Politics & Government

Planning Board to Review Site Plan for 125 Dunnell

A special meeting on Nov. 29 has been called to review the plan for the new multi-unit housing development proposed for the former police station site.

JG Petrucci Co. will be answering several concerns enumerated by the Planning Board's engineer — including some related to building height, flood plain elevation and tree removal — when it presents the site plan for the development of 125 Dunnell Road at a special meeting of the Maplewood Planning Board on Nov. 29.

A memo dated Nov. 8 from the Planning Board engineering consultant Bob Bratt outlined a list of 16 concerns; however, a representative of Petrucci says that the builder will address those concerns as part of the presentation to the Planning Board on Tuesday.

Petrucci's application is for a new four-story residential building. The ground floor of the building contains an entrance lobby, mechanical and utility rooms and 37 in-building parking spaces (with the remaining spaces in a rear lot). Three floors of residential units and a fitness room are located above.

Find out what's happening in Maplewoodwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The 50 apartment units break down into 38 one-bedroom and 12 two-bedroom units.

Petrucci r from the town in early October for a price of $1.75 million (with up to $500,000 set aside for environmental reclamation). The sale of the property is contingent upon receiving all approvals for development.

Find out what's happening in Maplewoodwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The development of the parcel is governed by the Dunnell Road Police Building Redevelopment Plan which . The site plan complies with the plan except in one instance — where a variance is requested to reduce the required 25-foot frontyard setback to 21 feet.

Some residents of Maplewood have expressed concerns about the possible bulk of the building throughout the redevelopment plan process and concerning the proposed Petrucci project.

Bratt states that the application is substantially complete but that "there are a number of issues which must be addressed by the applicant, either in testimony or by means of revised/supplemental plans."

Some of those concerns include the following:

  • While the site plan complies with federal guidelines established in 1977 for a 100-year flood elevation, it does not comply with the current NJDEP regulation requiring the building to be elevated at or above the base flood elevation — which is 1.4 feet higher than the 1977 federal standard.
  • Bratt is also asking for more specifics on how the developer will obtain LEED certification for the building.
  • The drop off area and wide curb cuts proposed for the driveways displace commuter parking across the frontage of the site. Bratt wants the developer to demonstrate need or remove them from the plan.
  • Bratt is requiring a sanitary sewer service report for the site to be approved before construction can begin — if the Planning Board approves the project.
  • Bratt wants a clearer description of materials to be used on the building since "artificial building material or materials that imitate another are not permitted."
  • Screening of rooftop mechanical equipment is required. Bratt wants an indication of what rooftop mechanical equipment is proposed and a sight lines study to assure that the screening is effective from all perspectives — including from homes along Maplewood Avenue.
  • Bratt questions whether the proposed wall pack lights on the building will meet the requirement to provide lighting fixtures "consistent with the street lighting provided on Dunnell Road or in the downtown area."

Bratt states that "the plans indicate that all trees in the entire embankment area at the rear of the building are to be removed." He questions whether this is necessary and wants the applicant to indicate how the stability of the bank will be maintained, how the wall will be constructed, when approval of NJTransit was obtained for the project, and how the historic preservation component of the work will be addressed.

Another big question: Bratt says that no calculation or drawings have been provided to support the assertion that the building will be no higher than 50 feet from the average ground grade.

An number of other points deal with paving, lighting, the configuration of the storm drainage system and masking interior parking.

The full application with drawings and Bratt's memo are attached. The meeting is scheduled for Nov. 29 at 8 p.m. at the .

Dan T. Lacz of Petrucci told Patch, "We have carefully considered the comments from the Borough's professionals and will address them as part of our presentation to the Planning Board. We appreciate the cooperative nature of the Village Alliance and local residents regarding the development.  "


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here