PB-21-01 West Orange Plaza Block: 152.01 Lot 1445 & 1445.05

width- shopping center sign 39. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46a. and b. and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-50a. govern the Board’s review of the preliminary and final site plan application, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46a provides that an “ordinance requiring site plan review and approval shall require the developer submit to the administrative officer a site plan and such other information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed decision as to whether the requirements necessary for preliminary site plan approval have been met.” N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46a further provides that “The site plan and any engineering documents to be submitted shall be required in tentative form for discussion purposes for preliminary approval. If any architectural plans are required to be submitted for site plan approval, the preliminary plans and elevations shall be sufficient.” N.J.S.A. 50:55D-46b provides that “if the planning board required any substantial amendment in the layout of improvements proposed by the developer that have been the subject of a hearing, an amended application for development shall be submitted and proceeded upon, as in the case of the original application for development” and “the planning board shall, if the proposed development complies with the ordinance and this act, grant preliminary site plan approval.” N.J.S.A. 40:55D-50a. provides that final site plan approval “shall” be granted if the detailed drawings, specifications, and estimates of the application conform to the standards of all applicable ordinances and the conditions of preliminary approval. As such if the applicant meets the standards set forth in the ordinances, the planning board lacks the authority to deny approval of the site plan and subdivision. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-50a; PRB Enters., Inc. v. S. Brunswick Planning

40. 4l. Bd., 105 N.J. 1, 7 (1987); Dunkin’ Donuts of N.J., Inc. v. Twp. of N. Brunswick Planning Bd., 193 N.J. Super. 513, 515 (App. Div. 1984). Conversely, if the application does not comply with all ordinance requirements, the Board must deny approval. Cortesini v. Hamilton Planning Board, 417 N.J. Super. 201, 215 (App. Div. 2010). However, there are two exceptions: (1) The first exception is where an application does not comply with all ordinance requirements but the Board grants relief in terms of variances or exceptions. In that case, the Board then must review the application against all remaining ordinance requirements and grant approval if the application complies with all such remaining requirements. N.L.S.A. 40:55D-60 permits a planning board to grant variances from the bulk regulations of a zoning ordinance and other zoning deviations that do not require a “d” variance as part of site plan or subdivision review. The variance proofs are the same as for “c” variances as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70. A c (2) variance may be granted when the purposes of zoning are advanced and the benefits of deviating from the ordinance requirements outweigh any detriments. The benefits derived from granting a “c (2)” variance must include benefits to the community as a whole, not just the applicant or property owner A “c” variance must address the “negative criteria,” and affirmatively demonstrate that the variance can be granted “without substantial detriment to the public good” and “without substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance” of the municipality. The Board found the Applicant’s witnesses to be credible and their testimony to be well supported. The Applicant was responsive to the Board and the Board’s professionals and the plans were modified in response to those comments.

42. The Board does not find that there is an issue as to the calculation of coverage and that Mr. Steck’s testimony is not supported by the clear language of the West Orange Zoning Ordinance with respect to the calculations of building or impervious coverage. Under the Ordinance, if there was a shortfall as to building coverage or impervious coverage requiring a variance, they would be a c variance and within the jurisdiction of this board to determine. 43. Members of the public offered comments regarding the lack of “cool pavement,” solar panels on Target’s roof and requests for more trees on the property; however, the Board noted that the Township Planner testified that the West Orange Code does not require cool pavement or solar panels and the amount of landscaping provided by Applicant exceeded the Township Code requirements. Further, the assumption that the approved drive throughs were created for use by “fast food” restaurants is unfounded as the unequivocal testimony by the Applicant’s witnesses was that there are no restaurant tenants under contract with the applicant, nor is the Applicant seeking restaurants that meet the definition of “fast food restaurants” under the Code. Finally, the Board also notes that should a potential tenant for the site present a business not permitted in the zone they would have to make an application on proper notice to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Board reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. This application requires the following variance relief, as well as site plan approval: [2.. Section | Required __| Existing | Proposed

25.7.1 Minimum 300 fi. 372.3 fi. (Main 268.3 ft. front yard setback building), 113.8 ft (Building A), (Prospect Avenue) (Verizon), 31.3 ft. 135.9 ft. (Mavis) (Building B), 65.4 ft (Building C) 72 ft (Building D) 25-7.1 Minimum 100 ft. 53.9 ft. (Main 68.6 feet side front yard building) 43.4 fi. (Building D) setback (Eagle Rock (Verizon) Avenue) 25.7.1 Minimum 100 ft. 10.1 ft. (Mavis) 50.7 feet side yard setback (Building A) and 60 feet (Building B) 25.7.1 Minimum 75 ft. 52.5 ft. (Main 39.6 feet rear yard setback building) (Loading dock of main building) 25.7.1 Minimum 150 ft. 182 ft. (Main 90.3 feet space between building and (Existing Main buildings Verizon) Building and Building A), 38.0 feet (Building A and Building B), 54.2 feet (Building B and the Mavis Building) 25-8.1 Minimum 5 ft. Not provided 2 ft. parking setback 25.8.1a. Accessory | Not permitted in N/A Drive-up use location required front or side windows in yard required front yard 25-8.4 Maximum 4 fi. Not provided 13.5 ft. retaining wall height 25-11.9 Loading Entirely within the Not entirely within | Not entirely area/bay location structure the structure within the structure 25-11.14i Drive-up | Not permitted ina NA Proposed in window required yard required front setback yard 25-12.10. Maximum | 20 spaces >20 spaces Up to 32 spaces parking row length

without landscaped island 25-12.2 Minimum Required 1,476 1,555 1197 number of parking spaces 25-12.3a.1. 34 (1 per 10,000 sq. | 7 12 Minimum number _| ft. of gross floor of loading spaces area) 25-14.1c. Maximum | 18 feet Not provided 25 feet light fixture height 25-14.3 Minimum | 1.5 footcandles Not provided 0.3 footcandles lighting levels in parking areas 25-15.3c.2(b) 1 per unit: N/A 8 Bldg. A Maximum number | 6 Bldg. A 6 Bldg. B of wall signs 4 Bldg. B 6 Bldg. B-5 2 Bldg. B-5 11 Bldg. C 3 Bldg. C 13 Bldg. D 3 Bldg. D 7 Bldg. 1M-D 1 Bldg. 1M-D 25-15.3c2(d) 1 2 (2 monument 4 (1 monument Maximum number signs) sign, 3 shopping of freestanding center signs) signs 25-15.3e2.(d) Front yard Front yard Front and side Location of yards freestanding signs 25-15.3e2(d) 50 ft. (Shopping Not provided Not provided (1 Minimum sign front | center sign) shopping center setback sign), 0 ft. (2 shopping center signs) 25-15.3c2.(d) Maximum sign area- shopping center sign 150 sq. ft. (Shopping center) Not provided 220 sq. ft. (2 signs), 260 sq. ft. (1 sign) 25-15.302.(d) Wall sign area 48 sf | Not provided 1M-A.7 Two Maximum sign signs at 81 sf area- shopping center sign 25-15.3c2.(d) 20 ft. N/A 28 ft. (2 signs), Maximum sign 36 ft. (1 sign) height- shopping center sign 25-15.3c2(d) 15 ft. N/A 16 ft. (3 signs) Maximum sign

width- shopping center sign . The Municipal Land Use Law, at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c) provides Planning Boards with the power to grant variances from bulk and other Ordinance requirements when the Applicant satisfies certain specific proofs enunciated in the statute. . Under the c(2) criteria, the Applicant must demonstrate that in a particular instance relating to a specific piece of property, the purposes of the Act would be advanced by allowing a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirements and the benefits of any deviation will substantially outweigh any detriment. . These tests specifically enumerated above constitute the affirmative proofs necessary in order to obtain “bulk” variance relief, under Section c (2). . Also, an applicant for these variances must show that the proposed relief sought will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. The burden of proof is upon the Applicant to establish that these criteria have been met. . As to site plan requested waivers, Applicant requested waivers (as noted in the report of Township Engineer, John Hess, dated June 7, 2023), of the following: #22 (Development stages or staging plans), #46 (Solid waste management plan), #48 (Sight triangles), to permit a parking area setback of 2 ft whereas 5 ft is required by §25-8.1 of the Ordinance, to permit 1,197 parking spaces where 1,147 parking spaces are required, to permit 12 loading spaces where 34 loading spaces are required, to permit a light pole height of 25

ft. where a maximum light pole height of 18 ft is permitted, and to permit a retaining wall height of 13.5 ft where a maximum height of 4 ft is permitted. . As for the requested bulk variances, they also satisfy a c (2) criteria as Applicant has provided credible evidence that the following purposes of the MLUL set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2 are advanced: a. With respect to the minimum front and side yard setback variances, the evidence demonstrates that if the buildings were to meet the required setbacks they would block the existing buildings and would interfere with the overall enhancement of the center. The placement of the buildings as proposed is a more effective method of attracting patrons and enhances the overall viability of the center. The placement of the buildings also allows for adequate parking in front of Buildings A & B and promotes efficient land use by putting underutilized asphalt areas to a functional use while also promoting a desirable visual environment. The side yard setback at the north has a significant grade difference to the residential development to the north which provides a physical divide that further mitigates any setback related impacts. (Along with the extensive landscaping that will be added as per conditions.) As to the variance related to the minimum space between buildings, the placement of the buildings, especially Buildings A and B, provides outdoor dining areas and landscaping that will break up the expanse of asphalt that currently exists and presents an aesthetically pleasing courtyard. The angle of the building and the spacing between the Main Building and Building A promotes pedestrian circulation and helps to integrate the center and enhance its sense of place.

c With respect to the variance for fewer landscape islands and parking spaces in the parking lot, the proposed landscaped islands are an improvement to the current fully paved area and will provide sufficient shading, additional drainage, and less impervious coverage while also striking a balance between the lessened parking spaces provided. There are also additional landscaping areas within the site and along its perimeter, and a new courtyard and because the number of spaces provided will be sufficient to meet the needs of all the proposed businesses on site, the Board finds that this is a better zoning alternative. The light pole heights will allow for a more even lighting pattern with fewer poles to create a more efficient lighting design. The proposed signs are appropriate for the proposed buildings. Some of the buildings will be seen from several angles, making signs on each side a necessity for patrons to identify locations, and an architectural enhancement over bare building walls that add interest to the varied facade designs. The signs presented as to Target are part of the Target branding and the related businesses that are identifiable by consumers and will bring patrons into the site for this anchor tenant. The pylon signs and monument signs are necessary for identification of the site for approaching vehicles. The enhanced loading zones provided behind Target and the existing loading zones behind Whole Foods are sufficient to provide the necessary large truck deliveries to those stores. The other buildings will have smaller stores that will have deliveries from smaller vehicles instead of tractor trailer deliveries such that

a traditional loading zone is not required. The Board finds that the number, location and size of the proposed loading zones to be sufficient and appropriate. g. The retaining wall in the rear is hidden from the rear facing neighboring property due to the topography of the land and the proposed fence and guardrail will prevent persons from attempting to climb or walk on top of the wall. h. The proposed placement of the drive-through windows will be adequately screened with landscaping and will allow for sufficient space for queuing all of which will be self-contained on the site and will not create any spillover onto either Eagle Rock Avenue or Prospect Avenue. 9, The project as a whole, will revitalize the existing site which currently is a sea of asphalt and impervious coverage. The project will take an older shopping center and revitalize and modernize it with new buildings and significant additional landscaping and landscaping buffers and screenings. In considering the application as a whole as directed by Pullen v. Tp. of South Plainfield, 291 N.J. Super. 1, 8 (App. Div. 1996), the Board finds that all the relief sought is necessary to effectuate the overall enhancement of the center and the public benefits cited above. The Board finds that the benefits of the proposed project significantly outweigh the detriments as the project advances the purposes of the MLUL (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et. seq.) by promoting the general welfare in its improvement of a key economic center of the Township, providing for an appropriate location for recreational, commercial and open space to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens, by promoting a desirable physical environment through creative development and good civic design, and by providing a more efficient use of the land by revitalizing and improving what is there.

10. With respect to the negative criteria under the MLUL, the Board accepts the testimony that new trip generation will create additional traffic; however, 1/3 of the traffic expected already exists on Prospect Avenue and Eagle Rock Avenues, the site will bring shoppers but there is improved pedestrian safety present. The Board also accepts the evidence that since the Pandemic, shopping practices have changed and there is a noticeable reduction in people physically shopping and more pick up uses. The proposed drive aisles, elimination of the slip lane and improvements to the entrances and exits with signs, crosswalks and striping will be an improvement over what is currently at the site. The setback variances have been adequately ameliorated with landscaping and enhanced architectural treatment of the buildings’ facades and screened rooftop mechanical units. The Board finds that the detriments of the application are significantly outweighed by the many benefits. NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Planning Board of the Township of West Orange that preliminary and final site plan approval with variance relief for the application of West Orange Plaza for property located at 235 Prospect Avenue, is determined as follows: 1. The Board grants the following bulk variance relief pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c (2): Section Required Existing Proposed 25.7.1 Minimum 300 ft. 372.3 ft. (Main 268.3 ft. front yard setback building), 113.8 ft | (Building A), (Prospect Avenue) (Verizon), 31.3 ft. 135.9 fi. (Mavis) (Building B), 65.4 ft (Building C) 72 ft (Building D) 25-7.1 Minimum 100 ft. 53.9 ft. (Main 68.6 feet side front yard building) 43.4 fi. (Building D) (Verizon)