Filing Letter to Board in Response to M Bennett Email with Exhibits 12 02 2024

CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC 105 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068 csglaw.com LISA A. JOHN-BASTA Member ljohn-basta@csglaw.com O 973.530.2083 F 973.530.2283 December 2, 2024 VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX Ms. Jamilet Baquerizo Vite, Planning Board Clerk Township of West Orange 66 Main Street West Orange, NJ 07052 Re: Essex County Country Club Site Plan Application 350 Mount Pleasant Avenue - Block 156, Lot 1 Response to M. Bennett Email 11.25.24 Dear Ms. Vite: This office represents the Essex County Country Club (the “Applicant” or the “Club”), which is the owner of property located at 350 Mount Pleasant Avenue, and designated as Block 156, Lot 1 on the Tax Maps of the Township of West Orange (the “Property”). The Club was established in 1887. It is the State’s oldest Country Club and the sixth oldest in the Country. The Club has been at its present location since 1917. The Property measures approximately 176.83 acres and is developed with an existing golf course, clubhouse and a number of accessory structures including, but not limited to, a pool house, swimming pool, tennis courts, and maintenance buildings. The Property is located in the Township’s R-2 Zoning District (the “Zoning District”) where golf courses and golf club houses as well as customary accessory buildings and structures related thereto are expressly permitted. The Applicant recently filed an application for site plan approval with the Township of West Orange Planning Board (the “Planning Board” or the “Board”) to renovate the existing pool house building located on the Property and to construct certain improvements in the immediate vicinity of the pool house. The area in question is located in the western portion of the Property adjacent to the Francis Byrne Golf Course owned by the County of Essex (the “Application”). The Application is scheduled for a public hearing before the Board on December 4, 2024. In advance of the public hearing, the Applicant provided notice of the Application in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1, et seq. (the “MLUL”) (the “Legal Notice”). In response to the Application, Ms. Micaela Bennett (the “Objector”) emailed the Board Secretary on November 24, 2024 and November 25, 2024 objecting to the Board’s consideration of NEW JERSEY NEW YORK 4904-2272-4354.v1

December 2, 2024 Page 2 the Application at the December 4, 2024 hearing on two grounds. First, the Objector asserted that the Applicant is operating a “golf club” and a “private club” at the Property, which are two distinct uses under the Township Code. Based on this inaccurate assertion, the Objector concluded that the Application required a d(1) or d(2) variance which would place jurisdiction over the Application with the Township of West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment (the “Zoning Board”). Second, the Objector alleged that the Legal Notice was defective because it did not apprise the public, with sufficient specificity, that the Applicant intended to sell alcohol at the proposed location. The Objector’s positions are legally and factually wrong for the reasons set forth below. A. Use of the Property The Objector does not fully articulate why she believes more than one use, a “golf club” and “private club”, are being operated on the Property. One can only assume it is because the Property contains structures other than a golf course and golf club house, such as the pool house, which is the subject of the Application. This fact, however, does not equate to the operation of two uses on the Property. To the contrary, one use operates on the Property, a “golf club”. i. Township Code The Township Code contains a table of permitted uses within all zoning districts in the Township. Section 25-7.1 Table of District Regulations Part A: Permitted Uses Table of District Regulations. With respect to the R-2 Zoning District, the Code provides in pertinent part the following: ZONE PERMITTED PRINICIPAL USES PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES R-2 Golf course and golf club house Customary accessory building Private club, other or structure than a golf club (Emphasis added) The Township Code expressly permits golf courses, golf club houses, and customary accessory buildings or structures associated therewith within the R-2 Zoning District, and expressly excludes “golf clubs” from the separate and distinct “private club” use group. Accordingly, on its face, the Objector’s position must fail. ii. Township Precedent and Customary Accessory Nature of Pool House Structure To further emphasize the permitted nature of the Applicant’s use, at least since 1978, a pool and pool house, among other accessory structures associated with the golf club,

e of Pool House Structure To further emphasize the permitted nature of the Applicant’s use, at least since 1978, a pool and pool house, among other accessory structures associated with the golf club, have been located on 4904-2272-4354.v1

December 2, 2024 Page 3 the Property 1 and since that time no less than 10 development applications have been filed with the Planning Board for various improvements on the Property, which the Board assumed jurisdiction over 2. Had the Planning Board viewed the Applicant’s operations as anything other than a “golf club” or the structures to be of a non-permitted nature, jurisdiction over the applications would have lied with the Zoning Board. See, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(1). Moreover, the Township has treated other similarly situated golf clubs and improvements in the same manner. The Montclair Golf Club at Rock Spring and the Crestmont Country Club are two other golf clubs located within the R-2 Zoning District of the Township. Each of the clubs previously filed applications with the Planning Board for pool house improvements. The Planning Board classified the improvements as accessory structures to the golf courses and assumed jurisdiction over the applications 3. The treatment of the two applications by the Planning Board crystalize the intent of the Township Code and the customary accessory nature of pool house structures to golf courses. The customary accessory nature of pool house structures with golf courses may also be established by viewing the New Jersey Alcohol Beverage Commission’s (the “ABC”) records attached hereto as Exhibit B. A representative sampling of the ABC’s records demonstrates that the Montclair Country Club at Rock Spring in West Orange, the Echo Lake Country Club in Westfield, the Basking Ridge Country Club in Basking Ridge, and the Plainfield Country Club in Plainfield all have golf courses, club houses and (liquor licensed) pools houses and improvements similar to those proposed by the Applicant. Based on the above analysis, there can be no question that the Applicant operates one golf club use on the Property, and the improvements located thereon are expressly permitted by the Township Code. The existing golf course and golf club house are principal permitted uses/structures 1 See, Survey of Essex County Country Club, prepared by Stewart Associates, Inc., consisting of 1 sheet, dated October 27, 1978. 2 See, (1) Planning Board Resolution, PB-78-42, adopted on September 6, 1978, approving minor subdivision; (2) Planning Board Resolution, PB-79-36, approving site plan for additions to club house and pro shop; (3) Planning Board

solution, PB-78-42, adopted on September 6, 1978, approving minor subdivision; (2) Planning Board Resolution, PB-79-36, approving site plan for additions to club house and pro shop; (3) Planning Board Resolution, PB-93-35, adopted on March 23, 1994, approving site plan for replacement of maintenance shed; (4) Planning Board Resolution, PB-96-27, adopted on February 5, 1997, approving site plan for pump station; (5) Planning Board Resolution, PB-00-19, adopted on February 15, 2001, approving site plan to reconstruct drive entrance to country club; (6) Planning Board Resolution, PB-02-10, adopted on November 13, 2002, approving site plan for removal of curved walls to construct a new shed storage, a pesticide building and a chain link fence; (7) Planning Board Resolution, PB-03-18, adopted on January 7, 2004, approving soil removal permit; (8) Planning Board Resolution, PB-14-04, adopted on July 2, 2014, approving site plan for additions to club house and associated parking variance; (9) Planning Board Resolution, PB-23-09, adopted on December 6, 2023, approving amended final site plan approval with bulk variances and soil moving permit to modify existing golf course facilities; and (10) Planning Board Resolution, PB-23-09, adopted on May 1, 2024, approving amended final site plan approval for construction of a new halfway house (being voluntarily rescinded by the Applicant). 3 See, Resolution PB-19-11 granting preliminary and final site plan approval and c(2) variance to replace and relocate existing pool and racquet facilities to Montclair Golf Club, adopted by the Planning Board on April 4, 2020; and Resolution PB-17-08 granting preliminary and final site plan approval to the Westmount Country Club, adopted by the Planning Board on November 1, 2017 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4904-2272-4354.v1

December 2, 2024 Page 4 on the Property and the pool house, which is the subject of the pending application, is a permitted customary accessory structure related thereto. Accordingly, jurisdiction over the Application is rightly placed with the Planning Board. B. Adequacy of Legal Notice The MLUL requires that legal notice for a development application “state the nature of the matters to be considered”. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-11. Our courts have consistently interpreted this provision to mean that the notice must accurately describe what the property will be used for in a “common sense manner such that an ordinary layperson . . . may make an informed determination as to whether they should participate in the hearing or, at the least, look more closely at the plans and other documents on file” with the board. Perlmart of Lacey, Inc. v. Lacey Tp. Planning Bd., 295 N.J. Super. 234, 237-238 (App. Div. 1996). The Legal Notice for the Application met and exceeded this requirement. The Legal Notice notified the public, in pertinent part, that the Applicant “has applied to the Planning Board for site plan approval in order to renovate the existing pool house building, and to construct an open-air pavilion with a bar seating area to be attached to the pool house as well as a covered pergola with tables and chairs…The Applicant also proposes associated improvements, including but not limited to expanded paver and walkway areas, grill area, fencing and landscaping. For the avoidance of doubt, the Applicant intends to continue to sell alcohol beverages from the premises.” (Emphasis added). For the Objector to remotely allege that the Applicant failed to satisfy the statutory notice obligations under the MLUL is blatantly disingenuous. Similarly, Objector’s reliance on Pond Run Watershed Ass’n v. Tp. of Hamilton Zoning Bd. or Adjustment, 397 N.J. Super. 335 (App. Div. 2008) to claim the Legal Notice was deficient is equally without merit and misplaced. In Pond Run, vacant property was proposed to be developed with a mixed-use development, which included a prohibited 5,000 square foot, 168-seat restaurant use. Yet, the legal notice for the application was entirely devoid of any reference to a restaurant use and instead described the mixed-use development as a “retail/office” use. The court in Pond Run therefore appropriately concluded “[t]he notice’s generic allusion to

any reference to a restaurant use and instead described the mixed-use development as a “retail/office” use. The court in Pond Run therefore appropriately concluded “[t]he notice’s generic allusion to ‘retail/office units’ would not reasonably alert a recipient of the notice that a dining establishment was anticipated”, which may raise heightened concerns to neighbors “as to issues of traffic, parking, noise and possible consumption of alcoholic beverages on site” and ruled the notice deficient. Id. at 354-355. Unlike the Pond Run case where vacant land was proposed to be converted to a mixed-use development with a 5,000 square foot prohibited restaurant use that was not mentioned in the notice, the Property has been used as a golf course and golf club since 1917 that has historically sold alcohol. The character and nature of the use of the Property is not proposed to change as a result of the Application. Moreover, even if it were, the Legal Notice fairly apprised the public of the nature of the Application by stating that a pavilion with a bar seating area was proposed and that the Applicant intends to continue to sell alcoholic beverages from the premises. 4904-2272-4354.v1

December 2, 2024 Page 5 C. Planning Board Procedure Pursuant to the MLUL, while the technical rules of evidence are not applicable to the hearing, the planning board may exclude irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10e. Based on this authority, we respectfully request that the Planning Board reject any objections to the Application based on alleged liquor licensing issues, and exclude any questions and/or evidence related to the liquor licensing of the Property during the public hearing as irrelevant to the Application. It is submitted that the power to control and regulate the sale of alcohol is reserved for other regulatory bodies pursuant to the New Jersey Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, N.J.S.A. 33:1-1 et seq., and the Planning Board lacks jurisdiction to control same. The Applicant also respectfully requests that the Applicant be afforded the opportunity to present each of its witnesses without interpretation by the Objector or other interested members of the public. To that end, we request that the presiding officer utilize his/her discretion pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10d to not elevate the Objector or other interested members of the public as panelists during the hearing until the Applicant has finished its questioning of each individual witness, and the Planning Board has finished its questioning of each individual witness. At that time questions of the witness and/or objections may be made by the Objector or other interested members of the pubic in the normal course. D. Conclusion For the reasons set forth herein, the Planning Board has proper jurisdiction over the Application, and the Objector’s claims are wholly without merit. Accordingly, the Application should be permitted to proceed to a public hearing on December 4, 2024 as scheduled. Very truly yours Lisa A. John-Basta Member LAJ:bs Encls. c: Ms. Diana McGovern, Board Attorney (via email) Ms. Micaela Bennett (via email) 4904-2272-4354.v1

EXHIBIT A 4904-2272-4354.v1

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 (licensed 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