May 17, 2012

s are that are being proposed compared to the five. Mr. Lavigne said that one will be 8’ and one will be 10”. There were no other questions from the Board. Chairman Neuer asked if any members of the public had any questions. Mary Ellen Morrow approached the podium and stated she lived at 178 Dezenzo Lane. She asked if there are any maintenance provisions for the tower. Chairman Neuer said that this application is not yet before this Board and the time to ask that question is when they come back. He said that the Board is just approving the request for a rehearing of a modified application. Chairman Neuer closed the hearing and offered his comments. He said that the application the Board just heard and approved was a different set of circumstances. The Chairman stated that the

Board was provided with sworn testimony from the engineer who inspected the tower and testified that State and Federal regulations will be complied with by that tower owner, Chairman Neuer stated that this applicant must make sure that such testimony and commitments from the tower owner are also part of the Auburn revised application. Ms. Weiss said that the previous application proposed 2’ and 8° dishes and not 10’ and 8” dishes like this one. Chairman Neuer said that the applicant is acting diligently and in good faith and offered a motion to approve the application for a rehearing with an amended application having to be submitted, the number of antennae not to exceed two and proper notice given as a new application. He also stated that any fees are to be submitted and subject to reviews by the Township Planner and Board Engineer. Mr. Sussman seconded. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: Yes Bullock: Yes Sussman: Yes Gabry: Yes Weiss: Yes Quentzel: Yes Chairman Neuer Yes Sacks: - INTERPRETATION ZB-12-09/56 Undercliff Terrace S. Carried from 4/19/12 Block: 45.20; Lot: 48; Zone: R-5 Interpretation of Chapter 25-7.1for Number of Stories and Lot size EXHIBITS A- Select title agency package dated 5-14-12 B- Ordinance 25-24.1 page 97 & 98 DISCUSSION Joseph A. Vena, Esq., approached the podium and stated that he represents Mr. Jonathan Kantor and is here requesting an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to Mr. Kantor’s property. Mr. Vena stated that there was an issue that was raised by the Zoning Official regarding rebuilding a structure if more than 50% has been destroyed. He detailed the ordinance, Section 25,24.1(d), that he submitted in his package D. Mr. Vena said there are two things that he wants to present to the Board that were not previously submitted; the legislative history and the ordinances. Mr. Vena stated that this case was previously before the Board. He began detailing copies of resolutions that he submitted in packages B and C stating that they will confirm what the Board previously approved. Mr. Vena said that the prior resolution holds that Mr. Kantor’s property constitutes a buildable lot.

Chairman Neuer asked to have the Select Title Agency package, dated 5/14/12 marked as Exhibit A for identification and Ordinance 25-24.1 pages 97 and 98 marked as Exhibit B for identification. Mr. Vena stated that the ordinance says if you have a home that does not conform. and it was destroyed, it can be rebuilt. He said that Mr. Kantor is building a house from scratch. Mr. Vena stated that the Ordinance in section F of his package addresses the definition of a “story”. Chairman Neuer said that this is a different issue. He also told Mr. Vena that they already had this discussion, regarding a conflict with the architect, and that section G of Mr. Vena’s package is not going to be admitted into evidence.. The Chairman stated that in Exhibit A, section G will not be part of the record. Mr. Vena asked the Chairman if the Board will accept the testimony from the owner then. Ms. Weiss asked what the Chairman meant about the conflict with Exhibit G. Chairman Neuer stated that Exhibit G was prepared by an architect who is a member of the Township’s Planning Board and who is, therefore, not permitted to testify, directly or indirectly, before the Zoning Board of Adjustment of West Orange. Jonathan Kantor approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Kantor if he had plans to have a house built and if he is going to use the same plans. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Vena to not refer to the plans. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Kantor the height of the house he is proposing to build and Mr. Kantor said exactly 35’. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Kantor how many stories the house will be and Mr. Kantor replied two stories plus a basement. Mr. Veua attempted to define a story according to the Construction and Zoning Officials. He stated that if the plans show that it is a walk out basement, then it is considered a story. Chairman Neuer said that he goes back to what he stated originally, that the Board needs to see the plans and to be provided with expert testimony to interpret the meaning of “story” under the Ordinance. Chairman Neuer stated that he recommends that the Board conclude that the environmental issues which confronted the property owner did constitute a disaster and that demolition was not voluntary. Chairman Neuer told Mr. Vena that the issue relating to what he wants the Board to interpret is limited to the buildable lot question which the Board can

saster and that demolition was not voluntary. Chairman Neuer told Mr. Vena that the issue relating to what he wants the Board to interpret is limited to the buildable lot question which the Board can decide; however, the Board cannot interpret the definition of a “story” because it has not been properly submitted and the Board needs to sce a proposed plan. Ms. Weiss stated that this application should be in two parts. Chairman Neuer said that Mr. Kantor should have the right to build and come back with plans and if he needs a variance the Board will hear it. Mr. Vena asked Chairman Neuer if the Board can make an interpretation of an ordinance without plans. Mr. Sussman said that the Board cannot make a determination without secing a set of plans. Chairman Neuer stated that with respect to the buildable lot issue, no plans are required but that the definition of a “story” in these circumstances requires a plan.

Chairman Neuer told Mr. Vena that the Board is going to take its scheduled recess and he can. bifurcate the application after the recess. Chairman Neuer recessed the meeting at 9:37 pm. The meeting resumed at 9:46 pm. Chairman Neuer stated that Mr. Vena has bifurcated the application, so that the issue regarding the definition of “story” applied to Mr. Kantor’s property is withdrawn. Chairman Neuer moved a resolution which provides that the Kantor Property, as defined in the application, constitutes a buildable lot for the reasons previously stated in this record. Ms. Weiss seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: Yes Bullock: Yes Sussman: Yes Gabry: Yes Weiss: Yes Quentzel: Yes Chairman Neuer Yes Sacks: = Mr. Vena asked the Chairman if this decision means that they will be able to get a permit to start building the foundation. The Chairman said yes, but that the applicant does so at risk and that no structure may be built until the issue of the definition of “story” is made unless the owner revises the plans to comport with the position taken by the Zoning Official. DISCUSSION Ms. Beirne asked the Chairman if they were going to have an executive session regarding the legislation that she sent to the Board members. The Chairman stated that at the next meeting on May 24, 2012 at 8:00 pm they will meet in executive session regarding confidential attorney/client privileged information. APPLICATION ZB-12-05/Seton Hall Preparatory School Carried from 4/19/12 Blocks: 58 & 59.04; Lots: 1.01&1.04; Zones: R-6 (school) R-5 (offices) 120 Northfield Avenue (school) & 170 Northfield Avenue (offices) Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval “—D” & “C” variances for an expansion of a non-conforming use for an addition of a two (2) story wing to an existing building and acquiring property to house their administrative offices. It was noted for the record that Ms. Gabry recused herself from hearing this application and stepped down from the dais. 10

EXHIBITS A-1 Existing conditions map, drawing 2 of 6, dated 1/19/12 A-2 Layout dimensioning and signing plan, sheet 3 of 6, dated 1/19/12, revised 5/10/12 A-3 Grading plan, sheet 4 of 6, dated 1/10/12 revised 5/10/12 A-4 Existing conditions map, showing off and on site parking, dated 5/17/12 DISCUSSION Robert C, Williams, Esq., attorney for the applicant, approached the podium and began by detailing the application. He said that the applicant is proposing to change a grass and dirt field into artificial turf. Mr. Williams said they are also proposing an expansion of the existing school building and are requesting a parking variance. He stated that the applicant is asking to have the requirement for an environmental impact study waived. Chairman Neuer advised Mr. Williams that there was not a full board at the meeting tonight; there were three members missing. He also stated that they are not going to finish hearing this application tonight and asked Mr. Williams if he wants to continue. Mr. Williams said yes and asked ordered a transcript which can be provided to the absent Board members. Chairman Neuer stated that he and Ms. Beirne had a discussion with Mr. Williams regarding the ingress and egress to and from Beverly Road for what is currently a house which is proposed to be converted into offices. Mr. Williams stated that he brought a copy of the easement with him and said that although it was to be it used for residential purposes that restriction expired in 1950. Chairman Neuer stated that the appropriate ingress and egress is in question regarding whether it is safe and efficient as required where a use variance is requested, He said that the Board members are not traffic experts and he recommends that the applicant provide a traffic expert report before the next appearance. Chairman Neuer said that he is raising the question regarding the inclusion of all of the property which is part of this application. He said that the question is whether the owner, whose property is under the easement, gave their consent to the application which may be required. Mr. Williams called his first witness. Mr. Charles Stewart approached the podium and was sworn under oath. He detailed his . education and professional background and stated he is a licensed engincer and surveyor in the State of New Jersey. Chairman Neuer accepted his credentials as an expert in

nder oath. He detailed his . education and professional background and stated he is a licensed engincer and surveyor in the State of New Jersey. Chairman Neuer accepted his credentials as an expert in civil engineering, Mr. Stewart presented a map of the existing conditions on the site. Chairman Neuer asked to have it marked as Exhibit Al drawing number 206, dated 1/19/12 and the revision date of 5/12/12. Mr. Stewart stated that this was submitted with the original application. He said that the school property is in an R-6 zone and fronted on Northfield Avenue; it has an exit driveway onto Rollinson Street and an ingress and egress onto and from Glen Road. 11

Mr. Stewart described the drainage on the property. Chairman Neuer asked him to describe the ditch that is marked on the plans and Mr. Charles detailed where the ditch runs along the property. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Stewart if any there was any debris or maintenance issues and Mr. Stewart stated that the ditch is pretty free of any debris. Mr. Stewart detailed the residential lot. He said the address is 170 Northfield Avenue and is in an R-5 zone. Mr. Stewart stated that the access for this property is from an easement on Beverly Road and that the egress is also from Beverly Road. He said that this easement is for three homes on Beverly Road. He said that there is a house on the corner of Beverly and Northfield Avenue that also has access from the easement on Beverly Road but has access directly from Beverly Road, Mr. Stewart stated that this portion of Beverly Road is not a private road; it is a public road. Mr. Stewart described the parking behind the school for the staff and the administration. He said that, heading in a southerly direction, there is a paved parking lot that has 102 parking spaces; 97 regular spots, two visitor spots and three handicap spots. Mr. Stewart presented a proposed layout dimensions and sign plan. Chairman Neuer asked to have it marked as Exhibit A2. Mr. Stewart detailed the plan stating that it shows the back portion of the existing school, the easement on Beverly Road and where the proposed two story addition is going to be. He detailed the proposed site circulation pedestrian flow and where the sidewalks and the ten handicapped parking stalls will be located. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Stewart how many additional parking spaces there will be in the existing parking lot after construction. Mr. Stewart stated that there will be an additional 18 spots and two bus spots which will be a total of 120 parking spots plus two spots for buses. Ms. Weiss asked if the buses would be able to fit through the narrow driveway and Mr. Stewart said yes. Mr. Stewart presented a grading plan and began to describe what is being proposed in the rear of the residential property, Chairman Neuer asked to have it marked as Exhibit A3. Mr. Stewart said that they are proposing to remove the swimming pool and fish pond and construct a small parking lot with nine parking spots. He said that this will allow the people who work there to come in from

said that they are proposing to remove the swimming pool and fish pond and construct a small parking lot with nine parking spots. He said that this will allow the people who work there to come in from Beverly Road and park there. Mr. Stewart said that there will also be one handicap spot. Chairman Neuer clarified that the nine spots includes one handicap spot and two parking spots in the existing garage. Ms. Weiss asked for clarification and asked if there are only going to be three houses affected by cars coming in to this house on Beverly Road and Mr. Stewart replied yes. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Stewart how many current employees at the school will be using this entrance on Beverly Road. Mr. Stewart stated there are seven employees but they will have nine parking spaces. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Stewart if they all used cars and Mr. Stewart said there may be six or seven cars because one employee may walk to work. He said that the employees 12

enter in the morning and stay all day. Mr. Stewart stated that they walk to the school for lunch or stay in the office. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Stewart if there were any impediments for accessing the house from Northfield Avenue and Mr. Stewart stated that there is a slope and grading problems. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Stewart the most logical ingress and egress is from Beverly Road and Mr. Stewart said yes. Mr. Sussman questioned why the other houses on Northfield Avenue did not have access from Northfield Avenue and Mr. Stewart said because of the slope. He said that to have driveway access from any of those properties on Northfield Avenue would also be very dangerous and that is why they opted to come in from Beverly Road. Mr. Williams stated that the one concern from the residents is parking. He said that the school will not be adding any additional students. Mr. Williams said that they will be providing additional offsite parking for the students in the fall and Mr. Stewart will explain what they are proposing. Mr. Stewart presented an existing conditions map, dated 5/17/12, showing onsite and offsite parking for the students, Chairman Neuer asked to have it marked as Exhibit A-4. Mr. Stewart described what was on the plan, detailing the locations of the offsite parking. He said that the Kelly Athletic Center will provide 84 parking spots plus four bus spots. Mr. Stewart stated that there will be 40 parking spots provided for student parking at the Shillelagh Club during the week. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Stewart if they had a lease. Mr. Williams stated that they do not need a lease that there is a voluntary commitment from them. Chairman Neuer stated that the claimed spots at the Shillelagh Club cannot be considered by the Board; they are being presented solely for “show”. Mr. Stewart stated that 81 Northfield Avenue is another location that will provide 35 parking spaces, with a month to month lease, for student parking. Chairman Neuer stated that the claimed spots at 81 Northfield cannot be considered by the Board; they too are being presented solely for “show”, Mr. Williams said that there will be a total of 199 available parking spaces for the students. He said that the school took a survey of how many students will be driving and there will be approximately 110 students driving during the first semester. Mr. Williams stated that a this