August 7, 2013

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 7, 2013 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held a regular meeting on August 7, 2013 at 7:30 P.M. in Council Chambers, 66 Main Street, West Orange, New Jersey. Chairman Heller called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. It was announced that notification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board on December 6 2012, in accordance with the requirements of the “Open Public Meetings Act”. PRESENT: Chairman Ben Heller, Robert Bagoff, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Lee Klein, Council President Susan McCartney, Vice Chairman Ron Weston ABSENT: Joanne Carlucci, Jason Lester, William Wilkes II ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Acting Township Planner; Frank Russo, PE, PP, Omland Engineering Associates, Inc., Patrick J. Dwyer, Esq., Board Attorney; Robin Miller, Board Secretary; Debbie Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Heller requested ail persons stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Robert Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Chairman Ben Heller, Lee Klein, Jason Lester, Councilwoman Susan McCartney, Vice Chairman Ron Weston, Williams Wilkes II, ANNOUNCEMENTS The next regular Planning Board meeting will be held on Tuesday September 10, 2013 at 7:30 P.M. in Council Chambers. Chairman Heller announced that the Township Council had re-appointed Council President McCartney to the Planning Board for 2013-2014. ADOPT MINUTES The minutes of the July 9, 2013 Planning Board meeting were adopted unanimously. SWEARING IN OF PROFESSIONALS Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Phillips Preiss Grygiel LLC, Acting Township Pianner. Frank Russo, PE, PP, Omland Engineering Associates, Inc. NAPLANNING.BRD\WPIMINUTES\2013\8-7-13 Minutes.doc

RESOLUTION(S) PB-13-13T/Family Grocery Store LLC Block: 125; Lot: 4; Zone: B-1 130 Whittlesey Avenue Technical Site Plan to lease space for retail grocery store. DISCUSSION: Mr. Weston gave the Board a recapitulation of the Technical Application for a retait grocery store, without variances, approved by the Technical Review Subcommittee at the July 11, 2013 meeting with the following conditions: 1. Plan to be revised to indicate there will be no designated parking on the left side of the building, the area to be cleared of debris; 2. Garbage pick-up will be at least twice per week, additional pick-up will be scheduled if necessary; Applicant will use rodent-proof trash receptacles; Plan will correctly indicate handicap accessibility including the designated deli area; Outside of building to be cleared of overgrown weeds and plants, graffiti to be removed from building exterior; 6. Non-working pipe signage to be removed; truss roof sign must be placed on the front of the building at an approximate height of six (6) feet; 7. Building signage to be reviewed and approved by Zoning Official; if using a canopy, the lettering not to exceed 8 inches along awning edge; 8. Revised plans to be submitted to Planning Department prior to memorialization of Resolution; 9. Kitchen Plan to be submitted to the Health Department; 10. Applicant shall submit a permit package to the Building Department to secure all necessary building permits; 11. The Applicant shall execute and submit to the West Orange Zoning Official, an Affidavit of Compliance certifying that all conditions of approval agreed to by the Applicant and set forth herein have been fulfilled and satisfied; 12. All findings of fact and conclusions set forth herein are deemed conditions that are binding on the Applicant. a FH Mr. Eben said some of the Technical Application were in the Downtown Alliance area; the Applications should be reviewed by the Alliance. He said that based on the zoning map, maybe Mr. Grygiel could determine the streets that were part of the Downtown Alliance. Mr. Eben said businesses in the Downtown Alliance area should be advised of the matching funds for signage. Mr. Eben voiced concern about the non-working standpipe signage; Mr. Weston said the standpipe issue was discussed at the Tech Review meeting and was listed in the conditions of approval. Council

age. Mr. Eben voiced concern about the non-working standpipe signage; Mr. Weston said the standpipe issue was discussed at the Tech Review meeting and was listed in the conditions of approval. Council President McCartney said that the Downtown Alliance Director had not attended the Tech Review meeting. Mr. Grygiel said the Director was included in the meeting distribution list and always invited to come to Tech Review meetings. Council President McCartney indicated that the Downtown Alliance Director or a member of the Alliance should attend all Tech Review meetings. NAPLANNING. BRD\WPIMINUTES\2013\8-7-13 Minutes.doc 2

The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Weston Second: Dr. Bagoff Bagoff: Yes Carlucci: Absent Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes Gurland: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Absent McCariney: Yes Weston: Yes Wilkes: Absent Heller: Yes APPLICATION(S) PB-13-12/Communication Infrastructure Corporation Block: 84.01; Lot: 22; Zone: B-2 10 Marcella Avenue Conditional Use Application with waivers to install antennas on to existing tower. (Carried from the July 9, 2013 Planning Board regular meeting.) EXHIBITS: A-1- Site Plan prepared by Powder River Development Services, LLC date revised 3/20/13 (5 pages; Title Sheet-No. T-1; Site Plan-No. Z-1; Elevation-No. Z-2: Microwave Details-No. Z-3; Site Details-No. Z-4); (Revised July 25, 2013); A-2- Photo Simulation #1, Site Content Aerial (two sheets) dated 1/14/2013 prepared by Seidel Planning & Design. (Revised July 24, 2013) A-3- Structural Analysis Review Letter prepared by Peter Jernigan, P.E., Tower Engineering Professionals, dated July 9, 2013. DISCUSSION: James K. Pryor, Esq., attorney for Applicant continued the presentation of the Application for the installation of two microwave antennas and ancillary equipment on to an existing tower. Mr. Pryor said he had made resubmissions of the site plans and photo simulations as requested; he described the revised photo simulations and said he hoped the revisions satisfied the Board. He advised the Board that Mr. Haldane was present and available to testify to the structural integrity of the tower. Andrew Haldane, PE, Tower Engineering Professionals, inc., was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted to be an expert witness in engineering. Mr. Haldane said he had climbed the structure on this date (8/7/2013). The purpose of the climb was for routine maintenance inspection of the tower. He said he had climbed in 2009 for the first time; then twice in 2042, one for routine maintenance inspection and again after Hurricane Sandy; then again this date which exceeded the required inspections. He said the tower was in very good shape for a structure erected in 1976. He indicated he had reviewed the American Tower Corporation Structural Analysis Report dated March 14, 2013, and agreed with its findings. Referring to Mr. Seidel's photo simulations, he inquired if photo simulation 4, (“Per Current Structural (3/14/13)" was an indication the

is Report dated March 14, 2013, and agreed with its findings. Referring to Mr. Seidel's photo simulations, he inquired if photo simulation 4, (“Per Current Structural (3/14/13)" was an indication the structure was maxed out. Mr. Haldane said the photo indicated all current, approved and proposed antennas. Referring to the ATC Structural Analysis Report, Mr. Weston inquired at what percentage would the tower be maxed out. Mr. Haldane said that 105% was the maximum allowed by code. NAPLANNING.BRD\WPWINUTES\201 3\8-7-13 Minutes.doc

Mr. Gurland asked Mr. Haldane to confirm that the photo simulations correctly represented all discs that could be on the structure. Mr. Haldane said the photo simulations correctly represented all approved and proposed discs. Mr. Weston requested Mr. Haldane submit a written report of his most recent inspection. The Board had no further questions for Mr. Haldane. The Public Advocate and the Public had no questions for Mr. Haldane. The Board deliberated on the Application. Mr. Ghebremicael opined he was satisfied with the presentation. Chairman Heller said that taking in to consideration the prior approvals and the proposed antennas, the impact was minimal. Vice Chairman Weston opined the Applicant had done a thorough job presenting the Application. Dr. Bagoff opined the Applicant had set the standard for presenting this type of Application; he suggested that Mr. Grygiel and Mr. Russo work on a checklist for future cell tower applications; Mr. Grygiel said he would take it under advisement to review the Ordinance. Mr. Dwyer and the Board discussed the conditions of the draft Resolution; Mr. Dwyer said he had added to the Resolution the testimony of Mr. Haldane, and that Mr. Haldane would submit a written summary of his latest inspection. Conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Township, County, State and Federal laws, ordinances, regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining alt applicable local, state and federal approvals and/or permits. Without limitation of the foregoing, prior to the signing of the approved site plans, and prior to the commencement of any land disturbance or construction, the Applicant shall submit to this Board, with a copy to the Board Engineer, proof that it has obtained all required governmental approvals. 2. if another governmental entity or agency grants a waiver or variance affecting the plans and/or exhibits submitted by the Applicant, this approval or the conditions attached to it, then the Applicant shall re-apply to this Board respecting the same and this Board shall have the right to view that issue as it relates to this approval and these conditions and modify and amend same, if appropriate. 3. In the event that any other required regulatory approval conflicts with the terms and conditions hereof, or materially alters the same, or the terms and conditions hereof are

same, if appropriate. 3. In the event that any other required regulatory approval conflicts with the terms and conditions hereof, or materially alters the same, or the terms and conditions hereof are materially altered by any change in applicable law or regulation other than those municipal regulations for which change is prohibited by the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), or in the event Applicant or its successors or assigns construct or attempt to construct any improvement in conflict with or in violation of the terms of this approval, the Board hereby reserves the right to withdraw, amend or supplant the instant approval. 4, All construction, use and development of the property shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein, all representations of the Applicant and its witnesses during the public hearing, all exhibits introduced by the Applicant, and all terms and conditions of this resolution. NAPLANNING.BRDOWWPIMINUTES\201\8-7-13 Minutes.doc 4

™ The Applicant shall pay all outstanding taxes, tax liens, application fees and technical review fees, as well as any inspection fees that may be required hereunder. The Applicant shall pay any additional fees or escrow deposits which may be due and owing within thirty (30) days of notification or this approval shall be deemed withdrawn. All notes included in the approved plans, including notes required by this Resolution, shall be deemed conditions of approval having the same force and effect as conditions expressly set forth in this Resolution. Applicant to provide a written report setting forth his findings from the inspection made on August 7, 2013. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Chairman Heller Second: Dr. Bagoff Bagoff: Yes Carlucci: Absent Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes Gurland: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Absent McCartney: Yes Weston: Yes Wilkes: Absent Heller: Yes The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Chairman Heller Second: Council President McCartney Bagoff: Yes Carlucci: Absent Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes. Gurland: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Absent McCartney: Yes Weston: Yes Wilkes: Absent Heller: Yes PB-13-16/Valley Road Residential, LLC Block: 9; Lots: 1, 7, 44, 50 & 56; Zone: MUBR 22-26 Central Avenue and 9-16 Mitchell Street Preliminary Site Plan with “C” Variance EXHIBITS A-1: Colorized Site Rendering dated July 11, 2013 prepared by TRC Engineers, Inc.; A-2: Sheet SP 01.00 Site Plan (NJ DEP Stream Encroachment Plan) dated October 18, 2007; signed by Barry J. Sutherland, PE, TRC Engineers, Inc., February 12, 2008; A-3: Aerial photo — Proposed Site Bird’s Eye, dated August 7, 2013, prepared by Kitchen & Associates; A-4: Colorized Conceptual Sketch Elevations dated August 7, 2013, prepared by Kitchen & Associates. DISCUSSION: Mr. Grygiel advised the Board that his company, Phillips Priess Grygiel, LLC, had preformed work for the Alpert Group; there may be an issue of a conflict. Mr. Dwyer said it was not an apparent conflict; Mr. Sullivan said he had no issue with a conflict. Williams C. Sullivan, Jr., Esq., Scarinci Hollenbeck, gave a brief recapitulation of the Harvard Press Redevelopment Plan approved in 2008. He said the areas of Centra! NAPLANNING. BRO\WP\MINUTES|201 3\8-7-13 Minutes, doc 5

Avenue and Mitchell Street along the City of Orange border had been determined to be in need of redevelopment. The property owner was Harvard Properties, LLC. The buildings were in poor condition; the site was undergoing remediation. The East Branch of the Rahway River divided the West Orange lots. The adopted 2008 plan had included the area train station in Orange and the culvert be revitalized and create new green space. The City of Orange had granted redevelopment approval and their Planning Board had approved the project. The property located on the West Orange side was previously approved for one hundred units “for sale” only; last month the Board made the recommendation to the Township Council the West Orange plan be amended to change the units to residential “rental” units. The project would provide a big boost to the area. It was the Board’s job to evaluate the plan; he advised the board the plan did need a variance for side yard setback. The project's first floor could be on the property line but the additional floors would have to be set back. Other than the side yard setback, the plan fully complies with the redevelopment plan. Barry J. Sutherland, PE, TRC Engineers, Inc., was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in engineering. Referring to Exhibit A-1, Mr. Sutherland said it was a color rendering of the site plan showing the proposed improvements; Exhibit A-2 showed both Orange and West Orange for an overall view of the project. Referring to Exhibit A-1, Mr. Sutherland described the existing conditions, the project’s West Orange property was 1.55 acres; it was zoned for Harvard Press Redevelopment; the property currently included multi-storied buildings that straddled West Orange and Orange, there was an auto body business and an asphalt parking lot; the East Branch of the Rahway River was previously piped underground and ran through the site near the easterly boundary. The proposed plan included “day lighting” the river. Mr. Sutherland explained the environmental status of the property; the site had contaminated historical fill, including lead, and in the northwest portion of the property there had been a mercury spill; approximately 3,500 cubic yards of fill would be removed. The State had allocated over $600,000.00 to clean up the site. The proposed West Orange plan included the demolition of the

n a mercury spill; approximately 3,500 cubic yards of fill would be removed. The State had allocated over $600,000.00 to clean up the site. The proposed West Orange plan included the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new 30,000 square foot structure to include one-hundred rental units identified as “Building C”, the Orange plan was identified as “Building A” and “Building B’, to include 128 units. “Building C” would be five stories to include thirty-three (33) one-bedroom units, fifty-nine (59) two-bedroom units and eight (8) three-bedroom units. There would be one parking space per unit; forty (1) surface lot spaces in a new 15,000 square feet parking lot, and sixty (60) interior garage spaces underneath the building. An additional thirty (30) spaces would be reserved in the Deco building if necessary; which could also be designated for commuter parking. Except for a portion of the upper floors on the western side of the building, the project would conform to zoning requirements. The drainage sheet flowed east-west and down to Orange; there was presently asphalt 8.5 CFS; C-330 was the building plan; the drainage was submitted and approved by the DEP; the entire roof was to be tied to a HTP pipe system (underground detention facility). The plan was all in accordance with the NJ DEP requirements. Referring to the Omland Memo dated August 1, 2013; Mr. Sutherland said the Applicant would comply with comments #17, #20, #21, #23, #24, #34 and #35. Referring to comment #17, Mr. Sutherland said compliance would only be possible if it did not affect the Applicant's existing NJ DEP permits. Mr. Russo said it was not a requirement but rather a suggestion. NAPLANNING. BRD\WPAMINUTES(201318-7-13 Minutes.doc