August 18, 2016

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING August 18, 2016 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on August 18, 2016 commencing 8:00 PM at 66 Main Street, West Orange, N.J. in Council Chambers. Chairman Neuer called the meeting to order at approximately 8:00 P.M. It was announced that notification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, the West Orange Chronicle and the Star Ledger and posted on the Township Bulletin Board in accordance with the “Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act.” Chairman Neuer announced that a digital tape recording system is being utilized to record the proceedings of the meeting and instructed the general public on how the audio of the proceedings may be reviewed or obtained. Chairman Neuer asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney, read the Opening Statement. PRESENT: C. Darconte, D. Gabry, D. Nash, P. Neuer, B. Quentzel, I. Schwarzbaum, W. Steinhart, M. Sussman, A. Weiss ABSENT: B. Buechler (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Kate Keller, Acting Planner for the Township Eric Keller, Consulting Engineer Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney Rose DeSena, Board Secretary Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate

ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Meetings: September 15, 2016 (regular meeting) October 20, 2016 (regular meeting) November 17, 2016 (regular meeting) Chairman Neuer announced that due to a jurisdictional issue, application ZB-16-06/Zamora, that was scheduled to be heard at this meeting, has been carried over to the September 15, 2016. MINUTES Adopt Minutes: July 21, 2016 (regular meeting) Chairman Neuer stated that he and Vice Chairman Buechler submitted their comments to the Board Secretary for the minutes of the July 21, 2016 regular meeting. Chairman Neuer asked the Board Members if they had any additional comments for the minutes of the July 21, 2016 regular meeting that were submitted to them for review; there were none. Chairman Neuer asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2016 regular meeting. Ms. Gabry made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2016; Mr. Quentzel seconded the motion and all were in favor. SWEARING IN Kate Keller, Acting Planner for the Township and Eric Keller, consulting Engineer for the Township were sworn under oath.

RESOLUTIONS 1. ZB-16-02/Arceo Approved 7/21/16 Block: 43; Lot: 29; Zone: R-5 70 Lowell Avenue Seeking a “c” variance for the height of a retaining wall to be constructed in the rear yard. Chairman Neuer stated that this resolution was circulated to all of the Board Members and he submitted his comments to Ms. Beirne which have been incorporated into the resolution. Chairman Neuer asked if any other Board Member had any comments; seeing none Chairman Neuer asked for a motion to approve the resolution with said revisions. Mr. Schwarzbaum made a motion to adopt the resolution with said revisions and Ms. Gabry seconded the motion to adopt. The vote was as follows: Buechler - Schwarzbaum: Yes DarConte: Yes Steinhart: Yes Gabry: Yes Sussman: - D. Nash: - Weiss: Yes Quentzel: Yes Chairman Neuer: - 2. ZB-16-05/Seton Hall Preparatory School Approved 7/21/16 Block 82.01; Lot: 1; Zone: R-1 700 Prospect Avenue Amended Site Plan Seeking a “d” and bulk variances for the expansion of a non-conforming use

Chairman Neuer stated that a question arose regarding condition #9 in the resolution and asked Ms. Beirne to explain it. Ms. Beirne stated that Mr. Williams objected to condition #9 in the draft resolution regarding no playing of amplified music during baseball practice or games. She said that after reviewing condition #61 in the ZB-08-37 resolution regarding the public address system being used at normal or customary decibel levels for football games or isolated events, she and Chairman Neuer determined that there should be a discussion regarding the “tweaking” of condition #9. Ms. Beirne said that at the meeting in 2008, there was no discussion regarding the playing of music but there was some discussion at the July 21, 2016 meeting and it was agreed that music would not be played during practices. Ms. Beirne said that the issue is whether the Board is going to ban music being played during games, which was not discussed at the last meeting, and that it should be addressed. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. Beirne to read the proposed condition #9 in the draft resolution in its entirety for the other Board Members; she complied. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Williams if his objection is the words “or games” in the proposed resolution; he replied yes. Mr. Williams stated that the applicant would like additional language after “baseball practice” in condition #9: however, the applicant should be permitted to play the star spangled banner at the beginning of varsity baseball games and music for one and one half minutes between innings subject to local and state decibel level limitations. Ms. Gabry asked Mr. Williams if they play the school Alma Mater; he stated that is not aware of that practice. After some discussion it was determined that condition #9 would read as follows: “There shall be no playing of amplified music during baseball practice, however, the applicant shall be permitted to play the Star Spangled Banner at the beginning of Varsity baseball games and music for one and one half minutes between innings at Varsity baseball games, at normal and customary decibel levels”.

The vote was as follows: Buechler - Schwarzbaum: Yes DarConte: Recused Steinhart: Yes Gabry: Recused Sussman: Yes D. Nash: Yes Weiss: - Quentzel: Yes Chairman Neuer: Yes APPLICATIONS 1. ZB-16-08/Lando 43 Carteret Street Block: 154; Lot: 4; Zone: R-5 “c” variance for front yard setback for an addition to the front of an existing single family dwelling. EXHIBITS A-1 — Architectural Plans (builders copy) — five (5) sheets with a revision date of 5/11/16. Betty Lando and Brian Lando, applicants, approached the podium and were sworn under oath and stated that they lived at 43 Carteret Street. Chairman Neuer stated that the Board received signed and sealed architectural plans and asked Ms. Lando if their architect was present; she replied no. Ms. Lando stated that their architect had an emergency and could not be present at this meeting and they are prepared to answer the Board’s questions. Chairman Neuer stated that it appeared the addition to the home was built without permits. Ms. Lando stated that the initial plans that were submitted to the building department were

approved and they were issued permits for the addition. She said that when the inspector came to the site he noticed on the plans that the house extended over the setback line and asked them if the footprint had changed and if they had approval from the Zoning Officer. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. Lando if she agrees that the permits may have been issued in error; she said as to the footprint, yes. Ms. Lando presented five (5) sheets of the builder’s copy of the architectural plans with a revision date of 5/11/6. Chairman Neuer identified the plans that Ms. Lando presented, on the record, and stated that they had the inspector’s signature on them. He asked to have them marked as Exhibit A-1 for identification. Chairman Neuer stated for the record that the architectural plans in Exhibit A-1 are not the plans that were submitted to the Board Members with this application; he said that these are the plans that the witness would like to explain. Ms. Lando stated that when they submitted revised architectural plans, the Zoning Officer advised them that they needed a front yard setback variance. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. Lando why they were required to re-submit plans; she said that the original plans proposed a one car garage and they changed it to a two car garage. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. Lando how it occurred that construction was stopped. Mr. Lando approached to clarify what had happened and stated that after they had started construction the inspector came to do an inspection and, at that time, he noticed that the front of the house extended one foot over the front yard setback that is allowed and asked if they had zoning approval. Mr. Lando stated that he told the inspector that the plans were already approved and the inspector told them that, even though the plans are approved, it needs to go to the zoning officer for approval.

Mr. Quentzel asked Ms. Lando if they have a copy of the building permit that was issued to them with them; she replied no. Ms. Lando stated that they did not think it was a big deal because they thought it was just the window that was encroaching but it was not the window, it was the footprint. Ms. Weiss asked Ms. Lando if any of her neighbors are at this meeting; she replied no she did not see any of her neighbors. Chairman Neuer stated for the record that Exhibit A-1 clearly shows the setback line and the building encroaching into the setback and that the building department missed it. Chairman Neuer recommended that the Board look at this as if the building was not built yet and would the Board approve the one foot deviation if it came in as a brand new application. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Lando how far they were with construction and if the walls been closed in yet; he said that the framing, the footing, the electrical and plumbing are done. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Lando if the electrical and plumbing is closed in; he replied no. Mr. Sussman asked Ms. Lando if this is entirely new construction of thehouse or an addition; she said it is a fairly significant addition. Chairman Neuer asked Ms. Lando what their reasons would be for asking the Board to approve the variance and why they need the building to extend out that far; she said that when they changed the garage from a one car garage to a two car garage they had to change the direction of the dining room and there was not enough space in the house for it. Ms. Lando said that they thought that it was just the window that would be encroaching. Mr. Lando stated that there are other houses on the block that extend further into the front yard setback than what they are proposing.

Ms. Lando stated that the design presents a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. There were no further questions from the Board Members, the Board Professionals or members of the public. Chairman Neuer declared the public portion of the hearing closed. Chairman Neuer stated that the building department approved the original plans that showed the setback encroachment and then attempted to correct this mistake after substantial construction in reliance on the permits had occurred. Chairman Neuer stated that the witness testified to the positive and negative criteria and that granting this variance would not impair the intent or purposes of the zoning ordinance. Chairman Neuer made a motion to approve the application and Mr. Steinhart seconded the motion to approve. The vote was as follows: Buechler - Schwarzbaum: - DarConte: Yes Steinhart: Yes Gabry: Yes Sussman: Yes D. Nash: - Weiss: Yes Quentzel: Yes Chairman Neuer: Yes

2. ZB-16-04/Piacenza Block: 172.25; Lot: 12; Zone: R-4 14 Manger Road “d” variance for establishing a home day care business EXHIBITS A-1— Proposed site plan and floor plans dated 4/28/16 A-2 — Survey dated 7/17/15 Marsha M. Moore, Esq., attorney for the applicant, approached the podium and detailed the application. Ms. Moore stated that her client is proposing to renovate a portion of the ground floor of their home to create a child care facility. She said that the property is in an R-4 zone which requires a “d” variance because this is not a permitted use and also “c” variances for parking. Ms. Moore stated that the first and second floor of the home will not change. Ms. Moore stated that she has four (4) witnesses who will be testifying; the architect, the applicant, the traffic expert and the planner. Ms. Moore stated that she is in receipt of the Township Planner’s report and the Township’s Engineer report. Chairman Neuer stated for the record that Mr. Schwarzbaum will be recused from hearing this application because he is an elected member of the Board of Education which owns property within 200’ of the property which is the subject of this application. Ms. Beirne stated that Mr. Schwarzbaum indicated to her that the Board of Education members have not had a chance to review this application and that Board would likely comment on it. Chairman Neuer stated that the Board will discuss at the end of the mecting, if time allows, if they will afford that opportunity to the Board of Education if this Application is completed this evening. Mr. Schwarzbaum stepped off of the dais.

Ms. Moore called her first witness. Giuseppe Barberio, architect for the applicant, approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Barberio detailed his professional and educational background as a professional architect licensed in the State of New Jersey. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Keller if there are limitations regarding architects testifying to site plans; he said that storm water is the only thing an architect cannot testify to when it comes to site plans. Chairman Neuer stated that the architectural plans that were submitted to the Board are signed and sealed by someone else and asked Ms. Moore if Mr. Barberio prepared the plans; she replied yes. Mr. Barberio stated that he works as an associate at the Dassa-Haines architectural group. Chairman Neuer stated for the record that Mr. Barberio’s initials are on the plans. Chairman Neuer accepted Mr. Barberio as an expert in architecture. Mr. Barberio presented sheet 1 of the proposed site plan and floor plans dated 4/28/16 that was marked as Exhibit A-1 for identification. Mr. Barberio referred to Exhibit A-1 and detailed what is being proposed and all of the interior modifications related to the daycare use of this property. Mr. Barberio stated that they will be providing six (6) parking spaces and one handicap parking space. He referred to Exhibit A-1 and detailed where the parking spaces are located that will be utilized for the employees and the residents of the home and detailed where the parking spaces will be located that will be used for visitor parking and drop off. Mr. Barberio detailed the grassy play area in the rear of the house and stated that a four foot high fence is being proposed to enclose that area. Ms. Moore said that Bowman Consulting requested that they provide more fencing details and that it will be provided as a condition of approval. 10