September 9, 2015

Matthew J. Neuls, P.E., was sworn in, stated his credentials, and accepted by the Board to be an expert professional engineer. Michael J. Breitman, was sworn in, stated he was the Building Manager for the Applicant, Haberman West Orange Corporation, located at 59 Main Street, West Orange. Vice Chairman asked for clarification regarding Applicant's request for “c” variance relief. He asked if the marked Exhibit was the same as those submitted to the Board on August 31, 2015. Mr. Neuls confirmed the plans were the same. Referring to Exhibit A-1, Sheets 2 and 3, Mr. Neuls described the existing conditions including a retaining wall along the south side of the property adjacent to existing driveway; to improve safety, the driveway would be widened approximately 5 feet from its current curb to the retaining wall resulting in a slight increase in surface impervious coverage. There would be no structural changes to the existing retaining wall; it would remain intact and functioning. There already existed several catch basins in the parking lot; the drainage would remain unchanged. In response to Mr. Russo’s memorandum dated August 25, 2015, Mr. Neuls said the integrity of the retaining wall would be kept intact by ensuring the weep holes were not covered during construction; the existing impervious coverage of 87.17% would increase to 88.08%. He concluded his testimony. Vice Chairman Bagoff requested Mr. Neuls address the inconsistencies noted in Mr. Grygiel’s report dated August 13, 2015. Mr. Neuls said the 8/24/15 plan revisions partially reflected changes per Mr. Grygiel’s comments; Sheet 2 listed the increase in impervious surface coverage as 87.33%, the correct increase was 88.08%. The correct “area of improvement” number was 1,050 square feet. Typographical errors had been corrected. Ms. Keller advised the Board the three “c” variances required were for maximum impervious coverage (to be revised to 88.08%), minimum distance from off-street parking area to property line, and parking area setback to side property line in OB-2 zone. All were existing nonconforming conditions further exacerbated by the proposal. In response to inquiry from Councilwoman McCartney, Mr. Neuls said compliance connoted new engineering industry standards for roadway design and vehicular access for a commercial driveway. In response to questions from Mr. Gurland, Mr. Neuls said

ney, Mr. Neuls said compliance connoted new engineering industry standards for roadway design and vehicular access for a commercial driveway. In response to questions from Mr. Gurland, Mr. Neuls said the retaining wall to the south of the property was an existing condition; it had been previously built. In response to inquiry from Vice Chairman Bagoff, Mr. Neuls stated there would be no changes to the site line(s) or the pattern of ingress and egress. Mr. Eben stated the retaining wall had been recently built; he questioned if a building permit had been issued. He asked if parking would be allowed in the driveway, if not, would there be no- parking signage/marking, and would there be fire lane markings. He opined the south driveway was the most active on the property. The plan was an improvement; however, he was concerned the driveway be properly marked; he recommended it be a condition of approval. Mr. Neuls said the next witness, Mr. Brietman, would be able to answer questions regarding the retaining wall permit. Mr. Stieber said the Applicant would accept the suggested driveway marking as a condition of approval.

In response to question from Mr. Klein, Mr. Neuls stated the proposed width of the driveway at the curb would be 27 feet and 25 feet for the length of the driveway to parking lot. Mr. Klein suggested a no-parking marking at the curb at the end of the driveway where it entered the parking lot. Ms. Keller asked if additional landscaping had been considered; Mr. Neuls said that was a question for Mr. Breitman. The Public had no questions for Mr. Neuls. Mr. Steiber called Mr. Breitman to the podium; Vice Chairman Bagoff advised him he was still under oath. Mr. Breitman stated he was employed by Haberman West Orange Corporation; he was the on-site property manager. Mr. Breitman stated the contractor hired to build the retaining wall started the project without securing a building permit. The Building Department and Zoning Official issued stop work order until the issuance of a permit. After reviewing the plan, the Zoning Official determined the height of retaining wall did not require Board approval. Approximately thirty new blue spruce plantings had been installed along the south wall perimeter. He said the current driveway width was inadequate to accommodate the vehicular traffic entering and existing; upon completion of its widening; future plantings would include ten fruit trees and five additional blue spruce. Mr. Gurland suggested a condition of approval the final site plan to indicate the width of the driveway on the South side of the building at three locations - at the Main Street entrance, the southwest corner of the building, and where the driveway met the parking lot. Mr. Steiber said the Applicant would agree to the condition. Mr. Eben stated the property had bothered him for many years. He asked if the entire parking lot was utilized; was there the opportunity to increase the landscaping to one tree for every ten parking spaces. He opined there was virtually no landscaping in the front of the building. He suggested a condition of approval include the Applicant meet with the Board Engineer and the Downtown Alliance to discuss landscaping. Mr. Breitman said the entire lot was not used; there was landscaping in the front of the building. He said meeting with the Engineer and Alliance was acceptable. Mr. Russo asked for clarification regarding the proposed landscaping; would parking spaces be eliminated to add landscaping, or additional

said meeting with the Engineer and Alliance was acceptable. Mr. Russo asked for clarification regarding the proposed landscaping; would parking spaces be eliminated to add landscaping, or additional landscaping installed in the unpaved parking lot areas. He suggested the most distant, unattractive, and unused parking stalls be converted to landscaped areas. Mr. Breitman said new plantings would be installed in the existing green areas where currently devoid of plants or trees. He stated the lot was big; he would try to accommodate converting unused spaces to green areas as per Mr. Russo’s suggestion. Referring to the parking lot, Mr. Klein noted in the upper right-hand corner, there appeared to be two sets of eight tandem parking spaces; he asked for what were they used; who parked there. Mr. Breitman stated the spaces were compliant, they were not often used, but they were utilized. The Applicant had no further testimony.

The Public had no questions for Mr. Breitman, or comments on the Application. Vice Chairman Bagoff stated the Applicant was requested three “c” variances; but did not have a planner testify. Mr. Dwyer gave a brief recapitulation of the criteria needed for granting the variance relief for the “c2” and “c1” variances. Mr. Steiber stated the benefits of the proposed Application outweighed the detriments. He said the increase in safety would outweigh any minor increase in impervious coverage. The Board deliberated. Ms. Keller suggested all existing and new landscaping be properly maintained. Mr. Russo stated Applicant to post escrow to provide for engineering inspection review. 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 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 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. 4. All construction, use and development of the property shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein, all representations of the Applicant

withdraw, amend or supplant the instant approval. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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.

7. Applicant will ensure that the existing retaining wall along the right side of the driveway shall be protected and maintained during construction and after. 8. Applicant agrees that the property shall be subject to post construction inspection by the Board Engineer. 9. Applicant shall stripe the newly widened driveway to prevent parking in the driveway and to indicate it is a fire land all per the review and approval of the West Orange Fire Department. 10. Applicant shall revise the plans to show the width of the driveway on the South side of the building at three locations; first at the Main Street entrance, second at the Southwest corner of the building and third where the driveway meets the parking lot. 11. Applicant shall meet with the Downtown West Orange Alliance and the Board Engineer to discuss landscaping. 12. All conditions of approval shall be indicated on the plans. 13. Applicant to post escrow to provide for engineering inspection review. 14. Applicant agrees to maintain all landscaping on site. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Eben Bagoff: Yes Carlucci: Absent Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Absent Gurland: No Klein: Yes Lester: Absent McCartney: Yes Wegner: Yes Wilkes: Yes Weston: Absent Vice Chairman announced a brief recess at approximately 9:30 P.M.; the meeting reconvened at approximately 9:32. Mr. Wilkes, Ms. Keller, and Mr. Russo left the meeting at approximately 9:30 P.M. Mr. Grygiel joined the meeting at approximately 9:32 P.M. PB-15-07C/County of Essex/TBZ/Pony Trail Improvements Block: 163; Lot: 1; Zone: R-1 560 Northfield Avenue Courtesy Review Application. EXHIBIT(S) A-1: — Aerial View of Turtle Back Zoo including existing Pony Trail, dated 4/1/2015, prepared by French & Parrello Associates, PA; A-2: Site Plan for Indoor Pony Arena, signed by Andrew L. French, PE, French & Parrello Associates, PA, dated 4/1/2015; 10

A-3: Construction Details for Indoor Pony Arena-Prefabricated Wood Pavilion, dated 4/1/2015, prepared by French & Parrello Associates, PA A-4: — Construction Details for Indoor Pony Arena-Enclosed 6 Stall Prefabricated, dated 4/1/2015, prepared by French & Parrello Associates. DISCUSSION Mark L. Fleder, Esq., Connell Foley LLP, special legal counsel to Essex County, presented the Application. He stated the County was proposing a small-scaled project at Turtle Back Zoo to rehabilitate the existing Pony Trail with a prefabricated pavilion, add a prefabricated enclosed 6- stall barn, and flatten out the existing exercise yard. Keith B. Smith, PE, PP, CME, Senior Vice President, French & Parrello Associates PA, was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in engineering. Referring to the Exhibits, he described the existing conditions and proposed improvements to the Pony Trail Exhibit. Referencing Mr. Grygiel’s memo dated 8/21/2015, he stated five existing trees would be removed and replaced with five new trees to the east of the exercise yard. The existing canvas covered pavilion would be replaced with a prefabricated solid roof wood pavilion, including a small cedar cupola on top in at mid-roof. In response to question from Councilwoman McCartney, Mr. Smith confirmed the Pony Trail was an existing attraction; the existing conditions included a structure with a canvas top; the improvements included replacing that structure with a permanent, solid roof structure. In response to questions from Mr. Eben; Mr. Smith said he had not designed the buildings; the presentation included conceptual drawings; a New Jersey licensed architect would sign the final plans. He did not know the actual length of the ADA ramp; he thought it was approximately 45 feet. He acknowledged a ramp must include resting places for every 30 feet; all construction would be code compliant. Referring to the South Elevation illustration on Exhibit A-3; Mr. Wegner asked for clarification of the height of the open area; Mr. Smith said it was closed height of 8 feet above the grade. Mr. Wegner wanted to know what would prevent the pony from exiting the open area; he voiced concern that mounted riders would not be able to clear the height. Mr. Fleder said the matter was operational, better answered by Zoo administration. In response to Mr. Wegner’s

e open area; he voiced concern that mounted riders would not be able to clear the height. Mr. Fleder said the matter was operational, better answered by Zoo administration. In response to Mr. Wegner’s question, Mr. Smith said a fence barrier would separate observers from riders. Mr. Grygiel and the Public had no questions for Mr. Smith. Brint Spencer, Director, Turtle Back Zoo, was sworn in, stated his credentials, and accepted by the Board to be an expert witness. Mr. Wegner asked if there was a barrier between the pony course and observers; Mr. Spencer confirmed there was currently a fence barrier; the new structure would also have a fence. He described the proposed structures method of ingress and egress. One staff member walked the pony; another assisted the mounted rider. He stated the pony and rider was under control for the ride entirety. The height of the rafter at the lowest point was not an issue. In response to question from Mr. Eben, Mr. Spencer the new solid roof structure would have lighting and ceiling fans. 11

Mr. Grygiel and the Public had no questions for Mr. Spencer. There was no further testimony. Mr. Eben suggested a condition of the Recommendation include the final plans be approved and signed and sealed by a New Jersey licensed architect. The Board voted on the Review and Recommendation as follows: Motion: Mr. Eben Second: Vice Chairman Bagoff Bagoff: Yes Carlucci: Absent Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Absent Gurland: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Absent McCartney: Yes Wegner: Yes Wilkes: Absent Weston: Absent DISCUSSIONS Councilwoman McCartney told the Board she had received an email from Brendan Gill, County Freeholder advising of an opportunity for a $50,000 to $100,000 grant from Southwest Airlines to revitalize public spaces. She read the purpose of the grant and requirements for consideration. The Board said they would consider possible projects for the grant application. Mr. Eben addressed the Board; he stated they all worked hard to consider an application’s conditions of approval when deliberating; he said property at the 7-Eleven site (516 Valley Road) was in deplorable condition. He asked the Board compose a memo the Zoning Official to investigate and report findings back to Board. Vice Chairman Bagoff directed Mr. Dwyer to compose a memo to the Zoning Official regarding the site and report back to Board within 30 days. Mr. Eben asked Mr. Grygiel for an update on recently approved Applications; several had been approved over the past six to eight months. Mr. Grygiel said all applications had conditions of approval; they were in various stages of completion. He noted the property at 222 Main Street had recently hired a new architect. Vice Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Grygiel for clarification regarding the zones of a Township golf course. Mr. Grygiel said the recommended changes proposed by the 2010 Master Plan to change a golf course from an R-2 to R-1 zone had not been implemented. His 2010 recommendation was to re-zone all golf courses to R-1. Vice Chairman Bagoff suggested the Board consider a recommendation to Council to re-zone all golf courses to R-1 zone. The Board discussed the matter; it was decided the Secretary would investigate and report to the Board whether the 2010 recommendation had gone to the Council for consideration. The discussion would continue when Chairman Weston was present. MEETING ADJOURNED at approximately 10:27