Filed Complaint with Exhibit

6 not necessarily allow for increased parking due to the Property topography, and would then trigger a height variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(6), thereby shifting jurisdiction to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 24. The Board professionals made comments that canopies could be installed rather than black-out windows to screen the parking areas and that as a condition of approval a term be added to the lease clarifying that the “1-bedroom plus den” units could not use the den as a second bedroom. 25. The matter was continued at a Board meeting held on August 7, 2024 with preservation of notice. Benjamin T.F. Wine, Esq. appeared as Plaintiff’s counsel at this hearing. At this meeting, Ms. Klimm was recalled to testify. She testified to a changed façade that better integrates with other historic buildings along Main Street, including bringing the main building entrance on to Main Street with wider sidewalks along with changes to the window sizes, designs and locations. 26. Ms. Klimm responded to questions from the Board regarding the trash room and roof access. Ms. Klimm also responded to questions from the Board professionals regarding trash location and pick up. Ms. Klimm also responded to questions as to whether a green roof was considered. 27. The application was open to public questions of the architect, and Ms. Klimm responded to questions from the public regarding the artistic rendering, the warning lights and sound from the garage door, and the building height. Ms. Klimm also responded to a question from the public regarding the side yard setback to clarify that although at ground level, the setback is only 5 ft., at the upper residential levels which are at level with the neighboring residential properties, the Proposed Development does meet the 10 ft. setback requirement.ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 6 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774