June 3, 2026 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING June 3, 2026, 7:30 P.M. The Township of West Orange Planning Board held its regular meeting on June 3, 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 f The next Planning Board special meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. via Zoom. e The next Planning Board special meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 24, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. via Zoom. e The next Planning Board regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 1, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. via Zoom. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Robert Bagoff; Mr. Jerry Guarino; Mr. Ken Alper; Mayor Susan McCartney; Mr. Christopher Morgan, Sr.; Councilwoman Susan Scarpa; Mr. Lee Klein; Ms. Lori Kapferer; Mr. Frank Noborine; ABSENT: Mr. William Wilkes; Mr. John Cardoza; ALSO PRESENT: Diana P. McGovern, Esq., Planning Board Attorney; Jamilet Baquerizo Vite, Planning Board Secretary SWEARING IN ° The Township Professionals: Mr. Ryan MacNeil (Consultant Engineer) and Ms. Malvika Apte (Consultant Planner) were sworn under oath. ORDINANCE REVIEW - Chairperson Bagoff introduced the review of Ordinance 2968-26, an amendment to the township's existing pop-up party ordinance. - Ms. Apte presented the Planning Board report regarding the amendment.

- The governing body submitted amendments to the existing ordinance (Section 25-9.13 of the land use ordinance). - The amendments primarily: © Revise and clarify the ordinance's scope and purpose language, removing wording that was better suited as a "whereas" clause. o Clean up the language describing prohibited activities. o Add the word "publicizing" to reflect methods of promoting pop-up parties, particularly through social media, where people advertise residential events and invite attendees online. - Ms. Apte explained that the Planning Board's responsibility under the Municipal Land Use Law is to determine whether the amendment is consistent with the township's Master Plan. - Although the Master Plan doesn’t specifically discuss pop-up parties, it emphasizes: 50 Improving and maintaining residential neighborhoods © Preserving neighborhood character © Preventing nuisance activities that negatively affect residents' quality of life - She concluded that the ordinance amendment is consistent with the Master Plan and recommended that the Planning Board find it consistent. BOARD DISCUSSION - Chairman Bagoff questioned the wording referring to "the residential zoning district," noting that the township contains approximately 22 residential zoning districts and that no formal definition exists'in the ordinance. He asked Council President Scarpa what was meant by the phrase. Council President Scarpa responded that the ordinance was intended to'apply to all residential districts, explaining that residents from numerous neighborhoods had complained about: ° Noise o Garbage o Significant disruptions caused by pop-up parties - Chairman Bagoff asked whether the problem was isolated or widespread. Council president Scarpa confirmed that complaints came from many different areas throughout town, not just a single neighborhood. - Chairman Bagoff examined the penalty section and asked whether penalties should escalate by offense (first offense, second offense, etc.) or whether judges would have discretion. Council President Scarpa stated the Council intentionally established significant penalties because of the seriousness of the problem. She believes substantial fines provide the strongest deterrent. Ultimately, sentencing is left to the judge's discretion. - Mayor McCartney raised concerns about exemption language allowing pop-up parties if proceeds

tantial fines provide the strongest deterrent. Ultimately, sentencing is left to the judge's discretion. - Mayor McCartney raised concerns about exemption language allowing pop-up parties if proceeds benefit a bona fide charitable organization or political campaigns - She argued: o There is no permitting process to verify whether an event qualifies for an exemption. o The exemption is difficult or impossible to define and enforce. ° If pop-up parties are prohibited, they should simply be prohibited without exceptions. - Council president Scarpa explained that political events were exempted because campaign events are commonly advertised.

- Mr. Alper commented that removing the political exemption could potentially create First Amendment issues. © Political gatherings such as candidate meet-and-greets held at private homes likely require greater constitutional protection. o Since Legal had already reviewed the ordinance, he was generally comfortable with the language. - Mr. Klein asked whether a party with 50 people at his home would violate the ordinance, whether advertising alone defines a pop-up party, and whether collecting money is what distinguishes it. Council President Scarpa confirmed yes. © Council President Scarpa added: u The ordinance is intended to address parties advertised on social media where money is collected u_ Residents are free to invite friends to private gatherings m The ordinance is not intended to prohibit ordinary private parties o Mr. Klein pointed out: m Existing noise ordinances already regulate nuisance parties m He remained unclear on how many people or what specific conduct triggers the ordinance m He questioned whether texting numerous friends could qualify as advertising © Scarpa answered that simply inviting friends is not the issue; charging admission and advertising events are key concerns. - Mayor McCartney, questioned how officials would determine whether an organization , truly qualifies as charitable. Council president Scarpa responded that the ordinance should defer to the township attorney, Mr. Semeraro. - Mr. Noborine raised several questions © Who determines whether a gathering qualifies as a pop-up party? © Would patrol officers have to make that determination while responding? © What is the threshold for distinguishing an illegal pop-up party from a lawful gathering or political event? © What standards should officers use before imposing penalties that could include 90 days in jail? © Council president Scarpa answered that enforcement would depend primarily on: m Advertising = Money being collected m Existing enforcement officials responsible for nuisance issues o Dr. Bagoff noted that the ordinance lists multiple enforcement agencies, including: = Police Department a Health Department a Zoning officials m Fire Department o Mr. Noborine reiterated that officers still need clearer standards to determine violations in real time o Chairman Bagoff agreed these questions could be sent back to the Council for clarification - Ms. Kapferer

e reiterated that officers still need clearer standards to determine violations in real time o Chairman Bagoff agreed these questions could be sent back to the Council for clarification - Ms. Kapferer questioned: © What distinguishes this ordinance from an ordinary nuisance-party ordinance o Whether the only meaningful difference is the collection of money

o Why someone collecting money faces severe penalties while someone creating the same disturbance without charging admission would not - Ms. McGovern identified several drafting issues: © The ordinance refers to "the residential district," implying only one district exists © It should instead refer more broadly to residential districts - She questioned whether the ordinance also covers: o Apartments in mixed-use buildings. © Other residential uses outside traditional residential zones. = Council President Scarpa responded that the ordinance is intended to cover residential properties generally, including rented homes. o Ms. McGovern suggested: mw The ordinance should focus on residential buildings or residences, rather than zoning districts a A residence located in a non-residential zone (such as a legal pre-existing home in an industrial district) should still be covered - Ms. McGovern also observed that many Board members were questioning whether existing ordinarices. already address nuisance parties and asked what gap this ordinance is intended to fill. © Council President Scarpa answered that existing laws have not adequately addressed the persistent problem and that the Council needed clarity - Council President Scarpa stated that many problematic events occur in homes rented specifically for parties - Chairman Bagoffnoted that this description differs from the common understanding of a "pop-up party." ,_- »: He read a general definition describing a pop-up party as: o A temporary event that appears suddenly ‘ © Often organized quickly through social media © Intended to create exclusivity and immediate interest (often driven by FOMO) - He suggested: © The ordinance may need to redefine "pop-up party." 0° The township may need to add an explicit definition section. 0 Renting a property in advance does not necessarily fit the traditional meaning of a pop-up event. - Council president Scarpa replied that she would defer to the township attorney Chairman Bagoff made a motion to send the ordinance back to the Council so it could evaluate the Planning Board's comments and determine how to proceed. Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Noborine Alper: Y Mayor McCartney: Yi Bagoff: ¥ Morgan: ¥ Cardoza (Alt.2): --- Noborine: ¥ Guarino: ns Scarpa: bg Kapferer: Y Wilkes: _—

Klein: w APPLICATIONS e PB-25-09 Perez 68 Whittlesey Avenue Block: 129 Lot: 58 Zone: R-T The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two 50-foot lots, convert the existing single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling, and construct a new two family dwelling on the subdivided lot. (The applicant has requested to be carried to the July 1, 2026, Planning Board regular meeting.) e PB-26-01 15 Ridgeway LLC 15 Ridgeway LLC Block: 158 Lot: 28.01 Zone: R4 The applicant is seeking a minor subdivision with bulk variance approval to create an additional building lot from an oversized lot. (The applicant has requested to be carried to the July 1, 2026, Planning Board regular meeting.) e PB-25-12 262 & 270 Main Street Realty LLC 262 & 270 Main Street Block: 114 Lot: 50 & 55 Zone: B-1 The applicant proposes to construct a two-story supermarket building consisting of 13,934 square feet on the first floor and 5,810 square feet on the second floor, for a total of 19,744 square feet. PRESENTATION - Amanda Wolfe, attorney from Norris McLaughlin, appeared on behalf of 262 & 270 Main Street Realty LLC. - Because of the limited hearing time, she proposed beginning with a PowerPoint presentation to provide the! Board with an overview of the project, with more detailed testimony and responses to questions at a later hearing. - Ms. Wolfe described the property: Approximately 30,218 square feet Irregularly shaped Frontage on Main Street, Irwin Place, and Prospect Place Located within the B-1 Retail Business/Central Business District © Currently occupied by the former Rite Aid Pharmacy and the Americana Diner - The application seeks preliminary and final major site plan approval. - Along with a reverse subdivision because the two lots are owned by separate LLCs before ultimately being merged. - She summarized the project's goals: co Improve Main Street's pedestrian environment. o Enhance safety and wayfinding. o Provide an important grocery resource to the community. o Incorporate environmentally sustainable features, including: ° ° ° °

m Rain gardens m Solar panels m EV charging stations. Ms. Wolfe requested confirmation that several checklist waivers (Items 31, 41, and 42) be granted because drainage materials had since been submitted. o Ms. McGovern indicated that the Board Engineer should first provide a recommendation after the presentation before waivers were considered. Ms. Wolfe stated that, in addition to site plan approval and subdivision approval, the project requires approximately 12 variances, including: © Rear yard setback variance (while improving the existing condition). © Previous lot coverage variance (also improving the existing condition). o Parking variance: m 48 spaces proposed. m 57 spaces required. © Loading space variance: u Two loading spaces required. m_ One permanent loading space and one temporary loading arrangement proposed Parking adjacent to residential districts Distance of parking entrances from nearby residential properties Employee parking spaces backing onto a public right-of-way Insufficient landscape buffering Absence of a sidewalk between the parking area and the building Fence location variance Facade sign height variance Canopy sign height variance © Waivers related to illumination levels and building materials The architect, Jorge Mastropietro, entered on the record; he was sworn under oath. He testified to the following: PowerPoint presentation, Exhibit A-1, was introduced by Mr. Mastropietro Existing site conditions ©. The first slides showed existing photographs of the property, including: a Images from Google Maps m Photos taken after Rite Aid had closed o Mr. Mastropietro explained that when he first visited the site, the original concept was simply to expand the existing building o After further analysis, his team concluded that redevelopment would better address several problems. Reasons for redesigning the site instead of expanding the existing building o Mr. Mastropietro identified several deficiencies in the current site: Large expanses of underutilized surface parking create "dead space." Parking lots reduce pedestrian activity and diminish walkability. Open parking areas weaken the visual quality of Main Street. Two separate parking lots create unnecessary customer confusion ("decision fatigue") regarding where to park. m Multiple parking lots increase conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles because of numerous driveways. u_ The

ts create unnecessary customer confusion ("decision fatigue") regarding where to park. m Multiple parking lots increase conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles because of numerous driveways. u_ The open street corner lacks architectural enclosure, making the intersection appear visually incomplete. He showed additional photographs illustrating: ooo0g0an00

o Extensive parking lots interrupting the streetscape. o Vacant storefronts creating an uninviting pedestrian environment. © Buildings that fail to encourage walking or exploration along Main Street. - He argued these conditions diminish both aesthetics and commercial vitality. - Mr. Mastropietro explained that loading operations at the existing Rite Aid site were difficult. o Using photographs and diagrams, he described how large tractor-trailers currently: m Require complicated turning movements Occupy multiple traffic lanes while entering the property Need lengthy maneuvering that can take approximately 15 minutes. Cannot easily exit via Irwin Place Cannot safely reverse onto a county road because Essex County prohibits such movements - Mr. Mastropietro discussed "last-mile deliveries," where trucks stop briefly for deliveries. ©.” He presented examples showing that delivery vehicles often: a Stop in travel lanes, disrupting traffic m Park on sidewalks, forcing pedestrians into the street w Ignore existing "No Parking Anytime" restrictions because no practical loading area exists - Mr. Mastropietro emphasized that his practice designs human experiences, not simply buildings. - | He contrasted current site ‘conditions with renderings of the proposed redevelopment. - According to him, the project aims to: © Significantly improve architectural quality o Enhance Main Street's appearance © Create a stronger pedestrian-oriented environment + The proposal would replace numerous driveways with: © One clearly defined entrance. © One clearly defined exit. - - Asmall loading area would be located on Irwin Place for smaller delivery trucks. - Two employee parking spaces would remain separate because: o Existing grades create steep slopes © The slope is unsuitable for ADA accessibility and shopping carts © The proposal lowers portions of the site to improve accessibility - Mr. Mastropietro stated that the design team thoroughly reviewed the township's zoning ordinance and Master Plan - Mr. Mastropietro summarized three goals: © Construct a high-quality architectural building suitable for the community © Improve customer experience and strengthen Main Street activity © Develop an environmentally sustainable ("green") building - Mr. Mastropietro described his design as holistic architecture, focusing on: © The building's relationship to its surroundings © Pedestrian