12 4 2024 WO PB Draft Minutes

7 for putting apartments there is obviously because the landlord is going to get a lot more money with more apartments but it doesn’t benefit us in any way. I am only saying to vote against it because none of us want it. It will be really bad for me because I live really close to the building. With the parking garage, it is only going to get worse because everyone is going to be backing up onto Main Street and I find it hard to believe that any legitimate traffic study couldn’t see that is going to be a huge issue. • Love Gaillard at 31 Park Drive North said I am concerned about the many questions that have not been answered. We have to consider what happens to our property taxes, how does this property benefit West Orange overall. I don’t think there is a benefit to West Orange. From what I heard from the people that have testified, it appears that they have openly lied or used deceptive language with non-everyday language speaking to us the public. The narrative of the testifiers used language that was way over most people’s heads, which made it difficult to ask questions and get answers. There is open documentation even with the county saying there is a safety concern in that area with increased traffic. There hasn’t been an estimate about how long the construction will take, how traffic will be rerouted and how it will affect residents going up the hill during the winter. This allowance of the variances is unnecessary and do not benefit the local residents. I am sure we would welcome a new smaller design with its own parking lot where everyone could fit. We are adjacent to a national park, where Mayor McCartney would give tours and tell us how strongly she feels about how quaint our town is, the history of our town, and the landscape of our town and to approve this, would be disrespectful to how everyone feels. In closing, this would be an interruption to the quality of life so vote no to the variances. • Ms. Adams at Park Drive South said 170 residents signed a petition to oppose this application, not for petty reason, but we are concerned about our safety and well-being. Most of the board members that visited the site understood our concerns right away. The setback variances created several hazards especially on Park Drive North. A setback of 5 feet is a dangerous situation as it creates a blind corner on Main and forces to wait on the street for the

The setback variances created several hazards especially on Park Drive North. A setback of 5 feet is a dangerous situation as it creates a blind corner on Main and forces to wait on the street for the garage door to open. The driveway proximity to Main Street poses several hazards. Collisions at this comer will increase and adverse consequences. With a 25-foot setback, it calls for cars to pull off the road and wait on the driveway and it also eliminates the need for intrusive pedestrian alarms. Residents of the loop should not bear significantly more traffic on roads that is not zoned in B2, that is an adverse consequence. Statistics from the census bureau, in West Orange 98% of household own a car, 79% own two or more, getting to work 54% resident drive, 15 % use public transit. West Orange households average 4 vehicle trips a day; 12 units can generate 48 additional trips a day around the loop not just 7 or 8 during peak hours. Most units will absolutely have more than one car. The parking variance will cause an indefensible adverse consequence. The pitch that tenants will park 600 feet away in an unmonitored and unsecured municipal lot is incredulous, even the Mayor noted that. There is no insurance that Bethany church will provide the additional parking. The resident parking permit system that has been thrown in as a condition, while encouraging, is not an easy fix and has no insurance that it will be implemented. The surveys submitted by the applicant’s traffic expert is grossly insufficient. The serious traffic hazards on Main Street must be controlled and be made safer before any large building is constructed. The building is not in the public’s interest. No variances should be granted when only the owner benefits. This building would be a substantial detriment to our well-being. • Barbara Toriello at 3 Park Drive North said the nightmare on Park Drive continues with the parking. From the insufficient traffic, parking and safety studies to the way the public

8 has been continuously shut down for tying to plea our concerns and coming to the conclusion of don’t waste your breath. This project is too big and too unsafe and does nothing at all to make our neighborhood better. Please vote no on these variances. • Sandra Thorney at 2 Park Drive South said this building doesn’t look like any other building in this neighborhood. The request for the bulk variances and setbacks off the building allows for limited privacy of our neighbors, including my own. This building interferes with the neighborhood pattern and does not fit the layout of this neighborhood. Despite what has been proposed with all the additions and changes made according to the opening statement made by the lawyer, it still does not make anything better. In my opinion, it will interfere with the quality of life and there is a lot concerns that has been raised about parking spaces on the street. There is likely to be a hardship among existing residents in the area who struggle with parking and do not have a driveway. The additional parking spaces for the building is still not feasible for the families that will live there. Several questions have been raised and asked and are unanswered for this project. There were no traffic studies, parking studies, or proper solutions by the lawyer. Additionally, the building does not seem to have a percentage of units for low-income families which suggest there’s no benefit to the community. Please vote no to the variances. • Ms. McPherson at 26 Park Drive South said I understand there are parking concerns all around town but I agree with Ms. Adams that there was no traffic survey study conducted nor a parking inventory. On Main Street in front of the school there are vehicles parked alongside the bend which is across the street from the auto body shop, this makes visibility at this point very difficult. This is why cars blow through the pedestrian rapid flashing beacon crosswalk. No one drives the stretch at 25 miles an hour. Just last month a senior citizen was hit on that stretch. The stretch on Main Street between Park Drive North and South was suggested they remove the transit bus stop from the center of two corners closer to Park Drive North to accommodate additional spaces on the street but they are not accounting for the parking rule, no cars shall park 20 feet from an intersection so there will be no parking

closer to Park Drive North to accommodate additional spaces on the street but they are not accounting for the parking rule, no cars shall park 20 feet from an intersection so there will be no parking spaces if they shift. Parking on one side of the loop is hazardous as it is and reiterates that having parking permits and the additional parking lot is a joke. Tenants of the proposed building will not walk two blocks for their car especially in inclement weather. We know its public parking but it’s not fair to the residents that don’t have driveways and currently have hard time finding parking on the loop. Vote no for the variances. The design of the building will endanger our children, seniors, property, and motorist. This building will cause a substantial detriment to the area. • Mr. Priestley at 16 Park Drive North said just recently there was an accident that occurred in which one of the seniors was injured, almost on the corner of where the proposed building will take place. There are cars that come regularly speeding up and down the street and it will only be exacerbated by this structure particularly the position of the driveway. I will ask everyone to vote no and to think long and hard as to who the true beneficiary of these variances will be. There are a number of residents in the immediate area that will be impacted, clearly stating that we will be adversely affected. The question should be who truly benefits from these variances. If it’s a singular individual like the lease owner, then it doesn’t seem as though the balance should weigh in their favor than the rest of the people in the area. • Jeanine Scholz at Main Street said their property will be and is directly affected not only by the proposed building but by the variances sought out. As a resident directly next to the property I have concerns about the sheer size of the building. As the variances are

9 granted and so is the minimum 10-foot setback for my property line it would be cut nearly in half to 5.33 feet. That seems to me to be encroaching on my personal space way too much. It would directly disturb my light, air flow, and view. I have listened to all the back and forth between all the parties involved and I don’t believe the majority of the views have seen the site and the Park Drive loop itself. I wish all of you would take into consideration the families that have been impacted by this building. It’s not that we are opposed to having a structure there, the owner has the right to build at this property. However, he should not be granted any variances for his new building. The building will be adding several more residents and cars to the neighborhood. The loop already struggles with parking and despite with the unofficial traffic survey done, what was reported is not indicative of the traffic we deal with daily, not only by the residents on the loop but by the people that use the loop as a U-turn to get back to Main Street. I will leave you with this, it saddens me that the people that serve this community do not seem to have the residents in their best interest. Please do not grant the variances that allows this cold unaesthetically pleasing building right on our Main Street to go forward. Pick a building within the guidelines that goes with our beautiful town. • Marsha Moore at 3 Park Drive South said she agrees with what her neighbors had to say. I believe this building is not respectable to the existing residents here and I would request that you vote no to the variances of 410 Main Street. • Bill Mills at 11 Park Drive North said he agrees with most of the comments made by his neighbors. This building does not belong in this neighborhood. There is a lot of talks with the planner about what ifs and what should be regarding what the potential location should be and what she felt “a reasonable approach” is. There’s too many “I thinks” and not enough truth. The fact is we don’t need any variances there; we don’t need a building of this scale here. Something more along the line of the scale immediately to the south would make a lot more sense. I don’t expect to get back the farm house that was allowed to fall in disrepair and ultimately be bulldozed but something more in line and something safer. Traffic ordinance is not enforced here, people

don’t expect to get back the farm house that was allowed to fall in disrepair and ultimately be bulldozed but something more in line and something safer. Traffic ordinance is not enforced here, people park in illegal zone, too close to the corners, where it makes it difficult for a car to pass, even more so for emergency vehicles. Overall, this is just unreasonable. There’s talk about the use of mass transit, everyone I know in this neighborhood uses mass transit or used it in the past, and the fact of the matter is we drive to the mass transit to get into the city. The residents overwhelmingly do not welcome this and as the board members representing the resident of the town, I feel it’s your duty to vote no to these variances. • Rachel Mills at 11 Park Drive North said to our representatives the need for so many variances tells you that this building dos not belong in this neighborhood or this town. Affecting negatively the quality of our lives to which we pay very high taxes for. As you are representing us, your consideration will be appreciated. This proposed building, the traffic congestion will be epic when you think of UPS, Amazon, Post Office, all kinds of other deliveries, school buses, and functionality of the garage that is proposed simply blows the mind to try to understand how that will look for the future. We will be very thankful in the future to see how you are representing us. We vote no for this monstrosity of this building. • Steven L at 30 Curtis Avenue said something everyone should be aware of is that this need to be approved. From my understanding of the zoning, this is zoned for commercial use so that means someone can build a store and as long as they within no variances, they can build a dunkin or a 7/11 without needing any of the zoning board approval assuming they are keeping to all the offsets and necessary variances. I think one risk in pushing away this project is if another project comes up that has no variances, it is a lot worse for

10 the community that can be built without the ability of anyone to counter assuming there’s no variances necessary. I think everyone should think about what the alternative is and is there an alternative that is much worse in this scenario that wouldn’t require board approval and could create more traffic. *The Application has been carried to the next Planning Board special meeting on December 11, 2024 without further notice* Meeting adjourned at 10:56PM. ADOPTED: ___________________________________ Jamilet Baquerizo Vite Planning Board Secretary