May 23, 2013

Mr. Steck stated that it is his opinion that the 5’ fence on Wessman Drive warrants approval of the C1 variance because the fence will match the height of the fencing along the sides of the property and it complies with the aesthetics of the single family neighborhood. Mr. Steck stated that no one will even question the height difference of the fence because of the handsome fence that is being installed and the well landscaped area. He said that this application can be approved without any detriment to the public good. Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Steck if 6’ fencing would be safer; Mr. Steck said yes but this is about the aesthetics and this fence will not be offensive to the neighborhood. Mr. Sussman asked if all the chain link fencing is being replaced; Mr. Steck said no, just the fence that is exposed to the general public. Chairman Neuer asked Mr, Steck about the security of this fence from a planning perspective. Mr. Steck stated that he feels that this fence meets the qualifications for security because they are eligible for a grant from the Department of Homeland Security and they have the support of the West Orange Police. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Steck if he had taken any specialized course in security issues; Mr. Steck replied no. Chairman Neuer asked if the Board had any further questions for Mr. Steck; seeing none the Chairman asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Steck; seeing none. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Schoulman if the proposed fence with the gate and combination lock was run past Homeland Security; Mr. Shoulman said that his first witness, Mr. Schlanger, could answer that question. Mr. Schlanger approached the podium and stated that the gate was not specified in the grant application because it did not get into detail about the fence. He said that Homeland Security approves the concept of having a fence and not the details. Mr. Schlanger stated that the local Police and Fire Departments were aware of the gate. Ms. Gabry asked Mr. Schlanger if Homeland Security does any inspections after the fence is installed; Mr. Schlanger replied yes, He said that they submit the invoices along with the details and Homeland Security reimburses them. Mr. Schlanger said that they can also do an audit at some time but he is not sure. Ms. Weiss asked Mr. Schlanger if there were any objections from anyone who lives on

meland Security reimburses them. Mr. Schlanger said that they can also do an audit at some time but he is not sure. Ms. Weiss asked Mr. Schlanger if there were any objections from anyone who lives on Wessman. Drive; he replied no. Chairman Neuer stated that his concern is the security of the gate. Chairman Neuer asked if any members of the public want to comment.

Martin Solomon approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Solomon stated that he lives at 21 Wessman drive and has lived there for 53 years. He said that he is a member of the Synagogue and is part of the Executive Board. Mr. Solomon stated that he is in favor of the type of fence being installed because it is better than chain link and it will serve its purpose. He said that the reason that it has to have a gate is because many of the members are in wheel chairs and they can only access the property from Wessman Drive; they cannot access it from Pleasant Valley Way. Chairman Never asked if any Board members had any questions for Mr. Solomon; seeing none the Chairman asked Mr. Shoulson for his closing comments. Mr. Shoulson said that the only difference with a 4° fence and a 5’ fence is one foot and it will not impact anything. Ms. Beirne stated that Mr. Merklinger, Zoning Board member, is an employee of the Department of Homeland Security and he wanted to make sure there was no conflict with him hearing this application. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Merklinger if he had anything to do with the grant application; he replied no. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Shoulman if he had objections to Mr, Merklinger hearing this application; Mr. Shoulman replied no. Chairman Neuer stated that he finds serious flaws with the concept of this type of fence adding security. He stated that the bollards they are installing in front of the gate will prevent vehicles from crashing through the fence but a truck will demolish it. Chairman Neuer said Mr. Solomon explained why people on Wessman Drive cannot go the distance to enter on Pleasant Valley Way and he can understand the gate for that reason. He said that the one foot in height is de minimis and he agrees with Mr. Steck that it is an inherently beneficial use. The Chairman stated that he agrees that Homeland Security feels that the Synagogue needs security but the fence is not a great enhancement in security. Chairman Neuer said that he urges the Board to approve. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Shoulman if the applicant had any objection to striping the area in front of the emergency gate so that no cars park there; Mr. Shoulman said that they have no objection to painting “no parking” in front of the gate as a condition of approval. Ms, Weiss stated that no one in the community is complaining about the fence and that

oulman said that they have no objection to painting “no parking” in front of the gate as a condition of approval. Ms, Weiss stated that no one in the community is complaining about the fence and that she is in favor. She said that she is sad that Houses of Worship would even have to have security fences. Mr. Sussman stated that he agrees with the Chairman. He said that he does not have a problem with the fence however it is a very modest increase in security. Mr. Steinhart stated that no one on this Board has any qualifications to evaluate the quality of a fence. He said that no one in West Orange would want to see the type of fence where the

protection would be meaningful. Mr, Steinhart said that the fence is attractive and it will have some affect. He said there has been too much time spent on discussing the adequacy of the fence, Mr. Bullock agreed with Mr. Sussman and he suggested that they may have it reviewed by a security professional. He said that it is aesthetically pleasing and the Board should approve it. Mr. Merklinger said that this type of fencing is used a lot in Government but the gated area would be a concern to Homeland Security. He said that he would approve. Chairman Neuer stated that he had an obligation to ask about the security of the fence and made a motion to approve the one foot C2 variance from a planning perspective and not on the security of the gate. Ms. Gabry seconded the motion to approve the one foot C2 variance. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: Yes Bullock: Yes Sussman: Yes Gabry: Yes Weiss: Yes Merklinger: - Chairman Neuer Yes Quentzel: Yes ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Neuer at 9:35 pm Adopted: June 20, 2013 Zoning Board Secretary 10