July 16, 2026, Regular Meeting

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING July 16, 2026 8:00 P.M. The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on July 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 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” and the “Publication Reform Act.” Chairperson Philip D. Neuer asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Ms. Kelly Carey, Esq., Board Attorney, read the opening statement. ROLL CALL Present: Tal Ben-Zvi, Laurence Cohen, Michael Dannemiller. Todd Dubovy, Robin Miller, Philip D. Neuer, Brent D. Scott, Marc Sussman, Absent: William Michael Barbee, Irv Schwarzbaum, Alice Weiss Also Present: Kelly Carey, Esq., Board Attorney Diana L. Chandler, Board Secretary Ryan MacNeill, Consultant Engineer Christopher Dochney, Consultant Planner Ms. Carey and Chairperson Neuer confirmed the presence of a quorum of Board Members. ANNOUNCEMENTS e Future Meetings: August 20, 2026 (Regular Meeting) September 17, 2026 (Regular Meeting) October 15, 2026 (Regular Meeting) e Chairperson Neuer announced that application ZB-25-10 Seton Hall Preparatory (700 Prospect Avenue), upon request of the applicant being carried to the August 20, 2026, Regular Meeting. Ms. Erika Parlavecchio, Esq. and Mr. James Turteltaub, Esq. (Objector’s Counsel) entered the record to confirm that their clients’ availability and willingness to be carried to that date with preservation of notice. SWEARING IN e Township Professional(s) Consultant Engineer, Ryan MacNeill and Consultant Planner, Christopher Dochney were sworn under oath. MINUTES e June 18, 2026 (Regular Meeting)

Motion: Chairperson Neuer Second: R. Miller Barbee: - Schwarzbaum: Ben-Zyi (Alt.): - Scott: Cohen: Y Sussman (Alt.): Dannemiller (Alt.): : Weiss: Dubovy (Alt.): Y Neuer: Miller: Y RESOLUTIONS e ZB-23-01 Williams/ 6 Merrywood Drive (Extension of Approval) Block: 76; Lot: 6; Zone: R-4 6 Merrywood Drive Application seeking an extension on the approval of time for “c” variances for expansion of an existing garage and house was approved with conditions at the June 18, 2026, Regular Meeting. Motion: Chairperson Neuer Second: L. Cohen Barbee: - Schwarzbaum: Ben-Zvi (Alt.): - Scott: Cohen: Y Sussman (Alt.): Dannemiller (Alt.): - Weiss: Dubovy (Alt.): Y Neuer: Miller: Y e ZB-22-13 MPB Realty 470 Eagle Rock Avenue Block: 153; Lot: 38; Zone: B-2; A continuation of the Application for Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan with D Variances was heard by the Board and was denied by a vote of 7 to 0 at the June 4, 2026, Special Meeting. Motion: Chairperson Neuer Second: R. Miller Barbee: - Schwarzbaum: Ben-Zvi (Alt.): - Scott: Cohen: Y Sussman (Alt.): Dannemiller (Alt.): : Weiss: Dubovy (Alt.): - Neuer: Miller: Y

APPLICATIONS ZB-25-08 127 Mitchell LLC (Carried from 6/18/2026) 512-516 Pleasant Valley Way Block 154.06, Lots 11 and 12 Zone: B-2 General Business D(2) use variance relief is required to permit the expansion of an existing non- conforming use. PRESENTATION Mr. William Sullivan, Esq. entered the record on behalf of the applicant, 127 Mitchell LLC. He provided a brief synopsis of the project including a summary of previous testimony. It's a mixed-use structure, and we are proposing to demolish the single-family home to build an addition on the rear of the existing mixed-use building, and then put parking where the single-family home is located. That will provide for ground-floor and 1st-floor office space and two (2) apartments on the second floor, with an extension of a use variance previously approved for this site, variances for lot area per unit, some relatively minor bulk variances, and preliminary and final site plan approval. Ms. Tanya Marione, Planner was sworn under oath, and credentials were accepted as an expert in the field of Professional Planning. Ms. Marione confirmed the accuracy of Mr. John McDonough’s report dated October 23, 2025. Ms. Marione displayed and explained Exhibit A4 (512-516 Pleasant Valley Way Visual — 13 slides — Dated July 16, 2026) e The proposal is to demolish the structure at 512, expand the structure at 516 with a two-and-a-half-story addition that will expand the mixed use building. The existing structure has office space on the ground floor and cellar, a residential unit above. e The mixed-use building at 516 Pleasant Valley Way is currently surrounded by 11 surface parking spaces, where the applicant will be combining lots to create a lot that is 16,000 square feet, 242. The addition will be 46 wide by 44 deep and attached to the existing structure that's there today. The total office space area, including the cellar, will be 4,660 square feet. The existing two (2) bedroom unit ( not being expanded) is 1,158 square feet, and the two (2) new two (2) bedroom units are both 1,290 square feet each. The size of the new units are 1,290 square feet, two (2) bedrooms each. Based on the proposal and the report sent back in response, this application required relief sought for the D2 variance, expansion of a non-conforming use. The second, a D5 variance for density. The implied residential square footage is 6,000 square

response, this application required relief sought for the D2 variance, expansion of a non-conforming use. The second, a D5 variance for density. The implied residential square footage is 6,000 square feet per unit, and the proposal results in 5,414 square feet per unit. e The bulk variances related to the minimum front yard. 30 feet is required, and the applicant is providing 12.2 feet. The lot coverage is a maximum of 50% is allowed, and the applicant is proposing 68.93. This represents a minimal increase from the existing 68.64. A C variance for maximum building height for 35.65 feet, where only 35 is permitted. A variance for buffer where a 20 feet buffer is required between any non-residential use at a bus of residential use or zone. Seven (7) is being provided. There are two (2) parking variances for the number of parking spaces. Where it is required to have, 25, but because EV spaces are being provided, it goes down to 23 with 21 total being provided. Parking is now permitted in the required front yard, and parking within the front yard is being provided and more detail

about what that actually looks like, and finally a variance for open space is being requested where it is required to provide one (1) square foot of open space for every square foot of building area with the gross floor area being 10,682, and because of that is required to provide 10,682 square feet of open space where the applicant is proposing to provide half of that at 5,477. Addressing the D2 expansion of a non-conforming use variance. Ms. Marione cited the case “Burbridge vs. Mine Hill”. In this case, the owner lived on the lot where he also had his business, but his business was salvaging repairs, essentially a junkyard for cars. When the owner started to enclose the junkyard to mitigate the exposure and impact, the town argued it was expanding and non-conforming use. And the courts had said in this phase, that the established proof required for the expansion the special reasons can be met through the aesthetic improvement of the non- conforming site, making it more visually compatible. Ms. Marione said that this application is not about making something pretty, but promoting the general welfare. The application site is certainly not a junkyard, and the existing mixed-use structure visually conforms with the surrounding neighborhood, but there are things to be said for this expansion and how it advances the zone plan and general welfare. The lot consolidation is taking two (2) non-conforming lots and bringing them into conformity. The current parking layout has no setback from the rear line, and this is allowing now a real setback and a landscape space in the rear of the existing structure. The site is adding new trees and landscaping, proposing permeable pavers and a stormwater detention basin, with the expansion designed to blend seamlessly with the existing building, surrounding buildings, and the neighborhood. The expansion allows for a building that is more in compliance with life/safety regulations and updated building code requirements. The special reasons for density, the DS, the implied density standard here is about how a site can accommodate the proposal. The new office square footage is 4,660 square feet, so 19 spaces and six (6) spaces for the residential. Ms. Marione said that the proposed parking layout meets all parking requirements for space dimension and aisle width. It takes two points of conflict, the two (2) driveway entrances,

the residential. Ms. Marione said that the proposed parking layout meets all parking requirements for space dimension and aisle width. It takes two points of conflict, the two (2) driveway entrances, and reduces it to one (1). It's a double sword in some way, because a variance to allow parking in the front yard, even though parking is not actually in front of the structure is being requested. It's on its own lot, and that parking is within that required yard. This situation of the front yard parking or parking in front of the structure or parking in the front yard is very consistent with the rest of the buildings along Pleasant Valley Way. There's parking in front of the orthodontist and parking in front of the strip mall not too far from here. This is done, of course, to meet the parking standard, but done in a way that's more efficient. Finally, the site actually has really great access and walkability. There are three stops for New Jersey Transit buses. The park is also only 2 miles away from the Eagle Rock Reservation is only two (2) miles away from the site, which is a nice segue into the variance for open space most likely to be used by residents. The maximum lot coverage standard is being increased by less than 1%. The proposal includes the permeable pavers, as was spoken about at length by the engineer, and a stormwater management system of the underground detention basin. It makes the site incredibly capable for handling any runoff issues or issues that are usually come along with block coverage. The application site is required to have a buffer with a planted

buffer strip of a minimum of 20 feet away from the rear property line, or basically the lot where the residential use is. e The building height is an existing condition that was done in order to maintain the height and the consistency of the existing building so that the addition does blend in. The front yard setback, as was spoken about at the last meeting, was already non-conforming at 14. The non-conformity is being increased because of an aesthetic improvement, which is also part of why the application meets the positive criteria for the non-conforming expansion. The 2019 Master Plan recommends that the Council actually look into permitting mixed-use development in multifamily in certain business districts. Both of these uses are permitted in the zone. Office use is permitted, residential is permitted, just not together in one building. The Master Plan, along with the purposes of zoning within the MLUL, encourage a growth of sustainability, whether through EV spaces or the stormwater improvement to the site. Those applications certainly meet the purpose of that recommendation. The circulation of the Master Plan encourages the improvement of connectivity. In fact, the goals and objectives in the 2019 Master Plan to improve the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote healthy living habits, and encourage transportation choices are all advanced through this application. The project allows for proper separation of light and air to adjacent structures and residential properties. It brings the site as a whole into more conformity with the majority of the zone standards. It proposes two (2) permitted principal uses that are within walking distance to community facilities and public transit. The structure is being improved and designed in a way that matches the surrounding buildings. The lot is being improved by stormwater resiliency mitigation. The proposal uses the tenets of smart growth and sustainability, advancing the goals of the town's master plan. Mr. Sullivan had no redirect. BOARD QUESTIONS = M. Dannemiller asked about the NJ Transit bus stop being just a pole and whether or not it's going to get moved. Mr. Sullivan said yes. = Mr. Dannemiller asked about impervious coverage, total bulk of that, the existing condition has a significant driveway on the south edge of the property and whether it is going to be removed in order to meet

nemiller asked about impervious coverage, total bulk of that, the existing condition has a significant driveway on the south edge of the property and whether it is going to be removed in order to meet the total impervious cover. Ms. Marione said that it is in the site plan, but asked Mr. Sullivan, if he would want the site engineer to talk to it. It appears as though the south edge has two sets of stairs. M. Dannemiller said that he just wants to make sure they are not going down to a driveway, but to something else (i.e. a walkway on the south side of the high school side). = Chairperson Neuer asked about the bus stop, and whether or not it would be relocated? M. Dannemiller said that he would venture that it could be made a condition to ensure that the bus stop is relocated. Otherwise, it's in the middle of the driveway. Just has to move down a few feet and get re-reposted. Mr. Sullivan ensured that they could make that happen and are ready to accept that as a condition. = T. Ben-Zvi said that there was an issue that was raised by Mr. Scott about the driveway specifically, turning left out of the driveway into Pleasant Valley Way, and asked if there was any further discussion about this issue on whether to limit (meaning that there won't be any left turn out of the driveway). Mr. Sullivan answered that if the Board imposes that condition, as there were no other uses on that stretch of Pleasant Valley Way that have that kind of

restriction. The applicant would prefer not to have that condition imposed. But if the Board insists, it will be accepted. T. Dubovy asked about people who work remote/work from home as those cars may still be there during business hours, when parking is needed for the offices and how that is supposed to work. Ms. Marione said that there were a couple different arguments made. Definitely one of them is the shared use. The parking situation and the circulation have already been laid out is done as efficiently and safely as it can. One, I do think that it's going to be enough, 250 square feet per requirement. The requirement in the office is that for every 250 square feet, there is a parking space that's required. It doesn't really take into consideration the kind of intensity that's being used for office space. The space is definitely sufficient because in the majority of these things, especially within commercial and office spaces, that parking is extra with plenty left over. No PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS PUBLIC QUESTIONS Justin Goldsman (Moran Road) circled back to Mr. Dannemiller’s request about the bus stop but, just given the heavy pedestrian traffic, safety and heavy foot traffic from school, shopping, and places of worship. I'm just questioning if there would be any, imposition or blocking or alteration to the sidewalk pattern along Pleasant Valley Way while the construction for the proposed project would be taking place. Mr. Sullivan said that he doesn't think people crossing Pleasant Valley Way will work, so the applicant will do whatever the kind of thing that comes up in a pre-construction meeting after approval. No PUBLIC COMMENT CONDITIONS Motion: Chairperson Neuer Second: M. Dannemiller Barbee: > Schwarzbaum: - Ben-Zyi (Alt.): : Scott: ¥ Cohen: Y Sussman (Alt.): Y Dannemiller (Alt.): Y Weiss: - Dubovy (Alt.): : Neuer: Y Miller: Y Break 9:07 PM — 9:23 PM Upon return from break, Chairperson Neuer had a roll call performed and a quorum was confirmed, ZB-25-07 Mavis Tire 460 Prospect Avenue Block 105, Lot 64.01 (Carried from 5/28/2026) The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and construct a tire center / motor vehicle service station with seven service bays and a retail sales area encompassing 1,142 square feet including a showroom, sales counter, waiting area, and bathrooms. A d-1 use 6

variance relief is required to permit a motor vehicle service station in the general commercial district. PRESENTATION Ms. Lisa John-Basta, Esq. entered the record on behalf of the applicant. She then provided a brief synopsis of the previous testimony. Mr. Rodman Ritchie, Engineer, was sworn under oath and confirmed that no new drawings have been submitted. PUBLIC QUESTIONS Ms. Mindy Feld (193 Zeppi Lane) asked for clarification, testifying that the trees would create a sound barrier in the back, separating the new building from the residences and whether or not a sound barrier wall was considered instead of the trees as what would work during the winter when the trees do not have leaves on them. Mr. Ritchie said that he did not testify that trees would have a mitigating effect on sound or noise. But offered that there is a noise expert/sound acoustical expert, planning to testify. But was willing to speak to a robust landscaping plan. Proposing to supplement the existing trees behind the proposed building adjacent to the residential property where they are open to adding plants there, but it's very dense and.an extensive existing root zone from those existing trees creating a limit to how many trees planted in that area, and have those trees be viable, and grow to their full height, so open to a condition to increase the amount of trees or plants in that buffer area that can be worked out with the board's professionals if so inclined. There are lots of existing trees and roots to contend with the shade from those existing trees. Ms. Feld asked about the setback on three (3) sides of the property, but not the side of the property that is adjacent to the residential area and the reason behind it. Mr. Ritchie Well, I don't know that we have increased the setback from what's there now. Because the shape of the new building is different than the shape of the existing building. But that existing building, the proposed Eastern Wall is in basically the same location as the eastern wall of that existing building. Ms. Feld said that with two (2) very different types of businesses, it creates a big disparity. The existing business not needing a variance being just an office building versus the building proposed, which would create a lot of sound. Mr. Ritchie said that the proposed placement of the building takes into account required setbacks, required parking,