October 18, 2012

Mr. Williams stated that the approval of the pharmacy will not change the character of this section of Valley Road. Ms, Weiss referred to Ms. Borg’s report regarding the signage and asked Mr. Williams if they are going to take that into consideration. Mr. Vena stated that the applicant agreed to have the sign reduced, at the last meeting, as per Ms. Borg’s recommendation. Chairman Neuer stated that Mr. Williams report goes back and forth. He said that his original statement was that the pharmacy is for the benefit of the patients and the people in the neighborhood, Chairman Neuer said that Mr. Williams then stated that the original intent for the pharmacy was to serve the patients. Chairman Neuer stated that Mr. Williams testified that did not meet with any of the other Doctors at that location; he just met with Dr. Kadri. He said that the only testimony given before this Board was from Dr, Abbassi stating that 10-15 patients wanted the pharmacy. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Williams how many medical offices in Town have pharmacies in their buildings; Mr. Williams said nonc that he knows of. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Williams how many mom and pop pharmacies have closed in the past years; Mr. Williams said that he did not know. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Williams approximately how far is the Rite Aid pharmacy from the medical building; Mr. Williams said he was not sure but approximated it at 5,000-10,000 ft. There were no more questions for Mr. Williams. Chairman Neuer called for a recess at 9:30 pm. Chairman Neuer resumed the meeting at 9:42 pm. Chairman Neuer advised Mr. Vena that there are only six Board members voting tonight and that the applicant will need five (5) affirmative votes. He asked Mr. Vena if he wants the vote taken by seven members; Mr. Vena said yes. The Chairman said that the Applicant would have to order the transcript from the last meeting on September 20" for Ms. Weiss to read. He told Mr. Vena to sum up tonight and that the Board will deliberate and vote on November 15, 2012. Mr. Grossman said that he recommended that the Board approve this application. He said that the neighborhood will be improved when they climinate the house. Mr. Grossman said that the pharmacy is not a retail pharmacy; just a small one to accommodate the patients. He said that the location will not have the traffic of a large pharmacy. Chairman Neuer noted

. Grossman said that the pharmacy is not a retail pharmacy; just a small one to accommodate the patients. He said that the location will not have the traffic of a large pharmacy. Chairman Neuer noted for the record to have Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2 entered into evidence. [7]

Mr. Vena summed up stating that the removal of the house will enhance the site and increase parking. He said that the sign is needed to perfect the commercial usc and that the location of the sign is compatible with the area. Mr. Vena said that the applicant has agreed to reduce the size as recommended by Ms. Borg. Mr. Vena stated that the pharmacy was requested by the patients and, if approved, it will benefit them. He said that the pharmacy will be located in a 685 sq. ft. area which is less than 10 percent of the size of the building. Mr. Vena stated that they will be limiting it to pharmaceutical and that will limit the walk-in’s; He said that it will not be a mini store. Mr. Vena stated that they have met the positive and negative criteria. Chairman Neuer stated that this hearing is closed and it will continue on November 15, 2012. APPLICATION 2. ZB-12-10/Bell Carried from 9/20/12 Block: 32; Lot: 176.24; Zone: R-5 9 Stanford Court “C” variances for construction of retaining walls EXHIBITS A-1 - Variance Plan sheet 1 of 2 with revision date of 7/12/12 A-2 - Steep Slope Exhibit sheet 2 of 2 — dated 6/7/11 A-3 — Photographs Mr. Buechler recused himself and stepped down from the dais. Mr. Vena, attorney for the Applicant, approached the podium; detailed the application and called his first witness. J. Michael Petry approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Petry detailed his credentials and professional background, He stated that he is a Professional Engineer and Planner and licensed in the State of New Jersey. Mr. Petry stated that he has testified many times before Boards in this capacity. Chairman Neuer accepted his credentials as an expert Professional Planner and Engineer. Chairman Neuer stated that there was a notification in the file, from the Township Tax Collector, that Mr. Bell’s sewer taxes were delinquent; the Board Secretary stated that they have been paid since then. Chairman Neuer stated that the retaining walls have already been installed. He said that in all cases such as this one he advises applicants that it is better to come before this Board and ask for permission rather than to request forgiveness after the fact. 8]

Mr. Petry presented the variance plan, sheet 1 of 2 with a revision date of 7/12/12, and began detailing the variances that the applicant is seeking. Chairman Neuer asked to have it marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Petry presented the steep slope exhibit, sheet 2 of 2 dated 6/7/11, and detailed the slopes on the property from east to west. Chairman Neuer asked to have it marked as Exhibit A-2. Mr. Petry presented photos of the site. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Petry when he visited the site; Mr, Petry said he visited the site in 4/11 and 6/11. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Petry who took the photos and Mr. Petry said his client took the photos and that they accurately depicted the site conditions on those dates. Chairman Neuer asked to have the photos marked as Exhibit A-3. Mr. Petry detailed the neighborhood and the site. He stated that the property is 25,792 sq. ft. Chairman Neuer stated that the application states that the property is 26,000 sq. ft. Mr. Vena asked to have the application amended to 25,792 sq. ft. The request for such amendment was granted by the Chairman. Mr. Petry detailed where the retaining walls were on the site. He described the area as having a deck surrounding an above ground swimming pool and a hot tub. Mr. Sussman questioned one of the photos of one of the retaining wails Mr. Petry presented in Exhibit A-3 and asked if there was a crack in that wall. Mr. Petry said no that it was a pen line that was drawn on the photo. He said that he can verify that there are no cracks on the wall and that he measured the wall and it was straight. Mr. Petry detailed the fencing on top of the retaining wall and stated that it was installed for protection. He said that the applicant did not get the proper permits for the fence and that is why he is before this Board. Mr. Petry said that when the applicant applied for permits for other work, the building inspector advised the applicant that the fencing was installed without permits. Mr. Petry stated that the applicant signed documents with a contractor 5 or 6 years ago, when the walls were installed, and the contractor was responsible for getting the proper permits. Chairman Neuer said that he would like to see the contracts that the applicant allegedly signed. Mr. Petry stated that the 12° wall with the 4’ fence on top of it totals 16’. He said the total height of the wall requires a

t he would like to see the contracts that the applicant allegedly signed. Mr. Petry stated that the 12° wall with the 4’ fence on top of it totals 16’. He said the total height of the wall requires a variance. Chairman Neuer said that on page 2 of the application, the wall is 10°6” and the fence on top of the wall is 5’. He said that Mr. Petry testified that the wall is 12’ and that the fence is 4’. Mr. Vena said, based on the plans submitted, the wall is 12’ and the fence is 4’ high. He said that whatever information he had was on the application when he submitted it. Chairman Neuer said that when this Board gets incorrect information it makes more work for them. Mr. Vena said that he will amend the application to include the correct measurements. Chairman Neuer told Mr. Vena to submit an amended application; Mr. Vena said that they will comply. [9]

Mr. Petry stated that the tiered walls are separate structures and explained why the 4” fence on top of the wall was needed. He said that aesthetically, it does not affect the neighbors because only the applicant can see the wall. Mr. Petry said that the rear of the property cannot be utilized without the walls there because the slopes are severe. He said that he based his testimony on the steep slopes criteria. Mr. Petry stated that the impervious coverage they are proposing is 59.4 percent and 40 percent is allowed. He said this also requires a variance. Mr. Petry said that it is a hardship to limit the applicant to 4,000 sq. ft. of impervious coverage on a 25,000 sq. ft. piece of property. Mr. Petry said that there does not appear to be any signs of drainage issues on the property; he said it can handle the run-off and there is no substantial detriment. Ms. Zaolino stated that the property is barely compliant; pre or post pool installation, Mr. Petry stated that he was talking about the overall lot area; he said that because of the slopes it is reduced to barely compliant. Mr. Bullock asked Mr. Petry if the applicant viewed any of the construction plans for the work done five years ago; Mr. Petry said that the applicant only viewed the finished product. Ms. Gabry stated that the wall encroaches on the neighbor’s property to the north. Mr. Vena stated that that the applicant has an agreement from that neighbor to get an easement if approved. Chairman Neuer stated that he saw two encroachments of walls on the survey; one on the northerly side and one on the southerly side. Mr. Vena stated that the wall on the southerly side has since been removed according to the applicant. Chairman Neuer asked if there is anyone here to testify that it has been removed. Mr. Petry said that he did not see it but the applicant can testify to that. Ms. Weiss stated that she visited the site and, although she was upset that the applicant did not get the proper permits, the property was very impressive. She said that the slope of the land is amazing and that the photos do not do it justice. Chairman Neuer asked why the address for the client on the map is in Livingston. Mr. Bell said that is where he used to work; he said he lived in Warren at one time and worked in Livingston. Chairman Neuer said that to comply with the steep slope ordinance, the area would have

n. Mr. Bell said that is where he used to work; he said he lived in Warren at one time and worked in Livingston. Chairman Neuer said that to comply with the steep slope ordinance, the area would have been designed different. Mr. Petry said that they would have had to design the wall different or come before the Board asking for a variance. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Petry what the purpose of raising the wall was; Mr. Petry said it was done for aesthetics. He said if you tiered the wall, as the ordinance allows, you would have three (3) 6’ walls instead of one 12’ wall. Chairman Neuer asked if three walls would have been more expensive; Mr. Petry said not necessarily but said that it is a little less expensive to build one wall. [10]

Ms. Gabry asked Mr. Petry if they had tiered the wall would they have needed more space or run out of real estate; Mr. Petry said there was plenty of room to tier the wall. He said that in order to tier the wall it would be another 12’ up the hill and they would have had to disturb more of the slope. Mr. Petry said that by constructing a single wall you are disturbing less of the slope. Mr. Bullock asked Mr. Petry if he thinks the wall is solid; Mr. Petry said that he visually inspected it for plumbness and that he saw no bulges in the wall. He said that he believes the wall was constructed correctly. Mr. Vena called his next witness, the Applicant, Harvey Bell. Harvey Bell approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Bell how he initiated the project. Mr. Bell stated that he has children and wanted a play area for them. He said contracted a local contractor, who did work for his neighbors, for the job. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Bell if he had a signed contract with the Contractor; Mr. Bell said yes. He said that the Contractor, Ernest & Sons, said they would handle everything. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Bell if he has a copy of the signed contracts; Mr. Bell said no. He said that he had a flood in his basement and everything was destroyed. Mr. Bell said that when he hired another Contractor to do his sun room, he signed the same contract and got the legitimate permits for that work. Mr, Bell stated, for the record, that he moved to West Orange nine (9) years ago and has developed many friends here. There were no more questions for Mr. Bell. Chairman Neuer asked to have Exhibits A-1, A- 2 and A-3 entered into evidence. Ms. Zaolino recommends, as a condition to the resolution, that the applicant is required to get an easement from the neighbor. Mr. Bullock stated that he feels there are several credibility issues and he is not prepared to vote tonight. He said there were issues with the plans and the permits not being obtained. Mr. Bullock said that, even knowing who the Contractor is, the applicant still could not obtain copies of the contracts and that there is no documentation. Ms. Weiss asked Mr. Bullock if it is true that this Board has had a number of applications with the same situation come before them. Chairman Neuer stated that this Board does not cross examine one another. Ms. Weiss said that she feels that the walls have already

a number of applications with the same situation come before them. Chairman Neuer stated that this Board does not cross examine one another. Ms. Weiss said that she feels that the walls have already been built and that no one has ever complained about them. She said that if this Board votes against the application, the applicant [11]

will be required to take them down. Ms. Weiss said that, whether the applicant was deceived or not, she rather see him do community service rather than having to do that. Chairman Neuer stated that this Board is not an enforcement bureau and that they do not have the power to tell the applicant to take the walls down. He said that the applicant is asking for permission and not forgiveness. The Chairman stated that he visited the house and it is well maintained and attractive. He said that he is inclined not to have this Board punish the applicant aftymore and recommends that they approve. Chairman Neuer said, however, they will not vote on the resolution until the proper easement from the neighbor on the northerly side is presented. Mr. Vena stated that, if approved, the Board will have the easement before the resolution is adopted. Chairman Neuer said that evidence must also be presented that the other encroachment wall and solar panels are removed on the south side. Mr. Bullock asked if they should have the Township Engineer inspect the wall. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Grygiel if a C.O. was required for a wall; Mr. Grygiel said no because a wall is not an occupied space, The Chairman asked how many of the Board members want the Township Engineer to inspect the wall; two Board members voted yes. Chairman Neuer said that is not the majority so they will not require the wall being inspected. Ms. Zaolino stated that if the wall is still plumb after five years, then it was built well. Chairman Neuer made a motion to approve this application; Ms. Gabry seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: Recused Sussman: Yes Bullock: No Weiss: Yes Gabry: Yes Zaolino: Yes Quentzel: - Chairman Neuer Yes Steinhart: Yes Chairman Neuer announced that application ZB-12-15/Pappano that was scheduled to be heard at this meeting, by the applicant’s request, has been carried over to the November 15, 2012 meeting. No further notice is required. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Neuer at 11:03 pm November 15, 2012 ls Oe Y Rose DeSenad” Zoning Board Secretary [12]