Town CrierWest Orange, New Jersey
← Back to search

Supporting Documentation · Mar 12, 2025

Filed Complaint with Exhibit

Preserved file SHA-25678b097184f918ae04432dd39495b5caf856b621333f190f53fe0a4409822fadd

Indexed text · page 31

Show all pages
Page 31

15 76. On January 8, 2025 the Board memorialized its decision on the Application by way of written resolution (hereinafter referred to as the “Resolution”). The Resolution is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 77. The Resolution omits relevant facts that would more accurately portray the testimony, evidence and comments presented at the Hearing. 78. First, the Resolution (paragraphs 23-25) in citing support for the denial states: “Mr. Haizel testified that the proposed project would be the largest building in the area with only the Senior Building located a block away being larger.” This statement is something of an understatement as the Senior Building is significantly larger. The Resolution further quotes Mr. Haizel to state “[He] further testified that parking was driving the design of the building because to achieve necessary depth for parking, the building had to cover most of the lot.” But also “Mr. Haizel expressed concern and the limited on-site parking….” Reading these statements together, it is clear the Board was looking for something impossible, seeking a smaller building, which then creates a smaller footprint for parking, which only exacerbates the issue of limited parking. This was one of the points articulated well by Ms. Clark in explaining that the B-2 Zone standards do not make sense or align with the Master Plan for a mixed-use development. 79. Second, the Resolution states in point 26: “A majority of Board members opined that… the close setback to Main Street was not in keeping with other buildings in the area.” This too is incorrect. Plaintiff’s Architect and Planner both testified that nearby development on Main Street had similar setbacks and were in fact more stories, and that each residential property along Park Drive North had side yard setbacks of 5 to 7 ft. It was also noted in testimony the Property today has a retaining wall along Main Street with the same setback. Plaintiff’s planner testified that by bringing the building setback to street level, it would be an improvement for siteESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 15 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

File revisions (1)