April 5 2006 Planning Board Resolution

Orange, New Jersey, being Block No. 179, Lot 32 and being located in the R2 and R3 zones. B. The property that is the subject of this application has been the subject of a variety of proposals for development and several years of litigation over its future development. The property is unique as within the Township of West Orange by virtue of, among other traits, its environmental characteristics, including the presence of isolated wetlands, steep slopes, mature trees, shallow depth to bedrock and the visually prominent tidgeline of the Second Watchung Mountain. Moreover, the property is one of the last, privately owned large undeveloped parcels of land remaining in the Township. C. This application included a significant amount of evidence produced at the eleven (11) hearings, including testimony on many issues from the Applicant as well as from numerous objectors, including but not limited to, certain citizens of the Township of West Orange, certain citizens of the Borough of Essex Fells, WE CARE, the West Essex Highlands Condominium Association and the Planning Board of the Township of Verona. D. The Applicant revised its drawings and submission on certain occasions during the course of the hearing in response to concerns raised by members of the public and certain objectors, specifically regarding emergency access to and from the subject property, the configuration of the internal road network on the subject property and their desire to eliminate the need for a de minimus exception to the Residential Site Improvement Standards (hereinafter “RSIS”) for maximum daily number of vehicle trips ona cul-de-sac. E. The Applicant seeks approval for an internal “boulevard style” roadway that includes fifteen (15) foot wide driving lanes on either side of the center divider. Based on the credible testimony of Mr. McDonough, Mr. Litwornia, Mr. Gregor, Mr. Lepore and Ms. Borg, and Deputy Fire Chief O’Connor, the Board finds that the fifteen (15) foot wide driving lanes do not conform with the intent of the pertinent Residential Site Improvement Standards (hereinafter “RSIS”) nor do they provide ample space for safe and efficient use by emergency vehicles. In concluding that the proposed internal roads are not sufficiently wide, the Board find that the proposal jeopardizes the health, safety and welfare of the subject property and its residents by failing to

ncluding that the proposed internal roads are not sufficiently wide, the Board find that the proposal jeopardizes the health, safety and welfare of the subject property and its residents by failing to provide safe and efficient road width for vehicles, impairing traffic flow and ability to turn around, particularly with respect to emergency vehicles. F. The Board finds that, based on the credible testimony of Mr. Lepore and Mr. Litwornia, the Applicant failed to provide a graded right of way of adequate width between the street curb and the street right of way and as a result, the proposed plan does not meet the standards required pursuant to the pertinent Residential Site Improvement Standards. Moreoever, if the Applicant were to restore the graded area in such a fashion as to comply with the RSIS requirement, a recalculation of lot areas and significant