May 2, 2018

Mr. Williams reiterated the property was located in the Organon Redevelopment Zone; under redevelopment, a variation from the zoning ordinance was called a “deviation”. Mr. Petry stated the site was a premier property within the area; he opined the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan would be advanced by the requested deviations, specifically “Item B”, “To encourage to the fullest extent possible the redevelopment of the Organon site....and related uses”; and “Item F”, “To provide ...improvements...necessary for...contemplated new development.” He opined the present parking conditions were adequate; the property had operated as medical offices for almost a decade. He opined that constructing additional parking for the site would unnecessarily eliminate open space and landscaping that was a part of the Redevelopment Plan. He stated that in terms of the negative criteria, increasing the square footage at this location could be accommodated without increasing the number of on-site parking space. He opined that correcting the deviation would not pose a detriment to the public good; there was no practical way for overflow parking from the site to flow on to the street; it was too far a walk. He stated that as far as potential impairments, he opined the Redevelopment Plan was actually advanced by the application; it was not prudent to waste green space by paving areas that were not necessary to the needs of the development. He concluded his testimony. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had questions for Mr. Petry. Captain Keigher asked if the exterior buildings could be used for security. Mr. Petry answered if it was a condition of approval, they could be used for security. They were currently vacant; security personnel were not using the space. Vice Chairman asked for clarification regarding if the exterior buildings were currently vacant; Mr. Petry answered the buildings were currently vacant. Vice Chairman Weston stated the Applicant did not have specific plans for the dwellings, but was asking for site plan approval. Mr. Williams stated the current approval allowed for the exterior buildings to be used only for security purposes; the application was requesting approval for future use as medical or office space, at such time the Applicant would come back before the Board for site plan approval. The application currently before the Board was to request

esting approval for future use as medical or office space, at such time the Applicant would come back before the Board for site plan approval. The application currently before the Board was to request a change in the use of the buildings. Vice Chairman Weston voiced concern about the future ADA accessibility as the property is developed. Mr. Petry stated the building was condominium, a great deal of the space was owner occupied, he said the change over in occupancy and use would be less likely than in a standard building. He stated the original resolution had a stipulation that the Municipality could perform an inspection at any time during the year to cause the 22 spaces to be paved at any time. He opined that condition would continue forward, the Applicant had no objection as a condition of approval. Vice Chairman Weston asked Mr. Dwyer if all previous stipulations “roll-forward” as conditions of approval. Mr. Klein asked if the 22 spaces were built, would there be a sidewalk connecting them to one of the buildings; Mr. Petry answered there was not a sidewalk connection but one could be provided. Mr. Williams stated the applicant would accept it as a condition of approval. Mr. Wilkes asked for clarification regarding how visitors would gain access to the buildings should the 22 parking spaces be built. Mr. Petry stated the applicant had just agreed to install a sidewalk up along the driveway to the intersection for pedestrian crossing.