May 21, 2015

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING May 21, 2015 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on May 21, 2015 commencing 8:00 PM at 66 Main Street, West Orange, N.J. in Council Chambers. Chairman Buechler called the meeting to order at 8:07 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 December 11, 2014 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: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Meetings: SWEARING IN Bruce Buechler, Greg Bullock, Deborah Gabry, Philip D. Neuer, Bart Quentzel, , William Steinhart, Mark Sussman, Alice Weiss Irv Schwarzbaum Paul Grygiel, Consulting Planner Eric Keller, Consulting Engineer Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney Joanne Carlucci, Acting Board Secretary D. Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service June 4, 2015 (Special Meeting) — 8:00 pm June 18, 2015 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 pm July 16, 2015 (Regular Meeting) — 8:00 pm Consulting Planner for the Township, Paul Grygiel, and Consulting Engineer for the Township, Eric Keller were sworn under oath.

RESOLUTIONS 1. ZB-15-04/Golda Och Academy, Inc. APPROVED 5-21-15 Block: 168; Lots: 18, 18.04, 20.02 & 42 1418 Pleasant Valley Way Seeking a “D” variance and “C” variances for the expansion of a non-conforming conditional use for the construction of a 3 story addition Ms. Gabry made a motion to adopt the resolution. Mr. Quentzel seconded the motion The vote was as follows: Bullock: Yes Steinhart: Yes Gabry: Yes Sussman: Yes Neuer: Yes Weiss: Yes Quentzel: Yes Chairman Buechler: - Schwarzbaum : APPLICATION(S 1. ZB-14-08/Sai Hira Ram Trust, Inc. Carried From 4/15 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 EXHIBITS A-16 Drawing A-200 Temple Floor Plans Revised 4/30/15 Pre-Marked A-17 Drawing A-200 Temple Exterior Elevations Revised 5/6/15 PreMarked A-18 Drawing A-101 Caretaker’s Cottage Plan Revised 4/30/15 Pre-Marked A-19 Drawing A-201 Caretaker’s Elevation Revised 5/6/15 Pre-Marked A-20 Material Boards Pre-Marked A-21 Gazebo Samples Pre-Marked A-22 Layour Sheet SP-2 Revised 4/30/15 Pre-Marked A-23 Grading and Drainage SP-3 Revised 4/30/15 Pre-Marked A-24 Lighting Plan SP-4 Revised 4/30/15 Pre-Marked A-25 Landscape and Tree Replacement SP-5 Revised 4/30/15 Pre-Marked Vice Chairman Neuer recused himself from hearing Application ZB-14-08/Sai Hira Ram Trust, Inc. He stepped down from the dais. Chairman Buechler introduced application ZB-14-08/Sai Hira Ram Trust Inc. and invited Mr. Robert Williams, Esq.,attorney for the applicant, to begin his presentation

Mr. Williams approached the podium. He said once again he was appearing before the Board on behalf of the applicant stating that the prior appearances were September 18, 2014, January 15, 2015 and February 19, 2015. Mr. Williams continued that during all the meetings there was a great deal of dialogue between the Board, applicant and members of the public. He continued to update the Board stating that after the February 19, 2015 they met with community objectors who partook in the hearings subsequently, revised plans were submitted which they will give evidence to this evening. Mr. Williams further stated that due to the significant changes made to the site in response to the Board and the neighbors comments he would like to call Mr. Michael Petry up to describe them. Chairman Buechler had a question concerning the plans submitted last November. Mr. Williams said they could be discarded. Ms. Weiss stated that she had some questions on the old pictures which she had brought with her regarding the exterior. Mr. Williams stated that the architect was present and he would go over Ms. Weiss’s concerns. Mr. Williams called Michael Petry to the podium. He was sworn under oath. Chairman Buechler stated that Mr. Petry was previously accepted by the Board as an expert in the field of engineering and would continue with that designation for the evening. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Petry to describe to the Board the changes that have been made to the site from the last proposal which was marked exhibit A-2 on 1/5/15 and the new proposal that has been revised through 4/30/15 marked A-22 for the record. Mr. Petry stated in general what was done was to make modifications in response to the comments that were made by both the Board and by the neighbors. The garage with the apartment above it that was in the back of the building was eliminated which allowed the applicant to increase the setback of the proposed building to over 70 feet; move the daily prayer chapel from the caretaker’s house to the right side of the main building leaving the caretaker’s house as just that; remove the surface basin located along the Laurel Avenue right-of-way which was perceived as a potential hazard/maintenance headache and finally increase the landscaping buffer in the rear and along both sides of the property to increase the screening between the applicant and the adjacent

as a potential hazard/maintenance headache and finally increase the landscaping buffer in the rear and along both sides of the property to increase the screening between the applicant and the adjacent neighbors. Chairman Buechler asked if the size of the main building was increasing or decreasing in square footage. Mr. Petry responded that he would let the architect specifically address this, but it had decreased in size.

Chairman Buechler stated for the record that by the redesign the driveway that went behind the building on the right side of the property was also reduced and also asked if the impervious coverage was increased. Mr. Petry responded that by eliminating the garage in the back the applicant created a situation where there is no need of vehicle access to the back of the building. We have decreased the impervious coverage; on straight analysis it is in conformance with the 40 percent maximum. So by sliding the building forward we have held the 125 foot front setback; increased the rear setback to 70 and have a minimum side to our north of 63.83 and to our south of 123.99. Chairman Buechler asked about the footage from the parking lot on the right hand side to the property line. Mr. Petry stated that the parking is setback 20.83 feet from the property line. That is an increase of what was proposed before. They have maintained 46 parking spaces. All of these spaces are in front of the rear of the building. Parking stops about 134 feet from the rear property line. A two car garage in the caretaker’s home will be serviced by the separate driveway. Since there is no space open to the public the handicapped access to the building has been eliminated. They have maintained access to the refuse area which remains on the side of the caretaker’s house. A lighted walkway has been provided as previously discussed by the Board. Chairman Buechler inquired about a walkway from the parking lot to the front of the caretaker’s house. Mr. Petry responded that there is a walkway from the parking lot to the front and to the rear of the caretaker’s house. Also, the entry driveway to both the main parking lot and to the caretaker’s home remain in the exact same place as what had been previously discussed. Mr. Petry referred to the grading plan SP-5 which has been marked P-23 for the record. He stated that the recharge system on the side of the proposed temple has been eliminated because of the concern from the Barton Drive residents who felt by putting water in the ground would further exacerbate the problem that exists in their basements today. He continued that doing this required an increase in the size of the detention system that is in the front which is still located below the driveway and overall it remains in compliance with the Township’s storm water management standards.

n increase in the size of the detention system that is in the front which is still located below the driveway and overall it remains in compliance with the Township’s storm water management standards. He further stated that by moving the building forward they have realigned the easement that was offered before which comes through the site in front of the building and service the lots immediately to the North. Chairman Buechler asked if the issue with the two homeowners to the North had been resolved regarding the pipe being built under the easement. Mr. Williams responded that he has not been contacted by them therefore there in no agreement with them at this time. He stated there was a comment by the Municipal Engineer that it would be nice if we put the pipe in for therm. However, our position is that the easement is sufficient.

Mr. Petry referred to SP-4 marked A-24 for the record which is the modified lighting plan. He proceeded to explain that the plan was modified to use LED lighting; fixtures would remain at 12 ft. mounting heights; bollard lights at 42 in. high, the light level at 36 in. will service the walkway to the rear of the building and will line the walkway that services the refuse area next to the caretaker’s house. Chairman Buechler asked if there were bollards on the front sidewalk coming from the parking lot to the front of the caretaker’s house. Mr. Petry replied that there is one bollard at the turn at the front of the caretaker’s house, there is lighting that’s proposed on the building that will be adequate as in any single family home. Chairman Buechler inquired if those bollards are on the plan. Mr. Petry stated that all the bollards have been incorporated on the plan and that the LED lights will provide a well-balanced parking lot lighting system. Mr. Petry referred to SP-5 marked A-25 for the record which is the landscape changes, many of which were discussed with the abutting neighbors. The number of trees that were proposed for removal have been significantly reduced. The Township Forester requested additional trees be removed along the common property lines between this lot. This can be done, however, according to his count there would be only 26 trees left to be maintained which would result in a variance. A variance will be requested this evening but it could be eliminated if the Forester would let one more tree remain. They have incorporated the evergreens that we have maintained in front which are a series of Blue Spruce, Norway Spruce and White Pine. This has been carried along the northwesterly and westerly property lines along an existing six foot high wall. The wall has been extended at the neighbor’s request down to the southwesterly property corner. There is a short landscape wall that runs along the southerly property line. At the request of the Forester we have incorporated in fill evergreen trees along and within that area. All of these are Blue Spruce and are being put in at a ten feet height which matches what has already been planted along the driveway and creates a significant buffer. In the rear portion of the property which is going to be a lawn area we have incorporated a series of Red Maples. When the foliage comes out it will

long the driveway and creates a significant buffer. In the rear portion of the property which is going to be a lawn area we have incorporated a series of Red Maples. When the foliage comes out it will create a stepped buffer for the residents in the rear. Chairman Buechler asked if a Fire Truck would have access to drive around the entirety of the building. Mr. Petry responded that there is not a fire lane around the building and doesn’t believe one is required. However there is fire truck access on two sides of the building. Chairman Buechler asked if a fire lane is required. Mr. Keller responded that his belief is that it is not. Chairman Buechler asked where the nearest fire hydrant was on site.

Mr. Petry replied that that there is a fire hydrant located at the driveway to the caretakers house. However it has been requesting for it to be relocated to the Southerly side of that driveway. Chairman Buechler asked if the Fire Dept. has responded to that request. He was told by Mr. Petry that they have not. The Chairman stated that it would have to be a condition. Both Mr. Petry and Mr. Williams agreed. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Petry about two pillars at the entryway to the site one of which contains a small sign. Mr. Petry informed him that the idea for the monument sign by the driveway came from the Crestmont Country Club and they actually mimicked their pillars and signage. Ms. Weiss asked if that was in their package. Mr. Petry replied that it was on the detail sheet. There was a dialogue regarding this matter between Mr. Petry and Ms. Weiss. Mr. Petry stated he had nothing further. Mr. Williams said he had a couple of more questions for him. Mr. Willams and Mr. Petry had a dialogue highlighting the changes, which Mr. Petry testified to, from the first application and concluded that the major change was that the building was moved forward and a better buffer was provided. Ms. Weiss stated that a major change according to Mr. Grygiel’s report was the existing building being demolished. In response to Ms. Weiss’s statement both Mr. Williams and Mr. Petry confirmed that the existing building would be totally demolished. Mr. Williams stated that they met with a neighbors to the rear of the property and owners of Lot 22.05 wanted additional trees planted on their property. The applicant agreed to plant the trees. Since it is not part of the plan he wants to make it a condition of approval to represent that they will comply with the neighbors request. Chairman Buechler asked where would deliveries to the temple be received. Mr. Petry responded that all deliveries would happen in the front where there is actually a ramp access so deliveries can come into the drop off lane and load into the front and pull out. Chairman Buechler asked if the temple hours of operation are the same as what they were previously testified to be and if it still was a two story building. Mr. Petry responded that the temple hours were the same as previously testified to and that it was a two story building with a partial basement which the architect will get

was a two story building. Mr. Petry responded that the temple hours were the same as previously testified to and that it was a two story building with a partial basement which the architect will get into. Chairman Buechler asked if there is an elevator with the changes.