August 6, 2014

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 6, 2014 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held a regular meeting on August 6, 2014 at 7:30 P.M. in Council Chambers, 66 Main Street, West Orange, New Jersey. Chairman Heller called the meeting to order at approximately 7:36 P.M. It was announced that notification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board on November 21, 2013 in accordance with the requirements of the “Open Public Meetings Act”. PRESENT: Chairman Ben Heller, Robert Bagoff, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Jason Lester, Council President Susan McCartney, Vice Chairman Ron Weston ABSENT: Joanne Carlucci, Lee Klein, William Wilkes II ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Acting Township Planner, Frank Russo, PE, Omland Engineering, Patrick J. Dwyer, Esq., Board Attorney, Robin Miller, Board Secretary, Debbie Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Heller requested all persons stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Robert Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Chairman Ben Heller, Lee Klein, Jason Lester, Council President Susan McCartney, Vice Chairman Ron Weston, William Wilkes Il ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Planning Board regular meeting will be held on September 3, 2014 in Council Chambers at 7:30 P.M. Per Applicant request, PB-14-06/AutoZone Northeast, Inc. will be carried to the September 3, 2014 regular meeting. SWEARING IN Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Acting Township Planner Frank Russo, PE, PP, Consulting Engineer 86-14 Minutes

RESOLUTIONS PB-14-12T/James Pond d/b/a Jersey Mike’s Subs Block: 152.24; Lots: 1445 and 1445.05; Zone: P-C 235 Prospect Avenue Technical Review Application to lease retail space for a restaurant. DISCUSSION Vice Chairman Weston advised the Board the Application was reviewed and approved by the Technical Review Committee on July 10, 2014 with the following conditions: 1. Before a Temporary or Final Certification of Occupancy/Approval can be issued, Applicant to apply for sign permits; and will submit signage elevation details prepared by a New Jersey licensed architect to the Zoning Official for approval; 2. Before a Temporary or Final Certification of Occupancy/Approval can be issued, Applicant to provide the Zoning Official with site plan diagram for dumpster location; 3. All dumpsters on premises to conform to Township Ordinance; to include properly secured lids; 4, Before a Temporary or Final Certification of Occupancy/Approval can be issued, Applicant to provide to the Zoning Official the information for the site maintenance contact person including name, telephone and email address; 5. Before a Temporary or Final Certification of Occupancy/Approval can be issued, the Building Department shall confirm all building codes and safety codes are compliant; 6. Before a Temporary or Final Certification of Occupancy/Approval can be issued, the Applicant shall execute and submit to the West Orange Zoning Official, an Affidavit of Compliance certifying that all conditions of approval agreed to by the Applicant and set forth herein have been fulfilled and satisfied; 7. All findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein are deemed conditions that are binding on the Applicant. The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Weston Second: Council President McCartney Bagoff: Yes | Carlucci: Absent | Eben: Yes | Ghebremicael: Yes Gurland: Yes | Klein: Absent | Lester: Yes | McCartney: Yes Weston: Yes | Wilkes: Absent | Heller: Yes APPLICATIONS PB-14-10/RKS Properties, LLC Block: 105; Lot: 2; Zone: B-2 456 Prospect Avenue Preliminary and Final Site Plan with “c” Variances. EXHIBITS A-1:; Boundary and Topographic Survey, prepared by Dynamic Survey, LLC dated April 25, 2014; Colorized Site Plan Rendering, prepared by Dynamic Engineering, LLC dated July 30, 2014; Colorized Steep Slopes Calculations — Proposed,

Survey, prepared by Dynamic Survey, LLC dated April 25, 2014; Colorized Site Plan Rendering, prepared by Dynamic Engineering, LLC dated July 30, 2014; Colorized Steep Slopes Calculations — Proposed, prepared by Dynamic Engineering, LLC, dated 8-6-14 Minutes

June 17, 2014; A-4: — Colorized Proposed Front and Rear Elevations, prepared by Hoffman Architects, dated July 18, 2014; A-5: — Colorized Proposed Left and Right Side Elevations, prepared by Hoffman Architects, dated July 18, 2014; A-6: Site Photographs of Existing Conditions (Three Sheets), prepared by John McDonough, LA, PP, AICP, undated; A-7: Email correspondence from David Antonio, PP, AICP, County of Essex Department of Public Works, dated August 5, 2014. DISCUSSION Joseph A. Vena, Esq., Mandelbaum, Salsburg, Lazris & Discenza, PC, attorney for Applicant, told the Board the Application was for a new medical office building to replace the existing building. The existing building was approximately forty years old; it had been the original sales office for the Eagle Ridge condominium development. Vice Chairman Weston advised the Board that during the Technical Review meeting, it was noted that Mr. Gurland was a resident of Eagle Ridge. Mr. Gurland stated he did not reside within 200 feet of the Applicant’s property. Mr. Dwyer determined that it was permissible for Mr. Gurland to participate in the hearing; the Applicant had no issue with Mr. Gurland hearing the Application. Dr. Richard Bezozo, was sworn in; he stated he was a licensed medical doctor; the owner of RKS Properties, LLC, and had owned the property for about fifteen years. He said the existing building was originally used as the sales office for Eagle Ridge condominium development; it was currently a medical office operated by Care Station Medical Group. Dr. Bezozo gave a brief description of the existing medical practice including business hours and variety of medical care offered to patients. He said there would be no changes to the existing services performed; the plan was to construct a contemporary medical office building to replace an outdated facility; among the current building issues there was a lack of space for medical equipment associated with new technology. Dr. Bezozo said the proposal for the new building included a second floor to accommodate the office operations of the existing business and provide new office space for an additional professional tenant. The Board and the Public had no questions for Dr. Bezozo. Joseph C. Sparone, P.E., Principal, Dynamic Engineering, LLC, was sworn in, and stated his credentials; he was accepted by the Board to be an expert in

and the Public had no questions for Dr. Bezozo. Joseph C. Sparone, P.E., Principal, Dynamic Engineering, LLC, was sworn in, and stated his credentials; he was accepted by the Board to be an expert in engineering. Referring to Exhibit A-1, Mr. Sparone described the existing conditions; the site was 40,108 square feet with frontage on Prospect Avenue; surrounding land uses included a shopping center to the west across Prospect Avenue, the Eagle Ridge condominiums to the east and north, and various commercial uses to the south. The existing medical office building was a one-story 2,874 square feet structure; there were 38 delineated parking spaces haphazardly scattered throughout the site; to the rear of the building was a dead-end parking situation. Access to the site was by a bifurcated right-in, right-out situation. The existing lot width was 250-feet; front yard setback was 39-feet; side yard was 84.4-feet to the south property line for a combined side yard setback of 169.9-feet with the north property line; the rear yard setback was 58-feet. The existing front yard parking was 0-ft.; side yard parking to the south was 10-feet, and rear yard parking to the north was 9.4-feet. The existing freestanding sign was located on the County right-of-way, it was approximately 18 square feet wide and 7.2 square feet high; there was one building mounted sign that was approximately 25 square feet. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Sparone described the proposed 86-14 Minutes

conditions, which included a super-imposed landscaping plan that had been reviewed by Mr. Linson. The plan included a two-story building with a 4,438 square feet footprint, 49 parking spaces including two ADA spaces, which exceeded the ordinance requirement for a medical office building. The parking had been relocated out of the right-of-way; it would be more centrally located; and had been reconfigured as a circular parking situation superior to the existing layout. The new front yard setback would be 43-feet; the north side yard setback would be27.5-feet with 195-feet combined; the read yard setback would be 30-feet; the middle parking setback would be 30-feet; east side yard parking setback would be 10.2-feet; the rear parking setback would be 10-feet. The access to the site would be a combined right-in, right-out configuration located to the south of the property. There would be pedestrian access to the site; a sidewalk would be installed to the frontage of the property; it would be extended to the existing bus shelter to the north of the property. The existing island in the rear parking area would be removed to provide adequate parking in closer proximity to the building. The landscaping would include five new shade trees, fourteen evergreen trees, and sixty-seven new shrubs. Mr. Sparone said the plan presented to the Board reflected changes resulting from the comments of the Omland Engineering memorandum dated July 17, 2014. Referring to Exhibit A-3, Mr. Sparone said the review of the site indicated the steep slopes were not natural, they were man-made, probably a result of the original development of the property; however, they did meet the technical definition of steep slope. A variance relief of .1% was required for impervious coverage; 60% was permitted, 60.1% was proposed. He opined the proposed impervious coverage would not negatively impact storm water run- off. The setback of the proposed monument sign along the front of the property had been re-located 2- feet closer to the right-of-way to allow for enhanced visibility; Mr. Vena said that as discussed at the Technical Review meeting, the re-location of the sign caused the Application be amended to reflect variance relief. Mr. Sparone said the Omland memo Item #8 requested additional ownership information for the 9 ft. wide strip of land along Prospect Avenue; he said a deed for the property

to reflect variance relief. Mr. Sparone said the Omland memo Item #8 requested additional ownership information for the 9 ft. wide strip of land along Prospect Avenue; he said a deed for the property could not be located; Mr. Vena offered into evidence an email from the County indicating its inability to locate any reservations, easements or acquisition of right-of-way, (Exhibit A-7). Mr. Russo said the plans showed a 9 ft. strip along the front. Was the strip part of the Applicant’s property; if it was, it would negate the need for some of the requested variances. Mr. Sparone said his surveyor had investigated the issue but was unable to determine ownership of the 9 ft. strip. Mr. Vena stated the Applicant was nat looking to include any property beyond the existing survey; the available research concluded the 9 ft. strip was not associated with the property. Mr. Sparone gave a brief recapitulation of his firm’s response to the Omland memo, (Items #9 through #16), which included the required Essex County Details; updated architectural plans for the roof mounted HVAC equipment; analysis of the storm water conveyance network; additional landscaping outside the required residential buffer area; Knox Box installation; necessary outside agency approvals; and plan revisions that noted the final locations of fire zones, sprinkler shut off, and fire department signage and lighting to be coordinated with the Fire Sub Code Official. Mr. Sparone said the current use did not require a designated loading area; the landscaping would improve the existing condition. Mr. Gurland asked if the Applicant had received any comments from the Eagle Ridge residents residing within 200 ft. Mr. Vena said he had not received any inquires. Mr. Gurland asked if notices went out; Mr. Vena confirmed notices had been sent. Mr. Gurland asked if a variance was being requested for the side yard and rear yard setbacks near the property line; Mr. Sparone said no; the setbacks complied with the ordinance. Mr. Gurland asked if any lighting was included in the site plan. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Sparone indicated the location of the fixtures; he described the lighting plan as indicated on Sheet 8, (Preliminary and Final Site Plan submission dated June 17, 2014, revised 7/21/14), which included four 18 ft. high 300-watt LED free-standing fixtures; he said the area illumination would be

Sheet 8, (Preliminary and Final Site Plan submission dated June 17, 2014, revised 7/21/14), which included four 18 ft. high 300-watt LED free-standing fixtures; he said the area illumination would be similar to the current conditions. Mr. Gurland asked what would be the height of the trees; Mr. Sparone said that at 8-6-14 Minutes

the time of planting, the trees would be approximately 7-ft. to 8-ft. nursery stock. Mr. Gurland asked if the Eagle Ridge residents would be looking over the tops of the trees to the roof of the building; Mr. Sparone said yes, the view would be similar to the current conditions. Mr. Gurland stated that the view would not be similar because the building was currently one-story; he asked if the Applicant had considered locating the building on the south side and if there was any way it could be located on the south side; he stated that would eliminate the need to destroy the three large trees. Mr. Sparone said locating the building on the south side had been examined; but from an engineering perspective, the south side parking layout, site access, drainage, and steep slope considerations indicated the proposed plan provided the optimal layout. Mr. Weston said that at Technical Review, the point was made that the existing medical building would still be operating during the initial construction process. He said that if the new building moved to the south side of the property there would be no access to the current facility; the driveway would be blocked; essentially, it would be out of business during construction. Mr. Sparone said a consideration of the location of the building was to allow the existing building to operate during construction. Operations would be moved to the new building once it was completed and then the remainder of the project would be completed. Mr. Gurland opined that moving the building to the south would fit within the site and would not conflict with the existing building; Mr. Sparone said the issue would be the new building would be in the middle of the site and impede access to the property; Mr. Gurland suggested the access could be moved. Mr. Vena stated the location of the new building complied with the ordinances of the Township; Mr. Gurland opined there was another option. Mr. Vena said that denial of the Application due to the location of the building would not be sustainable. Mr. Weston said the soil erosion plan should indicate there be proper tree protection around the (existing) trees during construction; Mr. Sparone said the tree protection would be provided as per SCD (Soil Conservation District) requirements; he said there would be tree protection fencing. Mr. Weston inquired if the 24-ft. wide entrance apron was

id the tree protection would be provided as per SCD (Soil Conservation District) requirements; he said there would be tree protection fencing. Mr. Weston inquired if the 24-ft. wide entrance apron was sufficient; would a wider egress be a good idea. Mr. Sparone said 24-ft. was typical for a two-way access drive; the driveway met County requirements. Chairman Heller stated the proposed parking exceeded the requirements but there would be an increase in impervious coverage; he opined the two western parking spots on the island appeared to be located more in a drive isle than a parking isle; would it be better to close those spots and increase the landscaping. Mr. Sparone said he had discussed the parking with the business owner; it was decided the spaces would be necessary for the future development of the expanding medical operation and second story professional office space. Chairman Heller voiced concern that the spaces might affect access for an emergency ambulance and overall circulation. Mr. Sparone said a traffic engineer would be testifying and would be able to provide details regarding site circulation and safety. Dr. Bagoff asked for details regarding what the area of the 9-ft. strip along the front of the property would look like when the project was completed and who would maintain the area; were there any proposed ambulance parking spaces; what was the number of current employees; and had an emergency stand-by generator been discussed. Mr. Sparone said there would be sidewalk and grass on the 9-ft. strip and the owner would maintain the area; he was not aware of any proposed spaces for ambulance vehicles; and a generator was not part of the proposal. Mr. Vena advised that Dr. Bezozo could testify regarding the number of employees. Dr. Bezozo said there would be an emergency generator; Dr. Bagoff said it needed to be included in the site plan. Dr. Bezozo said there were currently four to six staff members on site at any one time. 8-6-14 Minutes