January 21, 2021 Regular Meeting

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING January 21, 2021 The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on January 21, 2021 commencing 8:00 PM utilizing the virtual Zoom platform. Chairman Neuer 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 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. PRESENT: J. Eben, D. Gabry, P. Neuer, B. Quentzel, J. Redwine, I. Schwarzbaum, M. Sussman, W. Steinhart, M. Straker, A. Weiss ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, Acting Planning Director for the Township John Hess, Consulting Engineer for the Township Alice Beirne, Esq., Board Attorney Rose DeSena, Board Secretary Sean McCauley, Acting Board Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS e Alternate Members Quentzel and Straker have not been reappointed as yet. They will attend but will not be eligible to participate in any application until officially reappointed. e Chairman Neuer presented a certificate to celebrate Rose DeSena’s retirement; Members of the Board, members of the public and the professional staff offered statements of praise for Rose and wished her well in her retirement. e Sean McCauley recognized as acting Zoning Board Secretary Future Meetings: February 18, 2021 (regular) March 18, 2021 (regular) April 15, 2021 (regular)

REORGANIZATION Vote: Philip D. Neuer was appointed Chairman Irv Schwarzbaum was appointed Vice-Chairman Sean McCauley was appointed Acting Board Secretary Alice Beirne was appointed Board Attorney Irv Schwarzbaum and Phil Neuer were appointed Site Plan Review Advisory Board Representatives MINUTES ADOPTED November 19, 2020 (regular meeting) December 17, 2020 (regular meeting) SWEARING IN Paul Grygiel, acting Planning Director for the Township and John Hess, consulting Engineer for the Township were sworn under oath. APPLICATIONS 1. ZB-19-10/955 Pleasant Valley Way, LLC Carried from 9/24/202 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 EXHIBITS A-1 — Aerial view of the site, prepared by Stonefield Engineering, dated 2/20/2020. A-2 — Concept plan B, prepared by Stonefield Engineering dated 11/15/2020 A-3 - Rendered site plan dated 7/16/2020 A-4 — Section exhibit dated 6/3/2020 A-S - Areas of Concern Map, prepared by Parsons, dated 02/05/2019 A-6 — Aerial view of proposed building and surrounding area A-T - Sheet A-7 of the revised rendered site plan dated 11/17/2020 A-8 — Architectural renderings of the proposed building e Chairman Neuer introduced court reporter Donna Arnold who was designated as the official reporter for this application. e Chairman Neuer introduced applicant’s attorney, Jason Tuvel. e Mr. Sussman recused himself from hearing this application. © Mr. Tuvel began by addressing issues brought up at last appearance: o Reduced height of building, now 35’; changed character of architecture to appear more residential; the roof will now be covered in green artificial turf and ivy as opposed to white to be more pleasing to residents who will see the roof; faux

windows were added; efforts made to further stabilize the slope; more bathrooms added at upper levels of building; door added to back of building to access landscaping for maintenance; an overall reduction in scale vs. the original plan. Height and parking variances now withdrawn due to plan changes. Mr. Tuvel introduced architect, Louis Vandeloecht; sworn in. Mr. Vandeloecht offered his credentials and was accepted as an expert in the field of architecture. Mr. Tuvel asked Mr. Vandeloecht to show previous rendering of building; followed by new rendering looking south from Pleasant Valley Way (Exhibit A-23); described changes that were made. Mr. Tuvel asked how many stories are now proposed; Mr. Vandeloecht responded that it is now (4) stories. Mr. Vandeloecht then showed a rendering looking north; and then an arial angular view, showing entirety of roof showing new look that includes false chimneys. Continued with a video (Exhibit A-22) from the front street view passing the building showing the new residential-style detail; stated that the entirety of the building has been reduced by a few thousand square feet. Mr. Tuvel asked Mr. Vandeloecht to describe the added bathrooms and back door. Mr. Vandeloecht used the floor plan (Exhibits A-1, A-3.1, ) to point out the new restrooms and the added rear door. Board Questions: Mr. Schwarzbaum asked to be shown which levels are above- and below-grade. o Mr. Vandeloecht stated that the first level is below-grade in the back, and above- grade in the front, and the rest are above grade with the 4th level being hidden in the new roof structure. Mr. Redwine inquired about the placement of air conditioning venting. o Mr. Vandeloecht showed on Exhibit A-5 where the a/c units will be placed on the roof; there are (22) small residential-size units. Public Questions: Charles Upshaw, 105 Roosevelt Avenue; asked about noise from a/c units. o Mr. Vandeloecht responded that they meet noise standards. Joyce Rudin, 38 Woodland Avenue; asked about plantings around building; renderings show mature trees, is that the plan? o Chairman Neuer stated that this witness did not testify to plantings and this was covered in previous meetings. Ms. Rudin asked about carcinogens in the artificial turf roof covering and heat that it may create. o Mr. Vandeloecht responded that several options were explored and this was chosen for its

etings. Ms. Rudin asked about carcinogens in the artificial turf roof covering and heat that it may create. o Mr. Vandeloecht responded that several options were explored and this was chosen for its consistency and low maintenance; and that he is not aware of carcinogen concerns. co Chairman Neuer asked if there was evidence of carcinogen issues; Ms. Rudin did not present any such evidence. Ms. Rudin asked about flame-retardant qualities of the turf, and if it presented a higher danger in case of fire. o Mr. Tuvel stated that it will meet fire code. Ms. Rudin asked if it needed to be replaced, would the old turf be in a landfill and how long would it take to decompose. o Mr. Vandeloecht replied that this was not studied.

e Ms. Rudin asked about if LEED Certification was being sought. o Mr. Vandeloecht responded in the negative. e Kevin Malanga, 57 Ridge Road; inquired about the definition of a faux-window. o Mr. Vandeloecht responded it is a real window covered in film that does not let light through. e Mr. Malanga asked if a real turf roof was considered; and if it was possible. o Mr. Vandeloecht stated yes, but the applicant chose the artificial; and the weight of real turf is restrictive. ¢ Mindy Schwartzman, 2 Roosevelt Avenue; asked if this will be a 24/7/365 business. o Chairman Neuer stated that this had been previously discussed. o Mr. Vandeloecht stated that it will not be. End of public questions Additional Board Questions: e Mr. Schwarzbaum asked about the change in square footage; and how added bathrooms affected this. e Mr. Vandeloecht used Exhibits A-0 and A-3 to show the changes; and that the bathrooms added no square footage, but reduced rentable area. Mr. Vandeloecht’s testimony concluded e Mr. Tuvel introduced the applicant’s Civil Engineer, Mr. Jeffrey Martell; he was sworn in and offered his credentials. Mr. Martell was accepted as an expert in the field of civil engineering. e Mr. Tuvel asked Mr. Martell to discuss previous Board question regarding stabilizing the slope. e Mr. Martell showed sheet plan C-9 from the site plan and spoke of meeting with Board Engineer John Hess and discussing measures to stabilize the slope; including adding brick wrap structures and erosion mattings in key areas; additionally, showed Exhibit A- 17 to show slope from several angles. e Additionally, Mr. Tuvel stated that the applicant intends to comply with Mr. Hess’ most recent review memo dated November 12, 2020. e Mr. Tuvel asked if any landscaping plans had changed since last discussed. e Mr. Martell responded in the negative. Board Questions: e¢ Mr. Eben inquired about how the erosion matting works with the plantings; will one affect the other? o Mr. Martell responded that neither will affect the other; there are steps in how this would be gone about; such as, making sure there is stabilization before cutting through matting to install landscaping. e Mr. Eben offered a potential condition to have an independent landscape architect and/or erosion expert monitor the work. o Mr. Martell responded that the applicant would be open to this. e Chairman Neuer

en offered a potential condition to have an independent landscape architect and/or erosion expert monitor the work. o Mr. Martell responded that the applicant would be open to this. e Chairman Neuer asked to see Exhibit A-17; asked where the erosion matting would be placed and if it could be extended to additional areas. o Mr. Martell showed the area and stated that adding additional matting where it is not needed could be counterproductive and/or difficult to lay around existing

vegetation. Ms. Gabry inquired if the matting would remain after construction; and asked how susceptible it is to weather events. o Mr. Martell stated that the matting will ultimately become part of the land o Mr. Hess added that the addition of the matting was a topic that he discussed with Mr. Martell and that this is acceptable. Public Questions Charles Upshaw, 105 Roosevelt Avenue; asked if the line of disturbance is within 100’ of the ridge line. o Mr. Martell responded that, in parts, yes Mr. Upshaw stated that Ordinance 25-28.8:B stated that the line of disturbance must be no closer than 100’ from the ridge line. co Mr. Martell responded that the application is seeking relief from this. Mr. Upshaw asked if the matting will be effective in areas exceeding the standard. o Mr. Martell responded in the affirmative. Mr. Upshaw asked about current trees with exposed roots and if the vibrations of digging will affect them. o Mr. Martell responded in the negative. Manuel Lin, 938 Pleasant Valley Way; asked about details of the storm drainage system. o Chairman Neuer stated that this was discussed a few meetings back. Kevin Malanga, 57 Ridge Road; asked about the sequence of digging, matting, landscaping; is this the order, and will trees be dragged up the slope to be planted? o Mr. Martell responded that this is the order, and that the landscapers have a way to get the trees up the slope that would not be considered “dragging.” Mr. Malanga continued asking about if the matting will be disturbed by the landscaping work. o Mr. Martell stated that it would and it is expected. o Chairman Neuer asked for details on the process of repairing any damage to the matting. co Mr. Martell responded that there are recognized and acceptable methods. Mr. Malanga asked about the specifics of the matting vs. a retaining wall; which is more suitable. o Mr. Martell responded that the matting is appropriate for this application. Mr. Malanga continued to question matting vs. walls. o Mr. Martell responded that the rear sub grade portion of the building acts as a retaining wall, and matting goes down beyond that. Zasah Khademi, 4 Dawes Avenue; asked if the NIH is considered a reliable source, continuing that NIH standards would recommend a green roof vs. an artificial turf roof due to its off-gassing and runoff into drain water. o Chairman Neuer responded that any evidence

reliable source, continuing that NIH standards would recommend a green roof vs. an artificial turf roof due to its off-gassing and runoff into drain water. o Chairman Neuer responded that any evidence of these standards and issues should be forwarded to the Board Attorney via the Board Secretary. Chairman Neuer called a recess at 10:05pm; the hearing resumed at 10:15 Mr. Upshaw returned to ask Mr. Martell if the sheer strength of the soil will be sufficient for the matting to be used. o Mr. Martell responded in the affirmative. o Chairman Neuer referred Mr. Upshaw to a report linked to the Agenda. Mr. Upshaw stated that sheer strength of the soil is not discussed.

o Chairman Neuer asked for that to be looked into End of public questions Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Tuyel to be prepared for more questions on the artificial turf roof. Mr. Tuvel introduced the applicant’s Operations Consultant, Ms. Carol Shipley; Ms. Shipley was sworn in and offered her background and credentials and was accepted as a fact witness with expertise relating to self-storage business operations. Mr. Tuvel asked Ms. Shipley to share her presentation, Exhibit A-24. Ms. Shipley offered statistics on who uses storage and why; that the general primary market is within a (3) mile radius of the facility; showed that (4) competitors are in that radius; within the radius this area is well below the national average of square footage of storage per capita; this facility would increase that to still below half of the national average. Continued with the typical daily activity at this type of facility including operating hours, security features and staffing size of one employee per shift; and that most office activity has become contactless. Reported that they anticipate that of 740 to 800 total units there is a goal of 693 being rented within (3) to (5) years; reported how much time any tenant may be in facility for rental process and a typical move in; also, how often tenants tend to visit, and how long they stay. Stated that they anticipate typically three to six visitors an hour on any business day; Saturdays are typically the busiest day. Mr. Tuvel inquired about auctions on defaulted units. Ms. Shipley responded with the legal requirements to hold auctions; and that the auctions are typically held online and the high-bidder then rents the unit and takes possession of the contents; auctions do not happen on-site. Mr. Tuvel asked about restrictions of hazardous items. Ms. Shipley outlined the rules and procedures that support those restrictions. Mr. Tuvel asked about tenants disposing of items in a unit. Ms. Shipley responded that there is only a small dumpster and there are restrictions on what can be disposed of on-site. Mr. Tuvel asked about maintaining the grounds. Ms. Shipley stated that the on-site employee is responsible for keeping the grounds clean; as well as keeping the interior clean and orderly; and outside contractors are brought in for bigger concerns. Mr. Tuvel asked about storage on the outside of the facility. Ms.

ng the grounds clean; as well as keeping the interior clean and orderly; and outside contractors are brought in for bigger concerns. Mr. Tuvel asked about storage on the outside of the facility. Ms. Shipley stated that all storage is inside. Mr. Tuvel asked about the climate-control of the facility. Ms. Shipley responded with the temperatures that can be expected inside. Chairman Neuer asked for a pro forma lease to be submitted to the Board. This application will be continued to February 18"; no further notice is required. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Neuer at 11:01PM Adopted: 2/18/2021 : Ly Seat McCauley, Ageing Board Secretary