REGULAR MEETING

REGULAR MEETING

NORWOOD PLANNING BOARD=

JUNE 16, 2005

The Regular Meeting of the Norwood Planning Board convened at 8:00PM with Chairman Ed Gallagher presiding. Following the Pled= ge of Allegiance, Mr. Gallagher indicated the exit locations as required by law.<= /p>

The following board membe= rs were present: Joseph Ascolese, Ms. Guercio, Mr. Milliaressis, Mr. Gallagher, May= or Kaplan, Councilman Altenbach, Joseph L. Ascolese, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Lamp, and= Mr. Sklow. Mr. Savalia was absent= from this meeting

Robert Regan, the Board A= ttorney was present as were Joseph Neglia and Dan Vechesky representing the Board Engineer, Neglia Engineering Associates.

SITE PLAN APPLICATION #711

(2/17/05 & 4/21/05)

Block 100, Lots 10 & 11 – Livingston Street

Norwood Plaza= , LLC

Attorney David Watkins, <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Closter, NJ came = forward representing Norwood Plaza, LLC in this = matter also heard on the above-indicated dates.&n= bsp; Mr. Watkins commented that applicant has revised plans in order to address several concerns expressed by board members, in particular, manner = of ingress and egress to and from the property.

Michael Hubschman, sworn = and qualified at previous meetings came forward to offer additional testimony.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> A revised plan dated June 08, 2005= and prepared by Mr. Hubschman, was marked into evidence as Exhibit A-3. Mr. Hubschman testified that Berge= n County Planning Board agreed to approve the revision as long as 10 feet off the ingress is held on the north side. The driveway is 20-feet wide with a 25-foot curb cut and provides adequate vehicular access. Traffic enters from the north= and exits to the south and parking in the rear remains as provided in the previ= ous plan. Applicant has reduced building size to 4,400 square feet netting approximately 3,900 with removal= of stairways and bathrooms. = Parking calculations comply with the more restrictive retail and off= ice requirement(s) of 54 ½ spaces combined and applicant proposes thirty-seven on-site. Storm water storage capacity is provided at the rear of the lot, piped out to the county road, and = is over four times the code require= ment. Applicant agrees to continue consultation with the Board Engineer regarding either pipe or seepage pit w= ater storage as the project progresses. <= /span>

Returning to ingress and = egress, Mr. Hubschman testified that driveway width is 20-feet with a 24-foot aisle providing adequate room for a standard UPS delivery truck. A Minimum Distance Parking to Residential Zone Variance (10-feet required, 2-feet provided) is called for at the northwest corner of the lot= . Mr. Hubschman suggested that= the modifications recommended by the board enhance accessibility and parking at the proposed project and is an excellent alternative so long as the county approves.

Applicant proposes a six-= foot cedar board-on-board fence surrounding an enlarged and enclosed 10’ x 12’ trash area. Followi= ng discussion with board members, the applicant agreed to consult with the Bor= ough Shade Tree Committee for recommendation of landscaping and trees. A brief discussion took place conc= erning stilting the building to increase parking and Mr. Hubschman commented that = this type of building does not fit into the surrounding neighborhood, which is commercial in nature. Mr. Hub= schman agreed with the board that the application is seventeen parking spaces less than required; however, with retail on the first floor and office space on = the second level, the number proposed should be sufficient. Some brief discussion took place regarding overflow parking into surrounding parking lots and conditions of approval, i.e., restaurants in particular, and Mr. Watkins commented that a restaurant use would require additional approval from the board because of parking limitations.

PAGE TWO, JUNE 16, 2005

Norwood Plaza, LLC, Continued

A document entitled ̶= 0;Proposed Livingston Street Beautification Program” dated May 6, 2005 was marked into evidence as Board Exhibit B-1. The program includes pavers, decorative street lighting, and landsca= ping. Following discussion with the boar= d, Mr. Watkins agreed to consider same. Mr. Hubschman agreed to increase the buffer zone between the parking lot and residential area by eliminating one= or two parking spaces.

As there was no further t= estimony from Mr. Hubschman or questions from the board, the board moved and seconde= d to open the meeting to the public. All members voted yes.

C. “Chubby” B= occhino, 455 Livingston St.<= /st1:Street>, (adjoining property owner) came forward and commented that parking is a critical problem in the entire area, as is flooding during heavy rains. Mr. Bocchino expressed the opinion= that this proposal increases overdevelopment in the area and objected to approva= l of the parking variance that is required.&nbs= p; He also questioned the beautification program, and asked to be allowed to review the proposal. He additionally commented that dur= ing heavy rain, the entire area floods and this proposal exacerbates an already significant problem.

Board Engineer Joseph Neg= lia was sworn for his testimony and commented that the proposed system does not pro= vide drainage but retains accumulated water for a certain period allowing discha= rge over a period of time. Follow= ing discussion with Mr. Neglia, Mr. Watkins agreed that if this application is approved, drainage matters are subject to continuing compliance with engine= ering requirements.

Mr. B. Farr, 180 Hudson Ave., (adjoining property owner) came forward and was sworn for his testimony. Following discussion between Mr. F= arr, Mr. Watkins and the board, the applicant agreed to install a guardrail in f= ront of the fence separating the lots and to add trees on the Farr property in order to provide s= afety and privacy.

Following additional disc= ussion, Mr. Watkins agreed to move the trash dumpster to the southwest corner of the lot and provide an exterior facade that matches the building. The agreed upon fence shall be eight-feet in height.

As no one else came forwa= rd, the board moved and seconded to close the public portion of the meeting and all voted in favor.

Mr. Watkins agreed to pro= vide additional detail concerning drainage matters including percolation tests, detailed drainage calculations, and the proposed on-site water retention system. In the meantime and p= rior to the next meeting, the public can review the proposed Livingston Street Beautification Program scheduled for discussion at the June 29, 2005 Govern= ing Body Work Session. The board = agreed to provide plans to the Shade Tree Committee and Environmental Commission.<= /p>

Mr. Watkins agreed to pro= vide public renotice as a courtesy to the public and waived time restrictions. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #= 705

(4/21/05) Eastern Allied Construction Co.

Block 120, Lots 20 & = 21 – Summit Street=

Attorney David Watkins, <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Closter, NJ came forward representing this Subdivision Application previously heard on April 21, 2005.   The boa= rd carried this application to the July 21, 2005 meeting. A certified transcript of this por= tion of the meeting is available for review.

PAGE THREE, JUNE 16, 2005

SITE PLAN APPLICATION #712

Block 100, Lot 5 – 435 Livingston Street

Commerce Bank (Friendly’s Restaurant)
Attorney Bruce Whitaker, McDonnell & Whitaker, Rams= ey, NJ came forward representing Commerce Bank. This applicati= on references Site Plan Approval including signage and pertinent variance(s).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Affidavit of Service and Public No= tice, provided at an earlier date, is in order as required by law along with owner’s consent. Commerce Bank is the contract purchaser of the above-indicated premises and applicant proposes a freestanding 4,101 sq.ft. Commerce Bank facility with four drive-through wi= ndows as common in other communities. Proposed Site Plan meets all bulk requirements except for signage. Applicant and property owner have entered into a contract in which there is limited period of time for approv= al of signage variance(s) only. = The Site Plan Application shall proceed at a future meeting. Mr. Regan commented that it is not inappropriate for the board to bifurcate this application and the board so agreed.

Brett Skapinetz, PE, came forward, was sworn for testimony and qualified as an expert witness in engi= neering. A survey of the subject property, = dated 6/01/05, was marked as Exhibit A-1 and Signage Plan as Exhibit A-2.   Mr. Skapinetz testified that Exhibit A-1 illustrates the existing property and structure; applicant prop= oses to raze the restaurant and build a new structure at a more centralized loca= tion on the lot and relocate the driveway from the northern to southern side of = the property. Impervious coverage= is reduced by six percent and the proposed site plan meets all of the zoning b= ulk requirements. Following a bri= ef discussion of the proposed site plan, the applicant agreed to address the signage application only this evening.&nbs= p;

Commerce Bank proposes fi= ve building facade signs:

Exhib= it A-3. Internally illuminated (all night) “C” logo

on the f= ront of the building approximately 39.8 sq.ft.

(6 feet = high by 6.7 ½’ feet wide) facing towards

the stre= et.

&nb= sp;

Exhib= it A-4. Nonilluminated 9.8 sq.ft. sign = 220;America’s

Most Con= venient Bank” seen from underneath the canopy or

driveway= . Three nonilluminated additional red plexiglass

“C= ” logo signs totaling 1.08 sq.ft. total and providing

night-deposit identification markin= gs. None of the above-

indicated signage is visible from Li= vingston St.

&nb= sp;

Exhib= it A-5. Internally illuminated freestandin= g sign located

at the n= ortheast corner of the property, 16 feet high with 10 foot

clearanc= e, 48 sq.ft. per side, 6 feet high = x 8 foot wide, and

setback = ten feet off the property line consistent with the

existing Friendly’s Restaurant sign.

Mr. Skapinetz additionally testified to an alternate signage design provided by Commerce Bank such as a monument type similar to that located on the Bank of America property. The alternate sign is approximatel= y 30 sq.ft., stands approximately 7 feet high, and is positioned on a brick base matching the building façade. Referenced sign is an alternate consideration for this site, should = the board so desire, and can be located as testified above including the ten-fo= ot setback off the property line in order to provide increased visibility for vehicular traffic. Mr. Skapin= etz testified that the sign is the same as shown on Exhibit A-5 with a three-fo= ot brick base matching the building façade and measuring 4 ½ to 5 ½ feet in height.

Mr. Whitaker commented th= at he acknowledges testimony earlier in the evening concerning the Proposed Livingston Street Beautification Program, and Commerce Bank is pleased to stipulate to paver walkways, along with a contribution to street and landscaping. At this time, the board agreed to = focus on the monument-type sign.

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

PAGE FOUR, JUNE 16, 2005<= o:p>

Site Plan Application #712 Continued

As there were no further questions from the board, it was moved and seconded to open the meeting to = the public.

C. “Chubby” B= occhino, 455 Livingston St.<= /st1:Street>, came forward and was sworn for any testimony he might offer. Mr. Bocchino questions pertained to clarification of Mr. Skapinetz’s testimony.

As no other member of the= public came forward, the board moved and seconded to close the meeting to the publ= ic and all voted yes.

Michael D. Kauker, PP, Wyckoff, NJ was sworn and qualified as an expert witness in planning. The board noted that Mr. Kauker is= the former Borough Planner in 2002.

Mr. Kauker testified that= he is familiar with signage zoning requirements in the Business Zone and understa= nds the variance applicant requires. He testified that application requires the following “C” Variances= :

            <= /span>Free standing sign and façade signage.&n= bsp; He noted that the existing

            <= /span>on-site signage includes both free standing and façade signs as does

            <= /span>several locations in the area.

            <= /span>Aggregate sign area exceeds the permitted 30 sq.ft.&= nbsp; – 60 sq.ft

            <= /span>proposed.

            <= /span>Freestanding signage located within 30’ feet of the property line

required= - 10 feet proposed.

            <= /span>Freestanding sign requires 4 feet clearance, zero proposed.

            <= /span>Facade sign – one facing street - the drive-in signs are not

            <= /span>visible from the street and it is, therefore, questionable if a

variance= is required.

All variances required are “C” Variances. Applicant must prove a hardship or practical difficulty (“C-1” Variance), or “C-2” where the benefits of approval outweigh the detriments. The existing condition of the prope= rty as an interior lot presents a practical difficulty in visibility to vehicular traffic and presents a particular need for the freestanding sign in order to enhance safety.

At this time, the board a= greed to extend hearing this application until 11:15PM.

Some discussion took place regarding removal of the “C” logos and Mr. Whitaker explained t= hat, while the size might be reduced, the logo is a prototype of Commerce Bank a= nd cannot be eliminated. However= , it is possible to reduce the size of the “C” logo from 39.8 to 29.5 sq.ft. It is also possible to reduce the monument sign by five square feet from thirty to approximately twenty-five.

Mr. Kauker additionally t= estified that from a safety aspect it is important to have the “C’ on the building to provide lighting and direction for ATM customers after banking hours and because of limited visibility,&n= bsp; it is important to have the monument sign near the street to promote= and improve traffic safety both o= ff and on-site. In closing, Mr. Kauk= er testified that the positive criteria far outweigh the negative criteria.

Mr. Whitaker commented th= at even though the hearing of the signage application before filing of Site Plan is unusual, without approval of the said variances, Commerce Bank is unable to continue with purchase of the subject property.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;

PAGE FIVE, JUNE 16, 2005

Site Plan Application #712 Continued

The following is a breakd= own of variances required, amended and otherwise:

“<= st1:place w:st=3D"on">America’s Most Convenient Bank” - eliminated.&= nbsp;

&nb= sp;

The three “C” logos on the side - remain.

&nb= sp;

The “C” logo on the facade – reduced from 39.8 to 29.5 sq.ft.=

&nb= sp;

The monu= ment sign location remains in an east-west direction

with zero clearance and is 10 feet off the property line. Size

is 5 fee= t x 5 feet (25 sq.ft on both sides) on a three-foot brick base

standing= eight feet in height. Brick base ma= tches building façade

and is n= ot greater in size and illumination than the existing Bank

of America sign.

&nb= sp;

Illumina= tion of entry and all other monument signs within thirty

feet of = the street.

&nb= sp;

As there was no additional question or comment, the board moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public; all voted yes.

In response to C. “Chubby” Bocchino, 455 Livingston St., Mr. Kauker advised that both t= he monument and “C” logo signs are illuminated twenty-four hours. =

No one else came forward = and the board moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public and all voted y= es.

A president of Commerce B= ank North in the audience came forward and commented that the contract with Friendly’s Restaurant is most unusual and difficult to negotiate. He explained that the bank is unab= le to purchase and develop the property with out signage approvals.

RESOLVED: = Mayor Kaplan offered a motion to approve Application #712 as outlined and amended above. Signage variances are contingent upon Site Plan approval. Seconded by Councilman Altenbach.&n= bsp;

ROLL CALL VOTE: Joseph Ascolese, Ms. Guercio, Mr. Milliaressis, Mr. Gallagher, Mayor Kaplan, Councilman Altenbach, Joseph L. Ascolese, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Lamp voted ye= s.

This application was carr= ied to the July 21, 2005 meeting and Mr. Whitaker agreed to renotice the public.
           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Regular Meeting May 19, 2005

A motion was offered and = seconded to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2005 Regular Meeting. All voted yes.

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

A motion was offered and = seconded to accept the following vouchers for payment:

      = ;            &n= bsp;     Neglia Engineering Associates   $= 1,748.00

           &n= bsp;            Robert T. Regan, Esq.     = ;            &n= bsp;        $   637.50

All board members voted y= es.

DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT

Cumberland Farms, Inc (Gulf Station)

Block 91, Lot 1 – 575 Broadway

The board moved and secon= ded authorizing Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Jacobs to sign the Developer’s Agreement on the above-indicated application as amended by Mr. Regan. All voted yes.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           PAGE SIX, JUNE 16, 2005

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           = Norwood Project, LLC (Westy Storage)=

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           Block 87, Lot 1.01 – 96 Hudson Avenue<= /o:p>

The board moved and secon= ded authorizing Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Jacobs to sign the Developer’s Agreement on the above-indicated application and all voted yes.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT=

Mr. Gallagher reported th= at the subcommittee continues meetings with the Environmental Commission in preparation for a presentation to the Governing Body concerning the Fox Hill and Central Woods area. The committee also initiated a study of parking and signage in the Livingston Street area and plans meeting with Councilman Altenbach in the near future.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE

Following discussion with= Mr. Lamp concerning changes to the proposed ordinance, including “opting-= in vs. opting-out”, the subcommittee agreed to meet with Historic Committee = on the Tuesday, July 19, 2005 for additional dialogue on this matter.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           OPEN & CLOSE TO PUBLIC

The board moved and secon= ded to open the meeting to the public and all voted to yes.

Michael Knigin, Summit Street asked that the board extend the time allocation at the next meeting for the Easte= rn Allied application and the board advised they are unable to discuss the mat= ter without the applicant’s presence.

As no other member of the= public came forward, the board moved and seconded to close the meeting to the publ= ic and all voted yes.

As there was no additional business before the board, it was duly moved and seconded to adjourn at 11:25PM.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;                   &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;           Linda Grove, Board Clerk