April 21, 2016

Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Brucker if he would have to go past the building going east on Rooney Circle before he saw the sign; he replied yes. Chairman Neuer said that coming from Prospect Avenue you can see the large mural on the fagade and asked Mr. Brucker why they would need the monument sign; he said because the tenant would like to delineate the entrance to the fitness center so that people would not turn into the office building driveway by mistake. Mr. Gabry asked Mr. Brucker why he thinks people would be confused about finding the L.A. Fitness building when there is a huge sign that says L.A. Fitness on the front of the building; he said because people might turn into the wrong driveway. Ms. Gabry asked Mr. Brucker if the driveways are connected; he said yes. There were no further questions for Mr. Brucker from the Board Members or the Board Professionals. Chairman Neuer asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Brucker; there were none. Mr. Regan called his next witness. Joseph Staigar approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Staigar detailed his educational and professional background as a professional engineer, traffic engineer and planner licensed in the State of New Jersey. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Staigar if he will be testifying as the engineer, the planner and the traffic engineer of this project; he replied yes. Chairman Neuer accepted Mr. Staigar as an expert in professional engineering and professional planning and also as a traffic engineering expert. 10

Mr. Regan asked Mr. Staigar if he prepared the site plans for the original application; he replied yes. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Staigar if the original site plans were signed by him. Mr. Staigar said that he signed the original site plans but another engineer in his firm testified for him at the original hearing because he could not be at that meeting. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Staigar how many site plans he prepared in the last five (5) years; he said approximately three (3) dozen. Mr. Staigar presented the site plan; Chairman Neuer asked to have sheet 2 of the site plan dated 3/12/13 marked as Exhibit A-1 for identification. Mr. Staigar referred to Exhibit A-1 and detailed the site. He said that the property does not have any frontage; it is land-locked and surrounded by private property. Mr. Staigar said that this is why the applicant is here because they are proposing the sign on the side yard even though it may look like a front yard. Mr. Staigar said that the sign will be located ten (10) feet from the property line in the side yard and twenty five (25) feet is allowed per ordinance. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Staigar if the sign is perpendicular to Rooney Circle; he replied yes. Mr. Staigar said that the sign is actually twenty five (25) feet from the curb line of Rooney Circle. Mr. Staigar said the best visibility of the sign would be on the curb line; he said the purpose of the sign is to locate the driveway for LA Fitness so they do not use the driveway for the adjacent medical building. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that no other businesses in the Essex Green Plaza have a sign to locate their driveways. 11

Mr. Staigar said most of the businesses on Route 10 have signs to locate their driveways; Vice Chairman Buechler said there is no comparison to this. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Staigar to state the distance between the medical building driveway and the health club driveway; he said approximately forty (40) or fifty (50) feet. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Staigar why he did not design the health club driveway to be closer to the building; he said it was designed this way because of the grades. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Staigar why he did not put the monument sign on the original site plan. He said that the Board asked if there are going to be any other signs during the initial hearing for this project and the applicant said no. Mr. Regan responded and said at that time it was not their intention to put up a monument sign. Ms. Gabry asked Mr. Staigar if he is sure that the distance between the two driveways is forty (40) feet because the driveways appear to have more distance than that between them; Mr. Staigar said that was an approximation and after looking at it again he said the driveways are more like one hundred (100) feet apart. Mr. Staigar said that the applicant prefers that the health club members only use the driveway for the fitness center; he said that they do not want the people leaving the medical building to intermingle with the people coming to the gym. Mr. Regan asked Mr. Staigar if the driveways were existing; he replied yes. Mr. Staigar said that he could not move the driveway for the medical building; he said that they were stuck with the location of the driveway and the existing access for the health club Mr. Schwarzbaum asked Mr. Staigar if there is a smaller sign that they could put up delineating the health club driveway that would not require a variance; he replied no. Mr. Staigar said that it is not the size of the sign it is the location of the sign. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Staigar if they could paint the words “LA Fitness” on the asphalt; he said yes but no one would see it as they approach the driveway. 12

Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Staigar if a line of sight drawing was prepared; he said no he did not do that as part of the submission but he can do that now if the Board would like him to. Ms. Weiss said that the same people usually go to the gym and will not have a problem finding it; she said that does not appear to be an issue. Mr. Staigar said that there are constantly new customers joining the gym. There were no further questions for Mr. Staigar from the Board Members or the Board Professionals. Chairman Neuer asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Staigar. Tal Ben-Zvi approached the podium and stated that he lives at 5 Allsop Court. He asked Mr. Staigar what a right of way is; he said that it is a road that the town or county owns. Mr. Staigar said that Rooney Circle is the right of way. There were no further engineering questions for Mr. Staigar. Mr. Staigar stated that now he will be testifying as the applicant’s Planner. He said that his testimony will be based on his report submitted to the Board Members. Mr. Staigar stated that the applicant is seeking variance approval for a proposed monument sign. He said that this requires two variances; one for the sign location in the side yard and one for the minimum side yard setback for the sign. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Grygiel if this would be an expansion of a non-conforming use regarding the number of signs on this property; he said he would have to check the township ordinance to see if there is a limited number of signs allowed. Mr. Staigar said the sign meets the townships ordinance as far as the size; he said the sign is less than half of what is allowed. Mr. Staigar said that it is important to have signs that locate driveways and the monument sign provides identification. 13

Mr. Staigar said that signs are only allowed in front yards and this site does not have a front yard; he said if the site did have a front yard the applicant would not be here tonight. Mr. Staigar said that they meet the criteria for the Cl and C2 variance. He said that the sign will not be detrimental to the public good, it will not impair the zoning ordinance and they have met all of the requirements. Mr. Staigar said that no one will ever know that this is a side yard because it appears to be a front yard. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Staigar if the Board approved the application for the health club in 2013; he replied yes. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Staigar if variances for signs were approved at that time; he replied yes. Mr. Staigar said that variances for fagade signs were granted at that time. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Staigar if the applicant requested a monument sign at that time; he replied no. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Staigar if anything has changed since 2013 specifically the topography; he said that the building has been built. Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Staigar if the driveway was in that location in 2013; he replied yes. Mr. Staigar said that in 2013 he could not figure out if they would need a monument sign. He said that if they did figure out they needed a sign at a later date then they would come back before the Board and they did. Chairman Neuer stated that there is a sign on the building that someone can see from outer space and the applicant decides to come back before the Board and wants them to approve another sign. He said that he has a problem with Mr. Staigar’s testimony and he is also not happy with the redacted lease. Vice Chairman Buechler said that it is his opinion that this does not meet the criteria. 14

Mr. Grygiel said that the Board granted the applicant a variance for two (2) facade signs and two (2) variances for sign area. He said the overall number of signs permitted in an O-R zone is four (4) signs. Mr. Grygiel said that pylon signs are permitted in that zone and in the ordinance the definition of a free standing sign is interchangeable with a pylon sign. Chairman Neuer stated that the applicant is over on the facade signs. There were no further questions for Mr. Staigar regarding his testimony as a Professional Planner. Chairman Neuer asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Staigar. Tal Ben-Zvi approached the podium and stated that he lives at 5 Allsop Road. He asked Mr. Staigar if the health club project is completed according to the resolution; he replied yes. Mr. Ben-Zvi wanted to know if their Planner is saying in his report that because the applicant had site plan approval in 2013, and was granted variances at that time, that they should be granted these variances. Mr. Regan said that they explained that the applicant is here requesting variances for a monument sign. Mr. Staigar said that he prepared the Planner’s report and that is not the purpose of why the applicant is here. Chairman Neuer declared the meeting in recess at 9:40 pm. Chairman Neuer called the meeting back to order at 9:50 pm. Chairman Neuer opened the meeting up for discussion. Chairman Neuer asked if any members of the public would like to address the Board who are in favor or opposed to this application; there were none. 15

Mr. Schwarzbaum stated that given that the Board granted the applicant variances for signs in a previous application, he is not in favor of granting the variances for the monument sign. He said that it is a very large sign and he would be in favor of a small “enter here” sign as opposed to the large monument sign. Mr. Sussman said that he recommends denying the application for many reason cited during the hearing. He said the Board already granted the applicant variances for signs and this sign is not necessary. Chairman Neuer stated that he concurs with comments Vice Chairman Buechler made during the hearing. He said that the Board granted them substantial variances for signs and there are enough signs. Chairman Neuer also said that the mural is massive and it is questionable if the mural is just a sign by another name. Chairman Neuer stated that the Planner did not meet the positive and negative criteria and that his credibility was not establised and recommended that the other Board Members vote no on this application. Vice Chairman Buechler made a motion to deny the application. He said that the applicant came before this Board in 2013 for preliminary and final site plan approval and variances for signs and the applicant was specifically asked at that time if they will put a monument sign up and their attorney said no. Vice Chairman Buechler said that nowhere in the lease does it stipulate that the tenant must construct a monument sign. He said that there are no signs in any of the other driveways for the stores in the Plaza so by LA Fitness not having a sign will not create any confusion. Vice Chairman Buechler stated that there have been no changes in the topography since 2013 and that it is his opinion that they have not met the criteria for the C1 and C1 variances. Ms. Gabry seconded the motion to deny the application. 16

The vote was as follows: Buechler YestoDeny | Schwarzbaum: Yes to Deny DarConte: Yes to Deny | Steinhart: Recused Gabry: Yes to Deny | Sussman: Yes to Deny D. Nash: - Weiss: Yes to Deny Quentzel: - Chairman Neuer: Yes to Deny Ze ZB-16-01/Sai Hira Ram Trust, Inc. Carried from 3/17/16 23 Laurel Avenue Block: 177.02; Lots: 15.01 & 16; Zone: R-4 Request modification of a condition in a prior resolution Robert Williams, Esq. attorney for the applicant, approached the podium. Mr. Williams stated that his client is requesting a modification of condition #10 in resolution ZB- 14-08. He said that the condition mandated that the applicant pull a demolition permit to demolish an existing building within ninety days of the date of the resolution that was adopted by this Board on October 15, 2015 or else the resolution would be null and void. Mr. Williams said that immediately after the approval, the applicant engaged a construction manager to seek the demolition permit from the Township. He said that West Orange has a number of requirements that have to be met before they issue a demolition permit and one is to get a disconnect permit from Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Mr. Williams said that the disconnect permit was filed with Public Service on November 24, 2015 and was issued to them seven (7) weeks later on January 13, 2016. Mr. Williams stated that they returned to the Building Department to apply for the demolition permit and received it on January 21, 2016. He said that once they received the demolition permit, the applicant commenced to demolish the structure and currently the building and all of the debris have been removed. Mr. Williams said that the applicant did everything they possibly could to comply with the condition. Mr. Williams stated that he supplied the Board Members with copies of all of the correspondence between the applicant, Public Service and the Township Building Official in an effort to get Public Service to the site right away but it could not be accomplished. 17

Mr. Williams referred to the language in condition #10 of the adopted resolution and said that nowhere in the transcripts or the minutes of the meeting was it said that the resolution would be null and void if the applicant did not comply. He said that he never objected to the wording in the resolution because the applicant had all intentions on complying. Mr. Williams said shortly after the ninety (90) days, the applicant was fined by the Township Zoning Official for not taking the building down within the ninety (90) days as required by the condition. Once the complaint was filed in court, he said that he would file an application to modify the condition and come back before the Zoning Board. Mr. Williams said that the applicant did everything they could to take the building down and he would like the Board to remove the condition. Mr. Williams asked if the Board Members received all of the documentation that he submitted; Vice Chairman Buechler replied yes. Chairman Neuer stated for the record that he was recused from hearing this application but the basis for his recusal no longer exists. Chairman Neuer stated that he consulted with Ms. Beirne and they determined that he could conduct this hearing but he will not vote on the matter. Chairman Neuer stated for the record that he is present but not voting on this application. Ms. Beirne stated that there are three members of the public that requested certain procedural issues regarding this application. Ms. Beirne said that she received a request from Brooke Carlson for the issuance of subpoenas but she received an email today from Ms. Carlson stating that she is withdrawing her application for the subpoenas. Ms. Beirne said that she received a request from John Walsh for the issuance of subpoenas but she received an email from Mr. Walsh today stating that he is withdrawing his application for subpoenas. Ms. Beirne stated that she received a request from Tal Ben-Zvi to subpoena financial records from the applicant. She said that after a consultation between Chairman Neuer and herself they determined to deny that request but invited Mr. Ben-Zvi here this evening to argue his reason why he is entitled to request the financial records Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Williams if he was aware of the request made by Mr. Ben- Zvi; he replied no. Ms. Beirne advised Mr. Williams that she sent him an

ed to request the financial records Vice Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Williams if he was aware of the request made by Mr. Ben- Zvi; he replied no. Ms. Beirne advised Mr. Williams that she sent him an email advising him of the request made by Mr. Ben-Zvi to subpoena the financial records approximately two months ago. Mr. Williams said he may have seen the email. 18