July 16, 2015

Ms. Beirne also stated that there was one additional change made to this resolution and she will incorporate it into the resolution. Chairman Buechler asked the Board Members if they had any other comments or changes for the resolution; seeing none he asked for a motion to approve the resolution with said changes. Vice Chairman Neuer stated that Ms. Beirne did a suburb job in dealing with such a complex resolution and made a motion to adopt with said changes. Mr. Steinhart seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Bullock: - Schwarzbaum: - Gabry: - Steinhart: Yes D. Nash: - Sussman: Yes Neuer: Yes Weiss: - Quentzel: Yes Chairman Buechler: - APPLICATION(S) 1. ZB-14-08/Sai Hira Ram Trust, Inc. Carried from 6/18/15 Block: 177.02; Lots: 15.01 & 16; Zone: R-4 23-27 Laurel Avenue Seeking “D” and several “C” variances for converting two properties to use as a house of worship and related uses. Vice Chairman Neuer is recused from hearing this application and stepped off of the dais. Robert Williams, Esq. approached the podium. He stated that at the last meeting held on June 18, 2015 they left off with public comment. Chairman Buechler asked if any members of the public had any comments. Zeev Ben Zvi approached the podium and was sworn under oath. He stated that he lives at 5 Allsop Court and he does not object to the temple but he feels that they can build it without all of the variances. Mr. Ben Zvi stated that the parking will be worse than what they presented and that the overflow of cars will park illegal. He said that the people who will be coming to the temple do not live in West Orange so it will not benefit the town. Mr. Ben Zvi said that he moved to West Orange because it is a quiet town and he feels that this project will make the neighborhood noisy. Travis McManigal approached the podium and was sworn under oath. He stated that he lives at 5 Allsop Court and said that he is opposed to this application. Mr. McManigal said there were inconsistencies from their experts, future operations were never addressed and that the applicant did not prove a true need for the variances. He said that their Planner got the facts wrong in his 3