June 19, 2014

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING June 19, 2014 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on June 19, 2014 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, 2013 in accordance with the “Open Public Meetings Act.” Vice Chairman Buechler asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney, read the Opening Statement. PRESENT: B. Buechler, G. Bullock, P. Neuer, W. Steinhart, M. Sussman, A. Weiss ABSENT: D. Gabry (excused absence} W. Merklinger (excused absence) B. Quentzel (excused absence) ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, Consulting Planner Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney Rose DeSena, Board Secretary H. Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate D, Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Meetings: July 17, 2014 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 pm July 24, 2014 (Special Meeting) — 8:00 pm August 21, 2014 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 pm September 18, 2014 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 pm Vice Chairman Buecher announced that Mark Sussman and Bart Quentzel have been re- appointed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment as Regular Member and Alternate Member, respectively.

SWEARING IN Consulting Planner for the Township, Paul Grygiel was sworn under oath. MINUTES Adopt the following minutes: May 17,2014 (Regular Meeting) Vice Chairman Buechler asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the May 17, 2014 regular Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting as submitted to the Board members. Mr. Neuer made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted; Mr. Steinhart seconded the motion and all were in favor. May 29, 2014 (Special Meeting) Vice Chairman Buechler asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the May 29, 2014 special Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting as submitted to the Board members. Mr. Sussman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted; Mr. Neuer seconded the motion and all were in favor. RESOLUTIONS 1, ZB-13-19/ Amanuel Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Approved 4/17/14 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. Vice Chairman Buechler asked if the Board reviewed this resolution and if any Member had any comments. Mr. Neuer stated that Mr. Keller submitted a very comprehensive memo and that all of the required changes were satisfied. Mr. Neuer made a motion to adopt the resolution; Mr. Sussman seconded the motion.

The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: Yes Bullock: - Sussman: Yes Merklinger: - Weiss: - Neuer: Yes Chairwoman Gabry: - Quentzel: - 2. ZB-13-16/Feld Approved 5/15/14 Block: 97; Lot: 24.03; Zone: R-1 62 Tulip Avenue “D” height variance to construct a two story single family home Ms. Beirne stated that she approved some suggested revisions that David Owen, Esq. had and noted those revisions. She stated for the record that Mr. Owen represents a resident in Llewellyn Park. Vice Chairman Buechler asked for a motion to adopt the resolution with said revisions. Mr. Neuer made a motion to adopt the resolution; Ms, Weiss seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: Yes Steinhart: Yes Bullock: - Sussman: Yes Merklinger: - Weiss: Yes Neuer: Yes Chairwoman Gabry: - Quentzel: - 3. ZB-14-05/Ebrlich Approved 5/15/14 Block: 176; Lot: 9; Zone: R-5 2 Dale Drive “C™ rear yard variance for building a deck in the rear of the home Vice Chairman Buechler stated that he submitted some grammatical revisions for this resolution to Ms. Beirne. Ms. Beirne stated that she accepted those revisions and incorporated them into the resolution. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that he will make a motion to adopt the resolution with said revisions; Mr, Sussman seconded the motion.

The vote was as follows: Buechler: Yes Steinhart: Yes Bullock: - Sussman: Yes Merklinger: - Weiss: Yes Neuer: Yes Chairwoman Gabry: - Quentzel: - APPLICATIONS 1. ZB-14-01/Communication Infrastructure Corp. Carried from 5/15/14 Block: £11; Lot: 1.03; Zone: B-2 416 Eagle Rock Avenue “D” use variance to install two microwave dishes on an existing tower James Pryor, Esq., attorney for the applicant, approached the podium. Vice Chairman Buechter addressed Mr. Pryor and stated that the new Engincer’s certification received in response to the Board’s request was circulated this afternoon. Ms. Beirne said that she received it today. Vice Chairman Buechler said that this application was submitted in March and that at the meeting last month, Mr. Pryor’s colleague attended the meeting and was told the certification had serious inconsistencies. Mr. Pryor stated that the original certification was emailed to his office on June 10" with the Engineer’s name typed in. He said that Ms. Beirne notified him that the certification needed the signature of the engineer. Mr. Pryor said that the certification had the incorrect signature on it because the wrong engineer signed it; he said that Mr. Jones signed it instead of Mr. Robinson. He said that he did not get the certification back with the correct engineer’s signature on it 10 days prior to this meeting and that he faxed it to Ms. Beirne yesterday. Vice Chairman Buechler said that the Board discussed a prior resolution condition that required the removal of all antennas from the tower that are not in use. He said that the certification from the engincer states that the antennas still need to be removed and that he will not permit a vote on the resolution to proceed because there are still non-functioning antennas on the tower. Mr. Pryor said that the reason the non-functioning antennas were not removed is because there is a nest on the tower and there is an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that no one can go on that tower to remove the nest. Vice Chairman Buechler asked what regulation that is; Mr. Pryor said that he cannot cite the regulation but that the tower operators are careful not to remove the nest due to this regulation. Vice Chairman Buechler said that he will recommend to the other Board members that they do not vote on this application until all of the antennas that are not in use are

nest due to this regulation. Vice Chairman Buechler said that he will recommend to the other Board members that they do not vote on this application until all of the antennas that are not in use are removed from the tower. He said that the Board is going to need documentation as to when the antennas are going 1o be removed and certification as to when the nest will be removed. 4

Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Pryor what meeting he would like to adjourn until and said the next regular meeting is scheduled for July 17, 2014. Mr. Pryor stated for the record that the tower owner wants the antennas that are not in used removed. Mr. Steinhart said that if it is an active nest would they need to hear testimony from any experts, on the record, as to why the antennas cannot be removed. Mr. Pryor said that according to federal law it would have to be an active nest that is inhabited by birds in order not to be able to remove the antennas. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that this will be adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting on July 17, 2014 and that no further notice will be necessary. Mr. Neuer suggested that the applicant provide an open ended extension of the statutory period for rendering a decision in case there is still a problem with the removal of the antennas. Mr. Pryor requested an extension to the August Zoning Board meeting. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that the application will be adjourned to the August 21, 2014 Zoning Board meeting if the applicant is not prepared to heard by the July 17, 2014 meeting. 2. ZB-14-02/E.G. Holdings Corp,. dba Total Wine and More Carried from 5/15/14 Block: 155.21; Lot: 40; Zone: P-C 495 Prospect Avenue “C” variance to install a flush mounted sign to the facade EXHIBITS A-1—Photo Board (4 photos) A-2 — Photo Board (4 photos) A-3 — Floor plan with yellow and red markings (interior) A-4— Existing signage — Michels & Waldon A-5 — Proposed signage by Imageworks Rosemary G. Vinitsky Esq., attorney for the applicant, approached the podium and began detailing the application. She stated that the applicant is before this Board seeking variance approval for new signage in connection with an expansion project at this location that was approved by the West Orange Planning Board in January of this year. Mr. Steinhart stated that he has previously done work for Ms. Vinitsky and asked Ms. Beirne if this would be a conflict. Ms. Vinitsky stated that her firm has not worked with Mr. Steinhart for at least four years. Ms. Beirne asked Ms. Vinitsky if the work was related to this client; she replied no. Ms. Beirne said there is no conflict. Ms. Vinitsky called her first witness.

Martin Santini approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Santini detailed his educational and professional background as a licensed architect and a professional planner in the State of New Jersey. He said that he has provided testimony numerous times before this Zoning Board. Vice Chairman Buechler accepted Mr. Santini as an expert in Professional Planning. Mr. Santini presented two (2) photo boards: one showing an aerial view of the Essex Green Plaza, two (2) photos of the Total Wine store and a photo of Macy’s Department Store; and one showing the Shop Rite storefront, and three views of various signs at the Shop Rite store. Vice Chairman Buechler asked to have the photo board with the aerial view and three other photos marked as Exhibit “A-1 for identification and the other photo board mared as Exhibit A-2 for identification. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Santini if he took the photos; he replied yes that he took them in March of 2014. Vice Chairman Bucchler asked Mr. Santini if he did anything to modify or change the photos: he replied no, Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Santini if the photos accurately depict what he saw in March of 2014; he replied yes. Mr. Santini presented the interior floor plans that were marked with yellow and red and a photo board of the existing facade and signage that was prepared by Michaels and Waldron Architects. Vice Chairman. Buechler asked to have the interior floor plan marked as Exhibit A-3 for identification and the existing conditions of the fagade and the signage, prepared by Michaels and Waldron Architects, marked as Exhibit A-4 for identification. Mr. Santini presented a photo board showing the proposed signage; Vice Chairman Buechler asked to have the proposed signage marked as Exhibit A-S for identification. Mr. Santini began detailing Exhibit A-1 of the photos. He stated that the first photo is an aerial view of the Essex Green Plaza that he took from Google Earth. Mr. Santini said that the second photo is a picture of Macy’s that is located in the Essex Green Plaza and he noted on the photo that the rear portion of the store is in the shade. He referred to the third and fourth photos and stated that these show the existing conditions of the Total Wine store and noted the existing sign area in the photos. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Santini what time of the day he took the photos; he

ed that these show the existing conditions of the Total Wine store and noted the existing sign area in the photos. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Santini what time of the day he took the photos; he replied around 11:00 am. Mr. Santini began detailing Exhibit A-2 of the photos of the Shop Rite supermarket that is located in the Essex Green Plaza. He said that the letters on the sign located on the fagade of the Shop Rite supermarket are approximately the same size as the letters of the sign that they are proposing on the Total Wine sign.

Mr. Neuer stated that earlier in his career he was the attorney who represented the Essex Green Shopping Center and asked Ms. Beirne if there was any conflict; she replied no, Mr. Santini referred to Exhibit A-3 and began detailing the interior floor plans of the store’s expansion project that was approved by the West Orange Planning Board. He noted the larger fagade on the plans and stated that the larger facade will accommodate the new proposed signage. Mr. Santini referred to Exhibit A-4 of the existing signage and stated that the area of the sign is approximately 72 sq. ft. He said that the facade is 22’ high and 72’ long with approximately a 1540 sq. ft. area. Mr. Santini referred to Exhibit A-5 of the proposed signage and detailed the dimensions of the new facade stating that the area is approximately 5000 sq. ft. He said that the proposed signage relates to the proportion of the new facade. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Santini what the Township’s Ordinance says about massing and what is required. Mr. Santini said that massing is an architectural term meaning the general shape of something and he referred to the section in the Township’s Ordinance that addressed massing. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Santini how the proposed sign complies with the Township’s Ordinance; he said that the sign is aesthetically pleasing. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Grygiel if the Township ordinance that Mr. Santini is referring to is only applicable to the Downtown area; he replied yes. Mr. Santini said that the proposed signage will help with the free flow of traffic and safety; Mr. Bullock asked Mr. Santini to explain that statement. Mr. Santini said that the existing sign is difficult to read and the motorists will be able to read the proposed signage. Mr. Neuer stated that the height of the lettering on the existing sign is 3’ and they are proposing a new sign with lettering 5’6” high which is nearly double the size of the letters. He asked Mr. Santini if the current sign is too small; he replied yes, Mr. Steinhart asked Mr. Santini if you would be able to see the proposed sign traveling east on route 280; he replied no. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Santini if they did a study about that; he replied no. He said professionally speaking you will not be able to see it from Route 280. Mr. Santini said that the visual visibility for a 6’ high sign would be 400 to 500 feet where it is

that; he replied no. He said professionally speaking you will not be able to see it from Route 280. Mr. Santini said that the visual visibility for a 6’ high sign would be 400 to 500 feet where it is recognizable. He said the proposed signage would be in keeping with the adjacent signs on the other stores in the shopping center. Mr. Santini said that the applicant has been granted approval to expand the inside of the store. He said that it is a very long store and they felt that the appropriate way to display the sign was with an arch design and a sign to fit into the fagade. Mr. Santini said that the existing trees in the parking lot visually impair one’s ability to see the sign. 7