August 3, 2016

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 3, 2016 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held a regular meeting on August 3, 2016 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber, 66 Main Street, West Orange, New Jersey. Vice Chairman Bagoff called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. He announced that notification of the meeting was given to the Township Clerk, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board, sent to the West Orange Chronicle and the Star Ledger, and posted on the Township’s website calendar. This meeting has been properly noticed to the public in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. No new matters will start after 10:30 P.M. PRESENT: Vice Chairman Robert Bagoff, Jerome Eben, Gerald Gurland, Lee Klein, Councilwoman Susan McCartney Gary B. Wegner, William Wilkes II ABSENT: Joanne Carlucci, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Jason Lester, Chairman Ron Weston ALSO PRESENT: Patrick J. Dwyer, Esq., Board Attorney, Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Township Planner, Robin Miller, Board Secretary, Jeffrey L. Janota, AICP, PP, H2M Associates, Inc., Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Bagoff requested all persons stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Vice Chairman Robert Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Lee Klein, Jason Lester, Council President Susan McCartney, Gary Wegner, Chairman Ron Weston, William Wilkes II ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Planning Board regular meeting will be September 7, 2016 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. SWEARING IN Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Township Planner Jeffrey L. Janota, AICP, PP, H2M Associates, Inc. RESOLUTIONS PB-16-10/Falcon Associates for South Mountain Realty Associates, LLC Block: 168; Lot: 27.02; Zone: B-2 563 Northfield Avenue Amended Site Plan with “C” variances.

DISCUSSION Mr. Dwyer advised there was one minor revision regarding designated parking spaces. The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Wegner Bagoff: Yes Carlucci: Absent Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Absent Gurland: — - Klein: Yes Lester: : McCartney: - Wegner: Yes Wilkes: Yes Weston: Absent PB-16-11C/County of Essex/Turtle Back Zoo/Condor Exhibit Block: 163; Lot: 1; Zone: R-1 560 Northfield Avenue Courtesy Review Application for new Condor Exhibit. DISCUSSION None. The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Wilkes Bagoff: Yes Carlucci: - Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Absent Gurland: : Klein: Yes Lester: = McCartney: - Wegner: Yes Wilkes: Yes Weston: — Absent APPLICATION(S) PB-16-13C/County of Essex/Turtle Back Zoo/Lion & Hyena Exhibit Block: 163; Lot: 1; Zone: R-1 560 Northfield Avenue Courtesy Review Application. EXHIBIT(S) A-1: Preliminary Conceptual Plan, prepared by French & Parrello Associates, dated 6/9/2016; A-2: Schematic Floor Plans (Sheet SK-1), prepared by Comito Associates PC Architecture, dated 6/28/2016; A-3: Schematic Exterior Elevations (Sheet SK-2), prepared by Comito Associates PC Architecture, dated 6/28/2016; A-4: — Color Rendering of Schematic Exterior Elevations (Sheet SK-2), prepared by Comito Associates PC Architecture, dated 6/28/2016.

DISCUSSION Mark L. Fleder, Esq., Connell Foley LLP, legal counsel to Essex County , introduced the Application for a new Lion and Hyena exhibit to be located to the east of the Giraffe exhibit; he said the lions and hyenas would occupy a new building structure with a separation wall and a new outdoor area. Michael J. Piga, LLA, French & Parrello Associates PA, was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in landscape architecture. Referring to the aerial view submitted as part of the application, Mr. Piga identified the location of existing exhibits and the area of the proposed new exhibit. The exhibit would be located to the far south area of the zoo, just east of the Giraffe exhibit. Referring to Exhibit A-1, he said the animal holding facility would be approximately 2,500 sq. ft. The height of the front of the building would be approximately 18 feet (12 ft. with 6 ft. parapet); the average height of the entire building was approximately 12 ft. The building would look like the Dutch Colonial architecture seen in Africa’s urban landscape. Referring to Exhibit A-3, Mr. Piga said the building material would be CMU (concrete masonry unit) and cultured stone. Referring to Exhibit A-4, Mr. Piga described the building access points and functions. He said there would be a new maintenance road located to the north side of exhibit to access the rear of the facility. Within the exhibit, there would be a gunite pool, two rustic viewing stations, stamped concrete walkways, exhibit lighting and landscaping. The two separate exhibit yards would be enclosed by an 18’ high hot-wired fencing and black oxidized chain-link fence system each yard would be approximately 10,000 sq. ft. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Piga said the total area of exhibit would be approximating two acres; the fenced-in area would be approximately one-half acre. The mechanical equipment would be located to the rear of the facility; none would be located on the roof. Mr. Piga identified himself as the landscape architect/engineer who had partially designed the plans; the building architect from Comito Associates PC was not present due to a medical emergency. Mr. Piga confirmed the project was an entirely new exhibit; there was not an existing exhibit for African lions. In response to inquiry from Mr. Grygiel regarding drainage for slopes; Mr.

emergency. Mr. Piga confirmed the project was an entirely new exhibit; there was not an existing exhibit for African lions. In response to inquiry from Mr. Grygiel regarding drainage for slopes; Mr. Piga confirmed the project engineers had provided a drainage report to HEPSCD; he said the water going down the hill would be collected in a swale behind the building and redirected to piping leading to retention basin. There were no questions from the Public Advocate. Robert Rashkes, 35 Oakcrest Road, asked if trees would be removed for the exhibit and how many, and if the project would be submitted to the HEPSCD. Mr. Piga said approximately one-hundred trees would be removed; he confirmed the project would be submitted to HEPSCD. There were no further questions for Mr. Piga. Mr. Fleder introduced Brint Spencer, Director, Turtle Back Zoo. Mr. Spencer advised the Board of his credentials and was accepted by the Board to be an expert witness, Director of Turtle Back Zoo. He confirmed he was familiar with the proposed exhibit. In response to questions from the Mr. Gurland, Mr. Spencer said he had not visited Africa.

Mr. Eben stated he was concerned with the physical area outside of the zoo; he acknowledged the new directional/informational signage. He asked if there could be improvements to the existing signage that was used to direct visitors to the overflow parking areas. He asked if Mr. Spencer had been involved with the recent improvements at the intersection of Northfield Avenue/Pleasant Valley Way/Cherry Lane. He stated there were no pedestrian connections to the western part of the SMRC along Northfield Avenue; he opined the County should be “lobbied” for a western pedestrian connection. Messrs. Spencer and Fleder said they would advise the County of Mr. Eben’s concerns. Mr. Fleder said the timing of the traffic light at the intersection had been adjusted; it should help alleviate some of the traffic issues. Other improvements to the intersection were almost complete. Mr. Fleder said he would advise the County of the Board’s opinion that pedestrian connectivity to the western part of the property and the overflow parking areas would be a great improvement. Mr. Eben requested that Mr. Dwyer be copied on any correspondence; Vice Chairman Bagoff asked that Chairman Weston also be included. Chairman Bagoff reminded the Board that questions should be limited to the application presented; however, he did suggest the Board to include in its approval the recommendation to create pedestrian access from the property further to the west. Councilwoman McCartney stated the Township and the County had both adopted a “Complete Streets” policy; she reiterated the Board’s opinion that sidewalks were important. The Public Advocate had no questions for Mr. Spencer. Robert Raskhes, 35 Oakcrest Road, asked if entertaining for “Brew at the Zoo” take place at the new exhibit; would “Pokémon-Go” characters be located in the exhibit. Mr. Spencer answered in the negative for both; he did offer that the zoo would be holding a “Pokémon-Go” event, but all activity would be in public spaces. The applicant had no further testimony; the Board deliberated on the Application. Mr. Klein opined the temporary parking signage was necessary at times; Mr. Fleder agreed it was necessary; he offered he drove by the area regularly and thought the signage aesthetic could be improved. Vice Chairman Bagoff stated he had recently visited the site; he stated the County had done much to enhance the

ed he drove by the area regularly and thought the signage aesthetic could be improved. Vice Chairman Bagoff stated he had recently visited the site; he stated the County had done much to enhance the area. Public Comment: Robert Rashkes, 35 Oakcrest Road. In response to inquiry from Vice Chairman Bagoff, Mr. Fleder stated the exhibit would not create more amplified sounds to the surrounding area. Conditions: 1. The County replace the current temporary directional signage for additional parking;

2. The County create pedestrian connectivity from the Zoo property to the west and the overflow parking areas; 3. The Board to be copied on correspondence between the Applicant’s attorney and the County. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Wilkes Bagoff: Yes Carlucci: Absent Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Absent Gurland: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Absent McCartney: Yes Wegner: Yes Wilkes: Absent Weston: Absent PRESENTATION Area in Need of Redevelopment & Area in Need of Rehabilitation Preliminary Investigation Report — Eagle Rock Commercial Area H2M Associates, Inc. Carried from the July 6, 2016 Planning Board regular meeting. DISCUSSION Vice Chairman Bagoff announced the presentation for the Eagle Rock Commercial Area in Need of Redevelopment & Area in Need of Rehabilitation had been carried from the July 6, 2016 Planning Board regular meeting. He asked Mr. Janota to identify himself to the Public; he said Mr. Janota had completed his PowerPoint presentation at the June 1, 2016 regular meeting; the presentation was available for review on the Township’s website. Mr. Janota said he had brought a hard copy of the presentation; he said he finished the PowerPoint presentation in June, the hearing concluded at the point of Public questions and comments. Vice Chairman Bagoff said the hearing would start with questions from the Board. Mr. Klein asked if a piece of property became in need of redevelopment because it had not been maintained, or its use became obsolete; why would a property owner not want redevelopment. What would stop a property owner from selling their property for a change in use development without having the area designated. What would be the benefit to the Township; what if the project generated children. Mr. Janota answered that without the designation, the property owner would be required to present an application with variances to either Planning Board or Zoning Board of Adjustment. The main advantage to designation was typically financial - payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT); and the associated incentives; with a designated area, the tax breakdown would be 95% to the municipality; 5% to the County, 0% to BOE. The advantage for the municipality would be increased funding — 95% from existing 60%. Typically, a municipality would use the increased revenue for infrastructure improvements. The

County, 0% to BOE. The advantage for the municipality would be increased funding — 95% from existing 60%. Typically, a municipality would use the increased revenue for infrastructure improvements. The potential impact of children would have to be discussed in the next step of the process; the redevelopment plan and agreement with developer; the developer would have to provide proof that there would be no negative impact to the community; an EIS (Environmental Impact Study) or fiscal impact study would be required.

Councilwoman McCartney stated that at the conclusion of the previous hearing in June, she was still unclear of the designation process; at the last hearing she had asked several times if the area would be re-zoned and Mr. Janota had answered no. However, she stated that any designation would have to discuss re-zoning; the area could become an overlay zone; there would have to be a decision regarding the criteria for an overlay zone. Mr. Janota answered that when there is a designation; that area could become an overlay zone or a completely new zone. If the area was entirely re-zoned, the property owner would be required to submit a new development application that either adhered to the new zoning criteria or request variance relief. If an overlay zone were adopted, the underlying pre-existing zone would remain; the property owner would retain their right to develop based on the underlying zone criteria. An overlay zone would essentially create two zones for the area. If the area were determined to be a redevelopment area, the next step in the process would include stakeholders (Council, Planning Board, property owners, developers and Public), have hearings to determine a redevelopment plan. Mr. Wilkes asked if Mr. Janota would be making any zoning recommendations for either an overlay or entirely new zone; Mr. Janota said he would not be making recommendations; it was for the municipality to determine. For the benefit of the Public, Vice Chairman Bagoff gave a brief recapitulation of the redevelopment study, which included eighteen non-contiguous properties in the same area of the Township. Of the original eighteen properties, the study had determined that seven properties met one or more of the statutory criterion for redevelopment. Subsequent to study, one of the properties had been approved for new development by the Zoning Board and was currently under construction. He gave a brief description of each criterion (a, b, c, d, e). He stated the presentation included buildings that were currently in use; all but one were in heavy use. He opined that the current condition some sites may or may not result in increased police activity; he noted some sites did have poor drive isles; however, none of the sites was a tax burden to the Township. He stated he had been previously been heard the study for Downtown redevelopment, which did indeed have many issues and

e poor drive isles; however, none of the sites was a tax burden to the Township. He stated he had been previously been heard the study for Downtown redevelopment, which did indeed have many issues and met the criteria. He stated he would need more information before making a determination; the Board should be able to send a detailed recommendation to the Council. Mr. Klein asked for clarification regarding the non-contiguous properties; could a group of area property owners submit their own redevelopment plan. Mr. Janota said the properties would still be required to meet the redevelopment criteria. Councilwoman McCartney stated that since the last hearing she had spoken with Verizon engineers who had indicated that although there was a significant decrease in on-site personnel, there had been significant upgrades in equipment, the property was highly utilized. Mr. Janota said the Verizon property met Section 3 criteria; it was included because of its location. He said that when writing the report, he had reviewed the Township’s Master plan and thought to capitalize on the park (Crystal Lake property). Should the business close or move, the municipality could acquire the parcel. Councilwoman McCartney asked if the Board could update the 2010 Master Plan to include and overlay zone for the area instead of going through the process of adopting a redevelopment plan. Mr. Grygiel answered in the affirmative, the Board could update the Master Plan at any time; however, the current hearing was for the Board to evaluate if the area was in need of redevelopment; did the seven properties meet the criteria. The Council had charged the Board with determining if the area was in need of redevelopment; if there was to be a redevelopment plan, it