Final Resolution

Final Resolution CITY OF PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Application No. ZBA 2025-15 WHEREAS, by Application No. ZBA 2025-15, VINCO PROPERTIES HOLDING, the owner of the property located at 38-42 Hamilton Avenue, also known as Lot 30 in Block 203, requests confirmation of existing non-conforming bulk conditions related to: minimum lot area; minimum lot width; minimum lot frontage; minimum front yard setback, minimum single side yard setback, minimum improvable area; and minimum improvable area – diameter of circle; confirmation of existing supplemental zone variance conditions related to: provision of a one-car garage, driveway width and front yard parking; and new bulk variances related to: minimum single side yard setback and minimum front porch setback; for the purpose of constructing a one-story addition on the existing single-family dwelling on the property; and WHEREAS, a meeting was conducted on August 13, 2025; and WHEREAS, the following members of the City of Plainfield Zoning Board of Adjustment heard the testimony and read the documents submitted: Chairman Alejandro Ruiz Vice Chairwoman Nancy Jordan Ms. C. Jean Rawls Mr. Ryan Sears Mr. James Spear Ms. Laura Miranda-Browne and WHEREAS, at said meeting all those who desired to be heard were heard, and the testimony was recorded by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Plainfield; and WHEREAS, the testimony was carefully considered and the following findings of fact were made: FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant is the owner of the property located at 38-42 Hamilton Avenue, also known as Lot 30 in Block 203, on the Tax Map of the City of Plainfield (hereinafter the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property has 59.70 feet of frontage on Hamilton Avenue; a lot depth of 124.70 feet and contains 7,452 square feet ("SF"). The Subject Property is improved with a one-and-one-half-story frame dwelling.The Subject Property is located in one of the City's R-3 Low/Moderate Density Residential Zone Districts. Applicant proposes to reconstruct the existing dwelling and construct a one-story addition thereon (the "Applicant's Project"). The existing dwelling and improvements on the Subject Property do not meet the bulk standards and supplemental zone standards related to: minimum lot area (12,000 SF required and 7,452 SF existing/proposed); minimum lot width (100 feet required and 59.70 feet existing/proposed); minimum lot frontage (100 feet required and 59.70 feet existing/proposed); minimum front yard setback (30 feet required and 22.70 feet existing/proposed); minimum improvable area (3,000 SF required and 2,086 SF existing/proposed); and minimum improvable area – diameter of circle (38 feet required and 29.77 feet existing/proposed). In connection with the proposed addition, the Applicant requires additional variance relief related to: minimum single side yard setback (10 feet required and continuation of existing 3.7-foot setback proposed); and minimum front porch setback (17 feet required and 14.7 feet proposed).At the time of the hearing on August 13, 2025, the Applicant required supplemental zone variance from the Land Use Ordinance ("LUO"), relating to the following conditions: Section 17:9-34.C requires a one-car garage of a maximum of 300 SF for a single-family dwelling; and no garage is proposed. Section 17:9-42.G requires that the maximum width of a driveway is 12 feet; and proposed is a 15-foot-wide driveway. Section 17:9-42.P limits front yard parking for one-family and two-family dwellings to the area in front of a useable garage; and front yard parking is proposed in the driveway which is not in front of a usable garage.At the hearing on August 13, 2025, Alon Solon, Esq., the Applicant's Attorney, provided a summary of the Applicant's Project. He identified the location of the Subject Property and the existing zoning. Mr. Solon confirmed that the purpose of the Applicant's Project is to reconstruct the existing dwelling and add a second story. At the hearing on August 13, 2025, Donna Miller, R.A., the Applicant's Architect, provided testimony in support of the Applicant's Project. Initially, she proffered Exhibit A-1, a photographic array depicting the condition of the existing dwelling on the Subject Property; which was entered into the record by the Board. Referring to Exhibit A-1, Ms. Miller indicated that the existing dwelling is fire damaged and uninhabitable. Mr. Miller confirmed that the Applicant requires a number of bulk variances due to the size and shape of the Subject Property; and the location of the improvements thereon. She indicated that the entire left side of the dwelling is located in the side yard setback. Ms. Miller further indicated that the existing front porch does not meet the front yard setback; and that the Applicant's Project only proposes to extend the porch across the front façade (and not encroach further into the front yard). Ms. Miller testified that a one-and-one-half story dwelling is located to the right (south) of the Subject Property; and a two-story dwelling is located to left (north) of the Subject Property. She asserted that the Applicant's Project would be consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood in which the Subject Property is located. Ms. Miller thereafter reviewed the architectural plans for the Applicant's Project. She proffered Exhibit A-2, a revised set of architectural plans (last revised August 8, 2025); which was entered into the record by the Board. Referring to Exhibit A-2, she noted that the revision to the plans were undertaken to address some of the items raised in the review memoranda of the Board Engineer and the Board Planner; specifically, (a) the lot coverage was added to the bulk table; (b) a signature block was added; and (c) the location of the exterior air conditioning compressors was added (to the rear of the dwelling). Referring to Exhibit A-2, Ms. Miller noted that the footprint of the dwelling remains essentially the same with some infill. She advised that a 5-foot, 6-inch-high basement is proposed; which would contain the mechanical systems for the home. Ms. Miller confirmed that the basement would not be habitable space due to the ceiling height. Ms. Miller stated that the first floor would contain a full bedroom with bathroom; a living room, a dining room a kitchen and a mudroom. She indicated that the second floor would include a master bedroom with two walk-in closets and a bathroom, two bedrooms, a bathroom and a laundry closet with stacking washer/dryer. Ms. Miller stated that the attic would be accessed by pull-down stairs in the hallway; but would not be habitable. Ms. Miller advised that the front and rear facades would contain vinyl siding with board and batten siding in the peak; and the side facades would contain vinyl siding. She noted that the roof would contain asphalt shingles. Ms. Miller advised that the proposed addition would be located 3.7 feet from the northerly property line. She confirmed that no fire rating was required for the sidewall; as it was set back sufficiently to alleviate such a requirement. Ms. Miller advised that no sidewalk was proposed at the front property line; as none of the surrounding properties contained sidewalks. In response to an inquiry from the Board Engineer, Ms. Miller advised that no utility modifications were required to accommodate the Applicant's Project on the Subject Property. She further confirmed that the Applicant would agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the review memoranda of the Board Engineer and the Board Planner. In response to a Board concern over the lack of fenestration on the northerly side façade, the Applicant voluntarily agreed to add transom windows measuring approximately 6 feet in width by 1.5 feet in height to the first-floor bedroom and the second-floor master bedroom. In response to an inquiry from the Board concerning the lack of a garage, the Applicant voluntarily agreed to construct a one-car garage on the dwelling conforming to the requirements of the LUO. As a result of the Applicant's commitment to construct a one-car garage, the supplemental zone variances related to: (a) the lack of a garage and (b) front yard parking not in front of a garage were eliminated. In response to an inquiry from the Board, the Applicant voluntarily agreed to reduce the width of the driveway from 15 feet to 12 feet; as required by the LUO. The reduction in driveway width the supplemental zone variance related to the width of the driveway was eliminated.In response to an inquiry from the Board, Mr. Solon indicated that the Applicant planned to undertake the construction of the Applicant's Project immediately upon approval by the Board and the adoption of the resolution. The Applicant voluntarily agreed to following conditions of any Board approval:Provision of a one-car garage conforming to the requirements of the LUO to the satisfaction of the Board Professionals; and revision of the plans to reflect same;Reduction of the driveway width from 15 feet to 12 feet to the satisfaction of the Board Professionals; and revision of the plans to reflect same; Provision of transom windows (measuring approximately 6 feet in width by 1.5 feet in height) to the first-floor bedroom and second floor master bedroom to the satisfaction of the Board Professionals; and revision of the plans to reflect same; Compliance with the terms and conditions of the report of the Board Engineer dated August 8, 2025; andCompliance with the terms and conditions of the report of the Board Planner dated August 8, 2025. Based upon the above findings of fact, the Board concludes as follows: CONCLUSIONS Applicant suffers from a hardship due to the location of the existing dwelling on the Subject Property. The existing dwelling and improvements do not meet minimum lot area, minimum lot width, minimum lot frontage, minimum front yard setback, minimum single side yard setback, minimum improvable area, minimum improvable area – diameter of circle and minimum front porch setback requirements of the R-3 zone. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet the bulk requirements for the Applicant's Project related to minimum single side yard setback and minimum front porch setback in light of these factors. The bulk variances related to the continuation of the existing minimum single side yard setback and minimum front porch setback for the Applicant's Project can be granted under can also be granted under the flexible (c)(2) analysis. In particular, the benefit to the community is the enhanced living environment and the renovation of the existing dwelling. The dwelling is consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood in which the Subject Property is located. The Board perceives no detriment from the granting of the variances and concludes, on balance, that the benefits substantially outweigh any detriment. All variances can be granted without substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the City of Plainfield Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The granting of the variance will not change the character of this neighborhood.All variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. The traditional Municipal Land Use goals of light, air and open space will not be substantially compromised by the granting of this application. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the application of VINCO PROPERTY HOLDING for confirmation of existing bulk variance conditions related to: minimum lot area (7,452 square feet), minimum lot width (59.70 feet), minimum lot frontage (59.70 feet), minimum front yard setback (22.7 feet), minimum improvable area (2,086 SF) and minimum improvable area – diameter of circle (29.77 feet); and a new bulk variances related to: minimum single side yard setback (3.7 feet) and minimum front porch setback (14.7 feet proposed); in order to permit the construction of the Applicant's Project on the Subject Property, be and the same is hereby approved, subject to the voluntary conditions in Paragraph 23, and the following additional conditions: a. Applicant shall obtain all other necessary governmental approvals; b. Applicant shall post all bonds and pay all inspection fees; c. Applicant shall pay the fees of the Board's professionals; and d. Applicant shall pay all real estate taxes and assessments due to the City of Plainfield through and including the Third Quarter 2025. The above is a memorialization of a motion duly made and seconded on­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ August 13, 2025, on the following vote: ROLL CALL VOTE Those in Favor: Ruiz, Jordon, Rawls, Sears, Spear, Miranda-Browne Opposed: None Abstained: None _______________________________ TYLER COUNCIL, Secretary Dated: _________________ October 24 2025 LNYS0394205 $186.42