PB 24 12 17 Fairway Avenue West Orange Planner Report 7 15 2024

July 15, 2024 Page 6 of 7 PB-24-12 17 Fairway Avenue Block 179.03, Lot 9 105 Grove Street, Suite 3, Montclair, NJ 07042 • Phone: (973) 954-2677 • www.NishuaneGroup.com Planner’s Comments The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing lot, Lot 9, with an existing single-family dwelling, in to two (2) new lots, Lots 9.01 and 9.02. New Lot 9.01 will contain the existing single-family dwelling, while new Lot 9.02 will be vacant. The proposed subdivision will result in two (2) conforming sized lots. The existing single-family dwelling is permitted in the R-6 District, where the site is located. However, the proposed subdivision will create at least one condition that does not meet the bulk and design requirements for the District. Specifically, the proposed subdivision will trigger the need for a variance to permit a lesser rear yard setback than required. Whereas a minimum rear yard setback of 30-feet is required, following the proposed subdivision the rear yard setback on Lot 9.01 will be 17.94-feet. Standards for Granting Variance Relief C - (Bulk) Variances The Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c sets forth the standards for variances from the bulk regulations of a zoning ordinance. C(1) Variance - The Board must find that there is either undue hardship or practical hardship with the strict application of the zoning requirements as stipulated in the Zoning & Land Use Regulations, as a result of: a) exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific property, or b) by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or c) by reason of an extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structures lawfully existing thereon. C(2) Variance – The Board must find that the proposed deviation from the Zoning & Land Use Regulations will advance the purposes of the MLUL and that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, that the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment. The benefits identified in granting a C(2) variance must include benefits to the community as a whole, not only the applicant or the property owner. Here too, the Board must be satisfied that the variance can be granted “without substantial detriment to the public good” and “without substantial impairment

only the applicant or the property owner. Here too, the Board must be satisfied 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 Township.