BOROUGH of NEW PROVIDENCE BOARD of ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL MEETING MEETING MINUTES – MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2021

BOROUGH OF NEW PROVIDENCE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL MEETING MEETING MINUTES – MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2021 – 8:00 p.m.

VIRTUAL MEETING

Present: Mr. Ammitzboll, Ms. Ananthakrishnan, Mr. Dunscombe, Mr. Grob, Mr. Kogan, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Ping and Chairman Nadelberg. Also present: John Barree, Borough Planner; Kevin Boyer, Borough Engineer; Keith Lynch, Director of Planning and Development; Phil Morin, Board Attorney; and Margaret Koontz, Secretary.

Absent: Mr. Sorochen

A. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Nadelberg called the meeting to order at 8:02 p.m.

B. RESOLUTIONS

RESOLUTIONS

David and Edith Rosciszewski Application #2020-03 EXT 11 Edward Court, Block 42, Lot 25, R-2 Zone, New Providence, NJ 07974 Chapter 310. Article IV, Section 310-10, Schedule II for permission to construct an addition. The proposed side-yard setback to the addition is 7.9 feet whereas 17.04 feet is the minimum required. The existing driveway abuts the property line. The existing shed is 3 feet from the side property line and abuts the rear property line.

Mr. Grob moved this and Mr. Ping seconded same. Members voting in favor of an extension of time: Mr. Ammitzboll, Ms. Ananthakrishnan, Mr. Grob, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Ping, Mr. Kogan and Mr. Nadelberg.

Kevin Cornel Application #2021-07 30 Edgewood Avenue, Block 75, Lot 5, R-2 Zone, New Providence, NJ 07974 Chapter 310, Article IV, Section 310-10, Schedule II, Article V, Section 310-20(2) for permission to relocate a structure. The proposed lot size is 9,831 square feet whereas 15,000 square feet is the minimum required. The proposed lot width at the setback is 69 feet whereas 110 feet is the minimum required.

Ms. Ananthakrishnan moved this and Mr. Ammitzoll seconded same. Members voting in favor: Mr. Ammitzboll, Ms. Ananthakrishnan, Mr. Grob, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Ping, Mr. Kogan and Mr. Nadelberg.

Christopher Thomas Gilbertson Application #2021-04 84 Charnwood Road, Block 42, Lot 28, R-2 Zone, New Providence, NJ Chapter 310, Article IV, Section 310-10, Schedules II & III, Article V, Section 310-20(2) for permission to construct an addition. The proposed front-yard setback is 35.1 feet whereas 40 feet is the minimum required. The proposed side-yard setback on the right is 6.9 feet and on the left is 8.7 feet whereas the minimum setback on each side is 17.4. feet. The proposed driveway is 1 feet from the property line whereas 6 feet is the minimum required.

Mr. Ping moved this and Mr. Kogan seconded same. Members voting in favor: Mr. Ammitzboll, Ms. Ananthakrishnan, Mr. Grob, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Ping, Mr. Kogan and Mr. Nadelberg.

E. PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR SPECIAL MEETING ON APRIL 26, 2021

Carried from January 20, February 1, March 1 and March 29, 2021 Redwood-ERC New Providence, LLC Application #2020-43 575 Mountain Avenue, Block 320, Lot 18.01, CCRCO Zone, New Providence, NJ 07974 Preliminary and final site plan approval for development of a continuing care retirement community (the “CCRC”) on Lot 18.01, which shall connect to CCRC improvements on Block 320, Lot 17.01. The proposed CCRC improvements for which Applicant seeks approval include the construction of some six (6) CCRC buildings on Lot 18.01 which will contain approximately 554 independent living units, approximately 108 health care units (including assisted living units and nursing care units), and related improvements including, without limitation, landscaping, utilities, stormwater management, parking, and driveway and access improvements. CCRC use on Lot 17.01 is not permitted by the TBI- 1 Zone, but use variance relief was previously granted to allow development of the existing CCRC development on Lot 17.01. Applicant seeks variance approval from Borough Zoning Ordinance Section 310-9.1(I), adopted in Ordinance No. 2019-07, to permit one freestanding monument sign at the intersection of Southgate Road and Mountain Avenue where no site entrance exists, whereas freestanding monument signs are only permitted at each entrance to the CCRC, other than any entrance limited to emergency vehicles. Applicant seeks a design waiver or exception from Borough Ordinance Section 305- 11(D)(Note 1), adopted in Ordinance No. 2008-22, to permit maximum illumination of 1.8 footcandles at the property line located at the proposed vehicular entrance at Southgate Road, whereas a maximum of 0.5 footcandles at the property line is permitted. Applicant also seeks variance approval to permit modification of the driveway from Mountain Avenue to the CCRC located on Lot 17.01 (the “Mountain Avenue Driveway”) and utilization of the Mountain Avenue Driveway by the CCRC proposed to be developed on Lot 18.01, along with utilization of the other driveways and facilities on Lot 17.01. In connection with such modification and utilization, Applicant also proposes future construction of a left-turn lane from Mountain Avenue leading into the Mountain Avenue Driveway.

Glenn Pantel of Faegre Drinker, attorney for the applicant, stated that the Board would hear testimony from two witnesses. Mark Gionet, Principal of LSG Landscape Architecture, previously sworn in March 29, 2021, would be recalled to present testimony about additional landscaping requested at the previous hearing, and Michael Tobia, professional planner, would testify about the variances required. Mr. Pantel also stated that an additional sun study has been prepared to show that the application meets the shadow requirement per Ordinance 2011-15 which re-zoned the Research Laboratory Zone to the Technology and Business Innovation I Zone. The TBI-I Zone permits a hotel/conference center with a building height up to 65.’ The sun study shows that the proposed buildings will have less of a shadow impact than a 65’ tall hotel. The requirements for the TBI-I zone remain in effect as the CCRCO is an overlay zone.

Mr. Gionet presented Exhibit A-20 – Perspective C – 267 Southgate Winter Render, an updated version of Exhibit A-10, showing the buildings behind the proposed additional landscaping at a later phase. The larger evergreens will be planted during the first phase of construction to get two to three years more growth. Exhibit A-20 shows the height of the evergreens by the time the building is occupied. The nine additional evergreens to be planted in this area will be 14’ to 16’ at installation. Some of the ash trees in the area are dead and will be removed and a variety of new trees that will be 40’ to 60’ at maturity will be planted. The telephone pole shown in the exhibit is 45’ high. The trees in the background are 50’ to 60. The evergreen trees will be closer to 20’ by the time of occupancy of the building and in 15 to 20 years will be 40’ to 50.’ The evergreens will do the job of supplementing the vegetation there and will do a good job of concealing the buildings.

Mr. Gionet responded to questions from the Board. The exhibit assumes that the trees will be planted during the first phase of construction. They will have three to four years of growth before the building in the background is constructed. The exhibit shows the trees four to five years from now.

Exhibit A-21 – Planting Along Northern Loop Road was introduced. The exhibit is an updated version of Exhibit A-19 with new and edited notes. The exhibit shows the plantings in the northwest portion of the campus opposite Southgate Road between Buildings 2.5 and 2.3. The dead ash trees to be removed are marked as #9. The northwest area of Building 2.5 and the other side of the perimeter road will be enhanced with additional plantings between Southgate Road and the ring road. The dotted red line shows the area where the plantings will be installed during the first phase of construction. These will be behind the tree protection area. Additional trees will be planted inside the ring road once the road has been completed. Mr. Gionet described the changes to Note 2 regarding the ornamental trees opposite Southgate Road and Note 3 regarding the 20 evergreens to be planted during the first phase of construction. Notes 7 through 10 have been added describing the clusters of trees to be planted for the northern wings of Buildings 2.5 and 2.3 at the edge of the ring road. These will be planted after the construction of the buildings. As previously testified, the dead ash trees will be removed and new trees will be planted (indicated by #10) where possible.

Mr. Ammitzboll asked what the applicant is doing to break up the façade of the northern buildings to eliminate the “cruise ship” façade of Neighborhood One seen from down town. New trees will be planted between Buildings 2.5 and 2.3 in the perimeter. Three of the trees that can be used are larger at planting. Eight-inch caliper trees will be planted at the corners of the building. These will be 22’ to 24’ at planting. A significant amount of planting is proposed as shown in the dotted line area on Exhibit A-21. The applicant has agreed to plant more or larger trees as previously testified. The large trees by Building 2.5 will provide height as they mature. Depending on when the ring road is completed, the applicant may be able to plant street trees along it sooner so they will get some height. Mr. Ammitzboll asked about the applicant’s commitment to replace the plantings if they fail. He’s especially concerned about the interior plantings and it may take 10 to 15 years to know if they’re going to survive. Mr. Pantel believes the applicant would be willing to replace plantings beyond the two-year bonding period.

Chairman Nadelberg asked about the plantings to block the headlights from vehicles exiting the northern end of the Buildings 2.5 and 2.3. Mr. Gionet, referring to Exhibit A- 21, pointed out the cluster of trees at each of the building exits (indicated by an arrow on Exhibit A-21). Additional trees have been proposed. The evergreens – spruces and pines – will catch the headlights. Chairman Nadelberg asked if a fence would be better. Mr. Gionet responded that what is there now plus what is proposed will significantly mitigate the headlights. He isn’t sure a fence would help and is concerned that installation of a fence could damage the existing vegetation.

Mr. Gionet described Exhibits A-22 – Plan Enlargement and Section G – Site Section at Building 2.5 and Exhibit A-23 - Section G Enlargement at Time of Construction – Site Section of Building 2.5. Exhibit A-23 shows the new tree heights in relation to the telephone pole and the view of a person looking up at the time of construction. The trees will be 14’ to 16’ at planting. The evergreens and the existing woods will block the lights and will filter the view of the building.

Mr. Grob stated that the topographic survey submitted with the application shows trees on Mountain Avenue including a particularly large, 20” diameter Japanese Maple, that are close to the curb and asked how these will be impacted by the construction fence and disturbance. Rob Streker, Site Engineer at Bohler, previously sworn in on February 1, 2021, responded that he doesn’t see any trees in the right-of-way that will be impacted during the construction. The trees will remain unless shown on the plan as subject to removal. Mr. Grob added that the vegetation on Mountain Avenue sets the character of the campus.

The Board had no further questions for the witnesses. The hearing was opened to questions from the public.

There were no questions from the public.

Michael Tobia was sworn in. Mr. Tobia presented his credentials a licensed professional planner and was accepted as such. Mr. Tobia represented Redwood-ERC in 2012, 2015 and 2017.

Exhibit A-24 – December 22 @ 12 pm was prepared by the applicant to show the shadow impact of the proposed campus at 12 noon on December 22nd. The lot is in the TBI-I Zone and also in the CCRCO Zone. The zoning requirements of both zones apply to the lot. The applicant has chosen to develop the site under the CCRCO requirements adopted in Ordinance 2019-07 as part of the Court-approved Affordable Housing Settlement Agreement which allows a CCRC as a permitted use. The TBI-I Zone permits a hotel/conference facility with a maximum height of 65’ but requires the placement of the buildings to be such that the shadow of the building at noon on December 22nd will not extend onto any other property, excepting public streets, farther than the required setback lines on the property. The Research Laboratory Zone was re-zoned to the TBI-I Zone in 2011 (Ordinance 2011-05), because of the number of vacancies in the RL Zone. The exhibit was prepared to determine if the proposed campus conforms to the shadow requirement established in the ordinance. A shadow is permitted up to the setback line but is not permitted to go off the site. Exhibit A-24 shows that the shadows created by the proposed campus don’t even get close to the limit established in the ordinance. The proposed campus will be less impactful in terms of shadows than a 65’ high hotel/conference facility.

Chairman Nadelberg commented that a previous exhibit (Exhibit A-13) showed shadows. Mr. Tobia responded that as shown on Exhibit A-13, the entire area on December 21, 2021, will be in total shade at 8:00 a.m. because of the topography but as the sun rises, the shade recedes and by 9:30 a.m. there area will be full sun on Southgate Road. The difference between the shadow exhibits is because of the different dates and times. The applicant meets the shadow requirement for a hotel/conference facility on the date and time as specified in the ordinance.

Mr. Tobia described the site referring to Exhibit A-1 – Expanded Site Plan. The property in question, Lot 18.01, is on the left half of the exhibit with Mountain Avenue at the bottom (south), South Street to the right (east) and Southgate Road to the left (west). The new zoning for the CCRCO only applies to Lot 18.01. Phase One of Redwood-ERC was governed by the zoning requirements for the TBI-I Zone and required use variance approval. Lot 18.01 meets almost all of the bulk requirements including minimum lot area, lot width and setback requirements as well as the building height requirement. The proposed building coverage is 21%, which is well below the 40% permitted, and the 46% impervious coverage proposed is also well below the 60% permitted. The site is now over parked on the eastern side. Parking on the total site will comply with the 2019 ordinance.

Chairman Nadelberg asked why the parking is tight in Neighborhood One and why the Board should believe that it will be better for Lot 18.01. Redwood-ERC built to the minimum needed in the first phase. The new site will have 238 parking stalls over the minimum required, or 34% more spaces, and will accommodate the parking needs for Lot 18.01 as well as reduce the parking pressure on Lot 17.01. Mr. Pantel added that the prior applications used the parking standards for a CCRC thinking the ratios were appropriate. The parking in Neighborhood One is tight but it works and vehicles are not parking on the street or in the fire lanes. The applicant realized that the parking requirements for a CCRC were just about adequate and believes it needs to add more parking which is why it is proposing 34% more spaces which will address the parking needs for the whole campus. Redwood-ERC is going to put the parking in first to accommodate employees. With the additional spaces and accelerated installation of the parking when Buildings 2.1 and 2.2 are constructed, Mr. Pantel doesn’t believe there will be a shortage of parking spaces.

Mr. Ammitzboll asked if there is better screening on the north side of the site than there was for Neighborhood One. Mr. Tobia responded that the 2019 ordinance that created the CCRCO Zone established the setbacks. The setbacks in the area to the north are over 200’ whereas others on the site meet the minimum requirement of 100.’ In fact, the setbacks on the northern property line are 218’ to 300’ so there is a large distance to the residential area. In addition, the buildings are oriented north to south vertically whereas Neighborhood One is a continuous long wall facing north. The proposed campus also has six buildings to break up the massing. Mr. Ammitzboll stated that Exhibit A-1 is a good illustration that the applicant has made changes to break up the “cruise ship” appearance of Neighborhood One.

Mr. Ping asked about giving the parking spaces back to increase the green spaces since the additional spaces may not be needed. The surface parking spaces are for overflow parking. Many of the parking spaces are in the subsurface structured parking levels. The surface parking spaces are sparse and are intended for visitors and deliveries. The building and lot coverage are less than what’s permitted and allow a lot of perimeter green space. Mr. Pantel doesn’t think it would be wise to eliminate the surface spaces. There are only 181 surfaces spaces in Neighborhood Two and over 900 parking spaces in total.

Mr. Tobia reviewed the variances. A variance is required for the monument sign proposed at the corner of Mountain Avenue and Southgate Road. The sign, as shown on Exhibit A- 3, has a brick base and meets the dimensions for size and the setback. It will match the signs at the Mountain Avenue and South Street entrances. The sign requires a variance because it isn’t located at a site entrance. For those traveling east on Mountain Avenue, the sign announces the site and will be 1,760’ from the Mountain Avenue entrance. It provides a sense of arrival to let drivers know that they are there. Redwood-ERC has agreed to add directional information to the sign as requested by the Board. At the location of the sign, a driver can’t see either the Southgate Road or Mountain Avenue entrances.

Mr. Ammitzboll commented that the Board doesn’t want drivers, other than those who live or work at Lantern Hill, to turn left at the intersection and asked if there’s a good reason for the sign to announce that you’ve arrived when you haven’t. He asked if it wouldn’t be better for drivers to keep going until they see the sign at the Mountain Avenue entrance. Mr. Tobia responded that the sign was discussed earlier and Redwood-ERC has agreed to add directional information so he thought the question about the sign had been addressed. It’s a 50-acre campus and the sign is hardly out of proportion. Mr. Tobia hopes it is acceptable to the Board. Mr. Grob stated that drivers only see the Nokia sign at the entrance across the street and not before. Mr. Tobia responded that there’s a large lawn in front of the Nokia buildings so they are noticeable. The applicant has no intention of getting denied for the sign and will remove it if necessary. Chairman Nadelberg asked about moving it farther east on Mountain Avenue. Mr. Pantel understands that the sign at the corner may encourage a driver to make a left turn onto Southgate Road. The applicant is willing to look at moving the sign, and if the Board approves the application, it can make relocating the sign a condition of approval with the new location subject to approval by the town. Mr. Ammitzboll believes that moving the sign will help alleviate the neighbors’ concerns about drivers turning onto Southgate Road. Mr. Kogan added that he’s in favor of moving the sign farther down the road. It should be visible to east-bound drivers only and placed at the same angle as proposed for the corner. It shouldn’t be bi-directional.

The lighting at the Southgate driveway requires a waiver for the illumination of 1.8 footcandles which exceeds the maximum permitted. The level of lighting proposed for the driveway is the proper and safe illumination level. The existing 0.4 footcandles of illumination is dark and the lighting is inadequate. This is a typical waiver request. By the time the light gets across the street to the west, the footcandles drop to zero. It’s impractical to have a new driveway and bad lighting. The lights are downward facing and are shielded to illuminate only the road and the driveway at the entrance. Mr. Streker previously testified to the footcandles from the cobra lights at the center line on Southgate Road. Mr. Ammitzboll stated that there’s a difference between visibility and footcandles. Lights can be seen for a long distance but it’s the intensity that’s the issue. Mr. Pantel responded that the driveway into the site is across the street from an industrial site that will probably have a driveway there with similar lighting when that site is developed. The lights on the Southgate driveway entrance are not near the single-family residences.

Referring to Exhibit A-1 – Expanded Site Plan, Mr. Tobia testified that Redwood-ERC is proposing a left-turn lane on Mountain Avenue to allow eastbound drivers to enter the Mountain Avenue entrance to Neighborhood One. The applicant is proposing the left-turn lane in response to safety issues raised by the Police Department. The left-turn lane requires a 10’ by 250’ strip along the driveway to widen the road and is the reason that the site plan for Lot 17.01 has to be modified and approved. The left-turn lane doesn’t generate a variance for either Lot 17.01 or 18.01 but does require modified site plan approval. No “d” variance is required. The left-turn lane only requires a slight change to the size of Lot 17.01 and is a nuanced technicality. Modification to the site plan requires the applicant to prove that there’s no substantial detriment. The building size, parking and the ring road on Lot 17.01 will be the same as originally approved. The only thing that changes from the original site plan is a small piece of land to be used for the creation of the turning. This change only relates to public safety. There is no substantial detriment and the change provides a safe, more convenient access to the site.

The security gates on Southgate Road may require a variance. The inbound gate is 16’ away from the Southgate Road right-of-way and the outbound gate is 41’ away. The gates are within the 100’ setback, but they are gates not a building. Mr. Tobia testified that the gates are a public benefit as they will limit the use of the driveway and keep visitors off of Southgate Road. They will also prohibit delivery trucks and jitneys from using Southgate Road. The gates as shown on Exhibit A-17 present no detriments and promote public health and safety.

Mr. Tobia testified that the CCRC is an inherently beneficial use providing senior citizens with housing and three prior approvals have been granted to the applicant In addition to housing, Lantern Hill provides social interaction and activities for residents. Use of Lot 18.01 for a CCRC was approved as part of the Affordable Housing Settlement Agreement. The 2019 ordinance permits the CCRC and requires the applicant to make financial deposits to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The overall project will pay fees of 6.5 million in addition to real estate taxes. The Borough will get $516K in added development fees from the project and $6M in non-residential development fees which will go into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

The Board had no further questions for Mr. Tobia. The hearing was opened to questions from the public.

Annmarie Zoufalay, 191 Ryder Way, commented that the only way to remedy the “cruise ship” effect of the development is to lower the height of the buildings and asked why the applicant can’t do this since the proposed campus is well below the allowable building coverage. Ms. Zoufaly also asked if the gates and lights at the Southgate Road driveway can be turned off at a certain hour. Mr. Tobia responded that the buildings meet all the zoning requirements and there are operating reasons for the height. Moreover, there are advantages to the vertical buildings in that there is less building coverage and more green space. Regarding the gates and lights, Mr. Tobia stated that disabling them at a specified time is acceptable on a commercial site, but this is a residential site and he would be reluctant to turn them off for safety reasons. As a residential site, residents are free to come and go at any time, so it wouldn’t work to turn off the gates or lights. Mr. Tobia added that there are two cobra lights on Southgate Road with comparable footcandles. The proposed lights on the driveway will be shielded and are not as tall as the cobra lights. As previously testified by Mr. Streker, the proposed lights are not discernible and they are located across the street from an industrial site and not across from the single-family residential homes. No time restriction on operation of the lights is warranted.

Robin Wood, 267 Southgate Road, asked if the proposed left-turn lane on Mountain Avenue means that there won’t be an additional entrance to the site on Mountain Avenue. The existing entrance on Mountain Avenue will be the only entrance on Mountain Avenue. The existing driveway on Mountain Avenue that is on the site will be eliminated. The turning lane will be installed when the third building is constructed.

There were no further witnesses.

Chairman Nadelberg asked if Mr. Pantel was able to get agreement from the applicant on the length of time for the jurisdiction over the landscaping. There is no bonding requirement other than the two-year maintenance bond for the perimeter landscaping. While no bonding is required for the internal landscaping, the applicant is willing to give a give a five-year guarantee after installation for the interior plantings. Chairman Nadelberg noted that construction may take up to six years so the guarantee could expire before construction is completed. Mr. Ammitzboll is pleased the applicant is willing to plant early but agreed that a five-year guarantee after installation isn’t long enough. Mr. Pantel will confer with the applicant on the length of jurisdiction.

Mr. Grob stated that Neighborhood One required a sidewalk around the site. From the site plan, it looks as if the sidewalk will be continued along Mountain Avenue for this site but it appears that there are some trees where the sidewalk will be. Mr. Streker responded that the complex is large enough to allow the sidewalk to meander. The sidewalk won’t run through the trees. The next site plan will show the “meandered” sidewalk.

Chairman Nadelberg asked for assurance that if the gates malfunction, they will not be allowed to remain in the open position. Mr. Pantel stated that this could be a condition of approval. Chairman Nadelberg also asked if the site is private property. It is private property and isn’t open to the public to walk through.

Kevin Boyer, Borough Engineer, stated that flushed items from the existing campus are getting into the sewer treatment plant. Onsite screens will mitigate this problem. Mr. Boyer would like to see pre-screening of the sanitary sewer discharge at the existing and new site. Mr. Streker will meet with Mr. Boyer to discuss this.

John Barree, Borough Planner, stated that Mr. Tobia covered the variances. Moving the monument sign to the east makes sense. There are already several cobra lights between the residential properties and the Southgate Road driveway. The light spillage from the lights in the driveway will be minimal and the lights are far enough away from the residential area so as not to be a nuisance.

There were no further questions from the public, and the hearing was opened to comments from the public.

Carole Pasquale, 535 Mountain Avenue, a resident of Lantern Hill, was sworn in. Many of the Lantern Hill residents are upset with the ugly expansion that will double the size of the campus with large buildings that aren’t assimilated into the community. The site plan doesn’t include designated parking for employees and private aides. The site currently has 320 employees and 50 private aides that park in the visitor parking lot or in the employee lot located on the former Linde site. With the expansion, the number of employees on the site will double and when the designated employee parking lot is eliminated for the buildings, employees will not have a place to park. Although the applicant testified that the employees work in shifts, between 1 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., all employees will be on the site. There are 185 surplus garage parking spaces designated for staff, this is not nearly enough for 1,000 residents. The applicant meets the legal requirement for parking spaces. The site also doesn’t have designated loading areas. The application doesn’t address the need for health care and memory care units until the end of construction. Residents are concerned that the health care units won’t be available to them as all of the assisted living units are filled and there are few memory care units available. The correct density for the site is 418 units, but Lantern Hill is getting an additional 244 units by contributing to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Pasquale asked the Board to deny the application and have Redwood-ERC redesign the site so that it doesn’t just meet the letter of the law.

Scott Zoufaly, 191 Ryder Way, was sworn in. He’s lived in New Providence for 25 years and has attended all of the hearings for the application. Approving the application would be a monumental mistake for the second time. Redwood-ERC is building a city within the town at the maximum density and height. He will lose 15% of daylight in the winter. Redwood-ERC is exploiting New Providence at the expense of the neighbors and has made only a half-hearted attempt to address the neighbors’ concerns. The previous building on the site was reasonable. The proposed site plan is excessive. Mr. Zoufaly would like the Board to suggest that the applicant present a smaller scale project.

Mr. Pantel requested a break to see if he could get Mr. Maltz, Vice President of General Services at Erickson Living, to respond to Ms. Pasquale’s concerns about employee parking. The Board remained on the meeting. Chairman Nadelberg, addressing the members of the public at the meeting, stated that the Board doesn’t make the zoning ordinances. Council determined the zoning requirements for the CCRCO Zone. Mr. Morin added that the Board is responsible for enforcing the zoning ordinances. The applicant has designed the site according to the zoning requirements adopted by Council in 2019, and the Board is constrained by these requirements. These requirements were pre- determined for the Board so it isn’t up to the Board to say it doesn’t approve of the height or other zoning requirements. The Board can, however, impose conditions on the applicant such as the jurisdiction over the landscaping. Chairman Nadelberg stated that the applicant is before the Board for three things only: The change to the original site plan for the left-turn lane on Mountain Avenue, the sign on Mountain Avenue and the waiver for the lights on the driveway on Southgate Road.

Scott Zoufaly, 191 Ryder Way, asked why there was so much discussion when things can’t really be changed.

Mr. Ammitzboll responded that the applicant is before the Board for three variances/waivers, but the Board has latitude: If the applicant wants X, the Board can say it would like Y. The Board is not in a position to demand. The process is a give and take. The Board is doing its best within the jurisdiction it has. The input from the public has resulted in a better application than initially presented with more screening and security gates on Southgate Road that will prohibit visitor and delivery access from Southgate Road.

Robin Wood, 267 Southgate Road, was sworn in and stated that it would have been helpful to have this conversation at the beginning of the hearings as it wasn’t clear what could be questioned.

Rick Maltz, Vice President of General Services at Erickson Living, previously sworn in on January 20, 2021, joined the meeting. Erickson Living does a lot of work on parking and works with its development partners. It has a full parking management program and does a lot or parking analyses. Based on the data analysis at full build, the parking requirements for employees and guests on the site is 391 spaces at the largest shift.. Mr. Maltz believes there is enough parking on the site. Erickson enforces parking on the site and on all of its campuses.

Carole Pasquale, 535 Mountain Avenue, a resident of Lantern Hill, commented that the applicant counted the empty parking spaces for units where the person hasn’t moved in. She reiterated that there will be no designated parking for employees and the designated parking on the site now will be eliminated for the buildings. Eliminating one of the buildings would solve the parking problem as counting the empty spaces before a resident moves in doesn’t solve the problem. Ms. Pasquale suggested leaving the existing employee parking lot and maybe expanding it. With 320 employees now and more for the expansion, where will employees park when the designated lot is eliminated?

Mr. Ping asked how many employees get shuttled to Neighborhood One now. Mr. Maltz didn’t have this information. There are 324 employees now and based on the data analysis, Mr. Maltz believes the 34% increase in the number of spaces over what is required is enough. Mr. Ammitzboll noted that each building has two levels of subsurface parking, so that for each surface parking space that will become part of a building, the applicant will get two spaces back. Dennis Boggio, Lantz Boggio Architects, previously sworn in on January 20, 2021, confirmed Mr. Ammitzboll’s example that if 60 surface parking spaces are replaced with a building with a two-story subsurface parking deck, the applicant will get 120 spaces back.

Mr. Pantel thanked the Board for its attention, patience and diligence. The CCRC is an inherently beneficial use and the application conforms across the board for zoning with minor variances required for the gates in the setback on Southgate Road, the sign on Mountain Avenue which the applicant has agreed to move and the waiver for the lighting on Southgate Road which is a safety issue. The application will have a significant societal benefit for New Providence and the surrounding communities allowing people to age with more flexibility than the options of assisted living or a nursing home. Council recognized this when zoning for the site. The applicant has been responsive to the Board’s requests and concerns. Lantern Hill will be implementing PSAP One Touch to route medical emergency calls to Atlantic Healthcare so that medical response calls will be handled by Atlantic Healthcare and not local emergency services. In response to concerns from the Police Department, the applicant will install a left-turn lane on Mountain Avenue with the occupancy of the third building. This will enhance circulation on the site and improve safety. The applicant agreed to limit access to the site on Southgate Road to residents and employees with the installation of security gates. Redwood-ERC has also enhanced the landscaping and has gone to the maximum with plantings. It will remove the dead ash trees and replace the trees with plantings and has agreed to accelerate the perimeter plantings. Redwood-ERC limited the height of Building 2.5, which is closest to the neighbors, to five not six stories. The shuttle and jitneys will enter and exit the site on Mountain Avenue and South Street not Southgate Road. The applicant has addressed the shadow impact. The buildings will have less of a shadow impact than a 65’ high hotel would have at noon on December 22nd when the shadow can’t extend onto any other property farther than the required setback lines on the property.

The zoning of the property for setbacks and density was approved as part of the Borough’s Affordable Housing Settlement Agreement. Lantern Hill will make a substantial contribution to the Borough’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The site has safe ingress and egress. Lantern Hill is a good neighbor and has been responsive to the Board and the public.

Mr. Pantel requested a four-year extension of vesting beyond the two-year vesting for final site plan approval. The two-year vesting isn’t appropriate because of the pandemic and the 2020 Permit Extension Act: It’s a comprehensive plan and the campus has lots of amenities. The variances requested are minor and Mr. Pantel asked the Board to approve the application.

The Board asked if the applicant agreed to the Board’s request for jurisdiction over the landscaping for five years from the date of issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Pantel confirmed that the applicant agreed to this extension for the jurisdiction over the landscaping. The Board also asked about Ms. Pasquale’s concern about the availability of health care units. Mr. Pantel responded that the phasing plan is flexible and allows for adjustments to the building order. The health care units can be built earlier if necessary: A CCRC isn’t successful if it doesn’t have the health care units.

There were no further questions or comments and the hearing was closed.

Discussion: Mr. Kogan understands the concerns of the neighboring residents but Chairman Nadelberg and Mr. Morin explained that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to the variances requested for the monument sign, the gates in the setback on Southgate Road and the waiver for the lights at the driveway on Southgate Road and approval of the change in the site plan for the left-turn lane on Mountain Avenue. The applicant has compromised. The gates on Southgate Road are a big win. Moving the sign farther east on Mountain Avenue is a good adjustment. The applicant has agreed to more landscaping and earlier planting to provide screening before the complex is completed. He knows the residents are not getting what they want – fewer floors – but there are decent wins for the community. Mr. Ammitzboll agreed. Because of input from the public, the Board was able to get compromises from the applicant including the gates and landscaping. He believes these are good wins considering what could have been developed on the site without having to come to the Board. The application is better than it was when first submitted and it’s beneficial to the town. He understands the parking concerns but the 34% increase over what is required for parking addresses the parking pain on the site now. The neighbors will experience some shadow from the buildings but it’s a 15% or less reduction in sunlight at most on some days. Things could have been worse, but the applicant has agreed to make things better. He likes the concession to increase the length of time that the Board will have jurisdiction over the landscaping and that the applicant is planting to screen the headlights from vehicles exiting the garages that face the neighbors to the north. He is in favor as per the testimony. What bothers Mr. Grob is that the applicant didn’t present the Board with other alternatives earlier on. The site plan has remained the same and all that came out of the hearings are “accoutrements and doodads.” He’s not convinced the left-turn lane on Mountain Avenue is necessary. All the concessions are good and it’s a quality application and product, but there’s still a problem with the site plan and the applicant stating that this is what it’s doing. He’s concerned about the building locations and massing. Mr. Ammitzboll responded that the applicant designed the site to conform to the zoning and he would have been disappointed if the applicant came in with a plan that required major changes. The Board missed the long wall visible from town when it approved Redwood’s first application, but the applicant learned and this application doesn’t create a long wall. Mr. Grob believes the applicant is putting six pounds of sausage in a five-pound casing. Ms. Ananthakrishnan agreed with Messrs. Kogan and Ammitzboll. The applicant was willing to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Ping stated that the Board members have summed things up well and had nothing to add.

Mr. Ammitzboll moved to approve the application as testified with the conditions as testified including, but not limited to: 1) installation of additional trees/plantings, and in some areas, installation of larger trees/plantings, 2) earlier installation of landscaping along the perimeter to allow more growth and screening at the time of occupancy, 4) installation of security gates at the Southgate Driveway, 5) prohibition of delivery truck and jitney usage of the Southgate Road entrance, 6) addition of directional information on the monument sign, 7) relocation of the monument sign, which will remain single sided, at the same angle farther east on Mountain Avenue with the location subject to town approval, 8) Board jurisdiction over the landscaping for five years from the date of issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, 9) revision of the site plan to show that the sidewalk on Mountain Avenue will meander around the trees, 10) maintenance of the gates on Southgate Road which shall not be left in the upright position, and 11) pre-screening of the sanitary sewer discharge on the entire site (Neighborhoods One and Two). Ms. Ananthakrishnan seconded the motion. A resolution will be passed at the next meeting. Members voting in favor: Mr. Ammitzboll, Ms. Ananthakrishnan, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Ping, Mr. Kogan and Chairman Nadelberg. Those opposed: Mr. Grob..

F. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR MAY 3, 2021

Charles and Theresa Magistro Application #2021-08 138 Passaic Street, Block 44, Lot 11, R-2 Zone, New Providence, NJ 07974 Chapter 310, Article VII, Section 310-49 and Article IX, Section 310-56B(2) for permission to construct an addition. The proposed addition is an expansion of a non-conforming use.

Mr. Grob commented that the property has three buildings on it as noted in the prior resolutions.

Corinne and Matthew McGill Application #2021-10 64 Whitman Drive, Block 171, Lot 47, R-2 Zone, New Providence, NJ 07974 Chapter 310, Article IV, Section 310-10, Schedules II & III for permission to construct an addition. The proposed rear-yard setback to the addition is 35.5 feet whereas 41.86 feet is the minimum required. The proposed building coverage is 1,779.34 square feet whereas 1,710 square feet is the maximum permitted.

Steven Kim Application #2021-11 14 Slope Drive, Block 24, Lot 13, R-2 Zone, New Providence, NJ 07974 Chapter 310, Article Iv, Section 310-10, Schedule II for permission to construct a deck. The proposed rear-yard setback is 36 feet whereas 40 feet is the minimum required. The existing shed is 5.48’ from the property line.

G. COMMUNICATION ITEMS

H. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

I. MINUTES FROM April 19, 2021

Mr. Grob noted two corrections and moved to approve the minutes with the corrections. Mr. Ammitzboll seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as corrected.

J. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 p.m.