October 3, 2018

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES October 3, 2018 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held a regular meeting on October 3, 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 7:30 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Bagoff requested all persons stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Planning Board regular meeting will be November 7, 2018 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Robert Bagoff John Cardoza Captain Michael Keigher Council President Susan McCartney Kenneth McPherson Andrew Trenk Gary Wegner William Wilkes II ABSENT: Lee Klein Vice Chairman Ron Weston ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Township Planner James Giurintano, PE, PP, CME, Board Consulting Engineer Patrick J. Dwyer, Esq., Board Attorney Robin Miller, Board Secretary ADOPT MEETING DATES Adopt 2019 Planning Board meeting dates. 1

The Board voted to adopt the 2019 meeting dates as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. McPherson Cardoza: Yes Trenk: Yes Keigher: Yes Wegner: Yes Klein: Absent Weston: Absent McCartney: Yes Wilkes: Yes McPherson: Yes Bagoff: Yes SWEARING IN Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Township Planner James Giurintano, PE, PP, CME, Board Consulting Engineer EXECUTIVE SESSION Chairman Bagoff announced the Board would not be going in to Executive Session. RESOLUTION(S) AMENDED RESOLUTION PB-17-08/Crestmont Country Club Block: 174, Lots: 1 & 1.01, Zone: R-2 750 Eagle Rock Avenue Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan Approval with “C” variances. APPROVED 10/4/17, ORIGINALLY MEMORIALIZED 11/1/17 DISCUSSION: Chairman Bagoff stated the Amended Resolution before the Board was for the Application originally approved on October 4, 2017 and memorialized on November 1, 2017. There was a matter of litigation that was recently adjudicated, and sent down to the Board to amend the Resolution. Mr. Dwyer stated the Superior Court essentially praised and agreed with the Board on its interpretation of the law and its decision regarding the application approval. Mr. Dwyer stated the Court did take issue with the original Resolution and determined there was certain language regarding allowing the Board to grant the Tree Removal approval. The changes in the Amended Resolution reflect the inclusion of the testimony regarding the approval of the Tree Removal application. The Board voted on the Amended Resolution as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Council President McCartney Cardoza: Yes Trenk: - Keigher: Yes Wegner: Yes Klein: Absent Weston: Absent McCartney: Yes Wilkes: - McPherson: - Bagoff: Yes 2

Chairman Bagoff requested the Secretary send a copy of the Amended Resolution to Mr. Robert Daniel by certified mail. PB-18-06C/Essex County/Turtle Back Zoo/Otter Exhibit Renovation Block: 163; Lot: 1; Zone: R-1 560 Northfield Avenue Courtesy Review Application for renovation of the Otter Exhibit at Turtle Back Zoo. APPROVED 9/5/18 PB-18-07C/Essex County/Turtle Back Zoo/New Parking Deck and Train Ride Depot Block: 163; Lot: 1; Zone: R-1 560 Northfield Avenue Courtesy Review Application for construction of a new parking deck and new train ride depot Turtle Back Zoo. APPROVED 9/5/18 The Board voted on the Recommendation for PB-18-06C as follows: Motion: Mr. Cardoza Second: Mr. Trenk Cardoza: Yes Trenk: Yes Keigher: Yes Wegner: - Klein: Absent Weston: Absent McCartney: Yes Wilkes: Yes McPherson: Yes Bagoff: Yes DISCUSSION: Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate requested a copy of the August 10, 2018 memorandum from Deputy Chief Fred Kingston, Fire Official be attached to the Resolution. Chairman Bagoff agreed. The Board voted on the Recommendation for PB-18-07C as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Cardoza Cardoza: Yes Trenk: Yes Keigher: Yes Wegner: - Klein: Absent Weston: Absent McCartney: Yes Wilkes: Yes McPherson: Yes Bagoff: Yes APPLICATION(S) PB-18-08/Belevedere Homes at West Orange, LLC Block: 170.03; Lot: 1.09; Zone: R-2 1 Kunz Way Minor Subdivision 3

EXHIBITS: O-1: Letter to Board dated 10/2/18, from John J. Lamb, Esq., Beattie Padovano LLC, attorney for Bel Air at West Orange Condominium Association, Inc. (Objector). A-1: Letter to Board dated 10/3/18, from Richard Schatzman, Esq., Schatzman Baker, attorney for Applicant Belvedere Homes at West Orange, LLC. A-2: Three (3) sheets: (1) Enlarged overall site map of Bel Air, unsigned, undated; (2) Final Map, “Bel Air Estates” Lot 1 – Block 170.03, prepared by C.E.C. Civil Engineering Corporation, signed by Michael T. Armstrong, P.L.S., dated 12/10/2007; and (3) Minor Subdivision, signed by Michael T. Armstrong, P.L.S. and Cyril Kucera, P.E., 7/25/2018 DISCUSSION: Richard Schatzman, Esq., attorney for Applicant, approached the podium. Mr. Schatzman stated Mr. Lamb, Esq., attorney for contiguous property owner (Bel Air at West Orange Condominium Association, Inc.) had sent a letter to the Board that raised objection to the Application, (Exhibit O-1). Mr. Schatzman stated he had sent a letter to the Board dated 10/3/18, (Exhibit A-1). Mr. Dwyer addressed the Board; he stated both letters were received within the past two days. He stated the letters were sent last minute to the Board, partially because the Objector’s counsel had recently been hired. Due to their lateness, Mr. Dwyer stated he was required to hurriedly review the letters and evaluate all the issues raised. Mr. Dwyer stated that apart from marking them as Exhibits, he had no other comments for the Board regarding the questions raised in the letters. He gave the Board a brief recapitulation of issues outlined in the letter from Objectors counsel, (Exhibit O-1). John J. Lamb, Esq., Beattie Padovano LLC, attorney for Objector, Bel Air at West Orange Condominium Association, Inc. approached the podium. He gave a supplemental outline of his letter dated October 2, 2018, (Exhibit O-1). He stated the Township ordinance was clear on the definition of a “minor subdivision”. He stated the application was not for a minor subdivision, there was not access on a public road. He stated the application itself stated it was for a minor subdivision without variances; he stated there were variances involved. Mr. Lamb stated he and the Applicant’s attorney disagreed there was a need for a variance for the lack of access on a public street; he cited case law

riances; he stated there were variances involved. Mr. Lamb stated he and the Applicant’s attorney disagreed there was a need for a variance for the lack of access on a public street; he cited case law regarding the issue. He stated the Public Notice as insufficient for failure to notify all entitled to notice within 200 feet; he cited case law regarding the issue. Mr. Lamb stated to get to the new road on Kunz Way, you would have to access via Lot 6.09; he stated Lot 6.09 was owned by the Bel Air at West Orange Condominium Association, Inc. He stated the Applicant had considered the four corners of a lot; but that Applicant had not taken in to account to build a road, the Applicant would have to go over a private lot. Mr. Lamb stated Applicant did not have the private road easement as claimed. Mr. Schatzman returned to the podium. He stated that Mr. Grygiel’s report dated August 10, 2018, identified the Application as a minor subdivision. He stated the current lot was one of a nine-lot major subdivision approved by the Board by Resolution dated November 2, 2006. He stated that all of the issues of a major subdivision and bulk variance relief had been discussed at that time. Eight of the original subdivision lots had been sold to Essex 4

County under Green Acres funds. Mr. Schatzman stated the Applicant’s lot had been determined to be a buildable lot; presently the Applicant wished only to subdivide the previously approved lot in to two lots. He stated the Application did not require bulk variance relief. He gave the Board a brief recapitulation of the information stated in the Applicant’s Public Notice. He stated all adjoining property owners were properly noticed. Chairman Bagoff asked if the owner of Lot 6.01 had been noticed. Mr. Schatzman answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lamb stated the Association owned Lot 6.01; he did not know if every resident within 200 feet of Lot 6.01 had been notified. He stated the complex was comprised of property owned by the Association and individual unit owners. He stated the Association had been notified, but not the individual unit owners. Mr. Schatzman stated he received a certified list of property owners within 200 feet; he stated the list of individual homeowners was not included in the certified list. Mr. Lamb stated the Application itself did not include Lot 6.01 or the private road and adjacent property owners; the Applicant only listed the subject property, Lot 1.09; the Applicant only asked for the four corners of the subject property, Lot 1.09. Mr. Dwyer opined that Lot. 6.01 should have been included in the Application. He stated Mr. Schatzman should consider re-noticing. Mr. Schatzman stated that Cyril Kucera, P.E., engineer for Applicant was present; he requested Mr. Kucera be permitted to address the Board regarding noticing. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Dwyer if Mr. Kucera’s testimony would add to the Board’s understanding of the notice. Mr. Dwyer opined it would make no difference; he opined the notice was defective. Chairman Bagoff stated Mr. Kucera would have five minutes to address the Board. Cyril Kucera, P.E., was sworn in, stated his professional credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be a licensed professional engineer. Mr. Kucera stated he had previously appeared before the Board for the Bel-Air application for development. Referring to Exhibit A-2, he stated Bel Air was a condominium community set on two (2) lots, Lot 6.01 on one side of Kelly Drive, and Lot 2 on the other side of Kelly Drive. He stated that through the Bel Air development, Kelly Drive was the only public road dedicated to the Township. He stated the

01 on one side of Kelly Drive, and Lot 2 on the other side of Kelly Drive. He stated that through the Bel Air development, Kelly Drive was the only public road dedicated to the Township. He stated the nearest actual building structure was 240 feet away from the Applicant’s property. He stated he strongly believed the Applicant’s notice was correct. In response to question from Chairman Bagoff; Mr. Lamb reiterated the Applicant’s notice was deficient; he stated there were additional issues to be addressed including lack of easement approval for the private road, and variance for steep slope. He stated his research also indicated that subsequent to the original subdivision approval, the drainage plan changed when the County acquired lots. He stated the Applicant kept referring the 2006 resolution; but there was a subsequent document showing a change in the drainage plan; however, he stated there was no documentation of a subsequent approval for the revised drainage plan. Mr. Dwyer advised the Chairman that the discussion was moving aside from the threshold of the public notice. Mr. Schatzman stated he wanted to know if the Application was to be deemed a major or minor subdivision; he asked if Mr. Grygiel would opine. Mr. Grygiel stated he had prepared a memorandum dated August 10, 2018, which did reference a minor subdivision based on the information submitted; however, the review memo raised a number of issues and requested additional information. He gave a brief recapitulation of 5

the issues outlined in his memorandum; he stated the Applicant did not submit the additional materials. He stated that he had not seen the entire (prior) subdivision plan or known the real status of the private access road. He stated the Application now appeared to be a major subdivision. Chairman Bagoff stated the fear of any Chair is that a decision be reversed; he stated that under the law this issue had come before the Board previously. He stated he had spoken to Mr. Dwyer in the past about the matter of an Applicant notice to townhouse communities. He stated the entire lot must be noticed; it was one contiguous area. He stated it was better for all concerned parties to err on the side of caution than to be reversed. He stated that at this time, the notice was defective and the Applicant needed to re-notice, and also provide the Board with information regarding the steep slope and drainage issues as required as part of a major subdivision not previously submitted to the Township Planner when the Application was originally filed. Mr. Grygiel stated the Board Engineer did not review the Application when originally filed; it appeared to be a very straightforward minor subdivision. It was not until quite later when issues arose, that the Board Engineer reviewed the Application and has not yet had the opportunity to do a full review of the issues. Mr. Schatzman stated that the Applicant did submit additional materials to the Board Secretary in response to Mr. Grygiel’s memorandum. The Secretary confirmed materials had been submitted; they were forwarded to Mr. Grygiel (on 8/20/2018 and 9/13/18). Chairman Bagoff reiterated the notice was defective; the Applicant was to re-notice. The Applicant was to provide the Township Planner, Board Attorney and Board Engineer were provided with the appropriate information. Chairman Bagoff closed the hearing on the matter. PB-18-09/Kessler Foundation, Inc. Block: 171; Lot: 10; Zone: R-2 1199 Pleasant Valley Way Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan with Subdivision, “C1” and “C2” variances. APPLICANT EXHIBITS: A-1: Overall Plan, (Sheet SP-2), dated 8/7/18, revision date 9/5/18, prepared by Petry Engineering, LLC A-2: Building Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan, (Sheet SP-5), dated 8/7/18, revision date 9/5/18, prepared by Petry Engineering, LLC A-3: Parking Lot Grading and Drainage Plan, (Sheet

LC A-2: Building Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan, (Sheet SP-5), dated 8/7/18, revision date 9/5/18, prepared by Petry Engineering, LLC A-3: Parking Lot Grading and Drainage Plan, (Sheet SP-6), dated 8/7/18, revision date 9/5/18, prepared by Petry Engineering, LLC A-4: Parking Lot Lighting and Landscape Plan, (Sheet SP-9), dated 8/7/18, revision date 9/5/18, prepared by Petry Engineering, LLC A-5: 2nd Level Floor Plan, (Drawing No. A1), dated 9/14/18, prepared by NK Architects A-6: 3RD Level Floor Plan, (Drawing No. A2), dated 9/14/18, prepared by NK Architects A-7: Elevations, (Drawing No. A4), dated 9/14/18, prepared by NK Architects A-8: Colorized photographs of existing site conditions, (undated) 6

DISCUSSION: Robert C. Williams, Esq., appeared on behalf of Applicant. He stated the Application was for Preliminary and Final Amended Site Plan approval with four “C” variances. The proposal was to construct an approximately 11,302 square feet addition to the Kessler Foundation research and office space located on the property. Tree Removal and Soil Removal permits were also requested; and a request for a waiver to have a licensed landscape architect sign the plans because the Applicant’s engineer, J. Michael Petry, would sign the landscape plan. Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Petry would testify as Applicant’s Engineer and Planner. J. Michael Petry, PE, PP, AIA, Petry Engineering, LLC, approached the podium, stated his professional credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be a licensed professional planner and engineer in the State of New Jersey. Referring to Exhibit A-1, Mr. Petry described the site’s existing conditions. He stated the facility was located on an irregularly shaped lot; it contained approximately 34 ½ acres; the parcel had nearly 1,000 feet of frontage along Pleasant Valley Way; and was over 1,200 feet deep. He stated it was steeply sloped from a high point in the northwest corner at elevation 560, to a low point in the southeast corner at elevation 378; between the back of the property and the front of the property there was 182 feet of vertical difference. He stated the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation and the Kessler Foundation both occupied the site; the Kessler Foundation was a separate but related entity; it was a tenant on the property. He stated there was a single building on the property that was uniquely shaped; given the grades on the site, there were building entrances and exits on three different levels. He stated there were a series of grade changes throughout the site that affected the use of the property. He stated the overall building height was 47.04 feet, based on the average grade calculation. He stated there was a single entry and exit driveway located at the north end of the site; it was signalized. He stated there were a total of six separate parking areas; there were a total of 718 parking spaces, with a requirement of 654 parking spaces. He stated public sewer, water, gas and electric serviced the facility. He stated the Kessler Foundation occupied the most northerly section of the structure; the addition