REGULAR MEETING

REGULAR MEETING

NORWOOD PLANNING BOARD

APRIL 21, 2005

The Regular Meeting of the Norwood Planning Board convened at 8:05PM 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, Mr. Lamp, Joseph L. Ascolese, and Mr. Savalia.= The following board members were absent: Mayor Kaplan, Councilman Al= tenbach, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Sklow.

The Board Attorney Robert= Regan was present along with Dan Vechesky and Eric Bodnar representing Neglia Enginee= ring Associates.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION – BOARD OF EDUCATION

Norwood Publi= c School – <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Summit Street

Block 119, Lot 6

Gary Grembowiec, Business Administrator/Board Secretary, Dr. Andrew Rose, Chief School Administrator,= and Michael Sprague, Board President, came forward representing the Norwood Boa= rd of Education. Mr. Sprague exp= lained that the Board proposes to build an addition to the existing Public School = with partial funding from the State of New Jersey. At this time, September is the latest possible date the board can go forward to public referendum in order to qualify for approximately $1 milli= on in state funding before the reimbursement program expires. The proposed addition addresses the municipality’s request that the Board of Education vacate the library basement, services more special education students within the district, pro= vides the opportunity for full-day kindergarten, increases on-site parking, repla= ces an existing classroom trailer, and eliminates dual-program use of classroom= s. A portion of the building is expec= ted to house borough special education students and/or students from other valley = areas providing rental income to the school district.

Proposed building is self-contained; adding to the exiting building requires upgrading the entire structure to state code and is cost prohibitive. Addition abuts the all-purpose roo= m with internal corridor and houses administration, storage and special education students. A lengthy discussio= n took place concerning special education students and a program that returns auti= stic and disabled students to the local district. A “no” vote from t= he public in September might initiate a scaled-down project with Board of Education offices remaining in the library basement.

Following discussion betw= een the board, Mr. Sprague, Dr. Rose and Mr. Grembowiec concerning special education students and proposed programs to meet those needs, the board moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public and all voted yes.

The following members of = the public came forward with various questions and comments concerning the prop= osed addition and September referendum.

C. ̶= 0;Chubby” Bocchino, Livingston Stree= t

Corinne = Lynch, Broadway

Frank St= arapoli, Tappan Road<= /st1:Street>

            <= /span>Alan Rapaport, Hemlock Court

As there were no addition= al questions or comment from the public, the board moved and seconded to close= the meeting to the public and all voted yes.

Mr. Vechesky, representin= g Neglia Engineering, commented that current plans do not include grading and draina= ge plans and he recommended that the school provide this information for review. Mr. Regan commented t= hat the board might make said recommendation to the Board of Education. Some discussion took place concern= ing parking on Tappan Road; Dr. Rose, Mr. Sprague, and Mr. Grembowiec agreed to look into this matter a= nd provide additional information.

&nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;        PAGE TWO, APRIL 21, 2005

Mr. Gallagher called a br= eak beginning at 8:55PM and ending at 9:05PM.

S= ITE PLAN APP. ##711 – NORWOO= D PLAZA, LLC.

Continued from 2/17/05

Block 100, Lots 10 & 11 – Livingston Street

Attorney David Watkins, <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Closter, NJ, briefly reviewed previous testimony from the February 17, 2005 meeting. Also present was Michael Hubschman= , PE, PP, sworn and qualified at the last meeting. Applicant has reduced the size= of the building and increased the number of parking spaces. Mr. Watkins indicated that they ha= ve received the Neglia Review Letter dated April 21, 2005 and intend to comply with all recommendations excluding parking.

The Neglia Letter was mar= ked as Board Exhibit Two and Mr. Vechesky was sworn for testimony. Following discussion concerning the disparity in parking requirements in the Site Plan and Zoning Ordinances, t= he board agreed that Zoning Ordinance Chapter 233-32, governs parking, is more restrictive and as follows: one space per 100 sq= uare feet of retail and one space per 250 square feet of office space.   Both board and applicant agr= eed to accept the parking calculation at fifty-four spaces required.

Mr. Vechesky testified th= at applicant has reduced the building from 10,955.2 square feet to 9,540 square feet and increased the number of proposed parking spaces to forty. Previous drainage and grading conc= erns have been addressed and two new comments added: drainage plan must address requirements for reduction of total suspended solids in accordance with NJD= EP Stormwater Management Regulations and proposed grading at the entrance to t= he easterly parking lot revised to accommodate a minimum 1% slope. A colorized version of revised pla= n dated March 30, 2005 was marked as Exhibit A-2.&= nbsp; Mr. Watkins agreed to address and comply with all comments as referenced in the April 21, 2005 Ne= glia Review Letter including reduction of the free-standing sign height requisit= e, from 14 feet proposed to 12 feet as required.&n= bsp; However, a waiver is still necessary for the location of freestanding signage. Small panel-type win= dow signs are also proposed. Mr. Vechesky summarized parking waivers as follows:

<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>·        Parking space size 9’ x 18’ prop= osed - 10’ x 20’ required.

<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>·        Minimum 8 feet required at the side and rear= lot lines.

Proposed parking located zero to two feet at the north-

easterly and southwesterly property lines.

<= span style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-fa= mily: Symbol'>·        Ten feet parking to residential zone at the = rear lot line required.

Two feet proposed at a small section of the (rear) property line.

Applicant proposes a 9= 217; x 18’ loading area where 12’ x 50’ is required. Following discussion, applicant ag= reed to redesign and enlarge this area along with the refuse area and stipulates= to garbage pick-up during non-business hours.=

A lengthy discussion took= place between board members, Mr. Hubschman, and Mr. Watkins, concerning parking at the fr= ont of the building and the impact on adjacent parking lots and Livingston Street traffic. The option of a stilted structure = with parking below was also referenced. Mr. Watkins agreed to meet with his client and restructure the application in order to address the front parking predicament and methods of ingress and egress. Mr. Watki= ns agreed to return to the May 19, 2005 meeting with stipulation of all time waivers.

= CUMBERLAND FARMS (Signature on Final Plan) -= Block 91, Lot 11 – Livings= ton Street

Mr. Gallagher signed fina= l plan(s) prepared by the applicant and Mr. Vechesky took possession of the same for = the Board Engineer’s signature.

PAGE THREE, APRIL 21, 2005

SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #705

Block 120, Lots 20 & 21 – Summit Street

Eastern Allied Construction Co.

Attorney David Watkins ca= me forward representing the applicant in this matter, a five-lot subdivision o= n Summit Street denied by the board several years ago.&nbs= p; Mr. Watkins suggested that the Borough’s Ordinance limiting a cul-de-sac length to a minimum of 600 feet is superseded by the New Jersey Residential Site Improvement Standards, which is based upon the number of developed units on a site. The second issue is a Borough =

Ordinance requiring 750 f= eet separation between newly developed and existing street openings on the same side of a given road. A singl= e lot depth variance is required. Both streets, proposed cul-de-sac and Norwood Place, are now aligned one across from the other.&nbs= p; Mr. Watkins provided that although applicant intends to offer traffic testimony, it is not required as the proposed subdivision is a permitted us= e in the zone. Mr. Regan and Mr. W= atkins briefly discussed the 750’ separation between streets as to whether a variance or design waiver is required by a recently passed ordinance, and M= r. Watkins agreed to offer testimony pertinent to this matter at the next meeting.

Michael Hubschman, PE, PP= , Bergenfield, NJ, was sworn and qualified as an expert witness in planning and engineering. Mr. Hubschman testified that he pr= epared the plan submitted to the board and a colorized rendering of Sheet 2 Preliminary Plan dated September 02, 2004 was marked as Exhibit A-1. Subject property is 2.05 acres in = size and consists of two lots with a single-family dwelling on each lot. Applicant proposes to retain the dwelling on Lot 21 and demolish the structure on Lot= 20. A 311-foot long cul-de-sac lines up with Norwood Plac= e directly across Summit Str= eet.   The property is in the = R10 Zone requiring 10,000 square feet, 100-foot frontage, and 100 foot depth. Mr. Hubschman testified that each = of the five proposed lots more than meets the zoning requirement except for Lot 20.03, which has a lot depth of 96 feet where 1= 00 feet is required. Frontage on= Summit Street is 82-85 feet and requires a second variance.=

Applicant proposes a large underground drainage system, which stores and slowly releases water into roadway catch basins as per NJ RSIS; individual roof leaders connect with t= he proposed drainage system. The= re are two streetlights; one provided in the intersection and one in the cul-de-sa= c.

The Neglia Review Letter = dated December 30, 2004 was marked as Board Exhibit One and Dan Vechesky of Negli= a Engineering was sworn for his testimony. = Mr. Vechesky testified that he was involved in preparation of the correspondence dated 12/30/04, which includes a bulk table outlining each lot and variance requirements. Comments addres= s the 750 linear feet ordinance between existing streets and suggest that a design waiver is required along with the 600’ minimum cul-de-sac length limitation. Although applicant’s drainage report adequately supports = the project design, the information provided does not address State Stormwater requirements for reduction of total suspended solids. Mr. Vechesky also rec= ommended that applicant provide individual site plans for review prior to start of construction. The Fire Depart= ment and applicant should coordinate fire hydrant placement. Mr. Vechesky also requested a vert= ical curb analysis to assure adequate visibility and Mr. Watkins noted that such testimony shall be forthcoming.

Mr. Regan commented that = Mr. Watkins has provided a written opinion from the Department of Community Aff= airs that municipalities cannot regulate the length of a cul-de-sac; this matter= is superseded by RSIS and case law is consistent with this opinion. Mr. Regan noted that Mr. Watkins h= as provided verbal opinion only from the DCA citing regulations governing the distance between streets and Mr. Watkins agreed to provide same in writing.= A discussion took place concerning minimum and maximum cul-de-sac length and Mr. Watkins agreed to also provide written opinion.

Eric Bodnar, PE, Neglia Engineering, was sworn for his testimony.&= nbsp; Mr. Bodnar testified to the minimum diameter of the cul-de-sac per R= SIS at 40’ cartway with a minimum of 8’ beyond the cartway for right-of-way.

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

PAGE FOUR, APRIL 21, 2005=

Subdivision Application #= 705 Continued

Mr. Hubschman additionally testified that the angle of the proposed street is designed to meet RSIS at approximately seventy-seven feet; however, it is not possible to comply wit= h this standard as pertains to the frontage requirement of the corner lot facing <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Summit Street. He opined that there is no detrime= nt with such a small deviation, in particular, since the lot fronts on the new road= and complies with the one-hundred-foot frontage requirement in that area.

Mr. Watkins reserved the = right to recall Mr. Hubschman for additional testimony.

As there were no further questions from the board, it was moved and seconded to open the meeting to = the public for questions of Mr. Hubschman or Mr. Watkins. All members voted yes.

Dr. Lorraine Marshall, 25 Norwood Place, came forward, was sworn, and asked for clarification regarding testimony pertaining to applicant’s request for a sidewalk waiver along Summit Street.

Peter Sideris, 282 Summit Street, came forward and= was sworn in for his testimony and asked if variances are required if applicant considers a smaller subdivision. Mr. Watkins commented that a variance would still be required becaus= e of state regulations even if the proposal were reduced to four lots. Sheet 6 of the submitted plan, Exi= sting Conditions, was marked as Exhibit A-3 and Mr. Watkins and Mr. Hubschman indicated that the configuration of the property requires a variance.

Christine Cranko, 290 Summit Street was sworn in and, in response to her question, Mr. Watkins advised that applicant proposes to retain the existing house.

David Elling, 263 Summit Street, was sworn in, an= d in response to his questions was advised that proposed frontage of the existing house is on Summit Street<= /st1:address> and it is applicant’s intention to leave that dwelling standing.

Fred Marshall, 25 Norwood Place, was sworn for his testimony and expressed concern with drainage onto his property following removal of trees. Mr. Hubschm= an testified that the proposed drainage system is almost twice the size required and that the state mandat= es 80% less runoff than the previous requirement of no increase in runoff.

Dr. Lorraine Marshall, 25 Norwood Place, returned with questions concerning tree replacement and Mr. Watkins comment= ed that applicant intends to comply with ordinance requirements. Mr. Hubschman clarified drainage d= etail for Dr. Marshall’s benefit.

Fred Marshall, 25 Norwood Place came forward again= . In response to his questions, Mr. Hubschman testified that applicant does not propose sidewalks on the opposi= te side of Summit Street.

At this time, Mr. Vechesky commented, relating to drainage matters, that his office has requested that= the applicant provide “perc test” results upon completion of assessment.

Connie Klein, 298 Summit Street, came forward and= asked for clarification of previous testimony concerning Stormwater Regulations.<= /p>

As no one from the public= came forward, it was moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public and all voted = yes.

Mr. Watkins agreed to con= tinue with additional testimony at the May 19, 2005 meeting and Mr. Vechesky agre= ed to review and prepare a report based on an “Intersection Sight Distance” chart prepared by TRC Raymond Keyes Associates dated April 2005. Mr. Gallagher announced= that this hearing is carried to the next meeting with no further notice to the public.

PAGE FIVE, APRIL 21, 2005

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Regular Meeting March 22, 2005

A motion was offered and = seconded to table a vote on the minutes of the March 22, 2005 Regular Meeting pending correction to the bottom of p= age two, top of page three. All members voted yes.

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

A motion was offered and = seconded to accept the following vouchers for payment with approval of the Chief Financial Officer:

           &n= bsp;            Neglia Engineering Associates   $= 1,557.50

All members voted yes.

REPORT – ZONING SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. Gallagher reported th= at the subcommittee met on April 19, 2005 with members of the Environmental Commis= sion and Mr. Neglia. The Environme= ntal Commisison has agreed to place definitional parameters around the properties under discussion for Conservation, Open Space designation and/or restrictive use. The group intends to nex= t meet on May 17, 2005.

DISCUSSION

Amendments to Land Use Ordinance

RESOLVED: Concerning Borough Ordinance 05:09, introduced= by the Governing Body on March 30, 2005, Mr. Regan suggested that the board recommend changing, at a later date, wording within the proposed ordinance = from lot “width” to “frontage” to improve clarity. The board also agree= d to provide in writing that zoning changes are consistent with the Master Plan.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Joseph Ascolese, Ms. Guercio, Mr. Milliaressis, Mr. Lamp, Mr. Savalia, and Joseph L. Ascolese voted yes.

A brief discussion took p= lace concerning those zoning changes scheduled for hearing by Mayor & Counci= l on May 04, 2005 including averaging of “neighborhood” lot sizes in order to maintain the integrity of an existing area.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Gallagher announced t= hat the Norwood Presbyterian Church on Broadway has been nominated for placement on= the State Register of Historical Places. A copy of the nomination paper is = on file in the Planning Board Office.

OPEN TO PUBLIC – CLOSE TO PUBLIC

It was moved and seconded= to open the meeting to the public for general comment and all members voted yes.

James Elling, Summit Street, came forward with additional questions concerning the effect on subdivision applications of t= he zoning requirements under consideration.&n= bsp; Mr. Gallagher commented that the rules in effect at the time of the decision are the rules that govern.

David Elling, Summit Street, came forward with si= milar questions, and Mr. Regan explained that the change becomes effective at the time the ordinance is published in the borough newspaper and filed with the county, approximately one week after the adoption by the Governing Body.

As no one else came forwa= rd, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public. All voted yes.

As there was no further b= usiness before the board, it was moved and seconded to adjourn at 11:00PM. All voted yes.

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;              &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;      Linda Grove, Board Clerk

            <= /span>