4 15 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

17 - Mr. Malanga asked about the dimensions of the current and proposed buildings. Mr. Facchino stated existing building frontage was stated to be approximately 150 feet long. The proposed building frontage was stated to be approximately 408 feet long. - Mr. Malanga questioned the existing building height listed as 31 feet. Mr. Facchino said the height was likely measured to the roof peak. - Mr. Malanga asked whether the applicant considered the proposal an improvement over the existing nonconformity. Mr. Facchino said he was not claiming the nonconformity itself was improved. - Mr. Malanga asked regarding tree placement in the parking lot under Township Ordinance 25-12.10. He asked whether the applicant would install trees inside the parking lot instead of primarily along the perimeter. Mr. Facchino said he preferred perimeter planting because interior parking-lot trees would receive limited sunlight due to surrounding buildings. - Edith Behr (Dogwood Drive) asked about pedestrian circulation, she asked whether sidewalks and pedestrian pathways would exist throughout the site or whether people would walk through parking areas. Mr. Facchino deferred the question to the architect and traffic engineer. - Seth Weisleder (Howell Drive) asked about roadway changes, he confirmed with Mr. Facchino that the current deceleration lane on Northfield Avenue is paved and part of the county roadway. - Mr. Weisleder asked if Mr. Facchino has been in communication with the county regarding the lane. Mr. Facchino said he had met with the county during a pre-application meeting and they indicated no objection to removing the deceleration lane. - Mr. Weisleder also asked about gate operations and vehicle stacking. Mr. Facchino explained resident access would use a full gate, not a simple arm barrier. - Mr. Weisleder asked how many vehicles could queue before backing onto Northfield Avenue. The question was deferred to the traffic engineer. - Richard Gajdek asked why no retaining wall was proposed. Mr. Facchino responded that the revised plan intentionally avoided disturbing the steep slopes, eliminating the need for a retaining wall in his view. Mr. Facchino added that the additional vegetation and evergreen plantings would help stabilize the area naturally. ○ Mr. Gajdek argued that proposed landscaping appeared to be located at the base of the slope rather than on the slope

ional vegetation and evergreen plantings would help stabilize the area naturally. ○ Mr. Gajdek argued that proposed landscaping appeared to be located at the base of the slope rather than on the slope itself and therefore would not adequately stabilize it. ○ Mr. Facchino agreed to consult with the project forester about adding additional plantings if necessary. - Mr. Gajdek requested additional visual buffering because the proposed structure would sit significantly above neighboring properties. Mr. Facchino said the project was already required to add 16 additional trees and offered to work with neighbors and the township forester on the placement of evergreen screening trees. - Sasha Eaton (Lenox Terrace) raised concerns about visibility and slope stability. She said her home overlooks the parking lot area and asked how high the building would appear relative to the slope top and surrounding terrain. Mr. Facchino deferred visual/elevation questions to the architect and stated the applicant would consider additional trees if required. - Christine Bosco (Mason Place) discussed prior mudslide issues. Ms. Bosco strongly advocated for a retaining wall because of continuing erosion concerns. Mr. Facchino stated that the redesign aimed to avoid disturbing the steep slopes and stated he would need a geotechnical engineer to determine whether slope stability requires intervention.