July 17, 2014

dated 8/6/03 & 3/6/08 and copies of the Township’s building permit #8427 to build the office building dated 9/19/58 and permit #8972 to build the 2™ story dated 7/16/59. Chairman Buechler asked to have the copies of the certificates of continued occupancy dated 8/6/03 & 3/6/08 and copies of the Township’s building permit #8427 to build the office building dated 9/19/58 and permit #8972 to build the 2™ story dated 7/16/59 marked as Exhibit A-5 for identification. Mr. Vena referred to Exhibit A-5 and stated that he received these documents from the Township of West Orange’s Building Department that show what has been at this location since 1959. He said that this is the only way that he can prove it is a pre-existing non-conforming use. Chairman Buechler stated that these documents do not prove that there has not been abandonment. Mr. Vena said that it is a pre-existing non-conforming use and that these are the only records the Township has in their archives that show that the building was built prior to 1978 asa legal use. He said that a continued certificate of occupancy would not have been issued by the Township’s Construction Official unless it was a legal use. Mr. Vena said that there was a second permit issued by the Township to allow the apartment to be built over the first floor office building. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Vena when the third floor was built; Mr. Vena said that he is assuming that the building permit for the second floor included the entire structure. Mr. Vena presented a copy of a temporary certificate of occupancy issued by the Township in 2013. Chairman Buechler asked to have the copy of the temporary certificate of occupancy issued by the Township on 1/18/13 marked as Exhibit A-6 for identification. Mr. Vena referred to Exhibit A-6 and stated that this building has been the same since it was built. He said that this establishes that it is a pre-existing non-conforming use or the Township would not have issued a temporary certificate of occupancy in 2013. Chairman Buechler stated that none of these documents made reference to the third floor level; he said that it only states it is one apartment. Mr. Vena said it is one apartment on the second and third floor and that they were already issued. building permits by the Township for the renovations. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Vena if the building was occupied or vacant when

nt on the second and third floor and that they were already issued. building permits by the Township for the renovations. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Vena if the building was occupied or vacant when the applicant purchased it in January of 2013; he said vacant. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Vena how long it was vacant before he purchased it. Mr. Vena stated he would like to call the owner, Dr. Paragi, to answer that question. Dr. Prakash Paragi approached the podium and was sworn under oath.

Chairman Buechler asked Dr. Paragi if he purchased the building in 2013; he replied yes. Chairman Buechler asked Dr. Paragi if the building was vacant when he purchased it; he replied yes. Chairman Buechler asked Dr. Paragi how long the building was vacant before he purchased it; he said that the second floor was vacated right before he purchased the building and that he does not know how long the offices on the first floor were vacant before he purchased it. Mr. Vena presented a copy of the Township’s tax card for the building dated 6/15/70 and passed out copies of it to the Board members. Chairman Buechler asked to have the Township’s tax card for the building dated 6/15/70 marked as Exhibit A-7 for identification. Chairman Buechler stated that nothing was provided to the Board that shows them when the third floor of this building was constructed. He said that the Board understands that it is a pre- existing non- conforming use but they are asking if it was abandoned. Ms. Weiss agreed with the Chairman and said that the Board agrees that the building is an existing non- conforming use. She said that the only testimony regarding the abandonment issue was provided by Dr. Paragi and he said that someone lived there and it was partially abandoned when he purchased the building. Mr. Vena stated that he can only present to the Board the records that the Township has. Chairman Bucchler referred to Exhibit A-7 and said that the 1970 document from the Township’s Tax Assessor says that the number of floors are two. Mr. Steinhart stated that he is going to need some other documentation that says the building has three floors. Mr. Bullock stated that he thinks they cleared the abandonment issue. He said that there is an existing construction permit issued but questioned what basis the permit was issued if there is no record of a third level. Mr. Patel approached the podium and stated that, based on his experience, the way the building was designed is that the second and third floor were built at the same time. He said that it is really not a third floor; it is more like an attic space. Mr. Patel said that his testimony is that the second and third level were built together and that the third level is part of the second level. Mr. Steinhart stated that he is questioning if the third level was built legally; Mr. Vena stated that a continued certificate of

built together and that the third level is part of the second level. Mr. Steinhart stated that he is questioning if the third level was built legally; Mr. Vena stated that a continued certificate of occupancy would not have been issued by the Township if it was not legal. Chairman Buechler called for a recess at 9:47 pm. 10

Chairman Buechler resumed the meeting at 10:01 pm. Mr. Vena asked Chairman Buechler if the Board reached a decision regarding the pre-existing non-conforming issue; Chairman Buechler stated that the Board is not making any decisions at this meeting tonight. Mr. Vena called his next witness. Peter Steck approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Steck began detailing his professional background as a Professional Planner licensed in the State of New Jersey. Chairman Buechler stated that Mr. Steck has testified before this Board many times before and accepted him as an expert in Professional Planning. Mr. Steck stated that this application is very simple. He said that the building existed in West Orange for many years, it was for sale and the applicant purchased it so that he could utilize the first floor for his medical practice. Mr. Steck said that the applicant did not need the five (5) bedroom apartment that was on the second floor because it would attract a large family and so the applicant decided to put a break room on the second floor for his staff. He said that there are two principal uses on the property; an office and an apartment and it has been established that there has always been two principal uses on this property since 1959 when it was built. Mr. Steck stated that abandonment is only if it is an intentional abandonment as defined in the Township’s ordinance. He said that non-use is not an abandonment. Chairman Buechiler stated that this was not the language of the ordinance. Mr. Steck said that as long as nothing is changed within the structure it is not an abandonment. Mr. Steck said that nothing was physically changed in the building that would change the use. He said that that the applicant renovated the building as is and wanted to expand the office space on the second floor by creating a break room. Mr. Steck said that the break room on the second floor is the expansion of a non-conforming use. Mr. Steck said that the stairs were relocated because they were damaged during Super Storm Sandy, which is permitted by Township ordinance, and the relocation of the stairs triggered a side yard variance. Mr. Steck presented photos to the Board, Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck if he took these photos; he replied yes that he took the photos today. Chairman Buechler asked to have the photos prepared by Mr. Steck dated 7/17/14

s to the Board, Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck if he took these photos; he replied yes that he took the photos today. Chairman Buechler asked to have the photos prepared by Mr. Steck dated 7/17/14 marked as Exhibit A-8 for identification. 11

Mr. Steck referred to Exhibit A-8 and detailed the existing signs on the building. He said that there is a plaque on the front wall of the building showing that it was erected in 1958 and a sign that has the prior doctor’s names on it who were tenants at one time. Mr. Steck stated that the reconstructed stairway is more logical because it is further from the closest property line. He said that now there is a clear pathway to get in and out of the building and that the relocation of the stairs is safer. Mr. Steck stated that the applicant took away one regular parking space and installed a handicap parking space which now makes the parking lot ADA compliant. Mr. Steck said that there is no expansion of the residential unit and as long as it remains office space it is not a change of use. He said all they did was reduce one examining room on the first floor. Mr. Steck said that if they returned the second floor apartment to five (5) bedrooms then the “d” variance disappears. He said the applicant made the decision to supply a space for the staff on the second floor instead of keeping the five (5) bedrooms because it would not generate a need for more parking. Mr. Steck said, in summary, that two principal uses have been established as legal uses and not abandoned. He said that this is not the location for a five (5) bedroom apartment that would attract a large family. Mr. Steck said that the applicant is taking advantage of the perfect location for his medical office and that the benefits outweigh the detriments. Mr. Merklinger stated that Mr. Steck simplified things for the Board and explained it well. Mr. Bullock stated that he agreed with Mr, Merklinger and that Mr. Steck cleared up some of the questions that the Board had. Mr. Sussman stated that the Board may never know if the addition of the third floor was legal. Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Steck if the exterior access to the break room is built yet; he replied no. Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Steck if he thought it would be better to have an interior access to the break room instead of having to go outside to access it; he said that the reason the applicant is proposing the access to the second floor from the outside is because he does not want to lose the square footage on the first floor. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck how many parking spots they are proposing; he said there are seven (7)

or from the outside is because he does not want to lose the square footage on the first floor. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck how many parking spots they are proposing; he said there are seven (7) existing parking spots and they are proposing five (5) parking spots and one handicap parking spot. Mr. Steck stated that the Township’s Zoning Officer told the applicant to ask for the parking variance. Chairman Buechler told Mr. Steck that his report states that they do need a parking variance. Mr. Steck said that he went by what was in the application when he prepared his report 12

and that it is his opinion that they do not need a parking variance. He said that on-street parking is allowed. Chairman Buechler stated that if they do park on the street in the morning, they would have to move their cars by 4 pm and that no parking is allowed in the front of the building because it is a corner lot. Ms. Keller asked Mr. Steck if the off-site parking is still on the table; he replied yes. Mr. Steck said that it is his understanding that the local pastor of the church cannot give his permission for them to park in the church parking lot and that only the Archdiocese in Newark can permit them to park there. He said that the Church cannot guarantee permanent parking on their lot; he said short term parking is no problem but long term parking is a problem. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck if he knew of any restrictions to park in the church parking lot; he said none that he knows of. Mr. Steck said that Sunday morning parking may be a restriction but the doctor’s office is not open on a Sunday. Ms. Keller said that this may be an option for parking but they have nothing in writing so as it stands six (6) parking spaces are being proposed when twenty four (24) are required. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Steck if the break room was excluded, how many parking spaces will be required; he said that would reduce the number by two (2) parking spaces. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Steck if they reduced the square footage of the break room how many parking spaces would be required; he said it would be reduced by 6.5 spaces and they would need 17.5 parking spaces. There were no further questions for Mr. Steck by the members of the Board or the Professionals. There were no questions for Mr. Steck by the members of the public. Mr. Vena called his next witness. Matthew Sprung approached the podium and was sworn under oath. He detailed his professional background as a licensed real estate broker in the State of New Jersey and stated that he has testified before Boards in matters like this before. Chairman Buechler accepted Mr. Sprung as an expert in real estate. Mr. Sprung presented the Board with a copy of the historic multiple listing activity for 391-393 Northfield Avenue. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Sprung if he prepared this report; he replied yes. Chairman Buechler asied to have the historic multiple listing activity for 391-393 Northfield Avenue dated 7/16/14 marked as

ue. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Sprung if he prepared this report; he replied yes. Chairman Buechler asied to have the historic multiple listing activity for 391-393 Northfield Avenue dated 7/16/14 marked as Exhibit A-9 for identification. 13