Supporting Documentation · Jul 1, 2026
06192026_PB 26 01 15 Ridgeway Avenue Planning Review 2
1e217b0439659df72c66b8ce0256efc34ef0d967c719afcd1bd3885986da4797Indexed text · page 7
Show all pagesMemorandum Page 7 of 8 vi. The kitchenette was removed from the second-floor space above the garage for the structure on Lot 28.03. The previously labeled “living room” was renamed “new sitting room” in the same space. g. Subdivision Filing: Per the response letter dated April 21, 2026, it is noted that the subdivision is to be filed by deed. We recommend the legal description, meets and bounds and cross access easement for the driveway be approved by the Board Attorney as well as Board Engineer prior to filing. h. Inadequate Lot Width and Lot Frontage: As noted above, the Applicant requires variances for minimum lot width and minimum lot frontage. This is an existing non-conformity which is being exacerbated with the proposal to subdivide the lot into two lots. Additionally, although each of the lots do have minimal street frontage, it is important to reflect on the MLUL requirement N.J.S. 40:55D:35. Per this requirement, ”no permit for erection of any building or structure shall be issued unless the lot abuts a street giving access to such proposed building and structures.” As noted above, in this case, each of the lots have minimal street frontage on Ridgeway Ave, so technically this condition is met. However, it is important to understand the basis of this requirement. Typically flag lots are not ideal lot arrangements due to the lack of adequate access for firefighting equipment, ambulances or other emergency vehicles necessary for protection of the health and safety of the site as well as neighboring lots. The proposed dwellings are setback from Ridgeway Avenue by the driveway “stem” that is approximately 280 feet to proposed Lot 28.03 and approximately 420 feet to proposed Lot 28.04. This raises security concerns for access by emergency services. 7. Statutory Criteria The applicant requires relief for six (6) “c” variances for this application. 1. The applicant shall provide testimony that demonstrates how the request for relief may be granted based on one of the standards provided in the MLUL at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c. It is the applicant’s responsibility to bear the burden of proof. 2. In order to satisfy the positive and negative criteria for each c variance enumerated above, the applicant should provide testimony that satisfies either the c(1) hardship criterion or c(2) flexible criterion as set forth in the MLUL. a. Positive criteria: There are two
ance enumerated above, the applicant should provide testimony that satisfies either the c(1) hardship criterion or c(2) flexible criterion as set forth in the MLUL. a. Positive criteria: There are two types of c variances - the c(1) hardship and the c(2) flexible variance.
File revisions (1)
- Sep 29, 2026
1e217b043965429,153 bytes