10 9 2024 WO PB Draft Minutes

4 • Mr. Flynn testified that the current property has a single-family house and the subdivision line would be behind the house. Once subdivided, both lot areas would be conforming and a fully conforming house could be built in the future on the new vacant lot. • Mr. Flynn testified that the rear yard setback was a c variance and could be justified under the c (2) balancing test as the benefits outweigh the detriments. • Mr. Flynn testified that the variance could be approved under purpose a. promoting the general welfare because the property is a substantially oversized lot and the area on Barbara Avenue stands out as a void. • There would also be sufficient building separation and the new house will easily meet setback requirements. • As to the rear setback, that can also be viewed from Barbara Avenue, like a side yard setback as side yard requirements are substantially less than rear yard requirements. Flynn stated that there won’t be a “crammed in effect.” • The variance also satisfies purpose g. variety of uses because a single-family house belongs in this zone. Purpose I desirable visual environment with a new house. Purpose M efficient use of land because the lot coverage and building coverages will continue to be well within the requirements of the zone. • As to the negative criteria, Lots 9.01 and 9.02 are substantially compliant and the new lot with a new house, when built, will not appear to be crowded. • Mr. Flynn also suggested that the variance could be granted as a c(1) hardship due to the fact that the lot is a corner lot with two front yards and also due to the fact that the existing building position on the lot is better left than removed. • The Applicant’s planner testified that the proposed subdivision was an appropriate use of space. BOARD QUESTIONS • Mr. Klein asked what the width of Lot 8 (north of the subdivision lot) was. the Planner testified that the width was 66 feet. • Mr. Klein also asked about other properties in the area that appeared to be larger, such as lots 22 and lot 15 and whether they could be subdivided. Mr. Flynn testified that the houses already built on those lots were in the middle of the lots which would prevent a feasible subdivision. Mr. Flynn testified that because the house at 17 Fairway Avenue is very forward on the lot with the open area fronting Barbara Avenue it makes sense to subdivide. NO PROFESSIONALS

easible subdivision. Mr. Flynn testified that because the house at 17 Fairway Avenue is very forward on the lot with the open area fronting Barbara Avenue it makes sense to subdivide. NO PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS PUBLIC QUESTIONS • David Ahmadi at 11 Fairway Avenue asked if the driveway has to be a specific size. Mr. Flynn said that because they have a conforming size lot, the applicant will be able to comply with all the zoning requirements. Mr. Haizel also testified that the township does have an ordinance that requires that driveways have 5-foot setback from the side yard. NO PUBLIC COMMENT Conditions: • See resolution.