December 18, 2025, Regular Meeting

d 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 Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Blake said yes, and also, because the entrance will be redone this entrance so there's going to be some adjustment to the sidewalk there as well. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS ¢ R. MacNeill said that as seen in the letter dated December 12,2025 the drainage comments is the primary source of concern with some of the revised design. Mr. MacNeill said that he spoke to another engineer in Mr. Blake’s office and wanted it noted for the record that there are intentions to switch the underground detention basin to an infiltration basin to comply with both the Township as well as DEP regulations. Mr. Blake said Yes that it will be all part of the infiltration design will all be taken into consideration in accordance with NJAC-7.8 when the full design is done. e R. MacNeill asked regarding if they are willing to state on the record if they are willing to advise Stormwater and MTDs to meet that water quality requirement on 7

top of the swale, right, you did that? Mr. Blake said Yes that they started investigating options for MTDs and where they can be put. In tesponse to this, Chairperson Neuer asked for a definition of “MTD” R. MacNeill responded that it is a “Manufactured Treatment Device.”. So DEP requires and the township code reflects those requirements. For water quality treatment they meet a certain total suspended solid removal rate by having the grass swale, but they don't meet the total requirement of 80 percent for this total suspended solid. No questions from Z. Carballo. © C. Dochney said that given the historic nature and the fence, he needed to confirm whether or not this property is officially listed on any register of historic places or designated as a landmark by the township. Chairperson Neuer said that it wasn't listed, but the Board did receive a report from the Historic Commission. C. Dochney said that it's not officially listed on any Register. PUBLIC QUESTIONS ¢ Edie Behr (14 Dogwood Drive) asked Mr. Blake asked about the water that will be directed to Mount Pleasant Avenue and if the Stormwater system has enough capacity for however much water and assurance that's not going to cause any flooding on Mount Pleasant Avenue. Mr. Blake said that the way the system is designed, it was analyzed how much stormwater's leaving the property currently. And then we make sure that our proposed design equals that number or reduces it in accordance to the requirements that are provided in the code, which is what I kept saying is NIAC-7.8. So we will not be providing any impact to the Mount Pleasant stormwater system that's currently there. I can't speak for the whole system because it's a giant system, but as far as what we're providing we will be providing a system that should be better than what is there. Break 9:15 PM - 9:27 PM Upon return from the break, a roll call was performed to confirm the presence of a quorum. PRESENTATION ¢ Ms. Porter yielded to Mr. James Turteltaub, Esq who brought up one quick housekeeping. Mr. Blake had referred to Exhibit TRO-1 the Tree Removal Plan (Dated 12/8/2025) as he did not believe it was actually identified for the record, e Mr. Turteltaub said, with respect to the fencing, replacement of the fence and/or the maintenance of the fence as it goes forward. There are currently existing columns that are about 9-foot tall where

Mr. Turteltaub said, with respect to the fencing, replacement of the fence and/or the maintenance of the fence as it goes forward. There are currently existing columns that are about 9-foot tall where they understand from the needs of PSE&G for security reasons needs to have 8-foot high fencing to go in between the columns that are going to be spaced about 3 % inches apart. Mr. Turteltaub stated that his client (Mr. Malanga) would like the Board to make as a condition of any approval that the new fence be made of wrought iron composed of solid pickets with a similar size to the existing fencing that exists currently. That would also be done with a block finish on it. In addition the 3.25 ft, spacing is to make it anti-climbing so people can't climb over be composed of wrought iron that's going to be installed. And then second, the support columns that are going to be installed should be in the same locations as the existing pillars are today. And to the extent possible the foundations of the existing pillars would be re-utilized by

PSE&G. And then finally, Mr. Malanga would like the design and color of the brick for the columns that are going to be replacing out there to be done with the approval of the Zoning Officer and/or the Planner as determined by this Board. But this fencing does provide a historical look to the area. It has been part of the community for many years. The Historic Commission has also weighed in on this, and it is believed that this will be able to satisfy the maintenance of the character of the neighborhood by doing it as discussed. Therefore it was asked of this Board to approve of this condition as it would not only be saving the trees but also maintaining the character. So in response to Mr. Cohen, that's what his client's looking for as a condition of this approval. Chairperson Neuer responded questioning about the pillars with the existing brick construction. Mr. Turteltaub agreed accordingly with a good portion of them will have to be. If not PSE&G is going to try to salvage as much as it can, but where it can't do it they will be replacing them with a brick of a color and a material to be finally approved by the Board/ Zoning Officer and/or the Planner. ¢ Chairperson Neuer asked Ms. Porter for comments or agreement with what Mr. Turteltaub testified to. Ms. Porter said that she wanted to note that PSE&G has had substantial discussions regarding the fence. With respect to these proceedings, PSE&G is willing to agree to the comments as set forth by Mr. Turteltaub. e Chairperson Neuer said that the agreement between these two parties subject, of course, to comments from the public and subject to the Board's determination, that the fence will be replaced with/and constructed of wrought iron. It will be sized as an 8-foot tall fence. The color of the fence itself will be black, not counting the pillars. The spacing will be as is presently. The pillars will be in the same locations they are now. They can be 9-feet tall. And the color of the bricks and other construction It is subject to the approval of the Zoning Official (Ms. Gary Adams’) approval, which will be binding on the parties and the Board. e Mr. Turteltaub said that with respect to the columns, there would be an attempt to try and use the foundations (either being restored or replaced.) In utilizing the balusters, (the wrought-iron balusters), the spacing will be different. They'll now be 3.25

ere would be an attempt to try and use the foundations (either being restored or replaced.) In utilizing the balusters, (the wrought-iron balusters), the spacing will be different. They'll now be 3.25 inches apart, whereas today they are not. Through discussions with PSE&G it is going to be necessary for them to maintain the security aspects of the no-climb or unscalable-type fence that they require. ¢ Chairperson Neuer asked if there was any discussion concerning plaques on the pillars? In which Mr. Turteltaub testified saying that his understanding is that the 3.25 inches is the narrower spacing just preventing the scaling aspect and it's part of their design feature. Ms. Porter said that it's an anti-climb measure required at all of PSE&G's facilities in connection with any new fencing installed Chairperson Neuer questioned the term “Anti-climb”. Ms. Porter responded that it's spacing of 3.25 inches is slightly smaller than what exists today which would not comply with current safety requirements. BOARD QUESTIONS/ DISCUSSION e 1. Schwarzbaum asked if there was any discussion on adjacent properties and how they should maintain the historical look. Mr. Turteltaub said yes. I. Schwarzbaum asked for confirmation that no new designs were put in for their historical looks. Mr. Turteltaub answered that it is judged on a case by case basis. eR. Miller opined stating that the Historical Comission should be involved in picking materials because the Zoning Official not having training in historical properties. Mr. Turteltaub and Ms. Porter said there was no official designation

but she would have to discuss with her client as that is not something she is prepared to agree to as a part of the record as that committee does not have jurisdiction with respect to this application. ° L. Cohen asked about the metal bars and the amount of space between them for small animals. Ms. Porter said that she would have to discuss this with the client. NO PROFESSIONALS ¢ JUESTIONS NO PUBLIC QUESTIONS NO PUBLIC COMMENT CONDITIONS: . This approval shall be subject to all requirements, conditions, restrictions and limitations set forth in all prior governmental approvals, to the extent that same are not inconsistent with the terms and conditions set forth herein. ° 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, including but not limited to Township and DEP stormwater regulations applicable at the time of the application in May 2024, the June 2024 municipal Tree Ordinance, NJDOT, NJDEP, Essex County Planning, and Hudson Essex Soil Conservation District requirements. e The Applicant shall be bound by all the evidence, including documents and testimony presented by the Applicant at the Public Hearing. ° This approval is based upon the plans last revised December 8, 2025, and the Applicant shall revise those plans to comply with the comments in the Board Engineer’s Report dated December 12, 2025, and to provide the additional details requested regarding the stormwater plan, and landscape plan, and fence design. ° The Applicant shall permit the Town F orester to visit the site as needed to provide comments on the final version of the landscape plan and to conduct inspections and ensure that all plantings are completed in compliance with the final landscape plan. e The new perimeter fence shall be installed in a manner consistent with the historic character of the existing fence. (a) The site shall be surrounded by a new perimeter fence, which shall be black and constructed of wrought iron, the spacing between pickets shall be approximately 3.25 inches, and the pickets shall resemble the existing pickets to the greatest extent possible. (b) The height of the fence may be 8 feet, and the pillars may be up to 9 feet. (c) The existing pillar foundations shall be reused to the greatest extent possible; the

o the greatest extent possible. (b) The height of the fence may be 8 feet, and the pillars may be up to 9 feet. (c) The existing pillar foundations shall be reused to the greatest extent possible; the pillars shall have a brick facade and decorative top and be located as near as possible to the existing foundations. (d) To the extent that new bricks are required, the new bricks shall be selected to be as similar as possible to the existing bricks and that selection shall be reviewed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Official. ° The existing plaque that has been on one of the pillars since circa 1929 shall be preserved and reused on the site. ° The Applicant shall replace any and all portions of the sidewalk that may be damaged from the improvements discussed in this application. ° The Applicant shall limit all construction activities to normal business hours and there shall not be more than 10 construction workers at a time at the site. 10

° 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: B.D. Scott Barbee: i. Schwarzbaum: Y Ben-Zvi (Alt): - Scott: Y Cohen: iN Sussman (Alt.): Y Dannemiller (Alt.): Y Weiss: : Dubovy (Alt.): Y Neuer: - | Miller: Y 5.) ZB-24-15 Waystone Realty LLC (Carried from September 18, 2025) 42 Eagle Ridge Way Block: 106; Lot: 24.01; Zone: R-1; Application for Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan Approval with D Variances. 12-3-2025 Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan (red 12-4-2025) 12-3-2025 Stormwater-Report (red 12-4-2025) 12-5-2025 - Ltr from P. Moon to R. Cohn re- compost (red 12-8-2025) Link mentioned in 12-5-2025 Ltr from P. Moon to R. Cohn re- compost (red 12-8-2025) PRESENTATION ¢ Ms. Priscilla Triolo, Esq. entered the record on behalf of applicant Waystone Realty, She provided a brief summary of previous testimony. ¢ Mr. Richard Cohn, Applicant was sworn under oath and referenced the December 5, 2025 letter from O2 Compost (EXHIBIT A6) NO BOARD QUESTIONS PRESENTATION ¢ Ms. Shauna Latinesics was sworn under oath, provided credentials and was accepted as an expert in field of Barn/Equine Science. o Ms. Latinesics testified that the property was laid out well and that New Jersey has a slip and fall decreasement with a plan to deal/control potential elopement oA waiver was requested for a fourth (4") horse if a Barn Manager was approved BOARD QUESTIONS ° T. Ben-Zvi asked why she would not want to use technology and opt for person to be in charge. Ms, Latinesics said simply because technology fails and that they are 11.

dealing with living beings that need to be available for round the clock care if need arises. e L. Cohen asked if the property is sized properly. Ms. Latinesics said yes. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS ° C. Dochney said that he had no questions, but provided information for interpretation (variances as opposed to design waivers) . Mr. Sean Savage (Consulting Engineer from Matrix New World) was sworn under oath and said that he had no questions, PUBLIC QUESTIONS e Rachel Klein (13 Howell Drive) asked if the comparison of horses with a manager is equal to a home where babies are without a babysitter. Ms. Latinesis said yes. PRESENTATION ° Mr. Jesse Cokeley PE entered the tecord, was sworn under oath, and credentials were accepted as an expert in the field of Civil Engineering. e A nine (9) page Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan set (with a revision date of December 3, 2025) was explained and part of the submission packet. Including the steep slope calculations which the Consulting Engineer caught the error under the lot area for the slopes between 10 and 14.99% where it should simply say 9,754. However, he does believe that this site does comply with the Steep Slope Ordinance. ° Proposed landscaping plan due to some of the existing trees being toxic to horses, calls for 54 shade trees, 367 shrubs, and 127 perennial plantings. The number of the trees won’t change but the plantings can be changed to to differing/native ones as long as they can be proved to not cause harm to the wildlife/horses. Chairperson Neuer adjourned the meeting at 10:53 PM Ay : Adopted: | A 5/2026 WML Chiles) Diana L. Chaffidler, Secretary 12