July 14, 2011

For the record Mrs, Gaeta agreed to be carried over to the regular Zoning Board meeting on August 18" and placed second on the application agenda. Mr. Davis called on Warren Freedenfeld as a witness. Mr. Freedenfeld approached the podium and was sworn in. Mr. Freedenfeld stated he was a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey and practices on both the East and West Coast. He also stated that he specializes in veterinary hospitals and has testified about 150 times in matters like this. Chairman Neuer questioned if they were the same scope and size as this one and Mr. Freedenfeld replied yes. Chairman Neuer accepted his qualifications as an expert in architecture. Mr. Freedenfeld stated that he has been contracted to design the veterinarian hospital. Mr. Freedenfeld went on to describe the photos of the proposed veterinarian hospital that were entered as exhibits. Mr. Buechler asked if the reason the back of the building becomes two stories is because of the slope and Mr. Freedenfeld replied yes. Mr. Freedenfeld stated that from the front it’s a one story and the second story would be an exposed basement because there is no land behind it. Mr. Freedenfeld stated that the parking lot would be located in the front of the building and continued to describe the interior and exposed basement areas. Mr, Buechler questioned if an elevator was required for ADA compliance and Mr. Freedenfeld stated that there is an exterior and interior stairway to get down there. Ms. Weiss asked him to consider making a ramp when they come back with the site plan. Chairman Neuer told them to please be prepared to address the ADA requirements when they come back for site plan approval. Mr. Sussman asked what the ceiling height was and Mr. Freedenfeld replied 12’. Mr. Sussman asked what the height of the retaining wall was and Mr. Freedenfeld replied 19’. Mr. Sussman stated that when they come back for the site-plan they will also need a variance for the wall. Ms. Gabry questioned if there will be grassy area under the arches and Mr. Freedenfeld replied yes, Mr. Freedenfeld addressed the number of staff members that will be at the facility at one time, including the doctor. He testified that there would be a maximum of five (5) staff members plus six (6) clients which total eleven (11). He stated that they are providing thirteen (13) parking spaces which should

e doctor. He testified that there would be a maximum of five (5) staff members plus six (6) clients which total eleven (11). He stated that they are providing thirteen (13) parking spaces which should sufficient. There was discussion among the Board members about this number being accurate. Chairman Neuer stated that they will have to deal with the amount of people in the facility when they come back for site plan approval. There were no more questions for Mr, Freedenfeld.

Mr. Davis called his next witness. Mr. Craig Peregoy approached the podium and was sworn in. Mr. Peregoy stated he was from the firm Steiger and Peregoy and a licenced civil engineer in the State of New Jersey. He has testified over 300 occasions as a traffic expert. Chairman Neuer accepied his qualifications. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Peregoy if he prepared the traffic report in this application and he replied yes. Chairman Neuer asked that the report marked as exhibit A10. Mr. Peregoy went on to describe what was in the report and what the worst case scenario would be with traffic. Mr. Buechler asked, if you are going East on Mt. Pleasant Avenue, how far the site is from the recycling center. Mr. Peregoy replied it is approximately 500 feet and a quarter mile from the curve in the road. Mr. Buechler asked if he thought it was really safe to make a left hand turn all times of the day. Mr. Peregoy replied that it was because there is enough visibility to the right. Mr. Buechler questioned the flow of traffic and Mr. Peregoy replied that there are enough gaps in the traffic to safely make the turn. He continued to explain that his analysis counts for the continuous flow of traffic. Mr. Bullock asked if they had pulled any accident data from this section of Mt. Pleasant Avenue and Mr. Peregoy replied no. Chairman Neuer stated that on the site plan they will need to address egress and ingress. Mr. Buechler stated that Dr. Cappiello stated she gets two deliveries a day and asked Mr. Peregoy if he thought a box truck can park on Mt. Pleasant Avenue safely. Mr. Peregoy replied no; they can pull in the lot. Mr. Buechler asked if a box truck can pull in the driveway to make their deliveries if cars are there and did he examine that at all. Mr. Peregoy replied he did not. Mr. Peregoy suggested the trucks would pull into a parking space when entering the lot. Mr. Buechler asked if they can do that safely and Mr. Peregoy replied yes. Mr. Keller asked if there is a traffic signal on Summit St. and Mr. Peregoy stated it’s a blinking light. Mr. Keller stated that Peter Steck’s report refers to it as a signalized intersection. There were no further questions for the witness. Mr. Davis called his next witness. Peter Steck approached the podium and was sworn in. Mr. Steck stated he was a professional planner from Montclair. Chairman Neuer accepted his credentials. Mr.

ss. Mr. Davis called his next witness. Peter Steck approached the podium and was sworn in. Mr. Steck stated he was a professional planner from Montclair. Chairman Neuer accepted his credentials. Mr. Steck stated that he prepared the planners report with the application. Chairman Neuer asked to enter the report as exhibit A-11.

Mr. Steck described the property and the condition of the existing house on the property and stated that his opinion is that it must be torn down. He stated that the building they are proposing to build looks residential from the front. Mr. Steck described what was in his report and stated that he felt the area, even though it was in an R-2 zone, could not be used for any residential use because of the wetlands. He also stated that there are no other houses near this property. Mr. Steck explained they were seeking a “d” variance for use and another variance for height because of the rear slope. Mz. Steck stated that this property is not suited for residential use because of the location and the cell tower near the property. Mr. Buechler stated that this Board would allow them build a house in the same footprint and doesn’t think his analogy is right about it not being suitable for residential. Mr. Steck stated that he thinks it will never be part of a neighborhood because of the actions of the Municipality which allowed a cell tower to be built near this location. Mr. Steck explained why the veterinarian hospital would conform and be a good use for this area. He quoted from a Township ordinance that stated this area was suitable for an animal shelter and said that the Municipality once thought this area was suitable for this use. Ms. Borg stated that this area was designated for a similar use, at one time, but was never approved for an animal shelter because of the neighbors. Mr. Buechler stated Mr. Steck said the building looks residential from the front but asked how many houses have thirteen parking spaces in the front. He also pointed out all of the houses near the property had no such parking. Chaitman Neuer stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Steck’s analogy of the residential look of this property is not his strongest argument. Ms. Weiss stated that anyone who wants to be near the recycling center is a good thing and a good use, Chairman Neuer stated he is in favor of granting the use variance but still has a lot of concerns. He stated that it is a good use for this site, which has been vacant for many years, and that it is providing a service to the Community. Chairman Neuer made a motion to approve this application subject to the applicant making a second application for the site plan for “c” and bulk variances. Mr. Buechler recommended the

he Community. Chairman Neuer made a motion to approve this application subject to the applicant making a second application for the site plan for “c” and bulk variances. Mr. Buechler recommended the following conditions: * The Board’s granting a “d” use variance is not preclusive for any other lot ¢ The Board’s findings and testimony given on this application is not preclusive for any site plan application for the lot in issue or any other variances ¢ The proposed use for a veterinary hospital is not inherently beneficial 10

¢ All requests for site plan approval must be brought to this Board © Nothing from this application is for any other adjacent property Mr. Buechler seconded to approve. mee Cc or Mr. Bullock stated the use would be an improvement and is beneficial. The vote was as follows: “d” variance or for the other Bullock: Yes Steinhart: Yes Gabry: Yes Sussman: Yes Chairman Neuer: Yes Weiss: Yes Quentzel: - Buechler: Yes ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 pm July 14, 2011 (ij i! ©" Rose DeSena Zoning Board Secretary 11