April 3, 2024 Planning Board Regular Meeting

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING April 3, 2024 7:30 P.M. The Township of West Orange Planning Board held its regular meeting on April 3, 2024 at 7:30 P.M. via virtual ZOOM videoconference. Chairman Bagoff called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. He announced that notification of the meeting was given to the Township Clerk, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board, sent to the West Orange Chronicle and the Star Ledger, and posted on the Township’s website calendar. This meeting has been properly noticed to the public in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. No new matters will start after 10:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * Chairman Bagoff requested all persons stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ANNOUNCEMENTS ¢ The next Planning Board regular meeting will be held Wednesday May 1, 2024 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dr. Robert Bagoff; Mr. Ken Alper; Mr. John Cardoza; Mr. Jerry Guarino; Mr. Lee Klein; Mr. Christopher Morgan, Sr.; Mayor Susan McCartney; Mr. Peter Smeraldo; Council President Rutherford; Ms. Kapferer ABSENT: Mr. William Wilkes; ALSO PRESENT: Diana P. McGovern, Esq., Planning Board Attorney; Kate Keller, Consulting Town Planner; Mr. John Hess, Board Engineer; Jamilet Baquerizo Vite, Planning Board Secretary MINUTES & RESOLUTIONS 10/25/2024 Draft Minutes Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Guarino Alper: Y Morgan: ¥ Bagoff: W Rutherford: —_

Cardoza (Alt.2): — Smeraldo: Y Guarino: Y Wilkes: _ Kapferer: = Klein: Y Mayor McCartney: Y 11/29/2024 Draft Minutes Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Guarino Alper: Y Morgan: ¥ Bagoff: 4 Rutherford: _ Cardoza (Alt.2): —-- Smeraldo: D4 Guarino: Y Wilkes: _ Kapferer: os Klein: bd Mayor McCartney: Y 1/3/2024 Draft Minutes Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Cardoza Alper: x Morgan: _ Bagoff: Y Rutherford: Y Cardoza (Alt.2): Y Smeraldo: Y Guarino: v Wilkes: —_ Kapferer: —-- Klein: Y Mayor McCartney: Y

3/6/2024 Draft Minutes Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Cardoza Alper: Y Morgan: w Bagoff: Y Rutherford: ¥i Cardoza (Alt.2): Y Smeraldo: Y Guarino: Y Wilkes: -- Kapferer: ¥ Klein: Y Mayor McCartney: Y SWEARING IN ¢ The consultant planner Kate Keller and board engineer John Hess sworn in. APPLICATIONS PB-24-05 Yerrr Canna, LLC Block: 62; Lots:22.01, 32 & 34; Zone: I 76-82 Ashland Avenue The applicant is proposing to occupy and develop an existing vacant two-story metal warehouse building space, consisting of approximately 9,482 square feet, into a Class 1 Cannabis Cultivator use with 2,500 square feet of cultivation space on the first floor, to stripe the parking lot and put up a security fence. PRESENTATION Mr. Cameron MacLeod, attorney for the applicant, entered on the record on behalf of the applicant. He stated that they are requesting a reconsideration of the application, that has been previously heard, seeking conditional use approval and minor and approval for the development and construction of a cannabis cultivation facility. The applicant had the ability to work with the board professionals as well as the Fire Chief and the police chief to advance the plans. The realignment of the security fence was approved by Police Chief. The applicant is requesting a parking variance for the site. For purposes of the conditional use compliance, they are satisfying the number of spaces that's required for the conditional use and they are seeking relief from the number of additional spaces for additional space that's being occupied by the applicant. They had submitted a report detailing the drainage on the site and the history of its

development. The architect, Mr. Shawn Fisher, entered on the record and he was sworn under oath and provided the following testimony. Mr. Fisher presented page one of the updated plans submitted on March 19, 2024. Based on the square footages and the number of spaces per square feet a total of 52 spaces are required, but the applicant is proposing 48 spaces. The site plan shows the existing fence and gate along the property line. Previously they had shown a much tighter area that was fenced and after further review and approval of the Police Department and security requirements determined that they no longer need it and it will greatly free up traffic throughout the site which is a great benefit. The handicap parking will be strip and it will include signage as required. The seven (7) parking spaces for the cultivator in the Northeast corner of the property will be reserved for employee parking and will include the operational EV space. The delivery vehicle plan shows that the largest Mercedes sprinter van, which is the largest type of delivery vehicle, was able to make deliveries coming off of Ashland Avenue and would be able to circulate, park into any spot, and back out really easy. Mr. Fisher presented page 7 that shows the circulation of a 40-foot-long fire truck coming off of Ashland Avenue, entering the property, backs up turns around and it can go right back into Ashland Avenue without having to go through any other gates or fencing. This plan has been approved by the Fire Department. The 3,192 square feet of the second floor will be unused. If in the future the applicant decides to use it, the applicant would have to come back to the board and get approval. It will have a continuous wall from floor to ceiling. The only reason they have a door on the second floor is for fire egress in the event that the other entrance is blocked then they can get out using the stairs. There will be lighting on the unoccupied second floor. No external sign on the building other than a building number. The compact car parking spaces will be at the corner to minimize the possible obstruction of a vehicle. There will be one EV parking space ready to use. The applicant will submit lighting plan to comply with the ordinance. The applicant will discuss with the owner about eliminating the monitoring wells, since they are not longer needed. BOARD

use. The applicant will submit lighting plan to comply with the ordinance. The applicant will discuss with the owner about eliminating the monitoring wells, since they are not longer needed. BOARD QUESTIONS Mayor McCartney asked if there's any contemplation on the potential use of the second floor. The question was directed to the owner Mr. Jackson. Mr. Alper asked if all entry and exits to the site was coming from the Park Avenue side; he said that there wasn't supposed to be any on Ashland Avenue. Mr. Jackson said that as part of their original submission there was no condition as to access being only from Park Avenue. Mr. Alper asked why we should feel good about they're not being security fencing. Mr. Jackson said that there's no requirement for security fencing in the state regulations for cannabis security. Initially it was proposed as per the record of the previous hearings. The security fencing was proposed as an added bonus, but once they heard the feedback from the board, it was decided that the security fence actually makes the site a more difficult to access. Mr. Alper asked how will odor be mitigated. The attorney Mr. McPherson, said that the

odor would be neutralized utilizing carbon filtration system. Mr. Klein asked if the parking spaces proposed will be striped and if the cars parked there at the present moment will be moved. Mr. Fisher answer in the affirmative. Mr. Smeraldo asked how the system that the applicant is proposing is better than having an interlock system. Mr. Jackson said they will be having a zero-pressure interlock system on the doors and in the grow rooms and in addition they will have AC splits to make sure the smells stay inside. Mr. Smeraldo asked what the noise level will be. Mr. Jackson said that they will not have huge carbon filtration systems and it will be inside the facility. Mayor McCartney asked if Park Avenue will not be used as an entrance/exit. Mr. Fisher said that the primary entrance into the site will be from Ashland Avenue. Chairman Bagoff asked where the seven spots will be for the grow center in the lot for employee parking. Mr. Fisher referred to the drawing on page Site 2 and said they will be located at the south east of the property and will be identified as employee parking. Mr. Smeraldo asked if the building requires sprinklers. Mr. Fisher said that a sprinkler system is required for this building because it's a factory occupancy based on the cultivation use of the building. He said the sprinkler system will be installed in the building along with a required subsequent fire alarm system needed to monitor the sprinkler system to notify the fire department of an event. Mr. Smeraldo asked if it is going to be a wet system, dry system or pre-action system. Mr. Fisher said that it will be a wet pipe sprinkler system. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS Mr. Hess said that if a vehicle is coming in from Park Ave. there are two-way access drives, but when it intersects the drive-in front of the proposed parking spaces it's one way heading towards Park Ave. He asked if they going to put a do not enter sign in that location. Mr. Fisher said that he believes they have enough space for a two-way lane, but if they don’t, they will put up a “do not enter” sign. Ms. Keller asked for clarification regarding the second-floor area; he said if anything was to go there, they would have to come before the board, but if any cannabis use was to expand there that would not be permitted. Mr. Jackson said that they cannot operate outside of the 2,500 square feet because they

ey would have to come before the board, but if any cannabis use was to expand there that would not be permitted. Mr. Jackson said that they cannot operate outside of the 2,500 square feet because they are considered a micro business license. PUBLIC QUESTIONS Councilwoman Michelle Casalino asked for clarification if coming into the lot you can only go in on Ashland Avenue and out on Park Avenue. Mr. Jackson said that the purpose of the Ashland Avenue entrance is for emergency vehicles, deliveries as well as product would be coming out of the Park Avenue entrance. PRESENTATION Alexander Dougherty, Planner for the applicant, entered on the record, was worn under oath, his credentials were accepted by the board and provided the following testimony. He stated that they satisfied the parking requirements by virtue of the condition and because of the size of the site. There will be a maximum of 10 employees and there will be multiple shifts meaning that not all the parking will be used at the same time.

He stated that they have ample parking to accommodate future tenants and he believes that then parking demand for this particular use will not cause an impact to the surrounding area. Mr. Dougherty was shown exhibit Al and stated that it shows where the property is located and the zone. He stated that is a very unique site and very suitable for this particular type of operation and given the size and scale of the building more than enough adequate space for the micro growth facility. At the moment there is a lot of debris and rubble, but the applicant is planning to clean up, stripe and resurface the parking lot. There's no need for more parking than what they are proposing for this operation. Security measures aren't going to be discussed publicly. The concerns that the board had, have already been addressed by state regulations. They have satisfied all the conditional use standards for this use and is a permitted use in the zone. The parking standard, with regard to any future expansion within the upper floor of the building, would not allow them access to that space for use purposes, they will have to come back to the board for approval. BOARD QUESTIONS Mr. Klein asked what he meant by one way access. Mr. Doherty said that vehicles coming in off Ashland Avenue into the site. Mr. Klein asked if he thinks there is going be a problem with a future tenant. Mr. Doherty said that the other property at 76 Ashland Avenue is also unique because it has parking right in front of it as well for those immediate employees. Mr. Klein asked if someone from the state will reprimand the applicant in case of any violations. Mr. Jackson answered in the affirmative. The applicant will have a specific field investigator that will be in charge of doing inspections and make sure that everything is in compliance. NO PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS NO PUBLIC QUESTIONS PUBLIC COMMENT Charles Penn at 712 Trotting Road, Union, NJ, commented that he fully supports the proposed business and it stated that it will bring value to the town. BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Chairman Bagoff recommended that the applicant should do an air quality test prior to beginning of operation. CONDITIONS

e If any of the unused portion of the second floor is to be utilized for any purpose the Applicant must return to the Board for amended site plan approval and review of parking requirements. The EV space will be operational. The applicant will submit a lighting plan to be approved by the Board Engineer. The applicant will clean up the parking lot. Applicant shall repave or resurface or patch the parking lot of the Property at the direction and discretion and approval of the Zoning Officer. e Applicant shall stripe the parking spaces for use by its employees and label the compact car spaces and properly designate the ADA parking space. e The seven parking spaces for the grow center shall be reserved for employee parking (including the E.V. space) and appropriate signage should be provided to that effect. Applicant shall provide emergency vehicle striping to the parking lot pavement. The traffic path as to two-way traffic or one-way traffic and aisle width design shall be determined by the Board Engineer and Applicant shall provide any recommended signage to that effect. e Vehicles may enter from Ashland Avenue only (one way) and may enter on Park Avenue but may exit onto Park Avenue only. ¢ Deliveries and product movement from the facility shall be by the Park Avenue ingress and egress only. The applicant is prohibited from subletting the empty space to another entity Pressure controlled doors shall be installed at the entrance and exit of the cultivation site. ¢ Only an address number shall be permitted on the building. ecee Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Guarino Alper: ¥ Morgan: Y Bagoff: Y Rutherford: Y Cardoza (Alt.2): p4 Smeraldo: Y Guarino: Y Wilkes: _ Kapferer: -—- Klein: Y Mayor McCartney: ¥ e PB-23-09 Essex County Country Club Block: 156; Lots:1; Zone: R-2 350 Mt Pleasant Avenue The applicant is proposing modifications to existing improvements and construction of new accessory buildings associates with its golf course and other facilities. OBJECTOR’S PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION

Mr. Peter Steck, Planner, entered on the record on behalf of the objector, was sworn under oath and provided the following testimony. He testified that near the proposed location of the halfway house there are wetlands that the applicant’s site plan ignored and the applicant has not provided a witness to address the issue. One of the issues he raised was that not only are trees going to be removed from the proposed halfway house, but said that if you simply look at the location of the trees and the extent of disturbance that is on the plans, there are more trees going to be removed necessarily than shown on the plan. He said that it's an inaccurate rendition. Not addressed by the applicant is the fact that the utility lines are going to go down adjacent to the fairway and then angle to Old Indian Rd. and cut through a wooded area The applicant is required to get permits for tree removal. It has to show which trees are removed. This is going to involve trenching of a line, which means cutting off the roots of the trees. There's no indication of what tree damage is going to occur, but surely is going to occur not only in the 75 feet but for an extensive area. Mr. Steck showed pictures of the property. The first photograph is looking from the rear yard of a property toward the area where the facility is going to be located, the second one is taken in the reverse direction showing the wetlands that exists, the third one is in a northerly direction toward the wetlands and the 4th is looking in a northwesterly direction. If it turns out that the limits of the wetlands are greater than is shown on the site plan that means that the buffer even though it's 50 feet might be greater and it certainly means that if they're extraordinary value, the building cannot be located in that location by state law, so it is a fundamental issue in this application to know the limit of the wetlands and the categorization of the wetlands. During Mr. Steck testimony the attorney Lisa John-Basta added that the applicant is not required to produce an environmental expert during the local board proceedings to answer questions on the impacts of development might have in existing ponds and dismiss an objector’s argument to that end. In this instance the applicant has agreed that, as a condition of approval, if the board were to approve this application it would submit a letter of