Welcome to the Planning Board meeting Thursday, November 6, 2025. In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 231 PL1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by mailing the annual scheduled
meetings to the Star Ledger Union County Local Source. the leader, formerly known as Union County Hawk, and tap into Clark by posting such annual meeting schedule on the bulletin board and town hall reserved for such announcements and by the proper filing of said notice with the township clerk. Formal action may be
taken at this meeting. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must always be maintained. Do
roll call. Mayor Albanese >> here. >> Mr. Owick >> here. >> Councilman Maniti >> here. >> Mr. Cotch. Mr. Triola >> here. >> Mr. Alman. Mr. Steinberg >> here. >> Mr. Crib.
Mr. Gau. Mr. Granowski >> here. >> Mr. Gersonner >> here. >> Mr. Cecil >> here. >> Mr. Cruz >> here. >> Mr. Okconor >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Ricky >> here >> and Mr. Troutman
>> here. >> Okay. Can we stand for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nation andice for all.
All right. >> Okay. Start off with the minutes. Everyone had a chance to review, read the minutes from last month's meeting. Any questions or comments? >> No. Okay. Can I get a motion to approve minutes from October 2nd, 2025?
>> Second. >> Motion and then a second. >> Oh, I I thought I heard someone down there say motion. >> Second. Good. >> Okay, I'll make a motion. >> Okay. Second. >> Second. >> Good. Thank you. Correspondents, all correspondents are available at town hall for anyone who wants to see it.
>> Can I have a motion to uh >> before you that just call the yays and nays on on the uh minutes, please? >> I'm sorry. Um all eyes. Uh and any nazs? Any abstain?
Okay. >> Okay. Correspondents. All correspondents are available at town hall for anyone who wants to see them. >> Can I get a motion to dispense with the reading of the correspondence? >> A motion. >> A second. >> Second. >> Very good. All right. We have a
subdivision. Sorry. All in favor? >> Sorry. All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. Abstensions. The eyes have it. Subdivision site plan application Prima Vera Park View LLC 7 Aen Drive block 21
lot 17. Uh before we start, just make sure anyone coming up, please speak clearly into the microphone so we can have recorded. Um anyone giving a testimony is going to be asked to state their name, spell it, and they will be sworn in by Mr. Cruz. Please begin.
>> Um m Mr. Chair, if I may before we start, um, just to remind the board, this is a continuation of the September 4, 2025 application for minor subdivision of Primar Park View for 7 Aman Drive, lot 17, block 21. On
September 4, 2025, I advised the board that the notice of this application for that meeting was proper and that the board had jurisdiction to hear the application. However, the applicant was unable to complete its presentation and the hearing was continued until tonight,
November 6, 2025, without further notice. At the September 4, 2025 board hearing, I made an announcement that the hearing would be carried to tonight, November 6, 2025, without further notice.
Accordingly, the board continues to have jurisdiction to hear this application. However, since September 4, 2024, the board has new members and some members who were not present on September 4, 2025 who did not hear the application.
Those members uh may participate in this continuation hearing upon certification that the member heard or listened to the tape of that meeting. Um, it is my understanding that all of the
members sitting tonight, all of the planning board members sitting tonight were either present on September 4th or heard the tape and have filed the necessary certifications with the clerk and are all eligible to participate. Uh,
with that background, Mr. Chair, the application can proceed forward. >> Uh, Gary Goodman on behalf of Prima Vera Parkview LLC. Uh the applicant um the applicant is in contract to purchase 7
drive. Uh we're here tonight for a minor subdivision. As council has said, this is a continuation from September 4th. At that time, the main issue uh had come up was the fact that the subdivision plan that had had been filed had encroached
upon an easement that was held by the neighbor at 9 Hawen Drive. Uh since then um my client uh who will testify has met with the neighbor and they have uh put together an agreement in writing that is satisfactory to both parties. Uh in
addition uh and we have been updated I just think today by an engineering report there are issues with regard to um uh uh landscaping and uh uh some uh clarifications as to drainage and we
have an engineer who will uh testify as to that issue. And finally, uh, we have our planner, Tony Gallerano, who will be, uh, uh, answering some questions that were brought up at the prior meeting. Without further ado, I'd like
to call our first witness, uh, Joe Fanska. Well, one of us, let's see. I think you can speak into that and I can speak into this one. >> Good evening. Uh, >> please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I
>> I >> state your name. >> Joseph Fonka >> do solemnly swear >> Do solemnly swear >> that I will tell the truth. >> I tell the truth. >> And nothing but the truth. >> Nothing but the truth. >> In this proceeding. >> At this proceeding. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Thank you. >> State your name and spell.
>> Joseph Fonka. F as in Frank. O N S E C A >> Mr. FCA you're principal of Prima Vera Park View LLC. >> Yes, I am. >> And you're in contract to purchase the property known as 7 Aken Drive. >> Yes, we are.
>> Said property is approximately 35,766 ft and you are proposing to subdivide it into two residential building lots. >> Correct. or one family homes. >> Yes. >> Uh at last meeting September 4th, there
was an issue that arose with regard to the subdivision encroaching uh upon the existing easement. How have you addressed that issue? >> Uh I made an appointment with Mr. and Mrs. uh Bournestein.
We met, I believe, two or three times. I met twice and my my partner who's my brother met them also once. I brought the site map, explained it to them. I did a quick little mark out on the drive right roughly where the easement ends.
Um explained everything to them and it I believe everybody is in agreement. And so is it your understanding that the revision to the subdivision uh does not encroach in any way on the existing easement that your neighbor has
on the property? >> No, it's we're just going to be cutting the driveway at the the furthest point of the >> Once again, the area that is the easement is not being touched. Correct. >> It's not correct. >> Okay. And um the easement that's been
filed uh talks about maintenance. Has the maintenance issue been uh mutually agreed upon with uh the Bourstein? >> I I believe so. We did speak about it. Um and >> is it not part of the agreement that you
and they executed? >> There is some verbiage on the agreement regarding that. Yes. Okay. >> I don't have any further questions. Mr. One second. >> Um I have a question with respect to that agreement. Uh paragraph 4 says you
have expressed meaning your neighbor and confirmed your agreement to maintain the driveway within the easement. Now the driveway is on the easement on both properties. is the who is going to maintain the
portion of the driveway on your property. >> From my understanding, Mr. and Mrs. uh Brunstein are going to maintain the driveway. They're undertaking the responsibility to maintain the entire
driveway from shoulder to shoulder or from edge to edge >> from there that the existing driveway that's there that we're not going to touch except for the back part that we're removing. Um yes, that's from my understanding. Yes, that's what we agreed to.
>> Mr. Fon, isn't it the case that the driveway now is going to be their exclusive use? >> Yes. Isn't it that there was a recommendation that you flip the driveway over and um uh the driveway is going to be totally on your property
servicing your new house that you propose to build whereas this existing driveway is going to serve your neighbor the one who has the easement on the property. >> Correct. >> How will that be policed? Is there going
to be a a an a deed restriction prohibiting the owner of the new property from using the driveway that's that's on that property, the existing driveway? >> Well, the the driveway is once we do the
improvements, the portion that's from the the outside of the back of the easement to the existing home that's there now is going to be completely removed. So they won't have access to the new house that's built because the driveway is on the opposite side for the new house. >> Okay. So that so as a practical matter
that portion of the easement on on your property will be isolated from the remainder of the property. Thank you. >> Is there any visuals of this or >> Well, we do have the Okay. >> Engineers plan you mean to show it. I
believe the uh the engineer is in the position to do that when he's called. >> Okay, that's fine. They they did submit a plan. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh >> does the board have >> any questions from the board?
>> No. Okay. >> From the public. >> Any uh questions from the public? If you have any questions, please state your name and your address. Step up. Seeing there's no questions from the public, guess we can move on. >> Thank you.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Please step up to the microphone to state your name and your address. >> Yep. Please keep your questions pertaining to the statement you just heard. So, my name is Chira and I live at uh
address 167 Westfield Avenue, Clark, New Jersey. And >> how do you spell that, please? >> How do you spell your name? >> Chira. C H I R A G. And is so my house is at like 161 Westfield
Avenue. I just wanted to know there is a construction happening on right beside my property and they sent me this notice. So, I just want to know like due to that construction, is my uh property tax or anything going to get affected or anything? Is >> this involve parking?
>> Yeah, this this is for a different property. >> Oh, >> I believe that one's next. >> Oh, they said like 3:30 p.m. Maybe. >> That's okay. This is >> Okay. >> Any other questions from the public? All right. Seeing that there's no questions,
we can move on. >> Yeah. I'd like to call our next witness, Phil Danelli. >> Hello. >> Please raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I state your name. >> I, Philip Danieli, >> solemnly swear
>> solemnly swear >> will tell the truth. >> Tell the truth >> and nothing but the truth >> and nothing but the truth >> in this proceeding. >> In this proceeding to help me God >> to help me God. >> Please state your name again and spell it. My name is Philip Danieli. D an
ell. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey and New York. I work for EKA Associates in Scotch Plains and I've done testimony at many uh I didn't do testimony here, but I've done
it in many uh municipalities at planning board and zoning board meetings. education. >> Um, went to college of engineering, Ruckers. >> Okay. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. >> All in favor?
>> I thank you, >> Mr. Danieli. You've >> Yes. Okay. >> Uh, you've heard the question with regard to a visual on what has been proposed in terms of the change in the easement. Is
it possible for you to show the change? >> Yes. Like once I get once I get to it. Let's see. Okay. Zoom into this. >> You work with your hand or >> do that.
I use the mouse. >> Okay. >> Easement is right there on this side of the property. >> Is there any encroachment on upon that easement that the proposed >> Oh, the propos the proposed what they're
going to do is they're going to >> on the line of the >> Can you identify the plan and what you're referring to and whatever the next exhibit is? What's this now? All right. The plan is the uh grading plan. It's the grading plan. Shows the uh easement
and the property line. They're going to maintain the easement right along the property line and then take away any pavement that goes up. So really when when the driveway is completed, it's going to be a full driveway is just for this property. No,
no access to this. >> And uh all the black top that's within the uh easement is not being touched. Correct. >> No, it's going to stay the same. Matter of fact, they're going to put some uh granite over here, some blocks here. So,
the driveway stops and goes across. Okay. >> And they'll have full access to the backing in and coming out. >> Okay. Um could you um uh there was a question with regard to the drainage that the engineer had um asked I think
in >> the original engineering and the revised one which we we received today. We had an opportunity to look at that and respond. >> Yes, I did. Um the main thing he wanted to know is that
the uh we had a 6-in drainage line running on property 17.0 01 and goes daylights into the uh 8 acre drive. So, he wanted to turn it into a 4 inch diameter pipe. There's no problem doing
that. >> Uh and could you just go over the uh the landscaping in terms of the comment uh made by the town engineer and what uh our response, what we're prepared to do. >> Okay, I got to go to the landscaping
plan. Here's the landscaping plan. You wanted to incre this the trees along this side the uh I guess that's the western side >> again just identify the plan and it'll be the next number exhibit in the series. Correct.
>> Yes. The landscaping plan. It's the third plan. Uh they want to increase the the number of trees along this side of the property. That's uh 17.02. And then they want to add more trees
between the two properties. And they want to put another buffer on this side. So they're really going to have trees running there, trees running here, trees running here. And decrease the the distance between the trees. I think we
had 10 feet and then I think we had 10 feet and then they want five feet. >> Yeah. >> And the height is supposed to be six to eight feet. >> Read the requirement. Applicant is proposing seven green giant arbor vites
along the right side of lot 17.02. These are specified to be 1.5 in caliber. There should be at least 14 of these shrubs and they should be called out to be 6t to 8 foot planted height at
a spacing of 5t. Uh it says the proposed spacing of 10 is too wide to establish a privacy hedge. And uh uh it's your representation that the applicant is prepared to do all that. Correct? >> Yes, he is. >> Okay. Um
and >> this thing here too, but there >> 3.3. The applicant shall document sufficient landscape buffering along adjacent neighboring property lines. It appears that additional screening should be added between lots 178.01 and
>> well, it's 17.01. It's I guess a typo. And 17.0 02 as well as along the left side of lot 17.01 and we are doing that as well. Correct? >> Yes. >> All right. And um there is a under 3.5
there's a requirement uh of uh applicant is required to replant 28 trees. The applicant is proposing to replant nine trees. Based on this, the applicant is required to pay $4,750 into the township tree replacement fund.
The analysis uh um Okay. Whatever. So, we are representing that we are prepared to do that as well. >> I see. Yeah. >> Yes. Again. Okay. Uh I think that's it on landscaping. Yes, >> believe so. I think there's enough
trees. >> Mr. Goodman, >> I think what you meant to tell us was that when the landscaping plan is revised that the amount would be calculated based on the number of trees you put on the lots. Um, if you were to
switch from arborvite to a tree species, you might be able to reduce that number. Um, so you don't want to you want to tell us that you'll recalculate it after you've revised the landscaping plan. >> Recalculate it after we revised the
landscaping plan >> and that your calculation will be in conformance with the ordinance requirement. >> Okay. And the calculation be informance with the requirement. >> Thank you, Mr. Okconor. >> Okay. I have no further questions.
I have one. Um, on the uh landscaping plan, there are large axis in a circle. What does that mean? These here, that means they're going to be removed. The trees are going to be removed.
Then we're planting in the front. These these trees here, these are the morning glory. These were the trees that in question, the ones along the border here. There's no trees here. They're going to put more trees here and put more trees in the middle. So, there's really three rows of
trees that are going to be on the property and they're going to be high 6 to 8 ft. So, I it's going to be a good buffer between the the houses. >> Any questions from the board for Mr.
Danieli? So, seeing there's no questions, I'd like to ask any anyone from the public that has any questions about the statements made from Mr. Danieli. Please state step up, state your name and address. >> My name is Neil Anderson and D RS. I
live at 3 and drive. So, uh, part of the tree planting thing, is this the time to talk about storm water runoff? >> Yes. >> Okay. But not talk about it, ask questions.
>> There's questions here. So, this current property is basically self-percating, doesn't drive water to the street. Um, under article 306-1 of the Clark Township Codes,
section 4, you state or they state township of Clark also established in the policy for addressing storm water management develop not meeting the criteria of a major development standards and design requirements not included herein may be found in the publication New Jersey storm water best
management practices. This article shall be applicable to all sites and subdivisions for development that require either preliminary or final site plan subdivision review. You follow to New Jersey
groundwater recharge. It states it applies to uh areas that is creating at least 0.25 acres of new or additional imperous surface which this property has. So by definition you
should have a site plan. Do you >> there's a site the grading plan is covers that drainage is on it right there. It's on the grading plan. The drainage basically flows along here goes out to the to the street along the
gutter. The drainage from the roof roof leaders go into a pipe that goes directly into the street and drains into the catch basin. And then on this house, we're going to collect the roof drainage and go
directly into the catch basin. And so basically all the drainage except for the roof drainage gets directed overland flow into the street into the gutter line and the water goes in this direction and water goes in this
direction. So it's flowing properly. So basically you don't have a plan because the existing storm water systems which we all know ferry road milid terrace overflows when there's a heavy storm. The storm drains are right in front of this proposal. It overflows
when we have a heavy storm drain. Now you're dumping all these new pipes. You've uh created impervious area extended past a quarter of an acre. That's not a plan. I guess uh based on what we have, this is the way it's going to flow. The
drainage is going to work and it'll flow properly. It's better than it is now. The existing >> selfc >> the existing system just flows right out. Doesn't even get to the street, >> so it works properly.
>> I think you want to take a look at your drainage calculations on sheet two. Um, your plan is showing total combined lot coverage of 9,197
square ft, which is less than a quarter acre. >> Less than a quarter. >> Your application is as does not meet the definition of a major development under NJD requirements.
>> Um, so you should explain that so that the >> Oh, I'm sorry. residents know >> that we're we're under the amount that is on for uh the state. If both properties were together, it'd be over. But since they're separate, we're under
the amount. >> And Clark's ordinance says that if you don't meet the requirements of a major that you basically do what you can to the extent practical. >> Yes. Um, and because of the typical clay
soils in Clark, the claim that this lot is self-percolating is unlikely to be um a feature. Um, there's only an increase in imperous coverage of 2,87
square feet for the project over what's existing right now. Um, and one of the homes is being directly connected into the catch basin. >> The other home is being routed through the curb to the gutter line. Um, so the all of
the imperous coverage from this lot is being routed almost directly into the drainage system. >> Correct. >> Into the storm water system in front of the house is what you're saying. >> That's correct. The additional driveway space and additional house that's going
on that lot is less than a quarter of an acre. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else from the public have any questions pertaining to Mr. Denelli's statements? No. Seeing there's no one else stepping
forward. >> Like to call Tony >> Gallerano. Hey, leave it there. >> Please raise your right hand. State your name. >> Anthony Gallerano. >> I state your name. >> I, Anthony Gallerano, >> do solemnly swear >> solemnly swear.
>> I will tell the truth. >> Tell the truth. >> And nothing but the truth. >> Nothing but the truth. >> This proceeding >> these proceedings. >> Help me God. >> Help me God. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Gallerano, you've been retained by the applicant here with regard to providing planning testimony.
>> Yes, I have. >> Give your credentials. >> Sure. So, um, I have a degree in civil engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology, graduated in 1984. I've been licensed as a professional >> and move to accept. Oh,
>> I've been licensed as a professional engineer and professional planner. >> Move to accept. Second. Okay. I should have asked you to spell your name and I did not. Could you spell your your name please? >> Sure. Uh G A L L E R A N O
>> and first name. >> Uh Harbor Consultants. >> No, your first name. >> Oh, first I have to firm name Anthony. >> Continue. Mr. Gallerano. At our prior hearing on September 4th, uh uh questions arose
with regard to the location in terms of front yard setback of these two lots. Could you comment on that? Uh sure. So the uh position of the houses is really a function of the uh the shape of the
lots. Uh the existing lot as you know is a pi is a pieshaped lot. Uh the two resulting lots are also pi uh pieshaped. Uh these lots are 100% conforming uh to
the R R150 um zone requirements. Um therefore it's considered what's we call an as of right uh application. Uh no uh relief is being sought. Um under your ordinance the uh minimum front back
setback in the zone is 40 ft. However, the ordinance requires that uh the front yards be averaged uh and that would be uh averaging all the lots within 150 ft on the same side uh of the subject property. Uh in this case that uh
average front yard setback is 62.7 ft. So these law uh the proposed dwellings have been set back uh to that 62.7 feet again uh meeting the requirements uh of the zone. Um the again the orientation
of the house is a function of the of the shape of the lot. Um there's really no other way to orientate these homes uh in order to meet the front yard setback and at the same time provide a a reasonable building footprint and a reasonable
backyard. Uh the pieshaped lot unfortunately the majority of the area is in the front yard and it does somewhat limit uh the amount of space that's available in in the backyard. So uh I I believe this is the best from a
planning standpoint. is is the best uh orientation loca and location for the uh the two proposed dwellings. >> Further questions for Mr. Galeron. >> Any questions from the board for Mr. Gallerano?
>> Seeing there's no questions. Anyone from the public have a question pertaining to Mr. Gallerano's statement? No. Seeing there's no one moving coming forward. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. That's the conclusion of our application.
We'd like to open it up for public comment pertaining to anything that was stated in the proceeding. Seeing that no one's coming forward, um Mr. Okconor, I don't know. Did you have any additional statements, comments?
>> Mr. May, I think the only thing I would have expected from the applicant would have been to address the landscaping comment that the residents had last time, which was the land, which was why the landscaping was included along the two lot lines to soften that view as you
came around the corner. Um, and the applicant heard that comment and made significant revisions to the plans in order to do that and has further agreed to supplement that with additional landscaping tonight.
>> Okay. Then pertaining to the written agreement with the easement, I mean, is that suitable by your standards? Is that's between them? >> It is a private it is a private easement. Uh but there have been certain representations made um on the record
that will be part of the resolution of approval. Um and the applicant would be expected to comply with those uh representations. >> Any other comments, questions? >> You step forward. State your name and address.
>> Nicholas Koval, 6 Action Drive. Excuse me. Sixack drive. >> Spell your last name. >> K O V A I A L. >> Good. All right. Thank you. Thank you, board. Thank you, neighbors. Uh I just wanted to say I I'll keep my comments
short. Uh like many of us here, we're not uh attorneys, engineers, developers, any of that. Uh but what we are like you guys, we're residents of Clark. And whether you grew up in Clark and stayed here or you moved to Clark yesterday,
you probably came to Clark for that neighborhood feel. And what we're here discussing here tonight and what we discussed two months ago and had to sit through that incoherent presentation goes against everything that probably we want. Plain and simple. And you guys know what
I mean. Everyone here knows what I mean. If we want to chop up Clark, that was especially the neighborhood that we're in that we're talking about that most of us are from. It's going to look like Edison. And again, you know what I mean? And nobody wants that. And who benefits from any of this?
A developer from 46 Richmond in in Cranford. One person and nobody else wants it. So, we're setting a dangerous precedent here. Why are we doing this? Nobody's benefiting except one person. So, I just want everyone to keep that in mind, please.
So, I'm just going to end with that and just say let's keep Clark, you know, the neighborhood that we all want it to be. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public, please step forward.
>> Uh, Roy Camera, Ten Atkin Drive, Clark. I've been here since 1972. I mean, it's a great block. >> Mic, I can't hear you. Speaking to the mic. >> It's a great block. I don't know why you
have to put two uh five bedroomedroom houses on that piece of property. I don't believe about that. There's never been a drainage problem on that property on that uh on that block. How How are we going to be assure that
that's not going to happen? Now, when you're uh taking trees down, you're going to put uh two houses there, different driveways and all that stuff. I don't believe what these guys say. And you know, I would I've been I was
told by an official of the town, uh not to mention any names, that this was already a done deal. This was going to be approved. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments?
I think we all would agree that we have a certain vision of the town. Um, when a plan is conforming and it meets all the requirements, there's only so much anyone can do. I don't know if
since their second time here, there's really anything that doesn't meet the requirements. >> Well, maybe Mr. Goodman can address that to uh confirm that this is a fully conforming application with no variances and that the comments of the engineer
have all been met or will be met. >> Well yes certainly uh the comments of the engineer the applicant is uh agreed to do everything that was uh provided um with the understanding that Mr. Okconor outlined in terms of the type of trees
he he does choose to plant. Uh this is a uh this is a uh uh as of right application for a subdivision. Um uh there were no variances. There was no need for positive negative criteria uh to be outlined for the for the
application. Um uh we have uh uh you know answered the uh the questions that uh were provided us by the board and uh the the issues that the the neighbor that was most impacted had raised and um
in our second go of it I think we've uh uh tried to present a uh an application that um met the concerns that were reflected to us in our prior uh and uh uh I mean it it had there's no
really testimony on it, but this is an experienced builder of u of quality homes and uh it is our belief, excuse me, it is our belief that the two homes that will be built here uh will be a proud addition to the uh to the neighborhood.
>> Before you said, what does as of right mean? As of right means that there are bulk standards in your land use ordinance uh for uh your in this case a two lot minor subdivision uh in terms of frontage,
sideyards, rear yards, uh dis front yard setbacks uh and obviously zoning in terms of the size of the lot. So all of the criteria that the land use ordinance specifies for an individual house to be
built on a lot have been met. And uh that is uh what um I would call an as of right uh lot. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments?
>> No. >> Before you you deliberate, I asked that question because I wanted to hear the answer and to determine whether or not I agreed with it. Um and Mr. Goodman has stated the law correctly. Uh this is an as of right application. No variance is
sought and the applicant has tried to meet uh all of the comments of the board. Um and that's what you really have to meet is really whether or not the applicant has met all of the conditions uh of your zoning ordinance.
Um and uh that is the standard you're you're meeting here. >> Yes, I agree with Mr. Cruz. um feel like they've done everything that they can and met our questions and requirements. Um I understand the sympathy from the
residents as a uh owner of this town lifelong. Um but they have met them. So based on that I um going to make a motion to approve. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing
none, the clerk, the secretary can call the roll. >> Mayor Albanese. >> Yes. >> Mr. Olick. >> Yes. >> Councilman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Trailer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Steinberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Granowski?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Gersner? >> Yes. >> Mr. Cecil? >> Yes. >> Application approved. >> Thank you. first before we call. >> Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, uh
>> ladies and gentlemen, we are in the middle of a meeting. Please. Understood. >> All right. Calling up our second site plan. This is uh application Supria and Sumit
LLC 175-181 Westfield A block 77 lots 2 and 4. >> Thank you. >> How are you? My name My name is Michael Bonner from the Frieri Law Group. B O N E R.
Thought I was close enough. Um I represent the applicant and um by way of introduction, this is a application for preliminary and final site plan approval. Uh it has been the subject of about 2 and 1/2 years of back
and forth with the township. Four technical reviews, three planning reviews, uh drafting and and adoption of a redevelopment plan. Um on the topic of being as of right, it's fully compliant other than two minor design waiverss. um it meets the
requirements of the redevelopment plan as well as the downtown village district as the redevelopment plan is considered an overlay zone. Lot number four is an existing medical office building. Um that is not going to change. There are
some minor modifications to the building uh in order to have a you know a uh facade that that that works its way across um and the architect will deal with that. Lot number two contained two dilapidated buildings which have been
removed. Um we had hoped to get uh the the tree removal was done. Um but the person doing the work injured himself a couple of days ago and wasn't able to finish today. I have a copy of his medical discharge if you want to see it.
Um um but we will get that done as soon as possible and and hopefully the board will consider a condition of approval that that be done. um prior to the memorialization of a resolution if if this application is approved. Um
other than that, I have um several witnesses tonight. We have uh the managing member of the applicant who's here to answer questions if there are any, but we won't be putting on him on for any direct testimony. That'll be handled by um our our architect, Miguel
Martin, and a a professional engineer from Dynamic. bless you. Um who is a traffic engineer and a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Between the two of them, they'll describe the site plan. Uh and then regard Bless you. regarding the two
design waiverss, we have uh Paul Grael as a professional planner to handle that testimony. Um >> Mr. Chair, before you call the uh the first witness, um I did review the legal notice that was published along with the
mailings and I do find that uh the board has jurisdiction because those notices were properly advertised and uh provided to the residents. Um this application slightly differs from the prior application in that as Mr. Bonner said,
this is governed by a specific redevelopment plan for this property. there. So, it's a this redevelopment plan sits on the existing zoning and whatever is not covered by the redevelopment plan is governed by the
underlying zoning. But here you're uh judging this application on the basis of a redevelopment plan uh that was included in the packages that were sent to you. Uh the you have reviewed this well first of all you recommended to the governing body that
this property be declared an area in need of non-condemnation redevelopment and you did that a few years ago. Uh you've also reviewed the redevelopment plan to make sure it was con not inconsistent with the master plan and uh
that was done before the town council adopted the redevelopment plan. Again I just wanted to provide that by way of background. uh to give this application some context as opposed to the prior application. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um I would like to call well I would what I I would like to introduce uh Dr. Prasad so that you can swear him as a witness in the event any questions come up for of a factual nature. Um so he's sworn but um the testimony will be
handled as I said by the architect and engineer. So Um, >> Donna, can you switch the uh screen or take off that um the old plan so they have access to the new plan and we're
not confused or I'm not confused? >> No, that they took it but they didn't turn >> Yeah. Why don't you load whatever you're going to be using at this point, too? >> Um uh please repeat after me. I state your
name. >> I Sudan Prasad. >> I Sudhan Suprasad >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that I will tell the truth. I will tell the truth >> and nothing but the truth. >> and nothing but the truth. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. You are the managing
member of Supria LLC. Correct. >> Yes, I am. >> Do you want to Do you want him to spell his name? >> Would you like him to spell his name? >> S as in Sam. U D as in David. H as in Harry. A as in apple. N as in Nancy. S
as in Sam. H as in Harry. U as in umbrella. And last name Prasad. P in Peter R. Robert Aapp SM A Apple D. >> Thank you. >> That's it. Thanks for now.
>> Um I'd like to call my first witness. Uh, that's Miguel Martin, our architect. >> You just be sworn in before you begin. [Music] And as you go through each of these exhibits, would you identify them and
label them A1, A2? >> Absolutely. >> Um, please repeat after me. I state your name. >> I, Miguel Martin, >> do solemnly swear >> Do solemnly swear >> I will tell the truth >> to tell the truth. >> This nothing but the truth >> nothing but the truth >> in this proceeding
>> in this proceeding. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Thank you. Spell your name, please. >> Sure. It's Miguel Martin. M I G U L M A R T I N. I am a uh licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. I have a bachelor's
degree from NJIT. Um I've testified I've testified in numerous boards around the state, including this planning board. >> I move to accept. >> Thank you. I've asked I've asked uh Mr. Martin to
just do a narrative presentation. I think it'll go faster that way. >> So, I'm going to be actually presenting both the site plan and the architectural drawings. Um, do you want me to stop at the end of my site plan testimony before
beginning the architectural or do just continue on through? >> I would suggest he do the whole thing so you have a complete context of what you're presenting. >> Understood. >> Uh, so to to begin the the project
address is 175 181 Westfield Avenue. It is uh block 77, lots two and four. Uh in summary, the the applicant proposes to construct a three-story addition to the existing two-story medical office
building. The addition will have 13 residential apartments housed in the two upper floors and the ground floor will be parking. The existing medical office use will remain referencing the drawings that were pre
prepared and provided by AWZ engineering uh last revised July 25th, 2025. I am referencing sheet C01. Um actually
So referencing the zoning uh table on sheet C01. Just want to go quickly over the table to show that we are conforming. Uh the principal permitted uses we are proposing office and multif family residential dwelling units which is conforming. The minimum lot area
required is 7500 square ft. Whereas the proposed lot is 23,494 square ft. The minimum lot frontage is 75 ft where we're proposing 235.53 feet conforming.
Minimum front yard. >> Just interrupt for a second. Part of the proposal is to consolidate the two lots. >> No problem. The minimum front yard uh the requirement is 10 ft and that is based off of the redevelopment plan which is a decrease from the DTV zone. I
believe the DTV zone is 15 feet. Uh and that's because the existing uh medical office building only has a setback of 11.1 ft and that's to make it conforming. The minimum sideyard based on the DTV is zero is required whereas the existing
building is 4.9 ft. The minimum rear yard for the principal building is uh required is 20 ft whereas the existing was 33.8 ft. But the addition brings it closer to the uh rear yard and 20 ft is
provided which is also conforming. The existing accessory structure is being removed so it's no longer applicable. Maximum building height this is also a revision in the uh uh as for the uh redevelopment plan because the existing
DTV is 35 ft whereas the redevelopment plan increases it to 37 feet. We are proposing 36.96 feet. which is conforming. Maximum building coverage is based on the DTV which is 80%. We're proposing 44.39%
which is conforming. Maximum impervious coverage is 90% required. 79.38 is proposed which is conforming. Floor area ratio is a maximum of three and we're proposing 0.74 which is conforming. Maximum density is
32 apartments per acre converted to the uh uh the lot area. That turns out to be 17.26 units and we're proposing 13 which is conforming. Minimum uh open space and landscaping is
a maximum or a minimum of 10%. Uh 22% is proposed which is also conforming. Moving on to the The parking analysis also found on sheet >> cover sheet that you were just referring to that's A1. Correct.
>> That is correct. >> What? >> C1. >> C1. No, no, no. For the purposes of this hearing, it's A1 as an exhibit. Thank you. So going over the parking analysis also
found on sheet Z C01 the I need to correct the uh the unit distribution on the parking analysis >> and that'll be A2 correct >> it's still the same sheet >> same sheet okay thank you >> sir >> so to correct the uh the unit
distribution we have eight one-bedroom units at 1.25 25 spaces per unit that requires 10 parking spaces, not nine. As shown on the table,
we have two twobedroom units at 1.5 spaces per unit results in three parking spaces whereas the table shows six. We have three three-bedroom units at 1.75
spaces per unit results in 5.25 parking spaces required for that. However, uh we're going to round up to six whereas we're allowed to actually round down per the RSIS. Um so that brings the total still to the
same as 19 spaces required. We are proposing 19 spaces. So we're conforming in there office for the office use. It's one space for every 300 square ft. 16 spaces are required. We are proposing 16
spaces. So we're conforming. Since we're proposing EV charging stations, we're permitted a 10% credit that we're not really necessarily need to use, but those three we have three additional spots because of the credit. However, we're physically providing the
35 spaces that are required uh based on state law. We're proposing we're required to propose 15% of the provided parking as EV charging uh spots that results in six spaces and we're
proposing six spaces as well. So, that's conforming off streetet loading space. Uh the the uh ordinance does not require us to have a offloading space. However, we are proposing uh an offloading space with on the
property. Uh moving on to the site the sign analysis. In summary, the existing sign is to remain. However, we were brought to the attention that
it's conflicts with the sight triangle leaving the uh proposed driveway. So, we'll have to discuss as to how uh what we're going to uh how we're going to address that. However, the idea was that existing sign was to remain and be refurbished. So, no
so it looks like new. We were not going to make it larger or uh or or modify it any other way. our our plan was to use the existing sign and reface it um because there is a dentist sign that we agreed to take down
as as a result of our our discussions and negotiations. But it was brought to our attention tonight by Mr. Troutman that the existing sign interferes with the site triangle. So we would accept that I guess as a condition of approval
to move that somewhere that you know is is out of the sight triangle but still provides you know the ability for them to put a signage so people can understand where to turn into the driveway and things like that. >> Okay. >> To move what sign
>> the existing sign which is informing happens to be in the sight triangle of the driveway. Mr. Troutman brought that to our attention tonight and we agreed that we would work with town's engineer
and Mr. Troutman um to put a comparable sign the same size height etc. get it out of sight but obviously we need signage for the building. Would you be able to show the board members that existing sign on the other
plan? It's on the demo plan. It's on the site plan. Maybe when you get there. >> Yes, sir. Just >> to show where it is. >> Point it out. >> Uh, as Mr. Bonner uh mentioned we were there's an existing sign on the side of the uh a freestanding sign on the on
Westfield Avenue for the dentist that were uh that was installed without a permit that we're going to remove uh as part of the application. Additionally, we're not proposing any new signs for the project except for building numbering. There are two design waivers that we're
requesting. Uh the first design waiver has to deal with the uh proposed uh 6' high fence that we're installing along the property line based on uh the DTV ordinance. The uh the planting strip is required to
be installed on the exterior side of the fence whereas we're installing it on the interior side of the fence. Uh our planner is going to provide more testimony regarding that. Uh the other design waiver that we're requesting has to do with the off- streetet loading
space because we're proposing a 9 ft by 25 ft loading space and will have a clear height of 12 ft does not necessarily conform with the requirements that 12 feet by 25 ft are required with a 14 foot uh overhead
clearance. I'm going to go down a bunch of things. So right now I've opened up sheet 0 C02 of the uh the provided plans from AWZ engineering. This is going to be exhibit A2. So this plan this plan shows the
demolition of the property and what's what's being proposed to be removed. Uh on the left side you have lot four which shows the existing building uh office medical building that's going to remain. All existing curbs, the pavement and the walkway in front of the building are
going to be removed. to point out the sign that we're referring to. It's this building sign right here that we're referencing that we're talking about that's in the site triangle. As you can see, the existing driveway
uh is already there and it already impedes on the existing driveway. We're proposing the new driveway to be in the same place. So, that's going to be a uh a problem for the site triangle. Is there room to move the sign outside the sight triangle?
>> Is there enough room to move the sign outside the sight triangle? Interestingly, it could be installed where the temporary sign that we're proposed to remove, >> but it would be a nicer looking sign than the temporary sign. Correct. >> Yes, it will because it will be new.
So on the let me zoom in out again. So on the right side is lot two where the existing dwelling and garage have been removed. Uh the existing pavement has been removed and a few trees have been marked also to be removed. Flipping over now to sheet C03, which is
going to be exhibit A3. This plan shows the proposed improvements. I'd like to point out that as part of the proposed improvements, we are proposing a new uh handicap accessible entrance to the existing medical office
building. The existing office medical building will be connected to the uh the residential addition with a open breezeway. Uh so the cover so the entry to the uh office building will now be uh
covered instead of open open air like it is now. The addition will have two ground floor areas. Uh, one will be the main entrance for the apartments housing the lobby which I'm pointing to here. So, this is going to be the main entrance to the
residential uh apartments. So, there's a ground floor lobby with elevator access. On the other side, we're going to have the sprinkler room with the uh trash room and a second set of stairs for egress purposes. The upper floors,
the upper floors of the addition will cover most of the residential parking lot and that's delineated by the dash line along here. So, you can see that off the rear, the addition will have the 20ft setback and basically exposing these parking spots along the rear. On
the right side, we're going to have a 5-ft setback where zero is uh permitted. And then the front of the uh the addition will have a front yard set back of 13.43 feet.
Uh the residential entrance will also have a handicap ramp to access the primary the uh the public sidewalk. I want to point out that a flag pole is proposed
and it is adjacent to the top of the ramp which is that black dot right about there. It's actually depicted in my rendering so you can see it there as well. Um, I want to point out that along the street, we're proposing new curb
sidewalk uh along the street, including new street trees, street lighting, and benches. Uh, a new two-way driveway is proposed into the drive into the uh property where the existing uh driveway
exists. The new parking the new parking lot is proposed for the office building will go from essentially where the existing parking lot is. Uh part of it will be covered by the addition. There will be a driveway connector between the
office drive uh office parking lot to the residential parking lot under the building. The uh covered parking lot will have a minimum clear height of 12 feet to accommodate the township's ambulance and small delivery vehicles.
The parking will also be included in the rent and will be assigned to the apartments. The engineer has already gone through and designated which which spots will be uh reserved for the apartments.
There are four tandem bays against the Westfield Avenue facade of the uh parking lot. These will be reserved specifically for multi- apartment uh uh units, I'm sorry, multi-bedroom units. Um and
then the the rest will be assigned uh to the the other apartments. the the spots that are labeled for office use will not be assigned. Those would be flexible parking spots that will be used by the office or by the residential apartments.
Should they have guests and there be some overflow, they can certainly use those spots. There won't be anything restricting the apartments from using those spots. Um, so as far as the six EV charging stations, four are being proposed
immediately adjacent to the uh driveway entrance in the uncovered portion of the parking lot. We are proposing two under the building and the primary reason for that is that uh for ADA compliance, we're required to provide the charging
station at the uh handicap spot. the there is the one loading space which is next to the uh lobby entrance and it's shown and it's dimensioned as 9 ft by 25 ft. However, I'd like to point out that between the columns there's
actually about 11 ft in between the columns and if you and besides the columns if you were to count the striped area that uh the width is actually about 15 ft. The office building currently receives about one delivery per month by a small
delivery vehicle. However, it in it is anticipated that there will be more residential deliveries. The loading space will provide an off- streetet location for deliveries since there isn't any parking along this stretch of Westfield Avenue. Our traffic engineer will provide more testimony regarding
this. A bike rack is also proposed in the parking lot. However, as it was brought to our attention by Mr. Ricky, the uh a good portion of that is uncovered. However, we'll gladly propose
a sheltered bike rack and that will conform with the uh setbacks for an accessory structure. However, I would have to slide it back so it's not underneath the building, but we would still comply with the setback
requirements for that. Uh the there's an existing uh the office building has an existing dumpster located approximately where my uh I'm indicating showing here on the plan. That existing dumpster will now be
located in a trash enclosure. >> Same location. >> Same location. The existing d uh the existing dumpster will remain for the building right will remain for the office building only and it gets emptied once every two weeks. A
separate medical waste pickup occurs once every six months. There is an existing private contractor that performs a trash pickup and their vehicles will fit under the addition. This contractor will also be picking up the residential waste and their schedule
will be adjusted as needed. The the property will also be screened along the side and rear yards by a six-foot white vinyl fence. That fence will begin here where I'm showing with the uh mouse
at the back corner of the existing office building. We'll follow the property line all the way around the property and terminate on the side of the addition by the by the stairway. So now I've switched over to sheet C04
of the set. This will be exhibit A4. This is the proposed grading plan for the property. The lot will be min minimally regraded to accommodate the proposed work. The grading information on this plan provides the minimum 12-
foot clearance over the parking lot that the township requires. The uh there is an underwater underground storm water detention system that is proposed under the parking lot to capture capture the parking lot runoff. The proposed addition will have
internal roof leaders that will extend down the building columns and connect to the the detention system. The drawings do not indicate piping for the existing building's roof leaders. However, as a condition of approval, we'll gladly connect the existing roof leaders that
are located in the rear of the building and connect them to the proposed detention system and adjust the systems design as needed. Now I'm switching over to sheet C05, the utility plan, which will be exhibit A5.
This plan shows the proposed utilities for the uh project. A new sanitary sewer, gas, and domestic water service will be provided for the new apartments. A new fire connection will be provided to serve both the proposed addition and the existing
building. The proposed addition will have a sprinkler system and the existing office building will be modified to add the sprinkler system. The fire department connection and access to the sprinkler room will be provided along Westfield Avenue.
A new electrical service will be provided that will serve the entire project site. The existing electrical service to the office building will be removed. Electrical and gas meters for the addition will be located in the covered
parking lot not visible from from Westfield Avenue. >> Miguel, can you point out where the transformer pad will go? >> Yes, sir. So on the same sheet, the transformer pad will be located behind the medical
office building. It's this square that I'm showing that I'm highlighting with the mouse. That's that's if a polemounted transformer does not work and we need to install a a ground transformer. Now moving on to sheet z C06. This is
the lighting and landscape plan and will be marked exhibit A6. Regarding the landscaping, landscaping is proposed as foundation plantings along the front of the existing building and the proposed additions or addition.
So these are the plants are along the the Westfield Avenue face including around the parking lot along Westfield Avenue and then along this face of the uh existing building. I also want to point out that we're proposing
landscaping in the parking lot area in the uh uncovered portions of it. So along the rear property line following the parking lot and into behind the uh existing office building.
Uh in addition to those plantings, as previously stated, we're proposing six street trees that will uh in accordance with township standards and they will be pruned to remove branches lower than 7
ft to not impede on the site triangles. Correct. I'm Yeah. So, right. And then we've added uh benches along the sidewalk too. In fact, in front of the uh the addition lighting
uh building lights are shown on the plan to illuminate doors and exterior walkways. All building mounted lights will be shielded to prevent spillage. The parking lot ceiling will also have lights. However, these lights will be put on a timer to dim automatically during
overnight hours and will only increase in intensity if they detect motion. The existing building lights will remain and will be reused. Six street lights will be provided along Westfield Avenue and these lights will
be coordinated with other redevelopment projects on West Westfield Avenue. So now I'm going to begin the architectural testimony. I've brought up the architectural drawings prepared by my office dated uh
December 16, 2024. This will be exhibit A7. On the ground floor of the existing office building, there is one doctor's office encompassing most of
the floor area. The main entrance main entrance of the building leads to a lobby with access to stairs up to the second floor only. There is no basement at in this building. In the residential addition, we are proposing the
residential lobby. Uh immediately adjacent to the driveway. The lobby will have access to the parking lot in the back. There will be a door from the vestibule and lobby that will lead give provide direct access from the parking lot uh
to the lobby and and also to the front uh access to the Westfield Avenue. On the other side of the of the building, we're proposing on the ground floor an additional stair for egress. The trash room will be located there,
including the sprinkler room, which shows that the door will be accessible from Westfield Avenue for easy access for by the fire department. Uh the addition will be supported by columns located between some parking spaces. The columns are positioned so
that there is a 1- ft buffer between the column and the adjacent parking space. If the columns need to be enlarged during design when they will only grow parallel to the parking space to avoid reducing this buffer. Moving on to the
sheet A02 which shows the upper floor plans and this will be exhibit A8. The second floor of the existing office building currently has a lab that does blood work and a dentist office in the and those uh uses will uh remain. The
proposed addition, the second floor of the residential edition will have seven apartments, five of which will be one bedroom, one will be two bedrooms and uh one apartment will be three bedrooms.
on the third floor of the addition. We are proposing six apartments, three of which of which will be one-bedroom, one will be a two-bedroom, and two will be a three-bedroom. As part of the affordable housing requirements, 15% of the apartments need
to be set aside. 15% of 13 apartments is two apartments. On the second floor, we are proposing one two-bedroom apartment. And on the third floor, we are proposing one three-bedroom apartment.
These apartments are outlined in red. As a condition of approval, um we will continue to work with the housing uh affordable housing administrator to determine the income requirement and adjust the unit distribution as needed. We have reached
out to um Erin Stanowitz and uh she has not provided us uh the information yet. Each residential floor will have a trash room that is located uh towards the left of
the building. This trash room will have a chute that provides uh uh where trash will be disposed and down into the ground floor uh trash room into carts. We will be using uh bins for recyclables
and be collected will also be collected by the uh uh waste contractor. The third floor also has a building amenity that still has to be determined, but it could certainly be a it's big
enough to be a a gym or a a business office for the residents, you know. So, there there's certainly opportunity there for something. Moving on to sheet A03, the exterior elevations. This will be exhibit
A9. The exterior elevations show the building exterior consist of brick, stucco, and aluminum cladding. The aluminum plank cladding will have a wood-like appearance. These are these areas.
I also have a rendering that I will show. But to highlight on this plan, the uh the fiber we're indicating uh these aluminum plank fiber cement planks would be these bays in here and there's a
couple more on this side. The majority of the elevation will be scored stucco and then the stair towers including the base of the building would be uh will have brick.
The parking lot will be partially screened from Westfield Avenue with decorative guardrail which is shown here. And then there's a decorative paneling underneath that guardrail as well. This plan or this elevation indicates
the building height is 36T 5 1/2 in whereas it should be 36t 11 12 in. That revision was made in order to by lowering the average grade
elevation when we lowered the driveway to accommodate the 12-oot clearance in the parking lot. And this plan, this elevation has not been revised to reflect that. Additionally, this driveway, it still shows the original 10 ft. However, we are we will be providing
12 ft clearance underneath the building. The exterior of the existing building will also be updated to match the addition. So the elevation has been uh the existing building is shown with the new finishes showing the stucco and the
same brick material as well. All exterior faces of the building and the proposed addition will receive quality sighting materials. We are not proposing vinyl sighting anywhere. So the stuckle material will also be shown on the side
will be provided on the side and along the rear elevation of the building as well. HVAC equipment will be roof mounted because the roof will be flat. The building's power pit will conceal the AC units. The AC units are anticipated to
be standard residential units which are about 3 feet square or cubed. And uh the parapit proposed parapit is over 3t tall. So there should be no issue with screening there. What I've brought up is the rendering
that we've prepared for this ex this project. This will be now ex exhibit A10. This is uh this is being presented for the first time. The uh board professionals have not seen this. This
is all new. Um here the the the rendering shows the proposed stucco uh scored stucco on the uh as as a primary surface on the front elevation and the sides. the it shows the the the brick
along the stair towers including a darker band of brick to basically break up the the the facade a little bit. Um the aluminum cladding is going to be a
dark color like uh either dark bronze or a uh charcoal type of color, not necessarily a pure black. However, uh you know, it kind of looks on the on the black side in in this rendering. Uh the the stuckle color that we're
proposing is going to be a light gray. And then the uh the you can see the uh the aluminum slash possibly fiber cement cladding boards plank siding is going to be a wood grain type of finish.
We are also proposing standing seam uh metal roofing over these brow roofs that are over the uh open breezeway which shows the covered entrance to the office building.
Uh there's going to be a small roof over the exist over the u proposed res residential lobby that will wrap around the building. I believe this roof only projects about 2 feet. The flag pole is shown in the rendering
in front of the building. Uh I I also brought a material board if the board wishes to see it. However, my preference is always to propose a a mock wall during construction for the board to review rather than use the board
because the colors the the the light rendition in here al messes up the colors of the materials. Um, as far as code compliance, the project will comply with all current building codes and will also comply with the ADA,
the Federal Fair Housing Act in New Jersey barrierfree. The project will have an NFPA13 full commercial sprinkler system that will require the existing building to be retrofitted and the sprinkler uh retrofitted with the sprinkler system.
The newest version of of the NFPA13 system addresses the EV fire concern by increasing the fire hazard classification of the proposed parking lot. This will increase the water flow and/or increase the number of heads required throughout the covered parking
lot. The fire department connection and sprinkler room will be located on the building face along Westfield Avenue. We will place lock uh knockbox locations uh as coordinated with the fire department.
>> Anything else? >> That's it. >> Any questions? >> Would you like to hear from the traffic engineer first and ask questions of both of them? He's going to tie it together a little bit or would you >> We could We could do that. I did uh just
have one question. the loading zone that was outside that was inside the covered area or outside the loading spot. >> I'm sorry. >> The loading space. >> The loading space is located under the building. >> Under the building. So that's still under the 12 ft. >> Correct. In the 12 ft. However, uh the
ordinance requires 14 ft of clearance >> and that's big enough for Amazon trucks and everything else. >> You confirmed that uh your standard UPS, FedEx, Amazon delivery, including U-Haul. >> Okay. I have a question. You're going to have
an area in the lobby for mail. >> That is correct there. Um I should have mentioned that. Let me just go back real quick. So this is uh sheet A01 which was exhibit Yeah. exhibit A7. So, in the residential
lobby, we are designating this little area over here for uh mailboxes within the building. >> All right. Thank you. >> Want to call up the >> Well, let me just >> the interior finishes for the affordable
units. >> They will be exactly the same between affordable and market. >> Have you addressed all of the engineers comments? I believe I've gone through in in as far as in my testimony that I've addressed all the comments. >> Is there are there any comments in the
August 22 2025 engineering uh review letter that you're not going to comply with? >> No, there are no com no comments that we're not going to conform with. >> Thank you. Um yeah um this is yeah this is probably
at the end but the chair has raised it um you have a component that is a commercial component there's a there will be a affordable housing developer fee for the commercial portion of it and you agree to pay that
>> yes sir was addressed in one of the review letters in our response. >> Yes. Okay. >> Next witness is Connor Hughes. He can introduce himself and go through his qualifications. >> Please raise your right hand. Repeat
after me. I state your name. >> I >> I Connor Hughes >> do solemnly swear >> Do solemnly swear >> I will tell the truth. >> I will tell the truth. Nothing but the truth. >> and nothing but the truth. >> In this proceeding >> in this proceeding. >> So help me God. >> So help me God.
>> Spell your name again. >> Certainly. Um again it's Connor Hughes. C O N O R. Last name H U G H E S. And I'm a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Licensed is in current and good standing. Um I've done
professional testimony in front of a number of other boards throughout the state. This is my first time in Clark. Um but have an executive move to >> accept witness. >> Second. >> Just by way of explanation, our engineer Adnan Khan from AWZ engineering
had an accident and is unable to testify which is why we've Miguel has been in the project since the beginning and Connor is a licensed engineer did the traffic review. So between them they're covering testimony that Mr. Khan would have done.
All right. So, I'll go back to the the site plan testimony a little bit and just address some of the the storm water design and and some additional detail and um our engineers absence. Um so, we did have a chance to to go through those plans a little bit and and coordinate that. So, let me just get back to the
that drainage plan. I believe that's A4. All right. So, we're referencing exhibit A4 at the moment. Um, again, this is the drainage or grading. Let me just confirm that this is actually the utility plan. But essentially the way the grading
works now is there's a high point in the rear of the site towards the south side. There's no uh existing storm water retention system. So all of that rainwater essentially sheet flows across the site towards Westfield Avenue and it
also slopes down towards lot one to the east um and ultimately gets collected in the catch basins along Westfield Avenue. Uh what we're proposing to do is uh install a closed pipe system underneath the the parking area so that all that
rain water will be collected into that system and slowly uh outflowed through the county uh drainage facilities. And let me just provide a little bit of additional detail on that. So again, it's a closed pipe system. So
there's trench drains or a trench drain proposed along the the driveway. Um there's catch basins being proposed in separate areas of the um of the parking area to help catch that rainwater and it all will be flowed into um into the
storm water system to again then be outflowed via an outlet control structure uh to the county system and we are you're good um and in reference to the NJB D regulations as far as being a
major development it is less than a quarter acre of impervious coverage increase. It's less than 1 acre of disturbance. Um so it is not considered a major development per D guidelines. Um and as was mentioned at the earlier application, the township of Clark
ordinance then requires us to design the system to the extent practical to meet those guidelines. Um and this design does meet those ordinance requirements. Uh my understanding is that our site engineer and Mr. Okconor have had various conversations about the storm water design specifically and um it has
essentially been approved. There was one not approved but um agreed upon and there was one outstanding comment for Mr. Okconor to provide just like a quick summary of the of the discharge calculations just to confirm the
compliance with NJ. Um so that was provided and that drainage is dated let me just so it's called discharge summary again this is prepared by AWZ engineering uh it's dated October 30th 2025 and essentially what this summary
is showing is three different charts or three different tables um so in order to align with the EPA amended regulations which designed for not only the current runoffs but also future growth factors up to the year 2300 00. Um, again, this
would also be in compliance with the with the township ordinance. So, that first table shows the calculations and the reduction in the outflow with no runoff factor accounted for. And then the second table shows that reduction in
outflow using current factors. And then the third table shows that reduction in outflow using future factors. And all of these are showing that uh there is no increase in the in the runoff or the outflow as a result of the proposed
development. So the u regulation being that you're not allowed to exceed existing and that's what's being exemplified uh with the summary and and with the storm water design. So I think that essentially covers that aspect but certainly if there's any specific
questions I can I can answer those. He's also going to testify to the traffic report. So, if you want to ask questions on the engineering, go ahead. >> Anyone want to ask any questions at this point or continue? >> Well, why don't you uh why don't you open it to the public because now you're
going to a different topic totally for the first two witnesses? That would be good. And again, questions on the topics that were discussed by the first two witnesses. >> Okay. So, if anyone like to step forward in regards to uh Mr. Martin or Mr. Hughes's statements, please state your name and address.
>> Sure. Yeah. Uh, Eric Rodriguez, 12 Martell Place. >> Please spell your name. >> Uh, Eric Rodri with a C and then Rodriguez. R O D R I Gu U E S. Um, so actually I had a couple questions
related to trees and tree removal. Sorry. Uh, tree and tree removal and you know like location of trees that were to be removed on the property. Uh, so I guess first if you could identify which ones would be removed on
the plan. So what I've have here is I opened up the de the demolition plan and the uh is I believe your 12 cartel, >> right? >> So that your property is the one along the bottom here,
>> right? So, this first tree should be removed. I believe this tree is possibly on your property. >> Uhhuh. Right. >> And then there's another one in front of your garage. I believe could be on yours. And then there's another one at
the corner. But between those two, there is a tree that's supposed to be removed next to uh I guess the right. So, there should be a tree that's being removed to the side of the uh the framed garage and then the trees along
Westfield Avenue will also be removed. Got it. So, um just to clarify, so these trees here on the corner, uh so right here, this larger tree, uh this smaller tree right here, this tree over here,
these all are to remain. Correct. >> That's correct. According to this plan. >> Got it. And and are you aware if those trees are still there now? >> I am not. I haven't visited the site since demolition. >> Got it. Uh Michael Bonner, might you
know whether those trees are still there? >> No, but I'm not testifying. I'm just the attorney. >> Just to clarify, you're saying they're no longer there, right? You're you're already sworn.
>> Yes. Um some trees have been removed. Uh some of the smaller trees are going to be removed and the bigger trees as council uh stated at the beginning. Um the tree removal company who was working on it
this at the beginning of the week, he got injured and he got hospitalized with stitches and whatnot. And so it did get delayed and uh one of the statement the council made was that we will comply with all the requirements because the
trees are already marked there. Uh the one for removal. >> What Eric Mr. Rodriguez is asking is do you know whether those any of those trees have been removed >> in that area there?
>> I I have not visited so I cannot give exact answer. >> Okay. I I mean I'll answer it even though I'm not testifying. And the point is that all of these trees, including ones in this particular area that were marked not for removal, were removed on
Monday. Uh which I saw when I came home. Uh and in fact, I went and uh surveyed it myself with my father and found that the trees that were removed were either completely on my side of the property line or the property line ran through
those trees. Um so I mean later on I would be asking that those trees be replaced uh with similar trees of similar height and they were approximately previously 30 to 35 ft tall. Um so moving beyond that uh there was a
comment regarding the fence. I believe it was stated that it would be 6 feet tall. Was there any reason why it was decided to be 6 feet tall instead of 8t tall? The zoning ordinance prohibits fences taller than six feet.
>> Uh the other question is will this be made of like commercial grade or might it be flimsy to ensure that this vinyl fence is actually going to withstand long use? >> It is just going to be a typical vinyl fence.
Uh the other question regarding the planting strip, I believe it was mentioned that it would be about six feet was the requirement per the ordinance previously passed, but that you'd only be providing uh something like 3 ft. Was there any reason that you
cannot accommodate the full 6 ft along the perimeter with 12 Bartell? You're referring to the the the plantings along. >> Yeah. >> Well, the issue is is that the one of the design waiverss that we're requesting
require is be is because there's a requirement that the plantings should be on the exterior side. So, visible from the 12 barel side. However, the our planner is going to get into a into it a little bit more detail as to
why we're requesting this uh this design waiver, but you can clearly see that there's going to be some uh issues with accessing those plantings for maintenance purposes, especially if they're on the other side of the fence and not accessible
uh you know through your property. So, uh, based on the, uh, design of the parking lot, uh, the balance of the space that was available was about, um, let me see if I can find it. It it doesn't appear to be dimensioned
on this plan, but my my estimate is somewhere around 3 to 4 feet in front of the between the fence and the the back of the parking spot. um those those plantings are unlikely to be visible from your property anyways because
they're going to be blocked by the six-foot fence. >> Right. And just to clarify again, you said that you can't accommodate the six-foot barrier between the property line and where ultimately these car parking spots are. It is because you
otherwise can't fit all of these parking spaces. That is correct. We can't slide the building up further either. >> I see. Um the other question I had is with respect to um
the trees. So what are the species of these? Are these all arborites? And will there be any, you know, taller trees that will screen the upper portion of the building? [Music] So on the landscaping plan, those trees
that are along the fence will have a mature height of uh 3 to four feet, which is a juniper. And then the uh there's a few others
24 inches high. There are a couple evergreen trees. It looks like only four. Those will grow up to I guess 9 to 10 ft. I see. In light of the trees removed that were previously in the neighborhood
of 30 to 35 ft, it it does appear that you're not really accommodating that. Is there any sort of change to this proposal that might accommodate the loss screening that has since occurred from when this plan was originally proposed?
Just to clarify one thing real quick on those plantings towards the back. So that 3 to four feet is just the the planting height. They should grow to a mature height of about 9 to 10 feet. Okay. I mean that that's still not exactly screening view of the building
from the rear >> particularly in the corner that would be visible from my bedroom window. >> I don't believe there's any requirement under the ordinance that uh new buildings be screened. This building the height and size of it as well as meeting
the setbacks is complying with the ordinance. There's no requirement that you hide a new building. That certainly may be the case, but uh there were trees that weren't to be removed that would have screened the building. So I think that the ordinance is relevant to curing
the problem that you and your uh contractor created. Um regarding a couple other questions that I have. So it was noted that the structure would be uh covered with stucco. Will this actually be fire
retardant stucco? >> No, it's going to be standard stucco. Fire retardant stucco is not required for this project. >> I see. And what about along the area closest to the residence on the corner of Westfield and Bartell?
>> The building code does not require fire retardant stuckco along that face either. >> Got it. And then with respect to the driveway, I think it was mentioned that the ordinance required, was it 14 foot clearance for the parking garage, yet
you're only able to meet 12 ft? Is that correct? >> Uh that is not correct. The uh the requirement is to accommodate the uh the township's ambulance, which requires a a clearance of 12 feet. So we're only
technically required to accommodate to provide the 12 ft. However, we're requesting a design waiver for an off- streetet loading space or unloading space. That is we're not required to provide, but we are providing one. We're
requesting a design waiver because the requirement states that it needs to have a clearance of 14 ft. However, as I've testified before, the space will accommodate uh the smaller delivery vehicles that would accommodate the office building and the residential building, including
the uh moving vans that are needed for uh the the residential apartments. >> Certainly. So, it it won't be able to accommodate a fire truck should a fire truck need to get back there. Correct. The drawings have been reviewed by the
fire official, the fire department, and they've provided their comments, and that was not a comment that they have uh expressed. Got it. With respect to your EV chargers, uh I noticed that you had designated two next to the under the building near the handicapped part. I
just wanted to confirm that these EV charging locations will remain in the locations designated and that you will not be changing them later in the plan. The EV chargers are a hot topic. What we're showing on the planet is what we
intend to use to do. However, we will continue to work with the fire department and they've has have requested for us to move as many of them outside of the building as as possible. However, due to handicap accessibility requirements, that handicap spot is
required to have an EV charger. >> Got it. And I just wanted to ensure that of course you would consider not placing these EV chargers located near any of the existing structures be it the garage
at 12 Bartell or the corner lot uh structure. Correct. >> That is correct. the the fire department has been clear that they've asked for us to locate them as close as possible to the driveway entrance in the event that there is a fire that they can easily pull the vehicle out or address the
vehicle that's uh that needs to be uh you know put out. Okay. And then with respect to lighting uh it wasn't discussed what particular temperature these lights would be. Uh you did mention that there would be a dimming feature. Uh but will they be
using say like daylight type temperature or will they be more on the incandescent spectrum which would be less uh polluting to the surrounding properties? Excuse me. I'm going to Uh, I have to note that the drawing does
not indicate what the color rendition of the lights are. However, I'll make note of your comment. Thank you. Um, with respect to the style of this particular structure, I believe the downtown village requires a colonial
or federal or Victorian style. I noted that the structure does not conform to that. I was just curious why that was. >> I'm not sure that the ordinance does require the does state a specific style.
See? Well, I believe it states what materials to use, but I don't think it indicates specific style. However, um >> uh in section 1951 131 A2 and indicates authentic period, colonial, federal or
Victorian reproductions are encouraged to complement the established character. or of more recently constructed buildings. So, it's not an absolute requirement. It's an encourage it's the ordinance is encouraging it. >> Right. And and also I note that these colors being used I I they don't seem to
be colonial in nature either. You know, gray, but that's got it. Um with respect to the uh you had mentioned um trash shoots and I was just curious uh you mentioned it would be inside but will
there be like any deafening? Will there be any attempt to make sure that individuals outside of the structure will not hear trash dropping down into the trash bins? The uh the trash shoots are located towards the front of the building within
a uh fire rated enclosure that will um will certainly reduce any noise. The ground floor where the trash room will be located, it would be uh is going to be constructed of masonry block
that is eight inches thick. So certainly no sound will be transmitting through there. >> They're not open to the outside. Correct. They're fully enclosed. >> Fully enclosed behind two sets of doors. And you had mentioned that there was a certain cadence with which trash would be picked up and that with respect to
the apartments that it would not be uh firmly established. It would be as needed. As part of that around what time do you anticipate that this trash would be collected? >> It's a private contractor. It's going to be subject to an agreement between the
applicant and his his contractor, someone who's already used in the area. Correct, Dr. Prasad? >> Yes. Um uh the one that uh is right now, I think they're called Republic Services. Pretty common, I
think, large uh uh trash hauling company. Uh they usually come very early in the morning. Uh uh we have never seen them uh during regular business hours. So they come early and leave early without leaving any
footprint. Got it. So I just wanted to be sure, of course, that when these trash pickups happen that they're going to be respectful of, of course, noise ordinances and not showing up, you know, before 8:00 in the morning.
If I if I may address that. Uh >> yes, >> garbage collection is treated as a public utility and garbage collection companies file tariffs with the board of public utilities which are approved. As part of the tariff, it has an hours of
operation and legally the hauler can operate within whatever the hours of operation are in the tariff. And the tariff should be uh a public record on the board of public utilities
website. >> Thank you. >> And the municipality because it's a tariff and it has the effect of law. The municipality doesn't have control over the hours of collection unless the contractor or the
hauler voluntarily agrees to an hour. >> Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um with respect to um the timeline of the project and these plantings, when exactly would plantings occur and when
would this project supposedly begin? >> We uh as far as the applicant uh is concerned, we haven't discussed when to start construction of the project. It needs to be approved first. Then if it gets approved, a resolution is adopted, then there's an appeal period, and then
the approval is good for two years. So sometime within two years, but there's no established timeline at this point. Got it. And and once this project would begin, what efforts would there be to ensure that the nearby residences do not
see the construction that is going on? Will there be any screening along the perimeter even on a temporary basis? >> Whatever is required by the township ordinance. >> Got it. Uh I have a couple other questions. If you look back at the sign,
there was a mention regarding the vision triangle uh for the existing sign on the left side. Why is it that this sign could not be relocated to the building the office building facade itself? >> Uh that that is certainly an option. Uh
however, a freestanding sign with its two faith that has two sides to it will promote uh more business to the uh establishment. >> Signage size and location is also a function of safety. so that people driving on the nearby roads see the sign
and enter. If a sign is only on a facade of a building, it's much harder to spot. >> Uh the other question with respect to affordable housing units, um how did you determine where in the structure those would be dedicated?
>> Uh so so there's a a requirement for a minimum distribution of of uh types of apartments. uh their location is meant to integrate the apartments with the rest of the apartments so that the uh affordable units do not stand out from
the balance from the rest of the apartments. Got it. Is there anything prohibiting the movement of these affordable housing units from the rear of the structure to the front of the structure facing Westfield Avenue? Uh no, but there's no there's also uh
we also have to factor in as far as how the building is built and how these units will stack on top of each other. So, I, you know, as much as it is as easy to relocate the the apartment to the front of the building, if I don't have room to place that two-bedroom
apartment or three-bedroom apartment in the front of the building, um, unfortunately, the I believe the back of the building is bigger to accommodate those uh those units. Got it. Um, let me see.
Oh. Uh, it was noted that there is an existing medical office building. It was unclear though if that building would be uh vacated prior to, you know, the construction of the apartment buildings on the other side. I assume it would be
though. Could you answer that? >> Uh, that's a good question. So, uh, under the building code, he the, uh, the the issue here is going to be a timing issue with the sprinkler
system. So, uh, I don't want to indicate that the building will be indicated uh won't be uh will be vacated. However, there has to be coordination with the installation of the new sprinkler system and the occupancy. So they clearly they
won't be able to be occupying the space when that is being installed. >> And then I had one other question regarding the underground retention system. Uh it sounded like the existing medical building well actually it's not clear where is the water from the
existing medical building draining to? Um, let me just get to the plan real quick and I'll show you. Uh, again, for the record, Connor Hughes of Dynamic Traffic. So, I think it was testified earlier by
um by architect, but there will be roof leaders um proposed for the medical office building that will tie into the newly proposed uh retention system. So, everything from the medical office building and the residential units will
tie into the new system >> and that re represents an improvement over existing because currently where do the gutters and leaders lead? Uh currently they just flood out not flood out but lead out into the existing lot and then sheet flow out to the street.
>> Got it. And with respect to this retention basin uh is there has there been any review on how that may impact any surrounding properties? Uh there was a comprehensive study prepared that was submitted by our our
site engineer um that details all of the calculations that go into the impacts not only for the site but also the the surrounding properties >> and it represents a reduction in outflow. Correct. >> That's correct. >> When we say outflow though uh will it
impact any water that might go to the surrounding structures? Um any water that's retained on the site will get outflowed and sent to the system that's currently in the Westfield Avenue. Um so the neighboring residential properties,
any water that's currently flowing into those properties will now be retained and then directed towards the existing facilities in in Westfield Avenue. >> And then I had one other question. I believe at the beginning of the presentation it was mentioned something
that there was a 20ft set back from 12 Bartell but I thought I heard something about originally a 30foot if you could clarify that the the existing medical office building had that 30foot uh setback once the uh
the proposed addition reduces the rear yard setback along 12 Bartell to 20 ft. which is covered in the redevelopment plan. >> Just to clarify, the redevelopment plan changed it from 30 ft to 20 ft clearance.
Okay. I believe I can uh make comments later, right? During the comment section, right? Yes. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh we have one further witness, our planner, just to discuss the design waiverss. I'm sorry.
>> Can bring Mr. Hughes up for just one more second. Um, I just wanted to acknowledge that AWZ forwarded that discharge summary to us. It was reviewed by our office and found to be acceptable. Um, but the one
thing that Mr. Khan needs to still do is to prepare tree removal calculations in in accordance with section 338 of the ordinance. >> Understood. We'll make sure we relay that. and he's going to have to either
calculate that he's got sufficient number of trees planted on site or account for their um for paying for them into the tree fund. >> Absolutely. Thank you for that note and we'll make sure to coordinate that with
him and get that to you. final witness um is our planner Paul Gel >> before uh was there anyone else from the public that >> I'm sorry >> the engineering >> Mr. Hughes is will briefly cover his traffic testimony. >> That's fine. Anyone else from the public
have any questions pertaining to the last testimonies? >> I just have a question uh related. >> State your name and address please. >> Oh sorry. My name is Chirakumar Parmar and my address is 167 Westfield Avenue, Clark, New Jersey, 07066.
>> Yeah, can go ahead. Okay. So, I just have a question related to the fencing on the side of the property which is adjacent to my I I believe it's six feet but ends at uh specifically here, right? >> Where where does it end on the on the
front side? How far does it go? Like this? >> So it it uh it extends up to the face of the building. It's actually shown >> still here, right? >> Right here's a little dash line. It ends right there. >> Yeah. So there is no no fencing here in
this particular part. >> No, because that's considered the front yard and that's a different fence requirement. >> So will there be a fencing or no fencing? >> It would be open. >> Okay. So is it like something stopping us from doing that fencing or even like a 3T or 4T fencing? Do you know?
>> Uh really it's out of I believe it's the fencing is not needed there. Um that would be considered the front yard. So I I believe the fencing requirement is 4T high and I believe there's a transparency requirement as well. >> Um so it's it's not going to provide
much privacy being more decorative. >> Okay. So it's it's not about privacy. is just that I wanted to see. The reason why I'm saying it is when I bought the house, they planted like four or five different trees there and uh I don't
know like who planted on the side like it was my previous owner or probably from your side but somebody planted the trees there and it was never bloomed for like you know it it never came out basically. So I just wanted to know like if something can be done there uh to
basically you know property can be you know partitioned a small like even the 3 ft fencing it's not for the privacy just just for the you know for the line that's all. >> So I I I understand the concern that
that you're presenting. Um, however, that I believe that would be contrary to the uh the DTV uh zoning requirement. Not necessarily requirement, but the purpose of it is to provide a cohesive downtown district. >> Exactly.
>> It's kind of a proposal from my side. It's not like something that I'm asking you to. >> We can we can certainly consider looking at the at the landscaping plan for you. the the redevelopment plan and the down the DTV district have certain
streetscape requirements. They're trying to create a uniform look along the road and adding a fence there might not work in that context. >> To answer that actually if you go down to the Westfield Avenue you will see the houses that are actually adjacent to the road like probably a public sidewalk is
there and that basically house property starts from there. A lot of houses I see on the westfield 11 you are kind of made of that way right so if if that's the requirement I don't mind it but it's just that if something can be done to address that would be great >> remember you're asking questions
>> yes yes >> is there a question there >> that was a question that why what is a what is stopping us to doing that basically can we do that or not >> Mr. Boner, you want to answer that? >> I think the architect already answered that. I I I don't think there's any plan
to do that and it's not being considered at this time. >> Okay. Another thing I wanted to ask is uh the fencing on the side of basically between those two property are as I heard is 6 ft. So basically that destroys almost the privacy I have in my
backyard. Can that be lifted high to at least 8 ft or 10 ft? >> No. >> Okay. All right. That's all I had for now. Thank you. >> Asking Mr. Hughes to come back up do traffic testimony.
>> All right. So, very briefly just to go over to the traffic aspects of the project. Uh we did prepare and submit a circulation and parking assessment that's dated August 15th, 2024. Um essentially what we looked at was two aspects. one being the trip generation of the project, the
other being the the parking supply in comparison to the redevelopment plan requirement. Um as far as the trip generation is concerned, we utilize institute of transportation engineers the trip generation manual. Um essentially this establishes a lot of uh
empirical rates based on their own research data for numbers of different land uses. Um so they selected the land uses that identified clo most closely with the proposed project. Um and when we look at the impact of the third the
proposed 13 uh units in terms of the peak hour trips during the weekday morning peak hour there's only projected to be five peak hour trips and then in the afternoon peak hour um that number is seven. So over the course of that
peak hour again very low volume generator. There is obviously existing traffic associated with the medical office as well that will remain. Um, so the only increase in traffic is related to the the 13 units that are being constructed. Um, and just to put that
into some perspective, New Jersey DOT has a threshold of 100 new peak hour trips that they consider to be a significant increase in traffic. Um, again, we're projecting a maximum of seven trips. So, we're well below that
threshold. And then it also has a threshold of 50 trips per peak hour. 50 new trips per peak hour that they would um suggest a traffic impact study being conducted. So we're well below that threshold as well. Um so very minimal
impacts in terms of um traffic being generated. Any existing um you know all the existing roadways intersections nearby are essentially going to operate the same as they would today. There would be no visible impact from from this site. And then just getting into the site circulation and and the parking
again it was mentioned that we do meet the redevelopment plan requirements in terms of the parking supply. There is a shared use aspect between those that section adjacent to the office building. Um whereas when the office is closed residents guests of residents will have the ability to utilize those spaces. Um
and then during the day when those spaces are typically vacated uh office patients and employees are able to use those spaces for themselves. Um, there was the mention of the the site distance issue with the signage. Uh, again, we're willing to to move that sign out of the site line and we'll make sure we
coordinate that with Mr. Troutman and and your engineers and professionals to to make sure that that's done to the satisfaction of of the township. Um, and then again, the loading space, we're requesting a waiver the for the width as well as the the clear height. Um I think
it's been well documented that we don't anticipate any vehicles larger than than that to need have any need to access that um that space. The garbage truck uh can easily access underneath the building to get to the trash enclosure
and and back out. Um so we anticipate with the with the operations associated with the residential and the office that that loading space and refuge area will be more than adequate um to serve those operations. And that's really all there is from from a traffic and parking p
perspective, but if there's any specific questions, um I'm happy to answer those. >> Any questions or comments from the board in regards to traffic? >> Mike, I have a question. >> Sure. >> Are you saying there's not designated parking for residents? >> There is for residents. There will be
for residents. Um I think 13 including the four tandemss for the office space. They won't be designated. They'll be shared. So anyone >> each apartment will have a designated spot. >> Correct. >> You know, one has one, two has two. >> One if not two if they have the tandem.
>> That's why and and the tandemss will be assigned to the same units. You know, not going to have >> people fighting over the tandem spaces. [Music] >> Any other questions or comments? No. Anyone from the public want to come
forward have a question in regards to the traffic testimony? Seeing that no one's stepping forward. >> Please repeat after me. I state your name. >> I, Paul Griel, >> solemnly swear >> solemnly swear. >> I will tell the truth. >> I will tell the truth. >> Nothing but the truth.
>> And nothing but the truth. >> In this proceeding >> in this proceeding >> help me God. >> So help me God. >> State your name and spell your last name. >> Yes. Good evening. It's Paul Griel. G- R Y G I E L. I'm a licensed professional planner in
New Jersey. I have been since 1999. I've never appeared before this board, but I regularly represent applicants before planning and zoning boards throughout the state. I have a master's degree in regional planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Bachelor of Arts and Urban Studies from Ruckers University. I
>> move to accept. Second. >> Thank you. Okay, given the late hour, I can be brief. Um, your attorney, Mr. Cruz, provided a great overview at the outset of the application. I've been involved over two years now along with the
applicant and professionals. It's a process that led to the development of a redevelopment plan and the site plan that's before this board this evening. Uh it's for a transformative project that you know frankly as a planner is very consistent with and furthers the
master plan vision for this section of Clark and the Westfield Avenue corridor in particular. U in terms of the overall project there's substantial improvements being proposed with regard to lighting, drainage, sidewalks being provided along
the street, landscaping, building design and actually the use itself. the downtown the DTV zone started the trend but also the redevelopment plan furthers it of having additional pedestrian activity residents and shoppers and you
know additional people and activity in this section of Clark. So the overall project is thoroughly consistent uh with the redevelopment plan that was prepared by your planner. uh we are an as of right application as was discussed earlier earlier this evening as far as
the redevelopment plan is concerned the use height setbacks all other standards there are two regulations that were not met for which we're requesting waiverss they were mentioned before and I'll just briefly go through them and the and the proofs for them uh the first is for the
fence height and screening and just to be clear I reviewed the actual section again to make sure I had it correct in the D these are DTV or downtown uh zone requirements. There's a requirement to have a 3-FFT planted strip as well as a 4ft fence or
wall. So, we're actually proposing a 6ft fence which is higher than the minimum required for it. And we are providing at least 3 ft. The only issue is literally the side of the fence it's on. So, if it was put on the opposite side, we wouldn't be requesting this waiver. Uh
the other one is for the off- streetet loading. And again, we've heard testimony which I won't rehash regarding the loading space uh which pertains only to the size being a bit smaller or shorter than is required but as was testified to by other witnesses that
area is adequate. Uh so briefly with regard to the waiver proofs under the land use law we need to de demonstrate that it's impracticable to comply or there's some sort of hardship. In this case, with regard to the screening, it's impracticable because of the size and shape of the site. It's somewhat
irregularly shaped by combining two different lots, one that's not as deep as the other. So, you have sort of an oddshaped property and we're trying to fit a building within the setbacks that are mandated by the redevelopment plan. Um, so if you were to, again, the question I came before, can't you push
the building forward? No, we have a setback that must be addressed along Westfield Avenue. We have a minimum set back in the back. We need to provide parking that complies. Really, there's a lot going on in this on this property that needs to fit together. Providing
adequate parking, providing a building that makes sense in terms of height and setbacks, etc. So, when you put that all together, we have again a compliant buffer width, we have compliant height. It's just the matter of where the landscaping is located. So I think in
this case um you know we we're certainly providing the intent of the buffer and screening to the neighboring properties by having a fence that's taller than the 4ft required and providing the planted area. In addition, the plantings will grow from where they're planted at the
height of 3 to 4 feet only at planting. They will be taller. they won't screen the entire three-story building, but frankly that is not the case anywhere along this corridor or anywhere I'm familiar with that you plant landscaping that screens you know buildings up to their exact height.
Um so again with regard to that waiver I think it's would be impracticable to comply but we do have the intent met and we're cons complying with all their standards for the redevelopment plan. Uh lastly, with the off- streetet loading, again, the type of building and the amount of traffic that you get for
trucks does not need a full-size loading space. You don't need to accommodate a fire truck or an 18-wheeler or anything larger than an Amazon van, garbage truck, or the other types of vehicles that are mentioned previously. So, I don't think there's any need to provide a slightly larger space in terms of width or in terms of height just to meet
that requirement when it won't be used. Uh so overall in terms of a planning perspective, I think again this is a transformative project that will really benefit the area. Um I'm sure uh you know what you see out there today is is unfortunately just not great in terms of appearance, but the applicants been
working to remove an eyesore of a dwelling that was there to upgrade the appearance of the property. And when it's completed, you'll have again something consistent with the vision for Westfield Avenue in terms of the streetscaping, in terms of the use, in terms of the building size.
Thank you. Any questions? >> Mr. uh Richie, Mr. Okconor, do you have any issues with the waiverss or questions, comments? >> My my comment was not so much for this witness, but getting back to the claim
that trees were removed from an adjoining property owner's property. Those trees would still be subject to removal and replacement calculations under our ordinance. And the applicant may want to consider
coordinating with that homeowner to replace those trees on or the number of replacement trees on the other homeowner's property if desired and possible. um or the applicant is still
going to be responsible for over the course of the project for calculating how many of those trees go in and if they can't get them on their site or another site then they're going to have to pay for those through our tree fund.
>> I definitely would agree with that. Yes, >> that would be acceptable as as you know condition of the resolution. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out in in in the context of this project and the scale of this project, the relief that's being sought by the applicant is
is very minor in nature. I agree with Mr. Griel's assessment, the the size of the buffer is adequate. It's just the location of the plantings. Um, and it appears that there's some opportunity to maybe maybe due to the some of the trees being removed to work with the adjoining
property owner as Mr. Okconor said. Um my understanding of the tree replacement ordinance is such that if there isn't room on uh the subject property because of buildings and parking and the like, there is some flexibility in where those trees could be planted. So that could be
a something that could be potentially a condition that a good faith effort be taken with the adjoining property owner to try to reconcile uh those issues as a potential condition of approval. And then I guess regarding the loading space size, I mean I I'll defer to Mr. or
Connor in that regard as well. But one of the major issues associated with buildings such as this is where does the Amazon van park and the like because that's what most of the the type of uh truck trips that are occurring in a
building like that. So from my perspective, the fact that there is a space for that type of a vehicle to to stage and park um I think it's very positive. with regards to the tree comments. I mean,
>> you'll be working with the the neighboring >> the adjoining >> perfect >> property owner. >> I thought in the testimony um that it said that there would be a flag pole. Um yes. >> Yes. Okay. So, um has that been
>> on the Let me interrupt you. It's on the rendering. Actually, it's a little hard to see. >> There's no wind blowing, so it's hard to see the flag. It lines up with the uh >> Okay. Yes, I see it. Okay, fine. No, no, only because Mr. Ricky's report said is does not appear that a fly pole was added.
>> It was it it was not on the original plans, but in the discussions we got the the applicant to acquies and it was added to the rendering so that it could be explained tonight. >> Good. Have you addressed all of Mr. Ricky's
comment from his updated report of September 13, 2025? I believe I we have I'll defer to him. The only exception was that um the only remaining comment was that the landscaping I thought was a little bit of a afterthought by the site engineer
and we were trying to encourage um I mean a landscape plan that that was a little bit um how could I say it um something that's traditionally prepared by a landscape architect that does introduce seasonal color and the like and it's not just a couple random
plantings space sporadically. So, I would defer to the board how they feel about that, but that was the only remaining comment. >> Definitely prefer that. Um, there have been some buildings that have gone up with inadequate landscaping and you can tell. So,
for everybody, >> applicant will agree to >> very good. >> Bring in a landscape architect and beef up the landscaping. >> And how would you propose to do that? as a continuation of this hearing or through consultation with the board
engineer and planner. I >> would prefer uh that it be you know in consultation with the township engineer. >> And when would that be done by? >> Next Wednesday. No kidding. >> No, I'm just asking is it is it going to
be done before the resolution is considered or if if it's approved or when would what would the timing of that be? We'd be happy to work with him as as soon as we can. Um I mean obviously we're going to have 30 days or so before the resolution is adopt is memorialized.
So then work through the appeal period before building permits are are issued. So I think there's ample time to work that out with Connor board. So chose that could be handled as a condition of approval and take
undertaken in compliance review for once the applicant revises his plans to come in for any and all of the other things that we've asked him to take care of. Okay. >> Any other comments or questions from the board for Mr. Gregle?
No. >> All right. I would ask anyone from the public any questions in regards to Mr. Grago's statements, please step up. No one. Okay. >> Thank you. We have no we have no further
witnesses. Um I'll dispense with a summary of the testimony. I think we covered all the issues that the township's professionals were concerned about. Um and I would, you know, request an affirmative vote by the board. And thank you for your time tonight.
comment >> at this time. Anyone from the public that has any comments about any of the testimonies you heard, please step forward, state your name and address. >> Hi, uh, Eric Rodriguez, Dwell Bartell. Um, so, Mr. Rodriguez, I get the sense
that you're going to go beyond public comment or comment and really testify. So, if if it would be my preference if you're going to testify that I swear you in uh so that the the record is clear as
to what is comment and what is not comment. Is that acceptable to you? >> Sure. >> Good. Right. Uh please raise your right hand. >> Sure. >> I state your name. >> I Eric Rodriguez >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that I will tell the truth >> to tell the truth
>> and nothing but the truth >> and nothing but the truth >> in this proceeding >> in this proceeding. Thank you. Sure. Um, so you know, one of my comments relates to the trees that were cut down. Uh, I noticed in the particular renderings that some of these trees were indicated
as having a diameter of 10 in, which is actually inaccurate. Um, some of those were, I think I saw something like over 24 in at the stump from well, it was actually roughly around this height from where it was cut. Um so uh perhaps the
tree shade uh commission might want to double check that those sizes are accurate uh with respect to the trees that were cut um both on my property and on the property line. Uh the second part is that uh the trees that were rem
uh that they should obviously have their stumps removed and grinded now that they're obviously no longer of any value that they've been cut down. Um the other part is that while um Mr. Bonner and Miguel and uh others have mentioned that
there is no shade tree requirement um you know in terms of screening. I beg to differ in this case considering that those trees were there. They were marked on the plan not to be removed and clearly they provided a value to me in screening the structure and the intent
was for them to remain. So, as such, I request that trees that are approximately 20 ft or so tall be placed there to accommodate what was removed. And I also want to note that that one of the larger trees happened to be near the
intersection of my property and the other adjoining uh neighbor. And that if you look at the particular site plan, you'll notice that um there was a larger area to accommodate the tree that was already there. So technically they have space to plant a larger tree in that
area and other areas adjacent to it. The other part is that um that they should do something before they even begin construction to sort of shield that area. Uh be it with
arborvites or something within the area between my garage and the other individual's garage. I already have some arborvites there. Um, adding a couple from my garage to the others to connect them would at least shield the majority
of the view, at least ground level uh when looking in that direction. Um, the other part is uh this fence. I'm not exactly sure if I necessarily agree that the fence should be on my side as opposed to closer to the to the vehicles
and that the planting shouldn't be facing my side as opposed to the white fence. So I'm not sure that I buy that argument that it might be better that way. Um the other thing is that in addition to these arborites or whatever they have along the property line, uh it
does appear that they have enough space to plant trees that would go beyond the 6 to 8 ft that they mentioned. Uh also arborites are particularly slow growing. They are less than a foot. things like green uh giants grow much faster at
about two to three feet and screen these structures much faster. Um so my first contention is one they replace what they took two that the town's tree shade commission uh visit the property before they might destroy any more evidence and
note the size of the trees that are actually there and how they do not actually align to the measurements that were put on the site map. Um and that of course you guys, should you approve it, um require that they plant these trees
along the property line. Um so that beyond just whatever they might have that might be at or near this fence height will grow beyond that height. Um and provide a better cover for the residential neighborhood that is behind
the structure as well. which if you visited a lot of commercial structures, even those around um what is currently Clark Commons, USG, they used to have tons of large trees uh blocking a lot of the view, particularly along Walnut. So,
it is not unheard of to require some degree of screening of commercial and large apartment projects from residential neighborhoods and adjoining properties. Um, beyond that, with respect to soft lighting, the plan didn't mention anything with respect to
temperature. And so, I'm just asking that we ensure that they are not excessively bright and that there's an actual value that's given so that we don't have, you know, time square in our backyard. The other is that um it's
unclear during construction what effort they will do to make sure that, you know, the site is not visible. Um, if they cannot actually put the fence in, the vinyl fence before they begin construction, they should certainly put
some sort of barrier that is at least 6 ft tall so that we won't see what they're doing while they spend two or however many years to decide what they're eventually going to do with the property. The other point I wanted to note is that there was a comment around how this project improves the appearance
of the property. And having lived in this neighborhood for over 35 years, I just want to point out I know what the property looked like before the current individual bought the property. And I can certainly say it went downhill after they purchased it as opposed to before.
So, you know, the appearance certainly looked better in the past. It certainly I don't know if I'd say it looks better now that they demolished it, but you know some of the relief that the applicant sought in demolishing and proposing this particular plan was also
self-inflicted and I think that should be somewhat acknowledged. Um but hopefully this new plan will certainly um you know remedy that. Um what else? Um yeah, the other question related to the
size of the fence. So there was a mention that the ordinance requires 6 ft. Uh but I believe technically it's at your discretion to change that to 8 ft. So that was the other request. Um with respect to EVs um and particularly the
EV charging, the request on my end is that these EVs be restricted from occupying, you know, these charging stations anywhere near uh the adjacent property structure. So, not near my garage and not near my neighbor's home
that uh there's plenty of other parking spots that can certainly accommodate charging needs. Um and yeah, I mean also as part of your potential approval of the property that um that the immediate replacement of
these trees that have been removed is accommodated for along with appropriate screening since they chose to cut these trees on a Monday less than 3 days prior to this particular hearing. Um, and also I should note that this was the first
time I had even been noticed. I wasn't aware of what was going on until I think last week. Um, the other is is whether or not you guys might want to reconsider the coloring of the structure and the style. Um, and then of course that these
stumps be removed. Um, and of course that um, while I may not love the landscaping that currently exists along the medical building, um, what is currently there is certainly a
better screen than absolutely nothing. And considering that that area won't really need to be disturbed until they complete their construction, if they're not going to immediately install a fence and appropriate um
landscaping, which is what I would prefer that they do now rather than wait. Uh it's certainly preferable that they don't continue to disturb the existing landscaping that at least provides some barrier between the end of my property and their parking lot.
Um what else? Um oh and then the other comment was just around uh that you guys may want to reconsider the positioning of the flag pole and one of the trees on the right
around that bend. It is potentially an issue for visibility of people that are rounding that corner. It might make sense for them to shift the trees a little further. uh towards CVS on the one side and maybe move the flag pole a little more to the other side. Um what
else? Uh so we talked about the fence planting strip. Um yes. So that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Anybody else? >> Anybody else from the public?
Seeing that nobody is stepping forward. >> Mr. Chair, before you begin to consider uh the potential grant of this application, I would like to list the conditions that have been discussed. And for the very first condition that
Mr. Bonner offered, I would ask Dr. Prasad to please step forward. What your attorney explained is that before this board adopts a resolution, which normally is done at the subsequent
meeting here in the December meeting, that the existing debris, trees, stumps be cleared. That that lot be cleared because it is uncertain when
you will start construction. Do you understand that condition? >> Yes sir, I do. >> And do you understand that the resolution will not be adopted until that's done and the construction code official verifies that? >> I do understand. >> And that you are waving the board having
to adopt a resolution within the statutory period. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Those are all conditions that are acceptable, Mr. Bonner. >> Yes, they are. Right. Um the others and and obviously
there are conditions in the reports, the engineering report and the planners report uh that I'm not going to uh address. Uh but I would like to highlight some that were specifically discussed and agreed upon. Uh this is an a development that has a commercial
component to it and so the affordable housing development fee applicable to the commercial portion would be um would be applicable. Uh the plan still uh the floor plan still needs to be amended to
show the income distribution of the affordable units. you can sit now that I just wanted to with that first one because that's a little bit tricky and I wanted to make sure that you were committing to doing that before the board adopts the resolution.
Um the income allocation still has to be listed on the plans and that there will be a condition of approval. The existing Z sign will be moved out of the site triangle in conjunction with the township
engineer. The bike bicycle rack will be sheltered uh but will meet the setback. The uh rear of the building roof leaders will be connected to the detention system. Again, a lot of these things are already covered, but they were
highlighted during the um testimony. The planner did request uh a sample of the building materials and the architect indicated that a mock wall um exterior would be presented to the professionals
for review. Um and that can be done as was mentioned before before compliance review is completed and a A building permit issued. Also that the plan will be amended to show the wattage.