Planning Report 072225 submission

4 the facility. Additionally, the application requires C-2 variance relief due to impervious coverage, and for not meeting the minimum required parking spaces for a motor vehicle service station. It is also important to acknowledge a pre-existing non conformity for the drive aisle setback, and a design waiver from parking area illumination requirements. • The Township does not permit automotive service facilities within the B-2 zone, whereas the applicant proposes an automotive service facility. • The maximum permitted impervious coverage for the B-2 zone is 60% (19,270 SF), whereas the applicant proposes an impervious coverage of 64.7% (20,770 SF). • The Township requires 5 parking spaces, plus 2 for each service bay and 1 for each 200 square feet of gross floor area of retail space for motor vehicle fueling station or motor vehicle service station, for a total of 26 parking spaces (5 spaces + 2 spaces * 8 loading bays = 21, plus 900 SF of retail space / 200 SF of retail space = 4.5 spaces. 21 spaces plus 4.5 spaces = 25.5 spaces rounded up to 26. Whereas, the applicant proposes 19 total parking spaces. • The minimum drive aisle side yard setback required is 5 feet, whereas the drive aisle setback that is existing on site is 0 FT, therefore this is a pre-existing non- conformity. • The minimum illumination level for parking areas shall be 2.0 footcandles, whereas, the applicant proposes a minimum footcandle of less than 2.0 in some areas throughout the parking spaces. VII. Justifications for Relief The Zoning Board of Adjustment has the particular power to grant a D-1 use variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(1), to permit a use that is not already permitted within a specific zone in “particular cases and for special reasons". These “special reasons” form the basis of the positive criteria, typically advancing one or more purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). Under the standard established in Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (1987), the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed use promotes the general welfare by advancing one or more of the purposes of the MLUL, and that the property is particularly suited for the proposed use. Given that the use is not permitted by the ordinance, the applicant must also reconcile the ordinance’s omission of the use either by offering insight into why the governing body may not have contemplated or

hat the use is not permitted by the ordinance, the applicant must also reconcile the ordinance’s omission of the use either by offering insight into why the governing body may not have contemplated or permitted such a use in the zone, or by explaining how the proposed use is appropriate given the site-specific context and planning objectives. In addition to the positive criteria, the applicant must satisfy the negative criteria, showing that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the