7 2 25 WO PB Draft Minutes

12 from the building? Ms. Bullock said yes, the built in doors are proposed to be removed. It is shown in the existing conditions, but on the site plan portion, they are not shown where the proposed lift is going to be placed. ● Ms. McGovern asked regarding Ms. Bullock’s statement earlier that she agreed with everything in the Matrix report dated June 30th, 2025, with the exception of the parking variance, what was the other option. Ms. Bullock said the other one was the request for addressing the lighting concerns. They will make sure that the plan is revised to depict the existing poles on site and make modifications if necessary if they have more than 0.3- foot candles going beyond the property line. PUBLIC QUESTIONS ● Stan Shapiro at 12 Edge Hill Road asked regarding the other 6 properties that are up close to the sidewalk on Main Street, and if only the subject property is set back over 120 feet off the sidewalk, then it's not in line with the rest. Ms. Bullock said the study was to show the building heights in the area. These houses require the same building height as their building, and they're showing that the actual building heights are greater. ● Mr. Shapiro asked regarding the testimony of the measured heights of the residential properties, were any of the residential properties flat roofed. Ms. Bullock said no, they were not. ● Mr. Shapiro asked, if measurements of the lowest part of the roofs were made and what proportion is at that highest peak. Ms. Bullock said the definition for building height is the average grade to the peak of the dwelling and that's what they did. ● Eric Buckley at 8 Edge Hill Court asked if currently the roof peak is shown at 221.7 and another 15 to 20 feet is being added on top of that, then now the average roof peak would be roughly 15 feet higher than all the rest of the building's surrounding area. Ms. Bullock said they’re adding 9.4 feet to it, therefore the proposed elevation will be at 231.1. ● Mr. Buckley asked is that measured to the roof or to the parapet. Ms. Bullock said that's for the architectural plans where he has the top of the parapet, but she is not 100% certain as she does not have those plans in front of her. ● Mr. Buckley asked will the building be roughly 10 feet above, in terms of ground level, above the adjacent property. Ms. Bullock said that's correct. ● Mr. Buckley asked if you're adding a

t of her. ● Mr. Buckley asked will the building be roughly 10 feet above, in terms of ground level, above the adjacent property. Ms. Bullock said that's correct. ● Mr. Buckley asked if you're adding a story to this building, wouldn't the extra story be required to adhere to that setback. Mr. Zeberl said that's a legal requirement, and that is not how the law is interpreted. The law says that you look at the building footprint, not the addition upwards. That was addressed in Mr. McDonough's planning testimony, they are requesting a variance, but only to the existing nonconformity. ● Ann Hirsh at 12 Edge Hill Road asked Ms. Bullock if she sees that the closeness does make a difference to the people living around the building. Ms. Bullock said the buildings in these lots are not required to be adjacent to the front property lines. These houses could have been set back further if the developer desired. ● Jonatha Barton at 10 Edge Hill asked of the properties that were mentioned, which is the property where the building is the closest to the property line. Ms. Bullock said lot 3. ● Mr. Barton asked why the property that is closest to the subject building was not included in the height study. Ms. Bullock said it was requested that they get the adjacent building heights. ● Mr. Barton asked if it was suggested that the applicant in the case if it were to be approved, that they would be required to offer landscaping to the properties that were abutting it. Mr. Cox said it's not a precondition, one can't require it, but he will plant some trees in the back for Mr. Barton.

13 PUBLIC COMMENT ● Jonathan Barton said he invited Mr. Cox to the property, but nobody reached out to him. Eventually, he was visited. He had a long conversation in expressing his concerns with Mr. Cox, and his experience was not what was stated. The point of the meeting was to find some sort of amicable resolution. It was expressed that anything that had to do with Mr. Barton’s property in terms of landscaping and trees, was not anybody else's responsibility and it was upsetting to Mr. Barton the way that that interaction went. Mr. Barton is not coming into this with any sort of assumptions about character and is not trying to cast aspersions. He went in with good faith to have this meeting and felt that the applicant did not seem to have any sort of concern for his concerns. ● Anne Hirsch at 12 Edge Hill said she does not understand why the thought of the variance of lifting one whole story above their heads is not important that it is close. The closeness is the only thing that should be talked about. Ms Hirsch says that it should put it near Main Street and then raise it a story. Ms. Hirsch appreciates her neighbors on Main Street who have spoken and rightfully want a thriving Main Street, they are all for that. Ms. Hirsch thinks they might be equally as happy if the building were closer to Main Street and then lifted that story. She doesn't think it should be in her neighbor's backyard. ● Stan Shapiro said at the last meeting there was a problem of the density, that this doesn't comport with the zoning requirements. It's trying to suggest that because it's a mixed use, it doesn't have to comply with the density requirements of either a commercial use or residential or the current zoning. Mr. Shapiro believes it makes no sense at all. Mr. Shapiro states that the board doesn't have the authority to grant a variance as the density, so how can the board approve a building that wants to add 7 residential units in a 4 residential unit zone by calling it a mixed use? Mr. Shapiro says that by that reason alone, this application should be and must be denied. The actual plan here is to build this box and move it up a foot and have it approached way in the back off the street, not in relation to any of the surrounding properties. It's an undeserving variance as to the height and it's an undeserving variance as to the density. Mr. Shapiro believes the applicant is

he street, not in relation to any of the surrounding properties. It's an undeserving variance as to the height and it's an undeserving variance as to the density. Mr. Shapiro believes the applicant is trying to evade the health and safety requirements for having an elevator by having a hold measurement. Mr. Shapiro states that don’t deserve a variance; they're cutting corners. Mr. Shapiro believes this board should be representing the public. This building is out of character to the surrounding buildings and the community and the neighborhood and it encroaches on the properties in the back. Mr. Shapiro hopes the board rejects it. ● Eric Buckley at Edge Hill Court and is a resident that abuts the property in the back. He wanted to ask what does the town gain with this building? Getting an additional story outside of a facelift of a lot and minimally of a building. Mr. Buckley believes this building can exist as two stories with three residential units. He asks what does the extra four units do for the town, it doesn't add anything. Even for the affordable units, it's one for the whole building. Mr. Buckley states that it seems like there's a lot of statements saying “we're requesting this variance because we're making this such a better building”, but in Mr. Buckley’s opinion, it's not. This is what Mr. Buckley wants the board to consider, what does this extra story do for the town as a whole? How does it benefit the residents? ● Eric seconds what Chairman Bagoff was saying in regards to how Mr. Cox does have a history of having different buildings in West Orange. Eric thinks that history does matter and based on all his buildings, he would see that he hasn't had any issues in terms of safety or any regulations that he didn't follow for the building to be safe. Eric states that the board should take that into consideration. ● Christine Persaud owns the medical practice True Ally at 105 Main Street and it would be her practice moving into the first floor. One of the reasons why her practice is in West

14 Orange is because they serve a lot of the West Orange community as far as patients. They serve a lot of the high school athletes, sports medicine wise. Ms. Persaud is hopeful this will get approved because they are committed to the West Orange community. In addition, Ms. Persaud believes an upgrade is needed. ● Sophie Lubin at 8 Edge Hill Court thinks it's great that they’re serving local athletes and people in need of medical services. However, Ms. Lubin thinks that can all be done from one story. Ms. Lubin has been a resident of West Orange for a little under three years and it's really disheartening to her to see the lack of regard for the local neighbors, such as not contacting them to take a look at their property that this proposition impacts. Ms. Lubin states that it's disheartening that Jonathan Barton’s property was not considered when looking at the building heights, that it was omitted. And it's disheartening that the shadow that this building is going to cast is not at all a consideration when during this last meeting, it was brought up wanting to see the impact of the shadow on the property by raising it another story. All of these things are now being minimized and it makes her question her investment in this town. It makes her sad to hear that their voices and financial investments are being minimized. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT ● Mr. Cox said he hears all the residents and their concerns. He’s been in West Orange since he was 13 years old. He has made some investments in West Orange. One thing he notices about Main Street is that nothing has changed. Mr. Cox states he is coming here to help West Orange change Main Street. Unfortunately, Main Street at West Orange has had its fight against development. While every other community around it overdevelops and becomes very functional, Main Street has been stuck for quite some time. The only development that has been done was Edison Loft and that took over 10 years. And that building itself is immediately right in front of his building, much higher than his building and is a multifamily building. What he is looking for on Main Street is to buy everything that is available on Main Street and help Main Street change, have the ratables it needs, and have the housing it needs. If he could give them more affordable housing, that's what he is planning on doing. Unfortunately, this culture

and help Main Street change, have the ratables it needs, and have the housing it needs. If he could give them more affordable housing, that's what he is planning on doing. Unfortunately, this culture of stopping development in West Orange, he does not like it. They're coming here and fighting the good battle of making West Orange modern. They're not going to be happy with 1919 homes. They're historical and they serve a purpose, yes. But they're going to do everything they can to ensure that West Orange goes in the right direction that is comparable to other places that have local shops. Mr. Cox supports West Orange and moving forward with Main Street, moving forward with development and bringing Main Street to the modern era, which is 2025 and further. CLOSING STATEMENT ● Mr. Zeberl gave a closing statement stating they're here seeking flexible C variance relief for three different things. ● One, the rear yard setback where 30 feet is required, 6.8 feet is provided. That's an existing non-conformity. ● Two, block coverage where 75% is permitted and 87.2% is provided. That's another existing non-conformity. ● Three, number of stories that are permitted where two and a half are permitted and they're proposing three. ● It’s been heard from the representative of the property owner, Mr. Cox, their engineer, Donna Bullock, their architect, Jason Piest, their planner, John McDonough, and their traffic engineer, Patrick Downey.

15 ● When looking for C variance relief, they have to show that the benefits of the application as a whole substantially outweigh the detriments. In this case, the application as a whole advances purpose A, G, I and M of the Municipal Land Use Law and Mr. McDonough testified that there were no detriments. ● While they did not provide a shadow study, that's not something that's required. It's nowhere in the township ordinance and they've heard no testimony from anyone that's qualified to present such testimony as to the impact of shadows on this property. For those reasons, they believe that they've satisfied the board to grant C variance relief. ● There was one comment in connection with the density and that comment should be disregarded as that was discussed and the town planner put his opinion on the record that a density variance was not required. Therefore, this board does have jurisdiction. ● It is requested that this application be granted. BOARD COMMENTS ● Mayor McCartney said she understands the applicant is dealing with pre-existing conditions which were heard through the residents adjacent to the property. Mayor McCartney understands how difficult that is and hopes that what the applicant, Mr. Cox, stated that he would work with the adjacent property owner is true and will lead to an amicable resolution. Mayor McCartney appreciates Ms. Bullock showing the properties from the North and the South, even with the additional story it is still under the height requirement at 34 feet. However, it would still create shadows to the other buildings. Mayor McCartney appreciates the investments and improvements on Main Street. ● Mr. Alper states he thinks one of the harder things they do is weighing the benefits and detriments in a C variant situation. There are clear benefits to the community, especially property improvement. Mr. Alper thinks it would have been more helpful to have some sort of data of a shadow study such as knowing at what times the shadows are at their worst. Instead, they are having to go off more of a gut-sense of where things are and those frustrations are noted. Mr. Alper thinks there are real benefits to downtown. ● Councilwoman Scarpa said she is sorry that the concerns of the residents have been minimized and that no shadow study was completed to determine the effect on the neighbors only 10 feet away. Their valid concern as to the

aid she is sorry that the concerns of the residents have been minimized and that no shadow study was completed to determine the effect on the neighbors only 10 feet away. Their valid concern as to the impact and the impairment of the value of their homes is a real concern. Councilwoman Scarpa states she cannot support this. CONDITIONS ● See resolution for conditions. Motion: Mr. Guarino Second: Mr. Cardoza Alper: Y Morgan: --- Bagoff: Y Scarpa: N Cardoza (Alt.2): Y Noborine: --- Guarino: Y Wilkes: ---- Kapferer: Y

16 Klein: --- Mayor McCartney: Y Meeting adjourned at 10:56 PM ADOPTED: ___________________________________ Jamilet Baquerizo Vite Planning Board Secretary