4 2 25 WO PB Draft Minutes

eway is 30 feet. The narrowest is wider from there. It is more than enough for two vehicles running each direction. • Donna R asked Mr. Downey what are the assumptions made of. Where do they come from that it is assumed people are going to leave for work? Mr. Downey said the parking requirements come from two places. The residential component comes from the state standard, which is the residential site improvement standards. And the office component comes from the municipal ordinance. Based on where they landed with the parking calculation, there's actually more spaces provided than what would be required for the residential and office to both have their peak parking at the same time, hypothetically. • Donna R asked Mr. Downey how many cars are allowed per apartment. Mr. Downey said if there's a restriction, he is not aware of any restriction on the number of parking spaces or how that's managed specifically at an operational level. Maurice Cox added that when they rent the apartment, they specifically state one parking per unit in the rental agreement. • Eric Buckley at 8 Edge Hill Court asked Mr. Downey to clarify based on the civil drawings stating that 1.8 spaces per unit are required for one-bedroom efficiency apartment and then 2 spaces are required for a two-bedroom, but there is mention of the 1 spot per unit. Mr. Downey said the requirement is the 1.8 for the one-bedrooms and two

7 for the two-bedrooms, but at an operational level, there is actually going to be a requirement that each space only gets one space. • Eric Buckley asked Mr. Downey that only one handicapped spot is shown and that's required, for the office spaces, but are you accounting for the residential portions. Mr. Downey said there's one ADA space required for a lot of this number of spaces. • Eric Buckley asked Mr. Downey what happens when, during the day, someone takes that spot because they're going to a medical facility. Mr. Downey said in that scenario, they would need to use a different parking space. Again, they meet the requirement. • Eric Buckley asked Mr. Downey if they are accounting for any handicapped residents. Mr. Downey said it is accounted for in the requirement that is satisfied. • Eric Buckley asked is there anything besides just that one parking spot and what happens if someone with a handicap would like to rent a space, rent a unit within the residential portion. Mr. Zeberl said that's really an operational issue for Mr. Cox to address if and when the situation arises. PRESENTATION • The professional planner, John McDonough, entered on the record, he was sworn under oath and his credentials were accepted by the board. He testified to the following: • Mr. McDonough presented Planning Exhibit for 172-174 Main Street. It's a single tax lot. It's block 89, lot number 6. It's about 15,176 square feet, and the first photograph that is being presented is what he saw in February on a cold day. • Mr. McDonough walked the area, and there is the two-story building that exists now and the parking in the front. • That basic development pattern is not changing. The applicant is going to keep the parking in the front and keep the building pad where it is. • The application before the board is to add a level to go up to a third story, which is what's triggering the relief in terms of the number of stories, but is not triggering any relief in terms of the overall height of the structure below that 35-foot mark. • There's some framing behind the building, taller trees, taller structures, which does provide some framing, some mitigation of this building on the adjacent residential uses. • There's also a mitigated measure in terms of the land form. This is a site that fronts on Main Street, which is lower than the Llewellyn Park neighborhood behind the site. • The

nt residential uses. • There's also a mitigated measure in terms of the land form. This is a site that fronts on Main Street, which is lower than the Llewellyn Park neighborhood behind the site. • The grade rises up from this vantage point up, so they do have some mitigated measures, not only in terms of the vegetation and the trees, but also in terms of the terrain and the topography. • The change here will have impact on the residential uses, but it's also going to have a change on Main Street, a very positive change consistent with what has happened in the rest of the corridor in terms of the repurposing of the Edison Lofts, which is a multi-story building much higher than the subject. • As we work our way further, panning more to the south on Main Street, you can see three-story buildings. They have an applicant proposing a three-story building opposite three-story buildings, so there is a nice framing effect of the corridor on Main Street. • The 4th page of the exhibit shows an aerial photograph in 1979 that shows the basic form of development with the building in the back and the parking in the front. • It's been a part of the local landscape for 46 years now. It is a building that has been there for a long time. • It is showing some age, and the applicant is here ready, willing, and able to invest in a site that could use some help along Main Street, which the master plan has numerous

8 references over and over and over again about revitalizing Main Street and bringing life to Main Street and creating a fresh new look. • The other point that Mr. McDonough made was with respect to this particular photograph is that a building can be a buffer. We often associate trees with a buffer, but a building can be a buffer as well, and that's what that building achieves here. • The active land use is the parking lot, which is separated from the residential use by the building, by the mass that's there now. • The building takes on more of a passive approach in terms of generation of noise, generation of lights, generation of odors. This is a zone that can allow multiple uses here, including bars, restaurants, and office buildings. • This site could be completely redeveloped with the building closer to the street and the service court taken to the back where they have the trash and the loading. • Again, we see this form of development as it exists now and working with the land as it is now being a better zoning alternative, better integration with the neighborhood than what could be under a zone-conforming plan. • Again, a bar could go here, as well a 35-foot-high business school or vocational school, retail stores, or a restaurant. As a conditional use, this could be repurposed as a microbrewery, fast-food restaurants, and private clubs are permitted in this zone as well. • Mr. McDonough shows Page 5 of the Exhibit which is a view frame number five, looking more towards the south down Main Street, and they did this to give a sense of the way the terrain drops down. • Looking at the building being the buffer from the active land use and the separation from the activity on Main Street, this being a commercial corridor, the positive transformation that is seen, the sheer mass of the building that is across the street, and how they're creating a building that is not going to be dwarfed by that which is around it on Main Street. • On Page 6 of the Exhibit is a view frame number six, which takes us back to those residential properties and looks at the subject, which is this parking lot that can be seen in the center of the photograph. • The building is in the middle as well. Mr. McDonough has spoken about some vegetation that's in place now on the neighboring properties. This photo on Page 6 was taken on a February day during the winter when the leaves are

middle as well. Mr. McDonough has spoken about some vegetation that's in place now on the neighboring properties. This photo on Page 6 was taken on a February day during the winter when the leaves are all down, so what is show on the photo is perhaps a worst-case scenario. • Trees do not fall down in the winter, the leaves do, but they do provide an obscuring element. They may not completely screen or camouflage, but they do provide some obscuring of views, and that is a planning benefit. When the leaves come back, we do get some full screening effect as well. • Frame number 7, looking to the east to our skyline, which in no way is this building going to block views of the skyline from the lower level. This photo on Page 7 is taken from 100 feet up in the air. There are no buildings on the Llewellyn side that have windows up this high, so no blocking of scenic views of the beautiful skyline or any of the landforms that you see beyond the subject site. • There are larger buildings right across the street, which to the extent we're talking about scenic views, they would be blocking those views as well, so the building is not rising up any higher than those buildings that are immediately across the street. • Lastly, frame number eight is an aerial view directly over the building and parking lot. This is what is seen from the photo back in 1979. • It hasn't changed with the parking in the front and the building set back in the back.

9 • It does offer some planning benefits in terms of integration of this site with its surroundings. There are some evergreens on the neighboring properties, which do provide a screening element. • There are perhaps some opportunities on that adjacent land as well if the neighbors so choose to screen from any use of this commercially zoned land. • All of that said, we're looking again at a site that is surrounded by Main Street, which is transforming with new development. • There are detached dwellings around as well, and they're trying to maintain the sensitivity as well and looking at the project as a whole. • The proposal here is to construct a third-story addition. They're going to renovate this building. Mr. McDonough thinks that's an important component of the application, and convert to mixed use, which is something the master plan also makes numerous references to as well. • Relatively boutique scale development here, we're talking about seven dwelling units on two floors over commercial space, which given the colloquy earlier, any combination of the use of this commercial space would not trigger a parking variance. To the extent it does, this applicant comes back to the board. • If a medical use went in here and it combined with a retail, the applicant did the calculations, you would see there would not be a parking variance here given that exception. • If there were some combination of uses that did trigger a parking variance, that would get flagged by the zoning officer and come back here in front of the board. • In terms of the relief that the applicant is asking the board to move on, the board’s planner, Mr. Hazel, has given the board a list of the relief that the applicant is seeking. It's relatively short and a very thorough, comprehensive review that gives the board things to think about with respect to this application. • In terms of the zone that we're in, we are in the B1 Retail Business District, which as we know was rezoned. This area was rezoned to B1 in 2020 in the interest of revitalizing downtown and Main Street with new uses. • There are many references in the 2019 master plan about Main Street as a precursor to the ordinance that Mr. McDonough just spoke about. And bearing in mind, it was previously an office zone. • B1 is an office and retail zone and residential in that it allows mixed use as well. • In terms of the zone

hat Mr. McDonough just spoke about. And bearing in mind, it was previously an office zone. • B1 is an office and retail zone and residential in that it allows mixed use as well. • In terms of the zone conformance, all of the heavier zoning controls are met here. The project fully conforms with the use requirements of the zone. • The board has a good list of mixed-use conditions under the conditional use provision of the board’s ordinance under 25-24.2, and the applicant complies with every single one of them. • The project also substantially complies with all of the board’s bulk requirements. The height complies; parking complies. • There's no density relief being sought here for the seven-unit development. • In terms of the relief, again, turning back to Mr. Hazel's report, it's threefold here. Number one is the number of stories. 2.5 would be allowed here if we had a half story on top, they would not need this relief. They're looking for three stories, but the overall height is going to be less than 35 feet. • Also they have three stories directly across the street in direct orientation with the subject site, not to mention the five story building as well. Therefore, there's good neighborhood harmony in that regard.

10 • The rear setback is existing 6.54. The ordinance is looking for a minimum of 30 feet. • This is not a new build per se, but they're working with the land and the structures that are lawfully existing. Mr. McDonough believes that's a legitimate hardship based on the existing condition. There's some case law on that point known as the Hawrylo case. • Along the same lines, we look at lot coverage where 84.2% is what is there, what has been there, and what the applicant is looking to continue, not worsen, where 75% is the maximum that's allowed. That's the same as what was said for the setback. • It's a hardship related to the land and the structures that are lawfully existing there on. • In terms of the legal justification, there's a basis under hardship, but primarily Mr. McDonough is going to focus on what is called the C2 balancing test, whereby the benefits of the application as a whole would substantially outweigh the detriments. • Again, we look at the application holistically, the impact on main street, the impact on the neighborhood, the impact on the community at large. • The project as a whole will promote multiple purposes of the land use law at NJSA 40:55 D-2, including purpose A, the promotion of the general welfare, which is advanced with renovation, repurposing, and revitalization of this long-standing building. • This locally familiar building in the downtown that will add new housing for people to live in, new businesses for people to work and shop and provide business offerings to the public. • Purpose G, the promotion for a variety of uses in appropriate locations because the site is in a civic center and it is good planning to concentrate people in downtown settings with easy access to civic and public amenities. • The walk score here is very good. 78 out of 100, that's considered a very walkable area where most errands can be accomplished on foot. That is good for the public in terms of its efficiency. • This walk score has been recognized by authorities such as the National Institute of Health as a reliable and valuable source for considering the walkability of an area. That's why Mr. McDonough thinks it's a good thing to put people here where we have lessened reliance on the automobile. • Additionally, purpose I, the promotion of a desirable visual environment. This is going to give a site that's been here almost five decades now, a

where we have lessened reliance on the automobile. • Additionally, purpose I, the promotion of a desirable visual environment. This is going to give a site that's been here almost five decades now, a fresh new look, bring it more into harmony with the transformation of the area. • Accolades to the community and to the downtown alliance for the great transformation that's taking place on Main Street and this is going to be a nice continuum in that regard. • Lastly, purpose M, which is their planning goal to take what's there, repurpose and reuse it. That's called efficient use of land. The applicant is working with that which is there. • That certainly has much less impact on a neighborhood than a complete demolition here, a complete rebuild. Again, this is putting a cap on the building that's there and essentially keeping the rest in place. • That's as efficient as it gets from a planning standpoint. It’s called adaptive reuse, renovation and conversion of what's there. • Taking all of those public benefits, we now consider the potential impacts associated with the relief seeking. • Based on all of the testimony from witnesses before, licensed professionals and their operators sworn under oath, none of the relief based on the record will cause impacts of a substantially adverse nature.

11 • The upgrades to the building will actually improve its relationship to Main Street and to those homes around it. Visually, this is going to have a much better, more attractive facade than that which exists. • The added story does not equate to height relief or parking relief. Visually and functionally, the degree of departure from that which is contemplated in the zone plan is not substantial. As it’s been said, the site is sunk relative to the homes behind it. That lessens the impact and we talked about trees and terrain mitigating potentially adverse impacts. • Any development has impact. What the board needs to consider is the extreme weight of those positives and what McDonough believes is very little weight in terms of the negatives on the adjacent properties. • Yes, there'll be impact, but will it be substantial is the question. • The setback is an existing condition. Going up will not impede the privacy, the use or enjoyment or have a greater effect on the surrounding neighborhood than a permitted use could have, even if it were set further back from those homes. • There's a mitigated measure in terms of terrain and trees. There's going to be an improved facade. There will be no negative shadow effects here or blocking of scenic views and not generating a population density that will exceed the carrying capacity of the land. • Indicators of carrying capacity, parking demand, water demand, sewer demand, waste generation are all within the carrying capacity of the land given the relatively modest population density here. • The coverage, again, it's in a longstanding existing condition. It's not worsening and based on the aerial photos; the coverage has been this way since 1979 and can continue this way for perpetuity. • It's been there for 46 years and can continue this way forever. • In conclusion, the application is simply to expand vertically what's there now. It's not going outward, it's going upward. • No height relief is required, no use relief is required, no density relief is required, no parking relief is required. In essence, this is going to give this building a nice facelift. It's a longstanding building on Main Street. • It'll give it a fresh new look that will complement the positive change with good sensitivity to the area. • McDonough believes the statutory tests for all the relief are met and approval is warranted here. • Before