M . G NEW YORK A R C H I T E 11 Broadway, Suite 854 New York, NY 10004 Michael@mgnewyork.com 212-674-8456
C
T
S
AN ANALYSIS OF THE ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS AND OPPOSING ARGUMENTS IN REBUTTAL AGAINST THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: NEW MILFORD REDEVELOPMENT ASSOC. MADISON AVENUE NEW MILFORD, NJ Lot: 102 Block: 1309 July 18, 2013
Prepared by: Michael J. Gadaleta, R.A.,AIA MG NEW YORK ARCHITECTS, PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite #854 New York, NY 10004 (212) 674-8456 (Michael@mgnewyork.com)
Page 1
PREFACE
I, Michael J. Gadaleta, R.A., AIA, have been a Registered Architect (#08935) in the state of New Jersey since September 27, 1984; and currently the Principal Architect/Owner of MG NEW YORK ARCHITECT, PLLC. Originally formed in 1986 as M/G Architects. I am a 28 years resident at 270 Demarest Avenue, New Milford, N.J. where I have volunteered my professional expertise to the New Milford Planning Board from 1994 to 2004. I served as CoChairman and later as the Mayor’s appointee. I was elected for two consecutive terms to New Milford Boro council and council president; serving from 1999 to 2004. I also served as council liaison to the Environmental Commission and Mayor’s appointee to the School construction/expansion committee during the Board of Education expansion of the Owens Gibbs Schools. I currently volunteer as a commissioner on the Bergen County Board of Construction Appeals as the expert Architect. My second 5 years appointment. Respectfully submitted
Michael J. Gadaleta, R.A., AIA
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this analysis is to: Provide a comprehensive review of the Engineering documents prepared by L2A Land Design, PLLC; Michael Dipple, P.E. Assess the accuracy of the existing information provided within the engineering documents. Rebuke the testimony of Mr. Dipple and other experts presented on behalf of the development team. Assess the negative impact this development will impose to the surrounding residential neighborhood and adjoining New Milford High School student population. Offer Architectural expert opinion on the overall site plan design, building placement, orientation, and current zoning. Examine proposed entrance/exit locations and traffic flow onto the local residential streets. Document Mayor & Council iniatives to protect the student population at the high school and provide pedestrian safety, traffic calming streetscape improvements in the immediate vicinity. The property lies just south of the Oradell Dam, intersected by the Hackensack River bypass and adjacent to the Hackensack River across Madison Avenue. The proposed development is planned on the largest vacant parcel of land in New Milford, 16 plus acres of which +/- 13 acres is the proposed site.
Page 3
ANALYSIS OF COVER SHEET
DRAWING TITLE: Cover sheet DRAWING NO.: C-01 (dated 11/14/11 revised 12/11/12) C-01 – Cover sheet, key map, tax map with surrounding zoning and property owners within 200’ feet. There are two notations to be clearly understood with this development.
FIRST: Block 1309 – Lot 1.02 Is zoned Residential Zone ‘A’ Single family homes
SECOND: The tax map indicates Commercial zones; they are in the adjoining town of Oradell, on the opposite of the Hackensack River. The subject property is bordered` on all streets located in New Milford by the surrounding Residential zone.
Page 4
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
DRAWING TITLE: Existing Conditions Plan DRAWING NO.: C-02 (dated 11/14/11 revised 12/11/12) C-02 The Existing Conditions Plan delineates the property boundaries, the location of surrounding streets, existing building, and existing tree line buffer on the site. The plan indicates the grade elevations throughout the site with contour lines, setback lines, wetlands, D.E.P. flood hazard & Riparian zone limits. What is not indicated on the existing conditions plan include:  The roadway widths for Main Street, Madison Avenue, River Road, or Cecchino Drive.  The existing roadway barrier at the intersection of Cecchino Drive & River Road. See photo below
Cecchino Drive looking west.
Page 5
 High school student parking along Cecchino Drive, since vacated by the Bergen County. (see exhibit II). See below
 The sidewalks on Madison Avenue or northern side of Cecchino Drive.
Cecchino Drive
Page 6
Madison Avenue - North
 The surrounding intersection of Demarest Avenue & River Road, River Road & Main Street, Main Street & Washington, or Main Street & Lenox Avenue by name.
Page 7
Grade Elevations/Flood Hazard limits The 1980 D.E.P. Flood hazard limit area is indicated on the plan and expert testimony was offered by Mr. Dipple, P.E., stating that the property does not flood, with a small exception along Madison Avenue. Many things have changed in New Milford since 1980, except unfortunately the D.E.P. map. New Milford has experienced 3 major flooding events. Hurricane Floyd (during my tenure on council), September 1999 Hurricane Irene, September 2011, Hurricane Sandy, October 2012 Documentation from USGS indicates that recent flooding events have exceeded EL.18.00’ In the attached marked up plan (indicated in blue) are grade elevation of EL.18.00’ on the site plan and various spot elevations throughout the site plan that are significantly below EL.18.00’. All of the area in the open space is potentially underwater during a hurricane or flooding event. The existing berms along the river bypass as indicated on C-02 have been elevated by the Land owner to elevation 16, 17, 18 – and even as high as 21.50’. This is not a coincidence. The adjoining parcel across the river “Long Point” remains at elevation of 5, 6, and less than 8.00
Page 8
Main Street looking South
Access B Opposite Demarest Avenue is an access gate that was never intended to be improved as the main entrance to any commercial development from this residential street (30’ wide).
Existing access gate looking West
Page 9
Demarest Avenue looking east
Existing Structures 2 buildings, three sheds and a few trailers. Contrary to Mr. Speck the professional planner, this is proof of storage and not “proof of prior construction activity on the site�.
Page 10
ANALYSIS OF OVERALL SITE PLAN
DRAWING TITLE: C-03 – OVERALL SITE PLAN DRAWING NO.: C-03 DATED 11/14/11 REVISED 12/11/12 The Site Plan indicates the proposed construction and orientation of: 1. The Shopping Center, totaling 70,000 sq.ft. 2. The residential building, consisting of 24 dwelling units, totaling approximately 30,000 sq. ft. 3. The Bank, totaling 4,200 sq. ft. 4. Associated parking for 438 spaces. 5. Four above ground penetration/infiltration islands Island 1, triangular shaped approx. 8,500 sq. ft. Island 1A, irregular shaped approx. 16,100 sq. ft. Island 2, triangular shaped approx. 8,400 sq. ft. Island 2A, rectangular shaped approx. 95,000 sq. ft. Total retention island area approx. 127,500 sq. ft. (2.93 ac) 6. Plan indicates proposed internal roadway improvements with access/egress at River Road North onto River Road, again at River Road and Demarest Ave. Main Street at the intersection of Washington Avenue. The plan lacks the physical dimensions of any structures: The Apartment building measures 60 ft x 160 ft long. The Bank measures 60 ft x 70 ft. long. The Supermarket measures approx. 350 ft long x 220 ft wide. The largest island (2), measures approx. 350’ x 270’.
Page 11
Similar to the Existing Condition Plan C-02 there are several vital aspects not indicated on the Overall Site Plan C-03 Excluded from the plan Madison Avenue and Demarest Avenue are not identified. Washington Avenue and Lenox Avenue intersections are not identified. Crosswalks or handicap ramps at River Road & Cecchino Drive. Crosswalks at the intersection of Demarest Avenue. Crosswalks at Main Street & Washington. Signal improvements at Demarest or Washington Ave. which should be required with the proposed road widening, and the introduction of additional turning lane from both directions.
Page 12
ORIENTATION OF STRUCTURES AND SITE PLANNING
The proposed supermarket is orientated towards the residential streets of River Road and Demarest Avenue, despite the availability of more than 300’ of street frontage along the County road, Madison Avenue. The 70,000 sq. ft Supermarket is roughly centered between Madison Ave. & River Rd. The proposed bank is planned at the south/west corner of Cecchino Drive & Milford Ave, opposite the New Milford Senior Center, south of proposed supermarket and across Cecchino Drive from New Milford High School. A 24 unit, 3 story apartment building is proposed just west of the bank, along Cecchino Drive. I personally questioned the engineer, Mr. Dipple, P.E., regarding the building orientation. He discussed that the placement of the proposed structures were directed by the Developers. The placement of the residential building is awkward. The narrow side facing the street and the front entrance facing the retention island 2, to the west. The building is “sandwiched” behind the bank parking lot and retention island. The 24 families residing in the building are bounded on all four sides by parking spaces and access roads. Only 10 feet of front yard and 30 feet of rear yard separate the parking spaces from bedroom windows. The approximately 30,000 sq. ft, 3 story structure is situated on a parcel 100 ft wide by 220 ft. long, curb to curb. 30,000 sq. ft of floor area is on 22,000 sq ft of land. The remaining green space of only 12, 900 sq. ft is shared by the 24 families.
Page 13
The Parking lot for the bank has been oversized to account for the short fall in overall parking requirements. The connection of the residential parking lot to the supermarket and bank parking will ensure a steady flow of shoppers 7 days a week to disturb and endanger residents by vehicular traffic. A better design would have placed the residential building on the residential corner of River Road and Cecchino Drive with a separate parking lot and entrance for their exclusive use. Playground equipment, passive recreation area, or benches have not been planned in the new development for apartment dwellers. The main entrance to the mega supermarket strangely faces the single family residents along River Road and Demarest Ave., utilizing an existing gated entrance that is currently rarely used and always locked. The supermarket design turns its undesirable back side, specifically, the loading docks and truck bays, on to the much heavier traveled Madison Avenue. The often unsightly and unaesthetic loading faรงade will dominate the Madison Avenue streetscape, welcoming travelers to New Milford.
Page 14
The largest by-far manmade feature of the proposal, dwarfing the mega supermarket, is the 95,000 sq. ft. retention island 2. Prominently located along Cecchino Drive opposite New Milford finest structure, the high school is a 350’x 270’ wide, shallow bottom, future mosquito breeding ground.
New Milford High School
Similar retention basin
Page 15
To summarize, the bank is located in the residential neighborhood of River Road. The apartment building is orientated north/south behind the bank instead of the much more desirable location River Road & Cecchino Drive. The residents along River Road are offered the main vehicular entrance to this mega-supermarket, and our neighbors driving through town will have the dirty, grimy loading docks along Madison Ave. to look at each day. A good impression of New Milford for all travelers to see.
Loading dock facility at Paramus Shop Rite
Page 16
ANALYSIS OF C-06 DRAWING TITLE: GRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITY PLAN DRAWING NO.: C-06 DATED 11/14/11 REVISED 12/11/12 The document indicates the final grades established north of the Demarest Avenue intersection in relations to the development. Specifically: The 70,000 sq. ft supermarket with a finish floor elevation of 18.00’ Associated curbs, parking areas, and the northern River Road access/egress driveway The Main Street property line with detention basin 1 and 1-A The western most detention basin 2-A. The Main Street access/egress driveway Various site improvements, such as retaining walls, lighting, sidewalks, and curbs Existing adjacent property at the corner of Main Street & River Road The northern half of the access/egress driveway at the intersection of Demarest Avenue and River Road The western most access/egress driveway onto Madison Avenue As indicated on the document; the northern half of the proposed development is almost all impervious coverage. Due to the aggressive nature of the development; specifically: A Mega supermarket Acres of paved parking areas and access road Large detention basins to collect run-off, parking lot debris, etc.
Page 17
Have left little area of Green Space to allow the natural absorption of rain water into the soil. What is most disturbing is, if a Hurricane event similar to the catastrophic storm New Milford experienced on April 16, 2007, or August 28, 2011 or September 16, 1999, (Hurricane Irene, Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Floyd respectfully). All surface parking below elevation 18.00’ will be under flood waters. All 3 detention basins will be below water. Flood waters will enter the supermarket with several inches of water above the finished floor.
Page 18
The flood chart below, obtained from the United States Geological Society, indicates the flood stage in feet on 4/16/07 was 12.36 feet above the base plane of New Milford which is established at elevation 6.25’.
To do the math,
Base plane Flood stage Total Height of Flood Water
6.25 12.36 18.61
Six inches above the supermarket finished floor.
Page 19
ANALYSIS OF GRADING, DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN-2
DRAWING TITLE: Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan-2 DRAWING NO.: C-07 (dated 11/14/11 revised 12/11/12) The document indicates the development below the Demarest Avenue intersection, adjacent to Cecchino Drive and the High School. Specifically: The Bank The 24 unit Apartment building The southern half of the access/egress driveway at Demarest Avenue and River Road. The Detention Basin 2 The new curb and westerly entrance on to Madison Avenue Various site improvements such as retaining walls, curbs and sidewalks Associated parking areas. As indicated on the document. The southern half of the development site is dominated by the 95,000 sq. ft. Detention Basin 2. Located at the South/West corner of Madison Avenue and Cecchino Drive. Adjacent to the High School are the reserved parking for students along Cecchino Drive right along the southern most property line of the development site. Clearly the Detention Basin needs to be protected by a fence to safeguard the public from access or injury. It is hardly recreation space or any type of site amenity yet, it does not count as site coverage in the Zoning Calculations. Page 20
The more aggressive the development, the more area of detention basin is required. No efforts to Engineer this detention below grade or to preserve the land above for passive/open space, have been explored. Previous earlier documents did include under pavement retention, below the bank parking lot. The problems associated with the bank, apartment building and supermarket sharing a fully connected parking lot have been discussed earlier. Once again, any flooding events in New Milford similar to Hurricane Floyd, Irene, or Sandy will completely inundate the 95,000 sq. ft basin, rendering the basin useless. The flooding even will reach the cars parked at the apartment building. Only the bank has a chance of remaining high and dry, however without electricity.
Page 21
ANALYSIS OF THE TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN
DRAWING TITLE: Tree Management plan DRAWING NO.: C-10 (dated 11/14/11 revised 12/11/12) The development site is dominated by the heavily forested buffer strip of old grown trees along the easterly River Road property line. By the developers own admission, 90,000 sq ft. of forested undisturbed land contains approximately 260 trees. As mentioned, during my term on council, I served as council liaison to the Environmental Commission. The commission, concerned about the steady unchecked destruction of our remaining trees worked with the Mayor & Council to develop a Shade Tree Ordinance. Many neighboring communities were well underway protecting the trees from developers and utility companies. With the assistance of the Environmental Commission members, a Shade Tree ordinance was developed and presented to the Mayor & Council which quickly passed resolution to adopt it. The ordinance recognized the need of property owners to trim and remove unwanted trees and did not prohibit removal, instead only requiring permits and tree removal companies to register. Highlights include: Chapter XXVIA Shade Trees
26A-1 PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to promote the general welfare of the people of the Borough of New Milford by: (i) providing for the regulation, planting, care, control, improvement, removal, preservation, and general protection of trees in such a way as to protect and preserve the environment; (ii) establishing a commission under which Page 22
the Borough’s authority in this regard shall be exercised; (iii) incorporate a community forestry Community Management Plan; (iv) outline requirements for private developers (v) providing for standards and procedures in connection with this purpose; and (vi) prescribing penalties for violations of this chapter. (Ord. No. 2004:08) 26A-2 DEFINITIONS Clear cutting shall mean the removal of all standing tress on a lot or a portion of a lot. Heritage Tree shall mean any tree: (i) with a trunk diameter of thirty-six (36”) inches or measured three (3’) feet above ground level; (ii) of a particular historical significance specifically designated by official action of the Borough; or (iii) over fifty (50) years of age. 26A-6.1 REGULATIONS No person and/or entity who is not deemed to be otherwise exempt, in accordance with this chapter, shall directly or indirectly, without a tree removal permit: (i)cut, break, injure, remove, disturb or interfere in any material manner with any Borough tree. 26A-6.2 TREE REMOVAL PERMITS No tree may be removed in any commercial buffer area or right-of-way without approval. 26A-6.3 DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
Further states: No tree shall be cut or otherwise removed from any lands in the Borough unless a management plan has been approved by the Planning Board and a permit based thereon has been issued by the Code Enforcement Officer. 26A-6.8 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT PLAN AND TREE REMOVAL d. There shall be no clear cutting permitted on slopes of ten (10%) percent or greater in grade, however, selective cutting or thinning is permitted. g. The spirit of the provisions of this section shall be to grant permits, with the understanding that it is the goal of the Borough to maintain aesthetic values, preserve privacy, and maintain drainage control. (Ord. No. 2004:08)
Page 23
26A-3.3 POWERS AND DUTIES The Commission shall have the power to: (i) exercise full and exclusive control over the regulation, planting, and care of shade and ornamental trees now or hereafter located or planted in the Borough on public property.
The intent of the Shade Tree Ordinance was to prevent the indiscriminate removal and “clear cutting” of the last few remaining vacant lots; particularly this subject property. As indicated on C-10 Tree Management plan, the sample areas I & II, only 29 trees were surveyed, but 12 trees were greater than 20” diameter. According to the document the sample area total caliber of the trunk size was 542 inches of tree trunk. Area of total Calper to be removed is almost 5000 inches of trees and that’s only an estimate. The developer clearly has ignored the Shade Tree ordinance prohibiting clear cutting of lots and removal of trees on a slope.
Heritage trees at Cecchino & River Road
Page 24
The developer’s engineer, Mr. Dipple stated under questioning that there are no heritage trees on site. As a registered design professional, R.A., I can clearly visualize that the River Road tree berm does not overlap the footprint of the 70,000 sq. ft. supermarket; in fact only two acres of land have trees out of more than 13 acres. The majority of which is on the westerly streetscape property line along the residential 30’ wide River Road. The aggressive building coverage, impervious coverage, and building placement on the site caused the total destruction and clear cutting of 90,000 sq. ft. of local tree, and ordinance protected woodland of more than two acres. It does not take a professional to quickly realize that with a “sharper pencil”, the developer and the designer would propose a site plan with the intent that every tree should remain if possible, to respect the quiet nature of the residential neighborhood to the east and the learning environment of the high school just a few yards away.
Page 25
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
Main Street to the north is the “neighborhood business” district. This 5 block stretch of mixed use is the northern most mixed use business district. In 2002 the Mayor and Council realized the importance of preserving the neighborhood business in and around the Main Street area. Resolutions were introduced to seek out federal grand money, some with matching taxpayer funds to revitalize the area. The borough was successful and Main Street was redeveloped. Curbs and sidewalks were re-aligned. Parking improvements and traffic calming measures were installed. Along with pedestrian safety improvements. All work was completed The proposed bank is located in the residential district of River Road. The northern property line at Main Street abuts the existing business uses yet the bank is not located with similar uses. In fact, Main Street frontage developed as a residual basin 1 and 1A and an access/egress entrance. Main Street was to become more pedestrian friendly not less. There is no reminder in place to help this Board to consider Main Street’s prior history. See the exhibit III, attached.
Page 26
Demarest Avenue
Washington Avenue
The Grant funded pedestrian safety and streetscape improvements, traffic calming initiated to encourage new neighborhood businesses and stabilize the current business establishments. Additionally, the same Mayor council funded River Road streetscape improvements in the vicinity of our main commercial zone, the location of our existing supermarket, specifically the existing Shop Rite. See Exhibit IV, attached.
River Road looking South
Madison Ave. looking West
Page 27
Increase Car Activity at Built Condition
The traffic information used in the above images was obtained from an analysis of traffic volume performed by Dolan & Dean. Dolan & Dean created charts to show information of both "No Build" and "Build" conditions, performing several studies at peak hours: weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The images above compares both conditions, and if built, notate the amount of increased activity at the surrounding intersections. For example, on a typical weekday, the intersection of Demarest Avenue and River Road will see an increase of 768 cars during peak hours. On Saturday peak hours, the same intersection has an increase of 354 cars. With the proposal, almost every immediate existing surrounding intersection will see an increase of at least 200 cars, with a few reaching more than 500 cars on a daily basis.
Page 28
From the plans presented, all vehicular traffic is designed to disburse thru the narrow residential, sleepy, quiet streets of River Road, Demarest Avenue, Main Street, Washington Avenue, and Lenox Avenue. Only Madison Avenue is a county road and no approvals from the county have been granted. Ironically, Main Street, Washington Avenue, Lenox Avenue, and Boulevard further east are impassible during heavy rain fall.
Demarest Avenue looking East
Main Street looking East
Page 29
Lenox Avenue looking North
Planning Issues: The existing old housing stock of residential and commercial uses at the corner of River Road & Main St. remain unchanged. With 13 ½ acres of proposed development the last ½ acre is untouched. We have not heard any testimony from the Planner, Mr. Speck, or the Developer, on any attempts to acquire these properties by contacting the land owners or any efforts to attain additional street frontage.
Page 30
It would seem prudent for the Developer and the Planner to have explored the few remaining parcels of this desirable corner property and discuss their efforts with the Zoning Board.
River Road & Main Street – West corner
Additionally, no attempts have been made by the developer to conform to the residential ‘A’ Zoning. Building heights for the supermarket and the apartment building exceed what is permitted. The height of the supermarket does not take into account the massive amount of mechanical equipment that will be required. Testimony was heard that only a few units will occupy the rooftop, however, no engineering has been submitted to date. The apartment building could have easily been designed within the 2-1/2 stores permitted. No plans have been presented for the Bank and at this time remains unknown.
Page 31
The mechanical equipment and screening installed at the Paramus Shop Rite encompasses the entire faรงade and adds almost another story.
Paramus Shop Rite
Paramus Shop Rite
We have already discussed the unfortunate location of the bank in the residential zone across from the Senior Center instead of its proper location with other business establishments.
Page 32
LACK OF INFORMATION The developers have turned a deaf ear to repeated requests for additional information. Specifically: Soil test and samples for dangerous carcinogens and heavy metals Soil logs or any geotechnical information to determine the suitability of construction in the historically poor soil capacity of river bank and watershed areas. Additional traffic counts on adjoining streets designed to be impacted by additional traffic. Despite sidewalks appearing and disappearing on various engineering documents. Repeated questioning by myself of the Engineer, Traffic consultants and Planner for off site improvements of curbs, sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian safety measures at Cecchino Drive, Madison Avenue, Main Street, River Road or Demarest have been ignored. The Planner, Mr. Speck, under questioning by a 12 year old grammar school girl advised her to “stay on the sidewalk”. No environmental impact study has been prepared or submitted for review. No clarification or additional measures the Developer has in place to deliver goods and services during a multi day flood event.
Page 33
SUMMARY The developer and his design team have carefully tailored their plans in such a fashion as to appear that this parcel is somehow not an integral part of the fabric of the surrounding neighborhood. It is not located adjacent to an academic environment, a residential neighborhood, quiet streets and children. The developer has ignored the additional impact this project will have on the already flood prone areas by adding acres of impervious coverage. The time is now to prevent any additional development that would so severely affect the property of others. It is consistent with the ancient principal, “sic utere tuo ut aliem non laedas,” or “so use your own property that you do not injure another’s property”. Respectfully submitted
Michael J. Gadaleta, R.A., AIA
Page 34
EXHIBIT I
Michael J. Gadaleta, R.A., AIA 11 Broadway, Suite 854 New York, NY 10004 212.674.8456 michael@mgnewyork.com
Experience 1986-Present Owner
MG New York Architects, PLLC
New York, NY
Education Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY Bachelor of Architecture
1981
Professional Certifications Registered Architect Member 1985 1984 1991 1997
State of New York State of New Jersey State of Pennsylvania State of Connecticut
License # License # License # License #
17474 8935 13113 8751
Professional, Public and Community Service 1985-Present Member
American Institute of Architects
National Organization
1985-Present Member
North Jersey Society of Architects
Northern, N.J.
2004 - Present Member
Bergen County, New Jersey Board of Construction Appeals
Bergen County, NJ
2004-2005 Council President
Borough of New Milford, New Jersey Council
New Milford, NJ
1999-2005 Councilman
Borough of New Milford, New Jersey Council
New Milford, NJ
1994-2004 Co-Chairman
Borough of New Milford, New Jersey Planning Board
New Milford, NJ
EXHIBIT I Michael J. Gadaleta, R.A., AIA
Page:
Two
11 Broadway, Suite 854 New York, NY 10004 212.674.8456 michael@mgnewyork.com Representative Projects Historic
-
55 Wall Street Listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks
-
Bowery Bank - 42nd Street Listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks
-
Renovation of 32-33 Van Houten St.- Congdon Mill - Paterson, NJ Awarded 2010 Outstanding Historic Renovation by the Paterson Historic Preservation Commission
-
Renovation of Worth Street Condominiums - New York, NY
-
19 Market Street - Paterson, NJ
Private Residence
-
Shelter Rock Road -North Hills, NY
-
Bayport Lane - Saddle Rock, NY
-
The Yard
-
119 Court Street - Brooklyn, NY
Restaurants 160 Riverside Boulevard - New York, NY
Multi-Family/Mixed-Use Buildings
-
New building at 148 Madison Street Apartments - New York, NY Victoria Towers - 19 stories
-
New building at 155-161 15th Street - Brooklyn, NY
-
New building at 94 Spruce Street - Paterson, NJ
-
Renovation of Blanca Condominiums at 204-206 East 73rd St- New York, NY
-
Renovation of Marion Street Apartments - Paterson, NJ
-
V.A. Hospital - Various procedure rooms
-
Palisades General Hospital - MRI Suite
Medical