June 19, 2014

Mr. Neuer said that a line of site drawing was not prepared to show the interference of the trees. Mr. Steinhart asked Mr. Santini approximately how high the ietters on the Macy’s sign are; he said approximately 10’ high or more. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Santini how the sign would be lit; he said internally. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Santini if the lights in the sign would be on 24 hrs. a day/ seven (7) days a week; he said that he thinks there is a restriction at the shopping center that when the stores close the sign lights must go off. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that he will recommend that as a condition of approval. Mt. Neuer asked Mr. Santini to explain what impact the shade has on the sign; he said that the letters on the sign are harder to read in the shade when the fagade is darker. Mr, Neuer stated for the record that the sign is illuminated. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Santini how much signage is currently on the pylons that are on the Prospect Avenue frontage. Mr, Santini said that the Total Wine sign is not on the pylons on Prospect Avenue. Mr. Neuer asked Ms. Vinitsky if the Total Wine sign will be on the pylon on Prospect Avenue; she said that currently there is not a spot for the Total Wine sign but the owner of Essex Green is considering installing new pylon signs on Prospect Avenue. Mr. Neuer stated for the record that he thought that Total Wine sign is currently on the pylon on Prospect Avenue. Mr. Steinhart stated that he thinks the proposed sign is too big and asked Mr. Santini why this sign is better than something midway between the current sign and the proposed sign. Mr. Santini said that the expansion of the store is the reason that they are requesting this sign and that a smaller sign is not appropriate for the new facade. There were no further questions for Mr. Santini from the Board members or the Professionals. There were no questions for Mr. Santini from any members of the public. Ms. Vinitsky summed up by stating that the applicant is requesting one variance for the size of a new sign, She said that the reason for the size of the proposed sign is because the store doubled their space at the existing location and the size of the sign is appropriate for the new fagade that was approved by the West Orange Planning Board. Vice Chairman Buechler closed the hearing. Vice Chairman Buechler asked if any members of

the size of the sign is appropriate for the new fagade that was approved by the West Orange Planning Board. Vice Chairman Buechler closed the hearing. Vice Chairman Buechler asked if any members of the Board had any comments.

Mr. Neuer stated that the expansion of the store was positive but the size of the lettering on the signage being proposed is massive and double the size of the current letters on the sign. He said that there should be a reasonable compromise and that the sign should be reduced proportionately and the size of the letters should be no larger than 4’ high. Mr. Bullock stated for the record that you can see the current sign from some of the highest points when traveling east on Route 280 during the fall. He said that the applicant is entitled to a reasonable increase in their signage because they increased their space. After some discussion between the Board members the consensus of the Board was that the sign is oversized and that they would like to see the letters reduced in size. Mr. Neuer stated that the Board would like to approve the sign but not at the height that they are proposing the letiers to be. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Ms. Vinitsky if the applicant would be willing to scale down the sign, reducing the letters to 4°4” high, and come back with revised drawings; she replied yes. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that this application will be adjourned to the July 17, 2014 regular meeting and that no further notice will be necessary. He stated that revised drawings must be submitted to the Board Secretary at least ten (10) days before this meeting. Vice Chairman Buechler called for a recess at 9:24 pm. Vice Chairman Buechler resumed the meeting at 9:33 pm. 3. ZB-14-00/Wang Carried from 5/15/14 Block: 161; Lot: 30; Zone: R-5 7 Oak Avenue Seeking three “C” variances for the expansion of an existing kitchen. and the construction of an accessory structure in the rear of the house EXHIBITS A-I — Exhibits 1-4 A-2 — Exhibits 5-8 A-3 — Photo Board and Tax Map Peter Wang, applicant, approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Wang stated that he purchased the property at 7 Oak Avenue but currently lives in Rutherford New Jersey. He presented sketches of the proposed interior floor plans of the house and sketches of what is being proposed in the rear of the house.

Vice Chairman Buechler asked to have the proposed floor plans of the interior of the house marked as Exhibit A-1 and the proposed plans of the rear exterior of the house marked as Exhibit A-2, both for identification. Mr. Wang presented a photo board of the existing conditions and a copy of the tax map. Vice Chairman Bucchler asked to have the photo board of the existing conditions and the tax map marked as Exhibit A-2 for identification. ‘Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Wang if he will be hiring a licensed architect to draw the plans for him; he said that he will be hiring a licensed architect to draw the plans when he applies for the building permits. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Wang if he will be hiring a licensed contractor to do the work; he replied yes, Mr. Wang referred to Exhibit A-1 and said that he is proposing to extend the existing kitchen. He said that the kitchen is currently opened to the living room and that in his culture they cannot cook in that type of a kitchen because they need high flames to cook and a vent is needed on top of the stove. Mr. Wang said that he is also proposing to add a second story to the house for additional bedrooms for his family. Vice Chairman Buechler said that he did not see anything in the application about the second floor and asked Ms. Beirne if he would need an additional variance for that. Ms. Beirne said that a variance is not required for the second floor because the height will not exceed 35’. Mr, Wang referred to Exhibit A-2 and said that he is proposing to build a greenhouse in the rear of the property. He said that the greenhouse was recommended by a doctor for his wife’s mental health because she suffers from depression. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Wang if the greenhouse wil} have heat inside; he replied yes. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Wang if the basement level is exposed from the rear of the house; he replied yes. He said that it is 2 4 stories and that it is a walk out basement and fully exposed from the rear. Mr. Grygiel stated that he did not understand that Mr. Wang was putting a second story on the house. He said that adding a second story would require another variance because only 2 % stories are allowed by Township ordinance. Mr. Neuer stated that for the Board to consider approval of this application they would need to see the architectural description, design,

because only 2 % stories are allowed by Township ordinance. Mr. Neuer stated that for the Board to consider approval of this application they would need to see the architectural description, design, elevations and know what variances are required and the applicant did not provide them with this information. ‘Vice Chairman Buechler advised Mr. Wang to hire a licensed architect to draw the architectural plans and come back with them. He said that once he hires an architect, Mr. Grygiel will have a conversation with them. 10

Vice Chairman Buechler stated for the record that this application will be adjourned until the August 21, 2014 regular Zoning Board meeting and that no further notice will be necessary. Mr. Wang asked ifhe could be carried to the September 18, 2014 meeting because he will be out of the country the month of July. Vice Chairman Buechler said that the application will be carried to the September 18, 2014 regular Zoning Board meeting and no further notice will be necessary. Mr. Wang extended the time for the Board to render a decision. 4, ZB-14-03/Prakash Properties, LLC Block: 158.02; Lot: 101; Zone OB-1 393 Northfield Avenue “1D” use variance & several “C” variances to renovate an existing mixed-use building for medical offices and a three bedroom apartment. EXHIBITS A-1 — Architectural plans — 7 sheets (A-1, A-11, A-2, A-2.1, A-9, A-1.1, B-1) A-2 — Engineering Drawings - 2 sheets Joseph A. Vena, Esq., attorney for the applicant, approached the podium and began detailing the application. He stated that his client purchased this property so that he could operate his medical practice out of it. Mr. Vena stated that the building is an existing non-conforming use and that it was a medical office building when he purchased it in January 2013. Mr. Vena cailed his first witness. Dr. Prakash Paragi approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Dr. Paragi stated that he is currently practicing at St. Barnabas Hospital and purchased the property to renovate it for his own practice. He said that the building was previously used as a doctor’s office when he purchased it and that the building needed repairs. Mr. Vena asked Dr. Paragi if he applied for building permits before he started the repairs; he replied yes. Dr. Paragi stated that when he went to apply for the building permits, there was a problem with the staircase. He said that the Zoning Official told him that because they are removing an existing staircase and replacing it, that he would have to go before the Zoning Board for site plan approval. Dr. Paragi began detailing the changes that were being made to the building. He stated that there are currently seven parking spaces on site and that he wants to make one of them a handicap parking space. Dr. Paragi stated that the second floor currently has an apartment that connects to the third floor and that they are taking part of that existing space to

o make one of them a handicap parking space. Dr. Paragi stated that the second floor currently has an apartment that connects to the third floor and that they are taking part of that existing space to make a lounge area for the staff. He said that all of the building permits were obtained for that and that construction has been performed. 11

Vice Chairman Buechler asked Dr. Paragi if the staff has to walk outside of the building to get to the second floor lounge area; he replied yes. Dr. Paragi said that the lounge is for staff only and not available to his patients. Dr. Paragi stated that the apartment on the second floor has one means of egress from outside of the building. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Dr. Paragi if they need a second means of egress for the apartment; he said that he did not know and that the architect can answer that question. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Dr. Paragi if he is putting his office on the first floor; he replied yes, Vice Chairman Buechler asked Dr. Paragi how many staff members there are; he replied that there are two (2) staff members. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Dr. Paragi how many doctors there will be; he replied one doctor besides himself. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that there six (6) examining rooms and asked Dr. Paragi how many patients will be there at one time; he replied four (4) or five (5). Vice Chairman Buechler stated that there would be approximately a total of ten (10) people on site at one time and asked Dr. Paragi where they would park if there are only six (6) parking spaces and one handicap space; he said that the priest at St. Joseph’s Church is giving them permission to have the staff park in the church parking lot. Dr. Paragi said that the other option is to have them park on the street. Vice Chairman Bucchler asked Dr, Paragi if it is possible that the tenants could have two (2) cars; he replied yes. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Dr, Paragi if there will be reserved parking for the tenants; he replied no. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Dr. Paragi if it would be possible for the tenants to park there all day and occupy two (2) parking spots; he replied yes. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Dr. Paragi what the office hours will be; he replied 9am to 4pm Monday to Friday, Saturday has day hours and no office hours on Sundays. Dr. Paragi stated that he does not need a variance for parking; he said the Zoning Officer said that the variance is because they are accessing the second floor as a lounge by means of a relocated exterior stairway. Mr. Neuer asked Dr. Paragi how long the property was vacant; he replied approximately two (2) years. There were no further questions for Dr. Paragi from the Board members or the Professionals. 12

Vice Chairman Buechler stated for the record that there are no members of the public in the room for this application. Mr. Vena called his next witness. Vinu M. Patel approached the podium and was sworn under oath. He detailed his professional background as a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Patel how long he has been licensed as an architect; he replied since 1987. He stated that he has testified before many Boards before and that his license has never been suspended. Vice Chairman Buechler accepted Mr. Patel as an expert in Architecture. Mr. Patel presented architectural plans. Vice Chairman Buechler asked to have the seven (7) sheets of the architectural plans marked as Exhibit A-1 for identification. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Patel if these plans are the ones submitted with the application; he replied yes. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Patel if any changes were made to these plans; he replied no. Mr. Patel referred to Exhibit A-1 and began detailing the existing conditions of the first floor and what they are proposing. He noted that there will be fewer examining rooms than were originally used by the prior owner. Mr. Patel stated that the medical use area on the first floor will be in the same area as the previous medical use area. Mr. Patel detailed what is being proposed on the second floor and that there will be a lounge for the doctors. He said that the third floor will remain the same. Mr. Patel stated that there will be two rest rooms on the second floor and noted where they will be located. Mr. Patel detailed the exterior renovations and noted where they removed the original staircase and where the proposed one will be located. He said that the site plan issue was with the staircase being relocated and the striping of the parking spaces. Mr. Vena stated that he was hoping to conclude this at the meeting tonight and that the applicant is only here because of the replacement of the staircase. Mr. Patel presented the engineering plans. Vice Chairman Buechler asked to have the two sheets of the engineering plans marked as Exhibit A-2 for identification. Mr. Patel stated that the engineering plans are the same ones that were submitted with the application and began detailing the location of the new staircase. He said that the stairs are located on the property line and that is why

eering plans are the same ones that were submitted with the application and began detailing the location of the new staircase. He said that the stairs are located on the property line and that is why a variance is needed. 13