September 20, 2012

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on September 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM at 66 Main Street, West Orange, N.J. in Council Chambers. Chairman Neuer called the meeting to order at approximately 8:00 P.M. It was announced that notification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, the West Orange Chronicle, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board on November 29, 2011 in accordance with the “Open Public Meetings Act.” Chairman Neuer asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney, read the Opening Statement. PRESENT: B. Buechler, G. Bullock, D. Gabry, P. Neuer, B. Quentzel, W. Steinhart, M. Sussman, L. Zaolino ABSENT: A, Weiss (excused absence) ALSO PRESENT: P. Grygiel, Consulting Planner/Acting Planning Director E. Keller, Consulting Engineer Board Attorney, Alice Beirne, Esq. Board Secretary, Rose DeSena ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Meetings: October 18, 2012 (Regular Meeting) ~ 8:00 PM November 8, 2012 (Special Meeting) — 8;00 PM November 15, 2012 (Regular Meeting) - 8:00 PM December 20, 2012 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM MINUTES Adopt Minutes: August 16, 2012 (Regular Meeting) Chairman Neuer asked the Board if they had any comments regarding the minutes from the regular Zoning Board meeting held on 8/16/12, Seeing none, the Chairman asked for a motion to approve. Ms. Gabry made a motion to adopt the minutes as presented; Mr. Buechler seconded the motion. All were in favor.

OLD BUSINESS Chairman Neuer began the discussion by noting that there was a gentleman in the room snapping photos. He explained that at the last Zoning Board meeting it was decided that the Rules of Procedures for the Zoning Board of Adjustment, regarding videotaping and still photography, needed to be updated. Chairman Neuer said that Mr. Steinhart suggested that they “catch up with the times” and so a committee was formed, chaired by Mr. Steinhart, to suggest guidelines that would allow still photography. Chairman Neuer stated that case law says that photography although not a constitutional right is still recognized as a protected right, subject to the establishment of reasonable conditions. He said that the Rules of Procedure currently approves videotaping and this Board is about to approve still photographing and establish guidelines for it. Chairman Neuer called on Mr. Steinhart to present the Committee’s recommendations. Mr. Steinhart stated that the Committee met and discussed the rewrite of the current policy. He said that they consolidated all recording devices under the definition “recording devices”. Mr. Steinhart stated that the Committee set forth guidelines that were deemed appropriate to maintain order at the meetings and read the Committee’s recommendations for Rule 5.11 on the Policy on the Use of Recording Devices and read point’s a-j as follows: a. The use of a recording device requires approval by the Chairperson. Requests for approval shall be made no less than seven (7) days before the scheduled meeting date. Late requests, and requests made on the scheduled meeting date, will be considered by the Chairperson on a case-by-case basis. b. Request for approval shall be considered on a first come first serve basis. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. ce. All recording devices must be silent, and must be small enough that their presence and/or operation do not interfere with the meeting and the Board’s proceedings. d. The use of flash and/or other means of lighting is prohibited. e. No recording device shall interfere with the equipment of the Board’s officially designated recording/transcription service and the record/transcript provided by the officially designated recording/transcription service shall be the sole official record of the meeting. f£ No recording device shall block or interfere with any person’s

d/transcript provided by the officially designated recording/transcription service shall be the sole official record of the meeting. f£ No recording device shall block or interfere with any person’s ability to hear and/or see all testimony, exhibits and evidence. Toward this goal, all recording devices shall remain in the third row or further back in the audience and the operator of a recording device shall remain seated while the meeting is in session. If the operator of a recording device wishes to stand while the meeting is in session, they shall be required to stand at the rear of the meeting room behind the last row of seating. An exception shall be granted for an applicant’s own stenographer who may be seated in the front row during testimony for said applicant’s presentation to the Board. g. No recording device shall be placed on any podium or on any other surface within ten (10) feet of where the Board sits or may deliberate.

h. The Township, this Board and all Members thereof shall not be responsible for any damage to or malfunction of any recording device. i. No recording device shall block any aisle or other method of ingress/egress. j. No recording device shall be left unattended at any time. Mr. Steinhart stated that the idea was to allow recording devices without interfering with Board activities or the public being able to see or hear testimony of the case. Chairman Neuer asked if any Committee member did not want one of the conditions that Mr. Steinhart read. Ms. Zaolino stated that she is not in favor of any requirement for advance approvals. Mr. Sussman stated that he felt that the Board is in its purview to limit the number of devices which would eliminate the potential to disrupt the hearing. Advance notice will help to control this aspect. Mr. Steinhart read a memo from Chairman Neuer that listed his suggestions. The suggestions were that each requestor must agree to be bound by the provisions of Rule 5.11 in conducting their activities during the Zoning Board meetings, that the location be moved back to the fifth row and not the third row and that with regard to item h, that it should read The Township and all Members of the Zoning Board shall not be responsible for any damage to or malfunction of any recording device. Ms. Zaolino stated that she had a problem with the location being moved back to the fifth row; Mr. Steinhart and Mr. Sussman stated that they did not have a problem with that. Mr. Steinhart stated that be is in agreement with the Chairman’s suggestions and recommends that they are incorporated into the Committee’s conclusion. Chairman Neuer asked if there were any other comments from the Committee. Mr. Sussman stated that he is fine with the Chairman’s suggestions. Ms. Zaolino stated that she does not disagree with any of the Chairman’s suggestions except for the location being moved back to the fifth row. Mr. Steinhart stated that Chairman Neuer offered another suggestion requiring the videographer or photographer to deliver electronic versions of the recordings and photos to the Board Secretary within one week so that they may be made available to the general public upon request. Mr. Steinhart stated that, although he understands the greater purpose of everyone having access to it, he does not agree that it should be a condition to turn

ble to the general public upon request. Mr. Steinhart stated that, although he understands the greater purpose of everyone having access to it, he does not agree that it should be a condition to turn it over. Chairman Neuer stated that it would be a copy and not the original; Mr. Steinhart said that he understands that. Mr. Sussman stated that if they are required to turn it over, how would the public access it; would they have to go to the Board secretary’s office to view it? Ms. Zaolino stated that this is unenforceable and that it is their personal property. Chairman Neuer stated that they would be asked to turn over a copy of what they recorded at the meeting; not the original copy. He explained that this is not intended to impose a hardship upon them; it is just so the end product can be seen by the general public. Chairman Neuer also stated

that it does not say that they must provide a copy and if the Committee is opposed, then the Board must vote on it. Mr, Steinhart said that if the New York Times came to take a photo, would they be required to turn over a copy of the photograph. Chairman Neuer said yes; why not. Mr. Sussman said is there any validity in considering how they look at a member of the press as opposed to a member of the public, Chairman Neuer said that, in the two cases that he read, he did not see any difference in public and press. Mr. Steinhart stated that he does not have any experience in working with the media but it is his opinion that they would not turn it over. Chairman Neuer stated that Ms, Zaolino is not in favor of moving back to the fifth row but is in favor of the third row. He said that she is not in favor of prior approval and is against the photographer delivering a copy of the photo or video. Chairman Neuer asked for a motion to adopt the amendment, Mr. Buechler stated that he has some changes and noted them to the Board. He said in paragraph a his suggestions are: to change it to 7 calendar days and that the requests may be granted or denied by the Chairperson on a case by case basis; paragraph f he suggests including: that an exception may be granted for an applicant’s own stenographer who may be seated in the front row during testimony for said applicant’s presentation to the Board, if permission for the stenographer is granted by the chairperson at the meeting; paragraph g he suggests that it read: any recording device shall be placed on any podium or any other surface in the fourth row or further back from where the zoning Board sits or may deliberate; paragraph h he suggests that it read: the Township, the Zoning Board and members of the Zoning Board shall not be held tesponsible for any damage to or malfunction of any recording device. Mr. Buechler said that he also suggests adding paragraph k stating that the Board and the Township will not guarantee the provision of any electrical supply for their recording equipment. He also stated that to require any person to provide a copy of a photo or video to the Secretary is a little overboard and goes a little too far. Mr. Quentzel said that he agrees that they should have a copy of the photo or video in case there is any editing done by the person recording it. He said that the copy would become part

tle too far. Mr. Quentzel said that he agrees that they should have a copy of the photo or video in case there is any editing done by the person recording it. He said that the copy would become part of the file and not the proceedings. Mr. Bullock said that Mr. Quentzel has raised a good point and he used the Seton Hall application hearing as an example. He said that the person who videotaped that hearing did get prior approval but he always wondered what he intended to do with the video. Mr. Bullock said that he was very uncomfortable with that person videotaping that hearing and that he thinks that providing a copy is a good idea. He said that the Board must maintain some control. Ms. Zaolino said that she understands but stated that the Zoning Board is a public body and they cannot control what people do. Chairman Neuer said that the purpose of this is to create openness and give any member of the public the opportunity to view it. Mr. Buechler stated that the copy cannot be part of the file because it was not presented by the applicant, the objector or the Board.

Chairman Neuer asked for a motion for the adoption of the amendment, with the Board agreeing to change paragraph h from the 5" row to the 4" row and with the suggestions made by Mr. Buechler. Mr. Steinhart made a motion for the adoption of the amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Zoning Board of Adjustraent; Mr. Sussman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: Yes Sussman: Yes Bullock: Yes Weiss: - Gabry: Yes Zaolino: No* Quentzel: Yes Chairman Neuer Yes Steinhart: Yes *Vote allowed by Chairman Neuer as a courtesy due to Ms. Zaolino having served on this committee, There was no motion made regarding providing copies of the photos/video to the Board Secretary. DISCUSSION « Chairman Neuer stated that the Board had received a copy of the “land swap” deed for Cambria Suites that was filed with the Essex County Registrar’s Office. He noted that they were in compliance with the requirements of the approvals that were granted by the Zoning Board, *Note for the record that Mr, Steinhart was recused from hearing this application. ¢ Chairman Neuer stated that Robert Williams, Esq. has requested special Zoning Board meetings for the following applications: 1. ZB-08-37/Seton Hall Prep application 2. ZB-12-20/First Hartford Realty Corp./Designated Agent for CVS application The Board selected Thursday, October 11, 2012 as the special meeting date for the Seton Hail application. It was noted by Mr. Keller that Seton Hall was required to resubmit revised plans for this application. The Chairman asked the Board Secretary to reach out to Mr. Williams to sec if they could notice and have the plans resubmitted by that date. Mr. Buechler said that if Mr. Williams is not able to, then to advise the Board right away. Chairman Neuer asked the Board Secretary to send a blast email to all of the Board

members to confirm. The Board selected Thursday, November 8, 2012 as the special meeting date for the CVS application. Chairman Neuer asked the Board Secretary to confirm this date with Mr. Williams also. ¢ Chairman Neuer asked the Board members if they reviewed the West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting Schedule for 2013 and if any member had a problem with any of the dates. Seeing none, The Chairman asked for a motion to adopt the West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Mecting Schedule for 2013. Mr. Buechler made a motion to adopt and Ms. Gabry seconded the motion. All were in favor. SWEARING IN Consulting Engineer, Eric Keller and Consulting Planner for the Township, Paul Grygiel were sworn under oath. RESOLUTIONS 1 ZB-12-08/617 Mt. Pleasant Avenue Assoc., LLC Approved 8/16/12 Block: 170; Lot: 15.05; Zone: R-2 612 Mt. Pleasant Avenue Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval with "D" variances for height and “C” variances to establish a veterinary hospital Chairman Neuer stated that there were two revisions of this resolution and asked if any Board member had any comments. Mr. Buechler stated that one of his comments was not incorporated and referred to page 10, condition 1 regarding the hours of operation. Ms. Beirne stated that she changed it to read that the hours of operation will be limited to, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:00 pm, three days a week, with two weekday late days up to 8:30 p.m., Saturday morning hours only, no Sunday Hours and no late night emergencies after 7:00 p.m. Chairman Neuer stated that there were certain requirements that the applicant did not meet; the revised plans were duc ten (10) days before the hearing and they were submitted on Tuesday of this week. He said that Mr. Keller took the time to review them and issue a report the next day. Chairman Neuer siated that on pages one and two of Mr. Keller’s report, there were some items that should have been on the plans and asked if the resolution should be held up because of this. Mr. Keller stated that he recommends changing condition 6 in the resolution to reflect that no final plans for construction permits will be signed until the plans incorporate the additional variances requested,

Chairman Neuer asked for a motion to approve this resolution with the added condition that was recommended by Mr. Keller. Mr. Sussman made a motion to approve; Mr. Buechler seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: Yes Sussman: Yes Bullock: Yes Weiss: - Gabry: Yes Zaolino: - Quentzel: - Chairman Neuer Yes Steinhart: Yes APPLICATION 1. ZB-12-03/DEKAB, LLC Carried from 7/19/12 Block: 18; Lots: 27 & 29; Zone: R-M. 372 Valley Road Secking a “D” variance for use and three (3) “C” variances for parking, lot coverage and signage. EXHIBITS A-1 - Site Plan revised 7/2/12 A-2 — Site and Area Description (2 pages) Joseph Vena, Esq, attorney for the applicant, approached the podium. He began by listing the names of the owners of DEKAB, LLC and spelled their names for the record. Mr. Vena briefly detailed the application and what occurred at the last meeting on 6/14/12, He stated that, since then, the applicant has eliminated the use of the second floor of the building as a conference room which was being proposed at the last meeting. He said that they have decided to keep the original use that was approved for that area. Chairman Neuer clarified by stating that the second floor was limited to storage only. Mr. Vena stated that the only change will be to the interior. He said that the applicant is requesting a use variance for establishing a small pharmacy on the first floor, within what is now a storage area, and noted that revised plans were submitted. Mr. Vena stated that the applicant is proposing to purchase and demolish a residence that borders the property for the purpose of increasing parking. He said that they will also be installing a free standing sign.