May 2, 2018

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 2, 2018 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held a regular meeting on May 2, 2018 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber, 66 Main Street, West Orange, New Jersey. Chairman Bagoff called the meeting to order at approximately 7:33 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Bagoff requested all persons stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Robert D. Parisi has made the following Board appointments: e John Cardoza, Citizen/Class lV member, effective immediately through December 31, 2019. e Kenneth D. McPherson, Ill, Citizen/Alternate Member #1, effective immediately through December 31, 2018. The next Planning Board regular meeting will be June 6, 2018 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Robert Bagoff John Cardoza Captain Michael Keigher Lee Klein Council President Susan McCartney (8:05 P.M.)* Kenneth McPherson Gary Wegner Vice Chairman Ron Weston William Wilkes II ABSENT: Andrew Trenk ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Township Planner Eric L. Keller, PE, PP, LEEP AP, Board Consulting Engineer Patrick J. Dwyer, Esq., Board Attorney Robin Miller, Board Secretary Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate

OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Dwyer administered the Oath of Office to Mr. McPherson. ADOPT MINUTES The minutes of the April 4, 2018 Planning Board meeting were unanimously adopted. SWEARING IN Township Professionals: Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Township Planner and Eric Keller, PE, PP, Township Consulting Engineer. RESOLUTION(S) None. APPLICATION(S| PB-18-02/Valley Road Residential, LLC Block 9, Lots 1, 7, 44, 50 and 56, Zone: MUBR 22-26 Central Avenue and 9-15 Mitchell Street Application for Extension of Final Site Plan Approval PB-14-03 EXHIBITS: None. DISCUSSION: Patrick J. McNamara, Esq., Partner, Scarinci Hollenbeck, appeared on behalf of the Applicant to request an extension of its previously approved site plan, Application PB-14-03 (April 2014). Mr. McNamara stated the Applicant was anticipating the start of construction on the project by the summer (2018). He gave a brief recapitulation of the history of issues that had impeded construction. In reply to question from Chairman Bagoff, Mr. McNamara stated the only changes to the original site plan were to address minor issues in reply to Mr. Keller’s review of the final site plans. The Board had no questions for Mr. McNamara. The Board professionals had no questions for Mr. McNamara. The Public Advocate and Public had no questions for Mr. McNamara. The Public had no comments on the Application. Chairman Bagoff closed the public hearing; the Board deliberated.

Conditions: 6. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Township, County, State and Federal laws, ordinances, regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining all applicable local, state and federal approvals and/or permits. Without limitation of the foregoing, prior to the signing of the approved site plans, and prior to the commencement of any land disturbance or construction, the Applicant shall submit to this Board, with a copy to the Board Engineer, proof that it has obtained all required governmental approvals. If another governmental entity or agency grants a waiver or variance affecting the plans and/or exhibits submitted by the Applicant, this approval or the conditions attached to it, then the Applicant shall re-apply to this Board respecting the same and this Board shall have the right to view that issue as it relates to this approval and these conditions and modify and amend same, if appropriate. In the event that any other required regulatory approval conflicts with the terms and conditions hereof, or materially alters the same, or the terms and conditions hereof are materially altered by any change in applicable law or regulation other than those municipal regulations for which change is prohibited by the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), or in the event Applicant or its successors or assigns construct or attempt to construct any improvement in conflict with or in violation of the terms of this approval, the Board hereby reserves the right to withdraw, amend or supplant the instant approval. All construction, use and development of the property shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein, all representations of the Applicant and its witnesses during the public hearing, all exhibits introduced by the Applicant, and all terms and conditions of this resolution. The Applicant shall pay all outstanding taxes, tax liens, application fees and technical review fees, as well as any inspection fees that may be required hereunder. The Applicant shall pay any additional fees or escrow deposits which may be due and owing within thirty (30) days of notification or this approval shall be deemed withdrawn. All of the other terms and conditions of the original approval remain in full force and effect. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Weston Second: Chairman Bagoff Cardoza Yes Wegner:

terms and conditions of the original approval remain in full force and effect. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Weston Second: Chairman Bagoff Cardoza Yes Wegner: Yes Keigher: Yes Weston: Yes Klein: Yes Wilkes: Yes McCartney: Absent* Bagoff: Yes McPherson: Yes Trenk: Absent

PB-18-01/375 Mt. Pleasant Avenue, LLC Block: 155, Lot: 26, Zone: O-RA 375 Mt. Pleasant Avenue Preliminary and Final Amended Site Plan with deviation from Redevelopment Plan requirement. Chairman Bagoff announced that Mr. Trenk had recused himself from hearing the Application. EXHIBITS: A-1: Site Plan (Sheet SP-2), signed by J. Michael Petry, PE, PP, RA, Petry Engineering, LLC, dated 2/5/2018; A-2: Site Photographs, prepared by Petry Engineering, LLC, undated; A-3: Parking Analysis A-4: Layout Sheet, highlighting “22 future parking spaces Parking Area “F”, signed by J. Michael Petry, PE, PP, RA, Petry Engineering, LLC DISCUSSION: Robert C. Williams, Esq., appeared on behalf of Applicant. He stated the Applicant had originally appeared before the Board in 2008 for approval of the medical center that had become very successful. He stated there had also been one subsequent Technical Review approval in 2012. He stated the current application was to seek approval to use space that was currently not being utilized other than for storage. St. Barnabas Hospital was interested in leasing the additional space for use as medical offices. He stated the applicant was seeking preliminary and final amended site plan approval with deviation from standards. J. Michael Petry, PE, PP, RA, Petry Engineering, LLC, was sworn in, stated his professional credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert witness in engineering and planning. Mr. Williams identified the Exhibits for the record. Mr. Petry stated there were two questions in Mr. Grygiel’s review letter (dated 4/23/18), that were related to in Exhibit A-3 and Exhibit A-4. He stated the (Organon) Redevelopment Plan required calculations done in two different ways for medical office space; one was by square footage; the other by medical professional staff and number of exam rooms. He stated that Exhibit A-3 represented the calculation for the majority of users on site that cooperated and provided the information, and A-4 was a copy of the original approved site plan indicating where the future 22 parking spaces would be located. In response to inquiry from Mr. Dwyer, he stated the original approval final site plan approval was dated 3/23/09. Mr. Petry gave a brief recapitulation of the prior site plan application submitted in 2008, and the subsequent Technical Review application submitted in 2012 for

site plan approval was dated 3/23/09. Mr. Petry gave a brief recapitulation of the prior site plan application submitted in 2008, and the subsequent Technical Review application submitted in 2012 for modifications to walkways in the upper regions of the parking lot “A”. The original approvals were for a total medical office build out of 105,800 square feet, and a total of 458 parking spaces, along with the approval of an additional 22 future parking spaces as shown on Exhibit A-4, for a total of 480 parking spaces on site. He stated that at the time, that approval was a deviation from the original redevelopment plan. He stated the two former dwellings that were located on the property were specifically excluded from the original approval; those dwellings were marked on Exhibit A-1 as #1 and #2. Building #1 was used by Organon as office space; Building #2 was used as the construction office

when the overall project was undertaken. Mr. Petry stated the actual square footage of the completed medical building was 104,817 square feet, about 1,000 square feet less than approved by the Board. He stated that as of December 2017, he could confirm on-site striping of 457 parking spaces. He stated the 22 spaces shown on the original plan had never been constructed because the property owner and Township had not deemed them necessary. He stated there had been a condition in the original resolution that the Township could do on-site inspection every year and require those spaces be built-out at any time. In reply to question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Petry confirmed he had conducted a traffic study (submitted as part of application package). The first part of the study included visiting the site to confirm the on-site parking conditions; count the number parking spaces and confirm the configuration and number of existing parking spaces were broken down in a series of lots that made sense for the site; a two day parking study was then conducted, (12/19/17 and 1/11/18). The weather conditions were sunny; the study times were performed every 30 minutes between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. The facility occupancy was 86,391 square feet (82.4%); there was still vacant space in the building. He stated the parking counts found approximately 200 vehicles parked at any time between 10 A.M. and 3 P.M.; the highest parking count was 213 vehicles on 1/11/18 at 11:30 A.M., representing 48% of the on-site parking stalls. He stated that number accounted for approximately one space for every 399 square feet of medical office space. Referring to Exhibit A-3, Mr. Petry gave a brief recapitulation of the parking requirements (of the Redevelopment Plan) based on the number of professionals, employees and exam rooms. Mr. Petry described the proposed expansion. Referring to Exhibit A-2, he identified Unit 1-A, an unoccupied space historically used for storage. The space had direct access off the first walk-in lobby and access off of parking lot “E”; it was first floor unoccupied space; it was not counted in the original (site plan application) 105,000 square feet. The Applicant was now requesting to convert the unused interior space within the building (Unit A-1); the two existing structures on Mt. Pleasant Avenue (Building #1 and Building #2); and the ability to build 22

nt was now requesting to convert the unused interior space within the building (Unit A-1); the two existing structures on Mt. Pleasant Avenue (Building #1 and Building #2); and the ability to build 22 parking spaces in parking area “F” at any time in the future. Referring to Mr. Keller’s review memo dated April 2018, Comment #1 regarding ADA accessibility to the proposed medical office use, Mr. Petry stated the future parking plan had not yet addressed the issue. The Applicant did not know if the structures would be used for medical or regular office use, architectural plans had not been completed. The Applicant was currently requesting approval to use the buildings; at such future time when architectural plans were developed for the buildings, the Applicant was willing to come back before the Board for any ADA modifications. Mr. Williams stated the Applicant would accept the item as a special condition of approval. Mr. Petry continued; he stated there was an additional 8,792 square feet within the main building, 1,893 square feet (Building #1), and 2,845 square feet (Building #2). The total building area would increase by 13,530 square feet to an overall area of 118,347 square feet. He stated the parking requirement under Township code would be 592 spaces; there were currently 457 spaces. There was the ability to build the additional 22 spaces at any time in the future. The Applicant was requesting a deviation from 479 parking spaces to the 592 parking spaces requirement. In response to inquiry from Mr. Williams, Mr. Petry stated that based upon his analysis, he believed that even with the proposed expanded square footage, there would be an excess of available parking spaces.

Mr. Williams reiterated the property was located in the Organon Redevelopment Zone; under redevelopment, a variation from the zoning ordinance was called a “deviation”. Mr. Petry stated the site was a premier property within the area; he opined the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan would be advanced by the requested deviations, specifically “Item B”, “To encourage to the fullest extent possible the redevelopment of the Organon site....and related uses”; and “Item F”, “To provide ...improvements...necessary for...contemplated new development.” He opined the present parking conditions were adequate; the property had operated as medical offices for almost a decade. He opined that constructing additional parking for the site would unnecessarily eliminate open space and landscaping that was a part of the Redevelopment Plan. He stated that in terms of the negative criteria, increasing the square footage at this location could be accommodated without increasing the number of on-site parking space. He opined that correcting the deviation would not pose a detriment to the public good; there was no practical way for overflow parking from the site to flow on to the street; it was too far a walk. He stated that as far as potential impairments, he opined the Redevelopment Plan was actually advanced by the application; it was not prudent to waste green space by paving areas that were not necessary to the needs of the development. He concluded his testimony. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had questions for Mr. Petry. Captain Keigher asked if the exterior buildings could be used for security. Mr. Petry answered if it was a condition of approval, they could be used for security. They were currently vacant; security personnel were not using the space. Vice Chairman asked for clarification regarding if the exterior buildings were currently vacant; Mr. Petry answered the buildings were currently vacant. Vice Chairman Weston stated the Applicant did not have specific plans for the dwellings, but was asking for site plan approval. Mr. Williams stated the current approval allowed for the exterior buildings to be used only for security purposes; the application was requesting approval for future use as medical or office space, at such time the Applicant would come back before the Board for site plan approval. The application currently before the Board was to request

esting approval for future use as medical or office space, at such time the Applicant would come back before the Board for site plan approval. The application currently before the Board was to request a change in the use of the buildings. Vice Chairman Weston voiced concern about the future ADA accessibility as the property is developed. Mr. Petry stated the building was condominium, a great deal of the space was owner occupied, he said the change over in occupancy and use would be less likely than in a standard building. He stated the original resolution had a stipulation that the Municipality could perform an inspection at any time during the year to cause the 22 spaces to be paved at any time. He opined that condition would continue forward, the Applicant had no objection as a condition of approval. Vice Chairman Weston asked Mr. Dwyer if all previous stipulations “roll-forward” as conditions of approval. Mr. Klein asked if the 22 spaces were built, would there be a sidewalk connecting them to one of the buildings; Mr. Petry answered there was not a sidewalk connection but one could be provided. Mr. Williams stated the applicant would accept it as a condition of approval. Mr. Wilkes asked for clarification regarding how visitors would gain access to the buildings should the 22 parking spaces be built. Mr. Petry stated the applicant had just agreed to install a sidewalk up along the driveway to the intersection for pedestrian crossing.