12 4 2024 WO PB Draft Minutes

1 DRAFT MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING December 4, 2024 7:30 P.M. The Township of West Orange Planning Board held its regular meeting on December 4, 2024 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 • The next Planning Board special meeting will be held Wednesday, December 11, 2024 at 6:30 P.M. • The next Planning Board regular meeting will be held Wednesday, January 8, 2025 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dr. Robert Bagoff; Mr. Jerry Guarino; Mr. Ken Alper; Mr. John Cardoza; Mr. William Wilkes; Mr. Lee Klein; Mayor Susan McCartney (7:46PM); Mr. Peter Smeraldo (8:20PM); Council president Bill Rutherford; Ms. Lori Kapferer ABSENT: Mr. Christopher Morgan, Sr.; ALSO PRESENT: Diana P. McGovern, Esq., Planning Board Attorney; Gerry Haizel, Consulting Town Planner; Mr. John Hess, Board Engineer; Zayibeth Carballo, Town Engineer Jamilet Baquerizo Vite, Planning Board Secretary

2 MINUTES & RESOLUTIONS PB-24-07-Essex-County-Country-Club-Resolution-Reciding-Site-Plan Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Cardoza Alper: Y Morgan: --- Bagoff: Y Rutherford: Y Cardoza (Alt.2): Y Smeraldo: --- Guarino: Y Wilkes: Y Kapferer: Y Klein: Y Mayor McCartney: ---- 10-9-2024-WO-PB-Draft-Minutes Motion: Mr. Guarino Second: Chairman Bagoff Alper: Y Morgan: --- Bagoff: Y Rutherford: Y Cardoza (Alt.2): Y Smeraldo: --- Guarino: Y Wilkes: Y Kapferer: Y Klein: Y Mayor McCartney: ---- SWEARING IN • The Township Professional(s) sworn in. APPLICATIONS • PB-24-15 3135WO, LLC Block: 141 Lot: 1 Zone: B-1 31-35 Harrison Avenue The applicant proposes to expand their printing and embroidery business, Uptown Printing, LLC., by constructing a one-story, 2,130-SF addition to the rear of an existing commercial building. The addition will include a new entry on the western frontage, enclosed by an overhead door, for the purpose of receiving deliveries, and shipping

3 orders. (Applicant has requested to be adjourned to the January 8, 2025 Planning Board regular meeting without further notice.) • PB-24-13 IMMC Health 993 Pleasant Valley Way Block: 172.02 Lot: 6 Zone: B-2 The applicant proposes a second story addition to an existing 1-story commercial building. (Applicant has requested to be adjourned to the January 8, 2025 Planning Board regular meeting without further notice.) • PB-24-16 Essex County Country Club Block: 156 Lot: 1 Zone: R-2 350 Mount Pleasant Avenue The applicant, Essex County Country Club proposes a number of improvements to an existing pool house building on the subject site. The improvements include the expansion of covered walkway, construction of an open-air covered bar area with a grill area, expansion of existing patio, and construction of pergola with seating underneath. (Applicant has requested to be adjourned to the December 11, 2024 Planning Board special meeting without further notice.) • PB-24-06 410 Main St Holding LLC Block: 113 Lot: 262, 264 & 308 410 Main Street Applicant is proposing a 3-story mixed use development with 12 residential dwelling units above, ground floor parking and commercial space. PRESENTATION • The project planner, Mallory Clark, entered on the record again and testified to the following: • Ms. Clark stated after having a conversation with the county, they were very clear they wold not support any version of a curb cut on Main Street. • They raised the safety concerns of pedestrians crossing Main Street with the county. The county was in support of the idea of a crosswalk. • Ms. Clark states they are bringing several benefits with the proposed project. Some of them being significant water detention improvement with the detention system, proposing substantial green roof for additional offset of the coverage variant and substantial sidewalk improvement, specifically on Main Street. • They have proposed several pedestrian safety measures related to the garage and expanding pedestrian safety improvement across Main Street corridor. BOARD QUESTIONS • Mr. Klein asked how does the amount of traffic that the 14 parking spaces would generate differ from the 7 parking spaces south of the property. Ms. Clark said she doesn’t think it’s significant and states the traffic engineer testified that the estimated traffic generation is 5 trips an hour during peak hours. She believes

th of the property. Ms. Clark said she doesn’t think it’s significant and states the traffic engineer testified that the estimated traffic generation is 5 trips an hour during peak hours. She believes it wouldn’t cause a major disruption to the residents in terms of traffic flow. • Mr. Klein asked, if we implement a parking permit for residents on Park Drive North and South, how do you think that would improve the situation of the parking along Park Drive North and South. Ms. Clark said if there is friction associated with some

4 neighboring streets already, then the zone parking would improve it. • Mr. Cardoza asked would the overhead lighting be on both ends of the crosswalk. Mr. Wine replied there are different designs options. They are going to work with the county about how they want it to be designed. • Ms. Kapferer asked if the crosswalk is going to be at Ashwood Terrace. Ms. Clark said they haven’t definitely set a spot and they would have to work with the county to make sure they are not disrupting the bus stop. NO PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS PUBLIC QUESTIONS • Susan Lenczyk at Eagle Rock Avenue asked what were you referring to as “unique” when you testified the site has unique features. Ms. Clark said in terms of the major unique feature that comes from a design challenge, it is the topography of the site. It has led to limitations and necessities in how they grade and enter the site at a pedestrian and vehicular egress level. • Susan Lenczyk at Eagle Rock Avenue asked why a shadow study has not been done. Ms. Clark said a shadow study is not required in the township code nor was it requested. • Susan Lenczyk at Eagle Rock Avenue asked is it not true that the standard for a setback for a commercial property along main street to a residential property is much different from the standard of setback between residences; she said is it not in fact out of character with the norm. Ms. Clark said its not out of character. • Susan Lenczyk at Eagle Rock Avenue asked Ms. Clark to explain how is it an appropriate building envelope when the permitted lot coverage s 60% but the proposed building would cover 82% of the lot; she said how is that appropriate for the B2 zone. Ms. Clark said as previously stated, the B2 zoning does not contemplate alternative bulk standards for the conditional use. • Susan Lenczyk at Eagle Rock Avenue asked for whom do the benefits outweigh the detriments. Ms. Clark said she believes there are improvements that benefits the neighborhood as a whole. As previously explained, the pedestrian crosswalk is a community benefit; the commercial space, which is a public space, is a community benefit; the additional storm water measures that they will be implementing, where they will retain rainwater on site and then slow released into the larger city system and it creates a benefit to the community. • Sandra Thorney at 2 Park Drive South referred to the comparison of the

hey will retain rainwater on site and then slow released into the larger city system and it creates a benefit to the community. • Sandra Thorney at 2 Park Drive South referred to the comparison of the site with a building from a mile away and asked why did you not compare a building within the exact proximity of the proposed building. Ms. Clark said the objective was to make a comparison, specifically with a mixed-use typology. • Sandra Thorney asked do you consider the buildings across the street a mixed use. Ms. Clark said she analyzed those buildings for the purpose of the commercial space. Due to some board members wondering if the size of the commercial space would be sufficient, Ms. Clark used the buildings in the immediate area to compare. • Sandra Thorney asked would you say this proposed building looks like any other building or house to the left, to the right, up and around Park Drive North, South, and West. Ms. Clark said the point of comparison for this is not the residential properties in Park Drive; the zoning is for commercial property so they are looking at the commercial character along the main street corridor. The homes behind the corner property are a completely different zoning use and scale of buildings. • Sandra Thorney asked what is the setback that is being asked for related to the house that

5 is adjacent to the proposed building. Ms. Clark said it varies since the property line is not straight. The tightest point is a little over 8 feet and the widest point is 13 feet. • Sandra Thorney asked since there is not going to be a garage entrance on Main Street, turning on Park Drive North and waiting for the garage door to open, would it still not cause significant traffic and hold up. Mr. Wine said it’s not that it would cause traffic by putting a curb cut on Main Street he said that the county felt that it would create a traffic concern from a safety perspective as well due to the location of the bus stop. • Ms. Adams at Park Drive South asked if there is going to be an additional crosswalk near the intersection of Park Drive North or if it’s going to replace the crosswalk in front of the Dunkin. Ms. Clark said the proposal is to add one additional crosswalk but they need to coordinate with the county to set the location. • Ms. Adams asked would it have the warning lights. Ms. Clark said it would have some sort of pedestrian warning system. They are willing to work with the county to go beyond a standard stripped crosswalk. • Ms. Adams asked do you know how long construction will take for his building. Ms. Clark said she cannot say. • Quincy Kirsch at 5 Park Drive North asked if the speculation on the traffic report is incorrect and we start to have more accidents and more parking problem after the project is finished, what is the recourse. Ms. Clark said if there is an enforcement issue then it goes under the operational body, the division within the town that is responsible for enforcement. • Quincy Kirsch asked wouldn’t we get the same benefits if fewer apartments are built. Ms. Clark said some of the benefits are associated with the size of the building. • Steven L at 34 Curtis Ave asked if residents park on Park Drive North, would it be a better alternative than any other option. Ms. Clark said from a traffic perspective, yes. • Rita McPherson at 26 Park Drive South asked why the Applicant can’t reduce the size of the building and number of residential units to handle required parking for all the tenants. Ms. Clark said they didn’t feel it was a better design outcome, meaning prioritizing space for cars instead of for people is not what contemporary urban design calls for. • Jeanine Scholz at Main Street asked how many windows are going to be

better design outcome, meaning prioritizing space for cars instead of for people is not what contemporary urban design calls for. • Jeanine Scholz at Main Street asked how many windows are going to be at the South side of the building since the setback to her property is 5 feet. Ms. Clark said there are no windows on the ground floor. The windows on the 2nd and 3rd floor would have a setback of a little over 10 feet from the property line next to the building. There is a total of 4 windows on that side. • Love Gaillard at 31 Park Drive North asked what is the plan for the traffic flow during construction. Ms. Clark said typically projects are required to provide traffic plans and pedestrians plans to the town to be reviewed if they have to close off a portion of the sidewalk. • Micaela Bennett at 35 Old Indian Road asked what is the public benefit to having this building be built. Ms. Clark said they will be implementing a crosswalk across Main Street with additional pedestrian safety measure, they have a storm water detention water system underneath their garage slab, additionally they will have additional improvements from a storm water management standpoint onsite with the addition of the green roof. • Micaela Bennett asked if the storm water detention is a requirement or is it a public benefit. Ms. Clark said it is a public benefit, not a requirement. • Micaela Bennett asked would a building of this size cause excess water runoff. Ms. Clark said that is a question for the engineer. • Micaela Bennett asked is there a way to mitigate the detriment to the community and neighbors due to the size and proximity of the building to their properties. Ms. Clark said

6 they do have landscape screening proposed on that property line and reiterated that the windows are compliant in distance from the zoning line so there is no mitigation that needs to be made. • Jeanine Scholz at Main Street asked how is the commercial space beneficial if you don’t know what’s going to be there. Ms. Clark said activated spaces on ground floors on Main Street is something that generates pedestrian activity and makes the street a more vibrant experience to walk by or a more vibrant neighborhood to live in. • Love Gaillard asked have you considered the animals and the insects that will be drawn to the landscape. Ms. Clark said the civil engineers, the architects, and the landscape architects that work on this project have professional expertise in terms of plant selection. GENERAL DISCUSSION PUBLIC COMMENT • Susan Lenczyk at Eagle Rock Avenue said until the parking permit and other parking issues are resolved it must be assumed that parking will be a concern. If the variances for this proposed development are approved, the impacts of the neighborhood will be severe regarding parking, safety and quality of life. The proposed setback does not respect the residents of the adjacent property. The traffic engineer did not conduct a traffic study, was unaware of the parking rules on the park drive loop, did not research the number of vehicles owned by the residents of the loop and did not study how many homes and apartment buildings have no off-street parking. Rather, he presented theoretical numbers, theoretical people, vehicles and trips. Your decision has to be based on actual conditions not theoretical ones. We don’t object to the property being developed; what is needed is a development that respects the community and it is properly scaled. That scale must be evaluated not based on Main Street but on the Park Drive Loop. We implore you to vote no on the variances. • Joe Middleton at 4 Ash Wood Terrence said his concern is that some of the community members may be inclined to prove these variances without sufficient scrutiny or concern about how the development will affect the residents in the immediate area. Another concern is that if the property would have been reviewed by the zoning board instead of this committee, it would have likely been denied. Living on Ash Wood Terrence, I already deal with the lack of parking and available space and

y would have been reviewed by the zoning board instead of this committee, it would have likely been denied. Living on Ash Wood Terrence, I already deal with the lack of parking and available space and vehicles speeding up and down the street to avoid the light at Harrison on Main Street. The lack of designated at 410 Main Street will only exacerbate the existing parking shortage. The suggestion of additional parking on Bethany church is impractical, what does “as needed” mean? It is unreasonable to expect 410 Main Street renters to notify management that they will have an extra vehicle and possibly be subjected to an additional charge when they can freely occupy the first available parking spot they see on the street. There is no way you can enforce that arrangement. Overall, there is a lack of consideration on how the lack of side parking will affect the already overcrowded parking situation. In addition to the parking situation, the commercial space is small, 900 square feet; I am underwhelmed at a 900 square foot commercial space and how they are using it to justify the variances. In closing, improving these variances will burden the community and negatively impact my quality of life. The developer is not concerned with the community or how the property will impact its resident. I urge the committee members to consider the residents concerns and vote against the proposed variances. • Mr. Quincy at Park Drive North said all of us are frustrated with the parking situation in the neighborhood and it’s only going to get worse with this project. The only reason I see