May 19, 2011

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING May 19, 2011 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on May 19, 2011 at 8:00 PM at 66 Main Street, West Orange, NJ in Council Chambers. Chairman Bruce Buechler called the meeting to order at approximately 8:03 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 17, 2010 in accordance with the "Open Public Meetings Act." Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney, read the Opening Statement. PRESENT: Chairman Buechler, Gregory Bullock, Debora Gabry, Vice Chairman Neuer, Bart Quentzel (8:10pm),Peter Ricci, William Steinhart ABSENT: Mark Sussman, Alice Weiss ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director: Susan Borg, A.I.C.P., P.P., A.I.A. Board Attorney: Alice Beirne, Esq. Township Consulting Engineer: Eric Keller Board Secretary, Rose DeSena ANNOUNCEMENT OF FUTURE MEETING DATES Future Meetings: May 26, 2011 (Special Meeting) - 8:00 P. M. June 16, 2011 (Regular Meeting) - 8:00 P.M. July 14, 2011 (Regular Meeting) - 8:00 P.M. August 18, 2011 (Regular Meeting) - 8:00 P.M. Chairman Buechler noted the special meeting on May 26, 2011 and asked that it be added to the list of future meeting dates. SWEARING IN Township Professionals, Planning Director Susan Borg and Consulting Engineer Eric Keller were sworn under oath. MINUTES Adopt Minutes: April 21, 2011 Regular Meeting Mr. Bullock made a motion to adopt the minutes and Ms. Gabry seconded. The Minutes of the regular meeting of April 21, 2011 were adopted unanimously. DISCUSSION: Mr. Joseph Vena approached the podium and requested a special meeting of June 23, 2011 for applicant, The Gold Och Academy, that he is representing. He requested that Chairman Buechler announce the special meeting date at present meeting so the applicant does not have to re-notify. Chairman Buechler asked the Board if this date was good for them; all agreed. Chairman Buechler

chler announce the special meeting date at present meeting so the applicant does not have to re-notify. Chairman Buechler asked the Board if this date was good for them; all agreed. Chairman Buechler confirmed the special meeting date for 6/23/11 @ 8:00 pm for the applicant but stated that the applicant must re-notice. Chairman Buechler asked Director Borg if the application was complete; she replied no that they still have materials to submit and fees. Chairman Buechler told Mr. Vena that the applicant must have all requested information and fees in by 5/27/11. RESOLUTIONS ZB-10-12/Congregation Beth Israel Block: 176.19; Lots: 5 & 6; Zone: R-6 565-567 Pleasant Valley Way Approving the amendment to ZB-05-64 for using asphalt instead of pavers.. Revised resolution not adopted - application approved on 2/10/11 Chairman Buechler stepped down for the discussion of this resolution. Vice Chairman Neuer took over as acting Chair. He discussed the revisions to the resolution, addressing head in parking, and requested notifying the Chief of Police that the police have authorization to enforce the head in parking . Vice Chairman Neuer asked if there were any questions; Director Borg stated that she could not talk about this matter. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Neuer to adopt this resolution ZB-10- 12/Congregation Beth Israel; Mr. Ricci seconded. Vote was as follows: |Bullock: Yes |Ricci: Yes | |Gabry: Yes |Steinhart: Yes | |Neuer: Yes |Sussman: - | |Quentzel: Yes |Weiss: -| | | | | |Chairman Buechler: Recused | ZB-09-01/MBP, Inc. (Essex House) (Application approved 4//21/11) Block: 159.04 Lots: 1.01, 1.02, 1.03 Zone: B-2 525 Northfield Avenue Amended Site Plan approval with "D" and "C" variances Chairman Buechler noted the changes to this resolution. Director Borg asked if they could wait until after the break before they voted on this so that some members of the public could look at the revised landscape plan. Chairman Buechler approved that request. After the first break at approximately 9:45pm, Chairman Buechler asked Director Borg if this matter was ready and she

could look at the revised landscape plan. Chairman Buechler approved that request. After the first break at approximately 9:45pm, Chairman Buechler asked Director Borg if this matter was ready and she advised the Board that there are some changes that have to be made to the landscaping plan. Chairman Buechler noted that this will be carried over to the 6/16/11 meeting. ZB-11-04/DeBarbieri (Application approved 4/21/11) Block: 55.05 Lot: 11 Zone: R-5 22 Undercliff Terrace "C" variances for a two story addition on the back left corner of house A motion was made by Mr. Bullock to adopt resolution ZB-11-04/Barbieri; Ms. Gabry seconded with vote as follows: |Bullock: Yes |Ricci: Yes | | |Steinhart: - | |Gabry: Yes |Sussman: - | |Neuer: - |Weiss: -| | | | |Quentzel: Yes |Chairman Buechler: Yes | APPLICATIONS 1. ZB-11-01/Patin (Application Carried from 4/21/11) Block: 165.02 Lot: 5 Zone: R-4 6 Dogwood Road Seeking "C" variance for an undersized lot to construct a single family dwelling Chairman Buechler noted, from the agenda, that the application was asked to be carried over to the June 16th meeting. He asked if the applicant had submitted all of the signed documentation needed; Board secretary replied yes. Chairman Buechler stated the adjournment has been extended to June 16th meeting @ 8:00pm. 2. ZB-11-05/Carp, Gerald & Ellen (Application Carried from 4/21/11) Block: 82.02; Lot: 13.05; Zone: R-1 63 Ridge Road Seeking "C" variances for the height of an existing fence and the setbacks of an existing tennis court EXHIBITS: A-1 - Photo Board (4 photos) A-2 - Photo Board (3 photos) A-3 - Aerial Photo A-4 -10/2/90 Permit package A-5 -11/18/98 Permit package A-6 - 9/13/99 Permit package A-7 - 6/9/05 Permit package A-8 - 7/18/90 Permit package A-9 - List of applications (2 pages) A-10 - Enlarged colored survey DISCUSSION: Charles Lorber, attorney for the applicant, approached the podium. Chairman Buechler asked when the permits, the applicant presented at the meeting, were submitted with the

lored survey DISCUSSION: Charles Lorber, attorney for the applicant, approached the podium. Chairman Buechler asked when the permits, the applicant presented at the meeting, were submitted with the application because they were not in the file. Director Borg stated they were not submitted with the application. Vice Chairman Neuer stated that none of these permits pertain to the fence or the tennis court. Chairman Buechler wanted to see the permits for the fence and the tennis court and Mr. Lorber stated that he would present them through testimony from his witnesses. Mr. Lorber went on to explain the reason they are requesting a height variance for the fence around the tennis court. The fence is 10' high fence where 6' is permitted. He went on to explain the set back. He stated the tennis court was built 22 yrs ago and there was not a requirement for a permit then. He said the son of the owner of the company, who built the tennis court, is here to testify and will do so if the variances are approved. Mr. Lorber went on to state that the tennis court is the same as when it was built in 1989 and has not been changed. Mr. Neuer asked if there was an ordinance in 1989. Director Borg stated that she wasn't sure if it came afterward. Mr. Neuer stated that he was not talking about the use; he was talking about the site plans and if a site plan would be required. Mr. Lorber stated that he has a planner, an engineer and a builder to testify. Mr. Lorber stated that he is asking that the fence, that backs up to Seton Hall, remain 10' high; one variance for a 3' and one for a 4' rear fence that will be placed off of the property line. Chairman Buechler asked what the required lot size is for this zone; Director Borg stated 2 acres for an R1 zone. Mr. Gerald Carp, the applicant, approached the podium and was sworn in. Chairman Buechler asked how long he lived at 63 Ridge Road. He stated he lived there since 1989 and the tennis court was built then. He stated his intentions were to always build a tennis court and this is why he bought this property. He went on to explain the type of material the court was made of and that it was a specific type of court. The attorney presented four (4) photos on one board and (3) photos on another board. Chairman Buechler asked Ms. Dillon to mark the first as exhibits A-1 and the second as A-2. Chairman Buechler asked

e attorney presented four (4) photos on one board and (3) photos on another board. Chairman Buechler asked Ms. Dillon to mark the first as exhibits A-1 and the second as A-2. Chairman Buechler asked if Mr. Carp, took all of the photos; he responded yes and then asked did anyone make any alterations and the response was no. Mr. Carp discussed and explained the photos. Chairman Buechler asked if the cabana was built when the tennis court was built and the reply was no; it was built 10 years later. An aerial photo was presented and Chairman Buechler asked to have it marked as exhibit A3. Mr. Carp described the photo and that he is proposing a 6" setback from the property line. He discussed the sheds and stated that they are used for equipment and are adjacent to the patio. Permits were presented to the Board. Mr. Neuer asked to identify them. Chairman Buechler asked to mark the permit package from October 1990 as exhibit A4; permit package from 11/18/98 as A5; permit package from 9/13/99 as A6; permit package from 6/9/05 as A7 and permit package from 7/18/90 as exhibit A8. Chairman Buechler asked if he had these in his records and Mr. Carp replied, no, they got them from town hall. Mr. Ricci asked if the sheds were built later on and Mr. Carp replied yes. Chairman Buechler asked about the impervious coverage and did they include the tennis court as impervious coverage in 1999. Mr. Carp did not know the answer to that. Mr. Neuer asked if the surface is pervious or impervious. Eric Heller responded and said clay has a different surface than sand. There was very detailed, extensive discussion regarding whether the surface of the tennis court was pervious or impervious. There was no final decision made as to whether it was. Mr. Heller said he is not familiar with this material and will check the ordinance because there are different types of soil. Mr. Lorber presented a document to the Board. Chairman Buechler asked to mark this document as exhibit A9 which was a list of applications from West Orange Town Clerk. Chairman Buechler asked Director Borg to look at all the documents first. She stated that this document seems to be from the Building Department not the Town Clerks office unless it was submitted as an OPRA request. Chairman Buechler asked Director Borg if she thought they didn't need a permit in 1989 and she responded that she didn't know.

not the Town Clerks office unless it was submitted as an OPRA request. Chairman Buechler asked Director Borg if she thought they didn't need a permit in 1989 and she responded that she didn't know. Mr. Lorber stated that he could prove it because the Municipal Court had just made a ruling that they didn't need a permit and the summons was dismissed. Chairman Buechler requested they submit documentation from the court. Mr. Lorber also stated that the only reason they are requesting a variance is in case his client sells his house. Chairman Buechler asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Carp. Mr. Ricci stated the big question is the impervious area. He stated that if their last permit was in 2005 for an addition, the application had to have the impervious coverage or they would not have received a permit. Mr. Ricci asked how far the fence was from the tennis court and Mr. Carp replied the court goes up to the fence. Mr. Ricci responded saying that had to be wrong. He asked how big the tennis court was because there were no dimensions on the plans. Mr. Lorber stated that he has a witness that can answer that question. Mr. Neuer a Mr. Neuer directed a question to Mr. Carp stating that in1989, he built a tennis court, and no one told you that you needed a permit? Mr. Carp replied that he was shocked to know there were other requirements after it was built. Mr. Neuer also stated that there was a stop work order for electrical work done without a permit so that is two things done without a permit. He also asked if anyone inquired if a permit for a site plan was required. Mr. Carp stated he didn't know. Eric Heller asked Mr. Carp if they do anything special to prepare the court to play on so that no water passes through and there is no ponding. Mr. Carp replied no; that's why they chose this surface. Mr. Bullock commented, stating that he is not interested in picking the bones of the property from back in 1989. He said that the Board should address the present application. Mr. Neuer stated he did not ask for an application or permits, he just wanted to know why this tennis court was built without permits and they, as the Board, are obligated to find out why. Chairman Buechler asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Carp. He also noted the Public Advocate was not present to ask any questions. Director Borg stated that

to find out why. Chairman Buechler asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Carp. He also noted the Public Advocate was not present to ask any questions. Director Borg stated that the Public Advocate has no jurisdiction over this case. Michael Lanzafama approached the podium and was sworn in. He stated he was a licensed professional Engineer in the State of New Jersey and a land surveyor. Chairman Buechler accepted his credentials. He stated that he prepared title survey for this property in 2010 and the survey found the tennis court was encroaching on the property to the south. He referred to an enlarged, colored survey and Chairman Buechler asked it to be marked as exhibit A10. He described where the tennis court was from the property line. Mr. Neuer asked what the required set back was and Mr. Lanzafama answered 5'. Director Borg stated that the fence is required to be a half of a foot from the property line. Chairman Buechler asked if they would have to take clay surface away when they move the fence and Mr. Lanzafama replied, yes, 2' of it. Mr. Ricci asked when he did the survey, did he have old surveys or did he do the survey without them. Mr. Lanzafama replied they had an old survey. Mr. Ricci asked if the old survey showed the additions or sheds in 2005 and Mr. Lanzafama replied no it did not. Mr. Bullock stated that most applications presented to this Board have site plans and that they should have had one with them tonight with the set -backs. Mr. Lanzafama stated that this survey was not specifically made for this application. Chairman Buechler asked if he knew if this application meets the maximum lot coverage for this property. Mr. Lanzafama replied that it may be slightly over by 200 sq. ft. but that is just an estimate. He stated that he can give them an exact number if need be. Mr. Neuer asked if he viewed any drainage materials for the court and Mr. Lanzafama replied no. Chairman Buechler asked if he specifically looked for that and Mr. Lanzafama replied no. Mr. Neuer stated that the application refers to the "fringe" of the tennis court and if he knew what that meant. The reply was no and Mr. Lorber stated that he had another witness that could answer that question. Mr. Neuer also asked if a portion of the clay has to be removed and the reply was yes. Director Borg stated that they are removing it because

t he had another witness that could answer that question. Mr. Neuer also asked if a portion of the clay has to be removed and the reply was yes. Director Borg stated that they are removing it because it's not his property. The fence is a foot and a half over the property line. There were no more questions for this witness. A. John Dimilia approached the podium and was sworn in. He stated that he is the son of the owner of the company that built the tennis court and has been involved with this company since 1982. He described what a tennis court looks like; it's dimensions and the playing surface. He explained that a 10' fence is used around a tennis court so that balls could not be hit over into the neighbor's property. He also explained that having a 6' fence around it could be hazardous because players could run into it. He went on to describe how the water drains from a hard surface and how some say its pervious and some do not. He also stated that some require permits and some do not. He stated that the material used for this surface is fast- dry. Ms. Gabry wanted clarification about the permits and Mr. Dimilia stated that he does not get involved with permits. Mr. Neuer asked if they were responsible for installing the fencing and the tennis court and Mr. Dimilia stated that he thought they did. Mr. Neuer asked if their company asks the home owner to see a permit and tell them that it is their responsibility to get one and Mr. Dimilia replied yes; the homeowner provides the permit. There was extensive conversation about the surface of the tennis court and exactly how it was built. Mr. Steinhart asked if any drainage was installed from another portion of the property, such as a French drain or pipes, and Mr. Dimilia that he did not know. Director Borg asked if they ask to see a survey when they build a tennis court and did he look at a survey before they put it in. Mr. Dimilia stated he wasn't sure. Director Borg asked if they stake the property lines when they put a tennis court; Mr. Dimilia replied they have a surveyor come in to do that. Director Borg stated that if that is the standard way then how did they go over the property line. Mr. Dimilia stated that it was probably just a mistake. She asked if they could afford to take away the foot and a half from the back area and will it affect the safety. Mr. Dimilia stated they can and the

milia stated that it was probably just a mistake. She asked if they could afford to take away the foot and a half from the back area and will it affect the safety. Mr. Dimilia stated they can and the safety will not be affected. There were no more questions for the witness. Chairman Buechler called for a break at 9:40pm. Meeting was called back to order at 9:50pm. ` Chairman Buechler stated this application will be carried over to 6/16 and the applicant has to bring a Planner and Mr. Dimilia back to this meeting to testify, so that they can deal with the lot coverage. If there is no quorum then it will be carried to the meeting in July. Mr. Lorber stated that his clients will be away in July and they will order the transcript from the June 16th meeting. Mr. Neuer requested that the 2005 application for a building permit is located for the next meeting. 3. ZB-11-07/Metro PCS New York, LLC (Application Carried from 4/21/11) Block: 173 Lot: 1.01 Zone: R-5 Nance Road Seeking two (2) "D" variances for use and height to add six (6) wireless antennas to an existing tower and a "C" variance for the height of a fence EXHIBITS: A1 - Aerial photograph - revised A2 - Photo package (3 sheets) A3 - Photo Simulations (2 photos) A4 - Second sheet of A-2 A5 - Photo simulations (2 photos) PS-2 labeled A6 - Photo simulations (2 photos) PS-3 labeled A7 - Photo simulations (2 photos) PS-4 labeled A8 - Photo (5 photographs) A9 - Photo simulations (2 photos) PS-5 labeled A10 - Planning Report from Tsvia R. Adar dated March, 2011 A11 - Propagation map with overlay (2) DISCUSSION: Richard Schkolnick, attorney, approached the podium. Chairman Buechler recused himself for reasons that he does business with this attorney. Vice chair Neuer took over as Chair. Mr. Eric Heller excused himself also. Mr. Schkolnick explained the applicant wants to add a wireless antenna to an existing tower and requesting a use variance and a "d" variance for height. He went on to explain that the antenna will not exceed the height of the tower. Mr. Neuer stated that PSE&G had sent a letter to Livingston and asked the attorney to notify them that the tower is in West Orange. Tsvia R. Adar approached the podium and was sworn in. She stated that she was a professional Senior Planner licensed in New Jersey and a licensed architect

ify them that the tower is in West Orange. Tsvia R. Adar approached the podium and was sworn in. She stated that she was a professional Senior Planner licensed in New Jersey and a licensed architect with 25 years of experience. Mr. Neuer accepted her credentials Ms. Adar stated that exhibit A1 was not created June, 2010 and the markings were prepared in April 2011; it was revised at the request of Director Borg. Ps 1 was submitted in the original package. Ms. Adar described the two photo simulations in exhibit A3. She went on to describe the existing conditions pointing them out on the photos. She described exhibit A4 as the second sheet of exhibit A2, labeled PS1, and went on to explain what was in the photos. She stated that the antennas will not change anything. She described exhibit A5; two (2) photos from the first application and pointed out that, because of the trees, you can barely see the towers. Mr. Neuer asked who took the photos; she replied she did on 12/9/10. He asked if they depicted the conditions and she replied they exactly depict the conditions. Ms. Adar described exhibit A6, two (2) photos labeled PS3, from the original application: She described the photos, which depicted looking at the towers and antennas from a distance. She noted you could not see the equipment area at the base of the tower. She pointed to exhibit A7, two (2) photo simulations labeled PS4, that were from the original application. She stated this photo was taken from the Livingston border and how it looks from there. Mr. Neuer wanted it to reflect in the minutes that no members of the public were at the meeting. Ms. Adar described exhibit A8 which were five (5) photos from surrounding neighborhood which showed visibility. Ms. Adar described exhibit A9 which was one (1) photo labeled as PS 5. This photo depicted how the equipment is going to look. For the record this photo was mismarked; it is not 201 it is 2011. Mr. Schkolnick stated they are seeking to install a seven (7) foot high fence instead of six (6) foot. Ms. Adar stated that you cannot see the equipment; this is just for better screening. Mr. Quentzel stated the equipment should match the tower instead of making it green so that it blends in with the tower. Mr. Neuer asked Ms. Adar if he asked her to read her planners report, exhibit A10, would it be accurate. She said yes. Ms. Adar stated