Planning Review Memo ZB 23 11 DeOliveira

VARIANCES REQUIRED SECTION /REQUIREMENT 25-8.4 Maximum height of fence or wall PERMITTED /REQUIRED 6 feet PROPOSED VARIANCE Retaining wall up to 9 feet, 6 inches, plus 6 foot fence on top “c” PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The applicants have constructed a series of retaining walls and fences along the southeastern side property line and in the northeast corner of their property. There is a single wall with varied height (up to 9 feet, 3 inches according to the application) along the northeast property line, and two stepped retaining walls separated by four feet along the southeast property line. DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS The subject property is located in the R-5 single-family residential zone district. A one-family detached dwelling is a permitted principal use in the zone, and fences and dividing walls are permitted accessory uses. However, the following requirements of Section 25-8.4b of the Land Use Regulations Ordinance are applicable: Solid walls and fences not higher than six feet are permitted in the rear yard and on the side property line up to the rear line of the applicant's house. If the distance on each side of such a fence is more than five feet to each adjacent house, such solid fence may be located in the side property up to the front of the applicant's house. An applicant for a “c” variance must comply with the requirements of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c. A “c” variance applicant must demonstrate that there is either undue hardship or practical difficulty associated with the strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with this specific piece of property; or that one or more purposes of zoning would be advanced by the deviation and the benefits of granting the variance for this specific piece of property would substantially outweigh any detriment. In addition, a variance applicant 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 application indicates there was previously a railroad tie retaining wall on the lot that failed, and that the new walls are necessary due to the site’s topography. Testimony should be provided regarding this information and the

was previously a railroad tie retaining wall on the lot that failed, and that the new walls are necessary due to the site’s topography. Testimony should be provided regarding this information and the history of the construction of the walls and fences. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER www.westorange.org 2