January 7, 2026, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING. January 7, 2026, 7:30 P.M. The Township of West Orange Planning Board held its regular meeting on January 7, 2026, at 7:30 P.M. via virtual ZOOM videoconference. Chairman Bagoff called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. He announced that notification of the meeting was given to the Township Clerk, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board, sent to the West Orange Chronicle and the Star Ledger, and posted on the Township’s website calendar. This meeting has been properly noticed to the public in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. No new matters will start after 10:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE * Chairman Bagoff requested all persons stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ANNOUNCEMENTS e The next Planning Board special meeting will be held on January 14, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in person. e The next Planning Board special meeting will be held on January 28, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in person. e The next Planning Board regular meeting will be held on February 4, 2026, at 7:30 P.M. via Zoom. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dr. Robert Bagoff; Mr. Jerry Guarino; Mr. Ken Alper; Mr. John Cardoza; Mayor Susan McCartney; Mr. Christopher Morgan, Sr.; Councilwoman Susan Scarpa; Mr. Lee Klein; Mr. William Wilkes; Ms. Lori Kapferer; Mr. Frank Noborine; ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Diana P. McGovern, Esq., Planning Board Attorney; Diana L. Chandler, Planning Board Interim Secretary Malvika Apte, Planning Board Planner Jordan Zachary & Sean Savage, Planning Board Engineer SWEARING IN . The Township Professional(s) sworn in. APPLICATIONS e PB 25-04 Blue Violet Grow Inc Block: 62 Lot: 22.01 Zone: I 76 Ashland Avenue The applicant is proposing to operate a cannabis cultivation and manufacturing facility on 1

the subject premises, which is located in the I industrial Zone. PRESENTATION - William Sullivan, from Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, on behalf of the applicant, Blue Violet Grow LLC. - The hearing is a continuation from the prior meeting. - At the previous meeting, the Board heard testimony from: © The applicant’s representative (Jen Hardell). © The project engineer. © The project architect - The applicant plans to present additional experts: © Hector Corchado, Security expert © John Barree, Planner © Joseph Golden, Engineer - The applicant’s attorney reviews several site plan-related issues raised previously: 1. The board requested dimensions showing sufficient width on the driveway “neck- down” area near the building. 2. Removal of certain parking spaces: © Two compact spaces. © One 90-degree space near the fence. 3. No parking variance, even after removals, the site will have 36 spaces, which is two more than required. 4. Confirmation that new fencing will be a consistent 6 feet high. 5. Addition of a tree between the applicant’s building and the nearby apartment building. 6. Any additional lighting required may be established as conditions of approval. - The civil engineer, Joseph Golden, entered on the record; he was sworn under oath. His credentials were accepted by the board and he testified to the following: - Mr. Golden presents a new exhibit (A1), a revised plan that he has prepared. © It is based on the original site plan with a revision date of January 7 to respond to the board’s comments. © Includes a zoomed-in section to clarify the specific areas under discussion. - Mr. Golden explains the driveway width concern. - The apparent narrowing (“neck-down”) is largely a visual illusion caused by parking angles and easement angles. - A dimension was added showing: © 24 feet of width between the building projection and the parking edge near the inlet. - The only narrower area is in the residential parking section, where the aisle is 18 feet wide. - The revised plan includes: o A new green space approximately 12 x 24 feet © Removal of existing asphalt in that area © Installation of grass and a tree - The proposed tree species is a Northern Red Oak - Final species selection can be determined by the relevant municipal authority. - Three parking spaces were removed: © Two compact spaces at the south end of the building. © One perpendicular space near the

species selection can be determined by the relevant municipal authority. - Three parking spaces were removed: © Two compact spaces at the south end of the building. © One perpendicular space near the fence line. - After these removals, the site now contains 37 parking spaces.

This number satisfies the parking requirement. The plan includes a 24-foot-wide cross-access easement. The easement extends across both adjacent properties. A shed currently located in the area will be removed, allowing the easement to be expanded beyond what was originally proposed. A detail showing an 8-foot fence at a gate location is corrected. The plan has been updated to show a consistent 6-foot fence height throughout. Mr. Golden explains that some isolux patterns appear missing due to existing lighting fixtures not included in the model. Specifically: oA large existing light mounted on a tall pole is present on site. © Its mounting height and intensity data are unavailable, preventing inclusion in the lighting analysis. Proposed approach used in similar projects: © Conduct a field lighting test using a light meter during the evening © If lighting levels are found deficient, additional lighting can be installed. Some darker areas shown in the analysis are due to existing lights not modeled. Another darker area appears near the EV charging station. Mr. Golden suggests potential additional lighting from the building if necessary. He notes that the overall lighting design goal is to provide adequate illumination while avoiding excessive light spill. Is willing to add additional lighting if board professionals deem it necessary. The facility does not operate as a public nighttime destination. The site is employee-only, so there will not be significant nighttime pedestrian activity. A new exhibit is introduced, Exhibit A2, Circulation Plan. Mr. Golden explains that the plan includes revisions that improve circulation compared to the earlier analysis. The circulation diagram shows the cross-access easement highlighted in green. The easement is now larger than what Yerrr Canna had because an existing shed will be removed. Removing the shed increases maneuvering space for vehicles, especially at the corner where the delivery trucks (Mercedes Sprinter van) turn. The engineer confirms that the drive aisles are 24 feet wide, which is standard for shopping centers and large parking areas. The two parking spaces marked with Xs have been removed. Eliminating these spaces improves vehicle maneuverability. Mr. Golden reiterates a point from earlier testimony: all deliveries and employee access will occur via Park Avenue. The turning path shown entering from the top

aces improves vehicle maneuverability. Mr. Golden reiterates a point from earlier testimony: all deliveries and employee access will occur via Park Avenue. The turning path shown entering from the top of the plan was part of the original Yerrr Canna application, but it is no longer relevant to this application. He states that plan revisions will remove this access path to avoid confusion. The overall parking layout remains largely similar to the previous Yerrr Canna design. Key features still present: © Row of parking along the fence line © Parking spaces near the building Mr. Golden explains that spaces were slightly rearranged to improve loading and circulation, but the general layout remains the same. He expresses confidence that the circulation design functions properly.

BOARD QUESTIONS Vice Chairman Guarino asked whether the emergency vehicle access plan has been reviewed by the West Orange Fire Department. Mr. Golden said he does not currently have written confirmation from the fire department. However, he understands from prior discussions that the plan had been reviewed in earlier hearings. © The board suggests making fire department approval a condition of approval. Ms. McCartney asked whether the 18-foot driveway width on Ashland Avenue from exhibit A1 is still compliant. Mr. Golden said it is. He explains the 18-foot width is primarily for residential vehicles. It can also accommodate emergency vehicles. Ms. McCartney asked about lighting behind the building, since Mr. Golden mentioned a darker area earlier. Mr. Golden said the area is not dark to the point of poor visibility. The lighting level is slightly below the one-foot-candle standard, but still sufficient for safety. Mr. Klein asked about the 18-foot driveway leading to four residential parking spaces. Mr. Golden said the driveway is technically two-way, but there is no opposing parking along it. This allows vehicles to maneuver into and out of the four residential spaces. Mr. Klein refers to the S-shaped access path shown in the plan with a red border. He asked why the path is not made straight by flipping the double-stacked parking spaces toward the building. He suggests that doing so could create a direct path in and out rather than an S-shaped route. Mr. Golden responds that moving the lower row of parking toward the building (shown at the bottom of the plan) is not feasible due to site design constraints. PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS Ms. Apte asked to clarify if the 18-foot driveway will be treated as a variance due to the ordinance requiring a 24-foot-width when it is a two-way traffic. Mr. Golden said it may be treated as either a variance or a design waiver. Ms. Apte asked if they would be meeting the one-foot candle requirement and wouldn't need the variance. Mr. Golden said no, they will still require a variance for isolated areas. Approximately 90% of the site meets the one-foot-candle standard. Ms. McGovern asked for more precise identification of the affected locations. Mr. Golden said they are looking for a variance for the areas in the main parking lot near the EV charging spaces. It is depicted in the original lighting plan previously

on of the affected locations. Mr. Golden said they are looking for a variance for the areas in the main parking lot near the EV charging spaces. It is depicted in the original lighting plan previously submitted, not the new exhibits shown during the meeting. Ms. Apte asked if the parking spaces comply with the standard 9 ft x 18 ft stall size requirement. Mr. Golden said some spaces for the deli were previously striped incorrectly at about 8.5 ft wide. The revised striping will rebalance the spacing, making it compliant. Ms. Apte referenced the circulation diagram and asked whether the Sprinter delivery van shown in the diagram enters from Park Avenue and then backs into a parking space originally associated with the Yerr Canna facility. Mr. Golden clarifies that the entire area is now open, allowing easier maneuvering. Delivery vehicles will instead load in the designated loading area near the building. Mr. Savage asked regarding an updated turning plan to show the Sprinter van entering and exiting via Park Avenue. Mr. Golden said the diagram only demonstrates vehicle maneuverability; it does not represent actual traffic operations. He confirms that all deliveries and employee access will occur through Park Avenue. Mr. Savage asks about lighting requirements in the easement area. He notes that the lighting plan includes readings for the main site but not for part of the easement area on Lot 32. Mr. Golden explains that there is existing lighting already present in that parking area. He states that visual observation suggests adequate lighting currently exists, but it

must be verified with measurements. NO PUBLIC QUESTIONS PRESENTATION The security expert, Hector Corchado, entered on the record; he was sworn under oath. His credentials were accepted by the board, and the board is requiring a letter from the police department agreeing to the plan being presented. Mr. Corchado testified to the following: The applicant’s attorney confirms that the applicant seeks conditional use approval. One condition that they must comply with is Chapter 5, Section 34 of the West Orange Municipal Code, which sets required security standards. Mr. Corchado confirms that the proposed security plan he will present complies with this municipal ordinance. He also notes the plan must. comply with New Jersey Administrative Code regulations governing cannabis facilities. The facility will have 68 security cameras installed throughout the interior and exterior of the building. Camera footage retention: o Minimum requirement: 30 days © Proposed system: 90 days of recording storage. The cameras are: o NDAA-compliant (federally approved). © 5-megapixel resolution, exceeding the 2-megapixel minimum typically required. Higher resolution improves visibility, especially in low-light conditions. Cameras include time and date stamps. The surveillance system allows remote monitoring. Cameras can be viewed from: o Phones © Computers © Laptops Monitoring will be conducted by: © Investigators from the State police department appointed by the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC). o Mr. Corchado himself, who will also serve as security manager for the facility. The system provides 24-hour surveillance coverage. The building contains 27 doors. Each door is equipped with a key-fob access system. The system includes multiple security levels (1-3) depending on employee responsibilities. Each key fob is: © Assigned to a specific individual o Logged and tracked The system integrates door access logs with camera footage. The security system integrates: © Camera surveillance o Alarm system © Smart monitoring technology Camera battery backup lasts up to 72 hours. In the event of power loss, repairs must be arranged within 24 hours.

The system must be tested every 30 days, and the testing must be logged in accordance with CRC regulations. All employees must undergo background checks. The checks are conducted by a private company called MoFoTrack. Anyone entering the facility must: oo Sign in © Provide proper identification © Be 21 years or older. Contractors performing work must: © Schedule visits in advance © Be escorted while inside the facility. Certain areas are designated sensitive areas, such as: ° Vaults o Areas where cannabis products are stored. Individuals who are not authorized for those areas must be escorted at all times. Vendors or contractors cannot be left alone in those restricted spaces. The applicant submitted an emergency response plan to the West Orange Police Department. The plan outlines procedures for situations such as: o Severe storms © Power outages oO Other emergency conditions. Mr. Corchado believes the police department reviewed and accepted the plan, though the formal letter has not yet been issued. Mr. Corchado emphasizes the high quality of the surveillance cameras, particularly their low-light capabilities. Cameras are installed near building entrances and exits, working together with exterior lighting. He states that other facilities are using similar systems and no problems have occurred with identifying individuals. As the building is constructed and cameras are installed: ©. The police department will work alongside the applicant. © If police recommend additional security measures, the applicant will comply. Mr. Corchado explains that the owner hired an outside waste management vendor, Liberty City Waste Services. The vendor handles destruction of cannabis waste according to CRC regulations. Waste removal visits are scheduled in advance. Waste containers are placed in areas that are covered by cameras and well-lit Containers holding cannabis waste are locked. Mr. Corchado confirms that all waste will be stored indoors, not outside. Normal waste (such as cardboard and packaging materials) can be collected regularly. If trucks arrive for product delivery or removal: © Security staff must be notified. oA staff member will be present outside. CRC regulations require two authorized individuals must be present whenever cannabis products are handled or moved within the facility. Cannabis waste must be rendered unusable before disposal. This

. CRC regulations require two authorized individuals must be present whenever cannabis products are handled or moved within the facility. Cannabis waste must be rendered unusable before disposal. This is done by mixing the cannabis waste with other materials in a 50-50 ratio. Possible mixing materials include: © Wood chips