October 23, 2025, Special Meeting

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL MEETING October 23, 2025 8:00 P.M. The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a special meeting on October 23, 2025, commencing at 8:00 PM, utilizing the virtual Zoom platform. Chairperson Philip D. Neuer called the meeting to order at approximately 8:00 PM. It was announced that notification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, the West Orange Chronicle, and the Star-Ledger and posted on the Township Bulletin Board in accordance with the “Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act.” Chairperson Philip D. Neuer asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Alexander Fisher, Esq., Board Attorney, read the opening statement. ROLL CALL Present: William Michael Barbee, Tal Ben-Zvi, Laurence Cohen, Michael Dannemiller, Todd Dubovy, Robin Miller, Philip D. Neuer, Brent D. Scott Marc Sussman, Alice Weiss Absent: Irv Schwarzbaum (excused) Also Present: Alexander Fisher, Esq., Board Attorney Diana L. Chandler, Board Secretary Ryan MacNeill, Consultant Engineer Christopher Dochney, Consultant Planner Mr. Fisher and Chairperson Neuer confirmed the presence of a quorum of Board Members. ANNOUNCEMENTS ° Future Meetings: November 20, 2025 (Regular Meeting) December 18, 2025 (Regular Meeting) e Chairperson Neuer reminded Board Members of their Storm Water requirement being due by December 2, 2025. He explained further that it is mandatory, because if not completed, the township is subject to penalties and violations. SWEARING IN e Mr. Ryan MacNeill, Consultant Engineer, and Mr. Christopher Dochney, Consultant Planner, were sworn under oath.

RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE FIRM CME ASSOCIATES AS CONSULTING PLANNERS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE FROM OCTOBER 10, 2025, TO DECEMBER 31, 2025 Resolution for CME (modified at new rate) (red 10-21-2025) Motion: Chairperson Neuer Second: M. Dannemiller Barbee: Y Schwarzbaum: - Ben-Zyi (Alt.3): : Scott: Y Cohen: Y Sussman (Alt.1): Y Dannemiller (Alt.2): - Weiss: Y Dubovy (Alt.4): - Neuer: Y Miller: Y APPLICATION ZB-22-13 MPB Realty (470 Eagle Rock Avenue) (Carried from 7/31/2025) Blo ck: 153; Lot:38; Zone:B-2 470 Eagle Rock Avenue Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan PRESENTATION Ms. Danielle Kinback Esq entered the record on behalf of applicant MPB Realty LLC and gave a brief summary on previous testimony stating this is an application for preliminary and final major site plan approval, d3 conditional use variance, bulk variance and design waiver relief to renovate and repurpose an existing restaurant to house two proposed uses, a sit down [HOP (International House of Pancakes) restaurant and a Popeyes restaurant with drive through accessories. Mr. Michael Dick, Acoustic Engineer, was presented, sworn under oath, and his credentials were accepted by the Board. Ms. Kinback asked Mr. Dick if, when he performed his initial analysis, he made some assumptions with respect to the rooftop equipment that was specifically for the restaurant. Mr. Dick answered in the affirmative. Ms. Kinback, asked if, in response to the questions of the Board, the architect provided him with more specific information as to the location and type of equipment. Mr Dick, P.E., answered in the affirmative, stating further that they received the roof layout and the schedules with the submitted mechanical equipment selections. Ms. Kinback asked what type of analysis was performed with that information. Mr. Dick said that they updated the outdoor acoustical model with the proposed locations as well as the manufacturer's sound data for those unit selections. Ms. Kinback asked how that impacted the conclusions that were in the report that was previously submitted and testified to. Mr. Dick said that several of the units were quieter than originally evaluated. So overall, the resulting sound levels were quieter at the southeast residential location, they were marginally quieter. The difference was less than a decibel, and at the other locations, they

uated. So overall, the resulting sound levels were quieter at the southeast residential location, they were marginally quieter. The difference was less than a decibel, and at the other locations, they were generally two (2) to four (4) DBA quieter with the conclusions remaining the same within the limits of the state noise code.

BOARD QUESTIONS ¢ Todd Dubovy asked about the sound generated from the Menu Order Board and its proximity to the property line, referencing the lack of any real plantings that are going to be useful in attenuating the sound to the adjacent neighbors. There will only be about eight (8) feet of plantings between the driveway and the property line. At a peak point where maybe somebody is talking somewhat loudly out of the speaker, is there any study data that speaks to the peak decibel levels Mr. Dick, answered that the menu board loudspeaker is limited to 15 decibels above the ambient sound and is not going to get louder just from somebody speaking louder. As far as plantings, generally, a significant reduction of sound from plantings does not occur unless it’s a very thick, dense forest. eT. Dubovy, asked about the proposed fencing not appearing to be all that solid, and asked for confirmation on the type of fence it is (vinyl or PVC) and at what height it is. Mr. Dick answered in the affirmative, and it is six fect.He explained further that at the property line, there is not as much reduction at the upper stories. It's not going to help significantly with the rooftop equipment. e Laurence Cohen, asked if he can incorporate the projected noise from the customers of Popeyes and IHOP into his study. It would be more realistic. Mr. Dick said that the human voice is exempt from the noise code, so it's not something that can be evaluated. e L. Cohen, asked if they could incorporate loud revving engines, people, young people who use this is what bothers the neighbors already with hot rodders launching in this property and reving their engines.Mr Dick said, that they are not accounting for somebody driving a car not street illegally, or, doesn't have a muffler or something like that. The analysis of the cars idling was really for typical cars that are operating. e William Michael Barbee asked for clarification on a cap on the volume that the speaker would be at. Mr. Dick, P.E., said that the point isn't to raise it to the maximum level. It doesn't do that. It limits the sound to 15 decibels above the ambient level. So when the ambient level is lower than the level of the loudspeaker is reduced. e¢ W.M. Barbee asked if there is a maximum on what that microphone will kick out at any given time no matter how much noise is around. Mr. Dick said yes, that it does

of the loudspeaker is reduced. e¢ W.M. Barbee asked if there is a maximum on what that microphone will kick out at any given time no matter how much noise is around. Mr. Dick said yes, that it does have a cap. In particular, when the level is lower, it's going to be even lower than that. ¢ Chairperson Philip D. Neuer, asked what's the state code level maximum adjacent to a residential neighborhood is. Mr Dick, P.E.,said that it's not generally going to be higher than 76 DBA. e Chairperson Neuer asked what the state code maximum that is permissible Mr. Dick, answered 50 DBA at the property, at the adjacent property, and that it's not 76 DBA at the adjacent property, it's at the loudspeaker. e Chairperson Neuer asked what the DBA is going to be at the property line from the loud speaker with the ambient noise that's pushing the level the loud speaker. What is that number at the property line of the nearest resident? Mr Dick said from the loudspeaker, it's less than, less than 40 DBA. eT. Dubovy asked for clarification from Mr. Dick because he said that the human voice is exempt from the noise code, and whether the human voice was part of the testing and the sounds that are being expected to be emanating from the speaker, or amplified voice. Mr.Dick answered that the amplified voice is subject to the noise code. NO PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS

PUBLIC QUESTIONS Mr. Hussien Ismail (6 Rosney Terrace)asked if that will be noise he can hear inside my house and disturb my entire family during the day or night? Mr. Dick answered that whether or not he can hear it will depend on a lot of things such as if your windows are open, and there are a lot of factors that will dictate that. But based on conversations had with people who are on the State Noise Council, 50 DBA is the nighttime limit was selected based on research that was conducted to that effect. Mr. Seth Weisleder (17 Howell Drive) Asked for a description how drive thrus traffic noise differs from a regular parking lot or street noise in residential areas. Mr. Dick, answered that generally its going to be quieter than the noise that's on the adjacent road. It's mostly going to be cars idling, but that they did model that. Its not subject to the noise code, but the noise from the idling itself, was calculated to be less than the limits of the noise code as well. Mr. Weisleder asked if there were other mitigation solutions that might be recommended to be a nice neighbor and mitigate any additional noise. Mr. Dick said that they are going to be improving the existing fence with a more robust one. But as far as the vehicle noise, that's basically what's going to be done. Mr. Weisleder asked his last question with regard to operations/deliveries, with loud and disturbing noises taken into consideration, because when bringing in a large truck and unloading things that does create some loud and disturbing noise. If certain ordinances or things that have to be taken into account, to respect for additional noise, for loading and unloading activities. Mr. Dick said that there is going to be noise from the truck refrigeration unit, which was modeled. They are going to have shielding from the building, which helps to reduce those noise levels. But calculations of the levels appear to be below the limits of the noise code. Mr. Weisleder followed up his questioning for loading and unloading with any “boom” sounds or other equipment that would need to be used, and what time would that normally take place. Mr. Dick answered that there was testimony previously on what time loading would occur, but it would be done when the restaurants are closed. As far as the loading operations themselves, he deferred to Operations’ previous testimony. But the loading noise

n what time loading would occur, but it would be done when the restaurants are closed. As far as the loading operations themselves, he deferred to Operations’ previous testimony. But the loading noise itself was modeled with the truck refrigeration sound. Mr. Andy McLeod (19 Fundis Road )asked about sound modeling, and it was clocked at 93 DBA, and whether this was factored into the evening’s version of the model. Mr. Dick, Here, you're referring to truck refrigeration, correct? Yeah, truck refrigeration, yes, yes, that was nighttime, yep, and that was, that was factored into the model, because the nighttime limits to 50 DBA, so that's pretty significantly higher sound power level. So that's not the sound level at the property line or within the residential property. Pressure is dependent on distance. Power is not so the sound pressure level has to be below 50 DBA at the receiving property Mr. McLeod asked if Mr. Dick is able to attest to how the vinyl fencing that's proposed is going to dampen the sound for houses in the immediate area. Mr. Dick said that the fence is mostly going to provide a reduction at grade near the property line, and as you go further back, it won't do as much, and as you go to the upper stories of properties, it's not going to do as much. So, at some locations it'll provide a little bit of reduction, but not necessarily relying on that to meet the noise code limits at upper stories and things Mr. McLeod asked based on the answer to his previous question, the noise that the upstairs in the surrounding properties, where typically bedrooms are, there

wouldn't be an effective way to mitigate noise. Mr. Dick answered in the affirmative. Mr. Emrah Altunkaya (15 Fundis Road) asked how far the last speaker going to be from the nearest property line. Mr. Dick said that he believes that it's approximately 32 feet. Mr. Altunkaya asked for confirmation of the maximum decibel levels Mr. Dick said that the expected maximum is 76 DBA. Mr. Altunkaya asked now at 30 feet, it's actually almost at the borderline of 50 decibels. So even though it's 75 or 76 at the sound level at the borderline, it's going to be also be borderline with the state level. So it seems like the fencing is not going to do much as well. Mr. Dick said that the model takes into account air/ground absorption and reflections/reduction from buildings/barriers. It's not just a free field distance calculation. Mr. Altunkaya asked for confirmation that these calculations are mostly to make it look sympathetic by taking the averages. But, things happen, so there will be times that neighboring properties are going to be mostly affected and if there is any way to have better sound control at the borderline. Mr. Dick answered, saying that he didn’t agree with his assessment of the sound level from the loudspeaker, and that they did their own modeling with a different conclusion as it is expected to meet the limits of the noise code as stated the fence is going to help at the property line itself. There is an automatic volume control for the loudspeaker that will be sufficient in itself. Ms. Isabell Rise (10 Rosney Terrace) asked what the plans are to ensure that residents can still enjoy their property and peace and quiet. Mr. Dick answered, that there will be a six foot vinyl fence around the site. The rooftop mechanical equipment when evaluated is low noise equipment. The loudspeaker also has automatic volume control, which will reduce the old sound from the loudspeaker to 15 decibels above the ambient when the ambient is lower. Ms. Rise yeah. Asked what happens in the event that there is a system malfunction and it's significantly higher, who is contacted. Chairperson Neuer answered that the Building Department would be contacted to see whether or not there is a basis for a violation or for a change in the installation. This witness has no control over that. Mr. Sean Wright (9 Fundis Road) asked a question in clarification be it had been mentioned

there is a basis for a violation or for a change in the installation. This witness has no control over that. Mr. Sean Wright (9 Fundis Road) asked a question in clarification be it had been mentioned that the fencing wouldn't necessarily be sufficient to decrease the sound levels on the second floor. All of the bedrooms on his property are located on the second floor, (about 50 feet away from that that property line) and what will the applicant be doing to mitigate that sound, and how much sound deadening will the vinyl fence proposed actually provide. Mr. Dick responded that the fencing won't provide reduction at the upper stories necessarily, but this site is below the limits of the noise code at the upper stories as well. Mr. Wright asked what was the methodology in developing this conclusion that at the second floor there would not be any violation of this code. Mr. Dick said that there was a comprehensive outdoor acoustical model of the site using software called “Sound Plan”, which is based on the ISO standard for outdoor sound propagation, where it included the surrounding buildings, the proposed sources, and the topography. Where it modeled the proposed operations, calculated the expected sound levels at the adjacent receiving properties, and a model was done at the property line itself and upper stories.

REDIRECT e Ms. Kinback asked about the levels that the DEP requires at the property line is 65 DBA during the day, 50 at night. Is that dependent on any specific use that is proposed, or whether this is a sit down restaurant, drive through, restaurant, office, bars, everyone subject to the same requirements. Mr. Dick said it would apply for any of those uses. e Ms. Kinback asked regarding the speaker board, the hierarchy of what's generating the most noise with our proposed development, where is the speaker board is in the hierarchy of this application. Mr. Dick said that it is pretty much at the bottom of the list. e Ms. Kinback asked what is at the top HVAC equipment and is that why therewas amore specific analysis in response to those questions, knowing that was generating the most noise, correct, Mr. Dick answered in the affirmative. e Ms. Kinback asked in regards to the speaker board that it modeled a level of 76 DBA. Mr. Dick said at the speaker board, yes. Ms. Kinback followed up by asking how he arrived at that number based on being approximately 32 feet from the property line. Mr. Dick said that its based on the ambient sound levels that measured and what the expected typical idling car to produce at the menu board as well. e Ms. Kinback asked for confirmation of the ambient measured and the range. Mr. Dick said that the DBA was 45 to 60. e Chairperson Neuer asked if he recommend to the client that they consider relocating the speaker board, or changing the direction of the speaker board sound so that it goes in a different direction, or not directly to the residents behind this property. Mr. Dick said that he did not. Chairperson Neuer followed up by asking if he had studied whether or not a relocation of the speaker board or a change of the direction of the noise coming out of it would lessen the impact on the neighbors to the rear. Mr. Dick answered that it's not going to do much to reduce the overall sound levels, because it's really the HVAC equipment at the property line. The sound at the property line from the loudspeaker is far enough below the sound from HVAC equipment that it's not adding to the overall level there. e Chairperson Neuer asked if there is anything proposed to this project to eliminate the impact of the sound from the HVAC on the neighbors to the rear. Mr. Dick answered that there is a parapet, which will help a little