March 21, 2019

ve-thru is not just for fast food restaurants and not to assume that fast food is being proposed. Mr. Litwinoff asked Mr. Moronski to detail what they are proposing for pedestrian safety on the site; he complied. Joyce Rudin approached the podium and stated that she lives on Midland Avenue. She asked Mr. Moronski if he knows what they have in mind for the proposed drive through’s; he said no

because he is not involved with that. Mr. Moronski said that drive-through’s are a present-day standard in the retail industry; he said that permitting them promotes bringing people to the site. Carol Schlitt approached the podium and stated that she lives at 10 Overlook Avenue. She referred to Mr. Moronski’s report and asked him to explain why a drive-thru is not a detriment in the PC zone; he said that drive-throughs are not a substantial detriment to the zone and are used for a variety of uses. Mr. Moronski stated that they bring in new business and revitalize a shopping center. Kevin Malanga approached the podium and stated that he lives on Ridge Road. He asked Mr. Moronski if use variances are only granted in exceptional circumstances; he said they are granted for inherently beneficial uses or if it is particularly suited for the zone. Mr. Malanga asked Mr. Moronski if there was anything in the 2010 Master Plan that recommended a drive thru would be permitted in this zone; he said there was no specific mention of drive thru lanes in the 2010 Master Plan whether pro or con. Mr. Malanga asked Mr. Moronski why he thinks a drive-thru window is not permitted in this area; he said that a drive thru window is not permitted in this area in this Municipality but there are various reasons such as traffic issues and site layout. Mr. Moronski said he does not know the specific reason that West Orange does not allow a drive thru in this zone. Mr. Malanga referred to Mr. Moronski’s report and asked him what wider range of uses a drive thru window offers; he said there are restaurant uses and food retail uses. Mr. Moronski said that drive through’s are more common in terms of commerce and there is a high demand now for a drive thru especially for families and older people who want the drive thru convenience. Mr. Malanga asked Mr. Moronski to discuss the proposed improved circulation plan; he said that the improvements are not just internal but for the ingress and egress also. Mr. Malanga asked Mr. Moronski to detail where the signs will be located; he referred to the architectural plans and complied. Mr. Malanga asked Mr. Moronski to explain why some occupants will get more than one si ign: he said that a tenant who occupies one of the corner building may have two signs. Sally Malanga approached the podium and stated that she live on Ridge Road. She asked

will get more than one si ign: he said that a tenant who occupies one of the corner building may have two signs. Sally Malanga approached the podium and stated that she live on Ridge Road. She asked Mr. Moronski if one of the proposed drive thru windows could become a fast food restaurant; he said yes. Ms. Malanga asked Mr. Moronski if a fast food restaurant with a drive thru window uses throw away plastic items; he said that even uses that do not have a drive thru would also utilize those items. There were no further questions for Mr. Moronski.

Mr. Regan stated that their architect, Mr. Kohler, is present to answer questions regarding the revised plans. Mr. Kohler approached the podium and Ms. Beirne advised him that he will continue under oath. Mr. Kohler detailed what the revisions were that were requested by the Township Planner and how their firm was identified. Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Regan if any consideration was taken regarding how to make the barriers safer near the Macy’s Backstage Mr. Regan stated that they did receive a report from the Township’s Police Department that in the summer of 2018 a car did go over the guard rail near the Macy’s Backstage. He said that the applicant will extend the guard rail in that location. Mr. Eben wanted clarification regarding what had been revised on sheet A001 of the architectural plans dated 3/11/19 versus the revised site plan dated 2/15/19 specifically that the architectural plans do not show all of the cross walks; Mr. Kohler explained that that sheet A001 is an area location plan and does not show the pavement markings. He said that they re- submitted the entire set of the architectural plans and all of the sheets did not have revisions. Mr. Eben asked Mr. Kohler why there was no staircase by Building G on the revised plans or a decorative fence that he suggested instead of a guard rail; he said that the retaining wall will have an ornamental fence on top of it. Mr. Kohler stated that they will not add a staircase in that location because they felt that it was not safe for pedestrians. He said that they will add a staircase near Building I as a condition of approval. Mr. Eben questioned the pinching of the curbs that he talked about at a past meeting and said that he thought that the applicant agreed to do it. He said that he does not see it on the revised drawings. Mr. Regan referred to the transcripts from the March 7™ special meeting and stated that Mr. Disario, the Traffic Engineer, testified to the pinch points being widened and the revisions that were made in respect to that. Mr. Eben stated that they are not on the drawings and he would like to see them on the plans. Chairman Neuer advised Mr. Regan to have Mr. Fowler prepare a single sheet showing where the pinch points are on the drawings. Mr. Redwine asked Mr. Kohler what considerations he made for the revisions regarding the West Orange Master Plan; he said that everything

gle sheet showing where the pinch points are on the drawings. Mr. Redwine asked Mr. Kohler what considerations he made for the revisions regarding the West Orange Master Plan; he said that everything proposed is for the shopping center’s intended and permitted use so the Township Master Plan did not come into play with his design. Mr. Redwine asked Mr. Kohler if anything has progressed regarding the applicant considering using alternative energy and if it is reflected in the revised plans; he said that it has progressed in

the sense that they have talked about the types of tenants that might bring that type of alternative energy to the project. Mr. Kohler said a lot of those initiatives happen on the tenant’s side of their fit-out by utilizing, for example, their roof. He said they are still considering installing alternative energy parking spaces. Mr. Kohler stated that the only re-design on his revised architectural plans were the elimination of some doors at the back of Building A. There were no further questions for Mr. Kohler from any Board Members, Board Professionals or members of the public. Chairman Neuer stated that because of a statement that he made on the record at the January 17, 2019 meeting, he accepts Mr. Malanga’s position and requests that the landscape architect return to the next meeting. Chairman Neuer advised the Board Secretary to reach out to the Township Forester, Mr. Linson, to let him know that his appearance is required at the next meeting. Chairman Neuer stated that this application will be carried over to the next meeting held on April 11, 2019 and that no further notice will be required. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Neuer at 10:47 pm. Adopted: April 11, 2019 Yoh V Rose DeSena, Board Secrétary 7