PB-19-04/Prism Capital Partners, LLC

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD Decided: October 2, 2019 Memorialized: November 6, 2019 APPROVAL OF APPLICATION PRISM CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH “C” VARIANCES AND TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT PERMIT 55 LAKESIDE AVENUE BLOCK 115, LOT 15 PB APPLICATION #19-04 WHEREAS, PRISM CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC., (“Applicant”) having made application for Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval and “C(1)” and “C(2)” variance relief, and for a Tree Removal and Replacement Permit to the Township of West Orange Planning Board (Application #19-04) regarding property located at 55 Lakeside Avenue, West Orange, NJ (the “Premises”), and known as Lot 15 in Block 115 on the tax map of the Township of West Orange (the “Township”); and WHEREAS the Board having accepted jurisdiction based upon proof of publication and notices provided in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing having been conducted at a meeting held on October 2, 2019 and the Applicant having appeared by its attorney Francis X. Regan, Esq., of the DeCotiis Law Firm, and the Board having heard testimony of the Applicant’s professionals Stephen Powers, PE, John Corak, PE, Angelo Alberto, RA, PP, and the report of applicant’s Landscape Architect, Paul DeVitto III, LLA, and the Board having considered the review letters issued by Township professionals including Deputy Chief Steven Hywel, Acting Fire Official, dated July 11, 2019; Paul Grygiel, PP, Township Planning Director, dated July 16, 2019 updated August 27, 2019 and September 17, 2019; John Linson, Township Forester, dated July 29, 2019; and John Hess, PE, Planning Board Engineer dated September 6, 2019 updated September 18, 2019; and considered the exhibits submitted by the Applicant, and considered the comments of all members of the public desiring to be heard, and having deliberated on the merits of the application; NOW, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: EVIDENCE SUBMITTED In summary, the following evidence was submitted in connection with the application and considered by the Board: 1. The Board received the application and the documents submitted therewith, including:

(i) Application to Township of West Orange Planning Board dated July 2, 2019, received August 26, 2019, (ii) Application for Tree Removal and Replacement Permit, (iii) Site Plan Checklist with waiver requests, (iv) | Paid Tax Statement dated June 28, 2019, (v) Property owners list, (vi) Tree removal application, (vii) W-9 form, (viii) Boundary and Topographic Survey prepared by Keller & Kirkpatrick, dated February 28, 2019, (A-5) (ix) Architectural plans and elevations (A-4) prepared by City Invincible Architecture, last revised August 19, 2019, (x) Site Plans prepared by Greenberg Farrow, Stephen Powers, P.E. (20 sheets) and Existing Conditions Plan (1 sheet) dated June 17, 2019 last revised August 15, 2019, (A-2) (xi) | Tree Removal Plan prepared by Stonefield Engineering & Design, dated July 2, 2019, last revise August 20, 2019. (xii) | Copy of cover letter and application to the Essex County Planning Board, dated May 17, 2019. (A-7), (xiii) Hydrology Report prepared by Greenberg Farrow dated August 14, 2019. The Board also received the following: (i) Sustainability Checklist Form 2. The Board accepted into evidence the following exhibits: A-l Overview aerial of property by Greenberg Farrow. A-2 Site Plan by Prism, blown up version showing stacked homes. A-3 Photo Light Plan by City Invincible. A-4 — Architectural plans by City Invincible. A-5 Elevations by City Invincible. A-6 View rendering by City Invincible. A-7 Tree Removal & Landscape Plan by Stonefield Engineering. A-8 Rendered landscape Plan by Stonefield. 3. Francis X. Regan, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Applicant and introduced the application stating that Applicant intends to present this application for twenty stacked townhouse units, as part of a larger redevelopment project that will share a condominium association, but not be connected to the other dwelling units with a street. Each dwelling unit will have a one car garage and a tandem parking spot. The development will have ten visitor spaces. 4. Stephen Powers P.E., was qualified as a civil engineer and testified that the project will reduce the existing impervious coverage and exceeds the open space requirement of 20% open space. 5. Mr. Powers testified that garbage trucks may back into the site, which has a small turn around along Babcock Street.

6. Mr. Powers further stated, after being questioned on his proposed utility pole, that they will run the electric service underground provided the utility companies accept this as a feasible installation as they will have the ultimate authority as to the installation design to bring primary electric service to the site. The Applicant would prefer a utility pole to trenching under Babcock Street. 7. Anexisting monitoring well will remain and be tested regularly due to raised levels of PCE and sodium in the groundwater but that this will not impact the residential use. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Powers testified that the well is present due to an offsite contamination from a dry cleaner, and it will be addressed by the predecessor in title or current owner. 8. Mr. Powers ‘testified that they do not want to install an ADA ramp into Babcock Place as it is too steep. The board engineer agreed with this. 9. Mr. Powers stated they would prefer not to terrace as there will be sufficient screening of the wall proposed. 10. Mr. Paul Grygiel, the board planner, supported the applicant’s request for a waiver of the EIS requirement noting it is consistent with the Redevelopment plan. 11. The revised plans address the memorandum of Fire Officer Hywel. The applicant will provide a snow removal plan. 12. The applicant noted that there is no affordable housing to be constructed in this phase of the project and that a separate building will be constructed to address the affordable housing for the entire redevelopment. 13. The public advocate questioned the applicant as to whether there were any lead issues. The engineer replied that there are none they are aware of. 14. A neighbor residing at 9 Babcock Place expressed concern about adding twenty units to a congested street with no sidewalk. 15. Paul DeVitto, LLA was sworn and qualified as an expert in landscape architecture. He introduced Exhibit A-7, a tree removal plan. He testified that 53% of the trees existing are invasive to the area. Their plan will preserve 16 trees and remove 36 trees. A maple tree in particularly good condition will be saved. 16. West Orange requires that the applicant replace the removed trees with 36 replacements; they plan to plant a total of 42 new trees on site with 8 being defined as major trees and 34 being considered minor trees. In a few years, tree growth will

ace the removed trees with 36 replacements; they plan to plant a total of 42 new trees on site with 8 being defined as major trees and 34 being considered minor trees. In a few years, tree growth will screen the entire wall. The Memorandum dated July 29 and September 18, 2019 from the West Orange Township Forester, John Linson approved the tree removal plan. The Board Chairman asked if a large tree could be planted near but not on the site. Mr. DeVitto agreed to work with the Town Forester to find a location for up to 5 additional trees extending to the intersection along Babcock Place.

17. John Corak, PE, was sworn and qualified as an expert in engineering and testified about traffic and circulation. He testified that Babcock Place has low traffic and the proposed new 20 dwelling units would generate 7 morning trips and 11 evening trips, thereby having no significant impact. 18. A discussion was held about the lack of a sidewalk adjacent to the property. A sidewalk goes up to the property, but not alongside it, and the three houses across from the subject property have no sidewalk. The applicant agreed to add a sidewalk next to those three houses across the street, provided the Township can obtain proper permissions from each of the three (3) homeowners and the applicant shall work with the Township Engineer and Forester regarding the alignment and construction of the sidewalk especially where it interferes with the existing trees and roots with R.O.W. 19. Mr. Corak testified that there would be one garage space and a tandem space in front of each garage providing two parking spaces for each unit. Ten additional guest spaces will be provided, meeting the RSIS requirement. Furthermore, there is no requirement to add a cul-de-sac, which is not proposed. The Board questioned Mr. Corak about the safety of the plan, and he testified that the circulation proposed, and retaining walls will be safe. The plans provide an ADA handicap ramp from the front right corner. 20. Aneighbor had concerns with traffic in and out seven days a week and asked that the Board drive on Babcock Place before making a decision. Mr. Corak testified that the low traffic volume does not warrant installation of traffic calming devices. 21. Angelo Alberto, AIA was sworn and qualified as an expert in architecture. He drew the plans submitted by City Invincible dated August 19, 2019. He described the proposed plan as “stacked townhouses” with a 60 by 240-foot-long building. The ground floor units will be two-bedroom dwellings of approximately 1500 square feet with a garage. The upper level units will have 300 square feet on the lower level and three bedrooms on the top floor including a master bedroom suite. The plan includes upgraded garage doors. The entry to the units will be between the buildings in a narrow corridor. Mr. Alberto testified that their intent is to utilize sustainable product systems and materials, although they are not proposing geothermal materials.

ll be between the buildings in a narrow corridor. Mr. Alberto testified that their intent is to utilize sustainable product systems and materials, although they are not proposing geothermal materials. The proposed height has been reduced from 46 to 41 feet, so there is no height variance being requested. 22. Mr. Alberto further testified that the proposal includes fire separation walls to the peak of each unit. 23. Mr. Alberto further testified that no chain link fence will be installed but rather the project will have decorative aluminum fencing. 24. The one variance requested is for a deviation from the 25-foot landscape buffer required to surround the site. The plans propose a 6.5-foot buffer on the front and a 20-foot buffer on the west rather than 25 feet, due to site constraints. Mr. Alberto testified that the east and south sides comply and that there will be no detriment for this exception. He further stated that the most sustainable thing to 4

do is reuse this site, and the plans provide significant landscaping. This variance qualifies under both N.J.S.A. 49:55D-70(c)1 and 2, as the property constraints are a hardship, and the sustainable reuse of the property benefit outweigh any detriment, of which there are none. 25. He stated that the requested variances could be granted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(1) or c(2). He noted that c(2) variances may be granted when they involve a specific piece of property where the benefits outweigh the detriments, and that c(1) variances may be granted when unusual conditions such as shape or topography affect a specific piece of property and cause undue hardship. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 26. The property is located in the E-MR zoning district where stacked townhouses are a permitted use. 27. Applicant seeks Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval with “c” variance relief and a tree removal permit in connection with the demolition of existing structures and construction of twenty stacked townhouses, with 10 garages and exterior parking. 28. The Board specifically finds - based upon the evidence presented and the Board’s knowledge of local conditions — that pursuant to Ordinance Section 25- 27.7(c)(2) the tree removal proposed by the applicant will not result in or cause, increase or aggravate any or all of the following conditions a. Soil erosion, sedimentation and dust - Applicant will obtain Soil Conservation District approval as needed; b. Stormwater or drainage problems — none anticipated, stormwater is being handled per the plans, c. Significant diminution of the screening— new buffering and landscaping where there presently is little, is being provided. d. Sewerage problems — site plans indicated that the site is connected to a public sewer system and there was no indication that the proposed tree removal would have any effect upon sewage disposal; and a. Dangerous or hazardous conditions — the proposed site plan is for construction of twenty stacked townhouses and the proposed tree removal would not create any dangerous or hazardous conditions. 29. Variances may be granted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70-1 et seq. (the Municipal Land Use Law or “MLUL”). Under MLUL §70(c)(1) variances may be granted when unique or exceptional conditions caused by shape, size, topography or lawfully existing structures cause exceptional

nicipal Land Use Law or “MLUL”). Under MLUL §70(c)(1) variances may be granted when unique or exceptional conditions caused by shape, size, topography or lawfully existing structures cause exceptional difficulties or undue hardship for development of a specific piece of property. Variances may be granted under MLUL §70(c)(2) when it would further the purposes of zoning, the benefits outweigh the detriments, and it offers a better alternative than what is allowed by the Ordinance. In all instances the Applicant must also prove that granting the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Master Plan or zoning Ordinance. 5

30. The Board finds that the variance requested is warranted on c(2) grounds. The benefits of the proposal consist of the redevelopment of the site pursuant to the 2010 Master Plan and Redevelopment Plan, and will also promote a desirable visual environment furthering purpose §2(i) of the Municipal Land Use Law as well as promoting the general welfare by providing attractive housing furthering purpose §2(a) of the Municipal Land Use Law. 31. The Board finds further that granting the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public good. By upgrading and improving the site the application will further principles of the Master Plan and purposes of zoning thereby causing no substantial impairment to either. The minor deviation from the required 25-foot buffer is justified due to the constraints and topography of the land. 32. For all these reasons the Board finds that the Applicant has met both the positive and the negative criteria to qualify for the “c” variance relief requested. Issuance of a Tree Removal and Replacement permit is also warranted. THE DECISION AND CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the Board, having reviewed the application for Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval with “c” variance relief and a Tree Removal and Replacement permit, and having considered the evidence submitted, and having considered the impact of the proposed application on the Township and its residents and the surrounding property owners, and having considered whether the variance request complies with and furthers the goals of the Master Plan and zoning ordinances of the Township of West Orange and the Municipal Land Use Law; hereby, concludes that good cause has been shown to grant the application. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Township of West Orange that the application for preliminary and final site plan approval with “c” variances and a Tree Removal and Replacement Permit as set forth in the plans, reports, representations, testimony, stipulations and Exhibits offered by the Applicant is hereby approved subject to the following conditions. 1. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Township, County and State laws, ordinances, regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining all applicable local and state approvals and/or permits. 2. In the event that any other required regulatory approval conflicts with

regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining all applicable local and state approvals and/or permits. 2. 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.