her get dis call the glass rooll Zoning Board of adjustment regular business meeting for March 21st 2024 to order please uh read the opening statement pursu to the open public meetings act I hereby announce that adquate notice of this meeting as required by set act has been provided by adopting a schedule of regular monthly meetings for the year 2024 which schedule was posted on the bur Hall Bolton board mail to the South Jersey Times and fil with the bur clerk all rise for salute to the flag I pled Ali to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liy and justice for all can we have the roll call please Mr Mone here Mr Alice here Mr Harvey pres Mr Smith pres Mr perner Pres Miss Wyman here Mr Lopez present Miss laery present Mr casabon here Mr Cowan here and let the uh record reflect that Miss tamola and Mr santor have been excused for tonight okay mcel can you swear on our professionals please well indeed I will and uh gentlemen I ask each of you to raise your right hand and do each of you swear or affirm testimony about to give his true and correct the best your knowledge information believe yes I do great well thank you fell all right everybody has a copy of the minutes do I have a motion to approve the minutes a motion approve the next second all in favor I oppos so be it all right we have the bills everybody had a chance to take a look at them you have a motion to pay the bills motion to pay the bills second all in favor I oppos so be it we have any incoming or outcoming of Correspondence anything in particular um I did give you a list of those it was just a couple things some review letters and one of the uh Glaser mayor and Council the resolution that they passed for independent fight to um revoke that use variance all right before we start are there any comments from the public that is not about what is on the agenda for this evening nope good all right we have two postponements ZB 23-14 Kentucky app and DB 23-16 Carmen s they're going to be postponed to the next meeting well if I may Mr chair um on the ins piece my understanding is and um Miss faner will confirm it if I'm wrong that they did get out their 200 foot list notices in a timely and proper fashion but failed to have it in a newspaper at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date so accordingly there will be a public notice in the newspaper at least 10 days in advance of the April 18 meeting but no further notices pursuant to the 200 foot list so if you're here on that Carmen and Santa anybody here on that application okay well no one responded if you were you'd be back here on April 18th at 7 o'clock to be heard if you so desire thanks Mr chair all right thanks all right ZB 23-13 South Jersey Investments LLC 309 North delsa Drive Block 14 Lot 19 it's a super4 Zone you're looking for a use and bulk Varian to approve a two-story addition expansion of a non-conforming good evening uh ladies and gentlemen of the board my name is Bill cats and I represent South Jersey Investments LLC uh the principles of South Jersey investment uh unfortunately could not be here this evening Mr dumbrowski had a medical procedure that he had had scheduled for many months uh and for health reasons could not uh reschedule that further we had attempted to be on some prior meetings and for various reasons uh we're here tonight so he sends his apologies uh he asked me to read a brief statement uh I will give my uh my statement and then I will uh quickly go through his statement and cut through the Mr cats forgive me John Al the solicor and and I am so sorry to hear that about Mr dski I'm sure he'll he'll pull through and be fine I know Mr Brown is a very competent capable engineer but I don't know him to be a planner do you have a professional planner here we have Mr Mr Brown who is our engineer who stamped the plans that are before the board you're here for useage we are correct it's your application all right M man are are you also applying no I'm not okay we will we will proceed and okay fair enough sure so uh our application seeks a use variance to expand a prior non-conforming use this home has been a a single family residents that had a a ground floor professional office for many years uh the applicant is seeking to expand and that use to fill a niche in the market which we do not believe is filled which we believe will uh create a positive benefit for the community namely uh we are intending to uh provide graduate student housing so uh I don't know if you have the architectural plans for the home if you only have the the the site plan uh the architectural plan show clearly that this home has been designed to uh not allow for any large meeting spaces which would be conducive to large Gatherings that would be of a nuisance use uh the notion here is we're going to be renting to a group of of graduate students under a single lease as and therefore as a single housekeeping unit uh for folks who are looking to uh live close to campus but who can't afford the one and two-bedroom apartments in the area which are $14 $1,500 a month uh the rate for uh space in this unit when you average that amongst the residents will be500 600 $700 a month which uh is within the means of uh graduate students so that's the the the main goal of this uh to provide uh housing for an unmet need in the community um I have with me Mr Brown uh our engineer who uh prepared the plans and he's prepared to uh testify as to uh the uh positive and negative criteria that will establish that variant relief is warranted and so at this time i' call Mr Brown right but he um submitted as far as I know a use Varian plan not a site plan correct you said site plan a bit I say site plan I apologize that was a well it was kind of a big difference right because one of the I think both review letters call out the fact that what you're really asking for is a use Vari use variance contingent on site plan approval you are absolutely correct and I apologize if I if I miss all right but of course we are we are seeking uh variances before the board and should you uh approve our application we will of course proceed to seek a site plan before the the planning I got you okay Mr Brown yes well Mr Brown I could uh testify on my own that he's an excellent engineer he's well know I don't know if he's have you been before the board Scott uh before yes okay so then he's known to the board and we accept them as a professional engineer not a professional planner but profession you're also a licensed surveyor in the state of New Jersey yes I am okay okay uh so Mr uh Brown would you please uh take us through uh your understanding of the relief being saw here this evening sure just explain the site this is the site it's at 309 is um lot 14 is slot 19 and and so Mr Brown we have to do that formality so I going to ask you to raise your right hand and do you swear or firm testimony about to give us true and corrected best knowledge information believe yes all right great well thank you Mr Brown okay so this is a 8817 ft lot it's 59 7 6 ft wide and it averages about 147.5 ft he okay this Lots in the C4 Highway Automotive Zone um where residential house is not permitted in this Zone uh contains two story frame dwelling with basement U dwellings 1195 squ ft in footprint uh it's got a pave drive it's got a parking lot in the back and there's an existing shed here what we're proposing is a 2 and half story addition and that's to match to the roof height of the existing building removing the front porch of the building we're also removing Paving along the side of the addition and we're be reming some Paving and shed there in the southwesterly corner there's a total of uh eight parking spaces that are on the site now okay and can you just just so we're all clear on this can you explain why uh we're seeking the height variance is that because we're there's going to be any use in that additional space or is it merely to avoid uh for architectural purposes having a a Frankenstein uh building so to speak yes that that's that's right this is a 30 foot high building it's 20 ft in this zone for the height but put a 20 foot high addition or the building it's just not going to look real good it's going to look very awkward so it's been designed to match actually the roof elevation of the existing building okay and in terms of the parking what is the uh requirement given that this uh home is being used uh as a detached dwelling with a single housekeeping unit well in the ordinance it's it's two parking spaces and uh how many are being provided eight okay uh would you take us through your your view on uh whether or not uh the positive and negative criteria for variance relief are met by this application sure well what I can do is I can go through the variances that we have listed on the plan okay please do okay so there are two C1 variances there three C2 variances the three D2 variances one D6 variance and one D4 variants now somebody use o overlap so I'm going to have to explain you know how this how these are related um far as the C1 variances there's a minimum lot depth of um 150 ft um minimum lot depth here on the one side is required uh this two is an existing non-conforming condition and it's a hardship case you know based on an existing location of the structure there's a D2 variance that's required for this uh this is the main uh use variance and that's for the expansion of an existing nonconforming use so the building was primarily used as a residence for the home office uh the proposed addition expands the residential use while eliminating the home home office use uh the attended P purpose of the existing structure and the addition is for the housing of The Graduate students so getting to the C2 variances and some of the D variances the first C2 variance is the aggregate sidey yard setback um was 30 ft as required for the two side yards the existing 26.3 uh the proposed addition will decrease this by 22 to 22.1 Ft uh should be noted that the addition will be entirely within the side setback lines so the T C2 variance is ESS essentially the result of the proximity of the existing billing to the southerly line um this will be duplicated under the D2 variance which says the exact same thing so this variance is part of the expansion of the non-conform existing use second C2 variance is the maximum building coverage of building coverage is being increased to 17.8% where 15% is allowed this is a difference of 247 square feet over the allowable area um like to note that we're also decreasing the amount of Paving as on the site by 1742 Square ft so that's a total reduction impervious area 1495 that's the Shaded area over here where you're eliminating that's where we're eliminating the paving yes so overall this is going to decrease the storm water run off from the site while also adding some grass covered to mostly impervious lot as with the first C2 variants this is duplicated by the D2 variants that should be combined with the expansion of the M for use third C2 Varian is an expansion of the floor area ratio 0 2 was allowed where 0505 is proposed um this expansion of the floor area ratio is really necessary for this application because the existing floor area ratio for the for existing building is 206 um there's a need for affordable graduate student housing near the campus in addition to the existing building is what makes it possible to provide this this also overlaps with the d4 variant which is the same exact thing Al the D6 variant the D6 Varian is for the for the building height as we already mentioned the height is 30 feet or 20 ft is allowed the existing building is 30 feet high so in addition that's 20 fo High really wouldn't look very good on the building so just to make aesthetically more pleasing um we going to match the match the existing roof line so under the positive and negative criteria there must be at least two special reasons for granting a youth experience the first and most important positive criteria is that there's a need for affordable graduate student housing within a reasonable distance from the campus so the purpose this project will allow the graduate student to afford a place to stay and be within a quarter mile of the campus which is certainly within walking distance um POG graduate students will not be in need of a car simply because of his Pro imity to the campus secondly this property be improved the match the primary use and will be aesthetically more attractive than it than it is in its existing condition thirdly for those graduate students who will walk or bike to campus um there are walkways available to get the ran buildings which is Safer travel than you know having the bike from somewhere across town let me just stop here one second is that is this used as a uh a single family residence consistent with other uses in in the neighborhood yes okay what's the next door neighbor uh property being used for is that also residential that is also residential this site right here there's also some residentials down here there some across there so that that gets us to the negative here so first is that this is a residential use as exist U it's very small lot it's not well suited for most retail facilities it's definitely not suited for automotive repair so the property directly to the north that we mentioned is is residential use as there are other buildings along Dela drive so this is not going to change the character of the neighborhood in any way uh the addition will probably not even be noticed driving by uh because it will be in the rear of the building plus it'll be an integrated part of the building so it's not going to look like something that was added or um secondly though the Carter along dely Drive is own Way Automotive it really seems as though the ordinance should have left the residential um left residential as a permitted or at least a conditional use in this area I several buildings in this zone are already used for this purpose so just a sum it out therefore it's just my opinion and belief that the application presents no detriment to the public good and it's a positive for the community as a whole and are all those opiniones you just offered delivered to a reasonable degree of professional certainty excuse me are all the opinions you just rendered to the board made to a reasonable degree of professional certainty yes and with that I will just very briefly read uh Mr dombrowski's statement to the board which will just give a little bit of history of this application ladies and gentlemen of the board I slow down he's not here to testify can't I'm merely being you want to tell us something you can make a representation you can paraphrase what he says sure that's that's not a problem fair enough this application has been a long time coming uh we've been before the uh plan Review Committee we've taken the plan review committee's comments we've attempted to incorporate them uh where feasible um and the the long story short is that uh the adjoining property is a residential property owned by an Affiliated entity uh their uh one-bedroom apartments Studios being rented at $4 $1,500 a month uh there's been a lot of interest expressed by graduate students uh whove simply said they can't afford uh those spaces and so the applicant believed there was a unmet niche in the market and he's gone to Great length to ensure that his program is not going to be a nuisance there are certainly uh many uh homes in the area that have recently been expanded or redeveloped that have catered towards an undergraduate Marketplace which has you know obviously some issues which are less desirable uh this applicant has no interest or desire to bring in that type of tenant uh the turnover the damage to the space just not what he's looking for so as I mentioned earlier a great effort has been made to ensure that the design for this building is not conducive to a use that is going to be problematic to the community there are no large meeting spaces in the building uh there are bedrooms study spaces and very confined meeting uh spaces such that you know no one looking to to have large parties a deao frat house this house is not going to be for them uh really all this application does is ensure that uh graduate students will be able to afford housing near campus and for those reasons we think it should be granted thank you very much any questions of the board before I turn it over to the question I got a question you keep talking about there's a need did you perform some type of study to to tell us there's a need by graduate students or that that's you guys just making an assumption there's a need you seem to be hanging your hat on that what studies have you done sure so we have not done a formal study it's it's certainly anecdotal but my client has been approached by groups of graduate students looking for space he hasn't able been able to provide that to them and they've indicated no one else has it available to them within walking distance of of the campus and so that's why he believed that there was a need for that based upon that Annex at evence but no we certainly how about any empirical evidence as far as studies done by Glassboro or other economic you know growth uh organization whether it be governmental or private or anything we we we have not again it is all based upon anotal evidence I don't think it's strictly relevant to the the standard before the board I'm merely pointing out that that is the intended use of the property for this purpose which your part of your business plan right I mean of course absolutely correct correct I also will briefly address one other issue which Mr Brown did mention which is not strictly before the board but I do just want to kind of get ahead of there is an issue with the the width of the the the curb cut I don't think Mr Brown addressed that um the width of the curve cut is identical to uh all of the properties as you go up and down the road the next door property actually has a shared parking arrangement with a commercial use two doors down has significantly greater uh parking on the site and it's able to be accessed without issue through the existing curve cut and therefore we believe this is also viable and just want to mention that uh in past Mr cats I have a question for you are the leases for these uh units are they going to be restricted to graduate students Only We Do we are certainly open to considering uh any reasonable restrictions that the board wishes to impose on the application the intention of the applicant is to lease it to uh graduate students perhaps you know seniors but certainly not younger groups of students it's going to be a single lease so the answer is the applicant be willing to agree to that they would be willing to agree to to reasonable restrictions yes no that restriction grad students only here at the end I I do not have specific authority to what you just been spending the last 20 minutes talking about it's not discrimin I yes that that you're going to fall under discrimination because you're just going to be for grad students can't do that we are we there so there's that I don't believe that's a a protected class necessar yeah that's not a protected class uh but uh as a pragmatic matter uh my client has no intention no as a land use matter because you're here in front of the zva understood understood of course of of of course and I I I appreciate the the the Zeal so the the the the the bottom line is I do not have specific Authority to agree to that particular restriction I can tell you that my client that is his intention that is based upon experience operating similar properties there is no guarantee that it would just be graduate students not to a general public and you're offering lower rents so therefore what your presentation is based on that that you kept on saying it was graduate students that's not in fact what is reality corre that is certainly the intention of the of the applicant and if that is a condition which the board wishes to impose uh and that would allow the application to be granted I I suspect my client would would be happy to live with that that is simply not something that uh has been I've been specifically authorized to agree to so I have another question for you regarding the parking yeah so is the parking the eight parking spaces are they currently impervious or will they be impervious you you stated that you're going to be removing the impervious side yard sure so this area over here is where the uh impervious uh is being removed and the parking spots are noted here and they will all be imp Pur so the parking spots are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and they'll consist of what they're existing they're existing uh it's existing pave it's an existing pave lot we're removing over here there's some additional Paving which we're moving and we're going to plant some grass uh in this area which is not part of the parking field okay so you're going to stripe them correct there will be there will be stripe parking uh in this area here one two three four and then another one two three four over there thank you only your parking spots be handicapped yeah do you have Ada well they're going to have to be what whatever whatever is required by the planning board we will by by the federal laws will be submitted to site plan yes correct this is you got used variance approval Mr Brown knows how to do a site plan and it would it would remark about uh correct we will address all of those issues at the appropriate Junction Mr casan sure thank you Mr chairman I just wanted to point so I issued two review letters I issued one letter then the applicant changed her application around a little bit which addressed bet maybe about half the comments so I'm just going to touch on the things that are outstanding and maybe ask the applicant team a few questions um I did want to make mention of one the architectural plans there are 14 bedrooms that we heard um there is a a that's what listed you know bedrooms one through 14 there is um an attic type space that has three additional rooms which are labeled as I don't Rec exact things but a game room a lounge room and something else like that that do share um or have some of the trays of the bedroom private doors um closet window sometimes the ceiling in some of the room the ceiling Heights are completely 8ot ceilings but I just wanted to ask with in light of those three additional rooms you know is the applicant planning to control the the use of those rooms possibly as bedrooms yes those rooms will not be used as bedrooms I I I thought you were I didn't mean to cut out but if you were if you were finished yes those rooms will not be used as bedrooms and we uh more than willing to accept any restrictions preventing them from being used as bedrooms no that was not the intention of the application that was intended to be a small study space essentially okay but there are three additional rooms up up there that that would need to be monitored you know as part of some somehow by the applicant um and as far as the I kind of wanted to touch on two things that once the parking and then the driveway width and the the key thing about the driveway width it would be it's like a it's not a commercial driveway it's a regular residential house driveway that's you know just driveway with white and how how was between eight parking spaces for 14 bedrooms in a regular res residential driveway where this is not a residence how what what's the site suitability how is that suitable for you know the use you're you're proposing sure so we believe this use under the definition of of detached dwelling is a effectively a single family residence and that is how it's being used by a single a single housekeeping unit but pragmatically again as I mentioned the property next door as an identical with driveway as do the properties up and down the street many of which do have actual commercial uses and our belief is that based upon the intended use and the proximity to campus we will not be dealing with a situation where uh all of the occupants will be uh using motor vehicles and my client's experience uh operating uh other uh Residential Properties in adjoining areas and near other university campuses has been consistent that uh this population simply cannot not afford do not wish to own a car they live close to campus so they don't need the car and so uh we believe that the parking that has been provided is adequate for the intended use and that given the schedules that there's not going to be like a commercial use a lot of In-N-Out traffic that would cause an issue and therefore we believe the existing curve cut is is adequate for the use well that was that's just unsubstantiated you know just that's I mean there's no basis for that you're just and you're welcome to say whatever you like but you you know you know what I'm sorry go ahead forgive yeah I would I would just close out that those were the two things I wanted to hit the site suitability I don't have a um there's no traffic study for this which would be typical for a size for a project of this size but again I'm just coming back to the the you know the site suitability and the um um problems that may come with the driveway of that with especially getting in that is going to be very tough well I think Mr kasun in his review letter Mr chair members had talked about an enhancement to the driveway if relief was to be granted site plan and and that would address the potential concerns about Ingress and egress more more specifically the width would be 20 it's 122 ft now the width would be 20 ft for the ordinance for you know right for a multif family type house although we've heard it's a housekeeping unit single but you know functionally it's it's you know more than it's more than a housekeeping unit can I ask just another question sure so I realized that you're saying that the residential own requires the two parking spaces but a boarding house which this is in essence is requires one per border this is not by definition a boarding house this is a detached dwelling that is going to be occupied under a single lease and therefore by a single housekeeping unit we've provided forign access of the required parking in an attempt to address the concerns it's not a boarding house that's that room and and I would be happy to have Mr Mr Brown who I believe is is is competent test whole body of case law on that and I think it came out of glass Barrow in fact it in fact it did there was also a similar case out of Cherryville and I can also Mr Brown briefly addressed the the curb cut issue if you guys would wish to hear some additional testimony on the issue he he certainly has opinions on on the adequacy of the curve cut correct Mr R yes the curve cut it's about 15 ft wide at this point um one of the issues we have with the Curve cut is there's there's an inlet that's right next to it B Inlet can't really expand it in that direction um there's a pole that's pretty close to it on the other side that's also in front of the adjacent property expanding the the driveway over here is really going to make it kind very award turn in there if you're not going to go over the over the property line on the other side so in other words that's a constraint unique to the site as based upon other conditions outside of the site not created by the applicant that include widening the curb any further given the two conditions you just at that point because you're widening it over on the property next door okay and could you also just describe the the width of the curve cuts on the adjoining properties as you come down DC drive and the width of their curve Cuts yeah they're they about the same I don't have the exact inventions here but I mean just looking at it I mean they all seem to be the same probably put in the by state at one time so you this property next door just has the one single drive you know it has apartments and other things in the back and I think there's um commercial that's the All State Insurance office the All State over here regular vehicular traffic to your understanding yeah so that in in out so I mean they're using this this now so that's the same thing believe in right next to it so you know the curb cuts are pretty much the same all the way down the street as far so are you Mr Brown are you saying that the the glass br's ordinance is unreasonable or unreasonable is unreasonable to to want a a larger apron um I'm not saying it's unreasonable but also we have to consider the width of the driveway because even with a larger curb cut we don't have the width for the driveway here yeah but that's that's that that's a situational or a site issue but the pole is not is not is not a situational issue or the nor the other issue you mentioned on the left correct those are unique features of the site itself that cannot be addressed correct they're not unique they're just a dimensional yeah I said if if we expand it we'd have to go towards the pole I don't know if we're going to get 20 feet out of it if we go towards the pole without moving the pole I certainly would be wider but again we'd be going over the property line um or here to make that turn and again we only have a certain width of the driveway so if goes to driveways only I mean we have a maximum of 16.6 ft to the property line here so even if we put it right up against the property line we still only have 16 1 12 ft or so so having a 20 foot wide curb cut it's not going to really matter all that much with the width of the driveway you're still going to have to pull in no you're making it clear right no I understand understand and and I'll note that we did go to Great length to explore Alternatives there was a a possibility of uh involving the adjoining property in a shared parking Arrangement a shared circulation Arrangement and ultimately none of those Alternatives Prov feasible for any number of reasons which are beyond the scope of the application but I I just do wish to note that significant time and effort was made to look into alternatives to address some of these issues and they simply were not feasible Mr call you haven't spoken yet yes thank you Mr chairman I um am referencing a review letter that we provided on dated February 12th 2024 um we Echo the comments made by the uh board engineer with respect to the question of adequacy of the parking um our office also recommends uh at least one parking per bedroom knowing that there's 14 bedrooms uh we would have been looking for 14 parking spaces um you've heard the testimony from the applicant with respect to the reasons why they feel that eight spaces are adequate well this office does not agree with that um the also the a I'd also like to hear some testimony please about why the front porch is being proposed to be removed why the what what thech oh front porch I'm sorry thank you proposed to be removed and uh well I'd like to hear some testimony Mr Brown could you address why why the front porch is being red um basically to make the building look better it's it's it's not a very aesthetically pleasing porch uh and we are essentially removing it for aesthetic concerns to beautify the neighbor that's the the primary concern and we're you I'm just maybe I'm missing I apologize where's the front door sure the front door is I'm going to pull out the uh the architectural where that be looks like right there where it has that sign that says main entrance and it's right by the 13939 points an AR 8.6 just for just for clarity real quick is this this EXA site the place has been like a tarot card reader and all that kind of stuff correct I'm just I know I roll by there ride by the SES me but I just want to make sure and you make a very good point which I I I neglected to raise so when my client purchased this property he purchased it from a prior uh occupant who used it as a law office and a home uh after purchasing the property uh not a whole lot of interest in it in its existing condition uh it was leased to a transient family they were uh Roma people uh more commonly known as as gypsies uh they frankly trashed the place we had to ultimately evict them uh and that was the Genesis for this application to beautify the property in a way that was economically viable uh so that we were not dealing with that situation any longer thank you for raising that I appreciate that uh and as far as the parking Spates uh there's another standard that Mr Brown you wish to reference which calls for just over eight spots uh for this can you explain that to the board if we look at the rsis parking requirements with this being a single family detached dwelling um for five bedro boms you would need three parking spaces um if we double that to 10 bedrooms we would need six or and U four bedrooms requireed another 2.5 so according to rsis standards we will need 8.5 parking spaces so based upon that Center we believe we're we're quite close to providing an adequate level of parking while also dealing with the the second me talking sorry talking about the parking you keep saying adequate and assumptions and those type of things grad students you are you going to restrict if the first eight Le's have cars do you going to say the rest can't have a car how do you know 15 potential grad students that may because you're making assumptions so I'll set could have jobs could have internships most time grad students do have a job could have girlfriends could have wives grad students you're making assumptions that you can't really control cuz you're going to tell us the Lisa is going to say well my name is David David sorry you're the ninth guy you got a car but you're out of luck so what the lease will say is that you may only Park in the lined parking spaces and the strip parking spaces but that doesn't answer my question you telling me the the ninth person with a car can't have their car they will you're going to keep that you're going to really restrict that that will be a that will be a constraint on the marketability of the property they're only eight parking spaces no one if there are a group of 14 people who come together to rent this house they will not be interested in renting this space if more than eight of them have cars because there's not going to be anywhere to put them because they will not be Mark spots and we will the lease will restrict to so you won't you won't have a plan if not people have a car we will certainly intend to enforce parking within only the mark spaces can we police the property 24 hours a day no but will does the landlord have other properties in the area does he have a property manager who regularly checks in on all of his properties in this area yes and will there be efforts to enforce the lease as written of course that's not that's that's just good for business yeah but it's you're making real bad assumptions and you you're looking I mean I can only speak for myself you're looking for me to to obviously side and be on the affirmative and you have you're making a whole lot of assumptions that you you know you pretty much know you can't you can't withhold uphold and you can't police it and I get I get that but that's just not reasonable the same thing with the party aspect I I mean sure a lot of us probably been in college I don't need to have inside to have a party I got a big parking lot that's the party space so you to me you're giving me a lot of assumptions that you you haven't studied you haven't gotten us you haven't even gone to row and asked them do they have a graduate student housing issue so you're making a lot of assumptions and don't want us to make any well me I can't speak for everybody else but this just doesn't seem reasonable you're not giving us clear-cut answers giving me a clear-cut answer sure and and and I will also note that you know obviously the the 14 uh bedroom is is an aspirational desire my my client is prepared to scale that back uh if that would uh meet with the board's desire to I have a quick question with the parking just like you said handicap going back to hand you have to have handicap so if you have eight parking spaces how many of those going to be to get sure so obviously we after should we clear the hurdle and and obtain the relief we're seeking before this board we'll have to go before the planning board where they will have a full some opportunity to consider those issues and if you know we will certainly comply with all obligations and provide whatever handicap parking is is required okay because I'm just saying even if you just have one it drops down to seven parking spaces now well the handicap spot takes like a space and a half and there there probably is Right room to there's likely room to squeeze in a bit more we can certainly you know this there's a little bit of room to play there on a couple areas to keep it at eight while also accommodating the handicap spot now I do have a question with the cars coming in and out U how is that enough space to have somebody come in on that apron and come out of the apron at the same time because depending on the size of the car coming in and out of this space let alone the 16 ft you know between the main entrance and the property line that you're showing right there by the main entrance then it gets smaller as it gets toward the depression going out to the street either make a right or a left now is there enough space for two cars that are going to be coming in and out because everybody has go to class different times sure come in and out different times so I don't have a a formal travel traffic study but I have been to the the site personally and I've been there with at least three cars there at the same time and circulation was not an issue with three cars trying to navigate in and out effectively at the same time I was I'm sorry about coming off in and off the street yeah understood and like I said I don't have a a formal traffic study to to give you anything definitive however I can say from anecdotal experience that I did not find circulation to be a problem as I was trying to come in as somebody else was was coming out I have a midsize sedan and the person was in F-150 pickup truck so do can I do I know the actual width of those Vehicles no but it it did not appear to be an issue and it was you know and what time of the day was that this was probably around 400 p.m. it would have been after I'm sorry what time of day is your uh plan Review Committee it was after the plan review committee meeting so I'm not I'm not aware that time so in the morning in the morning a 9:00 a.m. so we so that's after that's after school's already been put in the place kids are in glasses lot of the traffic is last at 4:00 that's 4:00 in the afternoon I drive by that spot every day to pick up my son from school and I usually take the cut off before Popeyes to get around that bottlenecking that happens there sure with those lights so just assuming somebody trying to come out of that spot to make a left they're never going to get out of there at that time I can I can just see that right now it's going to be a nightmare just for traffic itself alone so an issue that we had we had considered was just make it a right turn only out of out of the parking area which that yeah that that was something we we had talked about internally and that certainly in my view would be a reasonable condition Mr C you want to finish yes because I know you have a long list thank you Mr chairman sorry uh I'd like to get back to um one thing about the applicant testimony in terms of the use variants um proofs um I'm not sure that I heard uh what purposes of zoning from the municipal land use law are being um promoted in terms of this application sure and I I I thought there there was testimony from Mr Brown on that issue uh but but certainly this is a a a prior non-conforming use that's consistent with the character of the neighborhood and therefore continuing that use while also uh beautifying the neighborhood and making matters consistent with what is up and down the block is consistent with the the purpose of zoning this this is the highest in best use of this site as it has been for for decades and therefore we believe it's consistent and uh positive towards the the the purposes of the zoning I I wondered if perhaps you had um relied on any of the several purposes of the of the zoning under 4055 B-2 which is purposes a through o um I don't know if I heard anything specific to that but I would I also have a follow on question um um were any of those types of testimony provided tonight uh I believe that yes testimony that touched upon several of those were were were provided uh and can you select from the list of purposes just remind us is what Mr say that's we sure it's providing a benefit to the community I I don't have a citation letter but I'm reading from uh the the code oh oh providing a benefit to the community uh the uh word there will be no detriment to the public good um and and the uh purposes of the law is going to be Advanced by by our deviation in so far as this is a proper use for the site that will uh benefit the public at large while also beautifying the community thank you I was I was hoping or looking for you to specify which of the specific purposes they're in the municipal land law all right listen you don't have to grow just he's he's the attorney so he can you know he's not planner he's not going to give you testimony he's going to give you some representation and some you know reporte so well if I could Mr chairman I'd like to get back to the question of the front court for a moment sure also the idea that perhaps there would be some uh Landscaping done um If This Were to be approved in terms of getting that on the site plan um what I think I heard the applicant say was that the porch front porch is being removed to make the building look better is that what I heard correct so if you look at the architectural plans which we submitted and I believe are are part of the plans um we believe it's an aesthetic enhancement the existing porch uh at leads to the applicant ey is is not very attractive and we believe that the uh changes to the property will will beautify the okay um well as a professional planner I might respectfully disagree that that will improve the look of the House of the Aesthetics and there is a purpose of zoning which is um purpose I to promote a desirable visual Environ creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangements I mean uh Aesthetics is a subjective matter but um it would seem as if a front porch might be a good amenity to have for college graduates or graduate students or students um and it to me at least and in fact um in general having front porches usually helps the neighborhood in terms of maintaining a safer environment more eyes on the screen things like that all the way back to the Greeks right the Stow you get out there and that's where you hammer out those ideas thank you first for identifying a criteria I which you know the testimony provided by Mr Brown in my statement did indicate that we were enhancing I did mention I didn't have the letter citation but I certainly knew that that was one of the items and I apologize for not having chapter and verse but uh it's an aesthetic consideration and you know our client's architect who they hired who you're a planner he's an architect he he had a dis agreement on the issue we're happy to discuss further at the the planning stage but at at this point in time you know my client's belief in that of his architect is that the current proposal to change this is a more aesthetically pleasing version of this and along that line is there any exhibits or photographs that you have that might represent in the after condition what it would look like without the porch I don't have a uh a demonstrative with me today I believe we actually did and I apologize do you have something okay there we go I apologize I do in fact have a rendering of elevations of where they they oh they were s yes we did provide all right so the the use variance plan is A1 and the elevations are A2 so Mr Brown just mark it A1 and an A2 anything else SC uh just a few brief things yes okay um can you provide some testimony about emergency egress from the bedrooms in the basement there to my knowledge are there bedrooms in the basement I'm not you said you're going to use Windows to make sure people can get out if there if there's a fire thank that's exactly what you put your please please address the egress from the basement it's on the plan that there's egress area on this side so these are egress windows so out the window this is like large window well they' be able to get out how many windows how many rooms you putting down there was it three bedrooms down there or no um for some reason three's roll around in my head one right here all right then that that was my recollection is is accurate I don't think I canque through well I got a little bad news for you Mr I know yeah how big are these windows you're not going to make it are window so in terms to in terms of qualifying as being an egress window I think that's an issue that can be addressed at the building permit stage I'm sure there is a code requirement for that uh and whatever the code requirement is we will certainly provide a compliant window uh you know certainly at this stage we're not at uh you know okay building ready plans and specifications but that can be addressed certainly at the plan review stage by the building perit officer Mr would you be able to provide just a little bit of testimony how the recycling area will be screened from the adjacent property so again I believe these are issues that are more typically addressed at the the planning board uh but certainly we are happy to consider any reasonable request for screening to ensure that is not a an eyesore to the community most likely it's going to be effects it's going to be around that area thank you and my last question is can you provide testimony how uh this application will conform with the affordable housing requirements certainly um so we will certainly uh based upon the proposed rents I believe that ultimately we will be within the uh requirements um and you know I I don't believe that there's a present proposal for there to be a specific uh affordability restriction but as a matter of fact the proposed rental structure like I told you $5 to $700 a month I believe would fall well within the uh low to moderate income uh threshold thank you that's all I have Mr chairman any questions from the board before I open this to the public just main interest is going to be on the North side now if I'm correct Mr the main entrance is no longer on the front it's going to be on the north side of the building yes there's no there's no porch here there's the entrance that's right here at this job is that the secondary entrance or is that the main entrance that's going to be the main entrance that's what the sticker says on the side yep yeah sorry I do have a question this gray shaded area uh bottom right of the drawing sorry I'm not going L it just says Paving to be removed propos edge of payment what is that space yeah that's that's going to be essentially grass grass and Landscaping to make it Morey St correct Mr Brown yes so we can reduce the storm water R off also correct reducing impervious coverage and reducing storm water runoff and to create a more aesthetically pleasing environment under uh subsection I any other questions since there's no other questions we have a motion to open this to the public motion open to the public second all in favor I so is there anybody from the public that would like to speak about this item of the agenda nobody make a motion to close second all in favor so bad all right it's the pleasure of the board well let me remind the board you make a motion to approve so there's a motion and affirmative and then uh there'll be a roll call vote and if you're in favor you will say yes and that will mean uh motion to approve and if you say no that would be a mo that would be a denial um this applicant has asked for a number of use variances contingent upon site plan approval so this is a threat requirement and it's height and it's an expansion of pre-existing non-conforming use it's an expansion of the Florida a um the uh floor area ratio and uh there's even another one and what's uh councel what's the fourth one just Escape me right now I got a height I got the uh floor area ratio I've got a expansion of of pre-existing non-conforming use what I miss there right is a D2 variant with expansion existing use I got that cor um so there's a D2 variance which is part of the aggregate side yard which is also a c no no there're the C variances I said the I was just talking about the D variances yes well if we consider whether it's a c variance or a d variance in this case because in a d variance I mean it's also part of the expans D2 right expansion of the pre-existing nonperforming use uh right so that's that's really all the D variances are all under okay and how Mr chairman I'm sorry for that distraction I'll make a motion to approve a motion do I have a second second motion can we have a roll call vote please fry no I don't believe that this applicant has proven the positive or the negative criteria Mr Lopez no I don't think the site is is applicable to the use that they want to provide Miss Wyman no I agree with my uh board members Mr perner I no probably this there's request is going to fit the fill the need that they're requesting Mr Smith negative because again like you said it really didn't touch on the stuff that need to be touched on and the person is not even here to speak about it Mr Harvey no I don't believe that meet the criteria Mr moony no doesn't meet the criteria all right motion doesn't carry all right gentlemen thank you good to see you stay well all right we have any reports there is none um Workshop the uh Workshop met with two applicants uh one is green Violet LLC um at 104 Maple Le Port it's for a class one cultivation and class two manufacturing oper operation for marijuana great and it will be going before the planning board the second one was Russo Corporation for 6 Main Street um which will be coming before the zoning Board of adjustment for a 20 bedroom single family dwelling for student housing so uh they will both of these will go before the completeness uh committee to make sure what they're going to submit to both boards is being complete before they get scheduled on a committee agenda say right now my firm represents the Russo Corporation so I just want to let you know that now okay good okay they probably won't come before until like the April or May meeting okay sorry May or June right right right right all right we have uh is that it for the work group yeah that's it okay nothing with raising K oh man I'm hungry Mr C getting excited he's ready to get a chicken sandwich ready when you aree thank you Mr chairman members going to see everyone of course we have if you remind yourself um single resolution R 24-9 That's Mike satii pen uh 340 North Main Street and this of course was uh the grant of use and minor site plan approval to Michael and Linda saell and uh here we are for uh the board's consideration Mr chair you have a motion second all right can we have a roll call vote Please Mr Lopez yes Miss Wyman yes Mr perner yes Mr Smith Mr Harvey and Mr mun for all right we have any old business any new business anybody all right our next meeting is going to be April 18th if you can't make it please let Terry know um do have a motion to adjourn motion to all in favor right right on right on right on here we go Senator Menendez breaking news rting as