October 3, 2018

rement 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 would abut the westerly face of the northerly portion of the building and Parking Lot “E”. He stated the addition would come out to the front of the existing sidewalk. He stated the new entry to that portion of the building would be located right next to the entry to the Conference Center. He stated that when the addition was finished, the grade of Parking Lot “E” would be approximately 6 ½ feet above the first floor of the addition. The proposed addition was two floors, equal in size, totaling 11,302 square feet. He stated that after construction, Parking Lot “E” would be restored to its current condition. The proposed additional 36 parking spaces would be located in Parking Lot “F”. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Petry discussed the current footprint of the water line and the detention system. He stated the detention system would be relocated; the water line around the building would also be relocated. Referring to Exhibit A-3, Mr. Petry discussed the existing conditions of Parking Lot “F”, and described the proposal for the additional 36 parking spaces. He stated current conditions included a sub-surface detention system; the proposal included a separate surface basin and a storm water filter; the water would go to the same place, just through a different system. 7

Referring to Exhibit A-4, he described the exiting lighting and landscape conditions. He stated proposed improvements would include the more of the exact type of existing light fixtures. He stated there would be a total of eleven (11) [sic] removed; five (5) major trees would be planted in Parking Lot “F”, and three (3) trees were to be planted at the building addition. Referring to the Bowman Consulting memorandum dated September 28, 2018; Mr. Petry stated the Applicant had no problem with the Board Engineer’s comments. He stated most of the comments had already been incorporated in to the Applicant’s construction documents, and he was working with the Township Engineer to resolve any outstanding issues. Mr. Williams stated the Applicant would accommodate the comments listed in the Bowman Consulting memorandum. Mr. Petry concluded his engineering testimony. The Board questioned Mr. Petry. In response to questions from Council President McCartney, Mr. Petry stated twelve (12) trees would be removed; twelve (12) trees would be planted. He stated there were a (currently) a total of 718 parking spaces, with a requirement of 654 parking space; in the proposed condition there would be a requirement of 690 parking spaces. The proposal included the addition of 36 new parking spaces for a total of 754 parking spaces. In response to questions from Mr. Wegner, Mr. Petry stated the overflow Parking Lot “F” was the most remote from the building facility; Parking Lot “E” was the closest to proposed addition. Mr. Petry stated if Parking Lot “E” were expanded, it would create a good deal of disturbance in the steep slope. . Mr. Petry stated that Parking Lot “F” was mostly utilized when there was an event at the Conference Center; there was no place other than on-site for overflow parking. Mr. Petry stated there was more than ample handicap parking next to the building. In response to question from Mr. McPherson, Mr. Petry stated the Kessler Foundation would be the only entity using the proposed lab and office space. In response to questions from Mr. Giurintano, Mr. Petry stated the Applicant would also be required to obtain approval from Essex County and Hudson-Essex-Passaic Soil Conservation District. The Public Advocate and Public had no questions for Mr. Petry. In response to question from Mr. Dwyer, Mr Petry confirmed the footprint of the Conference Center would

aic Soil Conservation District. The Public Advocate and Public had no questions for Mr. Petry. In response to question from Mr. Dwyer, Mr Petry confirmed the footprint of the Conference Center would remain the same. Walter J. Kneis, AIA, NK Architects, approached the podium, stated his professional credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be a New Jersey licensed architect. Referring to Exhibit A-5, explained the basis of the proposed facility expansion. He stated the proposal included the addition of approximately 11,300 square feet to the existing building; the addition would add 5,651 square feet per floor. The second floor would consist of laboratory spaces, storage spaces and restrooms. Referring to Exhibit A-6, he stated the 8

space would be used for interior office space, including private offices and open office workspaces. Referring to Exhibit A-7, Mr. Kneis described the building as a linear building that abutted the existing Parking Lot “E”. The building was clad in a metal panel; there were punctured set-in windows that were non-operable; and a glass enclosed stairwell at the end of the existing building. Referring to Exhibit A-8, he described the structure as a brick clad building; he identified the space utilized by the Kessler Rehabilitation Institute. In response to question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Kneis identified the area of the existing generator; he stated it was located more than five feet from the proposed addition as required by code. Mr. Kneis conclude his testimony. The Board questioned Mr. Kneis. In response to question from Chairman Bagoff, Mr. Kneis confirmed he had read the memorandum from the Township Fire Official; he stated the building was compliant with the Fire Code. He stated the addition would not be sprinklered; he stated he had discussed the issue with the owner, Kessler Institute. Kessler Institute had indicated that long-term plans did include installation of sprinkler system; they would focus on patient areas before the new addition. He was not aware of timeline for the installation of the system. Mr. Kneis confirmed that with the exception of Item 4(c), Applicant would comply with all other recommendations of the memorandum from the Fire Chief dated 9/11/18. Chairman Bagoff stated a condition of approval to include all items from the 9/11/18 Fire Chief memorandum except Item 4(c); as well as a timeline from Kessler Institute for installation of sprinkler system for the building addition. In response to question from Mr. Wegner, there would be an addition of approximately 40 workstations; they were large spaces for a small number of staff members. He stated the existing roadway would be able to accommodate additional staff vehicles. In response to question from Chairman Bagoff, Mr. Kneis stated he did not have a rendering of proposed exterior building signage; he stated all signage would be compliant with ordinance. The Public Advocate and Public had no questions for Mr. Kneis. Mr. Williams recalled Mr. Petry to the podium to testify as planner for the Applicant. Chairman Bagoff stated Mr. Petry was still under oath. Mr. Petry stated the

blic had no questions for Mr. Kneis. Mr. Williams recalled Mr. Petry to the podium to testify as planner for the Applicant. Chairman Bagoff stated Mr. Petry was still under oath. Mr. Petry stated the Application required four bulk variances. The first was a minimum side yard setback on the northerly property line of 75 ft. He stated the stated should not apply; although the property was located in a residential zone, it was a non-residential use and it abutted a property that was also a non-residential use. The existing condition was a 58.5 feet setback; the proposed condition setback would be 44.2 feet. He stated the second variance was for the minimum number of loading spaces; standard required seven (7) spaces; there were currently two (2) spaces; the proposed new office, laboratory and storage addition did not require an additional space. The third variance was maximum lot coverage; 30% was required; existing impervious lot coverage was 36.02%; the proposal would increase it by 1.03% to 37.05%. The final variance was for maximum effective lot coverage after the steep slope area was also limited to 30%; there was currently 53.42%; the proposed would be 54.94%. Mr. Petry stated that when he looked at the positive criteria he opined that the medical research done at the facility was the driving force behind the work of the Kessler Foundation. He 9

stated that while the Foundation was a separate entity from the hospital it was entirely intergraded; the same doctors that worked at the hospital also did the research for the Foundation. They worked together for the betterment of patient care. He opined the proposal could be considered an ancillary or accessory use to the hospital and could be considered under the inherently beneficial umbrella of the hospital use. He opined the first variance could be justified under a “c(1)” variance criteria. He opined the remaining three variances could be considered under the “c(2)” criteria; the benefits outweighed the detriments. He offered the facility currently functioned with only two loading bays; it did not require the number required by a commercial property. Regarding the two coverage variances, he opined the storm water management plan clearly controlled and reduced runoff; he offered the improvements did not adversely affect the esthetics of the property. He noted that Mr. Grygiel had discussed the minimum number of required trees in the parking lot; four trees for the 36 new parking spaces. Mr. Petry opined that the perimeter trees that abutted the parking lot were included in the count; he believed the Applicant was in compliance with the requirement for one tree for every ten parking spaces. Regarding the negative criteria, Mr. Petry opined the facility itself serviced the public good; the minor expansion was necessary to continue the serve the community. He opined the setback and loading variances were general criteria that did not exist on the site; they had no impact on the zoning ordinance. He stated the increase in coverage variances were very small; measured against a residential standard. All measures had been put in place to protect the surrounding properties. Mr. Petry concluded his planning testimony. The Board had no questions for Mr. Petry on his planning testimony. Referring to Exhibit A-4, Mr. Grygiel asked for clarification regarding the proposed trees in Parking Lot “F”. Mr. Petry stated there would be two (2) trees planted in the island and seven along the perimeter of the lot. In response to question from Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Petry stated the lot had substantial lawn in front of Parking Lot “F”. The view of the property to the Public is one of greenspace. The majority of impervious coverage was hidden behind the building. In response to

he lot had substantial lawn in front of Parking Lot “F”. The view of the property to the Public is one of greenspace. The majority of impervious coverage was hidden behind the building. In response to follow-up question from Chairman Bagoff, Mr. Petry stated the plan had incorporated the installation of a white roof to decrease heat island effect. The Public Advocate and Public had no questions for Mr. Petry. There was no further testimony from the Applicant. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had comments on the Application. The Public Advocate and Public had no comments on the Application. Chairman Bagoff closed the public hearing; the Board deliberated. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Grygiel for clarification regarding the request for “c(1)” variance relief. Mr. Grygiel opined the site had been previously developed. Conditions: 10

1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. All notes included in the approved plans, including notes required by this Resolution, shall be deemed conditions of

notification or this approval shall be deemed withdrawn. 6. All notes included in the approved plans, including notes required by this Resolution, shall be deemed conditions of approval having the same force and effect as conditions expressly set forth in this Resolution. 7. All conditions of approval shall be written on the plans. 8. Applicant to comply with the comments in the review letter from Bowman dated September 28, 2018. 9. Applicant to comply with the comments in the Memorandum from the West Orange Fire Department dated September 11, 2018 except Par. 4(c) 10. Applicant to provide a timeline for installing sprinklers in all buildings on its campus at 1199 Pleasant Valley Way. 11

11. Applicant shall comply with Chapter 30 of the Township of West Orange Code regarding soil removal permits. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Councilwoman McCartney Cardoza: Yes Trenk: Yes Keigher: Yes Wegner: Yes Klein: Absent Weston: Absent McCartney: Yes Wilkes: Yes McPherson: Yes Bagoff: Yes MEETING ADJOURNED at approximately 9:12 P.M. Minutes adopted February 6, 2019. Robin Miller, Secretary Township of West Orange Planning Board THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE WEDNESDAY MARCH 6, 2019 AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. 12