PB 22 11 Dated 22 9 16 Montclair Golf Club Planning Board Application Irrigation Prior Resolutions

Vote on the Action Taken by the Board Board Motion Second Aye Nay Member Abstain Absent BAGOFF CARLUCCL EBEN (1% alt.) GHEBREMICAEL ><|>< [>< | >< GURLAND: HELLER xX KLEIN (2" alt.) LESTER X MCCARTNEY >< }>< [>< WILKES WESTON Vote on the Memorializing Resolution Board Motion | Second Aye Nay Member Abstain Absent BAGOFF CARLUCCI EBEN (1* alt.) GURLAND: xX x GHEBREMICAEL x x X x HELLER x KLEIN (2° alt.) LESTER MCCARTNEY xX WILKES WESTON NAPLANNING BROMVP\Resatiutions| 201 i PB-11-16-Montclair Golf Club.doc

PB-19-11 MONTCLAIR GOLF CLUB RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE Granting preliminary and final site plan approval and c(2) variances to replace and relocate existing pool and racquet facilities. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Township of West Orange, at a meeting held on March 4, 2020, considered the application for preliminary and final site plan approval with c(2) variances to replace and relocate existing pool and racquet facilities on property located in the R- 2 Zone, identified as Block 151, Lots 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15.01, 23, 24, 37, 41, 45.01 and 49, which was submitted by Montclair Golf Club (the “‘Applicant”) , through its attorney, Robert A. Gaccione, Esq. ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board considered the presentation of Robert A. Gaccione, Esq., attorney for the Applicant; and heard and considered the testimony of Club President Vernon Endo, Timothy B. Derrick, P.E., the Applicant’s engineer (Jicensed in New Jersey as an engineer, and qualified in that capacity by the Board), A. James Tinson, R.A., the Applicant’s architect (licensed in New Jersey as an architect, and qualified in that capacity by the Board), Sean Moronski, P.P., the Applicant’s Professional Planner (licensed in New Jersey as a Professional Planner, and qualified in that capacity by the Board); and considered the site plan revision dated February 19, 2020, the revised architectural plans dated December 19, 2020, as well as photographs of the site; as well as questions and comments from Board members and from the public as shall appear in the Board’s minutes for the meeting of March 4, 2020; and WHEREAS, a complete application has been filed, all fees required by Ordinance have been paid and it otherwise appears that the jurisdiction and powers of the Planning Board have

been properly invoked and exercised; and the Board having conducted a vote on this application on March 4, 2020; WHEREAS, the Applicant requested preliminary and final site plan approval with c(2) variances to replace and relocate existing pool and racquet facilities; NOW, THEREFORE, does the Planning Board of the Township of West Orange make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to this application: 1. This is an application for preliminary and final site plan approval with c(2) variances to replace and relocate existing pool and racquet facilities. 2. The Board reviewed the site plan and related drawings submitted by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., the Applicant’s engineer, which revised site plan is dated February 19, 2020, revised architectural plans submitted by A. James Tinson, R.A. dated December 19, 2020, as well as photographs of the property submitted to the Board. 3. The Board has recommended and the Applicant has agreed to the following additional conditions of approval: a. Subject to the Applicant's compliance with all comments in the report of the Board Engineer; b. Subject to the Applicant’s compliance with all comments in the report of the Township Forester; c. Subject to the Applicant’s submission of a Sustainability Checklist describing the sustainable measures included in the proposed site and_ building improvements;

d. Subject to the Applicant’s installation of one or more new Electric Vehicle Charging Stations for automobiles parking in the existing or new parking spaces at the golf club; e. Subject to the Applicant’s further review of the need to install protective netting at other locations adjacent to roadways and pedestrian walkways to avoid golf balls from leaving the course and posing a safety hazard to the public; f. Subject to the submission of revised plans complying with this Resolution and the review memorandum of the Board Engineer and Township Planning Director, and listing conditions of approval on the plans; g. The Applicant shall supply the Township Planning Director with an Affidavit of Compliance with all conditions agreed to by the Applicant; h. All findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein are deemed conditions that are binding on the Applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following (8) c(2) variances requested by the Applicant are approved: SECTION REQUIRED | PROPOSED & NOW| VARIANCES APPROVED 25-8.1.f Maximum accessory building | 1.5 -Locker room building: 29 | c(2) (4) height stories/15 ft; feet -Snack bar building: 29 ft.; -Outdoor bar: 25.25 ft.; -Paddle hut: 23.5 ft.

25-8.4.a- Maximum fence height 4 feet -Golf protective netting: | c(2) (4) 100 ft.; -Paddle tennis courts: 16 ft.; -Pickle ball courts: 10 ft.; -Pool area: 5 feet. The Applicant’s engineer, architect, and professional planner, testified and the Board found that the above c(2) variances could be granted because the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law would be furthered in that these deviations would maintain adequate light, air, and open space and would maintain a desirable visual environment; and the benefits of these c(2) variances would substantially outweigh any detriment and that there would be no detriment to the public good in that the new structures are replacing and removing much older structures, and that the new buildings will have improved functionality via the addition of pitched roofs, and the proposed and approved fencing will improve the safety of the property by conforming with the recommendations of experts and in the case of the pool area fence, state law. The proposed netting will not create a visual impact and there will be no impairment of the Township Zoning Plan. These deviations will provide a more modern, safe and enjoyable experience for both club members and visitors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this application for preliminary and final site plan approval with c(2) variances to replace and relocate existing pool and racquet facilities is approved in accordance with the site plan, subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution.

The foregoing is a true copy of the resolution adopted by the Planning Board of the Township of West Orange. SEAN MCCAULEY, ACTING BOARD SECRETARY WEST ORANGE TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD Dated: ROLL CALL VOTE ON ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD AT REGULAR MEETING ON MARCH 4, 2020 Board Member Motion Second Aye Nay Abstain Absent Bagoff (Vice-Chair) x x Johnson (1 Alt.) x Smeraldo xX Klein xX McCartney x Trenk x Wegner xX Weston (Chair) x x Williams x Wilkes xX ROLL CALL VOTE ON ADOPTION OF MEMORIALIZED RESOLUTION OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD AT SPECIAL MEETING ON APRIL 3, 2020 Board Member Motion Second Aye Nay Abstain Absent Bagoff (Vice-Chair) xX Johnson (1 Alt.) xX Smeraldo x Klein x

McCartney Trenk Wegner Weston (Chair) Williams Wilkes

Resolution Township of West Orange Planning Board PB 21-06 Montclair Golf Club/ 25 Prospect Avenue Block: 151; Lot: 1,5,7,11,14,15.01,23,34,37,41,45.01 &49; Zone: R-2 Decided on August 11, 2021 Memorialized on September 1, 2021 C(2) Variance and Amended Site Plan Approval WHEREAS, Montclair Golf Club (hereinafter the “Applicant") has made an application for C(2) Variance and Amended Site Plan approval in order to lengthen the golf netting previously approved under PB-19-11 at property located at 25 Prospect Avenue, also known as Block: 151; Lot: 1,5,7,11,14,15.01,23,34,37,41,45.01 &49, in the R-2 Zone; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was conducted on June 11, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Applicant was represented by Robert A. Gaccione, Esq. of the firm Gaccione Pomaco P.C. ; and WHEREAS, the Applicant provided testimony by Timothy B. Derrick, P.E., a professional civil engineer whose credentials were accepted by the Board; and WHEREAS, the Applicant provided testimony by Roger Bacon, the General Manager of the Applicant; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted the following documents to the Board in the form of the application package: TEM [_ SIGNED BY CS001 - COVER SHEET MICHAEL FOWLER, PE. ~_DATE/REVISION | 6/11/2021 1 i CS100- OVERALL SITE PLAN | MICHAEL FOWLER, P-E | eS ttn Oc0 RA SITE WA? aN0 TALLOT PLAN CHAEL FOWLER, PE, _ | | _¢8101- PARTIAL SITE PLAN |” MICHAEL FOWLER PE 7 | WHEREAS, representatives of the public asked questions of the witnesses and had an opportunity to offer statements in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the Board reviewed and considered the application, testimony and documents submitted therewith; and WHEREAS, the Board also considered the input of its professionals at the hearing; and NOW THEREFORE, the Board makes the following findings of fact, based upon the evidence Presented at its public hearings, at which a record was made. 1. The applicant is requesting amended site plan and (2) variance approval in order to lengthen the golf netting, which was Previously approved pursuant to PB-19-11, by an additional 140 feet at a height of up to 75 feet.

2. The property is located along Prospect Avenue near the boundary of West Orange and Verona, The surrounding area is primarily characterized by residential uses. 3. The application requires the following bulk variance relief from this Board: Section/Requirement Required Existing Proposed 25.8-4.a Maximum fence 4 feet 100 feet Additional height fencing at 75 —_ feet 4. NJ.S.A. 40:55D-46b and 50a are the focal points for consideration of amended preliminary and final site plan applications. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46b provides that if “any substantial amendment in the layout of improvements proposed by the developer that have been subject of a hearing” is proposed, “an amended application for development shall be submitted and proceeded upon, as in the case of the original application for development.” N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46b further provides that the Board “shall” grant amended preliminary site plan approval if the Proposed development complies with all provisions of the applicable ordinances. Similarly, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-S0a provides that final site plan approval “shall” be granted if the detailed drawings, specifications, and estimates of the application conform to the standards of all applicable orditiances and the conditions of preliminary approval. As such, if the application complies with all ordinance requlrethetits, the Board must grant approval. Conversely, if the application does not comply with all ordihance requirements, the Board must deny approval. Cortesini v. Hamilton Planning Board, 417 N.J. SUper. 201, 215 (App. Div. 2010). However, there are two exceptions; (1) The first exception is where an application does not comply with all ordinance requirements but the Board grants relief in terms of variances or exceptions. In that case, the Board then must review the application against all remaining ordinance requirements and grant approval if the application complies with all such remaining requirements. S. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-60 permits a planning board to grant variances from the bulk regulations of a zoning ordinance and other zoning deviations that do not require a “d” variance as part of site plan or subdivision review. The variance proofs are the same as for “c” variances as set forth in NJ.S.A. 40:55D- 70c. A “c(2)” variance may be granted where the Purposes of zoning are advanced ahd the benefits of deviating from the ordinance requirements outweigh

for “c” variances as set forth in NJ.S.A. 40:55D- 70c. A “c(2)” variance may be granted where the Purposes of zoning are advanced ahd the benefits of deviating from the ordinance requirements outweigh any detriments. The benefits derived from granting a “c(2)” variance must include benefits to the community as a whole, not just the applicant or property owner. A “c” variance applicant also must address the “negative criteria,” and affirmatively demonstrate that the variance can be granted “without substantial detriment to the public good” and “without substantial impairment to the intent and Purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance” of the municipality. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Board reaches the following conclusions of law. 1. This application requires the following variance relief, as well as amended site plan approval: