May 7, 2025, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

by itself. So Mr. Hazel’s opinion in this case is that it doesn't apply. Ms. McGovern said the parking requirement creates the limits as to how many apartments you can have anyway. So there is some type of limit. It's based on the parking, but there's not a specific density limit. PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS FOR OBJECTOR Mr. Haizel asked Mr. Speck about his testimony that height, both linear and number of stories was required because this building was within six feet of the rear property line where height, of that height is not permitted, and asked what provision of the ordinance is that from. Mr. Speck said in terms of negative criteria, it assumes that the building is in the legal footprint. In Mr. Steck’s opinion, it relates to the negative criteria by going up higher in an area that's not supposed to have any building and said the applicant needs both a linear height limit variance as well as a story height limit. PUBLIC QUESTIONS FOR OBJECTOR Kevin Malanga from Ridge Road asked Mr. Steck if he saw the architectural styles of the residential structures that are there. Mr. Steck said yes. Kevin Malanga asked if Mr. Steck would characterize that style as folk Victorian or something similar to that. Mr. Steck said he doesn't know if they're Victorian, but they're kind of turn of the century houses, maybe 1910, 1920, but they're all wood frame. Kevin Malanga asked Mr. Steck if he has looked at the architectural plans for the proposed building. Mr. Steck said yes. Kevin Malanga asked Mr. Steck how would you characterize the architectural style. Mr. Steck said he’ll call it super contemporary or new suburban. Kevin Malanga asked is it incompatible visually and aesthetically. Mr. Steck said it is incompatible in terms of its style, in terms of its shape and in terms of its setback. Anne Hersh at 12 Edgehill Road asked Mr. Steck if he is aware that the neighbors are not allowed to plant shrubs due to the dangers of low visibility to those who are driving and walking. Mr. Steck said he is not aware of that. Lenny Carr at 83 Mountain Avenue asked Mr. Steck if the buildings across the street that are three stories in height, justifies that there should be another story added to this building in the B1 zone. Mr. Steck said that's a completely different zone. Lenny Carr asked Mr. Steck if a third story is allowed, does he believe that this would have any

nother story added to this building in the B1 zone. Mr. Steck said that's a completely different zone. Lenny Carr asked Mr. Steck if a third story is allowed, does he believe that this would have any precedent setting effects in the other areas of the B1 zone. Mr. Steck said it doesn't set a precedent. OBJECTOR COMMENT The licensed architect, Eric Buckley, entered on the record, he was sworn under oath and his credentials were accepted by the board. He testified to the following: Mr. Buckley wanted to speak to the quote that Mr. Steck brought up about the elevator. That is from IBC and as it was stated, there is also something within the ordinance for West Orange. Mr. Buckley mentioned the architect, Jason Peist, stated that the area is based on the masonry portion of the building, but Mr. Buckley said the third floor is wood-framed so those super-thick walls that he stated, they don't exist on the third floor, it's wood-framed. Mr. Buckley scaled off his drawings, and what he is seeing is roughly 3,135 square feet, which is over that allotted 3,000 square feet. That is in relationship to the quote about requiring an elevator if any story is over 3,000 square feet and it's three stories or more. 12

PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS FOR OBJECTOR Mr. Haizel asked isn't the third floor within the existing envelope, or are they taking it off and building one over it. Mr. Buckley said his understanding is the existing masonry structure is for the first two floors, and its wood framed on the third floor. Naturally, the envelope is larger. But even so, at the second floor, it is calculating 3,045 square feet. So, either way, the numbers are over 3,000 square feet of existing. GENERAL DISCUSSION PUBLIC COMMENT Jaime C. at 11 Edgehill Road said he appreciates the conditions that have been made. He wanted to speak against this variance being granted on a notion of fairness to the property behind them. There was some talk about in the beginning on the part of Mr. Cox that Llewellyn Park has all this space, but Mr. C. can guarantee that Mr. Cox has more property around town than the people who live directly behind him. It seems like the mode to push for the third floor is to enhance the value of his investment. Mr. C. thinks that's unfair to do that at the expense of somebody else's home investment, which is a very big investment for the people who live directly behind this, but Mr. C. doesn't think that's fair and doesn’t think a variance should be granted. Rita DiMatteo at 11 Rocky Way also objects to this variance. She feels that the building with the third story on it will cast a shadow and it will have an overbearing presence that crowds the neighborhood. Llewelyn Park, which is directly behind it, is a historic neighborhood that is listed on the national register and state register of historic place. The building is only seven feet away from this residential district. They don't know whether there was a variance granted when it was built or not. However, building a third story on it at this point, in Ms. DiMatteo’s opinion is a violation and creates an intrusion. It should not be approved by the board. West Orange tries to be sensitive to the historic character of West Orange and particularly the Llewelyn park, which is part of the Main Street corridor, and they would not like to see an intrusion like this. Anne Hersh at 12 Edgehill Road said she is behind what is being proposed and as Rita was saying, the looming presence is a little bit different from when they first moved into Llewellyn park. They were told, for instance, they can't have a fence because that

being proposed and as Rita was saying, the looming presence is a little bit different from when they first moved into Llewellyn park. They were told, for instance, they can't have a fence because that wasn't part of the romantic period. In good faith, they've been following a certain plan to keep the historical nature. There was an offer of planting shrubs but they cannot plant shrubs. Ms. Hersh states that their property taxes have gone up an amazing amount so why are they not being protected? The houses that are around this area had been originally grandfathered in. These are smaller homes with, with little backyards that deserve to be protected. Gerald Sweeny at 24 Oak Bend said approving this does not provide any of the real benefits they wanted. To provide the residents, the second floor and third floor, people will have to walk 126 feet. You have to walk unless the elevator is installed. There’s going to be burdens. It will exclude people with young children and elderly people. Second, it would not help the downtown because the downtown standards are set forth in the guidelines for the downtown, which values aesthetics. The sample of what's been done lately in downtown is the Edison loft, that's beautiful. By contrast, this will make permanent, an ugly long parking lot upfront with a massive building in the back that is nonconforming. As to the variances and the detriment, no variances should be granted for either the setback or the height. Those are intended to protect light, air, and open space; Here huge shadows will be cast in back of it. That's an important element of one of the

purposes of both the zoning ordinance and the municipal land use laws. It's also to preserve privacy. All of this would be allowing the third floor to interfere with the privacy from people on the side and the back. Third, it won't maintain continuity of appearance in the surrounding buildings, it's wholly inconsistent with the surrounding buildings. The building, if you grant it, will essentially make the downtown a place where there'll be a missing tooth. The missing tooth is just the point where this property, as you come along, all the buildings are up to the sidewalk, all the residential buildings, the access is within about 30 feet, this one, you have this massive and steep parking lot. In summary, the building will be disproportionate in mass, character, size, and height to any of the adjacent buildings, or even immediately adjacent to anything on that side of the road. In short, this application should be denied. Amanda Barton at 10 Edgehill said as the neighbors directly to the west of this property in question, her and her husband Jonathan, are relatively new homeowners. They really feel at home in West Orange. Their kids go to public school here and they also love it here. They don't own multiple properties, this house is their entire life savings and they bought it knowing that this building, which really never should have been built where it is, but was something they were going to have to live with. They also trusted that the zoning laws for West Orange would prevent anyone from making it even worse than it already is. They believe it's been shown already that there are multiple issues with this proposal. The only conditions for mitigating these issues, the landscaping that has been proposed, while they do appreciate that, that takes up their yard area, which is already very small, half an acre. And those conditions don't account for the sunlight issues and many of the other issues that have been mentioned. Mrs. Barton thinks the applicant has failed to show that there would be any legitimate benefits adding a third story to this building rather than just repurposing the existing structure. If this application is approved, it is essentially running roughshod over the regulations that are designed to protect taxpaying homeowners in West Orange like them. It not only materially devalues hers and her husband's investment, it really undermines the

g roughshod over the regulations that are designed to protect taxpaying homeowners in West Orange like them. It not only materially devalues hers and her husband's investment, it really undermines the confidence that people can have in these systems of local government. They urge the board to please consider the detrimental impact this would have on their property and their young family, not to mention its disregard for the historic community of Llewellyn Park, while she thinks in many people's opinion, not adding significant value to the downtown. Jonathan Barton at 10 Edgehill said to be clear that they are not opposed to development and they do support a vibrant, revitalized downtown. They're excited about the idea of that. As his wife mentioned, their children go to school here and they're relatively young homeowners. It took a really long time to get there. But if the board took a moment to look at this particular building, he knows it can feel abstract when they're faced as people speaking before the board, but if you stood in front of it, he thinks everyone would understand why they're so vehemently opposed to this. It doesn't serve any particular goal for revitalizing downtown. What's being proposed is kind of a bulky, unattractive structure that already looms over their backyard. They've accepted living in a shadow currently, and they knew what they were getting into when they bought their home, but they never imagined that a third story would be added to the building that already sits so close to their property line. They understand the appeal of fixing up the facade, but they see this building every single day more than anyone else right next to it, and they are saying plainly they would rather it stay exactly as it is than have it “improved” by adding another 15 feet in height. They feel they are being put in a position where to preserve any sense of privacy or the beauty of their property, that they may have to plant a buffer on their own property just for a developer to squeeze in a few more apartments, and it just

doesn't seem fair to them, and it doesn't feel like responsible planning. Mr. Barton wanted to make it clear that they are real people, are residents of West Orange, and they love this town. Their children love their schools, and they are looking forward to living here for a very long time, and they really appreciate it if the board would not add insult to injury on this particular property. Heath Shelby at 5 Edgehill Court said as a 30-year resident of the town of West Orange and as a commissioner of the West Orange Historic Preservation Commission in town, she is supportive of a healthy and vibrant downtown, but in balance with historic preservation. She really urges the board to think about the impact that this type of development will have seven feet from the property lines of one of New Jersey's preeminent historic properties. What she is seeing is that a property that was non- conforming is requesting a second non-conforming use. That will enhance the applicant's property and add renewed ratable for the township, yet the neighboring property values would be greatly impacted. It is a visible intrusion to have a third story added to this building, and she really hopes that the board will consider the weight of this applicant's request heavily in terms of how it will impact the historic nature of Llewellyn Park. Stan Shapiro at 12 Edgehill Road said he opposes and he requests that the board rejects this application for the variance. There was an argument or a discussion that was made and the applicant's representatives or maybe some of the somebody affiliated with the board was interpreting the conditional use rules contrary to Mr. Steck. Mr. Steck pointed out that that all the requirements, including the density requirements, would apply to both the residential and the commercial use. But the argument that somehow if you're using it for a residential use, there's a density limit and then if you make it a mixed use and add a commercial use to it, that density limit would go away and you could go in and add more, plus, the commercial, it makes no sense. That is an illogical, unreasonable interpretation of the rules Mr. Shapiro respectfully submits and it shouldn't be applied to this application that way. The density use that they want to use to add another story to add three or four more apartments, it doesn't apply to a hardship. If the applicant has

shouldn't be applied to this application that way. The density use that they want to use to add another story to add three or four more apartments, it doesn't apply to a hardship. If the applicant has a medical practice, there's sufficient space on the ground floor for his medical practice and he could have the residential units on the existing second floor. It's really just to enhance for himself the value of the property, it's not a hardship to use it. They say they don't know if there was a variance or how that building got put up without the buffer all the way on the edge. It's clearly an intrusion on the neighboring properties as it exists. They don't know why or how that happened before, but now to go ahead and make it that much worse by adding another floor, that's not logical, that's just making it worse. To benefit the Main Street corridor, if you're going to renovate, you should be moving that property up to the sidewalk line, relocating it so that it conforms to the abutting properties on Main Street. Lastly, he heard the debate of the architect that they have a third floor with no elevator and only one means of egress and the emergency will have three or four residential units up there, and Mr. Shapiro questions that that's what this board is going to allow? That if in the case of a fire, those people have only one way down? That's not the variance they should be doing. Lenny Carr at 83 Mountain Avenue said that he sits on the board’s side of the seat most evenings. He was appointed to the State Investment Council by the Governor and he hears the public's comments all the time about how they're the fiduciaries of the state's monies and better ways to do it. He appreciates the service that the board is contributing tonight, and his statement is following on the statements of his neighbors around West Orange who have lived here for a long period of time. On the technical perspective, Mr. Stack raised excellent points. On the rationale, there are some serious objections. The one 15

point that he’! make that he thinks wasn't made by the previous speakers is if you take a look at where this property sits, it is directly in the middle of the Edison historical site and the Llewellyn Park residential historical neighborhood, right square in the middle, and you would expect that that significant property would strive to have some type of historical characteristics embedded in it. Instead, it is heard from a developer who doesn't want to abide by the historical characteristics in order to improve a downtown that all of them have worked hard to improve, and all of them have worked hard to create a better West Orange through their community and through their efforts. It’s been heard from a developer who says that in exchange of making some surface changes to the exterior, they ask this planning board to give them a significant variance to add a third floor, where there are no other third floors in this neighborhood. They want to do the least amount in order to gain the most value for that property. That doesn't sound like an investment. That sounds just like profit taking, and he thinks West Orange is more than that, and he wishes this planning board would just consider the impact it would have to Llewellyn Park. They ask that it consider the impact that it's going to have to the Edison changes, because it will survive long past this board's time on the planning committee, and he wants to live here in a beautiful neighborhood with people who contribute, and his neighbors do too, and all of West Orange does that, so Mr. Carr kindly and respectfully asks this planning committee to reject the variance application. It has not met the hardship requirement. Sophie Lubin at 8 Edgehill Court said she lives in Llewellyn Park and can see this building from her home. She moved to the park about two years ago, and truly is in support of the revitalization of West Orange. They had high hopes for the downtown and for the Main Street when they moved here. They moved to the park because of its historic nature and the Thomas Edison Museum. The current building, as it is today, is very unsightly, and they are huge proponents of someone doing something about that. However, the proposed design has absolutely no historical value and no historical relevance. She doesn't think that even was part of the conversation when that building was being designed. There's,

t. However, the proposed design has absolutely no historical value and no historical relevance. She doesn't think that even was part of the conversation when that building was being designed. There's, from a material standpoint, from an architectural language standpoint, no connection to anything on that street. It is already an eyesore, and they are 100% in support of that building becoming more beautiful and functional, but that is not what they're talking about right now. As they've discussed, the third story is only adding value to the property owner, and not to the surrounding areas, not to Llewellyn Park. In fact, they made no effort to see what the view was like from the neighbor’s side of the fence until the push came to shove, and they had to invite them over. There was no effort made for them to see the perspective from the west view, which is extremely concerning. Ms. Lubin believes it was the applicant's attorney at the beginning of the call that said that this variance would improve relationships with the homes that surround it, but to not even consider those neighbors at the upfront, and during the research process, when looking at the view and the true impact, she thinks speaks volumes about the attitude of disregard for the neighbors and for the sunlight, privacy, and for the property value of those neighbors. Ms. Lubin would really urge the board to turn down this application and this variance and consider the historical nature of their town and where this property sits and the homeowners who have invested heavily in this town. *Board members voted that they would like to have more information before they decide on the application. *