April 4, 2012

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 4, 2012 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held a regular meeting on April 4, 2012 at 8:00 P.M., in Council Chambers, 66 Main Street. Chairman Bagoff called the meeting to order at approximately 8:00 P.M. It was announced that notification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, the West Orange Chronicle and posted on the Township Bulletin Board on January 4, 2012 in accordance with the requirements of the “Open Public Meetings Act”. Chairman Bagoff requested all persons in attendance stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Chairman Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Vice Chairman Ben Heller, Lee Klein, Jason Lester, Councilwoman Susan McCartney, Ron Weston ABSENT: William Wilkes I ALSO PRESENT: Susan Borg, Planning Director Leonard Lepore, Engineering Director Debbie Dillon Audio Transcription Service, LLC Patrick Dwyer, Esq., Board Attorney Robin Miller, Board Secretary ROLL CALL Chairman Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Vice Chairman Ben Heller, Lee Klein, Jason Lester, Councilwoman Susan McCartney, Ron Weston, William Wilkes, ADOPT MINUTES The minutes of the March 7, 2011 Planning Board meeting were unanimously adopted. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next regular Planning Board meeting will be held on May 2, 2012 in Council Chambers at 8:00 P.M. SWEARING IN Director Borg was sworn in. Director Lepore was sworn in. NAPLANNING.BRO\WPUMINUTESI201214-4-2012 Revised Draft Minutes.dac 1

RESOLUTIONS PB-12-01T/449 West Orange, LLC Block: 157; Lot(s): 8.01, 8.05; Zone: B-2 449 Mount Pleasant Avenue Technical Site Plan for Medical Offices. Carried from the March 7, 2012 meeting. DISCUSSION Chairman Bagoff announced the Application and requested Mr. Weston address the Board regarding its status. Mr. Weston described the Application timeline, The Application was previously approved at the February 9, 2012 Technical Review Subcommittee meeting, but due to questions raised by the Board at the March 7, 2012 public meeting , it was decided and agreed that the Applicant needed to submit revised plans to the Technical Review Committee at their next meeting on March 15, 2012. Mr. Weston stated the revised plans satisfied the questions from the public meeting; the Application was now compliant. Mr. Gurland stated that he attended the Technical Review meeting. He agreed the Application was compliant, but stated that in his opinion the drawings were schematic. Director Borg read the conditions listed on the proposed Resolution: Director Borg read the conditions listed on the proposed Resolution: qd The driveway apron shall be replaced and reconstructed; (2) The parking lot shall be resurfaced or patched and the parking spaces shall be re-striped; (3) The grass-strip along Route 10 and the parking lot shall have low vegetation plantings; (4) The dumpster and recycling area shall be screened by fencing; (5) Broken windows in the rear of the building shall be replaced and damaged storm window guards shall be replaced; (6) There shall be plantings along the rear wooden fence area to the west of the property; (7 The drop-off on the west side of the property shall have a railing or hedges; (8) The existing building mounted light fixtures shall be replaced by shoe-box type light fixtures and shall be shielded so as not to shine onto adjacent properties; NAPLANNVING. BRDUVPMINUTES|2012\4-1-2012 Revised Draft Minutes.doe 2

(9) The canopy elevation shall be of sufficient height to allow emergency vehicle access; (10) The HVAC apparatus shall be relocated to the westerly side of the building and shall be screened by slatted fencing; (11) | Trees shall be trimmed from the bottom; and (12) “Do Not Enter” and “Exit Only” signs shall be mounted on a canopy post as shown on plans. (13) | Basement shall be used for storage only. (14) Applicant shall provide an area tabulation of the square footage of all levels. (15) New stairway to be enclosed shall have direct egress to exterior. (16) A Site Lighting Plan shall be approved prior to the final Plans being signed. The Board had no questions or comments, Chairman Bagoff called for a vote on the resolution. The Board voted on the resolution as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Councilwoman McCartney Carlucci: Yes Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes Gurland: = Yes Heller: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Yes McCartney: Yes Weston: Yes Wilkes: - Bagoff: Yes PB-12-05T/Rock Spring Club Block: 46.01; Lots: 22 through 33 Block: 160; Lots: 2 & 10 Block: 160.01; Lots: 30 & 34 Zone: R-1 90 Rock Spring Road Technical Site Plan for addition to an existing poolside snack bar kitchen and patio improvements. DISCUSSION Chairman Bagoff announced the Application and requested Mr. Weston address the Board regarding its status. Mr. Weston gave a brief description of the Application. He advised the Board the Application had been approved with conditions at the March 15, 2012 Technical Review Subcommittee meeting. Director Borg read the conditions listed on the proposed Resolution: NAPLANNING.BRO\IVPUMENUTES(2012\4-4-2012 Revived Draft Minntes.doc

1. All plans for renovations to the kitchen must be approved by the West Orange Health Department. 2. All alternations/renovations shall comply with the barrier free sub code including a 36“width segment of the poolside snack bar counter. Councilwoman McCartney said the Technical Review Committee had requested an additional condition regarding drainage issue. Director Lepore said the drainage patterns that have been in place for thirty years would remain the same. Chairman Bagoff stated that an additional condition be added to the Resolution requesting the Applicant maintain the current established drainage patterns in the Club’s parking lot. The Board had no further questions or comments. Chairman. Bagoff called for a vote on the resolution. The Board voted on the resolution as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Ghebremicael Carlucci: Yes Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes Gurland: Yes Heller: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Yes McCartney: Yes Weston: Yes Wilkes: - Bagoff: Yes PB-12-06T/S & L Opticians, Inc. d/b/a Pearle Vision Block: 155.21; Lot: 40; Zone: P-C 495 Prospect Avenue, Essex Green Shopping Center Technical Site Pian for interior renovations. Chairman Bagoff announced the Application and requested Mr. Weston address the Board regarding its status. Mr. Weston gave a brief description of the Application. He advised the Board the Application was for interior refurbishment only of existing Pearle Vision store. The Application had been approved with no conditions imposed at the March 15, 2012 Technical Review Subcommittee meeting. The Board had no questions or comments. Chairman Bagoff called for a vote on the resolution. The Board voted on the resolution as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Vice Chairman Heller Carlucci: Yes Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes Gurland: Yes Heller: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Yes McCartney: Yes Weston: Yes Wilkes: - Bagoff: Yes APPLICATION PB-12-04/7-Eleven Inc. Block: 10; Lot: 19; Zone: B-1 516 Valley Road NAPLANNING, BRD\WPUMINUTESI20 12144-2012 Revised Draft Minstes.doe

Preliminary and final site plan with bulk variances and soil removal permit for a new retail convenience store. EXHIBITS A-1: Affidavit of Notice A-2: Site Plan— Revised 2/17/12 A-3: Sheet RBI - Review Board-Floor Plan and Sheet RB2 — Review Board-Exterior Elevations Traffic Impact Analysis — Staigar & Peregoy, LLC Planning Report — Robert P. Freud, PE, PP. - InSite Engineering Board RB3 — Review Board Perspective-Proposed Building Design-Exterior Perspective 3/29/12 Aerial Exhibit Board 4/4/12 Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan Rendering - Revised 3/27/12 Sheet RB4 — Sight Line Sections — 3/29/12 : Truck Turning Plan — 4/4/12 DISCUSSION Antimo A. Del Vecchio, Esq, Beattie Padovano, LLC was sworn in, Mr. Del Vecchio introduced himself as the attorney representing the Applicant, 7-Eleven, Inc. Mr. Del Vecchio said the Application was for property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Valley Road and Central Avenue, the Applicant proposes to demolish the existing site and build a new 2,684 square foot one-story convenience store with associated parking, lighting and landscaping. The Application includes three distinct variances for impervious coverage, front yard parking and freestanding sign. Mr. Del Vecchio introduced his first witness, Robert P. Freud, PE, PP, InSite Engineering, LLC. Mr. Freud was sworn in and stated his credentials. Mr. Freud was accepted as an expert witness as both engineer and planner. Referring to Exhibit A-7 — Aerial photo of the property, Mr. Freud described the property as a mixed community consisting of residential and commercial properties. Mr. Freud said the area to the east in the City of Orange is more industrial. Describing the current property, Mr. Freud said it was mostly impervious coverage with no vegetation. Mt. Freud referred to Exhibit A-8, which he said showed the same orientation as Exhibit A-7. This rendering was a combination of the proposed site plan and landscaping plan. The proposed plan pushes the new property back to the north property line and will have a nicely defined comer with significant landscaping. All gas pumps will be removed; there will be fourteen parking spaces. The property will have driveway access from both Central Avenue and Valley Road. On the Central Avenue side, one existing driveway would be eliminated — essentially taking a space that is entirely paved

e property will have driveway access from both Central Avenue and Valley Road. On the Central Avenue side, one existing driveway would be eliminated — essentially taking a space that is entirely paved and returning it to lawn area. At both entrances, thirty feet throat driveways are proposed. A white vinyl fence would be installed around the rear perimeter of the property with varying heights from four to six feet. The loading and trash areas would be located on the right side of the building. Mr. Freud said that standard loading operations for 7-Eleven stores were defined by consolidated deliveries once or twice a week during off-peak hours. All deliveries come through the front door. The secondary door shown on the plans is for fire egress only. Afl delivery vehicles will enter on NAPLANNING.BRDUVPUMINUTES\201214-4-2012 Revised Draft Minmues.doc 5

Valley Road and exit on Central Avenue. Independent vendors using smaller vehicles, i.e. Frito Lay, would make additional deliveries. Mr. Freud said the position of the building to the rear of the property was a safety enhancement for customers. All parking spaces were positioned adjacent to the building, making it convenient, safe and easy for the customer. Customers do not have to walk through a parking lot to enter the building. Mr. Freud said that the Applicant will replace all curbs and sidewalks where needed. Currently, a brick ribbon along the curb was installed; the applicant would keep the sidewalk aligned and integrate the current streetscape pattern. The six feet wide sidewalk along the front of the store will also integrate the current streetscape pattern. Mr. Freud described the Applicant’s lighting plan. He said 7-Eleven has a strong “green initiative’; the Applicant will use LED fixtures with downward focus and no glare. The green colored canopies will have LED fixtures. Referring to Exhibit A-8- Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan Rendering — Mr. Freud discussed the exterior lot improvements. Existing pavement would be removed, returning a good portion to green space. The current condition has a gentle grade; the new patterns will mimic the current flow. Trench drainage would be installed. Mr. Freud described the proposed freestanding sign, explaining there was an existing freestanding sign on the property located at a 45-degree angle at the intersection of Central Avenue and Valley Road. The existing sign would be removed and replaced with a new sign in the same location with new landscaping around the base of the structure. Mr. Freud told the Board he believed the proposed pian would allow the business to operate in a safe manner and create a significant improvement to the area, all within zoning requirements. The impervious coverage will be in greater compliance than the current state; the four corners of the property would return to green area; the front yard parking variance creates better planning and enhances safety. The new sign would be a significant esthetic improvement. Mr. Freud concluded his testimony. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if there were any questions for Mr. Freud. Mr. Eben asked about back-up parking requirements; would there be enough space for cars to safely back-up when exiting. Mr. Eben said he was

asked the Board if there were any questions for Mr. Freud. Mr. Eben asked about back-up parking requirements; would there be enough space for cars to safely back-up when exiting. Mr. Eben said he was concerned with the white vinyl fence material and asked if the plan could be changed to use a more durable material. Mr. Eben asked if the height of the sign should be lowered to 14-feet to be mote in scale with the building. The Board discussed the height of the proposed sign. The current signage was allowed because a gas station was on the property. Director Borg listed examples of signage for other businesses in the area. The Board suggested the proposed sign should be more in keeping with the neighborhood; a monument sign would be better. Mr. Klein suggested that a monument sign with brick to match the facade of the building would be appropriate and still visible to passersby. Mr. Freud said he did not agree a monument sign would be a better NAPLANNING.BRD\WP\MINUTES\2012\4-4-2012 Revised Drafe Minutes.doc 6

option. Mr. Heller wanted to know if there were existing streetscape trees. Mr. Freud said the existing trees were in poor condition; the Township professionals’ recommendation was to remove those existing and plant new trees. Councilwoman McCartney commented the Applicant had presented a comprehensive plan. She said she was pleased with the changes to the impervious coverage to more green area. However, she thought the proposed freestanding sign was too large for the area. Additionally, she wanted to know the hours of operation. Mr. Heller asked for an updated plant schedule with details including the types of plantings to be installed; he said the plan should be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Heller wanted to know if there was the possibility for more impervious coverage revision. Mr. Weston said there had been no discussion of environmental issues. Mr. Del Vecchio said that 7-Eleven does not take control of a property until it has cleaned up by the property owner; all necessary permits would be submitted. Mr. Weston asked if the Applicant would be seeking LEED registration, as encouraged by the Master Plan. Mr. Freud said 7-Eleven does not necessarily seek the certification. Mr. Gurland asked if the front door entrance was mechanically operated; how would a person in a wheelchair enter the building. Mr. Freud said questions regarding the building should be referred to the Applicant’s architect. Mr. Freud described the handicap parking space located adjacent to the loading area. The Board and Mr. Freud discussed trench drainage plan. The Board and Mr. Freud discussed the schedule for garbage pick-up, truck deliveries and the truck path plan. There were no further questions from the Board. Director Lepore and Mr. Freud discussed the location of fence on the rear of property; how the use of the adjacent property might affect the maintenance of the fence. The adjacent property was now used for car parking and storage. Director Borg had no questions for Mr. Freud. The Public Advocate had no questions for Mr. Freud. Chairman Bagoff asked members of the Public if they had questions for Mr. Freud. Joseph Iatarola, $ Ora Court, East Hanover, was sworn in. Mr. latarola said he was the owner of the adjacent property on Valley Road. His said he was concerned with the proposed solid fence material and customers parking on his

t, East Hanover, was sworn in. Mr. latarola said he was the owner of the adjacent property on Valley Road. His said he was concerned with the proposed solid fence material and customers parking on his property. Mr. Freud said the fence would start 18 feet from the curb - it would be 4 feet in height in that area, then 6 feet in height behind the store. Mr. Del Vecchio said the Applicant would agree to revision that NaPLANNING.BRD\PAMINUTESW201 A to4-2012 Revised Drafi Minutes.toe 7