25 11 14 Pardo CME Planning Review 1

West Orange Zoning Board November 14, 2025 Re: 104 Winding Way – Pardo Development Our File No. 115.WRZ0046.V01 CME Planning Review #1 Page 4 S:\West Orange\Zoning Board\115.WRZ0046.V01 - Pardo Development Group, Inc. (104 Winding Way)\25-11-14 Pardo - CME Planning Review 1.docx attempts or consideration that has been made to develop the site with a single-family home while minimizing the removal of trees and disturbance to steep slope areas. c. The application as proposed will also require several bulk or ‘c’ variances. The applicant must satisfy both the positive and negative criteria for each of these variances as well: i. Positive Criteria: The applicant must show that either there is an undue hardship (practical difficulty) in strictly conforming to the code that is caused by the unique conditions of the property (c-1 hardship), or that the proposed conditions represent a preferable alternative to conforming to the standards of the code, that the purposes of zoning will be advanced, and that the benefits of the deviation would outweigh any detrimental impacts (c-2 flexible). ii. Negative Criteria: The applicant must show that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan. d. Although the variance required for insufficient lot area is an existing non-conforming condition, we note that there is case law (Dallmeyer v Lacey Township) that suggests that before establishing a hardship for an insufficient lot area, it is permissible for a Board to consider whether or not there have been any attempts by the property owner to bring the lot into or closer to conformance through acquisition of additional property. The applicant should address whether any attempts have been made to acquire additional lands adjoining this property. We note that the lands immediately north of the property (Block 160, Lot 10) are vacant, and a part of the much larger parcel that contains the golf course. e. The resolution of the Board denying a similar variance application in 2005 does indicate that at the time, the property was unable to obtain any additional lands to expand the property. f. The applicant shall provide testimony addressing the tree replacement requirements of the Township code at §28-8. We note that payment in lieu of planting is permitted. We defer any further

operty. f. The applicant shall provide testimony addressing the tree replacement requirements of the Township code at §28-8. We note that payment in lieu of planting is permitted. We defer any further comment on tree removal and replacement to the Township Forester. g. We defer any comment on grading, drainage, utilities, and stormwater management to the Board Engineer. h. The applicant should address the status of any necessary outside agency approvals.