6 10 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

18 the neighbors' concerns because the proposed building would place the building and rooftop elements directly behind homes that currently overlook the area. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether the proposed trees would shield the homeowners from the rooftop equipment. Mr. Jarmel says they may not provide complete screening immediately, but the proposed trees will be approximately 8 to 10 feet high when planted. - Mr. Turteltaub asks how the structural columns for the building will be installed and whether driven piles will be required. Mr. Jarmel explains that geotechnical testing indicates the site has adequate bearing capacity for conventional spread footings. He describes the process as excavating holes, forming and pouring concrete footings, and states that driven piles are not intended to be used. - Mr. Turteltaub asks about the parking stackers and how long they take to maneuver a vehicle. Mr. Jarmel says he does not know the exact timeframe. - Mr. Turteltaub asks why the building is proposed to be approximately 2.5 feet from the property line rather than being moved closer toward the rear. Mr. Jarmel explains that the design is intended to avoid the steep slopes. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether the number of units could be reduced further. Mr. Jarmel says that would ultimately be a question for the applicant because there are economic considerations involved. PUBLIC QUESTIONS - Mr. Weisleder, 17 Howell Drive, asks whether additional visitor parking is required. Mr. Jarmel explains that the proposed parking complies with both the Residential Site Improvement Standards and the West Orange zoning ordinance, and that the applicant is not requesting a parking variance. - Mr. Weisleder asks about deliveries from UPS, FedEx, and other last-mile delivery companies. He confirms that the plan is for those vehicles to use the visitor parking area and make deliveries into the lobby or vestibule. Mr. Jarmel confirms that this is the plan. - Mr. Weisleder asks whether the design accounts for food deliveries. Mr. Jarmel says his personal experience is that food deliveries usually arrive in cars rather than vans and could use the same parking spaces. - Mr. Weisleder asks where food-delivery vehicles would go if all eight visitor spaces were occupied. Mr. Jarmel points out that there are three additional spaces on the easterly side of the building - Ms. Roro, 24 Hutton, asks

food-delivery vehicles would go if all eight visitor spaces were occupied. Mr. Jarmel points out that there are three additional spaces on the easterly side of the building - Ms. Roro, 24 Hutton, asks whether the larger one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments are expected to attract school-age families and whether the project could affect local school capacity. Mr. Jarmel says the question regarding school-age children would probably be better answered by the project's planner. However, based on his familiarity with New Jersey affordable-housing requirements, he believes the larger apartments are intended to allow residents to live with children, although he cannot say whether those children would necessarily be school-aged. - Mark, 362 St. Cloud Ave, ask whether the architectural design included any studies or changes specifically intended to address increased pollution or noise pollution associated with the development's proximity to South Mountain Reservation and wildlife across the street. Mr. Jarmel says there were no specific design measures undertaken for that purpose. He explains, however, that the building will comply with applicable building codes, energy codes, and New Jersey stormwater rules and regulations, which provide those protections through the required standards.