August 6, 2014

conditions, which included a super-imposed landscaping plan that had been reviewed by Mr. Linson. The plan included a two-story building with a 4,438 square feet footprint, 49 parking spaces including two ADA spaces, which exceeded the ordinance requirement for a medical office building. The parking had been relocated out of the right-of-way; it would be more centrally located; and had been reconfigured as a circular parking situation superior to the existing layout. The new front yard setback would be 43-feet; the north side yard setback would be27.5-feet with 195-feet combined; the read yard setback would be 30-feet; the middle parking setback would be 30-feet; east side yard parking setback would be 10.2-feet; the rear parking setback would be 10-feet. The access to the site would be a combined right-in, right-out configuration located to the south of the property. There would be pedestrian access to the site; a sidewalk would be installed to the frontage of the property; it would be extended to the existing bus shelter to the north of the property. The existing island in the rear parking area would be removed to provide adequate parking in closer proximity to the building. The landscaping would include five new shade trees, fourteen evergreen trees, and sixty-seven new shrubs. Mr. Sparone said the plan presented to the Board reflected changes resulting from the comments of the Omland Engineering memorandum dated July 17, 2014. Referring to Exhibit A-3, Mr. Sparone said the review of the site indicated the steep slopes were not natural, they were man-made, probably a result of the original development of the property; however, they did meet the technical definition of steep slope. A variance relief of .1% was required for impervious coverage; 60% was permitted, 60.1% was proposed. He opined the proposed impervious coverage would not negatively impact storm water run- off. The setback of the proposed monument sign along the front of the property had been re-located 2- feet closer to the right-of-way to allow for enhanced visibility; Mr. Vena said that as discussed at the Technical Review meeting, the re-location of the sign caused the Application be amended to reflect variance relief. Mr. Sparone said the Omland memo Item #8 requested additional ownership information for the 9 ft. wide strip of land along Prospect Avenue; he said a deed for the property

to reflect variance relief. Mr. Sparone said the Omland memo Item #8 requested additional ownership information for the 9 ft. wide strip of land along Prospect Avenue; he said a deed for the property could not be located; Mr. Vena offered into evidence an email from the County indicating its inability to locate any reservations, easements or acquisition of right-of-way, (Exhibit A-7). Mr. Russo said the plans showed a 9 ft. strip along the front. Was the strip part of the Applicant’s property; if it was, it would negate the need for some of the requested variances. Mr. Sparone said his surveyor had investigated the issue but was unable to determine ownership of the 9 ft. strip. Mr. Vena stated the Applicant was nat looking to include any property beyond the existing survey; the available research concluded the 9 ft. strip was not associated with the property. Mr. Sparone gave a brief recapitulation of his firm’s response to the Omland memo, (Items #9 through #16), which included the required Essex County Details; updated architectural plans for the roof mounted HVAC equipment; analysis of the storm water conveyance network; additional landscaping outside the required residential buffer area; Knox Box installation; necessary outside agency approvals; and plan revisions that noted the final locations of fire zones, sprinkler shut off, and fire department signage and lighting to be coordinated with the Fire Sub Code Official. Mr. Sparone said the current use did not require a designated loading area; the landscaping would improve the existing condition. Mr. Gurland asked if the Applicant had received any comments from the Eagle Ridge residents residing within 200 ft. Mr. Vena said he had not received any inquires. Mr. Gurland asked if notices went out; Mr. Vena confirmed notices had been sent. Mr. Gurland asked if a variance was being requested for the side yard and rear yard setbacks near the property line; Mr. Sparone said no; the setbacks complied with the ordinance. Mr. Gurland asked if any lighting was included in the site plan. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Sparone indicated the location of the fixtures; he described the lighting plan as indicated on Sheet 8, (Preliminary and Final Site Plan submission dated June 17, 2014, revised 7/21/14), which included four 18 ft. high 300-watt LED free-standing fixtures; he said the area illumination would be

Sheet 8, (Preliminary and Final Site Plan submission dated June 17, 2014, revised 7/21/14), which included four 18 ft. high 300-watt LED free-standing fixtures; he said the area illumination would be similar to the current conditions. Mr. Gurland asked what would be the height of the trees; Mr. Sparone said that at 8-6-14 Minutes