leonia planning board_313 woodland place resolution (3).pdf

12289223_3\140137

Application for

Preliminary and Final Site

Plan Approval and Use

Variance to Permit

Development of 37 unit

Multi-Family Apartment

Building with Ancillary

Bulk Variances for

Building Height, Building

Coverage, Impervious

Coverage, Setbacks and de

minimis exception from

Residential Site

Improvement Standards

RESOLUTION

LEONIA PLANNING BOARD

APPLICATION OF 313 WOODLAND PLACE, LLC

CALENDAR NO. 2014-11

WHEREAS, 313 Woodland Place, LLC (the Applicant) filed an application for

development seeking Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval to permit the development of

Block 901, Lot 6 on the Tax Assessment Maps of the Borough of Leonia (the Property) with a

multi-family apartment building with accessory parking (the "Application"); and

WHEREAS, the Property is located in the A-3 Zone of the Borough of Leonia, which

does not permit multi-family apartment buildings as principally permitted use; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant required a use variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(1);

a height variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(6); a building coverage variance, an

impervious coverage variance, a side yard setback variance, a rear yard setback variance and a

side and rear yard impervious coverage variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c); and

WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a concept review plan that was reviewed by the

Board on July 23, 2014 prior to the filing of the Application; and

22289223_3\140137

WHEREAS, the Borough of Leonia Planning Board (the Board) considered this matter

at public hearings held upon notice in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law (the

MLUL) on August 27, 2014, September 24, 2014, October 22, 2014, December 17, 2014,

January 28, 2015, and February 11, 2015; and

WHEREAS, because the Applicant require use variance relief, Mayor DeSimone and

Councilman Minichello were not authorized to participate in the hearings on this matter; and

WHEREAS, because Board Member William Russell owns property within 200 feet of

the Property, he recused himself from the matter and did not participate; and

WHERES, because Board Member Timothy Ford had a potential conflict of interest, he

recused himself from the matter and did not participate; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant was represented during the hearings by Mark Sokolich, Esq.;

and

WHEREAS, the Applicant presented the testimony of Pastor Peggy Niederer, David

Garval, P.E., who was qualified as an expert in civil engineering, Perry Frenzel, P.E., P.P., who

was qualified as an expert in civil engineering and planning, Albert Arencibia, who was qualified

as an expert in architecture, Vassilios Cocoros, who was qualified as an expert in architecture,

Louis Luglio, P.E., who was qualified as an expert in traffic engineering, Kenneth Ochab, P.P.,

who was qualified as an expert in professional planning; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant initially proposed a 45-unit development, but the Applicant

revised the Application from time to time such that the development proposed and sought

approval for a 37-unit development; and

WHEREAS, the following members of the public asked questions of the Applicants

witnesses: Wzcerlia Iraldo, 270 Glenwood Road, Mary Miraglia, 45 Linden Terrace, Felicia

32289223_3\140137

East, 314 Hillside Avenue, Don Nungessor, 318 Woodland Place, Charlie Ryan, 269 Glenwood

Avenue, Donna Potharas 342 Woodland Place, Mary Martire, 3 Winthrop Place, Vince

Cominsky, 284 Glenwood Avenue, Ethan Addes 4-5-425 Broad Avenue, Jeanne Churchill,

Arthur Zayat 125 Reldyes Avenue, Julio Ruyes 328, Beechwood Place, Marcia Wilson, 259

Leonia Avenue, Alex Radu, 265 Glenwood Road, Elizabeth Ovalle, 334 Woodland Place,

Councilman Pasquale Fusco, 212 Fort Lee Road, Sue Young Lee, Roland Weimer, 329 Moore

Avenue, Judah Ziegler, 201 Christie Street, Harriet Habeeb Puca, 411 Broad Avenue; Ron Wolf,

230 Christie Heights Road, John Roynor, 403 Allaire Avenue, Andrea Solomon, 149 Reldeys

Avenue, Mary Stiehl, 252 Glenwood, Roland Weimer, 329 Moore Avenue, Neo Antiniades, 416

Hillside Avenue, Joseph Bevacqua, 133 Glenwood Avenue, Weing Yang, 321 Beechwood Place,

Jamie Sclafane, 254 Glenwood Avenue, Marcia Ontell, 329 Magnolia Place, Sally Klig, 497

Park Avenue, and Robert Pacicco, 530 Grandview Terrace; and

WHEREAS, the Board considered the testimony and reports of its engineer, Robert

Costa, P.E. concerning the Application; and

WHEREAS, the Board considered the testimony of the Borough of Leonia Zoning

Officer, James Massaro; and

WHEREAS, the Board was advised during the Application on the relevant legal

standards by its former attorney, Gregg A. Padovano, Esq., and its current attorney, Daniel L.

Steinhagen, Esq.; and

WHEREAS, the Board carefully considered the testimony and evidence presented at the

hearings; and

WHEREAS, the Board has made certain findings of fact and conclusions with respect to

this Application.

42289223_3\140137

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of

Leonia that the following facts are made and determined.

1. During the hearings the following exhibits were marked into evidence:

a. A-1 - Site work plan, dated August 12, 2014

b. A-2 - Survey and existing conditions plan, dated August 12, 2014

c. A-3 - Site plan, dated August 12, 2014

d. A-4 - Landscape and lighting plan, dated August 12, 2014

e. A-5 - Grading, drainage and utility plan, dated August 12, 2014

f. A-6 - Engineering review letter of Costa Engineering, dated August 26, 2014

g. A-7 - Rendering of proposed development

h. A-8 - Floor plans of proposed development, 2nd through 4th floors

i. A-9 - Building elevations

j. A-10 - omitted

k. A-11 - Borough of Leonia Fire Inspector letter, dated August 18, 2014

l. A-10 - Site Plan, last revised October 10, 2014

m. A-11 - Existing conditions and demolition plan, dated October 10, 2014

n. A-12 - Dimensional plan, dated October 10, 2014

o. A-13 - Landscaping and lighting plan, last revised October 10, 2014

p. A-14 - omitted

q. A-15, -16, -17 - Architectural plans depicting elevations

r. A-18 - Aerial photograph

s. A-19 - omitted

t. A-20 - Aerial photograph showing traffic counts

52289223_3\140137

u. A-21 - Architectural plan cover sheet and ground floor plan, dated January 13,

2015

v. A-22 - Architectural plan sheets depicting 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, dated January

7, 2015

w. A-23 - Proposed and modified architectural elevations, dated October 22, 2014

x. A-24 - Rendering depicting prior plans

y. A-25 - Rendering depicting current architectural design

z. A-26 - Photographs (4) of the Property taken by Kenneth Ochab, P.P.

aa. A-27 - Additional photographs (4) of the Property taken by Kenneth Ochab, P.P.

bb. A-28 - Aerial map

cc. A-29 - Borough of Leonia 2002 Master Plan Land Use Plan Map

dd. A-30 - Scale rendering of the proposed development and surrounding buildings

ee. O-1 - List of nearby apartment complexes and number of school children (exhibit

based upon hearsay and data collected by persons who were not available for

cross-examination, but marked and admitted into evidence on account of the

Applicants waiver of objection to same); and

2. August 27, 2014: At the public hearing held on August 27, 2014, the Applicant's

engineer, David Garval, P.E., of Azzolina & Feury Engineering, Inc., was sworn and

qualified as an expert in the field of civil engineering. Mr. Garval testified about the

location, surrounding land uses, which are multi-family uses, physical conditions of the

Property and the layout of the proposed "L" shaped four story apartment building. In

particular, Garval testified as follows:

a. The Property, which is exactly one acre in size, with dimensions of 250 feet along

the frontage on Woodland Place, 224 feet deep on the east side and approximately

108 feet deep on the west side lot line. It is located in the A-3 Zone, which is

predominantly developed with single-family housing.

62289223_3\140137

b. The Property is currently improved with a church building (without any accessory

parking), a playground, and seating area, and the Applicant intends to demolish

all improvements from the Property.

c. The Property generally slopes from northeast to southwest, and there are no

exceptional environmental issues, such as wetlands or floodplains.

d. The proposed building will have a front yard setback of 25 feet, side yard

setbacks of 10 feet (west side) and 15 feet, respectively, and a rear yard setback of

15 feet. The western side yard setback is adjacent to a driveway on the adjacent

lot that is used for multi-family housing, while the eastern side yard setback and

rear yard setback are adjacent to 4-story multi-family buildings.

e. The Property will have two points of vehicle ingress and egress from Woodland

Place. Each curb cut will function independently but are connected by a driveway

adjacent to the entrance to the proposed building.

f. The first level of the building will be mostly parking, with some amenities in the

building on the first floor. The parking spaces that are located under the proposed

building are to be enclosed.

g. Other parking spaces, which are not intended to be enclosed, are to be located in

the rear of the Property.

h. The first floor of the proposed residential building will have a lobby area and

community room, and other amenities including a fitness room.

i. Garbage and recycling will be stored within the enclosed parking area.

j. The Applicant is proposing landscaping and lighting as shown on Exhibit A-

4. All portions of the Property that are not intended to be improved with

72289223_3\140137

impervious cover will be landscaped with grasses, trees, bushes, shrubs. The

landscaping plan includes provision of shade trees along Woodland

Place. Plantings along the driveways are intended to be of low height so as not to

interfere with motorists sight lines. Arbor vitae are proposed in the rear of the

Property to provide year-round screening for the lot to the north. There are

proposed to be four freestanding lights in the parking areas not enclosed

underneath the building. The lighting will adequately light the parking area but

will ensure that lighting will not spill onto adjacent properties.

k. The current structure on the Property has no stormwater management systems and

rainwater simply runs off. The proposed development will have a stormwater

management system that complies with all applicable state and local

requirements. The system is designed to detain stormwater on-site and discharge

it slowly over time to prevent runoff.

l. The Property will have sufficient access to sewer, water, electric and gas service.

m. The Applicant intends to replace the curb along the entire frontage of Woodland

Place.

n. The Property is substantially larger than what is required in the A-3 Zone. Its lot

width and depth are also substantially larger than the minimum required in the A-

3 Zone. The proposed development complies with the front and one-side yard

setback.

o. The proposed development does not comply with the A-3 Zone requirement for

rear yard setback, which is 25 feet, as the proposed development has a 15-foot

setback at its nearest point to the lot upon which a four-story multi-family housing

82289223_3\140137

development is located. The proposed development also does not conform to

combined side yard setback, which requires an area of at least 40% of the lot to be

unoccupied. The Applicants plan provides for a combined side yard setback of

25 feet. The maximum building coverage is 25% in the A-3 Zone, the Applicant

proposes 47.5%. The maximum side and rear yard impervious coverage is 40%

and the Applicant is proposing 62.5%. The A-3 Zone also limits the amount of

impervious coverage to 65% of lot area and the Applicant is seeking approval for

71% impervious coverage. The building height, which is proposed to be slightly

less than 50 feet (4 stories) exceeds the 35-foot/2.5 story limitation in the A-3

zone.

p. With respect to parking, Mr. Garval testified that the development requires 2

spaces per units, which is 90 spaces. The application complies with the

Residential Site Improvement Standard in that 92 parking spaces are

proposed. However, the parking spaces do not comply with RSIS dimensional

requirements, and relief will be necessary. The plan also provides one loading

space.

q. Mr. Garval testified that it was his professional opinion that the Property could

accommodate the proposed development from an engineering standpoint.

r. The Applicant will install a generator to provide electricity to the garage and other

essential building services in the event of an emergency

3. At the August 27, 2014 hearing, the Applicants architect, Albert Arencibia, CPA

Architecture, 5600 Kennedy Boulevard, West New York, New Jersey, was sworn and

92289223_3\140137

qualified in the field in architecture. Mr. Arencibia testified about the proposed multi-

family building as follows:

a. The Applicant requested that his firm design a building that could accommodate

empty-nesters within the Borough of Leonia, which was something that was

somewhat lacking in the Borough of Leonia.

b. Based upon the heights of the adjacent multi-family buildings, Mr. Arencibia

designed a building that was in conformance with the scale of the development in

the immediate area.

c. The L shape of the building is needed to accommodate the lobby in the center

of the building while providing sufficient space for parking. The surface parking

was designated for the area adjacent to the multi-family garden apartment

complex along Broad Street (in the north-west corner of the Property) rather than

place the building in that location because those structures are smaller and it was

determined to be more appropriate to lessen the physical impacts of the

development in that location.

d. The proposed building faade will utilize a variety of different elements,

including stone and brick. The variation is intended to break up the visual impact

both vertically and horizontally. The different elements will provide a sense of

three-dimensionality. A portico is proposed at the front entrance to provide cover

from the elements for residents and guests who arrive at that area.

e. The building was designed to mitigate its height through a pitched roof that slopes

back into the Property. The roof will not be visible at street level from the

property line.

10

2289223_3\140137

f. As shown on the plans, the Applicant is proposing 45 apartments spread across

three stories (above parking). The parking spaces are going to be assigned to

specific tenants. Each unit will have separate utility meters and could be

marketed as either a condominium or rental unit.

g. There will be significant landscaping that will provide screening for the building.

h. As shown on the floor plans of the proposed building 44 two-bedroom units and 1

one-bedroom unit. The one-bedroom unit is proposed to be approximately 1,000

square feet and the two-bedroom units will range between 1,150 and 1,350 square

feet. All units will have their own laundry, water heating, cooling and heating

equipment.

i. Trash will be collected in a compactor on the first floor, and residents will be able

to dispose of trash through a chute that will be available on any floor.

j. The building will be fully sprinklered and alarmed.

k. The Applicant would comply with the requirements of Exhibit A-11

(Memorandum of David A. Haenelt, Borough of Leonia Fire Marshall) by

providing (1) egress from stairwells B & C will access a public way; (2) the

egress pathway from stairwell B will be adequately illuminated; (3) an auxiliary

fire suppression device to ensure the ability to fight a fire at the north end of the

building; and (4) an emergency power generator that is sufficient to power the

elevators, garage doors, lighting, fire alarm system and other security features in

the event of a power failure.

4. September 24, 2014: The Applicant, through its attorney, advised the Board that it

intended to revise the plans. The Applicant did not present any witnesses or testimony at

11

2289223_3\140137

the September 24, 2014 meeting but sought a continuation until October 22, 2014 to

allow for the preparation, submission and review of the revised plans.

5. October 22, 2014: At the October 22, 2014 public hearing, the Applicant presented its

revised plans through the testimony of its engineer, Perry Frenzel, P.E., P.P., and its

architect, Albert Arencibia. At the outset of the hearing, the Applicants counsel, Mark

Sokolich, Esq., advised the Board that the Applicant had filed revised plans that reduced

the unit count and reconfigured the building layout.

6. The Applicant's engineer, Perry Frenzel, P.E., P.P., of Azzolina & Feury Engineering,

Inc., was sworn and qualified as an expert in the field of civil engineering and

professional planning. Mr. Frenzel testified as follows:

a. The Property is 43,560 square feet (1 acre) in size, and is located on Woodland

Place to the east of Broad Avenue.

b. There is no off-street parking on the Property as it is currently constituted, and if

the Property is utilized as a church or other house of worship, any persons visiting

the Property would be required to park on Woodland Place and other surrounding

roadways.

c. The Applicant has redesigned the building configuration and footprint. The

building is now focused on the easterly portion of the site. The building has an

L shape, but most of the mass of the building is in the rear of the Property. The

width (parallel with the frontage on Woodland Place) of the proposed building is

substantially reduced (from 225 feet down to 88 feet).

d. On account of the plan revisions, the points of ingress and egress have been

modified. The easterly driveway is ingress-only and that driveway allows

12

2289223_3\140137

motorists to pull into the covered canopy. Vehicles entering at that point can

either turn into the garage or exit the Property. All egress from the Property will

be from the westerly driveway.

e. The parking has been reconfigured so that the parking spaces are set back

approximately 19.5 feet from the front property line along Woodland Place, and

that area will be landscaped. The Applicant intends to provide landscaping that

will completely screen the surface parking area that is on the western side of the

Property.

f. To supplement the stormwater management plans previously presented and in

response to an inquiry from the Board Engineer, the Applicant will add a curtain

drain to the plans at the eastern end of the Property to collect any subsurface

water runoff. This stormwater management feature will not create any impact to

the adjacent property owner, and the Applicants engineer testified that, in his

opinion, the proposed stormwater management system was an improvement upon

the system as originally contemplated.

g. Based upon the reduction in the number of units from 45 to 42, the Residential

Site Improvement Standards require 83 parking spaces. The revised plans are

compliant with regard to the number of spaces required. However, some of the

spaces provided are for compact cars, which Mr. Frenzel testified was permitted

under the RSIS.

h. The Applicant has redesigned the lighting plan. The plan revisions addressed the

lighting spillage that was present on the prior plan. According to Mr. Frenzel, the

13

2289223_3\140137

revisions bring the lighting plan into compliance with the Borough of Leonias

ordinances such that there will be no spillage onto adjacent properties.

i. Additional landscaping has been added to the plans. The additional landscaping

is intended to screen the parking area and the transformer on the easterly portion

of the Property.

j. The Applicant will maintain and replace, as necessary, all of the landscaping on

the Property that is intended to provide aesthetic benefits and screening.

k. The proposed site plan, as depicted on the Applicants Exhibit A-12, is depicted

below:

l. The proposed landscape and lighting plan, as depicted on the Applicants Exhibit

A-13, is depicted below:

14

2289223_3\140137

7. At the October 22, 2014 public hearing, the Applicants architect, Albert Arencibia, who

was previously sworn and qualified, testified concerning the changes to the proposed

development as follows:

a. The plan revisions focus on reducing the massing of the building in the area of the

Property closest to Woodland Place and also provide an additional landscaped

area in the front yard. The landscaped area in the front yard is approximately

2,000 square feet in size.

b. Attention has been paid to the materials of homes in the nearby vicinity to the

Property and the Applicant has decided to alter the building materials for the

facade. Rather than stonework and masonry, the proposal now calls for cedar

planking, with some limited stonework along the bottom of the building. The

15

2289223_3\140137

new facade is more in keeping with the homes in the neighborhood. The intent of

these changes is to create a more homey environment.

c. Of the 42 units proposed, 7 are one-bedroom units, which comprise

approximately 700 square feet. The remaining 35 units are two-bedroom units

that average approximately 1,100 square feet.

d. The building will have a centrally-monitored alarm system and will be sprinklered

in accordance with the building code and any requirements of the Borough of

Leonia Fire Department.

e. Air conditioning condenser units will be located on the roof and will not be

visible from the street, nor will they be audible to adjacent property owners.

f. The highest point of proposed building is 54 feet 8 inches, but based upon the

definition of the building height in the Borough of Leonia Zoning Ordinance, the

height is 49 feet above average grade. This difference occurs because the pitch of

the roof. As shown on Exhibit A- 18, the height of the multi-family housing

development to the east of the Property and the multi-family housing

development to the north of the Property are roughly equivalent to the highest

point of the proposed building. Because the adjacent buildings were constructed

with flat roofs whereas the proposed building will have a pitched roof, the

building proposed in this Application will appear up to 10 feet shorter than those

adjacent buildings.

8. November 19, 2014: The Applicant, through its attorney, advised the Board that it

intended to again revise the plans. The Applicant did not present any witnesses or

16

2289223_3\140137

testimony at the November 19, 2014 meeting but sought a continuation until December

17, 2014 to allow for the preparation, submission and review of the revised plans.

9. December 17, 2014: At the December 17, 2014 public hearing, the Applicants architect,

Albert Arencibia, who was previously sworn and qualified, testified concerning the

changes to the proposed development as follows:

a. The building width along its frontage on Woodland Place is approximately 87

feet.

b. The materials to be utilized for the building faade were selected to mimic many

of the elements found in the neighborhood.

10. At the December 17, 2014 public hearing, the Applicant presented the testimony of

Reverend Peggy Niederer, the Pastor of the Holy Spirit Lutheran Church, which is the

current owner of the Property. Pastor Niederer was sworn and testified as follows:

a. The church was closed for worship and other related services on June 30, 2014.

During her time as pastor of the Church (since 2003), there were an average of

23-30 people at the worship services. Attendance during holidays, the attendance

was higher.

b. When it was formed, the Holy Spirit Church had a membership of over 500

people, and held two services on Sundays, each that were attended by over 100

people. The Church also maintained a well-attended day-care program, summer

camp, and bible study programs, special events during the week, and other

activities.

c. The childcare program, which was State-certified, started in the 1960s. In 2003

there were over 60 children enrolled. The program had morning and afternoon

17

2289223_3\140137

sessions. The morning session began at 7:30 a.m. The childcare program ended

in 2009.

d. Other activities, such as boy scouts and girl scouts, used the building for their

activities, as did various other organizations. Those meetings were year-round

activities that met more than once a week at the Church.

e. Pastor Niederer testified that the Church had also been rented to another religious

group between 1990 and February of 2014, but that group no longer maintained

its tenancy on the Property. That group held services on Sunday afternoons (after

Holy Spirit finished its services) and was typically attended by a minimum of 100

people. That group also utilized the building during the week for other events,

particularly on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings.

f. The Church has no parking lot, so parking is on-street. This often resulted in

parking on Woodland Place, Glenwood Avenue, Beechwood Place, and other

streets throughout the neighborhood, because there were so many cars that were

parked in the neighborhood with other visitors to the Church.

g. The maximum capacity of the Church sanctuary is between 200-250 people.

h. Other religious groups had expressed interest in purchasing the Property and at

least two are still interested in the property for use as a house of worship even

though the Applicant is presenting this Application.

11. At the December 17, 2014 public hearing, the Applicants traffic consultant, Louis

Luglio, P.E., 160 Hillscrest Avenue, Leonia, New Jersey, was sworn and qualified as an

expert in the field of traffic engineering. Mr. Luglio testified as follows

18

2289223_3\140137

a. The traffic impact analysis included examination of the intersections of Woodland

Place and Broad Avenue and Woodland Place and Glenwood Avenue.

b. Residential land uses typically generate lower number of trips as compared to

office or retail uses. Residential uses have low turnover.

c. Manual traffic counts were undertaken in the AM and PM Peak Hours. The

counts were taken between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and

6:00 p.m. on September 22, 2014 and October 23, 2014 to determine the peak 60-

minute interval where the existing traffic was at its maximum.

d. The AM Peak Hour is 7:30-830 a.m., while the PM Peak Hour is 5:00-6:00 p.m.

e. There are approximately 900 vehicles per hour travelling on Broad Avenue during

both the AM and PM peak hours.

f. There is heavy volume on Glenwood Avenue that is similar to what exists on

Broad Avenue, especially during the AM Peak Hour.

g. On-street parking is permitted on Woodland Place at various times during the

week.

h. Utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, the

new traffic expected to be generated going to and coming from the proposed

development is five vehicle trips to and eighteen vehicle trips departing the

Property, for a total of twenty-three vehicle trips, during the AM Peak Hour.

During the PM Peak Hour, the ITE Manual predicts eighteen trips to the Property

and ten trips departing the Property, for a total of 28 new vehicle trips during the

PM Peak Hour. There would be additional trips coming to and going from the

Property at other times during the day, but these trip generation estimates are

19

2289223_3\140137

those that coincide with the period of the highest traffic on the surrounding

roadway network.

i. During the AM and PM Peak Hours, the existing levels of service at the

intersections of Woodland Place and Broad Avenue, and Woodland Place and

Glenwood Avenue are both LOS C. If the Property were developed as proposed,

the levels of service would not change because the proposed development is

adding only one vehicle trip every two minutes during the Peak Hour, which

could come from or go to either intersection.

j. Because the proposed development does not create an adverse traffic impact to

the intersections immediately adjacent to the Property, there is no need to study

other intersections more distant from the Property.

k. Based on the Residential Site Improvement Standards, 83 parking spaces are

required, and 83 spaces are provided. The proposed development does include

compact car spaces, which are 8x15. Mr. Luglio testified that according to the

Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Manual, up to 30% of the parking

spaces can be compact, and the proposed development does not exceed the 30%

threshold. The compact spaces are intended to be assigned to individual units and

are located in an area where there is no circulation, so those spaces will not be

utilized by visitors.

l. The proposed circulation areas comply with the Residential Site Improvement

Standards, and all turning areas, parking aisles and spaces conform to the

requirements thereof.

20

2289223_3\140137

m. The proposed parking layout is safe and efficient for vehicle, pedestrian, and fire

and emergency service vehicle ingress, egress and circulation.

n. The access points to the parking areas and driveways will function in a safe and

efficient manner for the proposed use.

o. A typical motorist on Woodland Place would not perceive any difference from a

trip generation standpoint if the proposed development were constructed. This is

not to say that residents on Woodland Place would not notice the building, but is

solely a commentary on the amount of traffic that will be generated by the

development.

12. January 28, 2015: At the January 28, 2015 public hearing, the Applicants architect,

Vassilios Cocoros, was sworn and qualified in the field of architecture and testified as

follows:

a. The revisions to the plans, which reduced the number of units down to a total of

37, requires 74 parking spaces. The Applicants site plan proposed 80 spaces,

resulting in an excess of 6 spaces above the amount required by the Residential

Site Improvement Standards.

b. The revisions effectuated a step-back of the building elevation along Woodland

Place such that the front of the building has a three-story appearance from the

street.

c. The revisions to the plans eliminated a portico along the front elevation of the

building that intruded into the front yard setback.

d. The proposed building elevations, as shown on Exhibit A-23, are depicted below:

21

2289223_3\140137

As noted in Mr. Cocoros testimony, and as shown on the Applicants board-

mounted Exhibit A-25, the portico at the entrance in the front yard adjacent to

Woodland Place has been removed and no approval or relief from same is sought

by the Applicant.

e. The proposed first floor plan and parking layout, as shown on Exhibit A-21, is

depicted below:

22

2289223_3\140137

f. The proposed second, third and fourth floor plans of the apartments, as shown on

Exhibit A-22, are depicted below:

13. At the January 28, 2015 public hearing, the Applicants traffic engineer, Louis Luglio,

P.E., who was previously sworn and qualified, gave summary testimony updating his

prior testimony based upon the reduced number of units in the revised plans as follows:

a. The proposed residential development has a low trip generation, and that his trip-

generation estimates for the 42-unit plan (for example, 23 trips during the A.M.

peak hour) would go down slightly because the Applicant was proposing 5 fewer

units.

b. There are no changes to the ingress and egress to the proposed development and

that it, along with the on-site traffic circulation, which was also unchanged, was

sufficient to operate in a safe and efficient manner.

c. The existing traffic in the nearby vicinity is not ideal, but that because of the low

trip-generation of the proposed development, development of the Property as

proposed by the Applicant would not worsen the condition.

23

2289223_3\140137

14. At the January 28, 2015 public hearing, the Applicants planner, Kenneth Ochab, P.P.,

Kenneth Ochab Associates, 12-16 Fair Lawn Avenue, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, was sworn

and qualified as an expert in the field of professional planning. Mr. Ochab testified in

support of the Application as follows:

a. Mr. Ochab identified the documents he reviewed prior to forming a conclusion

about the variances sought by the Applicant. He indicated his conclusions were

based upon his visits to the Property, his review of the Applicants plans, and his

analysis of the Borough of Leonias Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan.

b. Mr. Ochab expressed an opinion that utilizing the bulk requirements in the A-3

Zone to evaluate the proposed development might not be appropriate because they

were designed for single-family residential development on 8,000 square foot lots

whereas the Applicant was proposing a multi-family development on a lot that

was one acre in size, had an irregular shape with a large frontage, and was

surrounded by multi-family uses.

c. Mr. Ochab testified that the proposed development was particularly suitable for

the Property (and vice-versa) because of other nearby uses that are similar in

character to what is proposed, the close proximity of the Property to the Broad

Avenue corridor, the fact that there are close mass-transit options, and given the

size, shape and location of the property it does not seem appropriate for single-

family use.

d. Mr. Ochab recounted that the 2002 Master Plan and the 2009 Master Plan Re-

examination Report identify provision of a variety of housing options as a goal for

the Borough of Leonia, and in particular multi-family development. The planning

24

2289223_3\140137

documents further recognize that redevelopment is needed to achieve many of the

other goals in the Master Plan.

e. Mr. Ochab also presented, as Exhibit A-29, the Land Use Plan Map that is

included in the Borough of Leonia Master Plan, which identifies that the Property

should be developed with senior housing. According to Ochab, this means that

there was an intent to consider multi-family housing on the Property because

senior housing is multi-family housing with an age restriction.

f. Mr. Ochab also provided a basis for the height variance sought by the

Applicant. He testified that he believed that the design helped to accommodate

the fact that it exceeded the height in the A-3 Zone. He referenced the pitched

roof, which, although increasing the overall height of the building, would provide

more aesthetic value than a flat roof. Furthermore, the highest part of the building

is set back deep into the interior of the Property and is closer to the multi-family

buildings to the north and east that are of similar height.

g. Mr. Ochab opined that the other bulk variances should be incorporated into the

use variance.

h. Finally, Mr. Ochab testified about the negative criteria. He noted that every

development has some impact, but where variances are sought, the question is

whether the impact is substantial. Ochab testified that he believed that the

proposed development would not cause a substantial detriment to the public good

based upon the site improvements proposed by the Applicant, including the

landscaping, architectural design, and site layout. He also testified that it was his

opinion that there would not be a substantial impairment of the zone plan and

25

2289223_3\140137

zoning ordinance because the Master Plan recommends senior housing on the

Property.

i. When asked by the Board Attorney about the enhanced quality of proof required

to demonstrate the absence of impairment, Ochab again re-emphasized the Land

Use Plan Map.

15. February 11, 2015: At the February 11, 2015 public hearing, the following members of

the public gave testimony and offered lay opinions concerning the project:

a. Elizabeth Frentzel, 238 Van Orden Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay

opinion in support of the Application.

b. Andrea Solomon, 149 Reldyes Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion

in opposition to the Application

c. Dan Pacek, 403 Allair Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in

opposition to the Application

d. Frank Livelli, 311 Oakdene Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


e. Joseph Bevacqua, 133 Glenwood Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay

opinion in opposition to the Application

f. Mark Spiegel, 122 Wood Terrace gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


g. John Roynon gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in opposition to the

Application

h. Neo Antoniades, 416 Hillside Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


26

2289223_3\140137

i. Bill Ziegler, 12 Prospect Street gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


j. Damee Choi, 7 Cottage Place gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


k. Christie Evans, 360 Grand Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


l. Jamie Sclafane, 254 Glenwood Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion


m. Roland Weimer, 329 Moore Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


n. Karl Marquardt, 314 Beechwood Place gave testimony and offered a lay opinion


o. Mary Miraglia, 45 Linden Terrace gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


p. Councilman Pasquale Fusco; 212 Fort Lee Road gave testimony and offered a lay

opinion in opposition to the Application

q. Councilwoman Maureen Havlusch, 180 Crescent Avenue gave testimony and

offered a lay opinion in opposition to the Application

r. Harriet Habib Puca, 411 Broad Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion


s. Marcia Wilson, 259 Leonia Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


27

2289223_3\140137

t. David Slater, 53 Hawthorne Terrace gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


u. Donna Potharis, 342 Woodland Place gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


v. Keyla Garcia, 258 Glenwood Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


w. Sally Klig, 497 Park Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


x. Anthony Yee, 332 Beechwood Place gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


y. Gabe Korver, 48 Linden Terrace gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


z. Douglas Chung, 263 Broad Avenue gave testimony and offered a lay opinion in


aa. Wen-Liang Yang, 321 Beechwood Place gave testimony and offered a lay opinion


bb. Planning Board Member William Russell, 325 Beechwood Place gave testimony

and offered a lay opinion in opposition to the Application

Most members of the public argued that the project was out-of-character with their vision

of the Borough of Leonia. They further argued that the development would create adverse traffic

impacts, but were unable to identify any particular basis for that conclusion other than their own

lay opinions. The members of the public in opposition to the Application did not present nor did

28

2289223_3\140137

they seek to present any opinion testimony from any competent expert witnesses concerning the

subject matters relevant to this Application.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Leonia that

based upon the above findings of fact, that the following conclusions are made and determined:

1. The Applicant is the contract purchaser for the Property and has an interest in land that

qualifies it to be considered a developer under the MLUL.

2. The Property is located in the Borough of Leonias A-3 Zone, which permits single

family residential uses, schools, parks and playgrounds, home office uses in specific

locations, and houses of worship as conditional uses.

3. The Property is approximately one (1) acre in size, which is substantially larger than the

lot area required in the A-3 Zone for permitted uses (5,000 square feet pursuant to

Ordinance 290-8(E)).

4. The Property is irregularly shaped in that the depth of the western side of the Property is

substantially less (approximately 100 feet) than the eastern side of the Property

(approximately 225 feet). The Property has 250 feet of frontage on Woodland Place.

5. The Property generally slopes from west to east following the typical slope in this area of

the Borough. There is also a gentle slope towards the rear of the Property.

6. To the west of and abutting the Property is the Leonia Manor apartment complex, which

is a two-story attached garden apartment development and is located in the B Zone. To

the north and east of the Property is The Glenwood, which is a four-story multi-family

senior housing development. To the north of the Property is The Glenwood II, which is

also a four-story multi-family senior housing development. Both senior housing

developments, which are located in the Boroughs SH Zone, are built at a grade that is

29

2289223_3\140137

higher than the elevations on the Property. Across Woodland Place are single-family

residential dwellings on lots of approximately 5,000 square feet (50 x 100), with the

exception of the American Legion Post located at the corner of Woodland Place and

Broad Avenue.

7. The Property is located approximately 220 feet east of Broad Avenue, which is a major

north-south thoroughfare in the Borough of Leonia. There is public transportation access

on Broad Avenue, including New Jersey Transit bus stops between Woodland Place and

Hillside Avenue (for northbound traffic) and at the corner of Hillside Avenue and Broad

Avenue (for southbound traffic).

8. The Property is currently improved with a house of worship that can accommodate up to

250 people. The existing house of worship lacks off-street parking, and any worshipers

that attend services or other functions at the existing Church are required to park on

Woodland Place or on other nearby streets.

9. The Applicant has proposed a multi-family residential development, originally of 45

units, but reduced to 37 units.

10. The Proposed development has a maximum height of 49 feet, and is 4 stories tall. Along

the Propertys frontage on Woodland Place, the building height is stepped back and the

height of the building closest to Woodland Place is substantially lower than 49 feet.

11. The proposed multi-family use is not permitted in the A-3 Zone.

12. The Applicant requires a use variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(1).

13. The Application also does not conform to the bulk requirements of the A-3 Zone because

it requires relief from certain yard and area requirements imposed on the permitted uses

in the zoning district.

30

2289223_3\140137

14. Where an applicant for development proposes a use that is not permitted in the zone,

N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(1) requires that the applicant demonstrate, by competent and

credible evidence, that there are special reasons, which is colloquially known as the

positive criteria, to permit a departure from the uses permitted in the zoning

district. Generally, there are three ways that an applicant can demonstrate that there are

special reasons to support the grant of a use variance. They are: (1) where application

and enforcement of the existing zoning restrictions would impose an undue hardship on

the applicant because the property is not reasonably adaptable to a conforming use and

that in the absence of relief, the property would be zoned into economic utility; (2) where

an application proposes a use that is inherently beneficial to the general welfare; or (3)

where an application demonstrates that the proposed use is particularly suitable to the

property on which it is proposed because either the location of the site or the unique

characteristics of the demonstrate that it is appropriate for the proposed use rather than a

permitted use. The Board specifically finds and concludes that the proposed use is not

inherently beneficial nor would the property be zoned into economic inutility if the

existing zoning were required. Instead, the Board finds and concludes that the applicable

standard of review for the positive criteria is the particular suitability test that is

discussed in cases such as Medici v. BPR Co., Inc., 107 N.J. 1 (1987), and Price v.

Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263 (2013).

15. An applicant seeking a use variance, as with all variance applications, is also required to

demonstrate what is commonly known as the negative criteria, which requires a

showing that the grant of the variance can be accomplished without substantial detriment

to the public good and without substantial impairment of the zone plan and zoning

31

2289223_3\140137

ordinance. In cases seeking use variances for uses not permitted in the zoning district,

the New Jersey Supreme Court has required that an applicant demonstrate, through an

enhanced quality of proof as well as clear and specific findings by the Board, some

evidence that the grant of the variance can be reconciled with the proposed uses

omission from the list of uses permitted in the zoning district.

16. For the reasons set forth below, the Board finds and concludes that the Applicant has

satisfied its burden of proof to demonstrate that there are (1) special reasons to support

the grant of the use variance; (2) that the grant of the use variance will not cause

substantial detriment to the public good; and (3) that the grant of the use variance can be

reconciled with the existing zoning such that there is proof that it will not substantially

impair the intent and purposes of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.

17. The size and shape of the Property do not lend themselves to single-family residential

development. Because the Property is one (1) acre, it would support, by its lot area, up to

eight (8) single family lots of 5,000 square feet. However, only five conforming lots

could be achieved if it were subdivided because the A-3 Zone requires a minimum

frontage of 50 feet and the Property has a frontage of 250 feet on Woodland Place. The

Board does not find that the existing zoning constitutes a hardship upon the Applicant but

does recognize that the bulk limitations in the A-3 Zone do impact the developability of

the Property with a conforming use. Because the eastern portion of the Property is

unusually deep for lots in the A-3 Zone and is surrounded by multi-family uses, the

Applicant is provided with the opportunity to make use of this area in a way that would

not cause the typical impacts to single family development, had same existed on adjacent

lots.

32

2289223_3\140137

18. The Board is cognizant of the fact that The Glewnwood II senior housing development

operated by the Leonia Retirement Housing Corporation on Lot 6.01 was once part of the

subject Property, but same was subdivided and sold to permit the multi-family

development that now exists. The Borough of Leonia rezoned that parcel, along with Lot

7 on August 21, 2006 through the adoption of Ordinance 13-06. That ordinance

acknowledged that the basis for the rezoning of the parcels adjacent to the Property were

that Lots 6.01 and 7 were immediately adjacent to the Borough of Leonia B/Multiple

Family Dwelling zone district, Lot 6.01 was immediately adjacent to an existing,

developed multi-family building, Lot 6.01 was in close proximity to the Leonias [sic]

downtown business district and mass transit opportunities. As testified by the

Applicants professional experts, those same facts are in existence here.

19. Not only is the Property adjacent to a multi-family development, it is completely

surrounded by multi-family development. To the west is the Leonia Manor; to the north

is The Glenwood II, and to the east is The Glenwood. The Property, while in the A-3

Zone, is a veritable island, as it is surrounded on all sides (except its frontage on

Woodland Place) with multi-family development and zones that permit multi-family

development rather than single-family residential dwellings or zones.

20. The Property is located in very close proximity to the Broad Avenue commercial

corridor. Residents of the proposed development will have access to and will provide a

needed additional customer base to the businesses in Leonias commercial

zones. Furthermore, the Property is adaptable to multi-family development because of

the close proximity of mass transit options along Broad Avenue. As testified to by the

Applicants witnesses, the Applicants business model will appeal to persons wishing to

33

2289223_3\140137

take mass transit to work, which the Board finds is typical of multi-family development

that is located close to downtown areas (and unlike the typical mode of transportation

associated with occupants of single-family dwellings, which is often by private

automobile).

21. The Property is substantially larger than the minimum lot area required in the A-3 Zone,

and based upon the design and layout of the proposed development, the Applicant has

provided a sufficient number of parking spaces pursuant to the Residential Site

Improvement Standards, N.J.A.C. 5:21-4.14, and the Board believes that there is

sufficient space to accommodate the proposed development. In making this

determination, the Board is cognizant of the density limitations imposed in the B Zones,

but also recognizes, as testified to by the Applicants planner, that garden apartment

development is outdated, does not serve the needs of residential consumers in the twenty-

first century, and is typically not constructed in this day and age. The Board also notes

that there is no density limitation in the SH Zone.

22. As testified to by Pastor Peggy Niederer, the existing church on the Property recently

closed after declining membership. The daycare facility that was once operated on the

Property has also closed due to lack of enrollment. At one point, however, the level of

activity on the Property was significant beginning every weekday at 7:30 a.m. and

continuing until late in the evening. Similar levels of activity occurred on the weekends,

with up to three separate worship services. However, there is interest in purchasing the

Property by at least two other congregations, and any use of the Property as a house of

worship could create substantial traffic and parking impacts well in excess of the likely

impacts of the proposed multi-family use. The Board finds that, although the religious

34

2289223_3\140137

use is suspended, there has not been demonstrated an intent to abandon same, and

therefore the house of worship use could resume at any time.

23. On account of these factors listed above, and in particular, the fact that the Property is

eight times the minimum lot area required in the A-3 Zone, is irregularly shaped, is

surrounded by multi-family uses, and is located in close proximity to the downtown area

of the Borough of Leonia, the Board finds and concludes that the Applicant has satisfied

its burden of proof on the positive criteria because it established and demonstrated to the

satisfaction of the Board that the Property is peculiarly and particularly suitable for the

proposed development because the use of the Property, given its size, shape, topography

and location, will advance the general welfare.

24. In making this finding, the Board is mindful that the application advances numerous

purposes of zoning. In particular, the application advances the general welfare by

providing newer housing of a type and size that is not typically found within the Borough

of Leonia, and which the Board believes will be a benefit to the community, particularly

because the Applicant represented an intention to initially market the development only

to current residents of the Borough of Leonia. The Board also concludes that the

development will promote a desirable visual environment through the use of aesthetically

pleasing architectural design elements, compatible height with buildings on the adjacent

properties, landscaping, and general property maintenance. Furthermore, the

development of the Property with the proposed use furthers the goals of New Jerseys

State Development and Redevelopment Plan because the Borough of Leonia is located

within the Planning Area 1-Metropolitan Area, and this development serves the Plan's

goal of redirecting the population to urban areas where infrastructure and services - such

35

2289223_3\140137

as the mass transit options on Broad Avenue and the commercial uses in the nearby

downtown area - already exist.

25. The Applicant presented competent, credible and unrebutted expert testimony from a

licensed engineer concerning the potential traffic impacts that would result from this

development. The Applicants traffic engineer, Louis Luglio, P.E., testified that the

development will not create an adverse impact on traffic, and in particular that the 37-unit

development will not cause a deterioration in the Level of Service on Woodland Place (or

any of the adjacent intersections roadways). The Board recognizes the concerns of the

many interested parties who disputed Mr. Luglios traffic counts, analysis and testimony,

and expressed concern about exacerbating the existing traffic conditions on Woodland

Place and surrounding roadways. However, the Board also notes that it is constrained by

the holding in Exxon Co., USA v. Bernardsville Bd. of Adj., 196 N.J. Super. 183 (Law

Div. 1984), which prohibits, as a matter of law, a land use board from rejected unrebutted

expert testimony in favor of anecdotal evidence submitted by lay witnesses. Because the

Board was not provided with any competent expert opinion testimony, data or analysis in

rebuttal to Mr. Luglios testimony and evidence, which the Board found to be credible

and persuasive, it was not free to disregard the opinion and traffic analysis. Furthermore,

the Applicants traffic impact analysis was reviewed by the Boards own engineer,

Robert Costa, P.E., who expressed no concern about the data, methodology or

conclusions set forth therein. As a result, the Board finds and concludes that the

proposed development will not create an adverse traffic impact upon the roadways or

adjacent properties in a manner significantly greater than if the property were to be

developed with a permitted use.

36

2289223_3\140137

26. The Board also finds and concludes that the proposed development will not be out of

character with the surrounding neighborhood. Immediately to the east is a multi-family

senior housing complex that is of a similar scale to the proposed development. A similar

complex is located to the north of the Property. The Applicants design is not

substantially more massive than either of these developments, and through the use of

step-backs on the buildings facade facing Woodland Place, setbacks of the building,

substantial landscape screening, and the natural separation of Woodland Place (which is a

44-foot wide right-of-way), the Board believes that the proposed development will not

overcrowd the single-family dwellings on the south side of Woodland Place.

27. The Board also finds and concludes that the proposed development will not substantially

impair the intent and purposes of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. On this issue, the

Applicant presented the unrebutted planning testimony of Kenneth Ochab, P.P., who

identified several unique characteristics that allow the Board to reach this

conclusion. First among them was the fact that the Borough of Leonias Master Plan

Land Use Plan designates the Property for multi-family development with senior

housing. Of course, when the Land Use Plan was prepared, New Jersey was not facing a

glut of senior housing. See N.J.S.A. 45:22A-46.3 (which allowed for conversion of senior

housing to market rate housing as a permitted use irrespective of local zoning

considerations). The Board agrees with the Applicants planner that development of the

Property with senior housing is not realistic. Second, because the Property physically

separated from the A-3 Zone (by Woodland Place and the adjacent multi-family zones

that surround it on all sides), there is reason to believe that the Borough of Leonia

Governing Body would effectuate a rezoning to harmonize the Zoning Ordinance with

37

2289223_3\140137

the existing conditions and the recommendations of the Master Plan Land Use Plan Map

subject to the provision that there be no restriction on the intended occupants of the

development, though given the small size of the Property in relation to the overall A-3

Zone, the Board does not believe that the grant of this variance interferes with the zoning

prerogatives of the Borough of Leonia Governing Body. With respect to the surrounding

development, the Board also concludes that the character of Block 901 is no longer

single-family in nature. With the adjacent multi-family development that already exists,

the Board finds and concludes that the grant of a use variance will not substantially

impair the intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance.

28. The Applicant has requested bulk variances to permit it to exceed the maximum building

coverage, impervious coverage, side yard setback, rear yard setback and side and rear

yard impervious coverage permitted in the A-3 Zone. The Board is aware that the

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division has held in Puleio v. N. Brunswick

Twp. Bd. of Adjustment, 375 N.J.Super. 613 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 184 N.J. 212

(2005) that a board in considering a "use" variance, must then consider the overall site

design. In essence, the "c" variances are subsumed in the "d" variance. The Supreme

Court recognized this holding in Price v. Himeji, 214 N.J. 263 (2013). The Board

concludes that the bulk variances, with the exception of the height variance sought

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(6) that is discussed in Paragraph 33 below, are

subsumed by the grant of the use variance. However, in light of the contested nature of

this application, the Board deems it appropriate to resolve the bulk variances proofs

anyway even though doing so is not required by the applicable precedents.

38

2289223_3\140137

29. The Zoning Ordinance requires side yard setbacks of 10 feet on one side and 40% of the

lot width on the other side. The Applicant proposes side yard setbacks of 10 feet and 25

feet, and because the Property is 250 feet wide, a side yard of 100 feet is required. On a

typical lot in the A-3 Zone, which is required to be 50 feet wide, the expected second side

yard is required to be 20 feet. The proposed development exceeds this amount, but

because the Property is substantially larger than the minimum lot area in the zone, its side

yard requirement is also substantially larger. The Board finds that a variance from the

side yard setback is cognizable under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2) because the grant of the

variance advances the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law by providing a type of

housing that is needed in the Borough of Leonia as well as providing sufficient light, air

and open space by providing a side yard setback that is greater than if the Property were

subdivided and developed in strict conformance with the zoning ordinance because a

setback of 25 feet is being provided while the ordinance only contemplates a 20 foot

setback for conforming lots in the A-3 Zone. The Board also concludes that the benefits

of granting the variance from the overall development substantially outweigh any

detriments from the variance as a result of the aforementioned advances to the purposes

of the MLUL because the adjacent properties, which are the ones impacted by the side

yard setback are also multi-family housing developments. Furthermore, the Applicant is

proposing landscaping that is sufficient to screen and buffer any negative impacts from

the adjacent property.

30. The Application proposes an impervious coverage of 71.5% of the lot area of the

Property. This requires a variances because the A-3 Zone provides for a maximum

impervious coverage of 65% in the Zone. The grant of this coverage variance is

39

2289223_3\140137

appropriate in light of the benefits to the general welfare previously identified and

because these benefits substantially outweigh the detriments associated with this

deviation. The purpose of impervious coverage limitations is to limit the amount of

stormwater runoff, and the Applicant has proposed a stormwater management system that

accommodates the 100-year storm, so any negative impact from the coverage variance is

mitigated. Furthermore, the proposed coverage variance results in a better zoning

alternative than a development that conforms to the coverage maximum in the zone

because the additional impervious coverage allows the Applicant to provide additional

parking spaces.

31. The Applicant also requires relief from the side and rear yard impervious coverage

limitation. The Zone permits a maximum of 40% of these areas to be covered with

impervious coverage while the Applicant proposes 62.5% of these areas to be

covered. The overwhelming majority of the excess coverage results from the fact that

any development on the Property is required to provide a 100-foot side-yard setback in

accordance with the requirements of Section 290-8(d) of the Borough of Leonia Zoning

Ordinance, which requires a side yard setback of 40% of the lot width. Because the

Property is substantially larger than a typical lot in the A-3 Zone, the Applicant would

suffer practical difficulties and undue hardship if this provision were strictly

applied. Doing so would also limit the ability to provide a sufficient number of parking

spaces, and would necessitate on-street parking. The Board finds that providing a

sufficient number of parking spaces on-site is a better zoning alternative and warrants the

grant of this variance. For the same reasons that the benefits of the side yard setback

variance substantially outweighed the detriments thereof, the Board finds that the benefits

40

2289223_3\140137

of granting the side and rear yard impervious coverage variances substantially outweigh

the detriments thereof.

32. The Application proposes a building coverage of 39.5% while the maximum building

coverage in the A-3 Zone is 25%. The purpose of the building coverage limitation is to

prevent the appearance of an overly large building that dominates the streetscape. By

virtue of the shape of the lot, the Applicant has designed a building that presents a facade

that is not indicative of a building with exceptional or overly large mass. This was

achieved by orienting the building so that its north-south dimension, which is not visible

from the Propertys frontage on Woodland Place, is substantially longer than its east-west

dimension. By obtaining a variance for the building coverage deviation, the Applicant is

able to provide additional apartment units, which are a needed type of housing stock in

the Borough of Leonia in a location that helps to support the downtown business area

along Broad Avenue without creating a substantial adverse traffic impact. Furthermore,

the Applicants plan provides substantial and attractive landscaping, which results in a

desirable visual environment. Because the Applicant has successfully mitigated the

appearance of the building, accommodated the necessary parking for the development on-

site, and is not unreasonably interfering with traffic flow (despite the extra building

coverage, which translates into additional apartment units), the Board finds that the

benefits of granting the building coverage variance substantially outweigh the detriments

thereof.

33. With respect to the building height, the Applicant requires variance relief from N.J.S.A.

40:55D-70(d)(6) because the height exceeds the maximum height permitted in the zone

by more than 10 feet. The Applicant satisfied the positive criteria for this variance by

41

2289223_3\140137

demonstrating that the Property can accommodate the deviation from the Zoning

Ordinance. The Applicant demonstrated that visual impacts from the development are

mitigated by the design, which include stepping back the building height such that the

portions closest to Woodland Place are lower in height and that the portions of the

building that most greatly exceed the height limitation are to the rear of the Property and

furthest away from the single-family homes across Woodland Place. Furthermore, the

development is not out of scale with the development on adjacent properties, which are

both four stories tall. The Applicant also demonstrated that the physical impacts from the

building height deviation - which is essentially an extra floor of apartments - can also be

accommodated. The Applicant has provided a sufficient number of parking spaces on the

site to comply with the requirements of the Residential Site Improvement Standards, and

its traffic engineer demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board that the increased

number of units that are located on the top floor will not cause an excessive increase in

the amount of traffic generated by the Property upon completion of the development as

compared to a building that did not exceed the building height. These same factors

demonstrate that the grant of the building height variance will not cause substantial

detriment to the public good. The Board also concludes that by virtue of the adjacent land

uses and the Master Plan Land Use Map, the grant of the height variance will not cause a

substantial impairment of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.

34. The Applicant requires a waiver from 236-28(B)(1) of the Borough of Leonia Site Plan

Review Ordinance, which prohibits parking spaces within thirty (30) feet of a right of

way, because the plans propose a parking space setback of 19.5 feet from Woodland

Place. The Board finds that the grant of the waiver is reasonable under the circumstances

42

2289223_3\140137

in light of the irregular shape of the Property and the substantial screening proposed by

the Applicant to render the parking area invisible to neighboring property owners.

35. The Application requires the following de minimis exceptions from the Residential Site

Improvement Standards:

a. Parking stall size - N.J.A.C. 5:21-4.15 requires the dimensions of off-street

parking spaces to be a minimum of 9 x 18, while the Applicant is proposing

spaces that are 8 x 15. The Residential Site Improvement Standards specifically

authorize a land use board to grant a de minimis exception to reduce the minimum

size of parking spaces. See N.J.A.C. 5:21-3.1(f)(1). The Board finds that the

grant of this de minimis exception is consistent with the intent and purposes of the

Site Improvement Act. It also finds that the exception is reasonable, limited and

not unduly burdensome because the Applicant intends to market the building as a

rental and therefore will be able to monitor and manage the parking situation to

ensure an absence of difficulties therewith, particularly because these spaces are

to be assigned to specific units and only one person, who will be familiar with the

dimensional limitations of the space, will be parking in that location. The Board

finds, based upon the opinion of its engineer, Robert Costa, P.E., and the opinions

of the Applicants witnesses, whose testimony was not rebutted with any other

expert testimony, that the parking layout meets the needs of public health and

safety, and that it takes into account the existing infrastructure and surrounding

future development. The Board also finds that it is not practical to add additional

impervious coverage to the lot. The Applicant attempted to strike a balance

between the 65% impervious coverage limit in the A-3 Zone, the number of

43

2289223_3\140137

required parking spaces, and the other dimensional requirements associated with

the development of the parking area. By reducing the size of the parking spaces,

the Applicant is able to fit more spaces into a smaller area, while at the same time

retaining open space for landscaping and other non-impervious areas.

36. The Applicant presented testimony to the satisfaction of the Board that its stormwater

management and drainage, utility, sewage, circulation, landscaping and lighting plans

were feasible and adequate to handle the proposed development.

37. In particular, the Board finds that the stormwater management plan complies with the

Borough of Leonia Stormwater Management Ordinance and is sufficient to handle the

stormwater runoff from the design storms as specified in the Ordinance.

38. The Board also finds that the circulation plan and parking layout plan are safe and

efficient, and are laid out in a manner than is able to accommodate the parking needs of

the development, as well as efficiently allowing vehicles to enter into and exit from the

Property.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Application of 313 Woodland Place,

LLC for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Use Variance Approval, Height and other

Bulk Variance Approval is hereby approved as follows:

1. Location and Type: The Applicant shall be permitted to construct the

proposed 37-unit multi-family development in a manner and location as testified by the

Applicant and witness during the public hearing and as shown on the Plans submitted to the

Board

A. The Applicants architectural plans, prepared by CPA Architecture, dated

January 7, 2014, last revised January 13, 2015 (Sheet T-100), January 7, 2015 (Sheet T-110), and

44

2289223_3\140137

October 22, 2014 (Sheet T-120). However, the portico depicted on the Woodland Place

elevation is not approved as the Applicant presented testimony and evidence that it would not be

constructed.

B. The Applicants site plan, prepared by Azzolina & Feury Engineers, Inc.,

dated August 12, 2014 and last revised October 10, 2014 (Cover Sheet, Existing

Conditions/Demolition Plan, Details Sheet), and January 14, 2015 (Dimensional Plan, Grading,

Drainage and Utilities Plan, Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, and Landscape & Lighting

Plan)

2. Specific Conditions of Approval: During the course of the hearings, the

Applicant agreed to be bound by the following conditions:

A. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Board Engineer,

Robert Costa, P.E., and in particular, the requirements set forth in the Costa Engineering Review

letters, dated August 26, 2014 and January 28, 2015, which shall be appended to this Resolution

as Exhibit A and B, respectively, as follows:

(i). The Applicant shall be required to replace the entire curb along

Woodland Place frontage and provide shade trees.

(ii) The Applicant shall be required to dig test pits under the

supervision and approval of the Borough Engineer at the location of any underground

stormwater detention structures to determine the adequacy of the subsurface soil drainage.

(iii) The Applicant shall be required to provide a stormwater

management maintenance manual.

(iv) The Applicant shall be required to provide detailed retaining wall

calculations and construction details for all retaining walls.

45

2289223_3\140137

(v) As-built drawings for on-site and off-site sanitary sewers, storm

drains, and roadways shall be submitted to the Borough of Leonia Department of Public Works

prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of any applicable performance

bonds.

B. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Borough of

Leonia Fire Marshall, and in particular, the requirements set forth in the Memorandum of David

A. Haenelt, dated August 18, 2014 as follows:

(i) Egress from stairwells will access a public way;

(ii) Egress pathways will be adequately illuminated;

(iii) An auxiliary fire suppression device to ensure the ability to fight a

fire at the north end of the building; and

(iv) An emergency power generator that is sufficient to power the

elevators, garage doors, lighting, fire alarm system and other security features in the event of a

power failure.

C. The Applicant shall provide a utility system to service the needs of the

residents of the building. The Applicant shall be required to provide will serve letters from all

utility companies intended to provide service for the development prior to the issuance of any

permits for construction.

D. The Applicant shall be required to use its best efforts to market the

apartments exclusively to current residents of Leonia for the three months prior to completion

and issuance of a certificate of occupancy. For a period of six months after issuance of a

certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall be required to use its best efforts to market and rent

half of the apartments to current residents of the Borough of Leonia.

46

2289223_3\140137

E. The Applicant, or any successor, shall be required to maintain or replace

all landscaping on the Property to ensure aesthetics and screening.

F. The Applicant shall be required to comply with the February 10, 2015

memorandum of the Fire Prevention Bureau.

G. If the building uses more sewerage than allocated for the Property, the

Borough of Leonia or any other applicable agency shall have the right to charge user fees to the

Applicant or its successors and assigns.

H. The Applicant shall be required to enter into and execute a Developers

Agreement with the Borough of Leonia to be prepared by the Board Attorney, and the Applicant

shall be further required to fully perform the obligations, terms and conditions listed therein,

including, but not limited to, the payment of all fees and the posting and maintenance of all

deposits, bonds and escrows thereby required.

I. All proposed and required storm water management and drainage required

or proposed on the Property shall be subject to final review and approval of the Boards

engineering consultant.

J. The Applicant shall be required to obtain all other necessary governmental

agency approvals, which include but are not limited to (i) Bergen County Planning Board; (ii)

Bergen County Soil Conservation District; (iii) Borough of Leonia Police, Fire and Ambulance

Departments; (iv) Borough of Leonia Shade Tree Commission; (v) New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection Treatment Works Approval; and (vi) Bergen County Road Opening

Permit. No building permit shall be issued until the Applicant submits copies of all required

approvals.

47

2289223_3\140137

3. Legal and Engineering Fees: The Applicant shall be responsible for all legal

and engineering fees of the Planning Board in connection with this application and no Certificate

of Occupancy shall be issued until all such fees are paid.

4. Other Fees: All additional fees, if any, required by the Borough Ordinances shall

be paid.

5. Reliance by Board on Testimony and Application: This approval is

specifically granted based upon the testimony of the Applicant, the exhibits, the application, any

and amendments to same, submitted to the Board, all of which have been relied upon by the

Board.

6. Compliance with Ordinance: Except for the variance(s) approved herein, the

Applicant shall comply with all other provisions of the Zoning Code of the Borough of Leonia.

7. Compliance with Laws: The Applicant shall comply with all Borough

Ordinances, and any and all State and Federal laws and applicable regulations.

8. Non-Severability of Conditions: The relief granted to the Applicant is

specifically made subject to the conditions referred to herein. In the event any condition is held

to be invalid, unenforceable, or unlawful, the entire variance shall be unenforceable. It is the

intent of the Board that the variance(s) not be approved if any condition is invalid, and that the

conditions are not severable from any variances or relief granted herein.

9. Appeal Period: The Applicant has been advised that there is an appeal period for

the relief granted herein for a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of publication of notice

of the relief granted pursuant to this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation approved

by the Board. Accordingly, any work or construction done prior to the expiration of the appeal

period is accomplished at the sole risk of the Applicant.

48

2289223_3\140137

49

2289223_3\140137

Said Resolution was adopted by the following vote at the meeting

prior to adoption of the memorializing Resolution:

Moved by: Patrick Botten

Seconded by: Brad Wilds

Not

Qualified

For Against Abstain Absent To Vote

Ron Chace, Chairman X

Mayor John DeSimone X

Councilman Mark Minichiello X

Richard Stenken X

Vincent Petti X

William Russell X

Anthony Cassano X

Patrick Botten X

Timothy Ford X

Leah Roland, Alt. #1 X

Brad Wilds, Alt. #2 X

Paul Poretzky, Alt #3 X

Kirby Rodriguez, Alt #4 X

Dated: February 11, 2015

50

2289223_3\140137

Said Resolution was memorialized at the meeting after the

Resolution was adopted (as set forth above), by the following vote:

Moved by:

Seconded by:

Not

Qualified

For Against Abstain Absent To Vote

Ron Chace, Chairman

Mayor John DeSimone X

Councilman Mark Minichiello X

Richard Stenken X

Vincent Petti X

William Russell X

Anthony Cassano

Patrick Botten

Timothy Ford X

Leah Roland, Alt. #1

Brad Wilds, Alt. #2

Paul Poretzky, Alt #3 X

Kirby Rodriguez, Alt #4 X

Dated: April 22, 2015

LEONIA PLANNING BOARD

By: __________________________

Ron Chace, Chairman

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY

By: __________________________________

Tina Evans, Recording Secretary to

the Planning Board

leonia planning board_313 woodland place resolution (3).pdf

Documents

application andwhereas

building coverage variance

matter andwhereas

use variance pursuant

unit development andwhereas

use variance relief

permitted use andwhereas

c andwhereas