April 1, 2015

in the along the rear of the property parallel to the driveway. In response to questions from Mr. Williams, he confirmed the parking proposal to be part of the revised plans submission. He did review Mr. Russo’s memorandum dated March 26, 2015; he acknowledged discussing the alternate plan; he did review the plan Mr. Russo sketched at the Tech Review meeting, (2/11/2015); he confirmed he discussed both plans with the Applicant. He confirmed the Applicant was willing to comply with whichever plan the Board desired. Mr. Amaral said the Applicant’s traffic engineer had determined the proposed plan was superior to the one suggested by Mr. Russo. Mr. Amaral summarized the plan revisions made in response to Mr. Russo’s memorandum, (3/26/2015); he confirmed the Applicant had addressed or complied with all comments except: Comment #3 — the parking plan would be as shown on the Applicant’s revised site plan dated 3/31/2015. Comment #4 — he confirmed the proposed area of paving would be 4,755 sq. ft., a Hudson Essex Passaic Soil Conservation District application would not be necessary. Comment #9 — there would be no foundation plantings along the Sheppard Terrace facade (north side) of building. Comment #12 — the trash enclosure would be 8’ x 8’ 8”. Comment #14 & #15 —a lighting plan would be submitted for review and approval by the Township Planner once the fixtures have been chosen. Comment #16 — HVAC unit would be located on the roof with appropriate screening; there was little space to locate it on the outside of the building. Comment #18a - an approval from Hudson Essex Passaic Soil Conservation District would not be sought unless the area of disturbance exceeded 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Amaral described the proposed elevations, (Exhibit A-2, Sheet 5); the storefronts would have fabric canopies with signage, new glass entrance doors and new windows; the existing brick facade would remain. Changes to the rear elevation would include replacing and installing new windows, installing a new porch railing, installing new rear doors; the existing brick fagade would remain. The right side elevation would remain unchanged except for new windows; on the left side elevation the existing first floor windows would be removed and bricked; the second floor windows would be replaced; the brick facade on the right and left side would remain. Mr. Amaral gave a brief description of the

ting first floor windows would be removed and bricked; the second floor windows would be replaced; the brick facade on the right and left side would remain. Mr. Amaral gave a brief description of the proposed landscaping, (Exhibit A-2, Sheet 1), including new plantings along both sides of the front retail spaces, new sidewalk to front of building and new retaining wall along right side of property. With the exception of extending the grading to the driveway to accommodate the storefronts, the grading plan would remain unchanged, (Exhibit A-2, Sheet 2). He concluded his testimony. Mr. Lester asked for clarification regarding the location of the proposed HVAC unit and the design of the residential parking spaces to the rear of the property. Mr. Amaral said the HVAC unit would be located on the building rear roof; he opined the proposed parking was a better design than discussed at the Tech Review meeting. Mr. Williams advised the Board the Applicant's traffic expert was present to provide testimony regarding the parking plan. Vice Chairman Weston asked for clarification regarding the mechanical system, specifically the location of the condensers. Mr. Amaral said he could locate the condensers inside the building at the gabled ends of the front facade and cover the outside with grills. Vice Chairman Weston voiced concern about the air movement for the condensers; he opined the proposed design was unusual. He cautioned Mr. Amaral any approval would not include putting condensers on site; the applicant