4 2 25 WO PB Draft Minutes

fresh new look that will complement the positive change with good sensitivity to the area. • McDonough believes the statutory tests for all the relief are met and approval is warranted here. • Before McDonough closes, he did want to put a couple of snippets before the board to consider with respect to the Hawrylo case that he spoke about, which he thinks is on point with the case before the board. • Mr. McDonough quotes from this land use treatise by Mr. Cox, which planners turn to. It's a 900-page treatise. The courts have recognized it as an authority on land use and let's see what that says in the 2025 edition on page 427. • It reads, subsection C under C-1 speaks of an “extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structures lawfully existing thereon. This language recognizes that hardship can be created not only by the physical characteristics of the land, but by the existence or by the reason of the existence of a structure already located on it, which may create an exceptional situation sufficient to justify a zoning variance.” • On page 48 of the same book in Hawrylo, “a C variance was granted to rebuild the upper portion of a barn, which was closer to the road than the current regulation allowed. In upholding the variance, the appellate division found that the foundation was a unique

12 feature of the land, causing practical difficulty in that denial of the variance would result in the foundation and a well being wasted.” Mr. McDonough states we could talk about similar ways here of taking down a building with good bones that's already there and certainly able to accommodate that addition. • Page 429 in Hawrylo, “the barn had been built before there was a zoning ordinance and so was a prior nonconforming structure. A neighbor objecting to the grant of the variance argued that the phrase lawfully existing was meant to preclude a nonconforming structure. The appellate court disagreed, relying on a Davis case where Justice Stein in this case said, the existence of a nonconforming structure may justify a variance for a maximum land coverage requirement.” Mr. McDonough adds that we have that here. He continuous quoting, “the fact that the barn had been a nonconforming use did not make the remaining structure unlawful. Also justifiable under this provision would be variances to permit extensions to an existing building, which is nonconforming by way of example as to side yard requirements. Continuing the existing line of the building so that no further side yard encroachment would occur and the proposed addition could not be reasonably located so as to conform to the ordinance because of the arrangement of the building.” • Mr. McDonough wanted to give the board some deference to in terms of what the case law says about a similar case. • The last thing Mr. McDonough will leave the board with are a couple of snippets from their own master plan and how this advances their master plan. • 2019 West Orange master plan on page 30 recommended “the rezoning from the OB to the B1 zone here on the merit of consistent with existing land uses and desired future land uses.” This is mixed use, which on page 30 also says “review and modify standards for mixed use development, particularly in the downtown setting.” • Page 30, it talks about focus areas and talk about downtown Main Street as a focus area. • Page 36 says “support existing businesses and residential uses, promote additional residential uses in the downtown.” That's what the applicant is doing. • Economic development on page 41 talks about the corridor, the downtown West Orange Alliance focusing on building improvements. The applicant is doing that. • On page 42 recommendations for a balance of

conomic development on page 41 talks about the corridor, the downtown West Orange Alliance focusing on building improvements. The applicant is doing that. • On page 42 recommendations for a balance of land uses. The application is doing that. Appropriate housing types, sizes, supporting local businesses with a resident population. • In terms of general housing obligations, West Orange remains committed to addressing its fair share of regional affordable housing obligations, as well as providing a range of housing opportunities. The extent affordable housing is required here; applicant is not asking any relief in that regard as well. So the applicant will comply with the ordinances. • All said, Mr. McDonough thinks this is a good application and with that said, he thinks this application merits the board's approval. • Mr. McDonough added why no additional landscaping is provided which is the dimensional requirements would preclude adding additional landscaping, certainly in the front of the site. There are constraints in the back of the site. Again, given that this is a built site and there is limited capacity for vegetation. And there is good supplemental vegetation on the adjacent properties, which Mr. McDonough thinks meet the planning intent. BOARD QUESTIONS • Mr. Guarino asked Mr. McDonough has he ever done a project in another community like this project? Mr. McDonough said he sees a lot of different land use applications

13 retrofit of an existing building base with a tower or another element on top of it is not unusual and not something he has not seen. • Mr. Guarino asked Mr. McDonough if he has done projects like this, has he gone back after the project was done and did, he see any negatives or positives based upon his presentation. Mr. McDonough said he always like to go back and as he is driving around, look and see how things came out. But in terms of going in somebody's backyard or seeing what the impact would be, he doesn’t do that. • Mayor McCartney asked Mr. McDonough based on the picture she observed that the parking lot has been rented out to commercial vehicles, so moving forward with residential and a new use, medical use, is there an explanation on the commercial vehicles in the parking lot? Mr. McDonough said he doesn’t know. Maurice Cox added that’s paid parking and the agreements are currently month to month. • Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. McDonough will the fence in the front be renovated, upgraded, and the fence in the back, and the debris in the back of the building be renovated, upgraded, cleaned up. Mr. McDonough said he will yield to the testimony on the record and he is sure the applicant would stipulate to work with the board’s professionals in that regard if it hasn't already been officially denoted on the plan. Mr. Cox added yes, they noted it in the last meeting that the debris and everything will be cleaned up. The site will be brand new. • Chairman Bagoff asked will there be any exterior lights on the back of the building. Mr. Cox said no exterior lights on the back of the building. • Chairman Bagoff asked where will the HVAC be. Mr. Cox said he only spoke about moving them on the front just to eliminate a lot of noise. • Chairman Bagoff asked will there be an ADA compliant ramp or access to the building. Mr. Cox said yes, there'll be a mobile elevator. NO PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS PUBLIC QUESTIONS • Jonathan Barton at 10 Edgehill Court asked Mr. McDonough if he is familiar with the provisions of the B1 zone in West Orange. Mr. McDonough said yes. • Jonathan Barton asked Mr. McDonough what are the maximum amount of dwelling units permitted with the square footage of 15,176 square feet because based on the land use regulations and calculations for 15,176 square feet, the maximum allowable units would be four. Mr. McDonough said that where Mr. Barton

are footage of 15,176 square feet because based on the land use regulations and calculations for 15,176 square feet, the maximum allowable units would be four. Mr. McDonough said that where Mr. Barton is reading from does not apply because they have a separate conditional use standard under section 25-24.2 for mixed use development. • Jonathan Barton asked McDonough if the paid parking was a principal use, was there an approval for that. Mr. McDonough said he doesn't know. • Stanley Shapiro at 12 Edge Hill Road asked Mr. McDonough could the medical office be there without adding seven residential units in another story. Mr. McDonough said he doesn’t know. • Stanley Shapiro asked Mr. McDonough has there been consideration in the traffic congestion impact or was there a traffic impact study that has been performed. Mr. McDonough said Mr. Downey, gave sworn testimony under oath as a licensed traffic engineer that this project will not cause a substantial degradation in the level of service of the adjacent roadway.

14 • Stanley Shapiro asked what consideration was given and what study has actually been done as to the impact on the wastewater capacity. Mr. Zeberl said he doesn’t know if any studies have been done. • Stanley Shapiro asked Mr. McDonough if he considered in terms of whether this was the benefit and the detriment impact on the community of where these existing commercial vehicles will have to relocate if we have this increased use here. Mr. McDonough said that was not part of his analysis. • Rita DiMatteo at 11 Rocky Way asked Mr. McDonough if he could expand on what he said about looking at the site holistically and sensitivity to the area and if he considered that the neighborhood behind this building, which is a historic district, might figure into his thinking about the site holistically? Mr. McDonough presented a photograph from the Barton residence and explains that this is what Llewellyn Park sees of the building now. Right now you see exposed mechanical equipment, which is contrary to what the zoning ordinance wants. Raising the building up will hide these mechanical structures and there's going to be a three-foot parapet so these nuisance uses are going away as part of this development proposal. • Rita DiMatteo asked Mr. McDonough wouldn't the added height have an impact on privacy. Mr. McDonough said there are 4 windows that right now have a direct line of sight into these backyards. • Gerard Anthony at 18 Wildwood Avenue asked Mr. McDonough that he said there was an impact to the residents and that impact is negative because he proposed mitigating factors like the vegetation. Mr. McDonough said no, that those factors are there to mitigate any impact with that additional story. • Gerard Anthony asked Mr. McDonough is there a negative impact to going up another story to the property that's directly behind the proposed structure. Mr. McDonough said all development; all change has some impact. • Gerard Anthony asked Mr. McDonough was there any study in terms of the impact of sunlight or shade going up another story to the residents that are directly behind the structure. Mr. McDonough said no, because the 35-foot height is permitted in the zone. • Larisa at 11 Edge Hill Road asked Mr. McDonough how many affordable housing units will there be in this building. Mr. McDonough, he doesn’t know the exact number. Mr. Haizel added that the town ordinance

isa at 11 Edge Hill Road asked Mr. McDonough how many affordable housing units will there be in this building. Mr. McDonough, he doesn’t know the exact number. Mr. Haizel added that the town ordinance requires 20 % of the total number of units, in this case it will be 1.4 which would be 1 unit. • Larisa asked Mr. McDonough if he has any experience with helping areas make plans for the effects the community positively in which to avoid empty spaces which can create a negative impact. Mr. McDonough said he did not consider that as part of his analysis. • Larisa asked Mr. McDonough is it standard practice for a landscape architect to say the landscaping factor behind the building is going to be up to the residents who live there. Mr. McDonough said the landscape architect works within the confine of the space that it has. The space is not there. • Larisa asked Mr. McDonough, has he seen the photographs of the shade impact into the resident that is against the building. Mr. McDonough said he has not seen them. • Larisa asked Mr. McDonough in terms of landscape, what would he suggest that people grow considering that there's shade. Mr. McDonough said evergreen. • Larisa asked Mr. McDonough if he has walked into Llewellyn Park along Edge Hill Road. Mr. McDonough said yes, he has been in Llewellyn Park. • Larisa asked Mr. McDonough if he has noticed that where he is speaking about, it is not as elevated as he seems to project it to be? Mr. McDonough said the grade of this site is lower than the home behind it.

15 • Lenny Carr at 83 Mountain Ave asked Mr. McDonough what building style is this new application is in. Mr. McDonough said he doesn’t know. • Lenny Carr asked Mr. McDonough if he would you say it's historic in nature. Mr. McDonough said he doesn’t know. • Lenny Carr asked Mr. McDonough did he see any other three-story homes on that side of the street where this is being proposed or are they all two and a half story in height. Mr. McDonough said he doesn’t know if they are all two and a half story. • Lenny Carr asked Mr. McDonough to present Planning Exhibit for 172-174 Main Street page 4 and asked are those three stories or are those two and a half stories. Mr. McDonough said they're lower. • Lenny Carr asked Mr. McDonough does this have any visual impact on that side of the street if you go to a third story. Mr. McDonough said adding 12 feet to that building does not create a substantially negative impact on the historic character of the area. • Lenny Carr asked Mr. McDonough, was he looking at no shadow and light impact from what the Main Street perspective or on the historic nature of the Llewellyn Park community. Mr. McDonough said the sun rises in the east and that would be on the opposite side of Main Street, travels across the sky in an arc to the south. So that would be shadow effects in the morning time on the Llewellyn Park neighborhood. • Lenny Carr asked if you go an extra height, will there be a larger shadow cast on the Llewellyn Park side? Mr. McDonough said yes, there will be more than the current condition. • Amanda Barton at 10 Edge Hill Court asked Mr. McDonough if the B1 district is non- residential. Mr. McDonough said it is a zone that allows for non-residential uses and mixed use. • Amanda Barton asked Mr. McDonough separately from the rear setback requirement, which was already established this is not in compliance with, is there not also a buffer standard that applies to the property in question? Mr. McDonough said yes. • Amanda Barton asked what is that in feet? Mr. McDonough said 20 feet. • Amanda Barton asked since this required by the West Orange Ordinance, the buffer standard is in addition to the building setback, so neither of these things is being met. Mr. McDonough said correct, but it's not cumulative. In other words, it's not applied as 20 feet plus 30 feet. • Amanda Barton asked the proposal essentially needs relief or

these things is being met. Mr. McDonough said correct, but it's not cumulative. In other words, it's not applied as 20 feet plus 30 feet. • Amanda Barton asked the proposal essentially needs relief or variance for both the buffer standard and the rear yard setback. Mr. McDonough said yes. • Amanda Barton asked in addition to what you see here of windows looking out onto their yard, that there would be an even further invasion of privacy with another row of residential units. Mr. McDonough said not more than if this lower space that you're looking at were converted to a bar. *The application has been carried to the May 7, 2025, Planning Board regular meeting without further notice. * Meeting adjourned at 10:55 PM. ADOPTED: ___________________________________ Jamilet Baquerizo Vite Planning Board Secretary