2 ZBA Application

Orange zone plan and ordinances, Master Plan and Re-Examination report and its classification of the Subject Property, the permitted uses on the Subject Property as per the zoning ordinance, the history of the Applicant’s first application to the Planning Board and the determination of the Planning Director, as affirmed by the Zoning Board that the Applicant needs a D-1 variance for the use and is properly before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the other variances sought, his opinion that the use of the Subject Property as school athletic fields is an inherently beneficial use, despite not being on the same property where the academic building sits, that the inherently beneficial use would satisfy the positive criteria, that the Applicant also satisfies the four prong negative criteria analysis, as set forth in Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Wall Township, 127 N.d. 152, 156 (1992), that the use is a high priority use in that education is important to society, that any detriments have been identified and ameliorated with conditions that the Board is considering, and that it would be appropriate for the Board to find, as he opines, that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the detriments, and that it would be poor planning to build permanent parking capacity for football games that are estimated to encompass about 20 hours over a year, and that all of the bulk variances could be granted because their benefits outweigh any perceived detriments; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Richard E. Poltan, Real Estate Appraiser, who was accepted as the Board as such, Mr. Poltan testified that that impact of the proposed co

development on the value of adjoining properties is so minimal to be de minimus and that it cannot be reasonably calculated; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Phillip aA. Hayden, a cultural resource consultant who was recognized by the Board as an expert in that field, he testified that he inspected the current Subject Property, researched the Subject Property at many venues, including the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, State Library and State Archives in Trenton, the Essex County Courthouse, Newark Public Library, Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. and the Olmsted National Historic Site in or near Boston, and examined a host of listed materials therein, he mapped the Subject Property to determine the location of past structures, that despite noted past property owners, nothing on the Subject Property is or would qualify to be eligible for recognition under National Historic Register Standards, that the Subject Property was used only as a summer home for General McClellan for approximately two years before his death, that the Subject Property was then subsequently owned by the Delanos which family hired the Olmsteds to prepare certain landscape designs, which designs, if in fact they were the ones that were implemented, transformed the previous property, but have been left to fallow for over 70 years, and finally that of three remaining structures, which are remains of a greenhouse, a caretaker’s cottage and the foundation of the Carteret School for Boys, none possess the significance required to meet the general threshold for National Register eligibility nor do they ee

currently have the integrity that is required to convey that significance; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of William Kehoe and Edwin Johnson, the Director and an employee of the West Orange Recreation Department who testified about the schedule of current use of West Orange Township owned ball fields by the High School, Middle Schools, and two private schools in town and the various town recreational leagues; and WHEREAS Township Engineer Leonard Lepore was called to testify by objector Loren Svetvilas, and was asked about the conditions he observed over the years when called by adjoining property owners to inspect a basement flooding condition they have experienced since the construction of the first set of improvements by the Applicant, and that he sees the problem as a groundwater problem, not a run-off problem, and suggesting that thus that the current application should rely heavily on recharged ground water, he also indicated an open pipe discharging onto Mountain Drive should be capped and that the town would like to receive an easement on Mountain Drive to address drainage issues on Mountain Drive; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered Exhibits marked A-1 through A-63 and Linson 1 and Linson-2, the following which were admitted into evidence by the Board: A-1 Revised Cover Sheet A-2 Soil Sheet A-3 Engineering Site Plan(Sheets 1-11)

Color Coordinated Colored Rendering Landscape Plan aA Original Site Plan (Initial Submission) Revised Parking Calculations Overflow Parking Exhibit Prototype Score Board Landscape Improvements Landscape Improvements Variance List Site Plan Phase II Detailed Utility & Grading Plan (Sheet 8 of 11) Landscape Improvements Master Plan Revised Site Plan (11 sheets) Reduced Landscape Improvements Master Plan Field House Elevations (Sheet A-2) 1° & 2°? Floor Plans-Field House (Sheet A-1) Floor Plan/Elevations-Storage Building (Sheet A-3) Floor Plan/Elevations-Food Concession & Press Booth Dugout Plan Letter Response from GC Stewart Batting Cage Tunnel Details (5 Sheets) Hooded Back Stop

A-36 Scoreboard Plan Picture of Poles & Netting Overall Clearing & Grading Plan Tree Removal Plan Visual Analysis of Existing Landscape Site Improvement Plan Landscape Details Revised 5.4.09 Revised Architectural Floor Plans Food Concession and Press Box 4.28.09 Revised Sheet A-4 of Architectural Plans — Concession Stand with Bathrooms/Plumbing Code 2° Sheet A-4 Revised Press Box Plan Eliminating Elevator Seton Hall Letter Re: Use of Press Box Copies of Foresters Certifications NUDEP-Certified Tree Expert Membership Society of American Foresters Panorama of Ridge Line (5 Pictures & Map) Proposal of Amy S. Greene Environmental Consultants, Inc Letter of Schoor DePalma(now CMX) by Jillian L. Weber to US Fish & Wildlife Service Request for Information Regarding Endangered Species Letter of Reply to Schoor DePalma (now CMX) from Fish & Wildlife Service re: Tree Survey Tree Removal Plan, Photos of Existing Conditions Letter of Reply to Schoor DePalma from Fish & Wildlife Service Regarding Approval Conditioned to Protection of the Indiana Bat

A-52 Existing Conditions Map Highlighting Gen. McClellan Property and Greenhouse A-53 Aerial Photograph of area in 1931 A-54 Detailed Layout & Dimensioning Plan A-55 Detailed Utility & Grading Plan A-56 Tree Removal Plan A-57 Phase II Utility & Grading Plan A-58 Utility & Grading Plan A-59 Utility & Grading Plan A-60 Utility & Grading Plan A-61 Overall Clearing & Grading Plan A-62 Existing Conditions Map A-63 Site Improvements Plan (Sheet 2 of 3) Linson-1 letter Linson ~2 letter WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga, an adjacent property owner, was represented by Herbert Waldman, Esq.; and WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga introduced the testimony of Amy Greene, an environmental scientist, certified wetlands delineator, certified senior ecologist with the Ecological Society of America, certified ornithologist and aquatic ecologist with the NJDEP and also certified in habitat evaluation procedures by the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, who was accepted, by the Board, over objection, as an expert in the field of environmental science, Ms. Greene opined that the Applicant had not complied with the Township ordinance’s -10-

requirements to provide an Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter “EIS”), in the areas of tree counting (the counting by the Applicant of only trees having a circumference of 6 inch in diameter or greater instead of trees of diameters of 4 inches or greater), that one of the purposes of the required EIS and Tree Ordinance is to preserve the maximum number of trees as possible, and to encourage invovative design and grading for storm water management, and that the Board might be criminally liable if it approves a project that might have an impact on an endangered species or its breeding ground (pertaining to the Indiana Bat); and WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga offered the testimony of Sally Malanga of 57 Ridge Road, Ms. Malanga testified about her finding of fill dirt after the last construction by the Applicant, about hiring Bruce Kirshner to do a tree survey, and about her correspondence with Msgr. Kelly regarding the Application; and WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga testified that the reason for his objections to the project are due to the impact it will have on his privacy, property values and the environment asa whole, and his concern regarding the possible use of illegal fill in the last phase of construction; and WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga offered the testimony of Brian Friedlich, P.E., a licensed professional engineer of the State of New Jersey, who was accepted by the Board as such, Mr. Friedlich testified that a better idea for the project would be for an underground facility for storm water management, possibly -~11-

under the proposed parking lot, which would eliminate the need to take down 133 trees and would reduce or eliminate need for a detemion basin and that in his opinion the Applicant did not properly calculate its points system to evaluate the project’s utilization of nonstructural methods of storm water management and that in order to cure same a permanent conservation easement of the northern portion of the Subject Property would be required; and WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga offered the testimony of John Linson, an approved forester and New Jersey certified tree expert, and West Orange Township Forester who was recognized by the Board as a certified forester, he testified that there were many old trees on the Subject Property but there was no “old growth forest” on the Subject Property, that the four largest trees on Subject Property should be preserved and that the Applicant’s Tree Removal Application was complete and qualified for disposition by the Zoning Board; and WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga offered the testimony of Carl Popolizo, a representative of the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss the Indiana Bat, Mr. Popolizo, testified that he did not write the Fish and Wildlife Service letter but there has been a determination by his office that project activities may proceed as long as trees are not taken down from April 1 to September 30, and that his office recommends that a bat survey be conducted by a Certified Indiana Bat Surveyor to determine if the species is present on the Subject Property; and Porat

WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga offered the testimony of Steven Lydon, a licensed professional planner, who was recognized by Board as such, Mr. Lydon testified that the proposed use of the Subject Property is not an inherently beneficial use, as the Applicant can deliver its mission without the proposed improvements, and that the Applicant has therefore not established the positive criteria as most of the proposed improvements will not provide a direct public benefit and they serve no public need; and WHEREAS Objector Kevin Malanga offered the testimony of Joseph Fagan, a former resident of West Orange and self- described expert in West Orange history, who authors a historical column in the West Orange Chronicle and has collected postcards and other West Orange artifacts, who although not a historian by training, the Board accepted his testimony for his expertise in West Orange history, but not as a historical expert, Mr. Fagan testified about maps he attempted to introduce, photographs that he took of remnants of the greenhouses and gates on the Subject Property, and attempted to introduce evidence given to him by a prior resident of the caretaker’s cottage on the Subject Property, whom he visited and interviewed out of state, which the Board rejected on hearsay grounds; and WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga offered the testimony of Kathleen P. Galop, an attorney with a background in historical preservation, and principal of the firm Preservation Possibilities, she testified about the remains of some Olmsted a

installed plantings on the Subject Property and opined that the property may be eligible for historic designation because it contains the designs of a master in the field, namely the Olmsted Brothers landscape architects; and WHEREAS Objector Kevin Malanga offered Exhibits marked M-1 through M-81, the following of which were admitted into evidence by the Board: M-4 aerial photograph from Greene report M-5 photographs A-E of site taken by K. Malanga 3/25/07 M-6 Set of approved plans from 1999 application before planning board M-7 Letter from New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection regarding “Report of forested plot owned by Seton Hall Prep School, West Orange, NU” M-9 Cairone site improvement plan January 26, 2009 M-16 Amy Greene site plan M-17 Linson Memo November 5, 2009 M-18 Linson Memo October 28, 2009 M-30 letter from Kevin Malanga to Leonard Lepore, April 9, 2001 M-31, M-42 (same document) Letter from Lepore to John Murray (accepted for sole purpose of the Board's consideration in connection with a request for a condition of special construction monitoring) M-34 Chart, NUDEP Nonstructural Strategies Points System (NSPA) M-35 Stormater Management Rule FAQ'S M-36 report of Steve Lydon -14-