December 18, 2025, Regular Meeting

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING December 18, 2025 8:00 P.M. The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on December 18, 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 mecting 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: Tal Ben-Zvi, Laurence Cohen, Michael Dannemiller, Todd Dubovy, Robin Miller, Philip D. Neuer, Irv Schwarzbaum, Brent D. Scott Marc Sussman, Absent: William Michael Barbee, Alice Weiss Also Present: Alexander Fisher, Esq., Board Attorney Diana L. Chandler, Board Secretary Ryan MacNeil, Consultant Engineer Christopher Dochney, Consultant Planner Mr. Fisher and Chairperson Neuer confirmed the presence of a quorum of Board Members. ANNOUNCEMENTS © Future Meetings: January 15, 2026 (Regular Meeting) February 19, 2026 (Regular Meeting) SWEARING IN ¢ Township Professional(s).

MINUTES e November 20, 2025 (Regular Meeting) Motion: Chairperson Neuer Second: R. Miller Barbee: : Schwarzbaum: Y Ben-Zvi (Alt.): Y Scott: Y Cohen: ¥ Sussman (Alt.): ¥Y Dannemiller (Alt): Y Weiss: - Dubovy (Alt): Y Neuer: Y Miller: Y _| APPLICATIONS 1.) ZB-25-02 Montclair Stables LLC (Carried from September 18, 2025) Block: 152.02; Lot:176,179, & 186 ; Zone: R-1, R-5, B-5, 12-22 Woodland Avenue Preliminary and Final Site Plan with C and D Variances PRESENTATION ¢ Mr. Joseph Wenzel, Esq., entered the record on behalf of his applicant, Montclair Stables LLC. Discussion was made regarding the rescheduling of this application to a future meeting. Chairperson and Mr. Wenzel agreed that this application would be carried with preservation of notice to the February 19, 2026, Regular Meeting. 2.) ZB-22-13 MPB Realty (Carried from November 20, 2025) Block: 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 her applicant MPB Realty LLC. Discussion was held regarding scheduling this application for a special meeting in January. Chairperson and Ms. Kinback agreed to circulate Thursday, January 22, 2026 as the potential date. It was agreed upon by the Board to set the Special Meeting. Chairperson Neuer then announced that this application would be carried with preservation of notice to the January 22, 2026, Special Meeting. 3.) ZB-25-06 Neil Block: 46.02; Lot: 10; Zone: R-5 13 Lowell Avenue Variances to construct a new front porch on an existing two and one half story home PRESENTATION ¢ Mr. John Ginocchio, Architect and Ms. Patricia Neil, Owner/Applicant entered the record, and were sworn under oath. Mr. Ginocchio was qualified as an expert

witness in the field of architecture, He then explained in detail what the application intends to become. © Construct a front porch addition to the existing home. The porch will be an “L” shape wrapping around the existing entryway of the house, occupying approximately 155 square feet in area in front of the building from the garage to the edge of the house. Existing concrete steps in front of the entrance will be removed to accommodate the proposed porch. e There are two existing non-conforming conditions at the Property. The minimum lot area required in the R-5 zone is 10,000 square feet, whereas 7,500 square feet is the existing lot area and no change is proposed. The minimum lot width required in the R-5 zone is 75 feet, whereas the existing lot is 50 feet wide and no change is proposed. ¢ Mr. Ginocchio presented Exhibit A-1 Google Map Image of 13 Lowell Avenue to show the existing conditions of the applicant’s property noting the need for the change in the property. ©. Featuring of the front elevation of the existing residential home. He further testified that the variance requested is for 4.33 feet into the front setback to allow for a front porch addition to the home. The resulting front setback will be 25.66 feet instead of the required 30 feet. ¢ Mr. Ginocchio presented A100 Sheet (dated August 4, 2025) noting the needs reflected mainly being the setbacks needing a relief of 3.33 ft. ¢ Mr. Ginocchio presented A200 Sheet (dated August 4, 2025) noting the side elevation of the property in question. ¢ Mr. Ginocchio presented a marked up survey (dated May 25, 1998) where the marking showed the proposed stoop setback being 26.19 feet from the front property line. ¢ Mr. Ginocchio stated that when Ms. Neil approached him for this project, they wanted the porch to create a gathering place in the front of the home for events such as Trick or Treating for Halloween, and outdoor festivities in the summer with neighbors. BOARD QUESTIONS ° Chairperson Neuer asked if the zoning basis for the variance is for application of development of land for open space. Mr. Ginocchio said yes. eM. Dannemiller asked if new steps were to be built. Mr. Ginocchio said yes, two (2) of them down from the porch and those steps will be at the 25.66 feet setback. ¢ R. Miller asked if the trees in the front of the property were to remain. Mr. Ginocchio said yes that they

es, two (2) of them down from the porch and those steps will be at the 25.66 feet setback. ¢ R. Miller asked if the trees in the front of the property were to remain. Mr. Ginocchio said yes that they would remain and that the existing entry foyer to the house would not change e L. Cohen asked if a mud room had been considered instead of a porch. Mr. Ginocchio said that there is an existing foyer which could in a sense be considered a mudroom. The project in question is strictly covering open space, PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS ¢ No questions from R. MacNeil and C. Dochney ° Z. Carballo pointed out discrepancy in plans. Mr. Ginocchio apologized and said that they would be corrected on the Site Plans. NO PUBLIC QUESTIONS NO PUBLIC COMMENT

CONDITIONS: e The Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State, County, and Township statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and requirements affecting development in the Township, County, and State; ¢ The Applicant shall be bound by all the evidence, including documents and testimony presented by the Applicant at the Public Hearing; . Pursuant to Sections 25-48.10(a) and 25-48.10(c), of the Ordinance, the variance relief granted by the Board and identified herein shall expire within two (2) years and one (1) day from the date of publication of a notice of the granting of such relief in either the official newspaper of the Township of West Orange or a newspaper of general circulation in the Township, unless, before the expiration of said two (2) year and one (1) day period, either (i) a building or construction permit is secured and issued or (ii) the actions authorized hereby have been taken; and ¢ These Conditions shall be clearly printed on the engineering drawings submitted for filing in the official records of the Board, Motion: Chairperson Neuer Second: M. Dannemiller Barbee: - Schwarzbaum: Y Ben-Zvi (Alt.): ~ Scott: Y Cohen: Y Sussman (Alt.): ¥ Dannemiller (Alt.): Y | Weiss: : Dubovy (Alt.): - Neuer: Y Miller: Y | (Carried from 11/20/2025) 4.)ZB-24-06 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY Block: 155 Lot: 26.01 Zone: (O-R) Office Research; (PURD) Planned Unit Residential Development; (R-5) Single Family Residential Zone 325 Mount Pleasant Avenue Seeking Variances, Preliminary, and Final Major Site Plan Approval in connection with upgrades. PRESENTATION ¢ Ms. Jennifer Porter, Esq. entered the record on behalf of applicant Public Service Electric and Gas Company, along with Mr. James Turteltaub, Esq. on behalf of objector (Kevin Malanga). ¢ Ms. Porter made a joint statement that the parties have settled their respective issues conceming PSE&G's application. As a result of that, certain design changes have been made to PSE&G's plans where PSE&G provided limited testimony explaining those changes from a civil design engineer including the following: © PSE&G's plans previously showed bioretention swales as part of its stormwater design. Those plans have been modified to remove those basins and to provide an underground stormwater infiltration detention

system. This allows for an additional 44 trees to be preserved which were previously marked for removal. °o PSE&G's application to this Board was originally submitted in May of 2024, in terms of the lengthy process involved in connection with the Site Plan and use variance review. It was submitted before the Township adopted the Stormwater Ordinance amendments modeling DEP's green infrastructure requirements, and therefore opined that this application is grandfathered from the current requirements, which are contained in Chapter 25 of the Land Use Code, Section 25-29 Stormwater Controls, with respect to the use of green infrastructure as a stormwater design measure. Therefore, no further relief would be required from this Board in connection with the change to stormwater design for this application that is part of the proposed testimony, and part of the proposed agreement with the Objectors in connection. In addition to stormwater design, changes to the other design changes were made in an effort to save several other trees. PSE&G will be making a shift to the circulation path in order to save an additional tree, and tweaks were made in connection with an existing tree that was previously noted for temoval, which can be saved and will be shown on plans later by the engineer, but that specific tree is no longer impacted. o Ms. Porter continued testimony stating that a shift in connection with one of the manhole locations will also result in the savings of one of the larger London Planes at the site. In connection with this, it can be represented that the Tree Removal Plan provided to the Board is the same plan that forms the basis of the agreement between PSE&G and Mr. Turteltaub's client (Mr. Kevin Malanga). This depicts the total number of viable existing trees on the site being reduced from 136 to 89 trees. With a total savings of 47 additional trees where the tree removal plan remains in compliance with the new Tree Ordinance, and in addition as aresult of the additional trees being saved a contribution to the tree fund would no longer be required because all of the replacement trees that are being provided in addition to the ones being saved satisfy the requirements of the ordinance without further contribution being necessary o Inresponse to Ms. Porter’s statements, Mr.Turteltaub said that Ms, Porter did an accurate, well-done summary of the

sfy the requirements of the ordinance without further contribution being necessary o Inresponse to Ms. Porter’s statements, Mr.Turteltaub said that Ms, Porter did an accurate, well-done summary of the agreement. He wanted the number of trees noted to be saved through a lot of effort on all parties to make this a plan that hopefully the Board appreciates. It is the product of a lot of work to figure out the best way to save as many trees (especially the larger historical trees that have been part of the community for many years). ° Ms. Porter provided a brief overview of the prior testimony in connection with this application due to the reasons of: passages of time, and changes in Board/Professionals’ membership since the initial application was applied for. Variances sought: ¢ PSE&G’s application sought a 40:55D-2 Variance for the expansion of a nonconforming use, since the table of district regulations does not list public utility buildings or structures as a permitted or conditionally permitted use. ¢ A 40:55-70(d)(6) Height Variance for exceeding the required height by more than 10 percent because the Applicant is proposing to install six, approximately 70-foot lightning 5

masts, which measure to the adjacent finished grade and some ancillary utility equipment, bus supports, and lightning finials that are over 35 feet, PSE&G is seeking Bulk Variances for the front and side-yard setback, lot coverage, and the fence height requirements, with a fence height limit of 6 feet. Ms. Porter explained that PSE&G is proposing a fence height of 8 feet, with the pillars being slightly higher. Chairperson Neuer wanted it noted for the record that Ms. Porter’s mentioned of grandfathering this application with respect to the green requirements for Stormwater Management, which was confirmed by Mr. John Hess (Consulting Engineer). He also wanted it stated for the record that any replacement trees there be a stipulation that they would be native trees. Ms. Porter said that she/her client agrees to all of Chairperson Neuer’s statements. Mr. Michael Blake, Civil Engineer, entered the record, was sworn under oath, and was granted a continuation to be recognized in the field of Engineering. Mr. Blake then displayed the Proposed Site Plan, Tree Removal Plan, and explained the changes made to the project in question, utilizing plans provided. (Drawing Designation — Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan = 792790 — Dated December 8, 2025). With the redesign PSE&G will be able to relocate the stormwater management system by putting two (2) underground basins. The plan is to collect the stormwater from the station expansion in a shallow drainage ditch that runs along the east side of the drive path, eventually putting it into an underground pipe system that routes it to the basin. From there the stormwater will either infiltrate into the ground, or as the larger storms come through those will be routed through a pipe network and back into the existing stormwater network on Mount Pleasant Avenue. There will also be a trench drain that is on the outside of the drainage swale essentially to catch all the stormwater that is coming from the hillside. Tree Removal Plan: tree preservation has increased, The three (3) trees that she spoke specifically about were trees 4084, 4135, and 4328. In addition, to them, an additional 44 trees that were saved. e Mr. Blake, spoke about the shift in terms of the manhole, to which tree 4135 used to have an electrical manhole located shifted farther north into a pocket area. The circle on the plans represents an approximate

spoke about the shift in terms of the manhole, to which tree 4135 used to have an electrical manhole located shifted farther north into a pocket area. The circle on the plans represents an approximate location of where it is. ¢ Tree 4084 is in the general area where the underground detention basin will be placed. The road was ‘also adjusted. Previously, the road was mirroring the configuration where it curved up and back into the existing station. The plan is to remove the existing driveway and return it to grass. Mr. Blake testified that there currently is no plan to replace the sidewalk. The only plan would be if there were an electrical duct bank or another utility crossing the sidewalk. If the need to saw through it, the walk would replace it in kind. But in general, the existing sidewalk, the majority of it should Stay as is. BOARD QUESTIONS ¢ L. Cohen asked a question about the fence, brick, and the metal part. Stating that the Historic Preservation Department wanted to preserve it, and if there was any preservation of the existing bricks and metalwork, and could the addition of eight (8) feet be on top of the historic bricks and metal? Ms. Porter answered that in connection with the poor condition of the fence, PSE&G is replacing the existing fence. The age and preservation of the fence were main factors to the condition as

part of the approval, the concems about the fencing (albeit it’s a bit old and still historic in nature). ¢ I. Schwarzbaum asked if the swale system has been used by PSE&G on other sites? Mr, Blake said yes. ¢ T. Ben-Zvi asked if the 47 trees saved include the trees that Ms. Porter referred to as "we're tweaking a bit to save a few more trees,” does it include these tweaks that she was referring to? Mr. Blake said Yes. That the whole reason for the redesign was to remove the bioretention basins because the footprint was so much larger that it impacted a lot more trees. By switching to an underground detention basin system the footprint and disturbance is a lot smaller, which allows us to preserve more trees. eT. Ben-Zvi referenced the Forester's report dated December 16, 2025, where he wrote,"I would like to meet on-site to see if I can save more trees on site." And questioned whether such a meeting was scheduled with The Forester? Ms. Porter said that The Forester has actually been to the site on several occasions. Forester also wrote prior memos indicating that the prior tree removal plan was consistent with the ordinance, as well as this plan. Ms. Porter answered that to the extent the Board wanted to impose a condition that the Forester have the opportunity to come to the site again, as the Forester had previously been to the site and made statements indicating that they were satisfied with the prior plan. But the applicants’ happy to agree to that as a condition of approval that the Forester is welcome again to come to the site, T. Ben-Zvi questioned further as the memo was dated two (2) days ago. Ms. Porter responded that they did see that and are happy to comply with it with a note for the record, that the Forester has been to the site on several occasions. © Chairperson Neuer asked for clarification on the sidewalks, Is it that the sidewalks will — are intended to remain intact and not to be removed? Mr. Blake said that it is correct. Unless there’s a utility, like a duct bank or something that has to leave the site, but it would be a minimal impact. It wouldn't be tearing the whole thing out. It would just be whatever is needed for that underground duct bank to leave the site. ¢ Chairperson Neuer asked for further information where to the extent that any sidewalk is disturbed or removed in part it will be replaced before the project can get a