August 7, 2013

Mr. Grygiel said he had an answer to Mr. Eben’s question regarding zoning requirements for the number of trees per parking space; as described on Page 21 of the Redevelopment Plan, the plan was not completely clear with regard to landscape design. Mr. Eben opined that he liked trees but if ihe Redevelopment Plan superseded Zoning ordinance, then so be it; Mr. Grygiel asked if the plan should give up parking for trees. Mr. Russo inquired if the Applicant's architect was going to be testifying about solid waste. He stated the plan was for a three-hundred foot blank building with no landscaping; he opined there was an opportunity to break up the straight line of the West Orange portion of the plan. He opined there was more opportunity to provide a better esthetic along the stream on the West Orange side, the Orange side of the stream was more swooping. He was concerned about root issues of the tree plantings, and pedestrian safety along the top of the stream. He said he was not comfortable that the proposed landscaping would provide a long-term deterrent; maybe there could be some sort of intermittent barrier. He said that clearly, the Board had seen two different landscape plans. Mr. Kiein opined that maybe a seat wall could be installed. Mr. Russo inquired what would be an acceptable level of lighting along a three-hundred feet area; the Board could give the Applicant guidance. Council President McCartney opined that for the sake of safety, the area should be very well lit. Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate inquired if a security plan had been done for the project. He was concerned that anyone could have access to the parking area. Chairman Heller advised that the question was part of Applicant’s testimony. Carolyn Verderamo, 10 Tompkins Street, West Orange, inquired if the Applicant was aware of ihe current parking conditions in the area. She said there were very few houses in the area that had on-site parking and that there was no on-street parking. She was concerned that with thirty-three proposed one-bedroom units, there would be a need for additional parking spaces. She said she was concemed about the graffiti that was currently on the buildings all the way up to the river; she said that if the setback was nine feet, what would deter people from continuing to spray paint the buildings. Lastly, she voiced concern about the flooding in the area;

ll the way up to the river; she said that if the setback was nine feet, what would deter people from continuing to spray paint the buildings. Lastly, she voiced concern about the flooding in the area; what could be done to stop the flooding. Chairman Heller announced a brief recess at 9:43 P.M.; he re-convened the meeting at 9:53 P.M. Stephen Schoch, RA, AIA, Kitchen & Associates, was sworn in, stated his credentials, confirmed he held a valid Certificate of Authorization in the State of New Jersey, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in architecture. Referring to Exhibit A-3, Mr. Schoch said the aerial photo gave a complete overali view of the project; two new compatible buildings. The proposed plan was similar in style to the Orange portion of the plan. Exhibit A-4 reflected the design and esthetics of the original plan, a style of industrial esthetic that had been successful in New Jersey. There would be a mix of textures including brick veneer and concrete block. Referring to Architectural Plan Sheet A1.1—Mr. Schoch said there was very little ground floor enclosed space. The main entrance was on Central Avenue, access for residents would be by key fob. The ground floor space included a central trash room; trash shoots would be on each floor. Garbage collection would be by private hauler. All building operations would go through the tail end of Central Avenue; there would not be an exterior dumpster enclosure. The ground NAPLANNING. BRDWPAMINUTESI201 3\8-7-13 Minutes. doc