PB 24 01 West Essex Highlands Inc Draft Resolution

88. Mr. McDonough testified that the Application meets all the ADA and Electric Vehicle standards and conforms with the applicable DEP regulations. The project meets all the bulk standards for the zone with the exception of one minor bulk variance for exposure of building foundation walls and two RSIS exceptions. 89. With respect to the c variance relief regarding the foundation exposure, Mr. McDonough testified that they requested more than 50% exposure of the foundation so as to minimize disturbance on the property. The need for the variance is due to the terrain of the property and thus satisfies the c1 criteria. The foundation exposure is mitigated by landscaping with foundation plants and live plant screens. 90. The Applicant’s expert planner also testified that the variance for the foundation exposure may also be granted on the basis of c2 criteria because the benefits of providing affordable housing and the public need for economically suitable housing outweighs the relatively modest design exception. Additionally, the design as proposed will promote more efficient use of land and economy of scale while also preserving 90% of the woodlands adjacent to the buildings. 91. Mr. McDonough made note of the applicability of the case Pizzo Mantin Group v. Township of Randolph, 137 N.J. 26 (1994) which states that when an application for sub division or site plan meets all requirements of the subdivision or site plan and zoning ordinances, the Applicant is generally entitled to approval and a denial must be based on specific failures to meet the stated ordinance standards. 92. The requested variance for the foundation exposure could be avoided if the Applicant did more extensive excavation but as suggested by Mr. McDonough, the Board finds