November 15, 2012

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING November 15, 2012 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on November 15, 2012 commencing 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, W. Merklinger, P. Neuer, B. Quentzel, W. Steinhart, M. Sussman, A. Weiss ABSENT: L, Zaolino (excused absence) ALSO PRESENT: P. Grygiel, Consulting Planner/Acting Planning Director Alice Beirne,Esq., Board Attorney. Rose DeSena, Board Secretary Harvey Grossman, Public Advocate ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Meetings: December 6, 2012 (Special Meeting) — 8:00 PM December 20, 2012 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM January 10, 2013 (Special Meeting) — 8:00 PM January 17,2013 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM « Application ZB-12-19/Rustagi originally scheduled to be heard at this mecting, will be carried to the Zoning Board’s regular meeting on 12/20/12 per the applicant’s request. Chairman Neuer asked the applicant for ZB-12-17/Blake to approach the podium, Mr. & Mrs. Blake approached the podium. ‘The Chairman explained to the applicant that the meeting is closed at 1! pm and there may be a chance that they will not be heard tonight because they are last on the agenda. He told them that they could wait it out to see how the meeting progresses and he will discuss them their desire, at that later time, to request an adjournment. The applicants agreed to wait. [1]

MINUTES Adopt Minutes: October 18, 2012 (Regular Meeting) Chairman Neuer asked the Board members if they had any comments regarding the minutes from the regular Zoning Board meeting held on October 18, 2012. Seeing none, the Chairman asked for a motion to approve. Mr. Buechler made a motion to approve the minutes; Ms. Gabry seconded the motion and all were in favor. SWEARING IN Consulting Planner for the Township, Paul Grygiel, was sworn under oath. RESOLUTIONS 1. ZB-12-10/Bell Approved 10/18/12 Block: 32; Lot: 176.24; Zone: R-5 9 Stanford Court “C” variances for construction of retaining walls Chairman Neuer made a motion to adopt resolution ZB-12-10/Bell; Ms. Weiss seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: Recused Steinhart: Yes Bullock: - Sussman: Yes Gabry: Yes Weiss: Yes Merkdinger: - Zaolino: - Quentzel: - Chairman Neuer Yes It was noted, for the record, that Mr. Buechler was present but not voting. It was noted, for the record, that Mr. Bullock was present but not voting. APPLICATION i. ZB-12-03/DEKAB, LLC + Carried from 10/18/12 Block: 18; Lots: 27 & 29; Zone: R-M 372 Valley Road Seeking a “D” variance for use and three (3) “C” variances for parking, lot coverage and signage. DISCUSSION Joseph Vena, Esq., attorney for the applicant, approached the podium. Mr. Vena stated that the only issue, regarding this application, is the vote. [2]

Chairman Neuer asked if any member of the public would like to offer any commentary or testify; seeing none the record was closed by the Chairman. Chairman Neuer asked to have Exhibits A-1 and A-2 entered into evidence and opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Buechier stated that he thinks the consolidation of the lots to increase parking is a great thing but he opposes the onsite pharmacy. He said that the Planners testimony did not demonstrate the negative and positive criteria for the variances relating to this use. Mr. Buechler said that he believes there is not truly a need for a pharmacy because there is a pharmacy about a quarter of a mile down the road. He said that he recommends approving the parking but not the pharmacy. Ms. Gabry stated that her concern is the security issues for the pharmacy and she agrees with Mr. Buechler. She said that so few people will be interested in using it and it does not serve all the needs of the patients. Mr. Buechler stated that Dr. Abbassi testified that 2 to 3 years ago there were 10 to 15 patients that were interested in having a pharmacy onsite. He said when Dr. Abbassi was asked how many patients he had, he said approximately 10,000; Mr. Buechler said that, in his opinion, this does not constitute a need for the community. Mr. Bullock stated that he understands the concern for the justification of the pharmacy but in this part of town the pharmacy would be beneficial. He said that he thinks the benefits outweigh the negative aspects of it. Mr. Bullock also stated that, in regards to the concern about narcotics being distributed on a Saturday, the Pharmacist has the legal responsibility for that; not the Doctors. He stated that the applicant did satisfy the criteria for the pharmacy and that he would approve it. Mr. Steinhart stated that, for reasons Mr. Bullock expressed, he would also vote in favor of this application. Ms. Weiss said that she agrees with Mr. Buechler and Ms. Gabry but she agrees more with Mr. Bullock and Mr, Steinhart. She said that she does not think it will be a traffic issue or outsiders will utilize the pharmacy. Ms. Weiss said that the positive outweighs the negative and that she will vote to approve this application. Chairman Neuer stated that he agrees with Mr. Buechler and Ms. Gabry. He said that he finds the presentation of Mr. Williams, as a Planner, deficient and that

e will vote to approve this application. Chairman Neuer stated that he agrees with Mr. Buechler and Ms. Gabry. He said that he finds the presentation of Mr. Williams, as a Planner, deficient and that neither the negative nor positive criteria was satisfied. The Chairman stated that the pharmacy is not permitted in this zone and that he did not hear any testimony that established a compelling a need for it. He observed that Mr. Williams stated that the pharmacy was to service the patients but yet Dr. Abbassi said that only 10 or 15 patients requested it. Chairman Neuer stated that there is a pharmacy approximately 500 ft. away and that the neighborhood does have one to serve them. He said that he did not accept Mr. Williams’s testimony at all. The Chairman said that the addition of two employees for the pharmacy does not improve the economy and that the testimony did not establish that the negative criteria have not been proven. Chairman Neuer described Mr. [3]

Williams’ testimony as rife with net opinions which were not supported by underlying facts and analysis so that the planning testimony was not entitled to great weight. Chairman Neuer said that he suggests that they approve the application, except for the two “D” variances, and noted that he thinks the other part of the application is an improvement. Chairman Neuer asked for a motion for the “DD” variances; Mr. Buechler made a motion to deny the application requesting the “D” variances and Ms. Gabry seconded the motion. Before the Board Secretary called for the vote, the Chairman stated that the vote will be “yes” to deny the “D” variances and “no” to approve the “D” variances. The vote was as follows: Buechler: Yes Steinhart: No Bullock: No Sussman: No Gabry: Yes Weiss: Yes Merlkdinger: - Zaolino: - Quentzel: - Chairman Neuer Yes Chairman Neuer stated that, by law, the “D” variances are denied due to the failure of the applicant to receive five votes in favor of those variances. Chairman Neuer asked for a motion for the “C” variances; Mr. Buechler made a motion to approve with the following conditions: the free standing sign will be permitted for identification of the Doctors, the first floor will be used for storage only and remain as is, signs marked “employee use only” posted on both staircases, employees will park only in the seven spaces provided for them in the Municipal parking lot and the second floor will be used for storage and an employee room only. Chairman Neuer told Mr. Vena to amend the application for the following: Omland Engineering report dated 5/11/12, item #12 on page three referring to conditions of prior approval stating that there will not be any storage on the first floor. Mr. Vena said that was a condition based on the pharmacy going there and the application was so amended. Chairman Neuer suggested the following conditions, referring to item #13 in Omland Engineering report dated 5/11/12 regarding the applicant expanding the irrigation system to the new landscape areas, item #14 regarding replacing the front sidewalk within six months and adding a second handicap parking spot so that the resolution will state that there are two handicap parking spots. Mr. Buechler stated that he accepts the Chairman’s conditions. Ms. Weiss seconded the motion to approve. [4]

The vote was as follows: Buechler: Yes Steinhart: Yes Bullock: Yes Sussman: Yes Gabry: Yes Weiss: Yes Merklinger: - Zaolino: - Quentzel: - Chairman Neuer Yes It was noted for the record that Mr. Buechler and Mr. Vena are conferring in regards to the fence. It was noted that the existing fence will come down and a new fence will be erected. 2. ZB-12-15/Pappano Carried from 10/18/12 Block: 159.08; Lot: 37.01; Zone: R-5 6 West View Road “C” variances for rear yard setback and lot coverage to build an addition. EXHIBITS A-1 — Site Plans (revision date of 10/18/12) A-2 — Planners report (revision date of 10/19/12) DISCUSSION Chairman Neuer asked the applicant to approach. Vincenzo Pappano approached the podium and was sworn under oath. The Chairman stated that Geoffrey Gogan prepared a lot of the work on this application and asked Mr. Gogan to approach. Geoffrey L. Gogan approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Gogan detailed his educational and professional background stating that he is a licensed Planner and a licensed Architect in the State of New Jersey and that he will be testifying as both this evening. Chairman Neuer accepted Mr, Gogan as an expert witness in the fields of Architecture and Planning. Chairman Neuer stated that the applicant submitted a letter to the Board today. He said that the Board Secretary had Mr. Lepore opined earlier this evening that his predecessor, Mr. McCann, and the applicant had come to an agreement regarding the rear property line. Chairman Neuer stated that the new plans were accepted and have become part of the record. Mr. Pappano stated that, while married, he and his wife purchased a home on West View Road and that is where he lived until their divorce. He explained that after the divorce he decided to buy another house for himself on West View Road so that he could spend time with his children. [5]

Mr. Pappano said that the house had two bedrooms and it was perfect for him and his two daughters while they were young. He said that now that they are older, he needs the additional space for another bedroom so that they can have sleep-over’s and play dates with their friends. Ms. Weiss stated that one of the Planner’s concerns was the location of nearby neighbors. Chairman Neuer stated that Mr. McCann, one of Mr. Pappano’s neighbors, was here and asked if any other neighbors were present; secing none the Chairman stated for the record that there was no opposition. Mr. Buechler stated that the Planner also talks about a ditch and asked Mr. Pappano if it was on his property or not. Mr. Pappano stated that his Architect will answer that question. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Pappano if he was going to match the materials used for the addition to the existing house; Mr. Pappano said that they are going re-side the entire house and replace the roof. Chairman Neuer opened the floor to the public for questions to be addressed to this witness. There were no more questions for Mr. Pappano. Mr. Gogan presented site plans with a revision date of 10/18/12. Chairman Neuer asked to have the site plan drawings C-1 to A-7, with a revision date of 10/18/12, marked as Exhibit A-1 for identification. Mr. Gogan referred to sheet C-1 and noted where Mr. Pappano and Mr. McCann’s property lines abut. He stated that the “ditch” was never on Mr. Pappano’s property line. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Gogan if the ditch was ever part of his client’s property when they ran their calculations; Mr. Gogan stated that it was surveyed as off of the property. Mr. Sussman asked Mr, Gogan if he prepared Exhibit A-1; Mr. Gogan replied yes. Mr. Sussman referred to an arrow on the tax maps of drawing C-2 of the plans and asked Mr. Gogan if he put the arrows there; Mr. Gogan replied yes. Mr. Sussman referred to the tax maps on drawing C-2 of the plans and asked Mr. Gogan who put the two tax maps together, Mr. Gogan said that someone in his office prepared the tax maps. Mr. Gogan stated that he first thought it was a ditch on the property line and then he realized that there was no ditch there. He said that it is just a low line area of the property that redirects the storm water into West View Road. Mr. Gogan stated that there is a change to the impervious coverage. He said that on the

re. He said that it is just a low line area of the property that redirects the storm water into West View Road. Mr. Gogan stated that there is a change to the impervious coverage. He said that on the original application he had measured the impervious to the curb line. Mr. Gogan said that after concurring with Mr. Lepore, the impervious should only extend to the front property line. He stated that after recalculating the impervious coverage they will be under the 45% as allowed and they will not need the “C” variance. Mr. Gogan began detailing the storm drain, on drawing C-3, stating that it will allow for any overflow. He also detailed the tree protection fence that will be installed if needed. Mr. Gogan stated that the applicant is proposing a modest addition to his home and that the building will still be within the same ratio with the improved lot area. 6]

Mr. Gogan presented drawing A-1, noting the low ceiling in the basement, and drawing A-2 detailing the main floor plan. He noted on drawing A-2 of the plans where the applicant is proposing the rear family room addition. Mr. Sussman questioned the notation on drawing A-2 regarding a gas fireplace being installed somewhere; Mr. Gogan stated that the gas fireplace is not pertinent to the application. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Gogan if there will be any sleeping quarters in the basement; Mr. Gogan replied no. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Gogan if there is any egress from the basement besides the staircase, Mr. Gogan replied no. Mr. Buechler stated that one of the conditions would be that the applicant cannot use the downstairs basement for sleeping because of only one egress and ingress. Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Gogan if there were any windows in the basement; Mr. Gogan replied yes and stated that the windows were very high. Mr. Quentzel said that he recommends one of the conditions would be making a window well outside one of the windows so that it could be used as an emergency exit. Mr. Sussman asked Mr. Gogan what the lowest height of the basement ceiling was; Mr. Gogan said he did not have an exact measurement but estimated it at 7’. He said that the new basement will be set down farther and the ceiling will be a little higher. Mr. Gogan presented drawing A-3 and detailed the second floor plan. He said that the upper floor consists of a full bath and two bedrooms at the front of the house with dormers. Mr. Gogan stated that closet space is also very limited in the bedrooms. He noted where the new master bedroom would be and said that there will be a step up from the existing landing to enter it. Mr. Gogan presented drawing A-4, the left elevation, which shows the pitch of the house. Ele stated that the existing dormer will be removed and noted the small deck and new roof on the plans. Mr. Gogan presented drawing A-5, the rear elevation, and stated that the new roof will be perpendicular to the main house. Mr. Gogan presented drawing A-6 and detailed what the the front elevation of the house will look like. Ms. Weiss asked Mr. Gogan if they will be taking any trees down in front of the house; Mr. Gogan said that they currently do not have any plans to remove any of the trees in the front but if they do, they will follow the Township’s ordinance for tree

ny trees down in front of the house; Mr. Gogan said that they currently do not have any plans to remove any of the trees in the front but if they do, they will follow the Township’s ordinance for tree removal. Mr. Gogan began detailing the positive and negative criteria from his report. He stated that the applicant’s lot is very small compared to the rest of the lots on the street. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Gogan if he was to ask him to read his report would he testify that it was accurate; Mr. [7]