October 4, 2023 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

ntial areas. Mr. McDonough said that the residential areas are well protected from the development of the new buildings. Phil Litwinoff at Linden Avenue asked about a section on page14 in McDonough’s report specifically about the two free standing signs in the development. Mr. McDonough said that one of the signs will be at the main entrance and the second one will be at the northern access point at Prospect Avenue and Eagle Rock Avenue. OPPOSING SIDE PRESENTATION Kevin Malanga called as an expert in Planning, Peter Steck. Mr. Steck testified that the types of retail use most commonly used with drive throughs are fast food restaurants,

pharmacies and banks. He opined that the restaurant was “likely to be fast food” and the number of signs proposed was typically associated with a fast-food restaurant. « Mr. Steck did not find that the benefits outweighed the detriments as it is poor site plan design to have the back of a building face Prospect Avenue. ¢ Steck also opined that the property was split zoned with the rear being a residential zone. There are approximately 23 acres in the PC zone and 9.7 acres in the residential zone so to calculate impervious coverage the applicant included the acreage in the residential zone. If you calculate the building coverage on just the 23 acres in the PC zone then the project exceeds the maximum building coverage allowed and impervious coverage which would be 80.3% if the residential acres are not included. Mr. Steck opined that by including the residential acreage into the calculation that this would trigger the need for a d variance. The West Orange ordinance does not provide any direction on how to calculate when there is a split zone. If it is not a d variance, then the applicant also did not notice for the c variances required for maximum lot coverage and impervious coverage because they should not have factored the residential zone acreage into the total. * Cross examination of Mr. Steck was done by Greg Meese, attorney for the applicant. Mr. Steck testified that the proposed building was too small for a pharmacy and there is a very large CVS directly across the street. Also, Steck said that banks were getting rid of drive-thru windows. He admitted that there is a definition in the code of “drive up window.” e Mr. Steck also admitted that he had testified on behalf of an applicant as a planner in favor of an application for Pathmark at this exact location in the past and at that time his calculations included the entire parcel of property with the residential acres for purposes of calculating building coverage and impervious coverage. NO BOARD QUESTIONS NO PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS NO PUBLIC QUESTION NO PUBLIC COMME: *Application adjourned to the October 25, 2023 Planning Board Regular Meeting. * Meeting adjourned at 11:11PM. ADOPTED: lel 24 Jamilet lo Vite Acting Planning Board Secretary