May 20, 2021 Regular Meeting

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING May 20, 2021 8:00 P.M. The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a meeting on May 20, 2021 commencing 8:00PM utilizing the virtual Zoom platform. Chairman Neuer called the meeting to order at approximately 8:03 P.M. It was announced that notification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, the West Orange Chronicle and the Star Ledger and posted on the Township Bulletin Board in accordance with the “Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act.” Chairman Neuer asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Alice Beirne Esq., read the opening statement. Present: Jerome Eben, Philip D. Neuer, Bart Quentzel, Jonathan Redwine, Peter Ricci, Irv Schwarzbaum, William Steinhart, Dr. Michael Straker, Mark Sussman (arrival 8:08PM), Alice Weiss Absent: M. Straker [excused absence] Also Present: Paul Grygiel, Acting Planning Director for Township John Hess, Consulting Engineer for the Township Alice Beirne, Esq. Board Attorney Diana L. Chandler, Acting Board Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Meetings: June 10, 2021 (Special Meeting) June 17, 2021 (Regular) July 15, 2021 (Regular) SWEARING IN Township Professional(s)

RESOLUTIONS 1) ZB-21-02/Santiago (Approved 4/15/2021) Block: 85.06; Lot:2; Zone: R-5 205 Mt. Pleasant Avenue. “C” Side Yard Variance to replace front and side decks with a wraparound porch. Changes to Original Variance Request Motion: Mr. Schwarzbaum Second: Mr. Redwine ADOPTED Eben: Y | Straker (Alt.4): Quentzel (Alt. 1): I Sussman (Alt. 3): Redwine: Y | Weiss: Y Ricci: Y i Chairman Neuer: yy Schwarzbaum: Bd Yes: 6; No: 0 Steinhart: APPLICATIONS 1. 1. ZB -19-10/955 Pleasant Valley Way, LLC Carried from 3/29/2021 Block: 172.02; Lots: 8.01 & 8.03; Zone B-2 955 & 963 Pleasant Valley Way Seeking “d” use and height variances and “c” variances and preliminary and final major site plan approval to construct a four (4) story self-storage facility. Presentation: Jason Tuvel, Esq. (applicant’s attorney) entered his appearance on the record. Ms. Rhonda Reinstein was designated the official court reporter for this application. Prior hearings on this matter were: February 20, 2020 July 16, 2020 August 20, 2020 September 24, 2020 November 19, 2020 January 21, 2021 March 29, 2021 - Chairman Neuer stated for the record that all members of board who may have missed one or more meetings have certified that they have either listened to the audio or read the transcripts so all regular members of the Board are eligible should this matter come to a vote at this meeting.

— Mr. Tuvel explained that after the 3/29 Meeting, the main issue of comment discussed was the disturbance of the slope. The applicant reduced the building size once again. The reduction moved the building further away from the cliff by nearly sixteen feet, thereby reducing the disturbance to the steep slope. This also reduced building coverage by 14%. Another thing done was a large change to the architectural plan but added an additional feature of shutters to the building to break up the facade and make it look more residential in nature. - Mr. Jeffrey Martell was sworn under oath and presented his credentials as an in the field of civil engineering; Mr. Martell is a licensed professional engineer in the State of New Jersey and he was accepted as an expert. The witness showed the core changes made to the Site Plan based on the reduction in the size of the building, how it affects the rear set back as well as the buffer to the rear (referring to Exhibit A-26 dated May 7th 2021). Generally speaking, the applicant has pulled the building back to reduce the depth of the building. The steep slope to the rear of the property begins about two-thirds of the back and the construction disturbance in the slope is significantly reduced. The witness referenced an updated version of what was marked for identification as Exhibit A-27). Full elevations and floor plans show the shutters that were introduced, the planter areas, etc, A Site Plan rendering dated May 7, 2021 was marked for identification as Exhibit A-28. Based on these revisions, more than double the Slope stabilization will be implemented. A cross section comparison exhibit dated May 7, 2021 was marked for identification as Exhibit A-29. The site plan rendering, elevations and floor plans are based on all these latest changes on the architectural plans. The application meets or exceeds all the residential setback and buffer requirements and the latest change caused the reduction in building coverage and lot coverage by approximately 14%. Board Questions: - Mr, Eben asked why landscaping isn’t being filled in? Last time it was relatively close to the rear of the building. There could be additional landscaping added into that void created by the reduction of the size of the building. Mr. Martell responded that they obviously wanted to keep the landscaping output on the higher side of the Hill so it would be

added into that void created by the reduction of the size of the building. Mr. Martell responded that they obviously wanted to keep the landscaping output on the higher side of the Hill so it would be effective as a buffer for the neighboring properties. - Mr. Eben asked about the percentages that were violating steep slope requirements and how much of the slope has been in violation. Mr. Martell explained that the steep slope calculations are on Sheet T-17 in the Site Plan set. The calculations are all there. - Mr. Peter Ricci, asked if by moving the building and cutting off several feet is it more than one story and is actually below grade. -Mr. Eben stated his interpretation of the calculation of the lot coverage due to the steep slope application. He then quoted the steep slope and natural features ordnance. Section 25-28 of the Land Use Regulation Ordinance or zoning ordinance of the Township code stating that applicant cannot cover this much of the lot. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

-Kevin Malanga (57 Ridge Road) Asked whether the applicant would consider filling in some of the slope and putting soil on top of the slope to create a condition to get water pitched positively away from the area. This is the side of the building, so that it is really kind of following the existing grade. Mr. Martell explained that sloping the area from the rear wall of the building towards the front wall of the building is not the correct analysis. The steep slope area is the whole site where it has a steeper slope area of 25% or greater and generally ends, then the site topography flattens out where the areas previously developed in the center of the property. Mr. Martell said that what has been done to this steeper slope areas (areas over 25%), was that sixteen feet has been taken off the back of the building to reduce encroachment into that slope. -Mrs. Sally Malanga (57 Ridge Road) wanted to understand the encroachment on the steep slope because from the drawings it seemed that the slope is not encroaching at all Mr. Martell explained that it requires reviewing cross sections, grading plans and the detailed engineering plans to see the full story. Grading and excavating the slope as opposed to putting additional soil on top of the slope to control the drainage coming down the hill will stabilize the slope and create a flat area behind the building; that can control the runoff and correct it. -Mrs. Sally Malanga asked what will happen to the trees in this area now? How many trees have to be removed from that area? Mr. Martell explained that the setback area where they are using fill there will be generally little vegetation. -Mrs. Sally Malanga asked if there was any drilling required now for this plan. Mr. Martell explained that 25% will be excavating foundation doing things of that nature. But only on 25% of the slope. PUBLIC COMMENT -Mr. Manuel Lim, (938 Pleasant Valley Way) was sworn Under oath. Chairman Neuer reminded Mr. Lim that he is limited to additional testimony based upon the testimony adduced this evening. Mr. Lin testified that self-storage units are undesirable uses. In his opinion, if this site is so particularly suitable and one must question why a variance for building coverage of 40% greater coverage is required and it is apparent to Mr. Lim that the applicant has not shown sufficient reasons for the grant of the use variance. He

uestion why a variance for building coverage of 40% greater coverage is required and it is apparent to Mr. Lim that the applicant has not shown sufficient reasons for the grant of the use variance. He brought up an example of the manhole at 955 Pleasant Valley Way where the patrol car shows up a few minutes later and the officer would restore the manhole cover and the pressure has resulted in a sinkhole in the middle of the street that the existing storm drain system downstream of this site is barely able to accommodate. This application adding approximately 21,000 square feet of additional impervious surface flow would double the intensity and volume of water flow. Short of a major improvement in the Storm drain line, the addition will exacerbate existing conditions. Even though the applicant has designed for underground detention, this will simply supercharge the underwater table which will result in flooding that will move contaminants from this property.. Because of all this and more, Mr. Lim recommends rejecting the variance requested by the applicant. -Ms. Leanna Torrice (21 Ronald Terrace) was sworn under oath. and testified that with the new school bus transportation going on and where the walking distance to school is 2 1/2 miles, what is the impact on children walking to their schools? Chairman Neuer explained that there was

traffic testimony, a number of meetings ago, but we don't have a traffic engineer here, Mr. Tuvel responded in the affirmative that at this meeting they don't have anybody at this meeting to respond to that question. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CLOSING STATEMENTS -Mr. Tuvel explained that with the Board’s and the Public's help in providing comments, this project is even better than when it first began. When first proposed, this project required a height variance. It was several stories greater than what it is today Since then, the building’s been reduced to 85,679 square feet and the height variance associated with this application is no longer necessary. -In terms of landscaping, the applicant substantially increased the landscaping in the buffer area even further today by increasing the buffer over sixteen feet. The application meets or exceeds all the set back and buffer requirements. -Signage has been reduced and is now compliant with the West Orange Ordinance. -Parking variance that was initially associated with the project has also been eliminated with more parking and loading areas added and based on the reduction of the building size. -Storm Water Management has been improved and have met ordinance requirements. -One substantial change made to this application, is the architecture and the look of the building. The Board challenged the applicant to have building look more residential in nature. To meet this, a number of items have been added and the roof was made more aesthetically pleasing for residents above the property. -To summarize in respect to traffic, in the morning peak hour this site would generate only five cars coming on to the site in the morning. At evening, peak hour only eight cars coming on to the site and off and on the weekends. The traffic engineer gave many examples of uses that are permitted in the zone that would be exponentially greater. - Ms. Joyce Rudin (38 Woodland Ave), had her hand raised but was just now recognized. Ms. Rudin was sworn under oath and testified that even though the applicant has really jumped through hoops to try to satisfy a lot of the conditions there are still some very important things that have not been addressed. This application has a huge impact on our community for a very long time and it is not the appropriate site. [t was said in earlier testimony that there will be nobody at the site who

been addressed. This application has a huge impact on our community for a very long time and it is not the appropriate site. [t was said in earlier testimony that there will be nobody at the site who could provide surveillance between the hours of 10:00PM — 6:00AM. - Ms. Rudin added that while the reduction in size and the reduced disruption to the steep slope is appreciated, the testimony tonight still said that there will be disruption to the slope and this could cause a landslide. In earlier testimony it was cited that the impact is to the hillside will be unknown until the drilling starts and at that point the engineer stated that they may have to stop

and reassess as they are drilling in each pile. While she knows it is a difficult location to find a business, in her opinion it is not the job of the Zoning Board to approve of this but it is the job of the Zoning Board Members to assure that our community is safe and that any application will assure the Community safety. Ms. Rudin urged Board to vote against this proposal. -Mr. Tuvel responded to Ms, Rudin’s comment that it will only be open 6am to 10:00PM and would be closed to the public at all other times. There was extensive environmental testimony to comply with NJDEP requirements, the steep slope has been reviewed by the applicant’s engineer and the Board Engineer as well. Applicant has met all standards and methodologies to stabilize and keep the slope safe and actually make it better than it is today. BOARD DISCUSSION - Mrs. Weiss, asked for clarification in regards to the hours of operation and entrance after 10:00PM. Mr. Tuvel responded that nobody can enter after 10:00PM. Chairman Neuer asked for confirmation that no one will be able to go in and out. Mr. Tuvel answered in the affirmative. -Mr. Schwarzbaum said there has been a lot of discussion in regards to the slope of the property. It looks like there is a substantial amount of soil erosion currently on the property and the applicant has indicated that they are going to put in stabilization mats which I believe that what is proposed will be a substantial improvement. If nothing is done to this property, there is potential that the soil erosion could impact the property at the western side on the hill. The property will continue to experience erosion if it is not stabilized and eventually it could start impacting adjoining properties. The applicant has been very responsive to the suggestions and comments from the board as has been indicated, and without substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zoning plan and the zoning ordinances of the municipality, the proposed self- storage facility is consistent with the type of uses permitted, much lower traffic generation than the permitted uses. While the site is in is in proximity to residential uses, it is not located in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinances have been satisfied. The granting of the variances will not result in a substantial detriment to the intent of the zone

of a residential neighborhood. Purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinances have been satisfied. The granting of the variances will not result in a substantial detriment to the intent of the zone plan and the granting of the variance will not result in a substantial detriment to the public good. Mr. Schwarzbaum strongly urged my fellow board members to approve this project. - Mr. Eben said that this is an existing and now totally vacant site and has been an eyesore for the past twenty years, There is absolutely no reason to throw out the master plan reexamination report and zoning ordinance by granting a variance and disregarding those documents. Susan Borg, worked hard to protect steep slopes. Mr. Eben informed the Board that none of these neighbors have spoken in favor of this project. In his opinion the applicant did not meet the enhanced quality of proof as required to demonstrate the proposed use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Master Plan. There is no value for West Orange there is no undue hardship for the applicant. Mr. Eben expressed that he was looking for any positive reasons that would allow him to vote for this project simply are none to be had. It is not advisable to approve it this evening with all of the reasons that I stated in terms of the use. In terms of the C variances, even in terms of the dumpster that is in the front yard that could have been inside the building. That would give an extra parking space. This building will dwarf every other adjacent building within 500 foot radius. While the building height and stories have been reduced, portions of the