May 23, 2013

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING May 23, 2013 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on May 23, 2013 commencing 8:00 PM at 66 Main Street, West Orange, N.J. in Council Chambers. Chairman Neuer called the mecting 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 21, 2012 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: G. Bullock (8:06), D. Gabry, W. Merklinger, P. Neuer, B. Quentzel, W. Steinhart, M. Sussman, A. Weiss ABSENT: B. Buechler (excused absence) ALSO PRESENT: Board Attorney, Alice Beirne, Esq. Board Secretary, Rose DeSena H. Grossman, Public Advocate D. Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Meetings: June 20, 2013 (Regular Meeting) - 8:00 PM July 18, 2013 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM August 15, 2013 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM Chairman Neuer noted for the record that the Zoning Board will conduct its annual elections at the June 20, 2013 regular meeting. He said that the transition will be at the July 18, 2013 meeting. MINUTES Adopt Minutes: March 21, 2013 (Regular Meeting) Vice Chairwoman Gabry made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Quentzel seconded the motion, All were in favor to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on March 21, 2013.

RESOLUTIONS 1. ZB-12-17/Blake Approved 12/20/12 Block: 121; Lot: 45; Zone: R-T 132 High Street “C” variance for side yard setbacks for a deck Chairman Neuer asked if the Board reviewed this resolution and had any comments; seeing none the Chairman asked for a motion to approve. Mr. Steinhart made a motion to approve; Mr. Sussman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: Yes Bullock: - Sussman: Yes Gabry: Yes Weiss: Yes Merklinger: Yes Chairman Neuer - Quentzel: Yes 2. ZB-12-23/Merlino Approved 2/21/13 Block: 168.03; Lot: 19; Zone R-6 12 Rutgers Street “C” variance for rear yard setback to permit an addition to a home Chairman Neuer asked if the Board reviewed this resolution and had any comments; seeing none the Chairman asked for a motion to approve. Vice Chairwoman Gabry made a motion to approve; Mr. Sussman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: Yes Bullock: - Sussman: Yes Gabry: Yes Weiss: Yes Merklinger: - Chairman Neuer Yes Quentzel: Yes

3. ZB-12-21/Guerrier Denied Without Prejudice 2/21/13 Block: 139; Lot: 39; Zone: R-T 32 Kirk Street “C” variance for a third story Chairman Neuer stated that this application was scheduled to be heard on January 10, 2013 and, because the applicant failed to notice in time, asked to be carried to the February 21, 2013 regular meeting. He stated that the application was then carried to February 21, 2013 and the applicant failed to appear at this meeting. Chairman Neuer stated that, because the applicant failed to appear, the application was denied without prejudice. Chairman Neuer asked if the Board reviewed this resolution and had any comments; seeing none the Chairman asked for a motion to approve. Mr. Steinhart made a motion to approve; Vice Chairwoman Gabry seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: Yes to Deny w/o Prejudice Bullock: - Sussman: Yes to Deny w/o Prejudice Gabry: Yes to Deny w/o Prejudice | Weiss: Yes to Deny w/o Prejudice Merklinger: - Chairman Neuer Yes to Deny w/o Prejudice Quentzel: Yes to Deny w/o Prejudice 4. ZB-12-01/Singh Approved 3/21/13 Block: 21; Lot: 18; Zone: R-T 61 Riggs Place “C” variances for front, side and rear setbacks for enclosing a front porch and adding a room to the rear of the house. Ms. Beirne noted all of the revisions that Chairman Neuer suggested for this resolution. She stated that she approved these revisions and that she incorporated them into the resolution. Chairman Neuer asked if the Board had any comments or suggested revisions for this resolution; seeing none the Chairman asked for a motion to approve with revisions. Mr. Merklinger made a motion to approve with revisions; Vice Chairwoman Gabry seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: - Bullock: - Sussman: Yes Gabry: Yes Weiss: - Merklinger: Yes Chairman Neuer Yes Quentzel: Yes

5. ZB-12-20/First Hartford Realty Corp., Approved 3/21/13 Designated Agent for CVS Block: 153.16; Lot: 1-6 & 24-27 265 — ospect Avenue “D” Use variance & “C” variances for building a CVS Pharmacy Chairman Neuer noted for the record that Mr. Williams, attorney for the applicant, submitted all of the dates of Paul Grygiel’s reports to Ms. Beirne. He said that Ms. Beirne approved the dates and incorporated them into the resolution. Ms. Beirne noted all of the revisions that Chairman Neuer suggested for this resolution. She stated that she approved these revisions and that she incorporated them into the resolution. Ms. Beirne also stated that Mr. Quentzel suggested that conditions 1, 5 and 15, should be changed to reflect compliance in the final resolution. She said that she will incorporate that into the resolution. Mr. Sussman asked if the applicant originally proposed ten (10) fagade signs; Mr. Williams said that one of the signs were removed and there is nine (9) facade signs. Ms. Beirne said that she will change the resolution to reflect nine (9) fagade signs. Chairman Neuer noted that the deed to consolidate the lots must be recorded with the Essex County Register no later than September 30, 2013 and asked Ms. Beirne to incorporate that date into the resolution. Chairman Neuer asked if there were any other suggested revisions or changes to the resolution; secing none the Chairman asked for a motion to approve with revisions. Chairman Neuer made a motion to approve with revision; Vice Chairwoman Gabry seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: - Bullock: - Sussman: Yes Gabry: Yes Weiss: Yes Merklinger: Yes Chairman Neuer Yes Quentzel: Yes APPLICATION 1 ZB-13-04/Congregation Ahawas Achim B’Nai Jacob & David 700 Pleasant Valley Way Block: 153.21; Lot: 31; Zone: R-5 “C” variance to install a 5* fence in the front yard of the property

EXHIBITS A-1 - Aerial photo of the site taken from Bing Maps A-2 - Memo dated 5/20/13 from Police Chief Abbott A-3 — Photo of the Caprice fence DISCUSSION Bruce Shoulson, Esq, attorney for the applicant, approached the podium stating that the applicant is proposing to install a 5° security fence in the front yard of the Synagogue. He stated that this requires a variance because, according to the Township Ordinance, the maximum height of a fence in a front yard is 4’. Chairman Neuer questioned Mr. Shoulson about the dates of the prior resolutions mentioned in the application but said that only the 1990 resolution was submitted. Mr. Shoulson stated that his associate, Mr. Levitt, submitted the application and stated that there was a problem getting copies of the prior resolutions. Chairman Neuer asked Peter Steck if he wanted to shed some light on the situation; Mr. Steck replied no. Chairman Neuer noted that the application stated that the Synagogue received a grant for the security fence and asked who they received the grant from. Mr. Shoulson said it was United States Department of Homeland Security who gave them the grant. Mr. Shoulson called his first witness. Bruce Schlanger approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Schlanger stated that he resides at 10 Redwood Avenue and has lived in West Orange for approximately 35 years. He stated that he is a member of the Synagogue, sits on the Executive Board and is the Chairman of the Security Committee which provides safety and security. Mr. Schlanger said that the reason the Synagogue needs security is because of the situation in the Middle East. He said that Synagogues tend to be proxy towards radical forces and threats and noted specific incidents. Mr. Schlanger said that, to address their concerns, they submitted a grant application to the Department of Homeland Security seeking assistance with the risk assessment they did. He said that this included replacing doors, installing locking structures on the doors, upgrading their camera system and installing security fencing around the perimeter. Mr. Schoulson asked Mr. Schlanger if the security fencing was specifically mentioned in the grant application; Mr. Schlanger replied yes. Mr. Schoulson asked Mr. Schlanger if they received the grant; Mr. Schlanger replied yes. Mr. Schoulson asked how much grant money they received; Mr. Schlanger said

ication; Mr. Schlanger replied yes. Mr. Schoulson asked Mr. Schlanger if they received the grant; Mr. Schlanger replied yes. Mr. Schoulson asked how much grant money they received; Mr. Schlanger said they received $75,000 and that $15,000 of this was for the fencing.

Mr. Shoulson presented a photo and asked Mr. Schlanger to describe it. Mr. Schlanger stated that it was an aerial photo of the property. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Shoulson who took the photo; Mr. Shoulson said that the photo was taken from Bing maps on the internet. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Shoulson if the photo accurately depicts the current site; Mr. Shoulson replied yes. Chairman Neuer asked to have the aerial photo marked as Exhibit A-1 and entered into evidence. Mr. Shoulson asked Mr. Schlanger if the orange area in the photo is the area in question; Mr. Schlanger replied yes. He said that the orange area is where the 5’ fence will be installed along the front yard on Wessman Drive. Mr. Schlanger said that the rest of the fencing, that is currently being installed on each side of the property, is also 5’ and there is no issue with that. Mr. Shoulson asked Mr. Schlanger what else they will be doing to the exterior to protect the property from hazard. Mr. Schlanger said that they will be installing bollards. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Schlanger where the bollards would be installed; Mr. Schlanger said that they will be set in from the driveway toward the building. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Schlanger how many bollards they will be installing; Mr. Schlanger said they will be installing five (5) or six (6) permanent bollards and two (2) or three (3) removable ones. Mr. Schlanger said that they also have security personnel, who are members of the Synagogue, watching the premises. Mr. Shoulson asked Mr, Schlanger if there is access to the property from Wessman Drive; Mr. Schlanger said yes that there is pedestrian access from Wessman Drive. He said that the fence along the front yard on Wessman Drive will have a double gate with a combination lock on it. Mr. Shoulson asked Mr. Schlanger if he went over this with the Fire Department; Mr. Schlanger replied yes. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Schlanger what the purpose of the gate was on Wessman Drive; Mr. Schlanger said that they will keep the gate closed for unwanted traffic and open for members to access the site. Chairman Neuer asked how this would work if there was a combination lock on. the gate. Mr. Schlanger said that the members on Wessman Drive will have the combination to the lock. Chairman Neuer questioned the security of the gate with so many people having the combination; Mr. Schlanger said that they are

that the members on Wessman Drive will have the combination to the lock. Chairman Neuer questioned the security of the gate with so many people having the combination; Mr. Schlanger said that they are going to change the combination from time to time. Chairman Neuer asked why they are installing a gate on Wessman Drive and not a solid fence; Mr. Schlanger said that many members enter the Synagogue from Wessman Drive because it is easier. Chairman Neuer said that the purpose of the fence is for security and if the combination is not kept under lock and key then it is worthless. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Schlanger if Homeland Security and the Police Department approved the combination lock on the gate; Mr. Schlanger replied yes. Mr. Schoulson asked Mr. Schlanger if they received written proof from the Police Department; Mr. Schlanger replied yes. Mr. Schoulson presented a memo from Police Chief Abbott. Chairman Neuer asked to have the memo from Police Chief Abbott, dated 5/13/13, marked as Exhibit A-2 and entered into evidence. Mr. Schoulman presented a photo and asked Mr. Schlanger to describe the photo; Mr. Schlanger said that it was a photo of the formal fence that is being installed. He said that the photo shows

what the fence will look like. Chairman Neuer asked to have the photo of the fence marked as Exhibit A-3 for identification. Mr. Quenizel asked if they felt that the open fence is secure because someone could easily put a gun through this type of fence. Mr, Schoulman said that the witness stated that they will have security personnel watching the premises and that the gate makes a statement saying that it is private property. He said that the Department of Homeland Security also thinks it is appropriate. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Schlanger if the fence can stop a vehicle; he replied no. Ms. Gabry asked Mr. Schlanger what mechanism is on the gate for opening and closing it in an emergency. Mr. Schlanger said that it is a double open gate with a simple padlock on it that the Fire Department can clip in case of an emergency. Ms. Gabry asked what if cars were parked along the fencing in that area; Mr. Schlanger said that the gate is a clear area and the pavement in that area is marked “no parking”. Mr. Scholmon referred to Exhibit A-1 and noted on the photo where the no parking signage is. Chairman Neuer asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Schlanger; seeing none the Chairman asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Schlanger; seeing none the Chairman asked Mr. Schoulson to call his next witness. Peter Steck approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Steck stated that he is a Professional Planner, licensed in the State of New Jersey, and has testified before this Zoning Board many times. Chairman Neuer accepted Mr. Steck as an expert witness in Professional Planning. Mr. Schoulson asked Mr. Steck ifhe visited and inspected the Synagogue site; Mr. Steck replied yes. Mr. Steck referred to Exhibit A-1 and stated that he copied the photo from Bing maps on the internet. He said that he outlined the area on the map in orange is where the 5’ fence will be installed, Mr. Steck stated that the House of Worship fronts on Pleasant Valley Way and Wessman Drive. He said that Pleasant Valley Way is a County road and provides the only vehicular access to the site. Mr. Steck stated that they are proposing to install a 5’ fence along the frontage on Wessman Drive which is located in a single family area. Mr. Steck said that in reality the House of Worship has only one functioning front yard. He said that because it is a House

ong the frontage on Wessman Drive which is located in a single family area. Mr. Steck said that in reality the House of Worship has only one functioning front yard. He said that because it is a House of Worship it has security considerations and, although the Township Ordinance recommends a 4’ high fence in a front yard, a 5° fence would be a little harder to climb. Mr. Steck also noted that the neighbor at the end of the Wessman. Drive cul-de-sac constructed a 6° solid fence along their side yard that abuts the Synagogue property.