April 1, 2015

were placed parallel for ample ability to make the right turn (to rear) of property; the spaces were 23 ft. long, they met RSIS (Residential Site Improvement Standards). Mr. Staigar acknowledged Mr. Russo’s parking plan for eight spaces was good, but opined there was better circulation with seven spaces; the mixed-use property allowed for shared parking; it was his opinion there would be ample parking; the proposal was much better than the current conditions. Mr. Staigar said that unless a private trash hauler had a pickup truck, curbside collection was required because a large garbage truck would not fit on site. Large trucks would be not be able to circulate around the building. Mr. Lester asked for clarification regarding the size of delivery trucks; Mr. Staigar said delivery vehicles would not be much larger than a passenger car; the retail stores were small; a UPS truck could park on street on Shepard Terrace for deliveries. Vice Chairman Weston said the Board had previously indicated they would like to see a reduction in asphalt and maximized area landscaping. He asked if the Applicant would support the idea of reducing the number of parking spaces to two in the rear, and increase the landscaping. Would the site be able to accommodate a total of six parking spaces. Mr. Staigar said it would be possible; there was sufficient on street parking and nearby lots for resident parking. Mr. Wilkes asked for clarification regarding the angled parking plan for eight spaces; he voiced concern regarding access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Staigar said the plan for eight spaces had been suggested by Mr. Russo (Tech Review meeting 2/11/15); the Applicant had opted for the plan with seven spaces; there was better circulation. Mr. Gurland asked if the ordinance required designated parking spaces for residents; and for an explanation of the shared parking should the retail businesses have late hours. He opined there were too many parking spaces on site; he was concerned the dimensions of the spaces were quite narrow; there was the potential for accidents. He recommended eliminating three parking spaces. Mr. Staigar said designated spaces were not required for residents; he opined the retailers would not be open late at night; the Applicant would agree to eliminate three spaces if conditioned by the Board. Chairman Heller asked if there were a designated handicap

ts; he opined the retailers would not be open late at night; the Applicant would agree to eliminate three spaces if conditioned by the Board. Chairman Heller asked if there were a designated handicap space, where would it be located and how would it affect the continuation of curbing and landscaping from Main Street. Mr. Staigar identified the space closest to Main Street; 16 ft. would be required edge-to-edge. Mr. Eben said he concurred with eliminating three parking spaces as recommended by Mr. Gurland. He suggested the Applicant secure additional parking spaces from the parking lot across the street (Main Street), or utilize on-street parking. Mr. Grygiel asked for clarification regarding the length of the parallel parking spaces; Mr. Staigar said the aggregate length of each space was 23 ft. — an 18 ft. car space and 5 ft. striped area for maneuverability. When asked to clarify his testimony regarding the design of the parking stalls along the southern side of the property, Mr. Staigar told Mr. Russo the stalls were angled 45 degrees, “approximately”; however, a full-sized vehicle template confirmed maneuverability. Mr. Russo responded the (proposed) stalls were not ordinance compliant; Chairman Heller asked for clarification regarding the back-up requirements; Mr. Russo said 45-degree angles would require 13 ft. back up space. Mr.

Staigar confirmed the Township had run turn templates on site; a diagram could be provided for review. Responding to Mr. Russo, Mr. Staigar said he did not know if the Township had any one- way streets with on street parking; however, they were somewhat common throughout Essex County; he was not aware of restrictions on driver side parking; and RSIS allowed. Messrs. Russo and Staigar discussed the Omland memorandum dated March 26, 2015. Kevin Kruse, Downtown West Orange Alliance, asked if parallel parking would be safer than angled parking; Mr. Staiger answered in the affirmative. Dr. Joseph Rozehzadeh was sworn in; and identified as the Applicant and owner of the property. In response to questions from Mr. Eben, Dr. Rozehzadeh said the building would not be owner occupied; he acknowledged Mr. Eben’s property maintenance concerns; he owned other properties in the area; he testified the property would maintained. He told Vice Chairman Weston he wanted as much parking as possible; however, as a condition of approval, less parking would be acceptable. The property had been sitting vacant for a long time; he wanted the project to move forward. He would agree to conditions set forth by the Board regarding the issues previously discussed. In response to Mr. Russo; Dr. Rozehzadeh said all the other properties he owned had curbside garbage collection; he would prefer curbside pickup for the new property. The Public Advocate and Public had no questions for Dr. Rozehzadeh. John McDonough, LA, PP, AICP, was sworn in, and accepted by the Board to be an expert in planning. Referring to Exhibit A-4, Mr. McDonough gave a brief overview of the property and surrounding area. He said the area did not have an established downtown Main Street “streetwall” effect. The Applicant had previously removed eight trees from the property as per Township notice; the existing shade tree in the front of the property would remain. Most recently, the building was an all-office use. In line with the Redevelopment Plan, the Applicant proposed to upgrade and convert the building to have a mixed-use component including ground floor retail and upper level residential. He opined the renovation would be more compliant with the Township’s Master Plan than the previous office use. He summarized the parking difficulties; he said the Applicant would be agreeable to eliminating additional spaces,

would be more compliant with the Township’s Master Plan than the previous office use. He summarized the parking difficulties; he said the Applicant would be agreeable to eliminating additional spaces, banking stalls and filling in with landscaping for better circulation. He indicated the Applicant required variance relief from eight sections of the Redevelopment Plan: SECTION/REQUIREMENT: REQUIRED: EXISTING: PROPOSED: Downtown Redevelopment Plan — Main 20 ft. 22.6 ft. 24.9 ft. Street Subzone Maximum front yard setback Downtown Redevelopment Plan — Main 101 3 7 Street Subzone Minimum off-street parking spaces 25-12.1a Sidewalk between any building Required None None and a parking area or drive 25-12.1b Minimum distance of curbing 5 ft. NA Oft. from fence or screening

25-12.1h.2 Minimum parking aisle width 13 ft. NA 10.4 ft. 25-12.1h.6 Minimum driveway width 14 ft. NA 10.4 ft. 25-12.1i Minimum distance of parking 50 ft. 23 ft. 23 ft. area entrance or exit from residential district 25-12.1p Minimum number of trees in 1 for each 10 NA 0 parking area parking stalls They were all “c” type bulk variances that could be justified under “c(1)” - the physical hardships associated with the property, or “c(2)” criteria - the benefits of adaptive reuse of the building and positive reinvestment in the downtown outweighed the detriments associated with the existing developed site. He opined it was a good Application that met all statutory criteria; it created no substantial impairment to the intent of the Redevelopment Plan, or substantial detriment to the surrounding properties. Mr. Grygiel asked if the number of parking spaces were reduced due to redesign, would the proofs provided by Mr. McDonough still apply; Mr. McDonough answered in the affirmative. In response to questions from Mr. Russo, Mr. McDonough confirmed the standards for minimum required parking isle width - 11 ft. for 30 degrees parking, and 13 ft. for 45 degrees parking. Mr. McDonough was unsure of the exact angle of degree of the southerly parking spaces; he understood Mr. Staigar’s testimony had indicated 45 degrees. Considering the lighting plan, he opined the parking lot levels were adequate; it met the standards for minimum foot candle requirements with a parking space. He said he liked the idea of dark spots along the perimeter of the property near residential area. Mr. Russo opined the plan did not appear code compliant; Vice Chairman Weston suggested lighting plan approval by the Township Engineer as a condition of Approval. Kevin Kruse, Downtown West Orange Alliance, asked for clarification regarding parking alternatives; Mr. McDonough said there was on-street parking on Shepard Terrace, Main Street, possible use of the parking lot across Main Street, and a municipal parking lot. Mr. Gurland asked if there was a Township ordinance concerning Shepard Terrace parking within 25 or 50 ft. of Main Street; Mr. McDonough said there was a “No Parking Here to Corner” sign on Shepard Terrace; it would be illegal to park within 25 ft. of Main Street. There was no further testimony. Chairman Heller opened the floor to Public Comment. Kevin Kruse, Downtown West

ner” sign on Shepard Terrace; it would be illegal to park within 25 ft. of Main Street. There was no further testimony. Chairman Heller opened the floor to Public Comment. Kevin Kruse, Downtown West Orange Alliance, was sworn in; he requested the Board adapt its thinking; the Downtown preferred lots of open space and a clear view to retail facades, not trees and landscaping. He stated he was shocked the Board would suggest less parking; he opined on-site parking was crucial for retail space. He stated he spoke for the DWOA; the DWOA wanted on-site parking. He suggested the DWOA speak to the Board at an upcoming meeting so that everyone could be “in sync.”

Mr. Williams requested the Board consider the importance of parking; he stated it was critical to the Application that the plan be approved with seven spaces. The Board deliberated on the Application. Mr. Lester stated the lighting plan should be included as a condition of approval; Vice Chairman agreed. Regarding the testimony of Mr. Kruse, Vice Chairman Weston stated the Board had been on-trend to reducing impervious coverage. He acknowledged the site was small, he suggested the Board consider the advice of the Alliance. He recommended the addition of a handicap parking space. He suggested Applicant consider ground installation of the HVAC unit; he recommended as a condition of approval there be a (designated) landscaped area along Shepard Terrace should the Applicant decide to install at a later date. Chairman Heller said that the property had the appearance of a typical suburban downtown lot; but there were significant parking challenges in the surrounding downtown corridor. Mr. Wilkes stated he was in favor of keeping the Applicant’s parking plan. Mr. Gurland confirmed the shade tree in the front of the property would remain, He said that he agreed with Messrs. Williams and McDonough concerning parking related issues for the retail use; however, he believed the proposed plan was potentially dangerous and unworkable. He recommended eliminating the three rear parking spaces. He opined the Board was considering an excessive number of conditions for approval; he recommended the Applicant first meet all conditions and return to the Board for final approval; he would not vote in favor of approving the Application at this time. Mr. Eben said initially, he was in favor of eliminating spaces; he had surveyed the area and believed there was ample off-site parking; however, he would agree to keep the three spaces. He recommended the three spaces be paved with “grasscrete” instead of back top. He voiced concern about property maintenance issues, but he did believe the owner’s testimony to the contrary and would vote in favor of approving the Application. Conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Township, County, State and Federal laws, ordinances, regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining all applicable local, state and federal approvals and/or permits. Without limitation of the foregoing, prior to the signing of

nces, regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining all applicable local, state and federal approvals and/or 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 10

10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 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 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. The Applicant shall pay any additional fees or escrow deposits which may be due and owing within thirty (30) days of notification or this approval shall be deemed withdrawn. All notes included in the approved plans, including notes required by this Resolution, shall be deemed conditions of approval having the same force and effect as conditions expressly set forth in this Resolution. Applicant to comply with the comments in the review letter from Omland Engineering/Frank Russo, PE, PP dated March 26, 2015 except Comments #3, 4, 16 and 18(a). Applicant to reserve pad area on the Shepard Terrace side of the building as potential site to install HVAC equipment and landscape to buffer subject to the review and approval of the Board Planner and Engineer. Applicant not required to submit for approval to the Hudson-Essex-Passaic Soil Conservation District due to the site disturbance being less than 5,000 sq. ft. Applicant to add one Red Maple tree in the front plus three Red Maple Trees on the Shepard Terrace/North side of the property, not less than 2” in diameter, subject to the review and approval of the Board Planner. These shall not be “street trees” located between the curb and sidewalk. The triangle area in the rear right corner of the property to be screened with green giant arborvitae 6’-7’ in height five feet on center. Applicant will use bricks from the removed foyer in “bricking up” the windows on the lower level south side of the building to the extent possible. The roof leaders shall not interfere with the brick quoins at the facade corners. All leader drains shall be connected directly to the existing inlet at the corner of Shepard Terrace. Signs shall not be backlit. Applicant to submit a lighting plan

ck quoins at the facade corners. All leader drains shall be connected directly to the existing inlet at the corner of Shepard Terrace. Signs shall not be backlit. Applicant to submit a lighting plan which conform with the ordinance and be subject to the review and approval of the Board Engineer and Planner. Light fixtures will “cutoff” type. 11