July 2, 2025 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

then there's essentially a service entrance that's got a wider gate. Mr. Noborine asked regarding the main access drive. Is there a reason the gate's being replaced? Mr. Keenan said he can’t give the specific reason. There was a request from the school district. He assumes they just wanted the ability to shut any traffic down from coming back into this area at any given point. Mr. Noborine asked if there is going to be an island, or that is going to be just lane marking. Mr. Keenan said there's no island; it's just asphalt. Mr. Alper asked what the increase in the impermeable surface was. Mr. Keenan said he currently doesn’t have the exact number with him. Mayor McCartney asked if it can be confirmed that this is Board of Education property and not a municipally owned playground area that would have an effect on recreation and other organizations in town. Mr. Chewcaskie said the site plan that has been provided indicates that all the property that is within the block and lot is Board of Education property. Mayor McCartney asked if the award-winning inclusive playground is the one that is being relocated. Mr. Keenan said no, what's being relocated is the equipment behind it, which is more exercise equipment, which would not be ADA-compliant. Mayor McCartney asked about the means of access from Ellison. Will emergency vehicles be able to get that way? Mr. Keenan said yes, it'll be 20 feet wide. It's adequate. 6

Mayor McCartney asked, Is there adequate parking for additional staff. Mr. Keenan said what's proposed here is 11 additional parking stalls, which is going to handle a good portion. He doesn't know the exact staff count. Chairman Bagoff asked how we know that parking is sufficient if we don't know how many staff are going to be in the building. Mr. Chewcaskie said Mr. Ross indicated in his testimony, there are 6 classrooms and a nurse. That would be at least 7 people there. The parking in this area was intended to be maximized. And again, this has to be approved by the state board of education to ensure that they meet the standards. Mayor McCartney asked if there is a way to delineate or to show where the wetlands are on this property by that aerial view. Mr. Keenan said he can show it right on the plan. He shows where the wood line is, as well as the wetlands, and then the dashed line on the plan is the buffer. Mr. Guarino asked if there is any mention about what type of fire suppression will be built into the structure. Mr. Ross said as far as he knows that there won't be sprinklers. They'll have fire detection only. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS Mr. Haizel asked if there seems to be no real relationship between what is being proposed to add and the playground. If it's something that's going to be accessible to the students in this new facility, there is no connectivity shown on the plans. How is that going to work? Mr. Keenan said the connection will be the crosswalk and the sidewalk going around that area of parking in front of the proposed building. There is a gate to get into the existing playground area. Anybody who's using it would walk across the sidewalk and come in the gate right there. Mr. Scott asked if the expansion of the driveway is going to maybe interfere a little bit with the crosswalk, so is it possible to see if that crosswalk can shift down a little bit. Mr. Keenan said that it would be great if they could work with the township because it is challenging. There is a fire hydrant there, and they can't sway it the other way. Mr. Scott asked if the plan proposes any lighting. Mr. Keenan said there is a Cobra headlight fixture on the utility pole in the drive. There's also a Cobra headlight at the top, up by the playground. These will provide lighting currently for those two areas. And then there's going to be additional lighting on the

y pole in the drive. There's also a Cobra headlight at the top, up by the playground. These will provide lighting currently for those two areas. And then there's going to be additional lighting on the building, which is going to be limited; it's not going to cover the parking area. But they'll review that with the district. Mr. Scott asked if the stormwater management system and design are in accordance with the recently adopted stormwater management rules from the township. Mr. Keenan said yes. Mr. Scott asked regarding the proposed infiltration to the CF perforated pipe. Has a geotechnical investigation been done to test the soils and make sure that it's adequate? Mr. Keenan said yes, it has. PUBLIC QUESTIONS Deborah Butensky at 11 Rappleye Court asked if we are losing O'Connor field, the whole baseball field that Mountaintop used to use. Mr. Keenan said yes, the ball field that's there is going to be occupied by the buildings, that won't be able to use it as a ball field. Ms. Butensky asked if there is any way that this ball field can be replaced because it was heavily used by the Mountaintop league. Mr. Keenan said he doesn’t know about this property. Seth Weisleder at 17 Howell Drive asked if the soil testing for the new playground and the old playground, where pre-K kids will be playing, was for any contaminants or environmental issues. Mr. Keenan said they did not test it for contaminated soils. They

tested for probability and to establish the depth of the water table. e@ Seth Wesileder asked if there is a plan to test the soil for contaminants. Mr. Keenan said they would have to test if they were taking the material off-site and removing it, but he is not familiar with anything that requires them to test. APPLICATION SUMMARY e To sum up, Mr. Chewcaskie stated the Board of Ed is required to appear before the planning board under section 31 of the land use law. e For consistency with the master plan and the board's purview is for a review and recommendation regarding the plan that was submitted by the Board of Education. e The applicant would request that the board issue a letter indicating that it has reviewed the plan, that it is consistent with the master plan as set forth in the planner's report and the recommendations that were made. e Some of these recommendations include appropriate lighting, consultation about the existing crosswalk, additional landscaping, connectivity to the existing playground, the ability to see if they can make all the access points to the playground ADA-compliant, consideration of the playground surface, along with the video cameras. GENERAL DISCUSSION PUBLIC COMMENT Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Guarino Alper: Y Morgan: — Bagoff: Y Scarpa: -—-- Cardoza (Alt.2): Y Noborine: ¥ Guarino: Y Wilkes: — Kapferer: Y Klein: -_ Mayor McCartney: Y e 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 floors. Additionally, twenty-six (26) existing on-site parking spaces will also be provided. PRESENTATION © On behalf of the applicant, the attorney Tyler Zeberl, states they are here to address a few 8

of the issues that were that were raised by the board and members of the public, specifically the elevator, second means of egress from the third story, structural materials for the third floor, renderings of the building as proposed, the slope of the parking lot, the building height in relation to the surrounding buildings. The architect, Mr. Peist, is still under oath and testified to the following: There is no exterior lighting proposed at the rear of the building. The rear third-floor windows will have a privacy film installed and maintained as on the plans. A white roof is proposed and noted on the roof plan. HVAC units have been relocated and consolidated at the front of the building to reduce impact on neighbors. A sound insulation partition has been added as well. The second and third floor areas are 2,950 square feet per floor, which is below the 3,000 square foot threshold per floor requiring an elevator, so they do not require an elevator. Regarding the second means of egress, they have provided fire escapes as noted in the town ordinance. The 2 fire escapes replaced the previously existing ones that they have. These are code-compliant and do not trigger any new variances consistent with section 25-8.2 of the Township Code regarding permitted yard encroachments. Regarding third-floor structural material, the wall construction of the third floor will match the existing wall type of end thickness, so they're just matching what the second floor has. The original building was legally permitted on September 13th, 1977, under permit number 18859 and was completed and opened in 1979. Lastly, the renderings. Mr. Peist has provided an existing photograph and a proposed photograph of the exterior. BOARD QUESTIONS Mr. Alper asked about the renderings or calculations for the additional shade that would be thrown on the nearest properties with the taller building. Mr. Peist said he is not a shadow engineer and cannot provide expert testimony regarding shadows. A shadow study is not required under the West Orange code and is beyond the scope of this application. Mr. Noborine asked regarding fire escapes, will they be added or replaced. Mr. Peist said they would add the fire escapes on the side, meeting the regulations for the township. Chairman Bagoff asked, Is there any way to provide protection so there's no way for a person from the fire escape

they would add the fire escapes on the side, meeting the regulations for the township. Chairman Bagoff asked, Is there any way to provide protection so there's no way for a person from the fire escape to go backwards onto the other property. Mr. Peist said that they're far enough from the edge that it would be very difficult to. They would also talk to the township about specifics of the fire escapes, and would ask them if they have a preference in fire escapes. NO PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS PUBLIC QUESTIONS Eric Buckley at 8 Edge Hill Court asked regarding the previous iterations of these drawings. It was stated that the total building area was 6,458, and so that would be equal to 3,229 square feet per floor. Mr. Peist said these drawings are meant for the planning board, it's not a full construction level plan review. Anne Hirsch at 12 Edge Hill Road asked about the fire escapes. The 2 fire escapes will be on the sides, which seems like a point for somebody who wants to go into the gated community without an invitation. But if they put it in the front, it would be less of a constant threat, why was that not considered? Mr. Peist said the fire escapes purely serve 9

as a means of emergency exits. The existing exits for the building, which were the staircases, are already on the side of the building. They want to maintain a clean front. Stan Shapiro at 12 Edge Hill Road asked how the square footage for the second and third floor went from 3,000 and several hundred to just under 3,000. Mr. Peist said it was the exterior face for the calculation. He was using that because that is a building coverage. The inside face of the wall is the building definition requirement. There are thick walls, so they match the thicknesses and meet the dimensions. Mr. Shapiro asked, is it the plan that the additional floor or the changes in the exterior walls will have the same thickness as the existing exterior walls? What is that thickness? Mr. Peist said he doesn’t have the exact calculation. The number is a hold dimension on a construction plan. Sophie Lubin at Edge Hill Court asked if some of the decisions can be talked about in terms of material choices and architectural details, and where, if at all, it is considered surrounding areas. Mr. Peist said the existing building is a mid-century institutional. It's a brutalist-influenced commercial style that was common in the suburbs in the 1960s to the 1980s. It is a contemporary commercial architecture. It is defined by clean lines, minimal ornamentation, mixed materials, large windows, and a flat roof. They're using natural materials, and giving a clean contemporary look to the building. Ms. Lubin asked what does it mean by natural materials. Mr. Peist said there's going to be stone veneer. There's going to be wood paneling on there. They're using different things to make it have a natural feel to it. Ms. Lubin asked if the wood paneling is actually wood, or is it metal that's meant to look like wood. Mr. Peist said it's a composite. Ms. Lubin asked to reference any of the surrounding buildings, the Edison Lofts, and any kind of historical elements when making these choices. Mr. Peist said they were using what existing building that they had. Ms. Lubin asked who was responsible for providing a shadow study. Mr. Zeberl said a shadow study is beyond the scope of a site plan application. Lenny Carr at 83 Mountain Avenue asked why the shadow study was not being required. Mr. Peist said he doesn't think it's necessary for this property. PRESENTATION The engineer, Donna Bullock, is

n. Lenny Carr at 83 Mountain Avenue asked why the shadow study was not being required. Mr. Peist said he doesn't think it's necessary for this property. PRESENTATION The engineer, Donna Bullock, is still under oath and testified to the following: There have been some plan changes that were requested by the board and engineers review letters that they have addressed for the building. They added the fire escapes for the parking lot upgrades. They added a trash enclosure at the north end of the parking lot and space. They've added 2 EV spaces, added bumper blocks, and added a new fence on the north side. They are replacing a retaining wall on the south side. They assigned 7 spaces labeled “RP” (Residential Parking) along the south side of the lot. The bill code door at the end of the parking is to be removed and they are proposing 1 ground sign. For the parking, the final count is that they have 20 standard parking spaces with 1 handicap space, 2 EV spaces with 2 credits counts as 4. In total they have 25 spaces, where 25 is required. So therefore, there will be no need for a bulk variance requirement for the parking. For lighting, they will adjust the lighting levels to maintain the 0.3 foot candles at the property lines. As requested, they added the aerial site triangle sheet into the plan set, sheet 1 of 1. 10

They do not propose landscaping, but they are cleaning up the overgrowth and vegetation within the cracks of the paved area. It's going to be cleaned up by the applicant. They did submit a plan entitled Boundary and Topographic Survey dated 1-14-2025 with a revision date of 6-12-25. That revision added adjacent building heights and grade shots. The proposed height for the subject property is 34.5 feet. It is smaller than all the buildings to the north. Taking a look at lot 14, which is three properties south, it isa 2 anda half story over a garage. And the distance from the grade at the grade elevation at the garage to the peak of the building is 20 is 42.1 feet. Moving along to lot 12, it's a 2 and a half story residential dwelling. And from grade to peak, it is 37.4 feet. Moving to lot 10, it is an existing 2 and a half story residential dwelling where from grade to peak is 36 feet. On the south side, adjacent lot 5 from grade to peak is 37.6 feet, which is greater than the subject property of 34.5. Moving on to lot 4, there is a 2 and a half story building with a garage in the front where we have 33.9 feet from the grade at the garage to the roof peak. Finally, lot 3, it is a 2-story dwelling that has from finished floor 26.9 feet. Of the 6 lots that have been evaluated, 4 properties are taller than their proposed height. Two of the buildings, lot 4 and 3, which are actually more of a commercial use to the north, are 33.9 feet high and 26.9 feet high. After looking at the engineer's letter of June 30th, reviewing it other than a few things Ms. Bullock just testified about the parking variance and providing the correct lighting requirements, they agree with everything in the engineer's letter. BOARD QUESTIONS Ms. Kapferer asked to describe again the measurements that Ms. Bullock was just providing, was it from a person's driveway to the top of the structure on their property. Ms. Bullock said they have provided on the updated Boundary and Topographic Survey; they show spot shots at the location of the sidewalk. Then they show spot shots on both right and the left of the dwellings, which would be considered average grade, the grade at the property. They also calculate some finished floor elevations. And then with those three in mind, they just subtract from the average grade minus the peak to get the actual height of each

grade at the property. They also calculate some finished floor elevations. And then with those three in mind, they just subtract from the average grade minus the peak to get the actual height of each structure. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS Mr. Haizel asked were any of the properties that the height was cited of, were the setbacks of the properties taken into account, or was it going strictly by the building. Ms. Bullock said they went straight to the building peak. They didn't have the ability to survey each lot. They did locate them approximately with the grade shots and as seen on the map, drew a front line for the front of the house and then two sides to indicate the approximate location. Mr. Haizel asked were any of the buildings set back to the extent that the subject property building is set back. Ms. Bullock said these houses are all along the front of the property. They're all with the residential look for the properties to the south. They are set back close to the street, 35 or 40 foot setbacks. Mr. Scott asked regarding a resolution in terms of the conflict between the opposed lift and the built-in doors for the basement of the building. Is that something that's been resolved? Are those doors going to be removed and that access is going to be taken away from the building? Ms. Bullock said yes, the built in doors are proposed to be removed. It ll