April 7, 2021 Adopted Planning Board Minutes

variance was required was in regards to the frontage and was in the lot that did not have the existing structure. Mr. Parisi, Mr. McPherson and Chairman Bagoff were in agreement that as long as it is 100 % conforming they would not have to appear before the Planning Board again. - Mr. Peter Smeraldo asked Mr. Martin about the loads of the roof and the floor in regards to the impact floor and clarification that once occupying would have great impact there on this particular structure. Mr. Martin responded that when he was referring to the loads he was referring to the live load and the dead load of the structure above sitting on what appears to him to be an unsuitable foundation. -Mr. Smeraldo followed up in reference to the age of the foundation that it has been subjected to the elements (i.e. water damage and things of that nature) especially if you’re saying it’s poorly constructed. Mr. Martin confirmed that there is indeed water damage that is visible in the mortar between the stones and the bricks that are there. This damage is part of why he feels it is unsuitable for purposes of the structure above. -Mr. Smeraldo asked for confirmation that elements could cause foundation to expand and contract seasonally. Mr. Martin said if the foundation had been constructed correctly in the first place, (and just because it’s 100 years old doesn’t mean it’s unsuitable) in this particular case the construction material and methods of construction were so poor and the water damages to the mortar of those factors on this site leave him to conclude that this foundation is unsuitable to support a rehabilitated structure. If someone were to do that, it could put the occupants in peril. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS: -No questions from Board Professionals. PUBLIC COMMENTS/QUESTIONS: QUESTIONS: -Ms. Alyse Lillis (726 Eagle Rock Avenue) asked in concern if the preexisting, and or new plan of proposed dwelling will attach the garage or not attach the garage. When it was discussed a year ago, her concern was the water going to run off to her property so once again she’s concerned about the runoff and whether the new construction is going to adhere to the blueprint. She also wanted to know if there were other plans in store for her property. Chairman Bagoff questioned whether there was testimony to what the new structure would look like but that it would conform to the Building

to know if there were other plans in store for her property. Chairman Bagoff questioned whether there was testimony to what the new structure would look like but that it would conform to the Building Codes in the Township. Mr. McPherson followed that he would like to note that Condition or finding a Fact in the Resolution that the applicant would provide a Stormwater Management Plan/Report. He believes that has been done already but asked for Mr. Martin or Mr. Parisi to follow up with that. The idea would be to remain in conformance with the prior approval. Mr. Parisi answered in the affirmative and proposed that if necessary he could bring on his Engineer. Chairman Bagoff followed this comment stating that if the Stormwater Management Plan/Report was a part of the application, there is no need for the additional testimony. Mr. McPherson agreed with Chairman Bagoff's remark. Ms. Alyse Lillis stated that the runoff has already changed. Once all of debris was taken off of 730, the vines that were climbing on top of all the dead wood there’s nothing holding back the water anymore. For example she watched a backhoe from 730 sink into the mud as there’s nothing holding back the water anymore. It is all swilled to the back of the property. -Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Parisi if the Stormwater Management Plan has been started yet. Mr. Parisi responded that he was not positive. Mr. McPherson suggested to defer to Mr. Marucci.