September 9, 2015

Matthew J. Neuls, P.E., was sworn in, stated his credentials, and accepted by the Board to be an expert professional engineer. Michael J. Breitman, was sworn in, stated he was the Building Manager for the Applicant, Haberman West Orange Corporation, located at 59 Main Street, West Orange. Vice Chairman asked for clarification regarding Applicant's request for “c” variance relief. He asked if the marked Exhibit was the same as those submitted to the Board on August 31, 2015. Mr. Neuls confirmed the plans were the same. Referring to Exhibit A-1, Sheets 2 and 3, Mr. Neuls described the existing conditions including a retaining wall along the south side of the property adjacent to existing driveway; to improve safety, the driveway would be widened approximately 5 feet from its current curb to the retaining wall resulting in a slight increase in surface impervious coverage. There would be no structural changes to the existing retaining wall; it would remain intact and functioning. There already existed several catch basins in the parking lot; the drainage would remain unchanged. In response to Mr. Russo’s memorandum dated August 25, 2015, Mr. Neuls said the integrity of the retaining wall would be kept intact by ensuring the weep holes were not covered during construction; the existing impervious coverage of 87.17% would increase to 88.08%. He concluded his testimony. Vice Chairman Bagoff requested Mr. Neuls address the inconsistencies noted in Mr. Grygiel’s report dated August 13, 2015. Mr. Neuls said the 8/24/15 plan revisions partially reflected changes per Mr. Grygiel’s comments; Sheet 2 listed the increase in impervious surface coverage as 87.33%, the correct increase was 88.08%. The correct “area of improvement” number was 1,050 square feet. Typographical errors had been corrected. Ms. Keller advised the Board the three “c” variances required were for maximum impervious coverage (to be revised to 88.08%), minimum distance from off-street parking area to property line, and parking area setback to side property line in OB-2 zone. All were existing nonconforming conditions further exacerbated by the proposal. In response to inquiry from Councilwoman McCartney, Mr. Neuls said compliance connoted new engineering industry standards for roadway design and vehicular access for a commercial driveway. In response to questions from Mr. Gurland, Mr. Neuls said

ney, Mr. Neuls said compliance connoted new engineering industry standards for roadway design and vehicular access for a commercial driveway. In response to questions from Mr. Gurland, Mr. Neuls said the retaining wall to the south of the property was an existing condition; it had been previously built. In response to inquiry from Vice Chairman Bagoff, Mr. Neuls stated there would be no changes to the site line(s) or the pattern of ingress and egress. Mr. Eben stated the retaining wall had been recently built; he questioned if a building permit had been issued. He asked if parking would be allowed in the driveway, if not, would there be no- parking signage/marking, and would there be fire lane markings. He opined the south driveway was the most active on the property. The plan was an improvement; however, he was concerned the driveway be properly marked; he recommended it be a condition of approval. Mr. Neuls said the next witness, Mr. Brietman, would be able to answer questions regarding the retaining wall permit. Mr. Stieber said the Applicant would accept the suggested driveway marking as a condition of approval.