26 02 09 Perez Whittlesey CME Planning Review 2

West Orange Zoning Board February 9, 2026 Re: 66 Whittlesey Avenue Our File No. 115.WRZ0129.V01 Planning Review #2 Page 6 H:\Legacy\Howell-FS1\SEC\West Orange\Zoning Board\115.WRZ0129.V01 - 66 Whittlesey Ave (Perez)\Review Phase\CME & Board Prof Review Reports & Correspondence\26-01-22 Whittlesey - CME Planning Review 1.docx 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. e. In the case of any d-1 use variance, the bulk standards that have been adopted for the particular district, in this case those of the R-T district, were not intended for uses other than those that are considered permitted uses. The standards of the R-T district are not intended to apply to multi-family dwellings. In these cases, bulk variances related to specific requirements of the R-T district can be considered subsumed within the Board’s consideration of the use variance. The Zoning Board can at its reasonable discretion determine appropriate bulk standards such as building setbacks and buffering requirements. f. The applicant should provide testimony addressing the deficiency of parking spaces. It should be noted that per § 25-12.2(a)(4), subject to the Zoning Board’s Discretion, where on-street parking is available, a portion of the off-street parking requirement shall be reduced by the number of available on-street parking spaces, with each on-street space calculated at a standard length of 23 feet. g. The applicant should address access to the parking spaces in the rear. It is not clear that there is sufficient maneuvering space for larger vehicles to navigate into some of the parking spaces, in particular the space at the eastern edge of the property. h. It appears that the proposed steps to the new structure will encroach into the ROW. Any encroachment into the ROW would require approval by the Township Council, and the Zoning Board cannot grant permission for such an encroachment. We recommend that the steps be angled so that they are perpendicular to the house and they can be located entirely on the property. i. The

oning Board cannot grant permission for such an encroachment. We recommend that the steps be angled so that they are perpendicular to the house and they can be located entirely on the property. i. The applicant should provide clarification regarding the height and number of stories of the principal and accessory structures. The application materials indicate the proposed structure as 2.5 stories, but it appears that the majority of the 3rd level underneath the gambrel roof would be tall enough to be considered a third story rather than a half story. j. The applicant should address the design standards for buildings in the residential districts found in §25-9.7 of the Township code. The general intent of these design standards is to avoid excessive repetition and duplication in residential design. k. No landscaping plans have been provided. We recommend that additional landscaping in the form of shrubs and/or ornamental trees be provided in the side yard between the addition and the adjacent residence.