November 20, 2014

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING November 20, 2014 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on November 20, 2014 commencing 8:00 PM at 66 Main Street, West Orange, N.J. in Council Chambers. Chairman Buechler called the meeting to order at approximately 8:00 P.M. It was announced that notification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, the West Orange Chronicle, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board on November 21, 2013 in accordance with the “Open Public Meetings Act.” Chairman Buechler asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney, read the Opening Statement. PRESENT: B. Buechler, G. Bullock, D. Gabry, P. Neuer, B. Quentzel, M. Sussman, A. Weiss ABSENT: W. Merklinger (excused absence) W. Steinhart (excused absence) ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, Consulting Planner Eric Keller, Consulting Engineer Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney Rose DeSena, Board Secretary D. Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Meetings: December 11, 2014 (Special Mecting) — 8:00 pm December 18, 2014 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 pm January 15, 2015 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 pm Chairman Buechler announced that applications ZB-14-11/Nyunt and ZB-14-12/Henry have requested to be carried over to the regular Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting held on December 18, 2014 and that no further notice will be required. Chairman Buechler announced that there will be a special Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting for ZB-13-15/Quick Chek on Thursday December 11, 2014. He said that this application has been carried over from the last Special Zoning Board meeting that was held on October 30, 2014 and that no further notice will be required.

Chairman Buechler announced that application ZB-14-08/Sai Hira Ram Trust, Inc., scheduled to be heard at this meeting, will been carried over to the regular Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting held on the December 18, 2014 or January 15, 2015. He said that the Board Secretary will review the December agenda and determine which meeting it will be carried over to. Chairman Buechler stated that a new notice will be issued. DISCUSSION There was discussion regarding the amendments made to the Zoning Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure. Chairman Buechler asked if any of the Board Members had any questions regarding the suggested amendments made by Ms. Gabry, Mr. Neuer and himself; seeing none, Chairman Buechler made a motion to approve the amended Zoning Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure. Ms. Gabry seconded the motion and all were in favor. Chairman Buechler asked the Board Secretary to have the amended Zoning Board of Adjustment Rules of Procedure posted on the Township’s website in the document library. MINUTES Adopt Minutes: October 30, 2014 (special meeting) Chairman Buechler asked the Board Members if they had any additional comments for the October 30, 2014 special meeting minutes that were submitted to them for review. Seeing none, he asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Neuer made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 30, 2014 special Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting as submitted to the Board members; Ms. Gabry seconded the motion and all were in favor. SWEARING IN Consuiting Planner for the Township, Paul Grygiel, was sworn under oath.

APPLICATIONS 1. ZB-14-04/Patin Carried over from 11/17/14 Block: 165.02; Lot: 30; Zone: B-2/R-5 782 Northfield Avenue & 5 Dogwood Road Seeking a “D” use variance and several “C” variances to construct an addition to an Existing building and construct parking accessory to the existing building on an Adjoining lot. Chairman Buechler stated for the record that this application was heard on 5/29/14, 8/21/14 and 11/17/14. He said at the last meeting on 11/17/14 the record was closed, public comment was made and all that is left of this hearing is the Board Members’ discussion and deliberation. Chairman Buechler opened the meeting up to the Board Members for discussion. Mr. Neuer stated that he has respect for Mr. Sullivan and Mr. McDonough but concludes that the applicant has not met its burdens and urges the other Board Members to vote not to approve this application. He said the basic fact is that this application is about adding to an existing property and not creating any new benefit to the community or a vacant lot. Mr. Neuer said that it is about taking a commercial zone and forcing it into a residential zone which is not good planning or zoning. He said that this should have gone before the Township’s governing body for re- zoning consideration. Mr. Neuer noted all of the prior applications for this property. He said that the first application was submitted in 2004 by Mr. Bornstein, who was the owner of the property at that time, proposing to construct a 2400 sq. ft. house on the lot and that application was denied by a vote of 5-1 because the house was too big for the lot. Mr. Neuer said that Mr. Bornstein submitted another application in 2006, proposing a 2000 sq. ft. house --to be built on the lot but he withdrew the application and the Board never considered it. He said that in 2008, Mr. Patin submitted an application that he withdrew and the Board never voted on it and in 2011 Mr. Patin submitted another application proposing a residence with an easement for the lot and the Board dismissed it without prejudice because he failed to provide notice and appear at the scheduled Zoning Board hearing. Mr. Neuer said that there have been three applications that dealt with potential uses for this lot and only one of them went to a vote. He said that the applicant has not exhausted the use of the residential lot with zoning relief because the Board

tions that dealt with potential uses for this lot and only one of them went to a vote. He said that the applicant has not exhausted the use of the residential lot with zoning relief because the Board deemed the lot buildable at one time in the ZB-04-60 resolution. Mr. Neuer stated that Mr. McDonough said that this site is a split-zone, but the case is that the split lot single parcel is divided into two pieces; one residential and one commercial. He said that the zone line follows the lot line and that the owner should have gone to the Township’s Governing body to change the zone line.

Mr. Neuer stated that this Board is not permitted to approve this application based on net opinions according to the Municipal Land Use Law. He said that there is no promotion of the general welfare and it does nothing to benefit the community. Mr. Neuer said that the residential lot is being converted into a commercial use. He said that more cars will enter and exit the site if it is a commercial use rather than a single family home. Mr. Neuer said that the parking, the onsite circulation and ingress and egress is a problem. He said that the applicant is not a good citizen and has not maintained the property. Mr. Neuer said that repairs to the outside of the property should have been taken care of by now. Mr. Neuer stated that he does not agree with most of Mr. McDonough’s reasons to approve this application. He said that Mr, McDonough’s testimony was impressive but his report, as a whole, does not pass the requirements. Mr. Neuer stated that, in regard-s to the traffic testimony, he finds some of the comments and opinions of Mr. Desch cannot be accepted. He said that Mr. Desch stated that he does not expect the offices to be used on a Saturday but Mr. Neuer stated that he does not agree with that. Mr. Neuer stated that he did not opine for safe and efficient ingress and egress of the property or opine if the proposed vehicle circulation on the site is safe. Mr. Neuer stated that, in regard to the Architect’s testimony, his credibility went out the window when he testified that there was no equipment or employees in the dentist’s office. He said that when he went on a site visit he spoke to the dentist and he invited him into his office and showed him his x-ray machine. Mr. Neuer said that the business is a dental implant center and it is difficult to perform dental implants without an assistant. Mr. Neuer referred to the architectural plans and stated that there is a lot of storage for one part time practice which makes no sense. Mr. Neuer stated that there were problems with Mr. Meola’s plans also. He said sheet two (2) of sheet ten (10) does not include the chiropractor and sheet four (4) states that the dentist office is 1885 sq. ft. which is not a small space. Mr. Neuer said that twenty seven (27) parking spaces are required; not twenty five (25) and they are providing twenty one (21) parking spaces, He said that testimony regarding-r the

ot a small space. Mr. Neuer said that twenty seven (27) parking spaces are required; not twenty five (25) and they are providing twenty one (21) parking spaces, He said that testimony regarding-r the parking spaces was not adequate or persuasive. Mr. Neuer stated that he will vote no and he urges the other Board Members to vote no. Ms. Weiss stated that Mr, Neuer was articulate and she was originally torn. She said that she did not see anything positive in Mr. McDonough’s report and this is not a benefit to the neighborhood or the Town. Ms. Weiss said that the parking spaces the applicant is proposing is untealistic without even knowing what kind of business will be going into the proposed space and that she will vote no.

Mr. Bullock asked Mr. Neuer if there is any evidence that the applicant went to the Township and tried to get the zoning changed; Chairman Buechler stated that there is nothing in the record that they did. Mr. Bullock stated that Ms. Fogarty gave powerful comments against the application and paving the lot is not a desirable buffer. He said that he also found the traffic testimony less credible. Ms. Gabry said that she had many issues with this application. She said that the building is not aesthetically pleasing as it is now and that it will not be more pleasing afterwards. Ms. Gabry said that Mr. Desch was not credible and that the property is not maintained. Mr. Sussman stated that initially he was in favor of the application but as more evidence came out he became conflicted. He said that Mr. Neuer’s comments were comprehensive and with that being said he would vote no. Mr. Quentzel stated that the traffic study was done off season and traffic is heavier during the summer months. He said that there is not a need for additional office space at this time because they do not have somcone to lease it to yet and the Town does not need any more empty office spaces. Mr. Quentzel said that the local people impressed him and that he feels that there will not be enough parking. He said that the applicant can build a house on the empty lot and he will vote no. Chairman Buechler stated that his biggest concerns are the lack of adequate parking for the proposed addition, the parking lot layout and the ingress and egress from the site. He said that there was no demonstration that there is a need for additional office space. Chairman Buechler asked for a motion. Mr. Neuer made a motion to deny this application without prejudice and Chairman Buechler seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Bullock: Yes to Deny Steinhart: - Gabry: Yes to Deny Sussman: Yes to Deny Merklinger: - Weiss: ‘Yes to Deny Neuer: Yes to Deny Chairman Buechler: Yes to Deny Quentzel: Yes to Deny Chairman Buechler noted for the record that Mr. Bullock is excusing himself from the remainder of the meeting. Chairman Buechler asked applicant, Mr. Franco, to approach the podium. Hugo Franco approached the podium.

Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Franco if he came to a resolution with his neighbors; he replied yes and said be would put up a fence. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Franco if the neighbor agreed; he replied yes. Chairman Buechier asked Mr. Franco if he has the agreement in writing; he replied no. Chairman Buechler told Mr. Franco the Board would continue with this after the next application is heard. 2. ZB-14-00/Wang Carried from 10/23/14 Block: 161; Lot: 30; Zone: R-5S 7 Oak Avenue Seeking three “C” variances for the expansion of an existing kitchen and the construction of an accessory structute in the rear of the house EXHIBITS A-4— Sheets A-1 and A-2 with a revision date of 11/4/14 A-5 - Overlay Peter Wang approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Chairman Buechler stated that this application was last heard on June 19, 2014 and was adjourned from the September 18, 2014 meeting because the applicant’s architect could not attend that meeting, Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Wang if his architect was present; he replied yes. Maithew G. Evans approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Evans detailed his professional and educational background as a licensed Planner and an Architect in the State of New Jersey. He said that he will be testifying as both a Professional Planner and an Architect for the applicant. Chairman Buechler accepted Mr. Evans as an expert in Professional Planning and Architecture. Mr. Evans presented sheet A-1 and A-2 of the architectural plans. Chairman Bucchler asked to have sheet A-1 and sheet A-2 of the architectural plans, with a revision date of 11/4/14, marked as Exhibit A-4 for identification. Mr. Evans referred to sheet A-1 of Exhibit A-4 and began detailing the existing conditions of the property and the floor plans. He then referred to sheet A-2 and detailed the proposed exterior elevations and the first and second floor plans. Mr. Evans said that additional living space, a

new kitchen and a new front entry is being proposed. He said that the house is currently a single story and a second level is also being proposed. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Evans if the driveway slopes; he replied yes. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Evans if the second story will overhang; he replied yes. Chairman Buechler asked Mr, Evans if there is a reason why two separate offices are being proposed, one on the first floor and one on the second floor, or if it is an additional bedroom and the word “office” is just being added to it; he said that space will be a study or a dressing area. Mr. Evans said that another bedroom is not necessary. Ms. Weiss stated that the office on the second floor could be considered a bedroom because it has a closet. She said that basically, there are four (4) bedrooms upstairs. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Evans what the square footage of the house will be after the addition; he said approximately 4500 sq. ft. of living space. Chairman Buechler stated that the basement has a bedroom and 850 sq. ft. of living space. He said that the total square footage of living space of the house is 5350 sq. ft. including the basement. Chairman Bucchler asked Mr. Grygiel if the rear of the house would be considered a three (3) story building when 2.5 stories is allowed; he said that the revised plans show the three (3) stories in the rear of the house and his revised report included an additional variance for the number of stories. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Evans how many people live in the house; he said that the applicant will answer that question. Ms. Gabry asked Mr. Evans if the front entrance will be eliminated when they reposition the walkway or will there be two front entrances; he said that the door that goes to the kitchen will be a service entrance and the other will be the main entrance. Mr. Evans continued his testimony and detailed the front elevations and what materials will be used on the exterior of the building. He said that there will not be any changes to the right side of the house or to the basement. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Evans if the street is a cul-de-sac; he replied yes. Mr. Evans presented a small handout of an overlay site showing the survey of the property and a house that is adjacent to the property. Chairman Buechler asked to have the overlay site marked as A-5 for identification.

Mr. Evans referred to Exhibit A-5 and stated that one variance is required for the front yard setback because of the house that is adjacent to the property. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Wang if they can deem this hearing as the first hearing. He said that it would be as if they never had a hearing on June 19, 2014. Mr. Wang replied yes. Ms. Weiss referred to Mr. Grygiel’s report regarding the applicant’s driveway encroaching eleven (11) feet into the Essex County Reservation and asked Mr. Evans to comment on that; he stated that the driveway and the fence are existing conditions. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Evans if the applicant provided notice to the County; he replied yes. Mr. Wang stated that the driveway and the fence were like that when he purchased the house. Mr. Neuer stated that he does not know if that portion of the Reservation was purchased with Green Acres funding and the County would not know that. He said that Mr. Wang would have to research that. Mr. Wang said that he has an old survey dated 1980 that shows the driveway was like that at that time. Mr. Neuer told Mr. Wang that if there is an encroachment he would have to deal with two levels of government; the County and the State of New Jersey. He said that the application includes land that he does not own. Mr. Neuer said that this Board can approve the application subject to having the portion of the driveway that is encroaching removed. Mr. Quentzel said that it looks like the retaining walls are encroaching also. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Evans if the impervious coverage was calculated by the property line; he replied yes. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Evans if in his opinion as a Professional Planner and Architect, the Board can approve an application for a pre-existing, non-conforming use; he said that he cannot make that decision but said that he has been involved in cases that had pre-existing conditions and encroachments. Ms. Gabry stated that the encroachment would probably require a separate approval. She said that there is a website for Green Acres and it would list if the Reservation was Green Acres. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Wang if he had an attorney when he purchased the house; he replied no. Mr. Wang said he used a title company. Mr. Neuer stated that the Board can approve the application subject to title; he said if it is encroaching the applicant will have to remove