5 7 25 WO PB Draft Minutes

4 surrounding areas consists of large two and a half story structures, many of which are raised above the ground level. • There are also three story buildings directly across the street. • Mr. McDonough also offered testimony that the project fully complies with the use requirements of the zone and substantially complies with the requirements such as height, parking, et cetera. • Mr. McDonough also offered some testimony regarding the relief for the rear yard setback and coverage, both of which are pre-existing conditions that constitute a hardship under the flexible C variance and the Hawrylo case. • Mr. McDonough offered some testimony regarding the purposes of zoning under the MLUL, which are advanced by this application. Purpose A in which the general welfare is advanced by renovating, repurposing, revitalizing a longstanding familiar building. It'll add new housing for people to live in and new businesses for people to shop at, work at, et cetera. • They would promote Purpose G, which is a promotion of various variety of uses in appropriate locations because the site is a civic center. He testified that it's good planning to concentrate people in the downtown setting with easy access to civic and public amenities. • Purpose I, the promotion of a desirable visual environment because the project delivers a fresh new renovated building as opposed to a dilapidated building and it complements the area. It does go with the building that's directly across the street, the three-story building. • He also discussed Purpose M, the promotion of efficient use of land and that's what this project is doing. They're adapting the existing use. They're reusing the property, renovating and altering it, which is really the central purpose of planning. • Mr. McDonough also testified as to alternate uses that are permitted in the zone that would be less desirable, such as a bar or something of that sort, which they find would be more disruptive to the area. So the applicant is proposing something that's much less intensive. • In connection with the detriments, Mr. McDonough offered testimony that he didn't believe there were any, because the relief that's being sought is not causing any detriments. • They're upgrading the building and it's improving the relationships on Main Street and the homes that surround it. • The added story does not require height variance. It's in

causing any detriments. • They're upgrading the building and it's improving the relationships on Main Street and the homes that surround it. • The added story does not require height variance. It's in line with the buildings that are surrounding it. • The departure from what is contemplated and permitted in this zone is not substantial. His testimony was that the site is sunken down in relation to the adjoining residential uses, and everything kind of slopes down in that area. • There are quite a few existing trees that go up into the area where this third store would be, which is going to provide that additional natural buffer. • In summary, the flexible C variance relief is appropriate, because the benefits of this proposed project as a whole substantially outweigh the detriments. • They did have some concerns from adjoining property owners and from the board, questioning the privacy on the adjoining properties and aesthetics. Mr. McDonough and Mr. Peist are here tonight to answer any questions in connection with the aesthetic concerns. • In terms of privacy, Mr. Zeberl spoke to his client. They're willing to agree to a condition of approval on that third story where they would put in the privacy film on the window so that'll further mitigate these concerns that have been raised by neighbors.