May 21, 2014 Special Meeting

said that since entire interior was being renovated it needed to be handicap accessible; Mr. Bouzas stated the plan met all ADA requirements. Mr. Gurland said he was concerned that the basement lounge area would be rented out; Mr. Vena stated the Applicant would accept as a condition of approval that the basement lounge area would not be leased out. Referring to Sheet A3 (Exhibit A-2), Mr. Eben asked for clarification regarding Stair #2; Mr. Bouzas said Stair#2 was the new egress stair for emergency access to walkway leading to the front of the building; access to the rear playground area was graded. Referring to Sheet A5 (Exhibit A-2), Mr. Eben asked for details regarding the existing and proposed exterior surface materials for the east side of the building. Mr, Bouzas said the entire area would be stucco effaced; the entire exterior would be repaired, cleaned up and painted. Mr. Klein said he had calculated the maximum number of children could be as high as 208; Mr. Bouzas confirmed the maximum number allowed was 200 but that Ms. Gargiulo would have a maximum enrollment of 150 children. Vice Chairman Weston stated that ADA was civil legislation; the Applicant could be subject to a lawsuit if not all spaces were accessible; he advised Mr. Bouzas that the Building Official would determine if the plan was ADA code compliant during the construction plan review process. Mr. Bouzas acknowledged the concern.

Mr. Eben stated he had taken an advanced ADA course; he advised Mr. Bouzas that the business owner could have a written policy that stated if an employee required handicap accessibility for a specific function or need; the space would be provided; it could protect the business owner from liability. The written policy could be provided to the Construction Official. The Township Professionals and the Public Advocate had no questions for Mr. Bouzas. Patricia Furci, 69 Rock Spring Avenue, asked Mr. Bouzas for details regarding the nighttime signage illumination; Mr. Bouzas deferred to Ms. Gargiulo; she answered the signage would be backlit and as with the parking lot lighting, all would be on a timer. The timer would be adjusted seasonally. Craig W. Peregoy, P.E., Dynamic Traffic, was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in civil and traffic engineering. Mr. Peregoy confirmed he had prepared the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Dynamic Traffic dated May, 9, 2014; he gave a recapitulation of the report which included the existing traffic conditions; existing traffic volumes; traffic characteristics of the proposed use; projected trip generation; trip distribution; and projected future traffic conditions; and his conclusions based on site plan review. He determined the traffic movement was a favorable Level of Service “B. He said there would be more than sufficient parking. In response to Mr. Vena’s request, Mr. Peregoy responded to items #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, and #9 of the Omland Engineering memorandum dated May 19, 2014; he concluded that based on the traffic analysis, it was his opinion the property was laid out well for the proposed business; he reiterated the traffic movement was Level of Service “B”. The proposed plan was an improvement over the previous use. Mr. Klein asked Mr. Peregoy to describe the path a vehicle wanting to go eastbound on to Northfield Avenue would exit the site; Mr, Peregoy said the vehicle would make a left turn out of the property, a right turn on to Northfield Avenue to the Pleasant Valley Way U-turn. In response to Mr. Klein’s question regarding deliveries; Mr. Peregoy said that compared with restaurant deliveries; there would be an increase due to the daily heat-and-serve program. Mr. Grygiel stated that the property was located within a B-2 Zone, which allowed a variety of uses.

ed with restaurant deliveries; there would be an increase due to the daily heat-and-serve program. Mr. Grygiel stated that the property was located within a B-2 Zone, which allowed a variety of uses. He asked Mr, Peregoy to discuss the traffic impact of a childcare center as it compared to other permitted businesses such as an office, restaurant or retail space. Mr. Peregoy said the childcare center would be similar to an office use; a restaurant would have a much higher traffic impact during off-peak hours. Vice Chairman Weston stated that daycare centers were exempt from the Township’s parking ordinance; Mr. Peregoy confirmed the exemption. The Public Advocate had no questions for Mr. Peregoy. Patricia Furci, 69 Rock Spring Avenue , stated that currently vehicles exiting the property were not permitted to make a right turn on to Rock Spring Avenue; how would that rule be enforced; Mr. Peregoy said directional signage would be installed indicating “No Right Turn’. Ms. Furci asked for the citation regarding parking exemption for a daycare center. George Wheatle Williams, P.P., Nishuane Group, stated his credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in planning. Mr. Vena advised the Board that Mr. Williams would be offering testimony 7

regarding the need for a “c(1)” or “c(2)” variance for side yard. Mr. Williams said that Township ordinance required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet; the current setback was 7.48 ft. — already a non-confirming condition. The plan would not enlarge the footprint; the only change would be the introduction of a stairway that was permitted by the code; the stairs would be impossible to see from adjacent properties and would provide a necessary second means of egress for the facility. He opined a “c(1)” variance relief was justified. He said there were other proposed improvements including curbing that would enhance the property to the east. Vice Chairman Weston asked if the Applicant was requesting a “c(1)” or “c(2)” variance; Mr. Eben opined he did not think a variance was needed because it was already an existing non-conforming condition. Mr. Vena said that while the Applicant concurred that no variance was needed; the Township had imposed the request for the variance. Mr. Dwyer stated that it was the opinion of the Township Planner that the ordinance required the request for variance relief; he advised the Board he agreed with the Planner. Mr. Grygiel said the ordinance allowed for encroachments in the yard, within certain parameters; there was a 6 feet allowance for stairs, as long as the side yard setback was met; he opined the request for a variance was reasonable. The Public Advocate had no questions for Mr. Williams. Mr. Vena advised the Board all testimony was concluded; he summarized the information presented on behalf of the Application. The Public had no comments regarding the Application. Mr. Ghebremicael opined the business would be a good use for the property and surrounding residential area. Vice Chairman Weston opined the Applicant met the burden of proof for a “c(1)” variance relief. He stated he did take issue with an unlicensed landscape architect testifying on behalf of the Application and would not take that testimony in to consideration; he suggested that as a condition of approval the landscaping plan be approved by the Acting Township Planner. He opined that in general, the outlined plan would be of benefit to the area and a good use of the property. Mr. Eben opined the daycare center would be a great use of the property; the limited hours of weekday operation would be a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Grygie!

d use of the property. Mr. Eben opined the daycare center would be a great use of the property; the limited hours of weekday operation would be a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Grygie! requested that the final plans incorporate the written list of conditions. Conditions: The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Township of West Orange, County, State and Federal laws, ordinances, regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining all applicable local, state and federal approvals and/or regulatory permits. Without limitation of the foregoing, prior to the signing of the approved site plans, and prior to the commencement of any land disturbance or construction, the Applicant shall submit to this Board, with a copy to the Board Engineer, proof that it has obtained all required governmental approvals.

15. If another governmental entity or agency grants a waiver or variance affecting the plans and/or exhibits submitted by the Applicant, this approval or the conditions attached to it, then the Applicant shall re-apply to this Board respecting the same and this Board shall have the right to view that issue as it relates to this approval and these conditions and modify and amend same, if appropriate. In the event that any other required regulatory approval conflicts with the terms and conditions hereof, or materially alters the same, or the terms and conditions hereof are materially altered by any change in applicable law or regulation other than those municipal regulations for which change is prohibited by the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), or in the event Applicant or its successors or assigns construct or attempt to construct any improvement in conflict with or in violation of the terms of this approval, the Board hereby reserves the right to withdraw, amend or supplant the instant approval. All construction, use and development of the property shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein, all representations and stipulations of the Applicant and its witnesses during the public hearing, all exhibits introduced by the Applicant, and all terms and conditions of this resolution. The Applicant shall pay all outstanding taxes, tax liens, application fees and technical review fees, as well as any inspection fees that may be required hereunder. Applicant shall comply with the requirements for affordable housing compliance, if any, which apply, including any amendments or revisions thereto, as the same may require the creation of low and/or moderate income housing or contribution therefore as a result of this approval. Applicant is granted a c(4) variance for the construction of a stairway to provide access to the first floor ina side yard that is 7.48 feet setback from the lot line to the building at its closest point. All notes included in the approved plans, including notes required by this Resolution, shail be deemed conditions of approval having the same force and effect as conditions expressly set forth in this Resolution. That the applicant shall comply with all other applicable governmental authorities regarding this development and/or with any exceptions granted, if any, by such authorities. Applicant shall install curbing along the

t shall comply with all other applicable governmental authorities regarding this development and/or with any exceptions granted, if any, by such authorities. Applicant shall install curbing along the common property line with lot 64.02. Site Plan shall reflect all existing conditions, including landscaping. Lots 24 and 60.01 in Block 159.01 shail be consolidated. Playground materials to be properly identified on Site Plan and appropriate details published. Applicant shall comply with the following comments in Omland Review letter dated May 19, 2014: Items 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 19. No other tenants, subtenants, licensees or occupants shall use the building.

16. 17. 18. 19. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board professionals, and shall include (i) five (5) shade trees in the parking area, and (ii) plantings to fill in the gap along the westerly side of the property line above the words “22 Holly” on the Existing Conditions Planting Plan. Sheets CS, Al and A2 shall be changed to delete the word “Leaseable” in the lower left hand corner adjacent to the word “Basement.”All of these conditions of approval shall be noted on the plans. Applicant shall comply with Township ordinance regarding solid waste pickup. Applicant to provide an estimate of construction costs and provide engineering inspection fee escrow. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Chairman Heller Second: Mr. Eben Bagoff: Yes | Carlucci: Absent | Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes Gurland: Yes | Klein: Yes Lester: Absent | McCartney: Absent Weston: Yes | Wilkes: Absent | Heller: Yes Mr. Vena requested the Board vote on the Resolution to memorialize the approval; thus allowing the Applicant the ability to submit the construction plans to the Building Department for review within the next week to help facilitate the timing involved with a projected September 1, 2014 opening date. The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Chairman Heller Second: Dr. Bagoff Bagoff: Yes | Carlucci: Absent | Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes Gurland: Yes | Klein: Yes Lester: Absent | McCartney: Absent Weston: Yes | Wilkes: Absent | Heller: Yes MEETING ADJOURNED at approximately 10:01 P.M. Minutes adopted September 3, 2014 ae . a on Robin Miller, Planning Board Secretary Township of West Orange THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 1, 2014 AT 7:30 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10