6 10 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

17 ○ The document is identified as the fourth-round plan and is marked as an exhibit, O2. - Mr. Turteltaub directs Mr. Jarmel to pages 87 and 89 of the document, which identify 525 Northfield Avenue, the former Essex House restaurant property, as a 2.5-acre lot. The document states that in 2025 a developer approached the Township regarding a potential mixed-use residential and commercial building and that the Township proposed rezoning the property to permit 60 units, including 12 affordable units. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether anyone had discussed that proposed 60-unit plan with Mr. Jarmel. Mr. Jarmel says he does not believe the plan existed when his plans were prepared, explaining that his plans were initially submitted in early November and that the fourth-round plan came about later. ○ Ms. Moore objects to the introduction and discussion of the document, arguing that the application concerns a permitted use, that no density variance is being requested, and that the application was filed and deemed complete before the plan was adopted or provided to the applicant. - Mr. Turteltaub argues that the document is relevant because the applicant is seeking variances, including height and setback variances, to construct a 95-unit building, and the Board must consider whether the proposed development is the only reasonable use of the property or whether other uses could better suit the neighborhood. ○ Ms. McGovern agrees with Ms. Moore's position that the application was filed before the fourth-round plan was adopted. She explains that the date appearing on the document is believed to be the date the Township Council endorsed the plan and emphasizes that the zoning ordinance did not contain a density limitation for the mixed-use zone when the application was filed or at the time of the hearing ○ She acknowledges that the requested side-yard, rear-yard, and other bulk variances could potentially relate to the number of apartment units. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel can testify about the proposed landscaping, including landscaping at the rear of the building. ○ Ms. Moore notes that the civil engineer previously testified about the landscaping ○ Mr. Jarmel clarifies that he did not prepare the landscape plan and that, when he previously answered questions about landscaping, he was simply reading and interpreting the plan, including the number and location

arifies that he did not prepare the landscape plan and that, when he previously answered questions about landscaping, he was simply reading and interpreting the plan, including the number and location of trees, rather than providing landscape-design expertise. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel understands the grade difference between the base of the proposed building and the homes located at the top of the hill. Mr. Jarmel says he can read the grading plan and understand the grade differential. - Mr. Turteltaub asks what screening is proposed for rooftop mechanical equipment to protect homeowners on the hill. Mr. Jarmel explains that the building will have a parapet surrounding and screening the mechanical equipment. - Mr. Turteltaub points out that the homes are above the parapet and may have views and potential noise impacts from the rooftop equipment, Mr. Jarmel says the site already has a significant wall of trees and that the landscape plan provides for more than 40 additional trees to supplement that screening. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether the additional trees are located at the base of the hillside. Mr. Jarmel explains that the new plantings begin at the base but extend substantially up the hill. ○ Mr. Jarmel states that, to his understanding, the applicant intends to discuss the landscaping with neighbors and is open to creating a very dense wall of trees, ○ Mr. Turteltaub responds that, although the applicant has met with his clients, the plans have not been changed and additional landscaping could potentially mitigate