However, the landscape plan originally proposed landscaping only along the front and side property lines. The applicant should discuss whether it would be possible to provide additional evergreens along the rear property line

File revisions (1)