Pleading Wizard

Pledge of Allegiance:

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a regular meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice has been given by a duly advertised notice posted in the Suburban Trends and the Herald News. It was mailed in January of 2007 and a notice thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk and a noted is posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building. Can we have a roll call please?

ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Bruce Grygus, Frank Covelli, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Attorney Ralph Faasse, Engineer William Gregor.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Michael O’Hanlon

MR. FAASSE: Four items on the agenda.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, Okay.

MR. FAASSE: We’ll continue with Reality Associates and then we are going to go to Staropoli.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, okay.

MR. FAASSE: Mr. Acquaviva is here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right. We are going to take our agenda out of order this evening to dispose of a couple of no-shows basically. The first one is gong to be 03-07, which is the Santoro application which is 11-05 Ringwood Avenue. This is on a Site Plan, Use Variances, Bulk Variances. We have communication from their attorney.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, Mr. LaSala, dated today, we are unable to proceed this evening, we request an adjournment of the application to the September 5th meeting. The applicant extends the time for the Board to act on this application for an additional 30 days. Please announce this adjournment at the August 1st meeting so that pursuant to the Land Use Act no further notice will be required.

MR. COVELLI: Ralph did he give you any indication on what he is waiting on?

MR. FAASSE: No, he just sent me this, okay, but I can just tell you it is plans.

MR. COVELLI: Well I think it is time to --

MR. FAASSE: Because when our secretary came back last week from vacation she inquired as to whether or not there were any plans and his secretary didn't know anything about it.

MR. COVELLI: So what they were waiting with the road and everything that has been determined.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, we had the easement. Mr. Fiorillo sent me a copy of the easement.

MR. COVELLI: We have that?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, I told you that last month.

MR. COVELLI: I didn't see it.

MR. FAASSE: Well, I mean, I can't help that.

MR. COVELLI: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: I told it was here.

MR. GRYGUS: It is in that box marked miscellaneous, when you moved?

MR. FAASSE: Right. It was referred to the Planning Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So we have a description of the easement.

MR. FAASSE: We have a copy of the easement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We are waiting for updated drawings from their engineer, Mr. Gardner.

MR. GRYGUS: How does the Board feel about if it is carried with the proviso that they --

MR. FAASSE: Well this is going to keep us busy through 2008.

MR. GRYGUS: That they do --

MR. COVELLI: The way that this guy is going 2012.

MR. GRYGUS: -- prosecute next month or it is going to be dismissed without prejudice?

MR. GREGOR: I have some information which may help you in your decision making process.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: I received a call from Mr. LaSala, the attorney for the application, discussing the plans with me and he asked me if I would join him in a conference call with the engineer to explain exactly what we wanted. I agreed to help in any way I could. Later in the day, probably late afternoon, I got a call from the engineer and he asked me specifically what I would recommend as far as the drawings. And I told him, I said the Board cannot read your drawings, they are too complicated. I suggest you have a site plan which is clean, just having dimensions on it, a second drawing which is your Grading and Utility Plan, having just those items on it, a third plan having Landscaping and Lighting, with just those items on it, a fourth plan, which would be your Soil Erosion Sediment Control Plan and all the facilities you require for that and a fifth sheet which would be your detail sheet. He said that is what he is going to prepare.

MR. LUDWIG: Not for nothing but we asked for that months ago.

MR. GRYGUS: I was going to say we ask for that --

MR. CHAIRMAN: The last time around.

MR. FAASSE: When is the deadline?

MR. GREGOR: All I did was clarify what the Board wanted in my estimation and that is why I am telling you specifically what I told him.

MR. FAASSE: That was a conversation today?

MR. GREGOR: He called me this afternoon and that conversation was today.

MR. GRYGUS: I don't see a problem with having that for the next meeting.

MR. FAASSE: I'm sorry.

MR. GRYGUS: I don't see where that should be a problem having that for the next meeting -- ready by the next meeting, do you?

MR. FAASSE: That is quite a bit of a drawing.

MR. GREGOR: I just wanted to let you know what occurred today.

MR. GRYGUS: The plans are done already is just a matter of printing the separate sheets, turning off the various overlays.

MR. LUDWIG: I mean this was asked for --

MR. FAASSE: As soon as it was applied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first time it was asked for.

MR. GRYGUS: On his first plan it was asked for.

MR. FAASSE: Who were the engineering people, how long would it take to prepare those plans usually?

MR. GREGOR: If everything is already done and there are no changes made you are probably talking -- I could probably do it, if I -- if you put your mind to it, you could have it done in two days.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. GREGOR: If you are busy, it might take a week, week and a half.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your motion?

MR. GRYGUS: I'll make a motion to carry the application to the September 5th meeting with a provision that the applicant be sent a letter that we expect him to be here, prepared to testify or that the application will be dismissed without prejudice do to failure to prosecute.

MR. KONING: I'll second that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, roll call on that.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #03-07 TO SEPTEMBER 5TH:

Made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. All right, let's move on to the next one, which is 06-07, the Elwood application, 13 Maple Avenue. This application went off by the attorney you think, their attorney.

MR. FAASSE: Well you know Mr. Walker was here last month and he said that he wanted to confer with the Planning Board attorney, I know he wrote a letter to the Planning Board attorney, as far as I know he never resolved the issue and as we told him that if he was going to prosecute this matter in front of this Board it was our opinion that there was a Use Variance involved and he would have to notify.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Renotice, right.

MR. FAASSE: In order that we don’t have any new notices issues. So I would suggest that we just carry it to September 5th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, at this point it is an incomplete application.

MR. FAASSE: Well it is an improperly noticed application.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: It is an application that does not have jurisdiction before this Board.

MR. GRYGUS: How are we on the time on that one?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Deemed complete 6/11/07.

MR. FAASSE: We should be good, yeah. We should be good through at least September.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We need a motion.

MR. GRYGUS: I'll make a motion to carry to it the September 5th meeting.

MR. KONING: I'll second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, roll call.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #06-07 TO SEPTEMBER 5TH:

Made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Koning, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Gerri could you send that attorney, you have his name and address right?

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah, Higgins and Walker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, send him a letter saying that we carried it to September, please advise us what your pleasure is with this thing; are you going to bring it back as a use variance or are you going to drop it.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all. Okay. Now let's move on to the --

MR. FAASSE: You are down to two, maybe you just ought to announce it so that if there is anyone from the public here on anything else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. The other two items that we are going to deal with tonight is 23-06, which is Reality Associates and then 07-07 which is the Staropoli application which is on Ringwood Avenue. Is there anyone here for any other applications? We are only hearing those two this evening. Okay. Let's move on to Reality Associates, 23-06, this is a Use Variance and Bulk Variances. Good evening counselor.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. Brian N. Chewcaskie, Gittleman, Muhlstock and Chewcaskie on behalf of the applicant, Reality Redevelopment Associates. We were last before the Board on July 11, 2007 when we presented testimony from our engineer Drake Stinson and our architect, Mary Scro. At the conclusion of that meeting and subsequent days thereafter we had some meetings with our engineer and we determined to make certain revisions to the site plan. Those revisions were made and they were submitted, I believe, on July 23rd to this Board with a letter from Mr. Stinson. And Mr. Stinson will testify with respect to those revisions. The highlight and the more pertinent revisions, the number of units have been reduced from 14 to 12 within the same building footprint. What that enabled the applicant to do was to reduce the number of parking spaces and to add more green space and recreational area. The building was moved to the opposite side and the driveway to be opposite of Melrose Avenue. We also provided an application to the Passaic County Planning Board. It was deemed complete on July 25, 2007. We do not have a report. We also addressed certain issues with respect to the air conditioning units, which Mr. Stinson will testify to. So unless there are any questions of me I would recall Mr. Stinson at this time to address the revisions. My notes, Mr. Faasse, indicated that we are up to A-3 in evidence and since we have a revised site plan I would request that that be marked as A-4.

MR. FAASSE: Is it a multi-page?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: It is a single page colorized version.

MR. FAASSE: Before we begin Sir, we have an Affidavit here from Mr. Hoffman, a member of our Board who has sworn under oath that he listened to the tape of the proceedings of July 11th with respect to this application so he would be a qualified voter on this particular application.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is fine Mr. Faasse.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, the only one who isn’t on the dais today and does not qualify I believe is just Mr. Ludwig, everybody else was here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: And participated last month, right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: This Affidavit if you want to see it is, of course, in our file.

MR. HOFFMAN: Ed, did you listen to the tape?

MR. LEONARD: I was here.

MR. HOFFMAN: July the 11th.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, he wasn’t here the week before. We chastised him last month because he didn’t bring his candy bowl.

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Remember? That was two months ago, I remember, one because he was absent and two because he of his absent mindness.

MR. COVELLI: Because we were getting Pete and Ed, we were trying to get Ed and Pete at the last meeting.

MR. FAASSE: I know.

MR. HOFFMAN: Did he come?

MR. LEONARD: Yeah, I was late.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Ed showed up for the meeting, he is in my notes.

MR. HOFFMAN: I just remember them saying that they were trying to call me and trying to call him at the same time. I remember that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as you are satisfied.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I remember him walking in.

MR. FAASSE: That is what happens when you start getting old -- you know -- you can’t remember where you were.

DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF MR. STINSON BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q Mr. Stinson, you still recall that you under oath as of the last meeting on July 11th. Could you describe to the Board what revisions you made to the site plan since you last testified before this Board?

A Yes, certainly, thank you. As you had mentioned, we reduced the number of residential units from 14 to 12, which thereby reduced the number of parking spaces by a number of 4. We now have 43 spaces, whereas 42 are required, so we still have one extra parking space and we meet the requirements for parking. With that extra space that we gained, we increase the distance of the turnaround, it would be the backup at the end of the isle, which added some extra space at the end. So we made -- so the 5 feet, we made this 10 feet. We added an interlocking brick patio with a bench and two areas for gardening for residents in the back to be a recreational purpose. The main change in the site was to actually mirror the position of the driveway with the building. So as may you recall, we had the driveway on this side of the site, we mirrored it so that the driveway now almost exactly lines up with Melrose Avenue, so it is a great location for the driveway now and it works fine. We also increased the curb radius, which is recommended by the Planning Board’s consultant here. So this is a 5-foot radius which helps the truck turning coming in. And we have provided these recreational facilities here, we have a patio area with picnic tables, which would be the barbeque area and we have provided an area for horseshoes. The landscape and the lighting were revised accordingly. There was a deficiency in the light; we added another light at the end. We showed the air conditioning compressors, which was requested to be on the plan. The air conditioning compressors would be for the lower level and the first level of residences. Whereas there are 6 residential apartments and 4 medical that would make 10, so we have shown them to scale here. We talked with the developer who intends to use an Amana type of air conditioning unit, it is very efficient and it has an insulated enclosure on it, which reduces the decibels from the air conditioning units. I will go through my letter here, I think I have just hit on everything. Oh yes, there was a comment about runoff from off site and on site to be able to control that. I did personally walk the site; I think it was last Monday when we had a rainstorm. I walked to the back of the site; there wasn’t any ponding water or runoff coming from adjacent properties. Nonetheless, we did add what I call an under drain trench, it would run along parallel to the property line, just in front of the tree line here, which would consist of gravel and under drain pipe that is connected to the system. So both along the lower half and the upper half we have an under drain, which is like a french drain system, it would collect an incidental runoff, primarily probably from our site because it is grass but it is intended to be very minimal and I don’t believe that would be used much.

BOARD MEMBER: Could you, where is that located?

A Yeah, I have the drainage plan here. These drawings are the exact same sheets that were submitted.

Q Before you attach that drawing Mr. Stinson, could you identify it by title and the last revised date?

A Yes, this is called the Grading, Utility and Soil Erosion Control Plan, it is identified as our drawing C2.2, it was revised 7/19/07 and this is the drawing that you have, there has been no change to the plan.

Q And when you say the drawing that the Board has, that was part of the package that was submitted to the Board, correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

MR. FAASSE: Didn’t you just mark the entire package A-3?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We marked as A-4 the colorized version of the site plan.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We can certainly mark the package of the site plan documents as A-5 Mr. Faasse, maybe to save time.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, A-5 would be then the whole package that we got.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q And A-5 Mr. Stinson, you can correct me if I am wrong, is your drawings dated January 19, 2007 revised through July 19, 2007 consisting of eight sheets, am I correct?

A Yes, that is correct. So, as I had said before we mirrored the building so in accordance with the new layout for the driveway we had to realign the drainage. So we collect the drainage along this side and connect similarly to the sewer that is in Ringwood Avenue. We have an under drain that runs parallel to the property line here and connects to this inlet and we have an under drain, french drain type system, that runs along this side and connects into this inlet here. And that is designed to collect any incidental ponding water which, as I said before, is very rare and unlikely. After I visited the site, it was actually after these drawings were prepared, I realized that there really wouldn’t be much chance of any extra runoff. I think we have got that more than copy as far as storm water is concerned.

Q A couple of points Mr. Stinson, you referenced the relocation of the driveway. The relocation of the driveway opposite Melrose, does that improve sight distance at all?

A Yes, it does. As it was noted before, there was a building right on the corner here that was limiting the sight distance looking to the right exiting from the driveway. Now that we have it here, we have a clear open space; we meet the requirements for sight distance without a problem.

Q When you say you meet the requirements, those are the requirements imposed by Passaic County?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q All right. And that --

A There is a formula for calculating the sight distance based on the grade of the road and we have done that calculation and we have submitted it to the County along with our application.

Q Now it is my understanding that the air conditioning units were located to the side of the building and were brought closer to Ringwood Avenue, am I correct?

A Yes.

Q And you have also testified that the type of units to be provided would be insulated units.

A Right.

Q And based upon your understanding, would that result in a lower noise level because they are insulted units?

A Yes, it reduces the sound level by about 10 decibels.

Q Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Are all those units as shown right there in that area --

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: -- they are all the air conditioning units?

MR. STINSON: No, as I said the upper level of the residential would have 6 units, they would be located on the roof. But we have 10 that would be located on the floor.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, that is what I thought I heard.

MR. STINSON: They would cover the medical office space as well as the 6 residential dwelling units. That is why we have 10.

MR. FAASSE: Is that going to affect the design of the roof?

MR. STINSON: In any event, there would be space for either alternative for the roof. There would be space to put the equipment up there. If it were a flatter roof, obviously, there would be more space. The design calls for a lower area in the back, it would also be screened. It would work with the pitched roof alternative that would have the other six units on the roof.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q And also with respect to the under drain system that you testified to, Mr. Stinson, that was designed to address both runoff that may occur within the green area on this site and also what may travel onto this site from adjoining properties. Am I correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q So if there was water coming into the site it will be collected or if there is the potential for water to leave the site, it will now be collected.

A Yes, that is correct.

Q And based upon you site visit on, I guess, a week ago Monday, you believe that there is not an issue with water ponding on that site as it presently exist.

A That is correct.

Q All right. Do you believe that there will be any change as a result of the development as proposed?

A With all the changes the flows will be reduced because we are taking the runoff from the roof and putting it into the ground for drywell underground infiltration. So there is a net decrease in runoff from this site.

Q Now we also received a revised report from Mr. Gregor, Mr. Stinson. Did you get the opportunity to review that?

A Yes, I have. It seems in the report, after I’ve looked through it, that we did comply with most of the comments, I believe. There was one comment about the truck movement, and I have the truck movement plan here, which is the same drawing. As we revised the design, we revised the truck turning template which shows how the truck would enter the site, make its maneuvers, we have extra space in here now for the truck to turn around. He backs in, picks up the garbage and he backs out. He doesn’t really go over the line here now that we have a 5 foot curve radius turn on the inlet -- on the driveway, he can make that swing without imposing on the other direction of traffic on Ringwood Avenue. And the garbage is on at an off hour, early in the morning, or it would be scheduled so that there wouldn’t be much traffic leaving the site. So we feel that the truck circulation for garbage truck pickup is more than adequate.

Q And that is your truck path drawing that was part of the package and the last revised date on that was July 19th.

A Right, it was revised -- revised of the site it was 7/19/07, it is our drawing TP-1.

Q Does the relocation of the driveway help the entrance to help -- I’m sorry, does the relocation of the driveway help access to the site by trucks?

A Actually, the improvements to the curb return in front, making them 5 feet instead of straight, helps the truck turn to get in and in addition, I didn’t point it out, but before we had a little bit of an island here which that we took out and we stripped so there is more room for the truck to pull in. So it has been improved from the last design, the truck maneuverability.

Q And based upon your understanding of Passaic County Planning Board requirements, do you believe that the access driveway, in its present form, will be approved by the County Planning Board?

A Yes, I think it is a good location and there is proper sight distance. The road is flat and you can see left and right pulling out.

Q And I believe there was another comment, which was number 9 in Mr. Gregor’s letter, about the sight distance, but you have already addressed that. Is it your testimony that the site distance standards will be acceptable too?

A Right, those are out calculations and we meet the minimum required site distance.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I have no further questions for Mr. Stinson, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Bill what about your comment I think you were questioning what he was using as the minimums?

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, and in fact that would be a good thing to bring up at this point in time. I noticed that your drawings indicate, if I am not mistaken, that the required is 188 and the actual is 188 in the southerly direction and the required and the actual in the northerly direction are 190. By AASHTO’S standards, those distances seem quite small and I wanted to find out the basis of those sight distance numbers that were applied in this application. I believe AASHTO would be more like 350 feet.

MR. STINSON: It is a function of the speed of the road and the speed limit as well.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. STINSON: I am looking for a copy of the calculations.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah but that is not our requirement anyway, right?

MR. GREGOR: Well we have to consider sight distance on the site.

MR. FAASSE: But the County is going to specify that.

MR. GREGOR: Not necessarily, I think that is a joint responsibility because we are approving the site plan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Isn’t the County 400 feet or something like that?

MR. GREGOR: Well I believe and, again, I should -- let me speak up a little bit so everybody can hear me. My recollection for AASHTO and the County requirements is typically it is for a 35 mile an hour roadway you want a minimum of 350 feet. But that is why I wanted to find out what the basis of these were before I -- and I haven’t seen any comments from the County so I don’t know what their position is yet.

MR. STINSON: I can submit these pages if you would like. This is our site distance calculation and this is also the Passaic County formula that we use.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, are those extra copies? If not, you could just fax those to me or send them to me when you have a chance, I would be glad to look at them. I am not going to really review them right now.

MR. STINSON: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: But if you can answer the basis that’s fine.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, as I said, because the speed limit is only 30 miles an hour --

MR. LEONARD: All right, he is saying 30.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, the County always goes 5 miles over the posted because that is what people drive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You said you had the County’s formula there?

MR. GREGOR: That is my experience.

MR. LEONARD: Yeah but is he using 30 in his calculation?

MR. GREGOR: If he is using 30 and it is posted 30 and the County permits that than that is acceptable to the County. I have concerns on the available sight distance because we, obviously, we want a safe site here not only for the people that will be located here but the people that are traveling on Ringwood Avenue. We just want to make sure we covered all the safety requirements, that’s all.

MR. STINSON: There is also a table in the AASHTO book, I think you are referring to based on the DOT which also is about 190 feet, 188 - 190 feet is required, that is the same as the calculation. We said that the available is greater than what is required and it is much greater than, I mean these calculations say it is greater than 250 feet. To do it, it is off the chart so we really don’t know what the actual is but is certainly greater than what is available.

MR. GREGOR: If I am not mistaken I believe that you stated that the actual was the same as required or am I missing --

MR. STINSON: We meant to say that was greater than what -- the actual is greater than what is required.

MR. GREGOR: Hang on, let me just go back to that section of the drawing so I am accurate here.

MR. STINSON: You are right -- you are right, we said required and actual.

MR. GREGOR: If you have an actual, which is greater, could you tell us what that is?

MR. STINSON: Yeah, that is correct.

MR. GREGOR: That might be helpful to the Board in their decision making process.

MR. STINSON: We have indicated that it is 250 feet is the actual, which is greater.

MR. GREGOR: Is that anywhere on the drawings?

MR. STINSON: No, it is in the calculations.

MR. GREGOR: In the calculations, all right.

MR. STINSON: We can fax that over to you.

MR. GREGOR: All right, so when I get those, I’ll see them.

MR. STINSON: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, very good.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think if I may Mr. Chairman is that since this is within the Passaic County jurisdiction we will certainly share with Mr. Gregor our calculations to make sure that there is an agreement amongst Mr. Gregor and Mr. Stinson as to the methodology utilized relative to sight distance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And if I may, just one follow up question, Mr. Stinson, the driveway for this site, based upon the location of the building, would have to be on one or the other side, am I correct?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And by placing it on the side opposite Melrose Avenue, the site distance was, in fact, improved.

MR. STINSON: That is correct.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Okay, thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Can you just go over all the signage at that point?

MR. STINSON: We have a stop bar and a stop sign at the end, which was requested. And I also added a yellow line that would run down the middle to help delineate two-way traffic in the driveway. That yellow line would extend all the way here, it is traffic marking. That is the only sign is the stop sign right there pulling out.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One question Mr. Gregor, on the parking requirements --

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- in R-residential, in this type of use, don’t we require more than two per unit to build up some visitor spaces? I know we dealt with this but I don’t know where to find it.

MR. GREGOR: I believe your requirements are two parking spaces per dwelling unit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In an R-10 Residential?

MR. GREGOR: In an R-10 Residential.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In a condensed use like this, we will say in a condo/townhouse zone, it goes to two and a half.

MR. GREGOR: It may but it is not a requirement it is more of a -- when you are putting a non-permitted use in the zone, it is not -- you are not varying from the standards of that zone but it is always a very good idea to have additional spaces for visitors when you have multi-family dwelling units. What I have recommended in the past is a minimum of two and a half spaces in some cases depending on the use, three spaces per each dwelling unit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: But the requirement that you have in your ordinance --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, so we are going by the R-10 requirements.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because we don’t have anything else to fall back on.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. STINSON: I would like to point out something if I may. There is 12 units, times 2, is 24.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. STINSON: Okay, we have 43 parking spaces. There are 18 attributable to the medical office space that is below. You would think that because of the use of the building being a mixed use as it is, you have people visiting the office during the day, there would be people -- you know -- who have gone to work who are residents, so I believe there are complimenting uses at the site and it would offset the parking requirements and they would be shared between the two uses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That works good from 9 to 5. Are the doctors all going to go home at 5 o’clock and close their office?

MR. STINSON: I don’t know. We are meeting the requirements for parking but I believe that it would help the situation.

MR. GREGOR: I have to concur on that point that when you have a shared parking of two uses that have their peak uses at different times, a shared parking space does benefit the visitor spaces as we call them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Because most of your residential visitors are not normally during normal business hours such as weekends and late in the evening. But it is something that -- you know -- it is something that you still have to look at because there may be time periods where you may exceed with visitors and heavy volume at the medical offices but that is more than a judgment thing than a standard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, now we had this question the last time with a different lay out of the parking. At the rear-end of the parking lot, in the last two spaces where you come into the residents gardening area, is that an adequate area for a person to back out into that indent and then pull forward?

MR. STINSON: It meets the design requirements that there is five feet there for people to pull out. We also have blank spaces right here; this is 20 feet wide, so someone could, just as the garbage truck turns around --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, I’m talking about the other end.

MR. STINSON: These cars would be able to turn around here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, I’m talking about the other end so people don’t have to back out.

MR. STINSON: This would assist the cars at the end if they parked here, they would be able to turn around. The cars in the front would probably back --

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you indent gives adequate space for that?

MR. STINSON: Pardon me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your indentation there gives adequate space.

MR. STINSON: We have 10 feet, that is in accordance with the standards for parking lot design.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That works Bill?

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: That is adequate for the vehicle movement for those last two parking spaces.

MR. COVELLI: Bill can that first handicapped space adjacent to the building function without backing into that driveway?

MR. FAASSE: He is asking you?

MR. GREGOR: Oh this question is directed to me?

MR. COVELLI: Right.

MR. GREGOR: I’m sorry; I was waiting for Mr. Stinson to answer.

MR. FAASSE: No, I think he said Bill.

MR. STINSON: Well I can answer that question too. We meet the requirements for ADA requirements, it has an 8 foot space on the one side, an 8 foot and we are meeting the requirements.

MR. COVELLI: I wasn’t worried about that. I am worrying about how a vehicle gets out of that space without backing essentially right across the driveway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And the other problem is --

MR. GREGOR: In answer to your question, yes he probably will cross over into the opposite lane. The concern I would have there is that I would have to look at the architecturals again to see if that -- the area that is labeled the sidewalk, is that an open area, can you answer that?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: That is an open area.

MR. STINSON: It is the sidewalk open area.

MR. GREGOR: So you do not have a blind spot there so vehicles can see someone -- someone pulling in can see someone pulling out.

MR. COVELLI: Someone backing out. But the person backing out can’t see the person coming in; the building is in the way.

MR. GREGOR: No that is right, they won’t be able to until they are basically in the out lane.

Mr. COVELLI: Right.

MR. LEONARD: Isn’t that sidewalk area open, right, didn’t he say that was like a -- it’s open.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, he says that is open. So the sight distance isn’t totally blocked but the vehicle in that first handicapped spot will most likely have to back out into the opposite travel lane in order to make that movement out.

MR. GRYGUS: And then the other issue that you have is, everybody who is using this building is going to be walking down the middle of that parking lot to get to the vehicles because there is no sidewalks.

MR. GREGOR: That is a concern, there is no pedestrian parking -- there are no pedestrian sidewalks yeah, that is a concern because that is a long area.

MR. STINSON: I would like to point out that the requirement of the ADA spot is to have it as close to the building as possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, we understand that.

MR. GREGOR: But the ADA’s meet their requirements. I think what he is talking about is that there is no pedestrian area to go from their vehicles to the building without traveling in the parking lot.

MR. STINSON: Only walking in the parking lot.

MR. GREGOR: Pardon?

MR. STINSON: They would, they would down the parking lot.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, any other questions of the engineer?

MR. GREGOR: I have one question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. GREGOR: I want to switch back --

BOARD MEMBER: Can I ask a question about the air conditioner?

MR. STINSON: Sure.

BOARD MEMBER: Is there going to be any other screening around the air conditioning units?

MR. STINSON: Right, we have arborvitaes, which are the trees on this side, and we have a fence. As a matter of fact, I am glad that you brought that up. Our drawings showed the fence ending at the residential line here because this is commercial property. After I visited the site, I think it may be more appropriate to extend our fence from this property line to the edge of this building and that would add additional screening. I am glad that you brought that up but there is landscaping there. We kept it low because it is an open space; there are windows on that side of the building so people can look at and there is a green strip there. But I would recommend that we, should the Board think that it would be appropriate, we could extend the fence down to the corner of that building.

MR. GREGOR: I might point that the, if you notice, the air conditioning units were moved away from the rear yards of the residential to the rear yard of the commercial, which is a benefit.

MR. STINSON: Right.

MR. GREGOR: I have one question for you regarding your truck path movement.

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: That is TP.1. I guess the first comment, it is more of a comment and then I have a question. The vehicle entering, this is the garbage truck, this vehicle, correct?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: Must travel into the opposing lane of the facility in order to enter the building, right, they cannot stay in their own lane.

MR. STINSON: You see it in the opposing lane of our driveway.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, our driveway.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. STINSON: Of course, we have shown the worst case scenario here with the truck entering on this end on Ringwood Avenue, because he is closer here. If the truck were to come this way, he wouldn’t be encroaching on this side at all and I am not sure which direction the truck would be coming from. That is the worst case.

MR. GREGOR: How would a truck leaving the facility going south on Ringwood Avenue, have you looked at that movement?

MR. STINSON: Um, I mean he would swing out obviously.

MR. GREGOR: Would he go into the opposing lane of Ringwood Avenue, that was the concern?

MR. STINSON: It would be a mirror from the position that is there. So if the truck really needed to go south on Ringwood Avenue, he could swing over and go south.

MR. GREGOR: He would have to swing over into the entrance lane in order to get out?

MR. STINSON: It would only be an encroachment on our driveway and he would be able to time it so that -- you know -- there wouldn’t be cars there and there wouldn’t be any problem with Ringwood Avenue.

MR. GREGOR: What we are trying to avoid is, obviously, the conflict of vehicles. Someone finally said that that is called an accident but the conflict of vehicles at a driveway entrance. I noticed you put 5 foot radius on these.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, that is correct.

MR. GREGOR: If you increase the radius would that solve the problem?

MR. STINSON: Actually because there is a sidewalk right there it kind of cuts the whole sidewalk back and looking at the entrance to this facility and others along Ringwood Avenue, they are all straight out. I thought a minimal radius of 5 feet was most appropriate and actually we put the 5 foot there so that the truck would be able to do it without swinging into the opposing lane on Ringwood Avenue, which was our objective. So I felt that -- you know -- 5 feet is the minimum size that wou