##VIDEO ID:0D54HxbO8Ug## take one for the team one for the team e e e welcome to tonight's meeting of the Zoning Board of adjustment of the township of Union which is being held pursuant to the open public meeting law c231 laws of New Jersey dated 1975 notice of this meeting was advertised in the local source and or the Star Ledger the two newspapers of record and notice has been posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building adjacent to the municipal clerk's office roll call Mr Wy here M Martins here Mr bentan is absent Miss Scott here Mr Johnson here Mr mcneel here Mr Graves is absent miss Ricky here and Mr Champion here there being a quorum present this meeting is now declar it open Mr manguso are there any Communications uh there are no Communications Mr chairman hearing none we can proceed with the meeting our first order of business this evening uh will be the adoption of a resolution for calendar number 3438 Jeb Foods LLC located at 332 Indiana street block 588 Lots 52 and 54 applicant wish to upgrade and repair conjoined garages and subdivides lots uh at this time board members you've all had a chance to read the resolution at this time are there any board members that would like to comment make changes or modifications to this resolution as it is written hearing none may have a motion in a second to adop the resolution resor of Board second motion roll call Mr Wy yes Marts yes Scott yes Johnson yes Mr mcneel yes Mr Champion yes our next order of business is calendar number 34 41 Robin Fu located at 28 I mean 281 through 283 oswal Terrace block 5811 lot 14 applicant wishes to expand the non-conforming use to permit a parking lot at this dwelling good evening John Sullivan from the law office of please microphone I was just going to ask which one do you want me have good evening John Sullivan from the office of vasta and Sullivan representing the applicant uh the applicant is the owner of the property in question uh 281 283 Oswald Place uh it's designated as lot 14 in Block 5811 and it's located in the RB zoning District uh the property is currently improved with a four family dwelling um and that is a pre-existing non-conforming use in the zoning District uh right now there is a uh a not very good shaped driveway gravel driveway on the right side of the property and what we're proposing is to construct a six vehicle parking area on the left side of the dwelling um which is a nice big open area right there um we do require a D2 D2 variance to expand a pre-existing non-conforming use um and there are several other um existing variance conditions with regard to the parking um you know we're required to have seven spaces here we're proposing six um but we can certainly um and we had our engineer check on this earlier today it won't take us over the impervious coverage so we can actually do a a seventh paved parking space um on the right side where that gravel driveway is if the board uh would prefer us to do that so we're we're fully prepared to do that uh I will have our engineer and planner discuss the variances uh the plans that we have submitted are the site plan dated April 8th of this year prepared by Mana design LLC we submitted the survey by clearpoint Services dated March 11th of this year along with some site photographs and we also submitted the uh floor plans for the existing dwelling as well as the elevations and those plans were prepared by Eric Schultz and were dated March 4th of this year our Witnesses tonight will be iani manilo who is our engineer and Paul glight is who our planner um we do have a representative of our client here who can answer any questions should the board have any for them but if I may I would begin with Mr manilia uh yes Council uh Mr chairman and board members I did Mark the application as it was submitted A1 for the record that includes the photographs and the supportive materials from the applicant uh A2 is the site plan reference from the engineer that consists of two sheets A3 are the architectural drawings or the architectural variant plan that consisted of eight sheets and then A4 is the reference to one sheet survey so we have A1 through A4 in the record uh can I ask the witness if he can hear me this is Rob panula the board attorney can I ask you to raise your right hand and swear or affirm that the testimony you provide this evening is the truth and all truth I do and for the record if you can State and spell your name with your affiliation sure uh first name is Giovani g i o v n ni last name manilo m a n i l IO and I'm president of Manara design the civil engineer that prepar the plans uh for the project thank you and Mr Mino could you state your qualifications for the board uh sure so a Bachelor of Science and civil engineering from Syracuse University I've been licensed in the state of New Jersey for the past 16 years and it's still good standing uh testified in front of numerous boards throughout the state we'll accept his credentials thank you thank you now Mr manol you prepared the site plan and the uh accompanying drawings yes I did and can you describe for the board to site as it currently exists sure I just need a minute here for this to load so what I'm referring to is the uh plan set that was submitted as part of the application I'm going to go um start with the first sheet on the left side is the existing conditions uh so as described earlier the properties is in the RB Zone uh on oswal place um the property is rectangular in shape about 84 ft wide and approximately 70 ft deep with a lot area of 58477 square ft um currently the property is surrounded by other residential uses um and it's a picture of uses on that street you have single families two families and I believe there is also one four family that's uh further down the street uh as you get closer to Laurel have um oswal place is a oneway street um as you go um traveling south down Oswell Place uh with parking on the opposite side of the street uh currently the property consists of a four store or four family uh structure it consists of three one-bedroom units and one two-bedroom unit um as described earlier on the uh south side of the uh dwelling is an existing gravel driveway um that could hold approximately two vehicles um in front of the uh dwelling is a covered porch and an open porch and in the rear of the dwelling is a um concrete patio with a second floor deck um there are several pre-existing non-conformities uh for the site um one of them being the use itself four family is presently at the site where a maximum of a two family is permitted as far as a use for residential uh there is a pre-existing nonconformity for lot depth um 100 ft is required for a lot dep uh this lot is 69.6 2 ft uh front yard setback 25 ft is required for the Zone uh the current conditions the house is set back 9.9 ft from uh the front property line and maximum Building height um per the zoning regulations maximum Building height of 32 ft is permitted uh where the existing house is 35.6 2 ft um and as we'll testify later uh there's really no changes to the um to the non-conformities as far as uh the use and and the dimensions of the lot I'll refer to the right side of the same sheet uh which is the proposed development um so what we're proposing to build is a uh sixc car parking lot or driveway um it's it's a glorified driveway uh it's going to be a parking lot and it's located on the north side of the um dwelling will be three spaces with uh tand the parking um I know there was a comment from uh the board engineer as far as how that would work and how that' be placed um speaking with the applicant um those spaces one in front of each other uh would be assigned to a a tenant and that would be written in the lease um so that's how that that will function um um per rsis seven total spaces are required based on the bedroom count um in our original proposal we had shown um six spaces I do want to um introduce a new exhibit if it's okay with the board and with the uh Council um noted noted A5 for the record if it's a new exhibit sure so it's entitled 281 283 Oswell Place uh site exhibit with today's date um and the modifications are shown here in red uh so uh when we did the application not sure why we we proposed six spaces instead of the conforming seven spaces I think we thought at the time it was going to be an issue with um loot coverage uh but since then um we're trying to eliminate a variance so we think we could uh add or keep one of the spaces on the south side of the property shown in red and the space would be about 9 by 22 there's an existing curve cut there um and it would conform with the regulations as far as number of curve cuts um along a front edge um as we have a distance of about 45 F feet between the the front uh the curb Cuts where I think 35 ft is required um and that will provide the seventh space and that will bring into conformance with the requirements per rsis and it would still be in conformance with the lock coverage uh so originally the blck coverage that was proposed as part of the original application uh proposed 53.7% coverage uh with this modification uh it would increase to the 57.1% coverage and the ordinance permits a maximum of 60% % so we're still below the coverage by about 3% um the only detriment to keep in the space is that the design waivers that we are asking uh will be intensified a little bit by um keeping uh this parking here and I'll go through those design waivers um next as far as design waivers there's technically five of them uh but they fall under two two separate sections of the um the ordinance uh the first has to do with the tandem parking as mentioned earlier uh tandem parking is not committed uh where you're supposed to have a parking space can't be blocked by another car um in this situation we are proposing um the tan the parking and again I think that could be U alleviated by uh putting in the lease and assigning it to the tenants just to clarify on that point so each of the each of the Stacked areas uh they're going to be the front and the back will be assigned to one unit correct so it' be similar to like a single family home that has a uh a sing single withth driveway H that is correct very similar um and then the other I'm going to group the other design waivers together um have to do with location of the parking um so the way the ordinance is written if you're a one or two family dwelling uh there's different requirements for parking and driveways um this is technically a four family uh so it has to comply with uh the commercial regulations in the U the town and with that being said so parking has to be 10 ft from any property line uh from any building and from any residential Zone and any Street uh so what we're proposing with the proposed parking lot or driveway is um a distance of 4.8 ft uh shown right here uh from parking to the uh dwelling and then with the uh proposed seven space that distance will be 7 ft uh which is currently present today with the gravel driveway that's that's there so there's no no difference um in the setback there um the next two have to do with the distance from a side property line uh so 2.9 ft is proposed on the driveway to the left um both for the property line and to the residential Zone which the whole property is in a residential Zone and then on the right side um it's a 0.5 set back to the property line into the residential Zone uh currently today the gravel driveway actually goes over the property line a little bit so that'll be cleaned up and contained on the site fly um and lastly the uh requirement is that parking has to be 10 ft from a street uh so measuring from where we have the striping or the parking space uh both on the left and right side that would be 6.8 ft where 10 ft is required um again if the board feels strongly I believe we can still push it uh further into the site a little bit and still conform with the site requirements as far as lot coverage if I could just direct your attention to the reports that we received sure um we did receive reports from the police and fire uh both of those indicated that there were no comments and then with regard to the coler's report which is dated August 27th I believe you've already addressed the design waivers um section two grading and drainage oh yes I'm sorry so on the um second sheet of the plant that that was submitted we did have a grading plan um so discuss the grading uh so there's very minor modifications to the grading um in order to uh build the the driveway or parking area and there's no no change to the drainage patterns all the way the site is graded uh from the back to the front everything drains towards Oswell place and not to any of the neighbors we don't see any issues with that and no change in in the drainage now we do have um the neighbor who if you're standing looking at the house the property to the left uh that neighbors here tonight and had voiced some concerns earlier about drainage and how it might affect their property could you uh give them some reassurances uh yes so as far as uh runoff coming on to your site there should be uh actually no increase and runoff um coming to your site as everything drains and I don't if you could follow my mouse uh but from from this corner of the site everything drains diagonally uh towards Oswell place and then down uh the street okay and item 2.2 we will comply with that correct that is correct uh item three you've already addressed item 4.1 You' addressed um item 4.2 we will comply with that as well yes we will and we will also comply with um all of the Articles under uh Subs under Article Five correct yes we will thank you I think that's all I have for Mr manelo are there any board members that would like to question the testimony of Mr manelo I do I do have a question looking at grading plan well first are you looking to curve around this proposed parking L uh as of right now no we're not proposing when I'm looking at the way your point Contours it looks like it's flowing toward the adjacent property uh go to your your grade to the right keep yeah this plan oh so that's the lighting plan that's not a gring no this is not a grading lighting so we are I men that we are proposing one light on the existing building on the nor side and that's in full comp so these are foot those are foot candles so at the prop line you can see the1 cand which is yeah this is the here the th lines are the can I just note for the record too you'll do some Cooperative follow follow up with Colliers especially because there is a change proposed on the right side I I I know it's different but I assume that doesn't have any impact or drainage impact and I'm not sure about what you're going to do to pave that or keep it gravel or what some of those details are going to be but if I could just note for the record the board acts favorably that we'll make sure that cers weighs in on the layout for that right side as well uh as dealing with the proposal for the six bases on the left yes understood are there any other board members that would like to question this witness one other uh question and this is concerning the the gravel existing gravel you said you have to clean it up because I guess it kind of spreads out into the adjacent property again has any consideration been given to placing curbing on that side to contain um not only well you're going to pave it but to confirm to to confine that edge of Paving so nothing goes over to the adjacent property yeah I don't think we were proposing curving um I mean if any where I think that side would make the most sense compared to to the other side of the property um so if the board seems favorable we have no issues putting curving on the one side along the property line and that will contain it and I think that would keep the cars um on the property instead of off the property as well uh yeah I I think I'll label that as part of the Cooperative followup with call as well CU maybe as long as the grade and certainly to make sure the neighbors are okay with their concern that the township engineer could assure the grading will allow the flow away from their property because it's a legitimate concern for a lot that's currently undeveloped so uh whether curbing would be a recommended result or not it seems to me it wouldn't be unless there was a concern about the flow and as long as the grade is going to do what you're saying uh at least that Cooperative followup with the township engineer for the benefit of the neighbor as much as anything uh will assure that we can do what we can to make sure she doesn't have a they don't have a problem yeah we have no issues with that and as far as grading yeah I don't believe anything is going to the neighbor's properties everything still went to hos on that side but we have no issues working with with your Port engineer are there any other questions hearing none are there any members of the public public that would like to question the testimony this witness has provided hearing none counselor your next witness that would be our planner Paul GLS good evening this is Rob panso the board attorney can I ask you to swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth I do and for the record State and spell your name what your business affiliation uh Paul gleitz p a l glei TZ I'm a principal of l&g planning thank you and Mr glates would you state your qualifications for the board certainly I'm a graduate of uh the uh blowstein School of rers University with a master's degree in city and Regional planning I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey I'm also a member of the American Institute of certified planners my memberships up to date in both um I've been serving a private practice for about 20 years the board will accept his credentials thank you so I think you have a pretty good idea what the project is I think you have a pretty good idea of what we're looking to do here I won't run through all of that um I do want to just just for some context um we're at 281-283 Oswald again block 5811 lot 143 um we have um just under 6,000 square feet um here's the surrounding neighborhood this is essentially the RB Zone um we have Oswald um and we have Carnegie we have Oregon we have Hilton running in that NorthEast Southwest Direction um the top of the zone is Laurel LA and north of that is um Maplewood and then we have Hilton a and then Springfield a to the north is um higher water streets um the zone is the RB Zone residential to family it's the per the purpose is to permit two family housing with a r to meet a wi rais of housing needs and desires for Union residents um one family two family multif family dwellings in the RC public parks public buildings are permitted um there's a number of conditional uses places of assembly public and private schools and uh accessory drolling units in the ra and the RB Zone um the existing use is a pre-existing non-conforming for family dwelling and we'll continue to do that under the proposed the surrounding uses um to the north and again what I'll do is I'll just here's kind of a closer look at our property here to the north we have 293 Oswald um to the South we have 275 to 271 um Oswald which is a two family to the east we have um 276 282 and 292 they are a mix of two family and one family zones on the opposite side of the street um to the I'm sorry on this side I to the east two family and one familyes mixed on this side to the west we have 286 and 288 Oswald which which is a two family and 274 Oswalt which is a single family beyond that as you saw we have a mix of mixed density residentials churches Eternal organizations and some small offices um so our variance so that gives you kind of an idea and again I'll go down to our here's our from the opposite Viewpoint here's the opposite side of ell place here with Hilton Beyond and then Carnegie behind with the two Family behind and a mix of singles and twos um we're seeking a D2 expansion of a non-conforming use variance for the construction of the parking lot and to be clear we are not um increasing the size the of the the the building itself we're still we are four we're staying at four there's no physical changes being made to the building itself but the provision of this parking area is what triggers this expansion of the use um as I go through kind of my technical testimony I just want the board to remember that we're really improving the situation we're going from a situation where there was one substandard parking spot for the site to seven standard parking spots on the site um street parking in that area is at a premium it is a one-way street is a narrow Street street so even though we need some relief in the back of your minds I think I hope you can agree that we really are improving the situation on the site um there's also there was some discussion about a D6 height variance for the building the engineer called it out as a pre-existing um bulk variance um for the site I can get into that a little bit later and again as the engineer stated we have um pre-existing non-conformities in terms of lot depth front yard setback um the engineer went through the design waivers for the parking and again we had a discussion about um whether we need a parking variance or not I think we could either if we want to add that additional seventh parking space we would be fully compliant and not need a parking variance um I've reviewed your master plan it's an impressive document uh it's congratulations on such a um you know Forward Thinking and you know welldeveloped master plan um there a couple of notes in the um introduction I thought related to The Proposal um one of the overarching ideas for the town and the master plan is attractive housing for all ages and interests um and one of the findings was that you know new housing is multif family and character and there have been more multif family versus single family per building permits pulled in the last few years and um my testimony is going to be a mix of about the four you the the the four family home cuz that's what's technically quote unquote being expanded but it's really just the parking so I'm going to have a little bit of mix of your master plan documents and support of this multif family housing to continue and then a little bit of my planning about the parking so you can understand why it's kind of a mixed bag here we're not expanding the house itself or adding new units um under your smart growth principles you know you recognize the need for a range of housing opportunities and choices and then um under parking in the residential districts especially in the two family districts land users should be able to accommodate Vehicles safely and sufficiently on site and um Property Owners should be able to provide sufficient parking to accommodate most if not all users and then under goals and objectives within the land use plan um one of them that relates back to the application here is maintaining the character of existing residential neighborhoods while providing opportunities for housing types that meet the interest the needs of all ages and abilities and two of the sub goals Under This Were The Preserve the Integrity of established single family and two family home neighborhoods by preventing intrusion of more intense uses and recognizing the VIS viability of a need for alternatives to single family houses two family and other housing configurations in existing neighborhoods and as a part of Redevelopment should be continued where this will not undermine other objectives and again another goal was to provide adequate parking to serve establish residential and Commercial activities and incorporate adequate parking into developments so um I think that's a good overview of the master plan elements that relate to the proposal before you um so I'm going to go through the the D2 expansion of a non-conforming use the courts have found that um similar to a um conditional use pre-existing non-conforming uses um don't need the enhanced proofs you often hear for direct D1 use variants um the courts have found you don't need to have the enhanced proofs of medich in terms of particular suitability or master plan reconciliation they don't need to be met um D2 variants may be found in fact that the variants granted would tend to minimize the non-conformity and make it more acceptable in the particular setting there's also been a number of cases that apply to the D2 variants coal uh versus fairon was one that it found that um the expansion variance does not bear the much higher burden approving the underlying operation itself would be approved under a new use variance Kingwood be Board of adjustment talked about how the negative criteria could be seen more liberally than in a traditional use variance and in Burbage versus Mine Hill um the finding was that um overall sight improvements and overall um improvements to the non-conforming unit could meet the the the the burden for special reasons um so um what I'd like to do then as but with any of these variances we have to present the positive and the negative so I'll do that I think under the positive criteria um in terms of the general welfare in terms of um advancing the purposes of zoning under the municipal land use law purpose G um which is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial commercial and Industrial use as an open space both public and private according to their respective environment environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens and I think the facts of the case that support um this purpose of zoning is that this pre-existing residential lot use has been in existence prior to local zoning your current Land Development code was adopted by the committee in August of 2022 and the history of Land Development code amendments date back to 1982 um the site was first developed as a storefront with residential above in 1923 um the and since then the property has been recognized by the zoning officer as a pre-existing non-conforming 4unit residential dwelling and is taxed as a four family unit there was a a memo issued March 9th 2022 that I think was part of the record if not I think uh you wanted to have that submitted yeah if we could I um we may have submitted this with the application but perhaps if we can mark this as a six I believe that the aerial that you were showing that's part of a planner's exhibit so that wasn't part of the original site plan was it what you no those were just Google Images I how many were there there two images there's five total five let's I've shown three so far let's collectively put that as a planner's aerial exhibit as A6 and then we'll do A7 the separate exhibit of the zoning officers uh here's the Melo I'm referring to that was issued to the property owner it's considered residential two family Zone the property is being taxed as a fort family also we noted the property is pre-existing non-conforming and would need board approval the property will fully destroyed so I just add that as um additional information um multif Family residential buildings provide an affordable option for many families the existing neighborhood is a mix of one and two families and structures of varying sizes there's also a there is a four family unit further up uh near the top of Oswalt place um the existing structure is not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and is not being enlarged and three and four unit residentials represent 5 to 6% of your total housing types throughout the township the provision of adequate on-site parking will improve the property bring it closer to zoning performance and will alleviate impacts to on street parking in the neighborhood it's a better outcome overall for the neighborhood all the bulk variances are pre-existing and the bulk standards that address the intensity of use such as lot size building coverage number of stories and impervious lot coverage are all compliant to the Zone standards so this is a building that fits in well it has fitted fit well in the community for a very long time and there's no overall change to the structure we're simply improving the parking situation um additionally under um uh purpose H is to encourage the location design of Transportation routes which will promote the free flow of traffic all discouraging locations of such facilities that would result in congestion and blight so again providing the proposed on-site parking will reduce Demand on for on street parking in the imediate vicinity and will believe it will hopefully improve the free flow of traffic on oswal place the engineers memo states that there's one building with no on-site parking available occupants are required to park par on an already busy oswal Terrace a oneway street and then similarly I think you can find that the application promotes the general welfare in terms of promoting the zoning purposes of your own Township master plan which I just reviewed with you in terms of maintaining character of the existing residential neighborhoods and providing adequate parking to serve established residential and Commercial areas now I'm going to move on to the negative criteria and again um the case law St the board can consider these a little more liberally than you would with a use variance D1 use variance in terms of impact on the public good the site has been developed as the existing use for decades the site has accommodated the existing use on the site for years and will Now function even better with the proposed parking improvements the surrounding apologies the surrounding residential units uses have existed in similar form or another adjacent to the site for decades as well this mix of single families and two family homes is not substantially impacted by the existing use and the neighborhood will um be improved by the proposed improvements and the proposed parking area does not create any additional variances the lot will remain conforming in terms of lot size building coverage stories and aerious lot coverage the other bulk variants for pre-existing non-conforming relating to the existing structure and and again we also have to address any impacts to the Zone plan um I think you can find that the pro proposed The Proposal advances multiple gos the master plan as I went through them and is a pre-existing nonconforming use that has existed for a long time in the neighborhood so we were're not neg negatively impacting any of the other purposes of your master plan um real briefly I think I have some testimony about the D6 height variance I don't think the engineer called it out as a simple bulk variance it's a pre-existing non-conforming situation um so I'll leave it at that um just if again for under one interpretation um you know the the threshold for the height Varian is an exceedance of the maximum building building height by 10% that zone standard is 32 ft the existing structure is 3526 so that would be up the permissable within a bulk variance range would be up to 35.2 so the existing structure exceeds that by 0.06 which is 72 less than an inch 7/10 of an inch um so I think the engineer kind of rounded down and called it at the Minimus um impact and consider that a bulk Mar instead which I think similar to the use too I can note for the record the testimony that there's going to be no change to the structure so that literally is pre-existing and legally conforming correct because it's there and it's not being changed it's really a modification on the lot due to the park and my prior testimony on the D2 variants would flow through to the D6 as well under the one variances we have the lot depth the front yard setback um and um if we don't add the seven parking space we'd have a parking variance these are all pre-existing non-conformities with the site that have existed for decades um if you're required compliance at this time it would be a hardship because there's no available land to add to the property to remedy the lot dep um and you'd have to demolish or lift the building and move it on site to address the front yard setback um and then the parking variance is being reduced from a deficit of six spaces to a deficit of one or even a deficit of zero um and so it's a vast improvement over the current condition and can be supported by the um by the board um and I think we heard the discussion about adding the extra space so that's all my direct testimony thank you that's all we have for Mr GLE are there any board members that would like to question question Mr galitz I do have a quick question I just wanted to make sure that there's a fence in the back correct is that's not uh is the fence shown on the fence it's a it's in the photos that are part of the application materials it's in pretty bad condition we just didn't know if it was that was the your client's fence or the neighbors it's I believe it's it's the the client's the property own fence I don't know no we have to swear her and if she's going to testify if this witness doesn't know you want to come forward ma'am well before we before we let's finish with the planner for yeah okay are there any board members that will any other questions of of Mr git's testimony hearing none are there any members of the public that would like to question the testimony this witness has provided hearing none thank you counselor would you like to call up the applicant uh yes uh this is Wendy F she is actually the mother of the applicant can I ask you to swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to provide is the truth and the whole truth yes thank you and just for the record State and spell your name Wendy Wendy w d y last name f thank you um Wendy there was a question about the fence along the rear property line uh do you know if that belongs to you or does it belong to the neighbor is right now that's that's a two it's a back P one is belong to the labors one is belong to me so that's a very very little Gap but it's near okay let me two I should say one is CH one is wood so miss miss Fu would you speak into the microphone thank you wood belong to the back neighbor Chen link belong to okay that's the front so that's two but the the between has the Gap okay that that answered my question thank you at this time I'll open it up to the public are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this application hearing none counselor would you like to sum up just very brief ly um I certainly don't want to repeat all the testimony you've already heard we believe the application is pretty straightforward um and it does prevent uh it does present benefits um and we don't see any real significant detriment uh the addition of the parking area certainly gives the occupants a place to park it reduces Street and other off-site parking demands um and as was mentioned uh by your board engineer this is a one-way Street it's a very busy Street and parking is at a premium so we think this is a benefit not only to the property um but to the neighbors as well and um into the community as a whole um the D2 variance is really the only um new variance that we're asking for the other variance is we are not expanding those in any way shape or form uh they are pre-existing conditions we feel the site is adequate in size to accommodate this um and for all of the reasons stated you know we do think that there are special reasons and there's not any substantial detriment so we would ask that you consider granting the application and just for the record Council the only two conditions I noted were the followup cooperatively with Colliers as the engineer to uh assure the grade and the possibility of curbing it may not be necessary as long as the grade uh will alleviate any concern that the neighboring property has about waterflow uh number one and then number two the testimony went in that there's going to be a signed use to alleviate problems with the tandem because you have four units and six spaces the numbers don't mesh so it's really going to behoove the owner to deal with the residents to have a system in play you know if you're the one coming home from the night shift and the person that you're blocking is leaving at 6:00 a.m. you know just like You' use any driveway that you're they're she's going to deal with that issue not you're not going to have people parking on the sidewalk or in areas where they shouldn't overhang or or be parked so those are the two conditions that I noted yep I noted those as well and uh I agree with you on the assignment of the parking and the board Mr chairman should just deliberate and and consider uh the seventh space that's now proposed that is different than what was proposed it does not generate a new variance because the lot coverage is satisfied in proposing it that way um it will require followup with Mr uh P's office just on the the uh Paving of it as it were um but um it is new and it does cure the variance as to the number of spaces so there is a benefit to that so I as you deliberate I would just say if you're for adding that seventh space since it's new well can we conference that right now with a yes or a no Miss rickets are you in favor of the seven spot seven space yes Mr Johnson yes Miss Morts yes Mr Wy chair no we're we're not commenting on the we're not going to we're not conferencing the application we just a yes or no on the seventh uh parking spot yes yes Mr mcneel okay so we all agree on that I I myself am uh in favor of that seventh parking spot I think the board can deliberate G yes Miss rickets would you like to start this evening sure um thank you all for coming and basically showing us the plans and this is actually a really good thing because it does help that street taking cars off the road so I go yes Mr Johnson thank you Mr chairman uh I also I see no detriment to the neighborhood in fact it's going to get cars off the street uh which is going to help the neighborhood and be a safety Factor also and as long as they uh follow up with the township engineer I will be voting that yes Miss Morts thank you Mr chairman um I am in favor of this application I'm well aware of the street and the property as well um I think this is positive for both the neighborhood and for the property so I'll be voting yes Mr mcneel uh I would agree with my colleagues I mean the application is very uh straightforward uh the Improvement um is actually a benefit um by adding existing Park uh additional parking and relieving some of the uh congestion in that area being a frequent traveler through that block um it will definitely be a benefit so I intend to vote Yes Miss Scott yes I cover my colleagues I thought that the application was also a very straightforward application I did an excellent job right Mr Wy Street very as for myself uh this is a good application I feel we all know as Mr wildy stated that the parking is very tight in that area therefore the variances uh are justified by showing that the proposed improvements will not have a negative impact on the property or the neighboring Property Owners therefore I too will vote Yes for this application at this time may have a motion and a second to Grant the application chair I move Grant this application PR resolution consistent with the's decision second motion may I have a roll call Mr Wy yes Marts yes Scott yes Johnson yes Mr mcneel yes rickets yes champ yes thank you very much October 9th the council will have the uh resolution on the agenda to be passed October 19th I'll send you a copy ahead of great may I have a motion in a second Mr chairman there being no further business coming before the board this evening I move we adjourn second all in favor I opposed so moved