November 29, 2012

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES November 29, 2012 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held a special meeting on November 29, 2012 at 7:30 P.M., in Council Chambers, 66 Main Street. Chairman Bagoff called the meeting to order at approximately 7:39 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 13, 2012 in accordance with the requirements of the “Qpen Public Meetings Act”, Chairman Bagoff requested all persons in attendance stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Chairman Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Jerome Eben, Gerald Gurland, Lee Klein, Councilwoman Susan McCartney, Ron Weston ABSENT: Tekeste Ghebremicael, Vice Chairman Ben Heller, Jason Lester, William Wilkes II ALSO PRESENT: Exic Keller, P.E., P.P., Omland Engineering Associates, Inc. Debbie Dillon, Audio Transcription Service, LLC Patrick Dwyer, Esq., Board Attorney Robin Miller, Board Secretary ROLL CALL Chairman Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Vice Chairman Ben Heller, Lee Klein, Jason Lester, Councilwoman Susan McCartney, Ron Weston, William Wilkes. ADOPT MINUTES Adopt the minutes of the October 24, 2012 Planning Board special meeting. The Board voted on adopting the minutes of the October 24, 2012 special meeting as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr, Klein Carlucei Y Eben N Ghebremicael - Gurland N Heller - Klein Y Lester - McCartney Y Weston - Wilkes - Bagoff Y ADOPT MEETING DATES Adopt 2013 Planning Board meeting dates. Tabled to the December 5, 2012 meeting. NAPLANNING.BRD|JVPUMINUTESW201011-29-2012 Special Mecting Minutes.toc

ANNOUNCEMENTS The next regular Planning Board meeting will be held on December 5, 2012 in Council Chambers at 8:00 P.M. SWEARING IN Eric L. Keller, PE, PP, Omland Engineering, Planning and Engineering consultant engaged by the Township. RESOLUTION(S) PB-12-22/Converge Towers, LLC Block(s): 84.01; Lot(s): 22; Zone: B-2 10 Marcella Avenue Conditional Use Site Plan to install two antennas on an existing telecommunications tower. DISCUSSION Chairman Bagoff gave a brief recapitulation of the Application approved at the October 24, 2012 meeting. Mr. Dwyer advised the Board there were minor changes to the draft resolution; he read all changes to the Board. Chairman Bagoff called for a vote with modifications to the Resolution. The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Ms. Carlucei Carlucei Y Eben Y Ghebremicael - Gurland Y Heller - Klein Y Lester - McCartney Y Weston - Wilkes - Bagoff Y PB-12-24/Metro Networks Services c/o Lemanowicz LLP Block(s): 84.01; Lot(s): 22.01; Zone: B-2 12 Marcella Avenue Conditional Use Site Plan to install two (2) antenna dishes on an existing tower. DISCUSSION Chairman Bagoff gave a brief recapitulation of the Application approved at the October 24, 2012 meeting. Mr. Dwyer advised the Board there were minor changes to the draft resolution; he read all changes to the Board. Chairman Bagoff called for a vote with modifications to the Resolution. (NAPLANNING.BRDVPUMINUTES2012U1-29-2012 Speetal Meeting Minttes.toe 2

The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Eben Carlucci Y Eben Y Ghebremicael - Gurland Y Heller - Klein Y Lester - McCartney Y Weston. - Wilkes - Bagoff Y APPLICATION(S) PB-12-12/Forsons Partners, LLC on behalf of 7-Eleven, Inc. Block: 172.02; Lot: 8.01; Zone: B-2 955 Pleasant Valley Way Preliminary and final site plan with bulk variances and soil removal permit for a retail convenience store. Carried from the October 24, 2012 special meeting. EXHIBITS A-1~— Affidavit of Public Notice; A-2 — Site Plans; A-3 — Neglia Engineering Associates response letter dated August 24, 2012; A-4— Environmental Status from Envirotrac dated July 31, 2012; A-5 — Title Commitment dated November 8, 2011; A-6—Neglia Engineering Associates Planning Report dated June 18, 2012; A-7 —Neglia Engineering Associates Traffic Report dated June 19, 2012; A-8— Neglia Engineering Associates Drainage Report dated June 18, 2012; A-9 —Neglia Engineering Associates Environmental Impact Statement dated June 18, 2012; A-10 — Harrison French & Associates Exterior Elevations dated June 19, 2012; A-11 — Harrison French & Associates Floor Plan dated June 19, 2012; A-12 — Aerial Site Plan Exhibit; A-13 - Colorized Site/Landscape Plan; A-14 - Truck Template Plan , A-15 — Harrison French & Associates Site Rendering dated June 12, 2012; A-16— Neglia Engineering Associates Site Section dated October 24, 2012; A-17 — Neglia Engineering Associates Six (6) Site Photos dated June 7, 2012. A-18 - 11/12/12 — Revised plans from Neglia Engineering Associates; A-19— Harrison French & Associates — 11/14/12 —3 sheets elevation, floor plan and rendering of project; A-20 — Updated Drainage Neglia Engineering Associates 11/12/12 DISCUSSION Antimo A. Del Vecchio, Esq. Beattie Padovano, LLC, attorney representing the Applicant, 7-Eleven appeared before the Board. Mr. Del Vecchio gave a brief recapitulation of the Application carried from the October 24, 2012 special meeting. Mr. Del Vecchio advised the Board that the Applicant had revised plans and was anxious to present the changes to the Board. Exhibits A-18, A-19, and A- NAPLANNING BRDIWPMINUTESW201411-29.2012 Sheetal Meeting Minutes.doc

20 were submitted to the Board. Mr. Del Vecchio gave a brief description of the changes to the site plan. Chairman Bagoff inquired if Mr. Del Vecchio and Mr. Dwyer had confirmed the architectural acceptability of the Applicant’s architectural firm, Harrison French & Associates. Mr. Dwyer said it was matter of credibility; did the Board give weight to the plans. Mr. Del Vecchio said the testifying architect, Thomas Heigle, AIA, was licensed in New Jersey, and two of the three principals with the firm Harrison French & Associates were licensed in the State of New Jersey. Mr. Eben stated that there were certain procedures required from an architect licensed in the State of New Jersey; the Applicant’s submitted plans did not have the proper title block required in the State of New Jersey; he advised Mr. Del Vecchio to have his client check with the New Jersey State Board of Architects. Chairman Bagoff stated that the Board would accept the Applicant’s architect. Mr. Del Vecchio said that Gregory J. Polyniak, P.E., P.P., Neglia Engineering Associates would be back on record to continue his testimony as professional engineer. Mr. Polyniak testified that the proposed building had been moved south and east to the property, it was not centered as originally planned. The loading area and dumpster area had also been flipped. Mr. Polyniak noted that the changes would now affect the visibility for drivers coming upon the site; however, the revised plan honors the 75 ft. setback. The new design made the small retaining wall much diminished; there would no longer be a need for a wing-wall design. Mr. Polyniak said the revised plan addressed many comments made by the Township professionals and the Board. The revised landscaping plan would exceed Township requirements; the maximum lot the number of parking spaces had been reduced to seventeen (17) from nineteen (19). Mr. Polyniak confirmed that the revised plans were accurate; he stated he had supervised all revisions. Referring to the Omland Engineering memorandum dated November 26, 2012; Mr. Polyniak said that all comments made by Omland had been addressed; either on the plans or during his testimony; including Omland Memo Item #3: Mr. Keller commented on the north driveway. Mr. Polyniak said he ran turing templates and there was not a problem. Omland Memo Item #4: Existing utility services - Mr. Polyniak said there was

Item #3: Mr. Keller commented on the north driveway. Mr. Polyniak said he ran turing templates and there was not a problem. Omland Memo Item #4: Existing utility services - Mr. Polyniak said there was no problem with accommodating the recommendation. Item #5: Mr. Polyniak said the width of the parking spaces would be revised to 9 ft., there would be an increase to the buffering space and reduce the impervious coverage. Item #17: Omland Memo noted discrepancy between elevations on site plans and architectural plans; Mr. Polyniak said the architectural plans would be amended to reflect correct elevations, Mr. Eben asked Mr. Polyniak from what direction would tractor trailers be making deliveries; Mr. Polyniak said the track access would probably be from north off of Route 280, traveling south on Pleasant Valley Way. Mr. Eben inquired as to the height of the proposed retaining wall, would it have a railing; and if the proposed Juniper plantings at the base of the retaining wall would be destroyed by snow plowing. Mr. Polyniak said the wall height was 4 % ft., without a railing; additionally it was his opinion that the owner would not want to see a dead area at the base of the wall. Ifplantings were damaged, they would be replaced. Councilwoman McCartney asked if the driveway would be directed one-way. Mr. Del Vecchio answered that the driveway would have two-way traffic. Ms. Carlucci had no questions for Mr. Polyniak. Mr. Weston inquired if the re-located trash area was code compliant; Mr. Polyniak confirmed it was compliant. ‘N:LPLANNING.BRDUWPUMTINOTESI20LA1-29-2012 Specied Meeting Minutes.doc 4

Mr. Gurland bad no questions for Mr. Potyniak; but requested that a cross-section of Page 8.01 of the site plan be included in the final plans. Mr. Polyniak said that the vertical section from east to west would remain the same, and agreed to provide a cross-section in the final plans. Mr. Klein said that due to the high turnover nature of a 7-Eleven, he wondered whether the proposed parking spaces width of 9 ft. would be adequate. Mr. Keller opined that the 9 ft. width would be sufficient; the new plan had a wider drive aisle. Mr. Klein commented that the Applicant should check with the Police Department regarding trafic crashes. Mr. Keller said it appeared the plan showed keeping a portion of the retaining wall; he suggested eliminating the wall for better maintenance; Mr. Polyniak said they did not want to disturb the buffer area, With regard to the trench drain behind the building, Mr. Keller said he was still concerned it would become clogged; he suggested the Applicant look at ways of installing different inlets. Mr. Polyniak said the drain would be maintained on a regular basis; it would not clog. Mr. Keller said that Vice Chairman Heller, who was not in attendance, had forwarded comments for the Applicant. Mr. Heller commented that he was concerned about the lack of street trees on the landscaping plan; Mr. Polyniak said that since the new plan shifted the building approximately 42 feet, the structure would be hard to see, so it was important to retain the site so as not to obstruct its visibility. Mr, Keller said that Mr. Heller voiced concern there was no buffering through the rear area during the fall and winter months; he requested an upright variety of evergreen arborvitae shrub buffer; Mr. Keller stated that he would also advise something upright. Mr. Polyniak said he did not have an issue with that request. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Polyniak to indicate the location of the front of the building in relation to the neighboring building; the location of the monument sign and the sight line to monument sign; and the sight line to driveway. Mr. Polyniak indicated the sight line was 450 feet, not in the vortex. Chairman Bagoff asked how many types of materials would be used in the building of the retaining wall. Mr. Polyniak said the same material would be used to the left and right of the building; it would be uniform, There were no questions

of materials would be used in the building of the retaining wall. Mr. Polyniak said the same material would be used to the left and right of the building; it would be uniform, There were no questions ftom Public Advocate. Mr. Manuel Lin, 938 Pleasant Valley Way, indicated he had a question regarding traffic. Chairman Bagoff advised Mr. Lin to wait until the Applicant’s traffic expert presented testimony. Brian A. Intindola, P.E., Neglia Engineering Associates was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted as an expert witness in traffic engineering. Mr. Intindola said he had visited the site on several occasions; he had performed all traffic counts; and had authored the Neglia Traffic report dated June 19, 2012. He testified the trip generation would be approximately one-hundred (100) additional trips during the morning peak and approximately eighty (80) additional trips during evening peak; sixty-percent (60%) would be pass-by traffic on Pleasant Valley Way. Mr. Intindola said that little traffic generated from Mount Pleasant Place on to Pleasant Valley Way. Currently the site had three driveways; the Applicant proposed to eliminate the third driveway that was located across from Mount Pleasant Place. Mr. Intinola indicated the Level of Service would remain AEIPLANNING BRD\WPIALINUTESI2012117-29-2072 Special Meeting Minutes.dae 3

acceptable after the project was completed. Additionally, Mr. Intinola said he re-ran the Levels of Service based on Mr. Keller’s memorandum dated November 26, 2012 and got similar results; it was now a left-hand site; the driveways would be able to accommodate deliveries; he stated the revised. plan was one of the better site plans for deliveries. Mr. Del Vecchio asked Mr. Intinola if there was any negative impact regarding the revised plan. Mr. Intinola said the prior site condition had three movements; the new plan eliminated one movement creating an overall improvement. The option of the two driveways would accommodate the oddity of visual sight coming off Route 280. Additionally there would be greater ease making the left turn from Route 10; the way the site was situated, two-way access was the best plan. Mr. Del Vecchio and Mr, Intinola discussed Mr. Keller’s memorandum dated November 26, 2012. Regarding Item #6, Mr. Intinola advised he had conducted Saturday traffic counts. Addressing Items #7 and #8, Mr. Intinola said that fewer motorists would attempt to make left turns into the site if the turn was inconvenient. Per Item #9, Mr. Intinola said a .8 peak hour factor (PHF) would not change his conclusion that the Level of Service would remain acceptable. Regarding Item #10, Mr. Intinola said he had examined Mr. Keller’s concern about simultaneous left turns from the southern driveway and out of Mount Pleasant Place; he did not believe there would be any conflict. Mr. Eben inquired about the intersection of Mt. Pleasant Avenue and Pleasant Valley Way; all signals had different timers, individual phasing, and that he had experienced being backed up to the site’s driveway; he wondered if it would be a problem for the retailer’s customers to get in to the traffic flow. Mr, Intinola said that the beauty of the new plan was that a motorist could make the decision to take either way in or out of the site. Councilwoman McCartney voiced concern about pedesirian safety and inquired if there would be a sidewalk; additionally she inquired if there was restrictive signage on Mt. Pleasant Place. Mr. Intinola said that a sidewalk was planned for the site. The Board determined that there was signage on Mt, Pleasant Place regarding ambulance access. Mc. Carlucci had no questions for Mr. Intinola. Mr. Weston asked for confirmation that the Level of Service was B;

determined that there was signage on Mt, Pleasant Place regarding ambulance access. Mc. Carlucci had no questions for Mr. Intinola. Mr. Weston asked for confirmation that the Level of Service was B; Mr. intinola indicated the Level of Service for Mount Pleasant Place was B; but the Level of Service for Pleasant Valley Way and Mount Pleasant Avenue was D or better. Mr. Weston voiced concern that drivers would make a quick left in to the site making the driver behind the turning vehicle stop short. He questioned if making a left turn would create a potential hazard. Mr. Intinola stated he did not believe there would be a problem making left turns. Mr. Gurland said he was concerned with three views: north, south and from Mt. Pleasant Place. Mr. Klein inquired if it would be possible to make the southern driveway flow right-in and right-out only. Mr. Intinola said he believed the proposed plan called for the most accessibility. The Public Advocate had no questions for Mr. Intinola. Manuel Lin, 938 Pleasant Valley Way. Referring to the traffic study, Mr. Lin asked if there was a plan to control traffic flow once the project was completed. He stated that there were at least two accidents a year when the site was previously occupied; accidents now occurred to the south side NAPLANNING, BRDWEPIMINUTESI20121-29-2012 Spacial Meeting Minuies.doc

where the Exxon station was located. He asked if it would be a good idea to install an additional traffic signal at the site. Mr. Intinola said that the traffic itself would control the flow because of the design plan. He opined that while it might be a good idea to have an additional traffic signal installed, he did not believe the County would consider a new light, Chairman Bagoff announced a brief recess at approximately 9:32 P.M.; he re-convened the meeting at approximately 9:39 P.M. Mr. Del Vecchio advised that Gregory J. Polyniak, P-E., P.P., Neglia Engineering Associates would be providing testimony as the Applicant’s professional planner. Mr. Polyniak indicated he had prepared the Applicant’s Planning Report dated June 18, 2012. He described the topographical features and reiterated the site was constrained by considerable slopes on the west and north sides, and a sixteen feet reservation for Essex County on Pleasant Valley Way. He testified that those factors constituted conditions resulting in difficulties in developing the property. After the site had been reconfigured per the comments of the Planning Board, he noted the Applicant was requesting the following variances: 1. Parking Location - permitted only in side or rear yard, none existing, proposed in front yard with 42.4 ft. setback; 2. Steep Slope Disturbance - no disturbance on slopes more than 25% and limited on lesser slopes, none existing, 15 — 19.99% slope 40% disturbance allowed, 75.35% disturbance proposed; 20-24.99% slope 20% disturbance allowed, 66.96% proposed; 25% and over slope no disturbance allowed, 6.12% proposed; 3. Vegetated Buffer to Residential Zone - 75 ft. required, 53.25 ft. to existing driveway/69.3 ft. to RR tie wall existing, 53.25 feet to northern driveway/69.3 ft. to retaining wall proposed; 4. Maximum Lot Coverage - 60% allowed, 77.36% allowed, 72.40% proposed; 5. Parking Stall Size - 10 ft. x 18 ft. or 9 ft. x 20 ft. required, none existing, 9 fi. x 18 ft. proposed, Parking Setback — Building - 15 ft. required, none existing, 6 ft. proposed; Off Street Loading — Size - 10 ft. x 40 ft. required, none existing, 20.3 ft. x 35 ft. proposed; Off Street Loading — Location - allowed in side or rear only, none existing, loading space in front yard proposed; 9. Signage - monument and directional signs not permitted, none existing, one (1) monument and two (2)