March 20, 2014

Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Ricci if his testimony is that there is no special reason to grant this approval; he replied no. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Ricci if he is aware that there are businesses on the first floor and residents on the second floor of some of the other properties in this area; he replied yes, Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Ricci if he did a survey about how many there are; he said no because it is not relevant. Mr. Ricci said that this would be the first personal service use in this area. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Ricci if his observance of the driveway difficulties was when there was snow on the ground; he said no that he also observed the driveway today. Mr. Merklinger stated that a driveway is not a roadway and asked Mr. Ricci if the other houses in the immediate area have driveways; he said that he did not observe any. Mr. Merklinger asked Mr. Ricci if he considers a driveway between the applicant’s property and the property to the south a one-way driveway; he replied yes. Mr. Grossman asked Mr, Ricci how many parking spaces he thought should be allowed; he said the Township ordinance allows 6.3 spaces but he thinks functionally they would need more. Mr. Neuer asked Mr, Ricci if he did an analysis of shared parking; he replied no. Mr. Russoniello cited the permitted uses in the OB-1 zone and asked Mr. Ricci if he saw any of these uses in this zone; Mr, Ricci listed all of the properties he saw in the immediate area starting from the limousine business to the Edison Historical Park. Mr. Russoniello asked Mr. Ricci if the residential homes were one or two family; he replied two family. Mr. Russoniello asked Mr. Ricci if there were legal non-conforming uses in the area; he replied yes, Mr. Russoniello asked Mr. Ricci if most of the uses on this block pre-date the Township’s zoning ordinance and are non-conforming; he replied yes. Mr. Russoniello asked Mr. Ricci if this zone has many non-conforming structures and uses on this block; he replied yes. Mr. Russoniello asked Mr. Ricci if he thought the zone has been impaired already; Mr. Ricci said that the area cannot handle any more non-conforming uses because the zone is over-built. Mr. Russoniello asked whether a 962 sq. footbeautysalon will have a big impact on this zone. Mr. Ricci did not respond. He asked Mr. Ricci if the O’Reilly driveway is legal because the variance has already been approved by this

r a 962 sq. footbeautysalon will have a big impact on this zone. Mr. Ricci did not respond. He asked Mr. Ricci if the O’Reilly driveway is legal because the variance has already been approved by this Board; he replied yes it is a legal non-conforming driveway.

Mr. Russoniello asked Mr. Ricci if he heard testimony that most of thebcautysalon’s clients walk to the business and asked him if that changes his opinion about the site’s vehicular activity; he said that is not his only concern about the vehicular activity. Chairwoman Gabry called for a recess at 9:37 pm. Chairwoman Gabry resumed the meeting at 9:50 pm. Chairwoman Gabry asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Ricci; there were none. Mr. Owen called his next witness, Megan Brill. Megan Brill approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Ms. Brill stated that she is the Executive Director of the Downtown Alliance. Mr. Owen referred to Exhibit O-3, a store front vacancy list for the West Orange Downtown area, and asked Ms, Brill if this document was prepared by her; she replied yes. Mr. Owen asked Ms. Brill if the store front vacancy list is current; she replied yes. Mr. Owen asked Ms. Brill how many vacancies in the downtown; she replied forty six. Mr. Owen asked Ms. Brill how many store front salons there are in the downtown; she replied seven are hair and nail salons. Ms. Brill stated that the Downtown Alliance objects to the application because there are residential homes in that area. There were no questions for Ms. Brill from the Board or the Professionals. There were no questions for Ms. Brill from the members of the public. Mr. Owen stated that he had no further witnesses or evidence to present. Chairwoman Gabry stated that the hearing was now open to any members of the public who wanted to offer evidence or make a statement, under oath. Richard E. Koehler approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Koehler stated that he lives at 136 Main Street and his property borders the proposed site and he is not in favor of this application. He said the applicant’s property slopes and it carries a lot of water on its east border. Mr. Koehler stated that Mr. O’Reilly has not installed any drainage system yet on the east side of his property, as he is required to do as a condition of a resolution of approval by this Board, and that the residents had to build retaining walls in the rear of their property to prevent flooding. He said that his property is lower than the proposed site and he gets a lot of water from

134 Main Street and had to make adjustments to his property to prevent the water from flooding his basement. Mr. Koehler said that he feels that when the snow is plowed to the north-west side of that property, he will receive the run-off. Mr. Koehler gave a very lengthy synopsis of the history of the area detailing how and when the neighborhood started to change. He cited the existing parking problems in the neighborhood and who lives on the first, second and third floor of the applicant’s property along with the number of automobiles the residents and visitors own. Robert Gazsik approached the podium and was sworn under oath. He stated that he lives at 131 Main Street and said that he thinks the application should be denied. Mr. Gazsik said that that it is a small piece of property and that taxis are often parked in the driveway and block traffic in the driveway. He said that this is the only business in the neighborhood that will be on the first floor of ahome. Mr. Gazsik cited the parking problems in the neighborhood and said that once they pave the new parking area he is afraid of the run-off from the water. Mr. Gazsik said that he would like to keep the little bit of the residential character that is left of the ncighborhood. Mr. Owen approached the podium and summed up. He stated that his clients have nothing against the applicant and that they just wish that they relocate the beauty salon into into a zone that permits it. Mr. Owen said that thebeautysalon is inappropriate for the property and that residential properties do not need anything further to infringe on their residential character. He said that he feels that the business will easily generate up to sixteen employees and that they did not meet the burden of proof for the use and bulk variances. Mr. Owen said that there is too little onsite parking, no open space and that there is no proof that the property is suitable for this use. He said that he feels that thebeautysalon will create a detriment to this area. Mr. Owen stated that he is requesting that the Board deny this application. Mr. Russoniello approached the podium and summed up. He stated that the site does have suitability because it is the only house on that block that has a driveway. My. Russoniello noted the improvements that will be made to the house and said that the applicant should be able to use their own property for

e it is the only house on that block that has a driveway. My. Russoniello noted the improvements that will be made to the house and said that the applicant should be able to use their own property for their business, He said that this application has nothing to do with the backlash of the O’Reilly property and reminded the Board that most of the traffic is walk-in. Harvey Grossman, Esq., the West Orange Public Advocate approached the podium and said that the primary problem is inadequate off-street parking. He said he is sympathetic to the applicant but the area has a genuine parking problem and there is not sufficient onsite parking. Mr. Grossman said that it is not in the public interest to grant this application. Chairwoman Gabry closed the hearing. Ms. Weiss said that she agrees with the parking issues and that the negative outweighs the benefits. She said that she would deny this application if she had a vote. Mr. Quentzel said that he is in favor of mom and pop businesses. He said that the applicant wants to make a better facility and improve the aesthetics of the building. He said that there is no 10

current parking and that they are putting in three parking spots and will lease parking spaces from Mr. O’Reilly to get additional parking. Mr. Quentzel said that he feels the need for parking is not as great as they make it out to be because the customers walk to the salon. He said that Mr. Koehler should have taken action against Mr. O’Reilly. Mr. Quentzel said that he suggests, as a condition of approval, using pervious materials when paving the new parking area and some kind of appropriate drainage that would take some of the problems away from the Koehler property. He said that he in favor of this application. Mr. Merklinger said that he agrees with Mr. Quentzel and that it is an aesthetically pleasing building. He said that you will not solve the parking on Main Street with one application and it is not fair to the applicant. Mr. Merklinger said that he will recommend, as a condition of approval, that they maintain the property and acquire an easement from Mr. O’Reilly. He said that he will vote to approve the application. Mr. Sussman said that he is torn on this application. He said that he thinks parking is a problem and the site is not suitable for abeautysalon. Mr. Sussman said he will vote to deny the application. Mr. Steinhart said that he has sympathy for the applicant and for the neighbors. He said that he has listened to the Planners for both the Applicant and the Objector and is in far more disagreement with the applicant’s Planner’s testimony rather than the objector’s Planner’s testimony. Mr. Steinhart said he did not hear enough sufficient evidence to re-zone the property and he is not in favor of the application. Mr. Neuer said he has mixed emotions about this application. He said that this Zoning Board is a statutory body pursuant to and must act in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law. Mr. Neuer said that this is the Zoning Board of Adjustment and if an adjustment to the specific provision of the ordinance is appropriate then the Board votes to approve. He said that he will vote yes to approve this application. Mr. Neuer said that he is proud that residents want to stay in this town. He said that the clients walk or take a bus to the site because they have a long term relationship with the applicant. Mr. Neuer said that a month-to-month lease under which the business currently operates is not secure and that his vote is based

the site because they have a long term relationship with the applicant. Mr. Neuer said that a month-to-month lease under which the business currently operates is not secure and that his vote is based on what he feels is good for this community. He said that he does not want to see the Town lose another taxpayer and he will vote yes, Chairwoman Gabry said that it is her opinion that a beauty salon does not serve the general welfare and will have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. She stated that she is not convinced by the Applicant’s testimony or the Applicant’s experts since it was inconsistent and contradictory. Chairwoman Gabry stated she will vote to deny. Mr. Buechler said that he will move to deny this application. He said that the applicant did not meet the positive or negative criteria and that when this Board votes, it is not just on the application before them; he said that the variance runs with the land. Mr. Steinhart seconded the motion to deny. 11

The vote was as follows: Buechler: Yes to deny Steinhart: Yes to deny Bullock: - Sussman: Yes to deny Merklinger: No to deny Weiss: - Neuer: No to deny Chairwoman Gabry: Yes to deny Quentzel: No to deny 2. ZB-13-19/ Amanuel Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Carried from 2/20/14 Block: 11; Lot: 17; Zone: R-M 15 Dean Street “D” variance for conditional use and several “C” variances for the conversion Of an existing commercial garage into a House of Worship. Chairwoman Gabry noted the time and stated that all meetings of this Board end promptly at 11:00 pm. She asked the attorney for 7B-13-19 to approach, Joseph Vena, Esq. approached the podium and requested to be carried to the next Zoning Board mecting on April 17, 2014. He also requested to be the first application on the agenda. Chairwoman Gabry noted that there will be another new application before him, and he will be second on the agenda. She said that no further notice will be necessary. The meeting was adjourned by Chairwoman Gabry at 11:02 pm. Adopted: April 17, 2014 t pol “v 7 Rose DeSena Zoning Board Secretary 12