October 3, 2018

stated that while the Foundation was a separate entity from the hospital it was entirely intergraded; the same doctors that worked at the hospital also did the research for the Foundation. They worked together for the betterment of patient care. He opined the proposal could be considered an ancillary or accessory use to the hospital and could be considered under the inherently beneficial umbrella of the hospital use. He opined the first variance could be justified under a “c(1)” variance criteria. He opined the remaining three variances could be considered under the “c(2)” criteria; the benefits outweighed the detriments. He offered the facility currently functioned with only two loading bays; it did not require the number required by a commercial property. Regarding the two coverage variances, he opined the storm water management plan clearly controlled and reduced runoff; he offered the improvements did not adversely affect the esthetics of the property. He noted that Mr. Grygiel had discussed the minimum number of required trees in the parking lot; four trees for the 36 new parking spaces. Mr. Petry opined that the perimeter trees that abutted the parking lot were included in the count; he believed the Applicant was in compliance with the requirement for one tree for every ten parking spaces. Regarding the negative criteria, Mr. Petry opined the facility itself serviced the public good; the minor expansion was necessary to continue the serve the community. He opined the setback and loading variances were general criteria that did not exist on the site; they had no impact on the zoning ordinance. He stated the increase in coverage variances were very small; measured against a residential standard. All measures had been put in place to protect the surrounding properties. Mr. Petry concluded his planning testimony. The Board had no questions for Mr. Petry on his planning testimony. Referring to Exhibit A-4, Mr. Grygiel asked for clarification regarding the proposed trees in Parking Lot “F”. Mr. Petry stated there would be two (2) trees planted in the island and seven along the perimeter of the lot. In response to question from Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Petry stated the lot had substantial lawn in front of Parking Lot “F”. The view of the property to the Public is one of greenspace. The majority of impervious coverage was hidden behind the building. In response to

he lot had substantial lawn in front of Parking Lot “F”. The view of the property to the Public is one of greenspace. The majority of impervious coverage was hidden behind the building. In response to follow-up question from Chairman Bagoff, Mr. Petry stated the plan had incorporated the installation of a white roof to decrease heat island effect. The Public Advocate and Public had no questions for Mr. Petry. There was no further testimony from the Applicant. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had comments on the Application. The Public Advocate and Public had no comments on the Application. Chairman Bagoff closed the public hearing; the Board deliberated. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Grygiel for clarification regarding the request for “c(1)” variance relief. Mr. Grygiel opined the site had been previously developed. Conditions: 10