October 4, 2017

be equipped with motion detectors set at 25% power, then to full-power when there was motion. He stated the Board should consider the item a condition of approval. Item #33, (The applicant’s engineer shall investigate the re-routing of the proposed water lines with the use of additional fittings to avoid trees or minimize tree removal.) Mr. Keller asked if the Applicant had any issue with refining the actual route of the water line to minimize tree removal. Mr. Morris stated he had no problem refining the route; however, he did not want to add twenty fittings and thrust blocks of a water line to save three or four trees, but would be willing to move the water line a few feet to save a tree. Mr. Keller stated he was satisfied; he would work with Mr. Morris on the item. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Morris to confirm he would add to the final plans the proposed clearing of underbrush at the exit driveway and east and west right-of-way, and the proposed treatment of landscaping to keep the area clear of underbrush in the future. Mr. Morris stated yes. Mr. Keller had not further questions for Mr. Morris. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had questions for Mr. Morris. Councilwoman McCartney stated she had a question for Mr. Keller regarding the guardhouse; she asked for clarification. Mr. Keller stated its disposition was unclear, he had wanted to know if it was staying or being removed. Councilwoman McCartney asked Mr. Morris if shade trees would be planted in the parking islands he had discussed. Mr. Morris answered yes; two shade trees would be planted on each island. She asked if it was his testimony that the Fire Official had determined the location of the water line. Mr. Morris answered no; his testimony with Mr. Keller stated he had no problem moving the water line a few feet to save a tree. Captain Keigher asked Mr. Morris to discuss in greater detail the proposed plan for the lower parking area and the existing driveway; specifically milling, curbing, and lighting. He asked if the driveway would be curbed and lit going down to Eagle Rock Avenue; would pedestrians have safe access to walk from the driveway through the lot. Mr. Morris stated there was lighting proposed for the upper lot area and some existing lighting in the lower lot and driveway area; there was nighttime illumination for pedestrians to walk the driveway. Captain Keigher asked if the

hting proposed for the upper lot area and some existing lighting in the lower lot and driveway area; there was nighttime illumination for pedestrians to walk the driveway. Captain Keigher asked if the driveway was wide enough. Mr. Morris stated it was 15-ft. wide; there were “"Do Not Enter” signs; once a vehicle was in the lower lot area, it could not return to the upper lot area, it could only exit. He stated the existing driveway was stable; it would not be curbed. Mr. Weston asked Mr. Morris to confirm he had reduced the impervious coverage and had increased the number of parking spaces. Mr. Morris answered yes. Mr. Weston stated the Township Forester had issued a memo this date; he asked Mr. Morris to address (the Forester’s) findings. Mr. Morris gave a brief recapitulation of the memo dated 10/4/17, that stated the (Tree Removal) plan called for the removal of nine major trees within 75 ft. of Eagle Rock Avenue, one of the nine trees was within the Essex County right-of-way; the tree removal was all for the purpose of installing the new water line. The landscaping plans were fine but did not address restoration of the site disturbance in the vicinity of the proposed water line. Mr. Morris stated that erosion standards required the restoration of disturbed area so it remained stable; he stated the Applicant would restore the disturbed

area; he would immediately plant grasses or ground cover to stabilize the area so there would be no erosion. Mr. Weston stated the item would be a potential condition of approval for the Board to consider. Mr. Weston asked if the Applicant would be willing to making the lighting plan in the auxiliary parking area conform to Township standards. Mr. Angowski stated that as a condition of approval the Applicant would make the lighting plan conform to Township standards. Mr. Eben asked Mr. Morris to put the revision for moving the water line 4 ft. to avoid a tree on an “As-Built’ drawing. Mr. Morris stated yes; any modification to a water or sewer line would be indicated on an “As-Built” drawing. Mr. Eben asked why the Applicant did not use the existing driveway to run the water line. Mr. Morris stated the proposed route had been discussed extensively; it was a shorter route and the water company determined it a better location to connect in to the system. Referring to the parking lot area, Mr. Eben asked why Mr. Morris did not put trees every ten spaces along the perimeter lines to break up the long perimeter line. Mr. Morris stated that along the northwesterly line he did plant trees wherever possible; there were already many trees area between the main and auxiliary parking. Mr. Eben stated he interpreted the Township ordinance to read for every ten (10) spaces, the eleventh space was a tree well. Mr. Grygiel read the ordinance, “There shall be a minimum of one (1) tree plus ground level planting for each ten (10) parking stalls proposed.” Mr. Grygiel stated he interpreted the ordinance to read the number was a ratio to determine the minimum number of trees required for landscaping a parking lot; the intention being not to have a barren lot. Mr. Grygiel stated it appeared the Applicant had attempted to meet the intention of the ordinance. Mr. Eben stated he was concerned about eliminating the valet booth; Mr. Morris stated it was primarily a guard booth; the valet service was at the porte cochere. Mr. Eben asked if many patrons self-parked; Mr. Morris stated that was a question for club management. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Morris to confirm the Applicant would comply with all the items on his memo (dated 9/29/17) except for Item #17, (The drive aisle from the main parking area to the overflow parking area scales 15 feet wide, with is not acceptable for

ould comply with all the items on his memo (dated 9/29/17) except for Item #17, (The drive aisle from the main parking area to the overflow parking area scales 15 feet wide, with is not acceptable for two-way driveways.) Mr. Morris answered yes; he did not want to widen the drive isle. He confirmed he would add signs. Mr. Keller stated that as long as there was signage, he was satisfied. The Public Advocate had no questions for Mr. Morris. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had questions for Mr. Morris. Robert Rashkes, 35 Oak Crest Road, asked if the accident analysis along Eagle Rock Avenue indicated any of the accidents were due to weather conditions such as icing, or skidding during snowstorms or rainstorms. Mr. Morris answered yes, some occurred during rainstorms and during the winter. Mr. Rashkes asked if it was possible that any of the accidents were due to water run-off from the property on to Eagle Rock Avenue. Mr. Morris stated he did not know of any run-off from the property on to Eagle Rock Avenue. Mr. Rashkes asked if Mr. Morris had analyzed the driveway exit to determine if water runoff went in to the catch basin or on to Eagle Rock Avenue. Mr. Morris stated he had not been at the site during a storm; he assumed the catch basins were placed properly; the club had never received complaints regarding the issue. Mr. Rashkes asked if the club maintained the weeds. Mr. Morris stated the weeds were not currently maintained; however, the

Applicant had developed a landscape maintenance plan for the area. Mr. Rashkes asked if Mr. Morris had analyzed safety issues for cars exiting club after the Eagle Rock Avenue had been snowplowed. Mr. Morris answered no; however, he had measured the sight distances the previous week, and there were no accidents out of the driveway according to the Township accident report. Mr. Rashkes asked if there was a plan for pedestrians to safety cross Eagle Rock Avenue from the property. Mr. Angowski stated he was unsure who would testify regarding pedestrian crossings. Mr. Rashkes asked if there was a plan for pedestrians exiting the driveway to cross Eagle Rock Avenue; was there a plan to install crosswalks, curb ramps or sidewalks. Mr. Morris stated there were no curbs on the driveway. Mr. Angowski stated the exit frontage was on the County right-of-way. Mr. Morris stated there were no plans to install those elements. Sally Malanga, 57 Ridge Road, asked Mr. Morris to show the route of the new water line through the forest. Referring to Site Plan Sheet 14 of 17, Mr. Morris indicated the route. He stated nine trees within 75 ft. of the property line would be removed, plus two trees outside the 75 ft. boundary. Ms. Malanga asked if any of the trees were over 10” DBH (diameter at breast height). Mr. Morris answered yes. Referring to Drawing No 17-126, he listed the trees the within the 75 ft. boundary slated for removal. Ms. Malanga asked if those trees were currently marked for removal. Mr. Morris answered no. Ms. Malagna asked if the Township Forester would be responsible for marking the trees. Mr. Morris answered no; the Applicant's professional would survey the line and mark trees. Mr. Keller stated Mr. Linson would be involved in the process. Ms. Malanga asked why Applicant chose to request a waiver for a landscape architect. Mr. Angowski stated NJ State statute requirement stated engineers could provide a landscape plan; the Township ordinance was more restrictive; Mr. Morris had been a qualified engineer for many years and had testified to his expertise regarding the trees. Ms. Malanga asked what was the plan to make sure the trees thrived in the parking lot. Mr. Morris stated it was a matter of maintenance; the club was fortunate to have a full-time maintenance crew that worked every day to oversee the trees. Ms. Malanga asked if there would be an irrigation

Morris stated it was a matter of maintenance; the club was fortunate to have a full-time maintenance crew that worked every day to oversee the trees. Ms. Malanga asked if there would be an irrigation system in the parking lot. Mr. Morris answered no. Ms. Malanga asked if tree species had been chosen; what determined had the basis for those choices. Mr. Morris stated primarily Red Maples and Sugar Maples; those were the primary species already growing in the area; also, some American Red Oaks based on Mr. Keller's request. Ms. Malagna asked for description of the type of grass proposed to restore the disturbed area; was it specific to a restoration project in a forested area. Mr. Morris stated stabilized grass or ground cover species that accorded soil conservation standards. Ms. Malanga asked if Mr. Morris would be open to suggestions from a restoration expert. Mr. Morris answered yes. Ms. Malagna asked for clarification regarding Mr. Keller's memo dated 9/29/17 - Completeness Item #21; what part of the club property was designated for public use. Mr. Angowski stated there was no club property dedicated for public use; the comment was a request to provide evidence if there had been land dedicated. It was a checklist item to provide Mr. Keller with Title information about the property. He restated there was no land dedicated for public use. Robert Daniel, 2-B Buckingham Road, stated his first question was directed to the Board; his background for the question was positioning Township Ordinance Chapter 25-46, pursuant to NJ Statue 40:55D-23, and pursuant to Article |, General Provisions of Municipal Land Use Law, Title 40:55-2 (sic), Purpose of the act. It is the intent and purpose of this act: subsection a. To encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development

of all lands in this State, in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. He stated he was asking on behalf of the citizens of West Orange; those present and those for religious reasons were not present and had sent emails to the Board asking for the meeting to be postponed. Mr. Dwyer asked Mr. Daniel if he understood the difficulty with the request. Mr. Daniel answered yes. Mr. Dwyer stated he had sent a response with an explanation to Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel stated he did not know if a response was sent. Mr. Daniels asked if the Board understood the difference between the Applicant's presentation on September 6, 2017 and what was presented tonight; in light of Mr. Keller's numerous questions, his memo of 9/29/17, the answer of 10/4/17, and all the back and forth tonight; was the Board is familiar with that (sic). Mr. Dwyer instructed Mr. Daniel to direct his question to the witness. Mr. Daniel asked if Mr. Morris had considered the recommendations found in the 2010 Township Master Plan Update regarding pedestrian access, specifically page 80 (sic), which referred to the fact that all new applications for development should include sidewalks along all the roadways. He stated the application did not include sidewalks on Eagle Rock Avenue and Laurel Avenue; he asked why the application did not include sidewalks. Mr. Angowski asked Mr. Daniel if he had a copy of the section of the Master Plan. Mr. Daniel answered no; he stated the Applicant should be familiar with the Master Plan before providing an Application. Chairman Bagoff stated the Master Plan was not the ordinance, it made suggestions; the Parking Ordinance was where that specific area regarding sidewalks was defined. Chairman Bagoff stated the question (sic) was, had the Applicant looked at the Parking Ordinance, understood it, and why did they decide not to install sidewalks. Mr. Morris stated they had looked at the ordinance and did not feel they were required to provide sidewalks in accordance to the ordinance. He stated if the Applicant were to provide sidewalks along their property on Laurel and Eagle Rock Avenues, it would probably create more impervious coverage that currently existed on the entire club property. It would also require the removal of approximately two dozen trees along Eagle Rock Avenue and even more along Laurel Avenue. Mr. Daniel asked

erage that currently existed on the entire club property. It would also require the removal of approximately two dozen trees along Eagle Rock Avenue and even more along Laurel Avenue. Mr. Daniel asked if the Applicant's engineer or attorney could provide the estimated cost of the work contained in the Application. Chairman Bagoff stated the question was not related to land use; it was not relevant to the Board making a decision on the Application. He denied the question. Mr. Daniel asked why wasn’t the proposed line for gas and water utilities being run along the existing driveway. Mr. Morris stated it was only for water; the new line was a much shorter route and there would be less disturbance; trees would be avoided if possible. Mr. Daniel asked how many projects had Mr. Morris done where the water line deviated from the roadway. Chairman Bagoff stated the question was not relevant to the Application. Mr. Daniel asked how many employees traveled by public transportation to the club. Chairman Bagoff stated the question was not relevant to land use. Mr. Daniel asked why the club was asking for a variance from a landscape architect. Chairman Bagoff stated it was a waiver, he asked Mr. Angowski to respond. Mr. Angowski stated the waiver had been requested because they proffered the Board that as a professional engineer, the State statute qualified Mr. Morris. Mr. Daniel asked how pedestrians would walk to the club. Mr. Angowski stated pedestrians did not walk to the club. Mr. Morris stated it was a private club; members drove to the club. Mr. Daniel asked if the existing driveway would be resurfaced. Mr. Morris answered yes. Mr. Daniel stated he had seen that water runs off the property on to Eagle Rock Avenue after every rainstorm on to Eagle Rock Avenue; and in during the winter thaw and freeze cycle when there was snow on the ground, that creates a hazardous icing condition along the southern eastbound curve of Eagle Rock Avenue. He asked how was 10

the Applicant currently addressing the water that ran off the property on to Eagle Rock Avenue. Mr. Morris stated he was not aware of the issue but would study the matter; the catch basin was located right at the northeast corner of the driveway. Mr. Daniel stated he was asking about the storm water runoff coming between Laurel Avenue and the driveway; the steep slope area. Mr. Morris asked if Mr. Daniels was referring to the natural wooded area. Mr. Daniel answered yes. Mr. Morris stated there were no provisions. Mr. Daniel stated that was something for the Board to consider. Mr. Daniel asked Mr. Morris to identify on one of the drawings the area of the tennis bubble that was approved in May 2017. Chairman Bagoff stated the question was not relevant to the Application, but Mr. Morris could answer. Mr. Morris stated he did not know exactly where it was located; he did not have plans that showed that area of the property. Chairman Bagoff stated the area was outside the boundary of the Application. Mr. Daniel asked what was the width of disturbance for the proposed water line. Mr. Morris stated it was an estimated 10 ft. to 12 ft. Mr. Daniel asked if the discussion regarding a ramp versus chairlift was for inside or outside the building. Mr. Morris stated it was outside the building. There were no further questions for Mr. Morris based on his testimony as the Applicant’s professional engineer. Mr. Angowski stated Mr. Morris would provide planning testimony regarding the requested variances. He asked Mr. Morris to address the steep slope concerns discussed at the previous meeting. Mr. Morris stated the revised plans eliminated the proposed driveway; there were still two very small sections of steep slope from the water line. as he previously testified, there was a constant steep slope along Eagle Rock Avenue right behind the right- of-way line; the slope a result of the excavation to create Eagle Rock Avenue; and another steep slope located right at the outside of the club’s parking area that was a result of creating the structured parking area. He stated there would be a minimal temporary disturbance of four feet until the water line was completed. Mr. Morris stated the previous plan proposed 249 parking spaces; the revised plan proposed roughly 255 spaces. He stated the current parking area was not organized; the proposed plan would have better access and

stated the previous plan proposed 249 parking spaces; the revised plan proposed roughly 255 spaces. He stated the current parking area was not organized; the proposed plan would have better access and circulation; he believed the proposed 249 spaces (plus possible six (6) additional spaces), would be sufficient for the site. He opined there was no detriment to the public good; the club was self-contained; vehicles would not park on surrounding streets. In response to question from Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Angowski stated the Applicant was proposing a parking variance for 249 spaces, but hoped to add more spaces. About the steep sloop concerns in the pool deck area; Mr. Morris opined the new additions were necessary; the new deck addition and ramp would create more handicapped access to the pool and pool area. He opined there would be no detriment to the public good; the existing steep sloops had been artificially created. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had questions for Mr. Morris. Mr. Eben stated the club hosted and outside event on Monday with approximately 300 cars parked all over the place; there was no way for a fire engine to gain access to the building. He stated he was concerned about granting a parking variance for 249 cars. Mr. Morris stated he had discussed the matter with the club; the event on Monday was unusual. He stated the current lot was not defined; the new plan clearly defined the lot. 11