April 1, 2015

was huge parking lot across the street, or the residents could use the retail parking on-site after business hours in a mixed-use building. Chairman Heller asked if the Applicant would consider flushed curbing with ground cover, in the triangular area between the parking spaces on the south side of the property; he opined it would help capture area storm water. Mr. Amaral said soft curbing had been discussed with the engineer during the original plan; it had been discouraged due to snowplowing concerns. Mr. Eben asked for clarification regarding the landscaping area on the northeast corner of the property; Mr. Amaral said the plan indicated two small retaining walls with landscaping. He explained the grade went up at the northeast corner; to install the new sidewalk it would be necessitate excavating dirt approximately 4 ft. high. Mr. Eben suggested additional grading and aligning the raised window with the others in the retail space, (Sheet 5), and eliminating the second retaining wall. He asked for clarification regarding the design of the leaders; to where would they come down - to the quoins in the corners, and if they would run to the curb on Main Street. Mr. Amaral said the leaders would run to Main Street; the leaders would not cover the quoins in the corners of the building. In response to inquiry from Mr. Grygiel, Mr. Amaral confirmed the building signage would not be a backlit illuminated box sign, (Sheet 5). Mr. Grygiel asked for clarification regarding the south side parking; why had the Applicant proposed 10’ft.x19’ ft. spaces. Mr. Amaral said the traffic expert would answer the question. Mr. Russo asked for clarification regarding the site disturbance analysis; he stated that just the paving was included; there was also regrading and new sidewalks. Referring to Exhibit A-3, Mr. Amaral stated the area of disturbance was under 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Russo opined he remained unconvinced; Vice Chairman Weston suggested revisiting the issue during deliberation. Mr. Russo opined a better installation plan for the HVAC unit would be along the Shepard Terrace side of the building with landscape screening, as opposed to on the roof or inside the building; Mr. Amaral agreed to relocate the HVAC unit as suggested. Regarding the proposed orientation of the dumpster enclosure, Mr. Russo opined a straight orientation would better facilitate the movements of

r. Amaral agreed to relocate the HVAC unit as suggested. Regarding the proposed orientation of the dumpster enclosure, Mr. Russo opined a straight orientation would better facilitate the movements of a garbage truck. Mr. Russo suggested changes to the proposed lighting plan; he opined the plan did not appear to meet Township ordinance; he opined two free standing lights with cutoffs in the parking lot for public safety would be a better alternative; one could be located behind the dumpster. Lastly, Mr. Russo asked if it was possible to increase the curve of the first parking space to accommodate additional landscaping. The Public Advocate and Public had no questions for Mr. Amaral. Joseph J. Staigar, P.E., P.P., Dynamic Traffic, LLC, was sworn in and accepted by the Board to be an expert in traffic engineering. Mr. Staigar confirmed he had reviewed and participated in the design of the proposed parking plan, (Exhibit A-2, Sheets 1 & 2). It was decided the best way for all vehicles to maintain the 45-degree angle would be to size the spaces 10’ft.x19’ ft. The three rear spaces