PB 25 09 Perez Minor Subdivision Draft Resolution

zoning ordinance regarding height, and side, rear yard setbacks, lot coverage but due to a request by the Board the front yard setback will match the existing house on Lot 58.02 of 16.7 feet and thus will require a variance. 12. The Applicant originally planned to conform to the front yard setback requirements of the zone for the new proposed dwelling on Lot 58.01; however, the Board preferred that parking for the proposed house be located in the rear of the property and further were of the opinion that matching the front yard setback of the new house on Lot 58.01 to the existing house on Lot 58.02 (16.71 feet) was a better fit with the neighborhood. 13. Applicant’s Planner, Matt Flynn, P.P. testified that there were many other properties on this street that were two-family (or even three-family and in one case four-family) on lots equal or smaller than proposed. 14. Applicant will satisfy the district parking requirements with rear yard parking in accordance with the conditions set forth below which will require that Applicant establish safe turning templates for both properties. 15. The front yard area of both lots, in the area where Applicant originally planned to have parking, must be maintained as green space (grass, landscaping etc.). 16. Applicant’s planner also testified that the proposed subdivision and development is supported by the case of Kaufman v. Planning Boad for Warren Tp, 110 N.J. 551 at 563 (1988) as the Court stated that “the focus of a c(2) case, …will not be on the characteristics of the land that, in light of the current zoning requirements, create a “hardship” on the owner warranting a relaxation of standards, but on the characteristics of the land that present an opportunity for improved zoning and planning that will benefit the community.”