March 20, 2013 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • Page 3 Midland Park Mark Infante’s vision of a Nantucket-style complex on Franklin Avenue in Midland Park received unanimous approval from the board of adjustment last week. “I’m glad it came out positive,” said Infante of the approval after six months of hearings. “I will make it a project this town and I will be proud of. It’s been a dream of mine to build this kind of style,” he added. Infante said he plans to move his corporate office to one of the new buildings. Baseline Associates will build two side by side nearly identical commercial/residential buildings on the one-acre property at199-207 Franklin Ave. The site, which was previously divided into two lots, was occupied by Valley National Bank, a home, greenhouses and a beauty parlor which is still open but will be demolished before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the new complex. The building dates to the late 1800s and is only 2.6 ft. off the sidewalk. The property is zoned for business use, so no use variances were needed for the development, which abuts the R-1 residential zone. Variances were granted for building height, due to the topography; side yard encroachment of retaining walls, and encroachment of balconies into the side yard. A variance was also granted to build two buildings on one lot because the applicant had requested to join the two previous lots into one. In response to comments from residents throughout the hearings and to its own concerns, the board conditioned the approval on several requirements. These include: • Limit uses to trade and service businesses. • No retail, showroom or sales may be conducted on the premises. • No 24-hour operations. • The four garages provided may only be used for parking, not as an extension of the adjoining commercial use, and there may be no storage on porches. • Delivery vehicles must be no larger than box-size, Mixed use development approved for Franklin site such as UPS. • On-site lighting must be placed on timers. • Trash area must be enclosed and trash pick ups monitored for appropriate frequency. • Fencing on the residential side must not exceed 6 ft. in height. • Tenants may not display individual signs. • The board will retain jurisdiction as to when future parking spaces need to be developed. • A road widening easement must be ceded. The project includes two, two-and-a-half story buildings separated by a driveway. One of the buildings will be set back about 25 ft. from the front property line with parking at the rear; the other will be set back about 120 ft. and include parking in the front yard. The first floor of each building will have three commercial units and garage space for two vehicles. The second floor will contain three, two-bedroom apartments featuring modern kitchens and central air. Parking for 34 vehicles is provided, with five additional spaces allocated for future expansion. Existing trees on the residential property line were retained for greater buffering, and the retaining wall around the property will be tiered and heavily landscaped. Board engineer Richard Wostbrock suggested the easterly building be moved about 40 ft. to the front of the property for better function of the sewer connection and to lessen soil removal. He said this would provide more uniformity with neighboring houses and better shield the neighbors from the development. He also suggested locating all four garages in the easterly building and removing knee walls on that building for easier handicapped access. The applicant’s attorney, Jay Atkins, rejected the changes, noting that they did not meet his client’s concept for the development. “These changes would be devastating to our project. We will not redesign,” Atkins said. He noted that as pro- posed the project had eliminated old non-conforming uses, and the site would now be beautifully landscaped and fit into the neighborhood. Board Chairman Linda Herlihy said the board had not heard enough testimony to support the recommended changes. During the public portion of the meeting, neighbor Norma Bardzell said she felt the proposal should be scaled down, noting that it would devalue her property and her quality of life. Her son, Gary Bardzell, supported moving the building forward, which he said would help his parents’ property value. Another neighbor, Nancy Bargmann, said she felt the (continued on page 13)