August 15, 2013

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING August 15, 2013 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on August 15, 2013 commencing 8:00 PM at 66 Main Street, West Orange, N.J. in Council Chambers. Chairwoman Gabry 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 21, 2012 in accordance with the “Open Public Meetings Act.” Chairwoman Gabry asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Ailegiance Patrick J. Dwyer, 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: ALSO PRESENT: Elizabeth Leheny, Consulting Planner F. Russo, Consulting Engineer Board Attorney, Patrick J. Dwyer, Esq. Board Secretary, Rose DeSena D. Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service REORGANIZATION SWEARING IN OF VICE CHAIRMAN Bruce Buechler took the oath of office for Vice Chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Meetings: September 12, 2013 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM October 17, 2013 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM November 21, 2013 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM

MINUTES Adopt Minutes: June 20, 2013 (Regular Meeting) Mr. Neuer made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted to the Board Members; Mr. Buechler seconded the motion. All were in favor to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on June 20, 2013. Tt was noted for the record that Ms. Weiss and Mr. Merklinger were not present at this meeting and did not vote. Adopt Minutes: July 18, 2013 (Regular Meeting) Mr. Neuer made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted to the Board Members; Mr. Steinhart seconded the motion. All were in favor to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on July 18, 2013. Tt was noted that Mr. Buechler was not present at this meeting and did not vote. SWEARING IN Consulting Engineer, Frank Russo and Consulting Planner for the Township, Elizabeth Leheny were sworn under oath. RESOLUTIONS 1. ZB-12-24/West Orange Animal Hospital Approved 7/18/13 Block: 158.03; Lot: 102.07; Zone: R-3 360 Northfield Avenue “D” variance for the expansion of non conforming use with bulk variances Chairwoman Gabry asked if the Board reviewed this resolution and if any Member had any comments; seeing none the Chairwoman asked for a motion to approve. Mr. Neuer made a motion to approve; Mr. Bullock seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: Yes Bullock: Yes Sussman: Recused Merklinger: Yes Weiss: Yes Neuer: Yes Chairwoman Gabry: Yes Quentzel: Yes

Joseph Vena, Esq. approached the podium. Mr. Vena stated that he is the attorney for application ZB-13-09, Heart to Heart Home Care, scheduled to be heard last on the agenda tonight. Mr. Vena said that the application will probably not be heard tonight because of the busy agenda, and requested that it be adjourned until the next meeting. Chairwoman Gabry announced that if any members of the public were at this meeting for application ZB-13-09 for Heart to Heart Home Care that it will be carried to the next Zoning Board meeting held on September 12, 2013. She also noted, for the record, that no further notice will be required. APPLICATIONS 1. ZB-13-07/Golda Och Carried from 7/18/13 Block: 79; Lot: 21; Zone: R-4 122 Gregory Avenue Amended site plan approval to adjust the curb line on Gregory Avenue EXHIBITS A-1 — Site Plans revision date 6/11/13 A-2 — Proposed Curb Sketch dated 2/26/13 A-3 — Traffic Evaluation prepared by Harold K. Maltz of Hamal Associates dated 4/1/13 A-4 — Traffic Evaluation prepared by Harold K. Maltz of Hamal Associates dated 1/25/13 A-5 —County of Essex Planning Board amended site plan approval letter dated 7/25/13 A-6 — Proposed Traffic Circulation Plan dated 9/8/11 Joseph Vena, Esq., attorney for the applicant, approached the podium. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Vena who the current Chairman of the Golda Och Academy was; Mr. Vena replied Shery! Pearlstein. Mr. Buechler stated that he was recused from hearing this application in 2011 because the then president of the school was a partner in Mr. Buechler’s law firm. Mr. Buechler responded that he has no affiliation with the present Chairperson or President of the Academy and that some of the partners in his law firm send their children to the school. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Vena if there would be an issue with him hearing this application. Mr. Vena checked with his client and responded that he does not have an objection to Mr. Buechler hearing the application. He said that the Board Attorney should make that determination. Mr. Dwyer asked Mr. Buechler if he had any direct involvement or financial involvement with the school; Mr. Buechler replied no, Mr. Dwyer determined that Mr. Buechler would not be precluded from hearing this application. Mr. Vena began detailing the application stating that the applicant is requesting to amend the Board’s resolution of approval for the Golda

chler would not be precluded from hearing this application. Mr. Vena began detailing the application stating that the applicant is requesting to amend the Board’s resolution of approval for the Golda Och Academy expansion that was approved in 2011. He said that one of the conditions of approval required widening Gregory Avenue which

required the relocation of two PSE&G utility poles located along Gregory Avenue at the easterly curb line. He said that his witnesses are here tonight to testify as to why the amendment of this condition is necessary. Mr. Vena called his first witness. Scott Baird approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Baird stated that he is the project manager for the addition and detailed his educational and professional background in business and construction management. Mr. Baird presented the proposed curb sketch. Chairwoman Gabry noted for the record that the proposed curb sketch, dated 2/16/13, was pre- marked as Exhibit A-2 for identification. Mr. Baird outlined the relocation of the curb based upon the original approval in 2011. He said that the existing utility poles would have to be relocated because they are in the way and would end up in the roadway. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Baird if he spoke to Public Service Electric and Gas Company about relocating the utility poles. Mr. Baird said that they met with a supervisor from PSE&G to discuss the relocation of the poles and they were told that it is not possible to move the poles laterally. He said that they were told that this would stretch out the utility lines and cause them to shift which would force the other utility poles to tip. Mr. Baird said that PSE&G determined that it was not feasible to relocate the utility poles. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Baird if PSE&G gave them a written analysis of what was determined; Mr. Baird replied no. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Baird if PSE&G concluded that moving the utility poles laterally could not be done or just that it was not feasible; Mr. Baird said that they concluded that it was not feasible. He said that the two utility poles are 200’ apart and they cannot stretch them. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Vena if the pole line was accurate on the proposed curb sketch exhibit; Mr. Vena said that the exhibit is the original proposal. Mr. Buechler said that the exhibit is marked proposed but it is not clear what is currently being proposed. Mr. Vena said that the Engineer will present the new curb line proposal when he testifies. Mr. Bullock asked Mr, Baird if they requested something in writing from PSE&G regarding their conclusion. Mr. Baird said that they did request something in writing but PSE&G refused to give them documentation; they would only say that this is their

mething in writing from PSE&G regarding their conclusion. Mr. Baird said that they did request something in writing but PSE&G refused to give them documentation; they would only say that this is their findings. Mr. Buechler stated that this is basically hearsay and is an issue as far as he is concerned. Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Baird if there would be a cost to have the utility poles moved. Mr. Baird said that there is a significant cost to have them moved. Mr, Neuer asked how much would it cost; Mr. Baird said it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to move the two utility poles if it was feasible.

Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Baird if this problem could be resolved by having the lines put underground and did they discuss that option with PSE&G. Mr. Baird said that PSE&G did not want to incur that expense at this time. There were no further questions for Mr. Baird from the Board or the Professionals. Chairwoman Gabry asked if there were any members of the public who had any questions for Mr. Baird; seeing none Mr. Baird was excused. Mr. Vena called his next witness. Kevin G. Page approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Page detailed his educational and professional background as a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of New Jersey. Chairwoman Gabry accepted Mr. Page as an expert in Professional Engineering. Mr. Page presented the site plans. Chairwoman Gabry noted for the record that the site plans, with the revision date of 6/11/13, was pre-marked as Exhibit A-1 for identification. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Page if he prepared the stacking plans; Mr. Page replied no. He said that he consulted with their traffic expert, Mr. Maltz, for the stacking plans. Mr. Page referred to the site plans, detailing why they originally proposed to widen Gregory Avenue due to the stacking of cars on to Gregory Avenue. He said the stacking was a result of the old way the children were being dropped off at the school. Mr. Page said that, in 2011, the applicant proposed to widen Gregory Avenue because this is what was approved in original application in 2003 and they just carried it over. He said that it is not really needed and was not required by anyone. Mr. Page stated that when they saw the cost to re-locate the existing utility poles would be tens of thousands of dollars, they took a second look. He said when they submitted the revised plans to Eric Keller he suggested that they increase the radius of the driveway and make it smoother if they are not going to widen Gregory Avenue. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Page if the stacking of the cars on Gregory Avenue is now alleviated. Mr. Page replied yes and said that they do not have the peak concentration of traffic now due to the revised traffic circulation pattern. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Page if that was his personal knowledge and asked if he physically sat there to witness it; Mr. Page said no, that is what he heard from their traffic expert, Harold Maltz. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Page if it would be too costly

al knowledge and asked if he physically sat there to witness it; Mr. Page said no, that is what he heard from their traffic expert, Harold Maltz. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Page if it would be too costly to move the utility poles; Mr. Page replied yes. Mr, Buechler said that the last witness, Mr. Baird, said the cost was not the reason for them not wanting to widen Gregory Avenue. Mr. Page said that he is testifying that it is the cost. Mr. Bucchler asked Mr. Page if moving the utility poles is feasible; he replied yes. Mr. Buechler stated that cost is not relevant to the Board’s decision He said that Mr. Baird testified that it would cost hundxeds of thousands of dollars to relocate the utility poles and that Mr. Page said it would cost tens of thousands of dollars. He asked Mr. Page what the cost would be to relocate the utility poles; Mr. Page said it would probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Page if he testified at the meeting on October 24, 2011; Mr. Page replied yes. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Page if anything has changed since then; Mr. Page said yes that the Project Managers have changed. He said that they met with PSE&G about moving the utility poles and were told that it is not an easy issue and a significant cost. Mr, Neuer asked Mr. Page if he was there when they met with PSE&G; he replied no. Mr, Neuer said that this Board needs to see something significant in writing. He asked if anyone went to the utility company in 2011, because there is no practical difference since now and then; Mr. Page replied no. Mr. Page stated that the original drawings in the 2003 application were modified in the 2011 application and that they anticipated that they would still widen Gregory Avenue. He said that the cars parking on Gregory Avenue was a problem then and that they do not have that problem now because of the revised traffic circulation pattern. Mr. Neuer stated that Mr. Page said that it was necessary to widen Gregory Avenue in 2003 and in 2011. Mr. Page said the question is if the widening is necessary and they do not think it is now. Chairwoman Gabry asked what would happen if the demographics change in the future; Mr. Vena said that their traffic expert, Mr. Maltz, will address that question. Ms. Weiss stated that she would like to move forward and sec if the plan works for this approval. Mr. Sussman asked Mr. Page if they are proposing to leave the curb cut the way it is or is there an alternative. Mr. Page said that the plan is to leave the curbing on Gregory Avenue as is and increase the radius so that people heading north on Gregory Avenue can pull into the driveway casier. He said that it would be a smoother turn into the driveway. Mr. Page said that the driveway will remain the same; two lanes in and two lanes out. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Page if there is a no lefi hand turn when you come out of the driveway; Mr. Page replied yes but said that he does not know if it will remain that way. Mr. Page stated that he never knows what the cost to move a utility pole will be until it goes out for bid. He said the demographics in 2003, provided by Mr. Maltz, determined that the widening of Gregory Avenue was necessary. Mr. Page said that the internal geometry changed in 2011 but he did not go back and ask if Gregory Avenue

in 2003, provided by Mr. Maltz, determined that the widening of Gregory Avenue was necessary. Mr. Page said that the internal geometry changed in 2011 but he did not go back and ask if Gregory Avenue had to be widened; he said he just let it remain the same and never checked the cost to move the utility poles. Mr. Buechler stated that Mr. Baird testified that it was not feasible and had nothing to do with the cost.