August 21, 2025, Regular Meeting

o testified that for the steep slope ordinance and the ordinance of West Orange, the effective lot area has to be calculated based on the site constraints and in this particular site constraint, steep slopes. West Orange provides an adjustment factor for the slope ranges on the property. It was calculated on sheet two, and it totaled into 2,491. For the ordinance, the maximum building coverage, the maximum lot coverage, and the lot area all have to be calculated by the effective lot area.

Mr. Furao testified that if they were to calculate the maximum building coverage and the maximum lot coverage without having it to be reduced to 2,491, they actually would be compliant. The maximum building coverage would actually come out to be 18.7 percent, which is under the 20 percent required, and the maximum lot coverage would come out to be 19.4, which is under the 30 percent required. Chairperson Neuer walked through the February 13, 2025, memorandum from the consulting engineer John Hess of CME Associates with Mr. Furao. Chairperson Neuer asked Mr. Furao if he had the opportunity to review the February 13, 2025, memorandum from the consulting engineer John Hess of CME Associates. Mr. Furao said yes. Starting with design comments on page 2, with what remains to be submitted on checklist items, Chairperson Neuer asked if that information had been submitted. Mr. Furao said the submitted documents on the list of property owners should have been submitted. Mr. Endler added they never received a revised letter from either CME or the Nishuane group, but had conversations with the town professionals and had sent in revised plans that fulfilled the completeness requirements. MacNeill from CME said they have provided the additional items to their office for review. He added they have items A, B, C, and D but for number E, that is the only item Mr. MacNeill could not find. Mr. MacNeill said they did not have any issue with them proceeding if they could provide those requirements. Chairperson Neuer asked if plans and documents for West Orange CCO have been received. Mr. MacNeill said no. Mr. Endler said that will be provided along with the previous application and the revised tree removal permit as needed. Chairperson Neuer asked Mr. Furao with respect to item number two, what is his testimony with regard to section 25-9.7 of the land use regulations. Mr. Furao said the applicant has his architect on the line and he talked about the design of the dwelling. Chairperson Neuer Mr. Furao, what are his comments with regard to four and five regarding the steep slope. Mr. Furao said those are the variances and the relief that they are secking from the board currently. The basis for the variances are that the lot is without disturbance within the sleep so that the lot isn't developable. Chairperson Neuer asked what is the basis for the variance request under item

y. The basis for the variances are that the lot is without disturbance within the sleep so that the lot isn't developable. Chairperson Neuer asked what is the basis for the variance request under item six regarding the height of the retaining walls. Mr. Furao said because of the steep slopes on the property, it is to provide an accessible driveway. They designed the driveway at the maximum slope possible to reduce the height of the wall. They also provided the applicant and the proposed dwelling a backyard. Those are the reasons for the retaining walls in the rear of that height, exceeding the heights of the ordinance. Chairperson Neuer asked Mr. Furao what is his response to Mr. Hess's number seven regarding safety fences on top of the retaining walls. Mr. Furao said there is no issue with it, they'll be willing to comply with that. Chairperson Neuer asked Mr. Endler if he wishes to amend the application to include safety fences on top of the retaining walls. Mr. Endler said they can have

that as a condition that they can provide as well with the other items they've already mentioned. Chairperson Neuer said regarding the street address, it's something that should be resolved. Mr. Furao said, as explained in his testimony, the Winding Way right of way in the tax map seems to have just ended for some reason in front of this property, and that's where the Undercliff right of way started. Chairperson Neuer asked to talk about the runoff resulting from the construction of the new building, item number nine. Mr. Furao said they’re willing to work with the board engineer to satisfy any additional runoff on the property. Chairperson Neuer asked about item number 10, sheet three, regarding cleanouts. Mr. Furao said they will provide that in their revised plans. Chairperson Neuer asked about the overhead electric telephone lines, item number 11. Mr. Furao said the ordinance requires that the utility lines be underground and tied to the nearest utility pole, which is across the street. Chairperson Neuer asked in regards to number 12, was an application submitted to the Hudson-Essex-Passaic Soil Conservation District. Mr. Furao said they are planning to submit to the soil erosion once they obtain approval from the board. They will submit a certification as a condition of approval. Chairperson Neuer asked in regards to number 13, were the details provided as requested, A through G. Mr. Furao said they will provide them as a condition of approval. BOARD QUESTIONS Mr. Dubovy asked Mr. Furao to explain the process behind 11 trees being removed, but none are going to be replaced, given West Orange's sensitivity to tree loss and canopy. Mr. Furao said with its steep slopes, the limitations, and the size of the site, it hinders the amount of area available for tree planting. Mr. Dubovy asked Mr. Furao if he is sticking with the zero-tree replacement. Mr. Furao said they’re open to tree replacement, if that's what the board would like. Mr. Cohen visited the property and noticed a brook running through it and a 50- foot-wide oak tree. He asked if there is any way to keep that oak tree and build the house, and also, what they are doing with that brook. Mr. Furao said he is not aware of any brook through the property. If the tree that is being talked about is the one that's labeled as 30 inches wide in the existing conditions plan, then yes they would need

rao said he is not aware of any brook through the property. If the tree that is being talked about is the one that's labeled as 30 inches wide in the existing conditions plan, then yes they would need to remove it as part of the location of the new driveway that they're proposing. Mr. Dannemiller asked Mr. Furao to briefly restate what's the relief they're looking for from the height and the retaining wall, what's required and what's being requested. Mr. Furao said the maximum required for a retaining wall is 6 feet and the highest elevated retaining wall would be 20 feet. Mr. Dannemiller asked what is beyond that wall. Mr. Furao said the backyard of the neighbor. Mr. Barbee asked Mr. Furao if he knows the age of the trees that they want to remove. Mr. Furao said no, he doesn’t. Mr. Barbee asked if the neighbors have 20-foot retaining walls. Mr. Furao said there's no neighbor to the right because it's just wooded areas. He is not aware of any 20-foot retaining walls on the neighbor to the left. 10

e Mr. Sussman asked Mr. Furao to clarify if the difference in elevation on this site was approximately 84 feet at the front to 154 feet at the rear. Mr. Furao said yes, the rear being at the top of the property. e Mr. Sussman asked what is the difference in elevation between those two points. Mr. Furao said about 70 feet. e Mr. Sussman said, according to Mr. Hess's memo, they're planning to disturb over 50% of the site, which is in excess of 25% in slope, where the zoning ordinance actually permits no disturbance over 25% and asked Mr. Furao is his testimony that this is an undevelopable lot otherwise, if they don't do that. Mr. Furao said there's no opportunity to develop a lot without disturbing the steep slopes. e@ Mr. Sussman asked if over half the area of the lot is on over 25% of the steep slope. Mr. Furao said yes, a majority of the property is within the 25% over area of steep slopes. e Mr. Sussman said, according to Mr. Hess's memo, the maximum is 4 feet, but Mr. Furao said the maximum is 6 feet. Mr. Furao said he apologized; he thought it was 6 feet. e Mr. Sussman asked if it was his testimony that the retaining wall at the rear will be over 20.5 feet high. Mr. Furao said yes. e@ Mr. Cohen asked if the applicant would consider putting the house on stilts to leave the land as it is, in order not to disturb the steep slope. Mr. Furao said he will defer to the applicant's testimony later. Break-9:35-9:45 PM Upon return from break, Chairperson Neuer announced the presence of a quorum, At this time, Chairperson Neuer announced the carrying and adjournment of application ZB-24-17 Pardo Development Group Inc. (104 Winding Way) to the November 20, 2025, Regular Meeting without further notice. Chairperson Neuer adjourned the meeting at 9:51 PM. Adopted: io 16/25 11