Ltr Chandler enc report and application Rider 102725

Valley Way, so the existing mixed-use building, being a blend of that which is prevalent in the area, does not stand out in the context of the area. The expansion of the existing building does not trigger substantial new variance relief, essentially taking advantage of the existing development on the property. Further, the majority of the proposed addition will be located in the rear of the existing building, which mitigates the visual impact of the addition from the street. Planning Justifications for Relief — D-5 Density Variance Legal basis for relief The statutory test for evaluation of density variance relief pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D- 70.d.(5) is established by the court case Randolph Town Center Assoc. v. Twp of Randolph, 324 N.J. Super. 412 (App. Div. 1999). The essence of the test is whether the site can accommodate the additional density. In this case, the permitted density in the zone would yield 2.7 units, while the application proposes 3 units. The additional 0.3 units over what is permitted can be accommodated on the property without detriment by virtue of the units being contained within a building footprint that represents about half of the allowable building coverage in the zone. In other words, the additional 0.3 units does not result in an oversized or obtrusive building. For these reasons, the negative criteria is satisfied for grant of D-5 density relief. The “special reasons” applied to the D- 2 variance carry forth to the D-5 variance, as they relate to the benefits flowing from the project taken as a whole, thereby satisfying the positive criteria. Planning Justifications for Relief —‘C’ Variance Legal basis for relief The requested ‘C’ bulk variance relief can be granted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70.c.(2), whereby the benefits of the application taken as a whole substantially outweigh any detriments. All of the “special reasons”, or positive criteria, from the D-2 variance carry forth to the ‘C’ bulk relief — all bulk relief is necessary to effectuate this overall beneficial project. In terms of the negative criteria, none of the relief will result in a substantially detrimental impact to the zone plan or the public. All of the ‘C’ variances are de minimis in nature and will not be perceived as deviations from the zone plan. The front setback variance is the result of decreasing the existing front setback by only 0.7 feet,

e ‘C’ variances are de minimis in nature and will not be perceived as deviations from the zone plan. The front setback variance is the result of decreasing the existing front setback by only 0.7 feet, bringing it from 14.37 to 14.30. Likewise, the lot coverage variance is the result of increasing the existing lot coverage by only 0.43%, bringing the total from 68.64% to 69.07%. The proposed building height is only 0.67 feet above the permitted maximum and the proposed number of parking spaces is only 1 space short of the minimum. From a public impact standpoint, the proposal is working with an existing development rather than introducing something brand new. Importantly, despite the fact that the building addition is in the rear of the John McDonough Associates e Land Use Planning e Landscape Architecture Page 6 of 7