Due to the lateness of the hour on Tuesday evening Nov. 29, the Maplewood Planning Board decided to carry the review of the site plan for development of 125 Dunnell Road to its regularly scheduled meeting on December 13.

Representatives of JG Petrucci Co. had presented detailed plans for development of the .86 acre site as a 50-unit, four-story multi-family housing development and answered many of the sixteen concerns enumerated by Planning Board Engineering Consultant Bob Bratt in a memo dated Nov. 8. Petrucci was also withdrawing its request for a variance on the required 25-foot front yard setback (Petrucci had wanted a 21-foot setback).

However, Planning Board Chair Tom Carlson said that the Board was requesting that the applicant return at the next meeting with a "more definite and more precise" landscaping plan. "I envision not just location of plantings but location and design of the retaining wall and the impact on all the vegetation going up the slope," said Carlson, referring to the potential loss of trees on the 5 to 12 feet of landscaped area on the hill behind the property due to the installation of a retaining wall to provide space for parking.

Carlson said that, on Dec. 13, the Planning Board would review the landscaping plan, allow for full public testimony and then deliberate on the plan and render a judgment.

Earlier in the meeting Petrucci's engineer David Wisotsky and architect David Minno had responded to many of the concerns in Bratt's memo.

Wisotsky testified that, in light of Bratt's Nov. 8 memo, Petrucci had since met DEP requirements and raised the ground floor one foot above the flood plane level. He noted that the front yard of the property had been altered so that the drop-off area/loading zone only removed a net of three parking spaces (Board member Nancy Adams questioned the need for such a zone; Mayor DeLuca noted that this would be an issue for the Township Committee to decide). Wisotsky said that Petrucci was amenable to suggestions for changes to paving, lighting and landscaping. The one area were his answers seemed deficient was on the question of the rear berm and retaining wall, prompting Carlson's dictate to return for the next meeting with a detailed plan for the area and its vegetation.

Minno, importantly, presented documentation that the building height was 50' all-in from the average grade level. Minno said that air conditioning units and elevator mechanicals on the roof would be screened by the parapet and not exceed the height. Roof access would be for building maintenance only and through hatches.

Minno also testified as to the quality of building materials, LEED application protocols, and interior parking garage doors and lighting. Interestingly, Minno asked that a portico over the main entrance be allowed to display the building's name — as opposed to a monument stone. The portico would project 4 feet. Board Chair Tom Carlson and Board member Jerry Ryan noted that they liked the idea. Carlson asked that the developer make a formal request for the portico; he felt that such a modification would not require a variance since it did not require a foundation or columns to support it. Rather, the sign was supported by wires suspended from the building's facade.

Members of the public who questioned Petrucci's experts often mentioned their discomfort with the size and bulk of the project. In fact, the room buzzed when a crosssection was presented showing the proposed building alongside its neighbors to the east and west; the Petrucci building was noticeable taller and longer.

Peter Steck asked for the total length of the project (225'). He then read a section of the redevelopment plan that stated, "new construction shall be visibly compatible with other structures in the adjacent area."

Maplewood Avenue Joe DePlasco told Petrucci's representatives that he "appreciated greatly the work you're doing." However, he noted that he was "concerned about the bulk and size" of the proposed building as well as what he called the "inconsistency of images," the lack of a visual impact study from properties on Maplewood Avenue, as well as possible sound impact.

Minno reminded commenters that the Township of Maplewood had "created the redevelopment zone with this 50' height. We need the height to make this work economically. This is the massing specified. We are not asking for a variance."

Planning Board counsel Michael Edelson noted that a town could not require a applicant to mollify a situation of deflected sound. "You just can't do that."