May 7, 2025, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING May 7, 2025 7:30 P.M. The Township of West Orange Planning Board held its regular meeting on May 7, 2025 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 e The next Planning Board regular meeting will be held ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dr. Robert Bagoff; Mr. Jerry Guarino; Mr. Ken Alper; Mr. John Cardoza; Mr. William Wilkes; Mr. Lee Klein; Mr. Christopher Morgan, Sr.; Mayor Susan McCartney; Councilwoman Susan Scarpa; Ms. Lori Kapferer ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: _ Diana P. McGovern, Esq., Planning Board Attorney; Gerry Haizel, Consulting Town Planner; Mr. Phil Scott, Board Engineer; Jamilet Baquerizo Vite, Planning Board Secretary MINUTES & RESOLUTIONS PB-24-19-The Way Maker-LLC---40-Eagle-Ridge-Way---Draft-Resolution Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Guarino Alper: Y Morgan: _ Bagoff: Y Scarpa: Y Cardoza (Alt.2): Y Smeraldo: =

Guarino: Ad Wilkes: Y Kapferer: --- Klein: wu Mayor McCartney: Y 1-22-25-WO-PB-Draft-Minutes Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Guarino Alper: ¥ Morgan: Y Bagoff: Y Scarpa: Cardoza (Alt.2): Y Smeraldo: -—-- Guarino: Y Wilkes: ® Kapferer: ¥ Klein: ¥ Mayor McCartney: Y SWEARING IN ¢ The Township Professional(s) sworn in. ORDINANCE REVIEW 2918-25-STORMWATER-4825-Revised---Final M_PB-Stormwater-Control-Ordinance Stormwater-Ordinance-Amendment----2918-25---Master-Plan-Consistency-Review © The board planner, Mr. Haizel, entered on the record and stated that he reviewed the ordinance and found that it is consistent with the Master Plan. Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Councilwoman Scarpa Alper: x Morgan: = Bagoff: ¥ Scarpa: Y Cardoza (Alt.2): Y Smeraldo: — Guarino: Y Wilkes: Y Kapferer: Y

Klein: Y Mayor McCartney: Y APPLICATIONS © PB-24-14 172-174 Main Street LLC Block: 83 Lot: 1&5.01 Zone: B-1 172-174 Main Street The applicant, 172-174 Main Street, LLC, proposes to construct a 3rd floor addition to an existing 2- story building and convert the building to a mixed-use building. The proposed mixed-use building will contain 2,824-SF of office space on the Ist floor and a total of seven (7) residential units on the 2nd and 3rd floor. Additionally, twenty-six (26) existing on-site parking spaces will also be provided. PRESENTATION e The attorney, Mr. Tyler Zeberl, on behalf of the applicant went over the main points that were discussed in their first hearing on February 5th. e At the first meeting, Mr. Cox, the representative and owner of 172-174 Main Street, LLC provided some testimony about his plan for the property. ¢ He wants to add a third story and convert the building to a mixed use with two office spaces on the first floor and seven residential units divided between the second and third floors, one of which will be income restricted. e Healso offered some testimony regarding the renovations inside and out of the building. e The architect, Jason Peist, went into the specifics of the project, that all of the mechanical features are going to be upgraded to modern mechanical appliances, air conditioners, all of which are going to be quieter. e The building's going to be completely renovated outside. It's going to be completely renovated to look much more modern and consistent with what the downtown area is supposed to look like under the master plan. e Mr. Peist also offered some testimony regarding the building height, which is 34.5 feet, where 35 is permitted in the zone. e He explained that the only reason they are here before the board is because they're requesting a variance for the third story and existing non-conforming bulk variances. e Mr. Peist also showed some elevations of what the building's expected to look like. e The professional engineer, Donna Bullock, explained about the sight lines, that there's clear view in each direction. e She also explained that this is an existing approved parking lot. The entrances are existing. They're approved so nothing's going to be changing there. e There was a number of concerns raised by the public regarding the increased traffic. Patrick Downey, their traffic engineer, was

existing. They're approved so nothing's going to be changing there. e There was a number of concerns raised by the public regarding the increased traffic. Patrick Downey, their traffic engineer, was retained and he presented some calculations. e Insummary, this proposed mixed use is going to generate less trips than the existing two- story commercial office use. e At the last meeting, they had finished up with their professional planner, John McDonough. He showed a number of photographs of the building taken by drone. © One of which is the front of the building, the surrounding area, and he explained that the 3

surrounding areas consists of large two and a half story structures, many of which are raised above the ground level. There are also three story buildings directly across the street. Mr. McDonough also offered testimony that the project fully complies with the use requirements of the zone and substantially complies with the requirements such as height, parking, et cetera. Mr. McDonough also offered some testimony regarding the relief for the rear yard setback and coverage, both of which are pre-existing conditions that constitute a hardship under the flexible C variance and the Hawrylo case. Mr. McDonough offered some testimony regarding the purposes of zoning under the MLUL, which are advanced by this application. Purpose A in which the general welfare is advanced by renovating, repurposing, revitalizing a longstanding familiar building. It'll add new housing for people to live in and new businesses for people to shop at, work at, et cetera. They would promote Purpose G, which is a promotion of various variety of uses in appropriate locations because the site is a civic center. He testified that it's good planning to concentrate people in the downtown setting with easy access to civic and public amenities. Purpose I, the promotion of a desirable visual environment because the project delivers a fresh new renovated building as opposed to a dilapidated building and it complements the area. It does go with the building that's directly across the street, the three-story building. He also discussed Purpose M, the promotion of efficient use of land and that's what this project is doing. They're adapting the existing use. They're reusing the property, renovating and altering it, which is really the central purpose of planning. Mr. McDonough also testified as to alternate uses that are permitted in the zone that would be less desirable, such as a bar or something of that sort, which they find would be more disruptive to the area. So the applicant is proposing something that's much less intensive. In connection with the detriments, Mr. McDonough offered testimony that he didn't believe there were any, because the relief that's being sought is not causing any detriments. They're upgrading the building and it's improving the relationships on Main Street and the homes that surround it. The added story does not require height variance. It's in line with the

detriments. They're upgrading the building and it's improving the relationships on Main Street and the homes that surround it. The added story does not require height variance. It's in line with the buildings that are surrounding it. The departure from what is contemplated and permitted in this zone is not substantial. His testimony was that the site is sunken down in relation to the adjoining residential uses, and everything kind of slopes down in that area. There are quite a few existing trees that go up into the area where this third store would be, which is going to provide that additional natural buffer. In summary, the flexible C variance relief is appropriate, because the benefits of this proposed project as a whole substantially outweigh the detriments. They did have some concerns from adjoining property owners and from the board, questioning the privacy on the adjoining properties and aesthetics. Mr. McDonough and Mr. Peist are here tonight to answer any questions in connection with the aesthetic concerns. In terms of privacy, Mr. Zeberl spoke to his client. They're willing to agree to a condition of approval on that third story where they would put in the privacy film on the window so that'll further mitigate these concerns that have been raised by neighbors.

To sum up, Mr. Zeberl, stated we've heard from a number of experts, their professional planner, professional engineer, professional architect, and traffic engineer who have all provided testimony to the effect that this application satisfies the requirements for the granting of a C variance under the flexible C balancing test as the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments. The applicant asked this board to grant their application permitting the addition of a third story subject to the conditions that they had discussed previously. BOARD QUESTIONS Mr. Klein asked is it possible, even though it's not the applicant's property, to put some landscaping on the neighbor's property to do some natural screening. Mr. Zeberl said that they have some difficulty in terms of, one, they're not legally permitted to do anything on somebody else's property and that they have such a small amount of space behind that building. NO PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS PUBLIC QUESTIONS Mr. Sweeny asked Mr. McDonough what's the difference in the elevation between the sidewalk, elevation on land, and the first floor. Mr. McDonough said he doesn't know. Mr. Sweeny asked Mr. McDonough is the site walkable. Mr. McDonough said yes, the site is walkable. Mr. Sweeny asked Mr. McDonough what the slope is of the parking lot. Mr. McDonough said he doesn’t know. Mr. Zeberl added that it is 18 feet, not the slope but the elevation. Mr. Sweeny asked Mr. McDonough that the building would only be increased by 34.5 feet, is that measured from the mean height of the building. Mr. McDonough said it's measured in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Sweeny asked what's the difference between the mean height and the base of that wall. Mr. McDonough said he doesn’t know; he didn't conduct a measurement. Mr. Sweeny asked essentially from the front, the building would look like it's 40 feet high or equivalent to four stories. Mr. McDonough said that is not accurate, under the letter of the ordinance, it's a three-story building. Mr. Sweeny asked Mr. McDonald if he has walked from Lakeside Avenue to Charles Street along Main Street. Mr. McDonough said he has walked several streets in front of the site. Mr. Sweeny asked if Mr. McDonough noticed that this lot is completely different from every other lot and it has a very long, very huge parking lot in front of the building, very unattractive, and very

Mr. Sweeny asked if Mr. McDonough noticed that this lot is completely different from every other lot and it has a very long, very huge parking lot in front of the building, very unattractive, and very steep slope. Mr. McDonough said he’ll answer the first question in the affirmative that he did notice that the site is distinctly different than other properties along the corridor. Mr. Sweeny asked Mr. McDonough if he noticed that the mass of the building was disproportionate to the adjacent buildings or any other building on that side of the street. Mr. McDonough said no. Mr. Sweeny asked Mr. McDonough if he views that the approval of this will result in permanent, essentially, fixing that unattractive lot in the way that it appears now, in a way that's inconsistent with all the other downtown properties in the area on that side of the street, or even across the street. Mr. McDonough said no. OBJECTOR PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION

The licensed planner, Peter Steck, entered on the record, he was sworn under oath and his credentials were accepted by the board. He testified to the following: Mr. Steck listened to the last hearing and reviewed the application materials. He also toured the property and the surrounding area, took some photos and reviewed the master plan and the zoning ordinance. Mr. Steck presented Exhibit 04 that he prepared, which is dated May 6th of 2025. On Page 1 on the upper left-hand corner is a portion of the zoning map. The B1 zone goes along Main Street. It is primarily residential, most of the uses are residential. Older housing units, most of them are up close to the street. They have kind of classic residential looks with sloping roofs. Very few have on-site parking, so they use Main Street for a parking resource. Page 1 also shows the subject property from a Google aerial view. Mr. Steck outlined it in yellow. The placement of the building is highly unusual for the B1 zone. It's the only building in the area in that zone that's a box. It's the only pure office building there. It's the only building that has the parking field in front. It's the only building that is set that far back from the front property line. So it's an unusual look, an unusual shape, and an unusual placement. On Page 2 of 04, on the left-hand side, Mr. Steck superimpose the zoning lines on a 2020 infrared satellite photo, subject property is in yellow. To the rear is Llewellyn Park. That's an R1 zone across Main Street and three properties. The fourth property to the northeast are parts of the redevelopment area zone. On the left- hand side, Mr. Steck put the names of certain property owners. Mr. Steck clients are Jonathan and Amanda Barton. To the north of there is Sophia Lubin and Eric Buckley. And also sharing the rear yard is the Donna Uher property. To the right on Page 2 shows, from the NJDEP website, the historic nature of the area. Llewellyn Park is on the National Register and the State Register. To the north is the Edison National Historic Site. Across the way, where the new conversion has occurred, is a, at least a proposed on the national level, a historic district. The subject property is not referenced as historic. The blue color, according to NJDEP, says it's eligible to be designated as historic. On Page 3 of 04, is a drone photo of the subject property. It

The subject property is not referenced as historic. The blue color, according to NJDEP, says it's eligible to be designated as historic. On Page 3 of 04, is a drone photo of the subject property. It shows the character of the building, basically a box with vertical lines and a faux mansard roof. It's leased for the parking of trucks at the moment. The blue house in the upper right hand corner is the Barton house. On Page 4 of 04 are photographs that Mr. Steck took on this year. March 7th of The upper photograph is from the second story of the Barton residence. So that second story, when you look out the window, is even with the current roof of the property now. You can see the buildings across the street and the tree line in the distance. That accessory shed on the right is also on the Barton property, as is the wood frame garage left of center. On the lower left of Page 4 is a picture of the rear of the subject property. There is only a narrow area, as the board is aware. And then there is a retaining wall. And so the residential yards are higher than the grade in the building. On the right hand side of Page 4 is a picture that Mr. Steck took on March 7th of this year. But he superimposed from another photograph that was taken by one of the Barton’s to show the existing shadow pattern at 9 AM on February 10th.