Plg Dir Memo Dated 7 15 22

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER www.westorange.org 3 A driveway will be located in front of the dwelling providing access to the garage. A patio is proposed in the rear yard. The applicant has modified its plans from the original submittal based on discussion at the May 19, 2022 Zoning Board meeting. Notable changes include: reducing the maximum retaining wall height to 5 feet, 6 inches; proposing a modular block retaining wall instead of poured concrete; adding a landscape plan; providing a cellar plan; and recalculating the living space of the house. The retaining wall at the rear of the property has also been moved a few feet further away from the rear lot line to allow for additional plantings in this area. DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS The subject property is located in the R-6 Residential zone district, in which the proposed use is permitted. However, certain variances from bulk standards and other regulations are required. There are also some existing nonconforming conditions that will not change, notably for minimum lot area and minimum lot width. The Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) at N.J.S.A 40:55D-70c sets forth the statutory criteria for variances from the bulk regulations of a zoning ordinance and other zoning deviations that do not require a “d” variance. A “c(1)" variance is for cases of hardship due to factors such as shape or topography, or due to “an extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structures lawfully existing thereon.” A “c(2)” variance may be granted where the purposes of zoning are advanced and the benefits of deviating from the ordinance requirements outweigh any detriments. The benefits derived from granting a “c(2)” variance must include benefits to the community as a whole, not just the applicant or property owner. A “c” variance applicant also must address the “negative criteria,” and affirmatively demonstrate that the variance can be granted “without substantial detriment to the public good” and “without substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance” of the municipality. The applicant’s planner should provide testimony as to how the above variance proofs are addressed. The requested variances all relate to the topography of the property and/or the existing undersized lot area. Testimony must be provided regarding the potential impacts

variance proofs are addressed. The requested variances all relate to the topography of the property and/or the existing undersized lot area. Testimony must be provided regarding the potential impacts of development on steep slopes and proposed mitigation measures. It is not clear from the The applicant has submitted revised plans showing the exact number and size of trees that are being removed, and whether any the replacement trees are proposed. The applicant must submit a tree removal application and plan. Eight major trees and two minor trees will be removed, and will be replaced by two October Glory Red Maple trees, six American Arborvitae and two Flowering Dogwood trees. It is noted a “major tree” is