November 6, 2024 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

Mr. Smeraldo asked since there are 2 spots allocated to the commercial property, but if we anticipate foot traffic, where do you anticipate those people parking. Ms. Clark said that the code requires one space for every 250 square feet of commercial square footage, So it is up to operations long term whether those get dedicated for patrons vs. employees. Mr. Smeraldo asked what do you see as an optimal type of business there. Ms. Clark said there could be a variety of things. A full service restaurant however, could not be easily accommodated in 900 square feet. It could also be office spaces. Mr. Wine said after speaking with their client it would be more of an office space. Mr. Smeraldo asked if the resident is going to be charged for a second parking space or would it be included in their lease. Mr. Wine said they would make sure it would be included in their lease. The lease will ask the tenant how many vehicles you have and if it changes to let us know whether it goes up or goes down. Ms. Kapferer asked are there any aspects of the project that you feel would serve to improve pedestrian safety. Ms. Clark said that the warning systems that they are proposing would serve to eliminate safety concerns. Additionally, they have expanded sidewalk conditions that’s going to be created with the commercial space. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS Mr. Haizel asked are the spaces at the church going to be 24/7 dedicated spaces. Mr. Wine said speaking with the church there is no issue with overnight and weekday hours. The only possible potential challenge would be Sundays. PUBLIC QUESTIONS Susan Lenczyk at 234 Eagle Rock Ave asked is it possible that the commercial space be the management office for the apartment building. Ms. Clark said from a zoning standpoint it would be permissible but a building of this size wouldn’t need a management office. Susan Lenczyk refers to the Justification of Variances document and asked how does the project “provide light, air, and open space”. Ms. Clark said provide just means allow for in this context, not generate. Susan Lenczyk asked did you make your judgments based on the actual site conditions or on diagrams on paper. Ms. Clark said both. Susan Lenczyk asked did you closely examine the property on the south side of the proposed development and if so what time of year. Ms. Clark said she examined it in aerial view from Google

aid both. Susan Lenczyk asked did you closely examine the property on the south side of the proposed development and if so what time of year. Ms. Clark said she examined it in aerial view from Google and confirmed with the property lines that the setback is approximately 5.5 feet from their property line. Susan Lenezyk stated that testimony regarding placing a building a few feet from an adjacent property where there was always open space, light, and airflow is suburban but isn’t that more urban in nature? Ms. Clark said it’s consistent with the zoning so the mixed used prototype is a permissible use within the property. Susan Lenczyk asked how does the project establish appropriate population density and specifically contribute to the well being of the neighborhood. Ms. Clark said they are looking at the zoning of the property at hand and so the residential property and their associated densities are subject to different zoning standards. Love Gaillard at 31 Park Drive North asked have you or your team driven around the township of West Orange to see what the landscape is. Ms. Clark answered that she is familiar with the town of West Orange and has handled other applications before the zoning board and is familiar from a zoning perspective. Love Gaillard asked are you or the developers aware of the historic significance of the