Land Use Board Meeting - Special Meeting

Borough of Highlands LUB Special Meeting Minutes Community Center, 22 Snug Harbor Ave., Highlands, NJ December 20, 2022 Chair Rob Knox called the meeting to order at 7:04pm. Chair Knox asked all to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Knox read the following statement: As per requirement, notice is hereby given that this is an Abbreviated Meeting of the Borough of Highlands Land Use Board and all requirements have been met. Notice has been transmitted to the Asbury Park Press and the Two River Times. Notice has been posted on the public bulletin board. Formal Action will be taken. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Broullon, Chief Burton, Mr. Kutosh, Ms. LaRussa, Mr. Montecalvo, Councilmember Olszewski, Vice Chair Tierney, Chair Knox, Mr. Zill, Ms. Chang, Mr. Cramer Absent: Mr. Ziemba; Mr. Lee left at 8:30pm Also Present: Board Attorney Dustin Glass, Esq., Board Engineer Edward Herrman, and Board Secretary Nancy Tran RESOLUTIONS: LUB2022-06: Martin 15 Barberie Block 77 Lot 15 LAND USE BOARD RESOLUTION 2022-20 MEMORIALIZATION OF MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITH ANCILLARY VARIANCE RELIEF Approved: October 13, 2022 Memorialized: December 20, 2022 IN THE MATTER OF MARTIN APPLICATION NO. LUB2022-06 WHEREAS, an application for minor subdivision approval with ancillary variance relief has been made to the Highlands Land Use Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) by Marie Martin (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) on lands known and designated as Block 77, Lot 15, as depicted on the Tax Map of the Borough of Highlands (hereinafter “Borough”), and more commonly known as 15 Barberie Avenue in the R-2.01 (Single Family Residential) Zone; and WHEREAS, a complete application has been filed, the fees as required by Borough Ordinance have been paid, proof of service and publication of notice as required by law has been furnished and determined to be in proper order, and it otherwise appears that the jurisdiction and powers of the Board have been properly invoked and exercised; and WHEREAS, an in-person public hearing was held on October 13, 2022, at which time testimony and exhibits were presented on behalf of the Applicant and all interested parties were provided with an opportunity to be heard. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, does the Highlands Land Use Board make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to this application: 1. The subject Property contains 7,500 square feet with 100 feet of frontage along the southeast side of Barberie Avenue within the R-2.01 (Residential) Zone district. The subject Property has a Lot depth of 75 feet. The subject Property is currently improved with a two-story single- family dwelling serviced by municipal water and waste systems. 2. The dwelling on Lot 15 has a minimum front yard setback of 9 feet whereas 20 feet is required in the Zone and complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Applicant proposes to subdivide the subject Property into two (2) new lots as follows:  Proposed Lot 15.01 will contain 3,750 square feet with 50 feet of frontage along Barberie Avenue and will contain the existing two-story, single-family dwelling.  Proposed Lot 15.02 will contain 3,750 square feet with 50 feet of frontage along Barberie Avenue to be improved with a proposed 2-story, single-family elevated dwelling. 4. The Applicant, Marie Martin, testified that the minimum lot size in the Zone is 3,750 square feet and, therefore, that the proposed subdivision will create two lots that conform to the Zoning Ordinance and are commensurate with other lots in the Zone and neighborhood. 5. The Applicant further testified that by virtue of the proposed subdivision, the dwelling on Proposed Lot 15.01 (which is not being affected by the application) will have a minimum front yard setback of 9 feet, whereas 20 feet is required in the Zone. Accordingly, variance relief is requested, but the deviation from the Zoning ordinance already exists. 6. The Applicant further testified that she needed additional variance relief for the maximum building coverage for Proposed Lot 15.01, where 35.56% is proposed and 33% is permitted in the Zone. The Applicant continued testifying that she was not altering the dwelling at all and that the home would remain in its current location with regard to all setbacks. Accordingly, the Applicant testified that the variance relief requested occurred by virtue of the subdivision and existing dwelling, and not any proposed construction. 7. The Applicant testified that the subdivision complied in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance, including as to building height for both the existing and proposed dwellings. The Applicant further testified that the dwelling to be constructed on Proposed Lot 15.02, as proposed, would comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant agreed that if the dwelling was not constructed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance or the terms of this resolution that she would need to return for variance relief. 8. The Applicant agreed to comply with the Board Engineer’s First Engineering Review Letter and to revise the plans to reflect a driveway length of 18 feet. 9. There were no members of the public expressing an interest in this application. WHEREAS, the Highlands Land Use Board, having reviewed the proposed application and having considered the impact of the proposed application on the Borough and its residents to determine whether it is in furtherance of the Municipal Land Use Law; and having considered whether the proposal is conducive to the orderly development of the site and the general area in which it is located pursuant to the land use and zoning ordinances of the Borough of Highlands; and upon the imposition of specific conditions to be fulfilled, hereby determines that the Applicant’s request for 2 minor subdivision approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-47 along with ancillary variance relief pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c should be granted in this instance. The Board finds that the Applicant has proposed a minor subdivision which requires bulk variance relief. The Municipal Land Use Law, at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c provides Boards with the power to grant variances from strict bulk and other non-use related issues when the applicant satisfies certain specific proofs which are enunciated in the Statute. Specifically, the applicant may be entitled to relief if the specific parcel is limited by exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape. An applicant may show that exceptional topographic conditions or physical features exist which uniquely affect a specific piece of property. Further, the applicant may also supply evidence that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist which uniquely affect a specific piece of property or any structure lawfully existing thereon and the strict application of any regulation contained in the Zoning Ordinance would result in a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty or exceptional and undue hardship upon the developer of that property. Additionally, under the c(2) criteria, the applicant has the option of showing that in a particular instance relating to a specific piece of property, the purpose of the act would be advanced by allowing a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirements and the benefits of any deviation will substantially outweigh any detriment. In those instances, a variance may be granted to allow departure from regulations adopted, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. Those categories specifically enumerated above constitute the affirmative proofs necessary in order to obtain “bulk” or (c) variance relief. Finally, an applicant must also show that the proposed variance relief sought will not have a substantial detriment to the public good and, further, will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance. It is only in those instances when the applicant has satisfied both these tests, that a Board, acting pursuant to the Statute and case law, can grant relief. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to establish these criteria. The Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied the positive criteria with regard to the previously enumerated requests for variance relief from the minimum front yard setback for Proposed Lot 15.01 where 20 feet is required and 9 feet is proposed, and for the maximum building coverage for Proposed Lot 15.01 where a maximum building coverage of 33% is permitted and 35.56% is proposed. The Board finds that the proposed subdivision and construction of a single-family dwelling on Proposed Lot 15.02 is a permitted use in the R-2.01 zone. The Board finds that the proposed subdivision will create two lots, which are consistent with the prevailing neighborhood scheme, and which comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The dwelling to be constructed on Proposed Lot 15.02 would comply with the Zoning Ordinance and, to the extent the Applicant or a subsequent owner of the subject Property sought to construct a dwelling that neither complied with this Resolution nor the Zoning Ordinance, they would need to seek relief from the Land Use Board. The Board also accepts the Applicant’s testimony that the proposed variance relief would be indiscernible to the public because it affects the existing two-story dwelling on Proposed Lot 15.01 and not the dwelling proposed to be constructed on Proposed Lot 15.02 (which will comply 3 with the Zoning Ordinance). The Board, therefore, finds that the minimum front yard setback of 9 proposed for Proposed Lot 15.01 feet already exists and is not being exacerbated by the application. Similarly, the Board finds that although the maximum building coverage is increasing on a percentage basis, that occurs solely by virtue of the subdivision of Lot 15 and the existence of the two-story dwelling thereon. Accordingly, the Board finds that proposed building coverage of Proposed Lot 15.01 of 35.56% is not excessive and satisfies the positive criteria. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the application advances the goals of the Municipal Land Use Law as enumerated at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2. The positive criteria has therefore been satisfied. The Board also finds that the negative criteria has been satisfied. The proposed subdivision of the existing lot into two smaller lots creates lots that are more similar to other lots in the surrounding neighbored and which comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development also does not violate any height requirements and therefore does not impair any view corridors. As previously stated, the proposed density and use also complies with Ordinance requirements. The proposed variance relief will also not create any perceptible additional traffic or noise. The Board finds that the grant of variance relief will not result in substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance and will not create a substantial detriment to the public good. The Board therefore finds that the negative criteria has been satisfied. The Board further finds that the positive criteria substantially outweighs the negative criteria and that variance relief pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) is appropriate in this instance. With the exception of the above relief, the Applicant has complied with all other zoning, subdivision and design criteria. The Applicant may therefore be granted minor subdivision approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-47. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Land Use Board of the Borough of Highlands on this 20th day of December 2022, that the action of the Land Use Board taken on October 8th, 2022 granting Application No. LUB2022-06, for minor subdivision approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-47 along with ancillary bulk variance relief pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) as follows: The application is granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The Subdivision Plat or Deed recorded memorializing this subdivision shall specifically refer to this Resolution and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board Engineer and Board Attorney. The Applicant shall record the Subdivision Plat or Deed within 190 days of the memorializing Resolution being adopted. Failure to do so shall render this approval null and void. 2. All site improvement shall take place in the strict compliance with the testimony and with the plans and drawings which have been submitted to the Board with this application, or to be revised. 3. Except where specifically modified by the terms of this resolution, the Applicant shall comply with all recommendations contained in the reports of the Board professionals. 4 4. The Applicant shall obtain an Elevation Certificate. 5. Any future modifications to this approved plan must be submitted to the Board for approval. 6. The Applicant shall provide a certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval. 7. Payment of all fees, costs, escrows due and to become due. Any monies are to be paid within twenty (20) days of said request by the Board Secretary. 8. The subject Property is located in a CAFRA Zone and, thus, the Applicant shall comply with all applicable NJDEP requirements and obtain all applicable approvals and/or waivers therefrom. 9. Subject to all other applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes of the Borough of Highlands, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey or any other jurisdiction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause a notice of this decision to be published in the official newspaper at the Applicant’s expense and to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Applicant and to the Borough Clerk, Engineer, Attorney and Tax Assessor, and shall make same available to all other interested parties. EXHIBITS Case No. No. LUB2022-06/Martin Minor Subdivision October 13, 2022 December 20, 2022 A-1 Land Use Board Application (Minor Subdivision), dated July 19, 2022. A-2 Minor Subdivision Plan prepared by Thomas C. Finnegan, P.L.S. of Thomas Craig Finnegan Land Surveying, L.L.C., dated May 16, 2022. INTEROFFICE REPORTS B-1 Board Engineer’s Review of Minor Subdivision, First Completeness Review letter, dated August 16, 2022. B-2 Board Engineer’s Fee and Escrow Calculation letter, dated August 16, 2022. B-3 Board Engineer’s First Engineering Review letter, dated September 28, 2022. ON MOTION OF: Vice Chair Tierney SECONDED BY: Mayor Broullon ROLL CALL: YES: Mayor Broullon, Ms. LaRussa, Mr. Montecalvo, Councilmember Olszewski, Vice Chair Tierney, Chair Knox NO: None ABSTAINED: Chief Burton, Mr. Kutosh, Mr. Lee ABSENT: Mr. Ziemba 5 LUB2022-05: Link 72 Fourth St. Block 65 Lot 25 LAND USE BOARD RESOLUTION 2022-21 MEMORIALIZATION OF MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH BULK VARIANCE RELIEF Approved: October 13, 2022 Memorialized: December 20, 2022 IN THE MATTER OF LINK APPLICATION NO. LUB2022-05 WHEREAS, an application for minor subdivision approval with ancillary variance relief has been made to the Highlands Land Use Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) by David Link (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) on lands known and designated as Block 65, Lot 25, as depicted on the Tax Map of the Borough of Highlands (hereinafter “Borough”), and more commonly known as 74 Fourth Street in the R-2.02 (Single Family Residential) Zone; and WHEREAS, a complete application has been filed, the fees as required by Borough Ordinance have been paid, proof of service and publication of notice as required by law has been furnished and determined to be in proper order, and it otherwise appears that the jurisdiction and powers of the Board have been properly invoked and exercised; and WHEREAS, an in-person public hearing was held on October 13, 2022, at which time testimony and exhibits were presented on behalf of the Applicant and all interested parties were provided with an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, does the Highlands Land Use Board make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to this application: 1. The subject Property contains 2,500 square feet with 25 feet of frontage along the northeast side of 4th Street within the R-2.02 (Single Family Residential) Zone district. The subject Property has a Lot depth of 100 feet. The subject Property is currently vacant and previously contained a two-story single-family dwelling and wooden deck. 2. Per Borough Ordinance No. 22-13, a portion of the western adjacent alley, between 72 4th Street and 26 Cedar Street was vacated by the Borough and is proposed as a permanent utility easement/reservation for this application. The vacation increased the lot area of the subject Property from 2,500 square feet to 2,739 square feet. 3. The Applicant proposes to construct an elevated, two and one-half story dwelling on the subject Property, which requires the following bulk variance relief: a. Minimum Lot Size: 4,000 square feet is required, whereas 2,739 square feet is proposed (and existing). b. Minimum Lot Frontage: 50 feet is required, whereas 27.5 feet is proposed (with 25 feet existing). c. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 6 feet and 8 feet is permitted, whereas 2 feet and 3 feet are proposed. d. Maximum Building Coverage: 33% is permitted, whereas 45.2% is proposed. e. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 20 feet is permitted, whereas 15 feet is proposed. 4. Although the Applicant’s proposal initially required bulk variance relief for the maximum building height, the Applicant and his professionals testified at the hearing that the proposal 6  would, as revised, comply with the maximum building height and, thus, that no variance relief was requested or needed. 5. The Applicant, David Link, testified that he purchased the subject Property and demolished the vacant home existing thereon. He now proposes to construct a new single-family dwelling on the subject Property and to reside in the home. 6. The Applicant’s Engineer and Planner, Andrew Stockton, P.E., P.P. testified next and stated that the subject Property is undersized, with existing non-conformities as to Minimum Lot Size and Minimum Lot Frontage. 7. Mr. Stockton testified as to the variances requested, stating that the bulk variance relief requested for Minimum Lot Size and Minimum Lot Frontage could be analyzed under (c)(1) hardship criteria, whereas the variances for Building Coverage and the side yard Setback were more appropriately viewed under the (c)(2) “flexible” standard. Mr. Stockton provided additional testimony as to the home that existed previously on the subject Property and how close it existed from the side, front, and rear yard lot lines. 8. Mr. Stockton testified that the Applicant planned to construct the dwelling with a proposed front yard setback of fifteen (15) feet (inclusive of the covered front porch). Mr. Stockton added additional testimony that the Zone required a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet or the prevailing setback in the Zone, which was calculated to be approximately 14.3 feet (excluding one of the adjacent properties that was out of character for the Zone). The Board Engineer agreed with the calculation and the testimony that it would be appropriate to consider the prevailing setback in the Zone to be 14.3 feet. Alternatively, the Board could consider all adjacent properties (inclusive of those out of character) and the prevailing setback would be approximately 19 feet. Mr. Stockton testified that it would be prudent to seek variance relief from the front yard setback requirements, however, given the potential for discrepancies in the calculations. 9. Mr. Stockton next testified as to the proposed building height of the dwelling, stating that the roof measures 38.5 feet from the garage door to the highest part of the roof, 36 feet from the garage door to the roof eves, and 33.8 feet from the garage door to the highest roof level. Because the Borough definition defines building height as the measurement from the garage door to the highest roof level, the Applicant initially proposed to construct a dwelling that is 1.3 feet (16 inches) higher than the maximum building height in the zone, 32.5 feet. 10. Mr. Stockton continued to provide testimony, stating that although the application required relief from the side yard setback requirements, the Borough had vacated a paper street, which adjoined the subject Property and that by doing so provided the subject Property with an additional 2.5 feet of lot width. Mr. Stockton also testified that the additional width would lessen the side yard setback relief needed. The Borough reserved a portion of the vacated paper street as a permanent utility easement. 11. Mr. Stockton testified that the Applicant proposed lot coverage of 45.2%, whereas 33% was permitted. He continued that the covered porch accounted for 112 square feet of the coverage. Mr. Stockton provided additional testimony that the proposed dwelling was only slightly larger (roughly 300 square feet) than the dwelling that existed previously. Mr. Stockton, in response to a comment from the Board Engineer, clarified that the reference to the prior dwelling was for historical purposes only, that the prior dwelling had been demolished, and that the Applicant had no entitlement to any pre-existing conditions or approvals. 7 12. Mr. Stockton testified that the subject Property was not located in a CAFRA zone and, therefore, that no NJDEP approval would be required. He provided additional testimony that the proposal would not result in an increase in stormwater runoff and, therefore, would not impact the downstream properties more than they had been impacted by the prior development. 13. Mr. Stockton continued testifying that given the dimensions of the subject Property and with limited, unused frontage available, the Applicant requested a waiver from the Borough’s landscaping requirements. Mr. Stockton did testify, however, that it might be possible to plant one shade tree on the subject Property nearby the Borough’s easement. 14. Mr. Stockton testified that the proposed dwelling would have 3 bedrooms and provide 2.5 off-street parking spaces; therefore, the proposal complies with the Borough’s residential off- street parking requirements. 15. Mr. Stockton concluded his testimony by stating that the requested variance relief could be granted without any substantial detriment to the public good and that the proposal, advances the goals of municipal planning. He continued that the proposal advanced goals (B)(to secure safely from fire, flood, panic, etc.), (C)(to provide adequate light, air, and open space), (I)(to promote a desirable visual environment), and (M)(to encourage the coordination of various private and public procedures for shaping land development and efficient use of land) of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2. 16. The Applicant’s architect, Salvatore La Ferlita, R.A., testified next and opined that Applicant proposed a single-family dwelling, with a covered front porch. Mr. La Ferlita continued that the first floor would contain the kitchen and living space, with a rear deck containing a spiral staircase up to the second floor. 17. Mr. La Ferlita provided additional testimony that the second floor would contain three bedrooms and third floor would contain a loft space, wet bar, powder room, with proposed rooftop deck. Mr. La Ferlita continued testifying that he could lower the proposed garage by six inches and the roof by another six inches, thereby decreasing the overall height of the dwelling by one foot (12 inches) (which would still require variance relief of 4 inches). 18. Mr. La Ferlita testified that the utility meters would be installed at the ground floor, adjacent to the garage and that the HVAC system and condenser would be installed on the first-floor rear deck, behind the kitchen. He continued that the HVAC would need to be located on the deck because it was required to be a certain distance above the flood plain and that there was insufficient clearance to place the unit on the ground floor, under the deck. 19. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. La Ferlita stated that the narrowness of the subject Property made locating a utility meter on the side of the proposed dwelling difficult, but he continued that because of elevation of the subject Property, the meter could be installed without the need of a meter reading platform. The Applicant agreed, as a condition of approval, that the electric meter and appurtenances would be installed without requiring further relief from the Board. 20. The meeting was then opened to the members of the public, at which time Pat Walsh at 20 Cedar Street (adjacent to the subject Property), inquired as to whether the proposed dwelling would obstruct her views. In response, the Applicant and Board stated that the proposal would obstruct some of her views, but that a home could be constructed (without any variance relief) that would still do so. 8 21. Rob Miller, 27 Cedar Street next inquired as to whether the Board could alleviate the parking problems in the area and was advised that the matter was beyond the scope of the application. 22. Scott DeVere at 55 Fifth Street inquired what the side yard setbacks are in the Zone, to which the Board Engineer responded that it was generally six feet and eight feet, with some exceptions. 23. There were no other members of the public expressing an interest in this application. 24. The Board inquired whether the Applicant could reduce the height of the third-floor loft space by four (4) inches, in addition to 12-inch reduction agreed to previously, to comply with the maximum permitted building height of 32.5 feet. Mr. La Ferlita responded that the Applicant agreed to comply with the maximum permitted building height of 32.5 feet and, therefore, that no variance relief for the maximum permitted building height was requested or needed. WHEREAS, the Highlands Land Use Board, having reviewed the proposed application and having considered the impact of the proposed application on the Borough and its residents to determine whether it is in furtherance of the Municipal Land Use Law; and having considered whether the proposal is conducive to the orderly development of the site and the general area in which it is located pursuant to the land use and zoning ordinances of the Borough of Highlands; and upon the imposition of specific conditions to be fulfilled, hereby determines that request for minor site plan approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46.1 along with variance relief pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c should be granted in this instance. The Board finds that the Applicant has proposed a permitted use on the subject Property. The proposal, however, requires minor site plan approval and bulk variance relief. The Municipal Land Use Law, at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c provides Boards with the power to grant variances from strict bulk and other non-use related issues when the Applicant satisfies certain specific proofs which are enunciated in the Statute. Specifically, the Applicants may be entitled to relief if the specific parcel is limited by exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape. Applicant may show that exceptional topographic conditions or physical features exist which uniquely affect a specific piece of property. Further, the Applicant may also supply evidence that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist which uniquely affect a specific piece of property or any structure lawfully existing thereon and the strict application of any regulation contained in the Zoning Ordinance would result in a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty or exceptional and undue hardship upon the developer of that property. Additionally, under the c(2) criteria, the Applicants have the option of showing that in a particular instance relating to a specific piece of property, the purpose of the act would be advanced by allowing a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirements and the benefits of any deviation will substantially outweigh any detriment. In those instances, a variance may be granted to allow departure from regulations adopted, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. Those categories specifically enumerated above constitute the affirmative proofs necessary in order to obtain “bulk” or (c) variance relief. Finally, the Applicant must also show that the proposed variance relief sought will not have a substantial detriment to the public good and, further, will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance. It is only in those instances when the Applicant has satisfied both these tests that a Board, acting pursuant to 9 the Statute and case law, can grant relief. The burden of proof is upon the Applicant to establish these criteria. The Board finds that the Applicant has failed to meet its burden of proof to be granted a hardship variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1). The Applicant did not provide any evidence concerning the creation of the subject Property. The Applicant’s argument regarding the dimensions of the subject Property when purchased are also not relevant. A self-created hardship created by a prior owner is imputed to the current owner under the law. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate hardship and cannot satisfy the positive criteria pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1). The Board finds, however, that the Applicant has satisfied the c(2) positive criteria. The Board finds that the proposal advances the goals of Zoning enumerated in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2(B)(to secure safely from fire, flood, panic, etc.), (C)(to provide adequate light, air, and open space), (I)(to promote a desirable visual environment), and (M)(to encourage the coordination of various private and public procedures for shaping land development and efficient use of land). The Board further finds that the proposed improvements enhance the aesthetics and usefulness of the subject Property and also result in a diversified housing stock. Improved aesthetics not only benefits the Applicant, but also advances the interests of the entire community. The Board therefore concludes that the goals of planning as enumerated in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2 have been advanced. The Applicant has therefore satisfied the positive criteria. The Board also finds that the negative criteria has been satisfied. The proposed improvements result in an aesthetic improvement to the subject Property, which is currently vacant, and also result in a diversified housing stock. The new home will also be consistent and fit in seamlessly with the prevailing neighborhood residential scheme and the proposal does not require variance relief from the maximum permitted building height. All flood elevation requirements will also be satisfied. The proposal is consistent with the Borough’s overall goals and objectives of providing new, safe and visually attractive homes. The Board therefore concludes that there is no substantial detriment to the zone plan or the zoning ordinance. The public welfare has also not been substantially detrimented. The negative criteria has therefore been satisfied. The Board concludes that the positive criteria substantially outweighs the negative criteria and that bulk variance relief may be granted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2). With the exception of the above relief, the Applicant has complied with all other zoning, subdivision and design criteria. The Applicant may therefore be granted minor site plan approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46.1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Land Use Board of the Borough of Highlands on this 20th day of December 2022, that the action of the Land Use Board taken on October 13th, 2022 granting Application No. LUB2022-05, for minor site plan approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46.1 along with variance relief pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c as follows: The application is granted subject to the following conditions: 10 1. The development of the site shall take place in strict conformance with the testimony, plans and drawings which have been submitted to the Board with this application. 2. Except where specifically modified by the terms of this Resolution, the Applicants shall comply with all recommendations contained in the reports of the Board’s professionals. 3. The Applicants shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Borough Flood Plain Officer. 4. The Applicant shall submit a utility easement subject to the review and approval of the Board Engineer and Board Attorney. 5. The Applicant shall locate the electric meter and appurtenances without requiring relief from the Board. 6. The Applicants shall provide an As-Built Survey prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. The Applicants shall provide a certificate that taxes are paid to date of approval. 8. Payment of all fees, costs, escrows due or to become due. Any monies are to be paid within twenty (20) days of said request by the Board Secretary. 9. Subject to all other applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes of the Borough of Highlands, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey, or any other jurisdiction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause a notice of this decision to be published in the official newspaper at the Applicants’ expense and to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Applicants and to the Borough Clerk, Engineer, Attorney and Tax Assessor, and shall make same available to all other interested parties. BOROUGH OF HIGHLANDS LAND USE BOARD EXHIBITS Case No. No. LUB2022-05/Link Bulk Variance Relief October 13, 2022 December 20, 2022 A-1 Land Use Board Application (Minor Site Plan), dated June 22, 2022. A-2 Architectural Plan prepared by Salvatore La Ferlita, R.A., dated September 23, 2022. A-3 Topographical Survey prepared by Ronald L. Trinidad, P.L.S. of R &T Land Surveying, dated June 1, 2022. A-4 Location Land Survey prepared by Thomas C. Finnegan, P.L.S., dated November 22, 2021. A-5 Grading Plan, prepared by Andrew R. Stockton, P.E., P.L.S., of Eastern Civil Engineering, L.L.C., dated August 10, 2022. A-6 Sketch of Cedar Street Road Vacation, part of Lot 25, Block 65, prepared by Robert K. Sanchez, P.L.S. of CME Associates, dated June 21, 2022. A-7 Sketch of Cedar Street Road Vacation, part of Lot 2.01, Block 68, prepared by Robert K. Sanchez, P.L.S. of CME Associates, dated June 21, 2022. 11 A-8 Sketch of Cedar Street Road Vacation, part of Lot 2.01, Block 68, prepared by Robert K. Sanchez, P.L.S. of CME Associates, dated June 21, 2022. A-9 Colored Rendering of Architectural Plans INTEROFFICE REPORTS B-1 Zoning Officer letter, dated June 22, 2022. B-2 Board Engineer’s First Completeness Review letter, dated September 27, 2022. B-3 Board Engineer’s Fee and Escrow Calculation letter, dated September 27, 2022. B-4 Board Engineer’s First Engineering Review letter, dated September 30, 2022. ON MOTION OF: Ms. LaRussa SECONDED BY: Councilmember Olszewski ROLL CALL: YES: Mayor Broullon, Chief Burton, Ms. LaRussa, Mr. Montecalvo, Councilmember Olszewski, Vice Chair Tierney, Chair Knox NO: None ABSTAINED: Mr. Kutosh, Mr. Lee ABSENT: Mr. Ziemba Patricia Moran, 33 Portland Rd., asked about the construction at 25 Portland Rd. and if there were any variance violations. The Board advised her to see Board Secretary Tran for further information. HEARINGS ON NEW BUSINESS: Conditional Use – LUB2022-07: Bridge City Collective Mr. Glass explained the purpose of the hearing and the Land Use Board’s role with the application. Mayor Broullon, Councilmember Olszewski, and Mr. Montecalvo recused themselves and stepped down from the dais. Brian Tipton, attorney for the applicant, introduced Walter Hopkin, engineer for the applicant. Mr. Hopkin was sworn in and gave his credentials, which the Board accepted. He described the property, the proposed plans, and the parking plans. He also noted that they would comply with the points made by the Board Engineer in his review. Chair Knox asked if there were apartments above the retail store and if there was handicap parking available. Chief Burton asked about exterior improvement plans. Mr. Kutosh asked about handicap accessibility. Vice Chair asked about on-site parking for employees and parking expectations for customers. There was a discussion regarding handicap ramp and parking among the Board and Mr. Herrman answered that it could be resolved in resolution compliance. Brant Reiter was sworn in and gave his credentials in the cannabis industry. He presented the history of Bridge City Collective, the business plan, security, and access of the product. Chief Burton noted that the Board was not interested in tax revenue and Mr. Glass reminded Mr. Reiter of the time limit for each applicant. Chair Knox asked about store capacity. Mr. Glass explained 12 that the application to ensure the public has opportunity to ask questions if time runs out. Mr. Kutosh asked about security. Mr. Cramer asked about line management. Vice Chair Tierney, Mr. Ziemba, and Chief Burton asked about the parking situation. Mr. Herrman noted that the use of the handicap parking space by non-handicap individuals is not allowed and Chief Burton agreed. Chair Knox asked about their cannabis license application and if this would be their only location. Chief Burton noted that this would be the first business at the location since Sandy so he wants to be wowed by the building design. Vice Chair Tierney asked about exterior building improvements and Mr. Knox asked for renderings while Mr. Ziemba asked if there were any specifics. At the end of the time limit, Mr. Glass explained the rules of public portion. Mr. Tipton asked to be carried to better address the points raised by the Board. Chair Knox noted that the public can ask questions regarding testimony already given. Robert Fishler, Gravelly Point Rd., asked about employee collective bargaining and on-site parking for employees. Steve Solop, Bay Ave., asked for explanation of math use to calculate in-store and outside customer traffic and the condition of the property building. Mr. Glass noted that the application will carry to the January 12th meeting without need to renotice. Vice Chair Tierney noted that the Public will have the opportunity to express their opinion then. The Board recessed at 8:23pm and returned at 8:30pm. Roll call was taken again. Conditional Use – LUB2022-08: The Honorable Plant Mr. Glass noted that the applicant is no longer seeking a d variance as stated in their notice. Mayor Broullon and Councilmember Olszewski returned to the dais while Mr. Montecalvo continued to recuse himself. Mr. Lee left the meeting. Edward McKenna and Andrew Stockton were sworn in and each gave his credentials. Mr. Stockton gave an overview of the property and the proposed plan. Mr. Kutosh asked about parking usage. Chief Burton asked about the letter received from the church next door. Mr. Herrman noted that the applicant will meet design standards and noted the correction of the CR03 zone with the new redevelopment plan. Mr. Herrman expressed recommendations regarding the fencing. Catherine Franco was sworn in as the architect for the application and described the interior layout plans and existing storage area. Beth Stavola was sworn in and gave her background in the cannabis business. She described the planned security, operations, line management, delivery, and trash handling. Mr. Zill and Vice Chair Tierney asked about the exterior design plans. Mr. Glass asked about number of employees. Mr. Zill asked about peak period in the day. Chair Knox asked about the state licensing process. 13 Chief Burton asked the number of businesses they have in the state and if they would adjust business hours in consideration of the church. Michael Salerno was sworn in as the owner to discuss how the initial plans evolved to current plans presented. Vice Chair Tierney asked for examples of building improvements. Chief Burton asked why they are not adding another floor. Chair Knox asked about time constraints. Vice Chair Tierney asked about operations. Andrew Janu was sworn in as the planner for the applicant. He testified on the 1,000ft from schools statute and the bulk variance requested. Ms. Chang asked if there was a traffic study done. John McCormick was sworn in as the traffic engineer expert for the applicant and gave his findings. Mr. Cramer asked about line management. Chair Knox asked about square footage. Ms. Chang asked about comparison with a Neptune business. With nothing further from the applicant and the dais, the floor was open to the Public. Steve Solop, Bay Ave., asked if the traffic study included traffic from the Seastreak ferry and crime statistics. He asked if the statistics could be shared. Martin Kiely, Shore Dr., asked about any negative impact due to parking and traffic. Mr. Glass agreed with the testimony regarding the 1,000ft school rule. Mr. Herrman asked about floodplain mitigation. Mr. Stockton and Ms. Franco answered. Danielle McCoy, Spruce Dr. in Shrewsbury, asked for clarification of school rule. Vice Chair Tierney and Mayor Broullon answered. Mr. Solop asked for description of typical customer profile. Mr. Kutosh asked about the Ordinance. Mr. Glass answered that the Board was not making the final decision. Chair Knox if there was a state cutoff date. Mr. Glass noted that the Board decision is based on each applicant’s own merits. Tricia Rivera, Waterwitch Ave., asked who ultimately approves. Vice Chair Tierney answered that the State picks. Danielle McCoy, Spruce Dr. in Shrewsbury, was sworn in and remarked about the process. Mayor Broullon answered that there were five supporting resolutions given and that the Board hears applications as they come in. Chief Burton motioned to approve with design and construction standards be noted as conditions of approval. Mayor Broullon agreed and added that parking lot improvement be included as well. Ms. LaRussa seconded. 14 ON MOTION OF: Chief Burton to approve with design and construction conditions SECONDED BY: Ms. LaRussa seconded with design, construction, and parking conditions ROLL CALL: YES: Mayor Broullon, Chief Burton, Mr. Kutosh, Ms. LaRussa, Councilmember Olszewski, Vice Chair Tierney, Chair Knox NO: None RECUSED: Mr. Montecalvo ABSENT: Mr. Lee, Mr. Ziemba APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 13, 2022 Meeting Minutes OFFERED BY: Councilmember Olszewski SECONDED BY: Vice Chair Tierney YES: Mayor Broullon, Chief Burton, Ms. LaRussa, Mr. Montecalvo, Councilmember Olszewski, Vice Chair Tierney, Chair Knox NO: None INELLIGIBLE: Mr. Kutosh ABSENT: Mr. Lee October 13, 2022 Executive Session Minutes OFFERED BY: Mayor Broullon SECONDED BY: Vice Chair Tierney YES: Mayor Broullon, Chief Burton, Ms. LaRussa, Mr. Montecalvo, Councilmember Olszewski, Vice Chair Tierney, Chair Knox NO: None INELLIGIBLE: Mr. Kutosh ABSENT: Mr. Lee ADJOURNMENT Offered by: Councilmember Olszewski Seconded: Vice Chair Tierney All in favor None Opposed Adjourned at 10:12pm I, Nancy Tran, certify that this is a true and correct record of the actions of the Borough of Highlands Land Use Board on December 20, 2022. ___________________________________________ Nancy Tran, Land Use Board Secretary 15