April 7, 2021 Adopted Planning Board Minutes

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MEETING MINUTES April 7, 2021 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held its’ regular meeting April 7, 2021 at 7:30PM yia virtual ZOOM videoconference. Chairman Bagoff called the meeting to order at approximately 7:34 PM. 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 held Wednesday May 5, 2021 at 7:30 P.M via ZOOM. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Dr. Robert Bagoff; Mr. Jerry Guarino; Councilwoman Susan McCartney; Mr. John McNair; Mr. Peter Smeraldo, Jr; Mr. Andrew Trenk; Mr. William Wilkes Absent: Mr. Lee Klein Also Present: Kenneth D. McPherson III, Esq., Attorney; Diana Chandler, (Proxy for Sean McCauley), Planning Board Secretary ADOPT MINUTES e Adopt Minutes from January 6, 2021 Regular Meeting, January 20, 2021 Special Meeting, and February 3 2021 Regular Meeting Adopt 1/6/2021 Meeting Minutes: Motion: J. Guarino Second: R. Bagoff ADOPTED Bagoff: Y Smeraldo: Y Guarino: Y Trenk: Yi Johnson: Y Wilkes: Y Klein: NA McCartney: Y McNair: ¥. Adopt 1/20/2021 Special Meeting Minutes: Motion: R. Bagoff Second: S. McCartney ADOPTED Bagoff: Y Smeraldo: Y Guarino: Y Trenk: Y Johnson: _NA Wilkes: Y Klein: NA

McCartney: —Y MeNair: Y Adopt 2/3/2021 Special Meeting Minutes: Motion: R. Bagoff Second: J. Guarino ADOPTED Bagoff: ¥ Smeraldo: Y Guarino: Y Trenk: Y Johnson: NA Wilkes: NA Klein: NA McCartney: Y McNair: Y SWEARING IN: Ms. Susan Gruel, P. P. was sworn in Mr. Paul Grygiel was sworn in APPLICATIONS 1 PB-19-09/732 Eagle Rock Avenue, LLC (Resolution Adopted April 4, 2020) Block: 177; Lot: 26; Zone: R-4 732 Eagle Rock Avenue Seeking minor subdivision and variance approvals to create two lots DISCUSSION: -Mr. McPherson addressed the Board about how the applicant is seeking to modify Condition E of the Resolution passed on original application April 4, 2020. Condition reads “Existing dwelling must be renovated prior to the issue of Certificate of Occupancy. Modification of prior Condition: - Chairman Bagoff reminded Public that Conditioi change is the only thing we will be hearing in regards to this application. -Mr. Peter Smeraldo point of order before application is fully heard. He was absent and wanted to have on the record that he reviewed all infortnation and audio transcription and while didn’t vote on partictilar application, he is prepared to do so this evening. - Attorney for applicant, Mr. James Parisi Esq., explained that due to the dilapidated condition of the Foundation of the existing dwelling, it is not suitably safely for a two story dwelling. Upon exposing existing surface of the foundation the architect determined that it is not suitable for renovation and needs to be demolished completely and a new foundation be installed. As a result applicant applied to Construction Dept for a demolition permit however, were denied on basis of condition to the Resolution which did not allow for the demolition of the existing structure. On January 29, 2021 a letter was submitted to Mr. McPherson asking for relief from this condition. Together with the letter Mr. James Parisi submitted a report from Architect, Mr. William J. Martin regarding his professional opinion on the condition of the foundation. In support of client’s request for a demolition permit. - Mr. William J. Martin was sworn in by Mr. McPherson, entered on the record and qualified himself to Board as an Architect. He then submitted letter dated December 1, 2020 addressing issue before Board and attached to letter were photographs. He visited the property in question twice

ified himself to Board as an Architect. He then submitted letter dated December 1, 2020 addressing issue before Board and attached to letter were photographs. He visited the property in question twice (October 8, 2020 and October 12, 2020). There are several structures on property. Main focus on living space. After October 8, 2020 visit, Mr. Martin requested Ms. Stanziale

(Applicant) to do some selective demolition to expose interior areas of the foundation because he found some inconsistencies on what he could see on the finished side of the foundation. On October 12, was told by Applicant that was done and returned to view results. Found many issues of concern. First. The foundation fixed /modified at many different times and sections. Original foundation which is approximately 50% of what is there in terms of the coverage is approximately 100 years old. It is made of a rubble stone and some brick work mixed in as well. Older part of the structure is uneven. There is also a secondary section of the stone that appears to be a part of an addition added to the rear in concrete block material. In his opinion, no way to determine a proper footing under this stone of this foundation is unsuitable as age has loosened the mortar and doesn’t appear to be done by a professional Mason and does not present itself like a professional Masonry installation. Gives concerns to stability and especially its ability carry the roof loads and floor loads to support floors above and or used as foundation for the house itself. If does by a professional we would not see the inconsistencies that he saw when there. Basement structure is out of square. Mr. Martin referenced irregularities in pictures of the aforementioned letter. Main opinion of this property is that, “It is unsuitable to support additional floors above.” Mr. Martin summed his presentation up with that if this property was demolished and foundation and every aforementioned thing remedied it could another user/resident of West Orange at this location. BOARD QUESTIONS: -Councilwoman Susan McCartney asked if the new foundation was poured, will it change the footprint of the property. Mr. Martin responded that he was unsure. -Councilwoman McCartney asked Chairman Bagoff if that would change any of the other conditions that are in this original application. Chairman Bagoff deferred to Mr. McPherson said the applicant would stay have to comply with the other conditions which anticipate that the footing would remain the same for the new structure. Mr. James Parisi interjected that based on his understanding during a conversation with Mr. Marucci, when he created the subdivision plans (the ones that were approved by the Board previously) he took into consideration in the event that the old

s understanding during a conversation with Mr. Marucci, when he created the subdivision plans (the ones that were approved by the Board previously) he took into consideration in the event that the old house would have to be removed without requiring variances he doesn’t think it’s exactly the same but that it will be substantially similar. -Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. McPherson that if Board grants an amendment in relief and applicant changes the footprint of the building or would they have to come back before the Board or would they have to hear this tonight? Mr. McPherson’s reply was that the variance was granted because of the anticipated/existing footprint of the building so that would have to be another consideration because it would go against the variance and proposed that Board hears from Mr. Marucci. Councilwoman McCartney said that opening this to a larger discussion was not her intention, but she doesn’t want it to effect the other conditions. -Chairman Bagoff asked in the original Resolution was there a Site Plan offered (Preliminary/Final)? Mr. McPherson responded that there was not. Chairman Bagoff said if there weren’t Preliminary/Final Site Plans, it would just be for the subdivision of the land and renovation of the house. Mr. McPherson added with a variance to improve the quality of the land. -Chairman Bagoff said that if they would have to have a new Site Plan then and come back before us and if any variances, if no new variances they could just go to Building Department if it falls within the code. Mr. McPherson answered in the affirmative. So because of that, the Board does not need to hear from Mr. Marucci as the Site Plans and Subdivision are not part of this existing Application. Chairman Bagoff deferred to Mr. James Parisi and he responded that it made sense that the new structure would be conforming to the Zoning Ordinances and would not require any additional variances and can work directly with the Building Department. Mr. McPherson agreed stating that it would then be variance from this Resolution. Mr. Parisi confirmed that only

variance was required was in regards to the frontage and was in the lot that did not have the existing structure. Mr. Parisi, Mr. McPherson and Chairman Bagoff were in agreement that as long as it is 100 % conforming they would not have to appear before the Planning Board again. - Mr. Peter Smeraldo asked Mr. Martin about the loads of the roof and the floor in regards to the impact floor and clarification that once occupying would have great impact there on this particular structure. Mr. Martin responded that when he was referring to the loads he was referring to the live load and the dead load of the structure above sitting on what appears to him to be an unsuitable foundation. -Mr. Smeraldo followed up in reference to the age of the foundation that it has been subjected to the elements (i.e. water damage and things of that nature) especially if you’re saying it’s poorly constructed. Mr. Martin confirmed that there is indeed water damage that is visible in the mortar between the stones and the bricks that are there. This damage is part of why he feels it is unsuitable for purposes of the structure above. -Mr. Smeraldo asked for confirmation that elements could cause foundation to expand and contract seasonally. Mr. Martin said if the foundation had been constructed correctly in the first place, (and just because it’s 100 years old doesn’t mean it’s unsuitable) in this particular case the construction material and methods of construction were so poor and the water damages to the mortar of those factors on this site leave him to conclude that this foundation is unsuitable to support a rehabilitated structure. If someone were to do that, it could put the occupants in peril. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS: -No questions from Board Professionals. PUBLIC COMMENTS/QUESTIONS: QUESTIONS: -Ms. Alyse Lillis (726 Eagle Rock Avenue) asked in concern if the preexisting, and or new plan of proposed dwelling will attach the garage or not attach the garage. When it was discussed a year ago, her concern was the water going to run off to her property so once again she’s concerned about the runoff and whether the new construction is going to adhere to the blueprint. She also wanted to know if there were other plans in store for her property. Chairman Bagoff questioned whether there was testimony to what the new structure would look like but that it would conform to the Building

to know if there were other plans in store for her property. Chairman Bagoff questioned whether there was testimony to what the new structure would look like but that it would conform to the Building Codes in the Township. Mr. McPherson followed that he would like to note that Condition or finding a Fact in the Resolution that the applicant would provide a Stormwater Management Plan/Report. He believes that has been done already but asked for Mr. Martin or Mr. Parisi to follow up with that. The idea would be to remain in conformance with the prior approval. Mr. Parisi answered in the affirmative and proposed that if necessary he could bring on his Engineer. Chairman Bagoff followed this comment stating that if the Stormwater Management Plan/Report was a part of the application, there is no need for the additional testimony. Mr. McPherson agreed with Chairman Bagoff's remark. Ms. Alyse Lillis stated that the runoff has already changed. Once all of debris was taken off of 730, the vines that were climbing on top of all the dead wood there’s nothing holding back the water anymore. For example she watched a backhoe from 730 sink into the mud as there’s nothing holding back the water anymore. It is all swilled to the back of the property. -Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Parisi if the Stormwater Management Plan has been started yet. Mr. Parisi responded that he was not positive. Mr. McPherson suggested to defer to Mr. Marucci.

No Further Questions from Public COMMENTS: -Mr. Drew Lillis (726 Eagle Rock Avenue) commented about the Resolution specifically few of the items that were not addressed about the construction that is currently taking place. Chairman Bagoff’ reminded Mr. Drew Lillis that the Board is only talking about the demolition portion of the application. Mr. Drew Lillis replied that Mr. Parisi stated that all other aspects of Resolution would be followed. However, they have not been followed so it contradicts what he has just stated. Mr. McPherson agreed that since it is a comment, Mr. Lillis can continue. Mr. Lillis referenced Page 3 Item B “Existing wooded areas would have minimal tree removal and would not disturb the existing buffer of tree lines. If we receive prior and post conditions. They have removed numerous trees and underbrush as we have no buffer over that location. He also referenced Page 4, Section 2 A that the Applicant should apply for a Township Tree Removal Permit, he does not believe one was ever applied for. Has spoken to the Forester, and when he went to the site, he was told they could remove small trees, but did not know about the buffer at the time when he was there. Mr. Lillis continued on D, where he mentioned the proposal and application of a Stormwater Management Plan where grading plans needed to be submitted for review by the Township Engineer. Again, significant work has been done on the site but there is no one who has been aware of them taking care of that. Mr. Lillis continued on F, the applicant must maintain a 20 foot tree buffer which has all been removed. Mr. Lillis referenced on L, the applicant should take any action preventing a disturbance to the tree buffer. It was important in the original meeting, yet most of it has been removed. Mr. Lillis continued on M, the applicant should obtain all permits prior to commencement of development activity. Mr. Lillis knows that applicant has not gotten a County Road permit and have cut off the gas, sewer, water, and has disturbed most of the site which anything over 5,000 feet which requires a permit. They have installed a fence, where again Mr. Lillis states that it has not been done properly, but it is onsite. There were a bunch of conditions there were approved that the applicant said they would follow, but haven’t that needed to be addressed. Chairman Bagoff addressed Mr. Parisi and

rly, but it is onsite. There were a bunch of conditions there were approved that the applicant said they would follow, but haven’t that needed to be addressed. Chairman Bagoff addressed Mr. Parisi and Applicants saying that proceeding how this evening goes will move forward from there. Mr. Parisi agreed. Mr. William J. Martin testimony is concluded. - Mr. Anthony Marucci was sworn in by Mr. McPherson, entered on the record and qualified himself as an expert Professional Engineer and Planner. Mr. Parisi had Mr. Marucci start his testimony based on the Stormwater Management Plan. Mr. Marucci interrupted to be completely honest with the Board saying that he has not been out to the site in over one year since the survey was complete. Does not know what work the applicants have done, but have not done a grading plan yet. In order to build a new house, they have to give him a plan for that from an architect and they would do the grading plan. That’s when in the chain of everything that they would do the Stormwater Management Plan. That is also where they get the soil crosion permit from Hudson Essex Conservation District in order to get permits to build the house. That part has not been done yet. If there is a problem with drainage it is because it’s existing. A grading plan has been done yet. With respect to existing house, when subdividing the property he made a point to have that lot complete conforming with lot width and area. So in the event that the existing house, when looking at the outside of the house, it was in a state of disrepair but he did not go in as that is not part of the agreement with the applicant. If Board takes that condition off, and a new foundation is put there, his company will do a Stormwater Management Plan for that property as well going through the same process. BOARD QUESTIONS: -Councilwoman Susan McCartney asked how do we address the tree removal and any type of run off? Chairman Bagoff deferred to Mr. Marucci where he shared that right after the meeting regarding this application, he got COVID-19 and was out of work for seven months. Never saw the Resolution when it was adopted, or he would have commented at that time. Defers to applicants in regards to tree

removal. Cannot comment as he has not witnessed it. Mr. Marucci reiterated that once he is given plans for new house created lot, will do Reports and Permits at that time. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. McPherson that any tree removal would be based on the previous Resolution and it is subject to review by the Zoning Official. Mr. McPherson affirmed this statement and made a suggestion to the Board that they ask the other Board Professionals as well. -Councilwoman McCartney asked for clarification that if this is in the hands of the Zoning Official, is there a status on what that is? How do we protect the homeowners or address the issue that was just raised. How do mediate what is happening to the other residents? Chairman Bagoff said that whatever the conditions of the Resolution were in 2020 the applicant has to fulfill that. If there’s any variance from that the Zoning Official will be the person to review it and address the issues. Chairman Bagoff said that Zoning Official is in meeting and will receive information by the end of the week to look into this and see what was done. Mr. McPherson wanted to add that before the applicant can get a Certificate of Occupancy, the other conditions still have to be met. -Mr. Jerry Guarino asked for clarification that before Mr. Marucci can do another water analysis and analysis, does a new foundation need to be done first? Or does he need the plans for the structure? Mr. Marucci responded stating that he needs the plans for the structure first to be sure that it meets all the setbacks/footprint of the house. Those plans would include a new foundation. No Further Board Questions No Questions/Comments from Public Testimony Closed in regards to this application. PB-19-09/732 Eagle Rock Avenue, LLC: Motion: R. Bagoff Second: E. Johnson MOTION CARRIES Bagoff: Y Smeraldo: Y Guatitio: NA Trenk: Y Johrison: Y Wilkes: Y Klein: NA McCartney: Y MeNair: NA Chairwoman McCartney voted “Yes” on the need for a new foundation and other outstanding issues are addressed. BREAK FROM 8:25-8:31pm 2. PB-20-03/The Alpert Group, LLC Block: 9; Lots: 32, 36; Zone: Central Valley C; 8-10, 18 Central Avenue; Preliminary and final site plan approval with variances DISCUSSION: -Mr. William Sullivan, Esq. entered on the record for the Applicant. He explained that all of these lots in question are currently owned by the Township of West