April 28, 2022 Regular Meeting

Chairman Neuer closed public hearing. CLOSING STATEMENT ¢ Ms. Lisa John-Basta, Esq. in her closing arguments said that the existing Bowling Alley itself is a nonconforming use. It is currently a dilapidated and unusable building. In her opinion, significant modifications have been made to the plans since its first appearance as requested by the Board. (i.e. Building height has been reduced by one and a half feet to comply with height requirements, the orange band on top of the building was removed, the fagade and materials were changed, the steep slope variances were eliminated entirely, building footprint was reduced by approximately 500 square feet, all sixty-six spaces within the front yard of property and some of the existing nonconforming conditions were eliminated in their entirety.) © In regards to the parking at the front of the property by anyone, including the applicant any such request to construct parking will require an application to this Board for approval. ¢ Revised plans submitted by the applicant show proposed solar panels on the roof and two designated parking spaces to be utilized by the public for access to Crystal Lake which Ms. John-Basta characterized as the applicant being a good corporate citizen. ¢ Merits to the application for a vote according to Ms. John-Basta are as follows: planning proofs to show the granting of the application, new variances boil down to three (3): Use variance for the proposed self- storage; height for an additional half story (although the proposal does meet the code requirements as measured in feet), and in loading spaces. Application ZB-20-16 PS Atlantic Coast LLC concluded. BOARD DISCUSSION ¢ Chairman Neuer said that there are permitted uses that could be placed on this property that would be far more compatible with Crystal Lake, the Eagle Rock Reservation, and the Lenape Trail which are all part of what makes West Orange the vibrant community that exists currently. Chairman also cited “Belleville v. Parrillo’s Inc.” (1980) and “Grundlehner v. Dangler” (1959) regarding the need to eliminate and not expand non-conforming uses such as exists in this case. The land should be restored to the use it was originally zoned for and the way the Master Plan intended it to be. “It is our job to eliminate nonconforming uses, not continue them and certainly not to expand them or intensify them.” Chairman

was originally zoned for and the way the Master Plan intended it to be. “It is our job to eliminate nonconforming uses, not continue them and certainly not to expand them or intensify them.” Chairman Neuer continued providing further reasons to deny this application including the absence of credible proofs that this proposed use is particularly suited for this site, ° Mr. Jonathan Redwine agrees with Chairman Neuer and will vote in favor of denial. ° Mr. Jerome Eben agrees with Chairman Neuer and will vote no in regards to this application. He opined to say that he is appalled at the condition of the site. e Mr. Irv Schwarzbaum concurs with Chairman Neuer and opined that the public pushed his vote as not one person has commented in favor of this application. He also opined saying that this applicant was asked multiple times to Consider requests by various members of the Board and other than a few minor concessions the applicant would not cooperate with the Board.