January 16, 2014

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING January 16, 2014 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on January 16, 2014 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, 2013 in accordance with the “Open Public Meetings Act.” Chairwoman Gabry asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney, read the Opening Statement. PRESENT: G. Bullock, D. Gabry, W. Merklinger, P. Neuer, B. Quentzel, W. Steinhart, M. Sussman, A. Weiss ABSENT: B. Buechler (excused absence) ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, Consulting Planner Board Attorney, Alice Beirne, Esq. Board Secretary, Rose DeSena H. Grossman, Public Advocate D. Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Meetings: February 20, 2014 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM March 20, 2014 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM April 17, 2014 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 PM Chairwoman Gabry announced that application ZB-13-13/Alvarez, previously scheduled to be heard at this meeting, has requested to be carried to the next Zoning Board of Adjustment mecting held on February 20, 2014. She noted that the applicant did not notice in time for this meeting and that this Board does not have the jurisdiction to hear the application at this time. Savino Russoniello, Esq., attorney for application ZB-13-11/Galvilanez scheduled to be heard at this meeting, approached the podium. Mr. Russoniello stated that he understands that this application requires another “D” variance for a second principal use on this property and that they did not notice properly. Applicant will amend the application and re-notice.

| Chairwoman Gabry stated that if any member of the public is here for this application that it will not be heard tonight and it will be carried over to the February 20, 2014 regular meeting, She also noted that the applicant is required to re-notice for the February 20, 2014 meeting. MINUTES Adopt Minutes: December 19, 2013 (Regular Meeting) Chairwoman Gabry asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the regular Zoning Board meeting held on December 19, 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. SWEARING IN Consulting Planner for the Township, Paul Grygiel was sworn under oath. RESOLUTIONS. 1. ZB-13-14/Nissel Approved 12/19/13 40 Mayfair Drive Block: 179.08; Lot: 12; Zone: R-5 “C” variance for the expansion of a bedroom into part of an existing garage. Chairwoman Gabry asked if the Board reviewed this resolution and if any Member had any comments, Ms. Beirne stated that Mr. Neuer submitted his comments to her for this resolution and that she accepted them. Chairwoman Gabry asked for a motion to adopt the resolution with said revisions. Mr. Neuer made a motion to adopt and Mr. Bullock seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: Yes Bullock: Yes Sussman: Yes Merklinger: - Weiss: Yes Neuer: Yes Chairwoman Gabry: Yes Quentzel: :

APPLICATION(S) 1. ZB-13-18/Schinman Block: 104; Lot: 10; Zone: R-1 45 Mountain Avenue Two “C” variances for the height of constructing an accessory structure to a primary residence. EXHIBITS A-1— Rendered site plan with photographs of existing conditions A-2 — Comparisons of height of old barn to proposed structure A-3 — Elevations with picture depicting materials to be used for the proposed structure A-4 — Rendering of the new structure A-5 — Sheet A101 of the basement plan prepared by Kenneth Nadler dated 12/23/13 A-6 — Sheet A102 of the first floor plan prepared by Kenneth Nadler dated 12/23/13 A-7 ~ Sheet A103 of the second floor plan prepared by Kenneth Nadler dated 12/23/13 A-8 — Planning report (6 pages) prepared by Peter G. Steck O-1 — Survey prepared by Casey and Keller dated 8/29/89 O-2 - Photo taken from Mountain Avenue of proposed site by objector Julie Day O-4, 5, 6 — Photos of the original barn on the proposed site, taken by objector Julie Day, which was demolished by applicant O-7 — Photo taken of the proposed site, by objector Julie Day, from her driveway Q-8 — Photo taken by objector Julie Day, from her driveway, of the fence around the outdoor tennis court on the applicant’s property. Mr. Neuer recused himself from hearing this application and left the dais. Robert Williams, Esq., attorney for the applicant approached the podium and detailed the application. He said that the applicant is requesting two “C” variances for the height of an accessory structure being constructed in the rear of the home that sits on approximately ten (10) acres in Llewellyn Park. Mr. Williams called his first witness. Kenneth R. Nadler approached the podium and was sworn under oath, Mr. Nadler detailed his educational and professional background as a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey. Chairwoman Gabry asked Mr. Nadler if he has testified before Boards before for similar projects; he replied yes. Chairwoman Gabry accepted Mr. Nadler as an expert in Architecture. Mr. Nadler presented a rendered site plan with photographs depicting the existing conditions. Chairwoman Gabry noted for the record that the photographs were pre-marked as Exhibit A-1 for identification only and asked Mr. Nadler if he took theses photos; he replied no. She asked Mr. Nadler who took the photos; he said that the client took the photos.

Mr. Nadler referred to the photographs stating that the proposed structure can only be seen from the main house. Mr. Nadler presented another set of photographs. Chairwoman Gabry stated for the record that the photographs were pre-marked as Exhibit A-2 for identification only. Mr, Nadler referred to the photographs stating that they show the proposed structure and the structure that was demolished. He said that the proposed structure will be approximately 18” higher than the structure that was demolished. Mr. Williams also referred to the photographs and noted for the record that the proposed structure is the same distance from the next door neighbor’s property as the old structure was. Mr. Nadler presented the design plans for the proposed structure. Chairwoman Gabry noted for the record that the design plan for the proposed structure was pre-marked as Exhibit A-3 for identification. Mr. Nadler referred to the plan and detailed the design and what materials will be used, Mr. Williams asked Mr. Nadler if they will be removing any trees; he replied no, Mr. Nadler presented a three dimensional sketch of the proposed structure, Chairwoman Gabry noted for the record that the three dimensional rendering of the proposed structure was pre- marked as Exhibit A-4 for identification. Mr. Nadler referred to the rendering and began detailing it. He also noted that they are proposing to screen the existing outdoor tennis court as much as possible. Mr. Nadler presented the basement floor plan for the proposed structure. Chairwoman Gabry noted for the record that the proposed basement floor plan was pre-marked as exhibit A-5 for identification. Mr. Nadler detailed the basement floor plan proposing an indoor basketball court, a two car garage and a golf simulator. Mr. Nadler presented the first and second floor plans for the proposed structure. Chairwoman Gabry noted for the record that the proposed first floor plan was pre-marked as Exhibit A-6 and the proposed second floor plan was pre-marked as Exhibit A-7 for identification. Mr. Nadler referred to the first and second floor plans and detailed them. Chairwoman Gabry asked if any members of the Board had any questions for Mr. Nadler. Mr. Sussman asked Mr. Nadler the total square footage of all the floors; Mr. Nadler replied 9249 square feet. Mr. Steinhart asked Mr, Nadler what construction materials will be

tions for Mr. Nadler. Mr. Sussman asked Mr. Nadler the total square footage of all the floors; Mr. Nadler replied 9249 square feet. Mr. Steinhart asked Mr, Nadler what construction materials will be used; Mr. Nadler said they are proposing a wood structure and an asphalt Camelot roof. Mr. Grossman asked Mr. Nadler if the proposed structure is primarily recreational; he replied yes.

Mr. Grossman asked Mr. Nadler if eight proposed parking spaces will be adequate for the number of activities the structure is going to be used for; he replied yes. Mr. Nadler said that they could park fifty (50) cars on the property if need be. Chairwoman Gabry asked if any other members of the Board or the Professionals had any questions for Mr. Nadler.. Chairwoman Gabry asked if there were any members of the public who had any questions for Mr. Nadler. Anthony Rainone, Esq. approached the podium and stated that he is the attorney for an objector, Julie Day, who lives at 55 Mountain Avenue. Mr. Rainone asked Mr, Nadler how many accessory structures are currently on the property; he replied four accessory structures and a swimming pool. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if there was a building to the left of the indoor tennis court; he replied no. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler how many square feet the applicant’s house is; he replied approximately 10,000 sq, feet, Mr. Rainone referred to Exhibit A-4 and asked Mr. Nadler if the proposed structure looks like a house; he replied no, Mr. Nadler said that the proposed structure will look like a barn. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if there was a bathroom on that floor; he replied yes. Mr. Rainone referred to Exhibit A-6 of the proposed first floor plan and asked Mr. Nadler what the dimensions of the exercise room will be; he replied 25” x 25’. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if there was a bathroom on the first floor; he replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if there was a dressing room; he replied no. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler how big the bathroom will be on the first floor; he replied 14’ x 15’. Mr. Rainone referred to Exhibit A-7 of the proposed second floor plan and asked Mr. Nadler if there was going to be a refrigerator in the bar area; he replied possibly. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if there was going to be an office on the second floor; he replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if he thought the interior of the proposed structure looks like a home; he replied no. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if there will be any commercial activity in the proposed structure; he replied no.

Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if the indoor tennis court is used for commercial activity; he said that he did not know. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler where guests park; he said that he expects that they will park in the driveway. Mr. Rainone referred to Exhibit A-2 and asked Mr, Nadler the height of the cupola; he said that the cupola is 5’ tall. Mr. Rainone referred to Exhibit A-3 and asked Mr. Nadler if any excavation is being proposed; he replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if there is bedrock on the site; he said he did not know. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler how they would get to the foundation if there was bedrock; he said that they would chip it out with a jackhammer and heavy machinery. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if they would use dynamite; he replied no. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if he has seen any other barns in Llewellyn Park that look like the structure being proposed; he said that he has seen some that look similar. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Nadler if they were the same size as the structure being proposed; he said he was not sure. There were no further questions for Mr. Nadler from the members of the public. Mr. Williams called his next witness. Ryan Brett Schinman, applicant, approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Schinman when he purchased the property; he said he purchased the property in either 2001 or 2002. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Schinman why he purchased this site. Mr. Schinman said that he grew up in West Orange and fell in love with Llewellyn Park. He said that he is a tennis player and this property had an indoor and an outdoor tennis court on site and this is why he purchased it. Mr. Schinman detailed his participation as a resident in Llewellyn Park and noted the events that he has sponsored. Mr. Schinman stated that he entertains a lot and that is the purpose of the proposed structure. He said that when he went to the Town with his plans, he was told that if he attached the structure to the main residence that he would not need a variance. Mr. Schinman said that he felt it was important to keep the structure separate because he felt it would be more in keeping with the look of the Park.

Mr. Schinman said that there are only five other houses on the street who would be able to see the proposed structure and that it can only be seen from his property once you turn into his driveway. Mr. Schinman referred to Exhibit A-2 showing a photograph of the old barn that was located behind the residence. He said that the barn roof leaked and it was unusable so he decided to demolish it and build the new structure on the same site. Chairwoman Gabry asked Mr. Schinman when the barn was demolished; he replied at the end of November, 2013. Mr. Schinman said that his guests currently have to park on the street but once the structure is built they will be able to park on his property. Mr. Merklinger asked Mr. Schinman if the original barn structure needed a variance to build it; he replied that he did not know. There were no further questions for Mr. Schinman from the members of the Board or the Professionals. Chairwoman Gabry asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr, Schinman, Mr. Rainone approached the podium and asked Mr. Schinman if his testimony was that he had made repairs to the old barn and then demolished it; he replied yes. Mr. Rainone referred to Exhibit A-2 and asked Mr. Schinman if the photograph was a view of the structure from the street; he replied no. He said that the view was from his front lawn. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Schinman to explain what is behind his house; Mr. Schinman said there are trees and shrubbery behind his house. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Schinman if his testimony was that if someone was standing on Mountain Avenue they could not see the proposed structure; he replied no. He said that on some parts of Mountain Avenue you cannot see the structure. Mr Rainone asked Mr. Schinman what the dimensions of the indoor tennis court were; he replied 15,000 sq. feet. Mr. Rainone asked Mr, Schinman what the square footage of his house is; he said approximately 10,000 sq, feet. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Schinman if they eliminated the indoor basketball court, would it eliminate the height of the structure; he replied maybe. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Schinman if the recreation center is for his family; he replied yes.

Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Schinman how many times a ycar he has guests stay overnight at his house; he replied 80 percent of the time. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Schinman what percentage of that time do non-family members stay overnight; he replied 30 percent of the time. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Schinman why he did not extend his home for the recreation center; he said that he did not like the look and the feel of it. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Schinman if he has clients stay at his home. Mr, Schinman said that some of his clients are friends and they have stayed at his house, hesaid that his clients do not stay at his house. Mr. Rainone asked Mr, Schinman the indoor tennis court is used for personal gain; he replied no. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Schinman if he was suggesting in his testimony that he get different treatment because he donates to Llewellyn Park; he replied no. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Schinman if the proposed structure is a guest house; he replied no. There were no further questions for Mr. Schinman. Mr. Williams called his next witness. Peter G. Steck approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Chairwoman Gabry asked Mr. Steck if he submitted a report with the application because she did not see one; he replied no. He said that he has prepared a hand out and asked if he could distribute it to the Board members, Chairwoman Gabry asked to have Mr, Steck’s hand out marked as Exhibit A-8 for identification. Mr. Steck detailed his professional and educational background as a Professional Planner licensed in the State of New Jersey. Chairwoman Gabry accepted Mr. Steck as an expert in Professional Planning. Mr. Steck referred to Exhibit A-8 and identified the two variances that the applicant is seeking. He said that the height of the proposed structure exceeds the 35’ that is allowed by the Township ordinance and is technically a two story building when 1.5 stories are allowed. Mr. Steck described the photos in Exhibit A-8 that shows the proposed structure site from all views. Chairwoman Gabry referred to photo #7 and asked Mr. Steck what house she is looking at in the photo; he replied the neighbor, Julie Day’s house. Mr. Steck stated that the very large property has 500 feet of frontage on Mountain Avenue with very steep slopes on the property. He said that the gentle slopes are closer to the street. Mt. Steck stated that the applicant is proposing to

operty has 500 feet of frontage on Mountain Avenue with very steep slopes on the property. He said that the gentle slopes are closer to the street. Mt. Steck stated that the applicant is proposing to build an accessory structure, not a dwelling, for his family and friends and detailed all of the setbacks that the Township’s Ordinance allows for this property, He said that if the applicant chose to add this structure to the main building it