October 17, 2013

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING October 17, 2013 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on October 17, 2013 commencing 8:00 PM at 66 Main Street, West Orange, N.J. in Council Chambers. Vice Chairman Buechler 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.” Vice Chairman Buechler asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Alice Beime, Esq., Board Attorney, read the Opening Statement. PRESENT: B. Buechler, G. Bullock, W. Merklinger, P. Neuer, B. Quentzel, W. Steinhart, M. Sussman (8:03 pm) ABSENT: D, Gabry (excused), A. Weiss (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, Consulting Planner F. Russo, Consulting Engineer Board Attorney, Alice Beirne, Esq. Board Secretary, Rose DeSena H. Grossman, Public Advocate D. Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Meetings: *October 28, 2013 (Special Meeting) — 8:00 PM November 21, 2013 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM December 19, 2013 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM January 16, 2014 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM *Frank Regan, Esq., attorney for the applicant, approached the podium and asked to have ZB-13-03/Prism Green Assoc. III, LLC carried over to a special meeting. The Zoning Board approved his request; the special meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 28, 2013.

MINUTES Adopt Minutes: September 12, 2013 (Regular Meeting) Vice Chairman Buechler asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Zoning Board meeting held on September 12, 2013 as submitted to the Board members. Mr. Neuer made a motion to approve the minutes; Mr. Sussman seconded the motion and all were in favor, It was noted for the record that Mr. Merklinger was not present at this meeting and did not vote. SWEARING IN Consulting Engineer, Frank Russo and Consulting Planner for the Township, Paul Grygiel were sworn under oath. DISCUSSION 1. ZB-13-12/Interpretation Pursuant to N.J.S. 40:55-D79b Fitness Center/Health Club in a P-C Zone Defined as a separate use or as a personal service store/studio Vice Chairman Buechler stated that the Township’s Zoning Official is asking the Board to define a Fitness Center/Health Club as a separate use or as a personal service store/studio in a P-C zone. Mr. Grygiel explained that there is no language, regarding fitness centers/health clubs, in the Township’s Ordinance. Vice Chairman Buechler read the ordinance and said that this use may constitute a personal service which is defined in the ordinance. He said that a personal service is permitted in the P-C zone and the definition is broad enough to include fitness centers/health clubs as a personal service. Vice Chairman Buechler said that he spoke with Ms. Adams, the Township’s Zoning Official, and asked her what the Township has permitted as a personal service in the past. He said that Ms. Adams stated that some of the uses the Township has considered as personal service/studios, since she has been here, included tailors, beauty shops, nail salons, dry cleaner, barbershops and a yoga studio, Mr. Bullock asked Mr. Grygiel when the Township ordinance was last updated; Mr. Grygiel said in 2012. Mr. Bullock said that there was a fitness center in the K-Mart shopping Plaza at one time; Vice Chairman Buechler said that there was a fitness center called Spa Lady but there is no record of any permits or approvals on file for it.

Vice Chairman Buechler recommended having the proposed applicant come in to explain what they are proposing. He said massages are defined in the ordinance and the Board would need to know exactly what services they will be providing at this fitness center. Mr. Grygiel stated the issue is if fitness centers fit into the P-C zone. He said that the application would still have to go for technical review where it would be determined what services they will be providing. He said that “massage” is a separate use and there is something on the books to define that because a license is needed to do massages. Mr. Neuer said his concern is parking because parking for that specific area is limited. Vice Chairman Buechler said that he is also concerned about parking. Ms. Beirne said that Robert Williams is the attorney for the fitness center being proposed and he will come in to answer any questions and recommended tabling the matter until then. Mr. Neuer said that Mr. Williams can risk coming to the meeting tonight but would have to wait until the end because there are two applications to be heard. Vice Chairman Buechler stated, for the record, that this matter is tabled for the moment. RESOLUTIONS 1. ZB-13-05/Nicolas Approved 9/12/13 8 Pen Bryn Road Block: 148.03; Lot: 13; Zone: R-6 “C’ variances for side yard set-backs for installing a deck Vice Chairman Buechler noted, for the record, that there were suggested revisions to this resolution from Mr. Neuer and himself. Ms. Beirne said that she approved these revisions and they were incorporated into the resolution. Vice Chairman Buechler asked if any other Board member had any suggested comments or revisions for this resolution; seeing none he asked for a motion to approve the resolution with the revisions. Mr, Neuer made a motion to approve with the revisions; Mr. Bullock seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: Yes Steinhart: Yes Bullock: Yes Sussman: Yes Merklinger: - Weiss: - Neuer: Yes Chairwoman Gabry: - Quentzel: Yes

APPLICATIONS 1. ZB-13-07/Golda Och Carried from 8/15/13 Block: 79; Lot: 21; Zone: R-4 122 Gregory Avenue Amended site plan approval to adjust the curb line on Gregory Avenue. Vice Chairman Buechler noted for the record that he is recused from hearing this application and stated that Mr. Neuer will act as Chairman and turned the meeting over to him. Vice Chairman Buechler left the dais. EXHIBITS A-7 - Memo from West Orange Police Traffic Bureau dated 10/14/13 A-8 - Site Dimension Plan, drawing #3, revision date of 6/11/13 Joseph Vena, Esq., attorney for the applicant, approached the podium and stated that this application was last heard August 15, 2013. He said that the application is for the amendment of a previously approved site plan in which the applicant is proposing to eliminate the widening of Gregory Avenue. Mr. Vena said the application is not to amend condition #3 of the prior resolution that was approved on 12/8/11. He said that condition #3 stated that the approval is specifically contingent upon the applicant obtaining all required government consents for completing the widening of Gregory Avenue as per the plans. Mr. Vena said that the widening of Gregory Avenue was not a condition and that Essex County needed to approve the widening. He said that replacing the sidewalks on Gregory Avenue was a condition because that is what the Board wanted but the widening of the road was not. Mr. Vena presented Exhibit A-S, the County of Essex Planning Board amended site plan approval letter dated 7/25/13, stating that the County did not require them to widen Gregory Avenue, Mr. Vena also presented a memo from the West Orange Police Traffic Safety Division. Mr. Neuer asked to have the memo from the West Orange Police Traffic Safety Division, dated 10/14/13, marked as Exhibit A-7 for identification, Mr. Vena stated that the Traffic Safety Division performed an inspection at the site and determined that the widening of Gregory Avenue is not necessary because they did not witness any queuing of vehicles at the time of the inspection. Mr. Vena stated that he would like to bring in their traffic expert, Harold Maitz, to explain the changes in the site plan. Before proceeding, Mr. Neuer asked Ms, Beirne if condition #3 would disappear from the resolution if the amendment to climinate the widening of Gregory Avenue was approved. Ms. Beirne said that the

. Before proceeding, Mr. Neuer asked Ms, Beirne if condition #3 would disappear from the resolution if the amendment to climinate the widening of Gregory Avenue was approved. Ms. Beirne said that the applicant is presenting a new plan to amend the previously approved site plan; not the condition, She said that Mr. Vena wants the Board to agree with that and would like the opportunity to have someone testify to some of the questions the Board may have regarding the stacking of the cars, Ms. Beirne said that the Board would need to re-open the record. 4

Mr. Neuer opened the record and stated that condition 3, in the prior resolution of approval, was contingent upon Essex County approving the widening of Gregory Avenue. He said that if the County approved the plan and did not require the applicant to widen Gregory Avenue, then condition #3 of the resolution of approval would no longer be applicable and should be eliminated. Mr. Quentzel said to remove it as a condition from the prior resolution of approval. Mr. Steinhart and Mr. Bullock also said to remove it as a condition from the prior resolution of approval. Mr. Merklinger said that his concern is that he feels the widening of Gregory Avenue was put in the original site plan for a reason because they felt it was necessary. Mr. Neuer said that all the applicant is talking about is amending the application to say nothing about widening Gregory Avenue. Mr. Sussman asked Mr. Vena why they wanted to widen Gregory Avenue in the first place; Mr. Vena said because they developed a better design now and Essex County approved the new design. Mr. Neuer said that the Board will vote on the interim resolution. Mr. Neuer made a motion to climinate condition number three in the plan previously approved on 12/8/11 if the amended site plan is approved; Mr. Quentzel seconded the motion. ‘The vote was as follows: Buechler: Recused Steinhart: Yes Bullock: Yes Sussman: Yes Merklinger: No Weiss: - Neuer: Yes Chairwoman Gabry: - Quentzel: Yes Mr. Neuer stated that the application ZB-13-07 before the Zoning Board is to amend a site plan. Mr. Vena presented a set of plans to each Board member. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Vena if these plans were submitted to Omland Engineering ten days before this meeting; Mr. Vena replied no. He said that they are a visual depiction of what the witness, Mr. Page, is going to explain to the Board. Mr. Neuer stated that they should have been submitted ten days prior to this meeting and because they were not they will not be entered into evidence. Mr. Vena called his first witness. Harold K, Maltz, Traffic Expert for the applicant, approached the podium. Mr. Neuer stated, for the record, that Mr. Maltz will continue under oath and accepted as an expert Traffic Engineer.

Mr. Maltz presented the Site Dimension Plan for the project. Mr. Neuer asked to have drawing #3 of the Site Dimension Plan with the revision date of 6/11/13 marked as Exhibit A-8 for identification, Mr. Vena stated that Mr. Maltz will be testifying to the queuing. Mr. Maltz referred to the site dimension plan and detailed what he observed on September 12, 2013 and October 2, 2013 regarding the stacking of the vehicles. He said that it was basically a “drop and go” in the morning and all of the cars were stacked onsite; no vehicles spilled out on to Gregory Avenue. Mr. Vena then asked Mr. Maltz to describe the queuing during the afternoon pickup. Mr. Maltz referred to Exhibit A-8 and noted that it has been changed from a single queue to a double queue. He said that during his afternoon observations, the double lane stacking of vehicles did not extend out onto Gregory Avenue. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz how many feet were Jeft before a vehicle reached Gregory Avenue; Mr. Maltz said approximately 65 to 70 feet. Mr. Maltz, stated that the prior plan proposed 42 vehicles queued onsite and two (2) vehicles overflowed on to Gregory Avenue. He said this plan is proposing 49 vehicles being queued. onsite with no overflow on to Gregory Avenue. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz if the 2011 plan proposed a single or double lane; Mr. Maltz replied single lane. Mr. Maltz detailed the stacking lanes and said that there will be an attendant present who controls the stacking of the vehicles. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz how many attendants control the stacking; he replied one. Mr. Neuer asked what time the attendant is there and for how long; Mr. Maltz said the attendant is there for approximately a half hour between 3 and 3:30 pm, Mr. Maltz stated that the new stacking plan eliminates the need to widen Gregory Avenue. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Maltz if he responded to the comments from Omland Engineering in their memo dated 6/6/13; Mr. Maltz replied yes. Mr, Neuer asked Mr. Russo if he had any other comments; Mr. Russo replied no. He said all of the comments were addressed. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz if the plan provided safe ingress and egress to the site; Mr. Maltz replied yes.

Mr. Steinhart asked Mr. Maltz why they proposed to widen Gregory Avenue in the first place if the plan is basically the same. Mr. Maltz said it was based on one lane coming in and now they are proposing a double lane and a much wider driveway. Mr. Steinhart asked Mr. Maltz if the 15’ driveway is wide enough for an emergency vehicle; Mr. Maltz replied yes. Mr. Bullock asked Mr. Maltz what time an attendant manages the queuing in the morning. Mr. Maltz. said that the queuing of vehicles never goes beyond the end of the “U” and there is no reason to supervise it. Mr. Sussman asked Mr, Maltz if he is correct in understanding that the new plan proposes two stacking lanes and a 9’ lane for a car to pass if need be; Mr. Maltz replied yes. Mr. Sussman. asked Mr. Maltz if a school bus would be able to pass in the 9’ lane; Mr. Maltz replied yes. He said that the bus is 8’ wide and approximately 35’ long and it would be able to pass through. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz if the 8’ includes the side mirrors; Mr. Maltz replied probably not. There were no further questions for Mr, Maltz from the Board or the Professionals. Mr. Neuer asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Maltz. Erik Cunningham approached the podium and stated that he lived at 14 Devon Drive. Mr. Cunningham asked Mr. Maltz what exactly the attendant does and when are they there. Mr. Maltz said that the attendant organizes the traffic as it moves up the driveway and assures that no one makes an illegal left hand turn on to Gregory Avenue in the afternoon. Mr. Russo stated that he agrees to what Mr. Maltz has testified to. He said that he personally observed on 10/9/13, both morning and afternoon, that no cars were stacked on to Gregory Avenue. He said that there were three attendants internally and one attendant on Gregory Avenue. Mr. Vena called his next witness. Kevin G. Page, Professional Engineer for the applicant, approached the podium. Mr, Neuer stated, for the record, that Mr. Page will continue under oath as an expert in the field of Engineering. Mr. Vena stated that Mr. Page will address any questions regarding the vehicle turning templates. Mr. Page said that the turning template shows when a vehicle turns, where the wheels are and where the body is. He stated that the bus movement can be accommodated in the proposed 9° lane. There were no further questions for Mr.

g template shows when a vehicle turns, where the wheels are and where the body is. He stated that the bus movement can be accommodated in the proposed 9° lane. There were no further questions for Mr. Page from the Board or the Professionals. 7

Mr. Neuer asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Page; seeing none, Mr. ‘Vena made his closing comments, Mr. Neuer asked if any member of the public had any comments; seeing none Mr. Neuer closed the public hearing. Mr. Neuer stated that the applicant’s request for the amendment is appropriate. He said that Mr. Malltz has testified to safe ingress and egress, the Township’s Professional Engineer approved the amendment and did not object to it, the Township’s Police Departments Traffic Safety Division had no objections to the applicant not widening Gregory Avenue and Essex County had no objections. Mr. Neuer said that, in his opinion, the applicant satisfied the requirements to grant the amendment and the need to widen Gregory Avenue has been eliminated. Mr. Neuer made a motion to approve the amended application with the condition that one attendant is onsite from 3-3:30 pm; Mr. Sussman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: Recused. Steinhart: Yes Bullock: Yes Sussman: Yes Merklinger: Yes Weiss: - Neuer: Yes Chairwoman Gabry: - Quentzel: Yes Mr. Neuer called for a recess at 9:42 pm. Vice Chairman Buechler resumed his position on the dais as acting Chairman and called the meeting back to order at 9:52 pm. Robert Williams, Esq. approached the podium and addressed the Board, Mr. Williams stated that he was present because he heard that the Board had questions regarding one of his clients and was here to answer them, Vice Chairman Bucchler told Mr. Williams that he will have to wait until after the Board hears the last application on the agenda that is scheduled to be heard at this meeting tonight. 2. 7B-13-09/Heart to Heart Home Care Carried from 9/12/13 Block: 45.01; Lot: 14; Zone: R-5 28 Devon Drive “C” side yard variance to install a handicapped ramp at a Group Home. EXHIBITS A-1 — Site Plan dated 6-3-13