April 16, 2026, Regular Meeting

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING April 16, 2026 8:00 P.M. The West Orange|Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on April 16, 2026, 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 natification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, the West Orange Chronicle, and th¢ Star-Ledger and posted on the Township Bulletin Board in accordance with the “Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act” and the “Publication Reform Act.” Chairperson Philijy D, Neuer asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Ms. Kelly Carey, Esq., Board Attorney, read the opening statement. ROLL CALL Present: William Michael Barbee, Tal Ben-Zvi, Laurence Cohen, Todd Dubovy, Robin Miller, Philip D. Neuer, Irv |Schwarzbaum, Brent D. Scott Marc Sussman, Absent: Michael Dannemiller (excused), Alice Weiss (excused) Also Present: Kelly Carey, Esq., Board Attorney Diana L. Chandler, Board Secretary John Hess, Consultant Engineer Christopher Dochney, Consultant Planner Ms. Carey and Chairperson Neuer confirmed the presence of a quorum of Board Members. ANNOUNCEMENTS ¢ Future Meetings: May 28, 2026 (Regular Meeting) (Not the 3 Thursday of the month) June 18, 2026 (Regular Meeting) July 16, 2026 (Regular Meeting) SWEARING IN ¢ Township Professional(s), Mr. John Hess (Consultant Planner), Ms. Zayibeth Carballo (Municipal| Engineer), and Mr. Christopher Dochney (Consultant Planner) were sworn under oath,

MINUTES March 19, 2026 (Regular Meeting) Motion: Chairperson Neuer Second: W.M. Barbee Barbee: Y Schwarzbaum: : Ben-Zvi (Alt.): - Scott: Y Cohen: Y Sussman (Alt.): Y Dannemiller (Alt.): - Weiss: : Dubovy|(Alt.): Y Neuer: Y Miller: Y RESOLUTIONS e ZB-24-17 Pardo Development Group Inc. (Denied 3/19/2026) 104 Winding Way Block: 46.01; Lot: 33 Application for C Variances for a single family dwelling was denied at the March 19, 2026, Regular Meeting. Motion: Chairperson Neuer Second: I). Cohen Barbee: Y Schwarzbaum: - Ben-Zvi|(Alt.): - Scott: Y Cohen: Y Sussman (Alt.): ¥. Dannemiller (Alt.): - Weiss: - Dubovy (Alt.): 6 Neuer: Y Miller: Y _| APPLICATIONS 1.) ZB-25-12 Pullman (12 Knollwood Drive) Block: 161.06; Lot 21; Zone: R-4 Residential The applic: ant proposes to construct a new reading room and deck in the rear of an existing ranch style single family home with a two-car garage. The property’s existing rear yard s required fo! tback does not conform to the R-4 bulk requirements. A bulk variance is a continuing encroachment into the required rear yard setback. PRESENTATION e John & tole in amend applicat They e missed Myra Pullman entered the record, were sworn under oath, and confirmed their the application as being the property owner. They confirmed that they will application with their signatures, then explained that the purpose of this tion is for construction of an all season sunroom to be used as a reading room. splained that they had a 3-season porch in the rear of their old home, and they ite

e William Figdor, ATA entered the record as an expert in the field of Architecture on behalf of the applicant. His credentials were accepted, and he confirmed receipt of both memos from the Consultant Planner (dated - January 15, 2026 ) and Municipal Engineer (dated — January 15, 2026). e Mr. Figdor testified that they are reducing the size of the deck and balancing the look of the doors and windows in the rear. The roof line will match the existing. He testifie Mr Fi area 0 leader: indicat also ag e Some cathedi by the require e JL&M on the d that all other bulk requirements are met. gdor confirmed that a note will be added to the plans stating that any disturbed the yard will be restored with landscaping. He will also add the location roof and down spouts to the plans. He will add a note that no soil moving is needed, e the limit of disturbance on the plan and add signature blocks. The Applicant 3reed to provide an as-built plan when complete. components that Mr. Figdor mentioned this application site are having ral ceilings, rear yard setback, and a rear tree to remain so as not to be hindered deck. It is a nonconforming use, and rear yard setbacks are the only variances -d/requested. . Pullman confirmed that they will be adding plantings and preserving the trees site. ¢ Chairperson Neuer requested that the plan revisions be made and provided to the Board. He further advised that a memorializing resolution will not be voted on until the revised plans e Chairpi ie provided and reviewed. erson Neuer said that all agreed to revisions and the amendment to the application in order to have the Resolution be adopted need to be in the possession of the Bo: ard Secretary ten (10) days prior to the May 28, 2026, Regular Meeting (May 18, 2026). BOARD QUESTIONS I. Schwarzbaum asked for confirmation that this project is an improvement to the property. Mr. Figdor said yes. PROF! ESSIONALS QUESTIONS No questions from C. Dochney. Z. Carballo said in response that steep slope calculations are needed and asked for confirmation of the land being flat. In response to questions from the Township Engineer, he testified that, although he is not an engineer, it is easy to observe that the lot is vi ry flat and there are no slope issues. He agreed to add a note that states there sturbance to steep slopes. He also testified that there is a large tree in

, it is easy to observe that the lot is vi ry flat and there are no slope issues. He agreed to add a note that states there sturbance to steep slopes. He also testified that there is a large tree in the back ill remain, and no trees will be removed. NO PUBLIC QUESTIONS NO PUBLIC COMMENT ONS: The Applicant shall comply with the comments in the Board’s Engineering Review dated January 15, 2026 and the comments in the Board Planners Report dated January 15, 2026 and the conditions agreed to at the hearing, to the extent not otherwise stated herein; including (a) any disturbed area of the yard will be restored with landscaping, and (b) an as-built plan will be provided to the Township when construction is complete.

¢ 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. e This aj obtain| constr proval is for the variances stated herein only, the Applicant shall be required to all building permits and other approvals as may be applicable prior to beginning ction. e The Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State, County and Township statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and requirements affecting development in the Towns Tree O require hip, County, and State, including but not limited to the June 2024 Municipal rdinance, Essex County Planning, and Hudson Essex Soil Conservation District ‘ments. ¢ The Applicant shall be bound by all the evidence, including documents and testimony presen e Pursui grante day fr official ed by the Applicant at the Public Hearing. int to Sections 25-48. 10(a) and 25-48.10(c), of the Ordinance, the variance relief by the Board and identified herein shall expire within two (2) years and one (1) m the date of publication of a notice of the granting of such relief in either the 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) da the act period, cither (i) a building or construction permit is secured and issued or (ii) ons authorized hereby have been commenced. Motion: Chairperson Neuer Second: R. Miller Barbee: Y Schwarzbaum: Y Ben-Zvil(Allt.): Y Scott: Y Cohen: Y Sussman (Alt.): Y Dannemiller (Alt.): - Weiss: 3 Dubovy ({Alt.): Y Neuer: Y Miller: Y 2.) ZB-22-13 MPB Realty (470 Eagle Rock Avenue) (Carried from 3/19/2026) Block: 153; Lot:38; Zone:B-2 470 Eagle Rock Avenue Application for Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan Approval with D Variances PRESENTATION e Ms. Danielle Kinback, Esq. entered the record on behalf of the applicant, provided a brief s mmary of previous testimony and information on an eCode error ordinance to remove a variance request. e Nichol the rect e Nichol 1s Longobardi, Director of Operations with Franchise Group (Popeyes) entered rd and was sworn under oath. s Longobardi and Chairperson had an exchange pertaining to Popeyes’ operating approximately 290 stores nationwide, with 32 in New Jersey; not all

Group (Popeyes) entered rd and was sworn under oath. s Longobardi and Chairperson had an exchange pertaining to Popeyes’ operating approximately 290 stores nationwide, with 32 in New Jersey; not all have drive-throughs.

io} fe} Mr. Li rush Drive-throughs are considered to increase profitability and operational success compared to non-drive-through locations. Drive-through operations require more training and equipment management but are not inherently more complicated. ngobardi explained that typical peak hours are lunchtime (mild) and dinner eavier) and at average the daily transactions at comparable locations are about 1.00 to 120; exact car counts for drive-throughs are not specified. He explained that wait time from order to pickup at the drive-through is targeted at 180 seconds 3 minute s). In Mr. Longobardi’s opinion, there is adequate stacking space for cars, with provisions for pull-up parking spaces to avoid congestion. Elaborating further that promo} are no ions which could cause significant delays (e.g., K-pop collectible giveaways) planned at this location. Mr. Longobardi explained that he is unaware of specific market studies or compe} ition in the immediate area. Reiterating that he had no direct involvement in site selection or traffic studies. BOARD QUESTIONS R. Mil asked er asked if Mr. Longobardi ever visited the site. He answered, no. Ms. Miller hat the pro/cons are of operating a drive thru with details. Mr. Longobardi said that it was in reference towards a standalone stall without a drive-through and a drive-through just being in his opinion, dealing with a drive-through, the drive- throug! differe: itself is not a con, it's more because of the equipment and lineup being a bit tly and the typical staffing for drive-through has more training involved, where as a non-drive- thru store, the same training methods are not focused and utilized. L. Cohen asked about the issue of “stacking cars” on the property. Mr. Longobardi said th T. Ben River, T. Dubs amd of propert} expectes outside Mr. Sei it he believes it not to be an issue. Zvi asked for particulars having to do with the locations in Union, NJ, Toms NJ, and Paramus, NJ having drive-thrus. vy asked in regards to the distance from order board and the property boundary he is aware of what the footage is between the board and the rear boundary line. Mr. Longobardi said that he did not have that exact information. bovy asked whether or not during a late summer ni ght if the property owner the application site will be able to hear the sound coming from the order board oms

did not have that exact information. bovy asked whether or not during a late summer ni ght if the property owner the application site will be able to hear the sound coming from the order board oms inside their house. Mr. Dubovy was reminded by Ms. Kinback that there acoustics engineer who testified to the sound impacts from the ordering board. cott asked if there was a study conducted to determine what type of traffic d for the drive thru. Mr. Longobardi said that the information requested is of his scope of information. tt asked if there are any Popeye’s with drive-thrus in residential locations. Mr. Longobardi said that he would have to look that up as he doesn’t have exacts on that but that believe there are 32 locations in New Jersey with drive-thrus but from what he , they are all on highways not in residential areas. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS No que: No que: C. Doe! site. Mr Popeye: tions from Z. Carballo tions from J. Hess iney asked what promiotions might do to parking/traffic for the application Longobari said that collectible items, those locations are hand-selected by , and we come into agreements with them about which location we'll be doing that. So, at this location it just prefers not to have something like that.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS e Kevin|Malanga (57 Ridge Road) asked if speed and efficiency are the goal? Mr. Longobardi said yes. eK. Malanga asked if he knew the number of trips on average. Mr. Longobardi said with peaks during a day approximately 100 to 120 per day. ° Sally Malanga (57 Ridge Road) asked if there would be a smell from the proposed site. Ms. Kinback answered, stating that there was an architectural expert who testified previously regarding the kitchen equipment and that there will be nominal impact, and that the company will comply with all odor requirements at the state and town levels if they have any. But in Mr. Longobari’s opinion, Popeye’s has state of the art|equipment that suppresses the odors from escaping, which would be an improyement over what was operating at the sit down restaurant that previously occupied the site. ¢ S. Malanga asked about the treatment of food waste and how it will affect the residents of this facility. Mr. Longobardi said that there was no general raw waste that is being thrown out that when it comes to cooked product that is being thrown out, the technology in place between prep charts, hold times based on sales, are pretty accurate with what's being used. Break 9:21 PM —|9:33 PM Upon return from the break, the Chairperson requested a roll call and the presence of a quorum was confirmed, PRESENTATION e Ms. Mallory Clark, Professional Planner entered the record, was sworn under oath, and confirmed of no change in credentials from her previous appearance before this Board. e Ms. Clark’s testimony focused on the project's compliance with zoning standards, variances, and land use policies, presenting revised plans Exhibit A7 (dated — April 16, 2026) in that she spent time detailing the changes from Exhibit A6, the variances, curbing/leading (along the drive thru lane), and the lighting (with .06 candles), including updated variances and site modifications. e She explained that the application addresses multiple variances, including those related to drive-thru operations, impervious coverage, and signage. - The project proposes 64 new trees, exceeding the required 22, and includes landscape buffers to mitigate environmental impacts. © | Variances for front yard parking, curb placement near structures, and signage area and number were justified based on site context and aesthetic considerations. © |The application

ental impacts. © | Variances for front yard parking, curb placement near structures, and signage area and number were justified based on site context and aesthetic considerations. © |The application aims to improve the visual environment, promote redevelopment, and align with the township’s master plan objectives. e Ms. Clark argued that the project would not substantially impair zone intent or public good, citing traffic safety and corridor character improvements. ¢ She explained that there are 500 feet measurements from building to building and curbeuts to curbeuts. e She explained that the minimum S-acre lot size variance was withdrawn.