Prior Resolutions of Approval submission

RESOLUTION ZB-08-37 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES AND CONDITIONS TO SETON HALL PREPARATORY SCHOOL WHEREAS, the Seton Hall Preparatory School (“the Applicant” or “Seton Hall”) made Application to the West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment on various dates for site plan approval with variances to add additional playing fields and new structures on its premises off of Prospect Avenue, also known as Block 81.01 Lots 1.01, 1.04, 1.05, and 1.06 and Block 82.01, Lots 1, 7, 7.01, 7.02 and 7.05, (the “Subject Property”), and collectively, (the “Application”) and WHEREAS the Subject Property is situated in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS the Applicant presented proof that adequate notice of the hearing was published in the West Orange Chronicle, one of the official newspapers of the municipality; and WHEREAS the Applicant submitted proof of notice of the hearing upon all property owners within 200 feet of the Subject Property and all others required to receive notice; and WHEREAS the Application was heard at a public meetings of the Board held on 11/6/08, 3/12/09, 4/23/09, 5/14/09, 5/28/09, 6/11/09, 7/9/09, 9/10/09, 10/29/09, 11/5/09, 11/19/09, 12/3/09, 1/14/09, 1/21/10, 2/4/10, 3/4/10, 4/1/10 4/15/10, 5/6/10, 99988/2580 12/22/2010 16299250.2

6/3/10, 6/17/10, 6/24/10, 7/21/10, 9/1/10, 10/7/09, and 11/8/09; and WHEREAS the Applicant was represented by Robert C. Williams, Esq., and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Monsignor Kelly, headmaster of Seton Hall Preparatory School who testified about the history of the school and its rental and then ownership of the Subject Property since 1987, the importance of athletics to the school’s core mission and overall education of its students, the Applicant’s current and proposed future use of the Subject Property as an integral part of its operation of its school, the academic building for which is located on a non- contiguous site on Northfield Avenue, less than one mile away from the Subject Property, and specifics about enrollment, athletic programs, and current athletic field arrangements; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Charles J. Stewart, P.E., a licensed professional engineer of the State of New Jersey, who was recognized by the Board as such, who testified at the hearings of 11/6/08, 3/12/09, 4/23/09, 5/14/09, 7/9/09 and 9/1/10 about the plans and revisions submitted to the Board by his office, the tree survey completed by his office, the design and redesign of the location of the ball fields and drainage facilities to address concerns raised by the Board, objectors, and members of the public, and further testified that in his opinion there will be no adverse impact to the public from an engineering prospective if this development is approved

and that the proposed development will not exasperate any current off site drainage conditions; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Robert Heintz, a licensed professional architect of the State of New Jersey, who was recognized by the Board as such, Mr. Heintz testified about the architectural plans for the locker room, training faculty, field house, food concession, storage building, press box, and bathroom facilities, including a revised bathroom layout to accommodate Board concerns about having adequate provision of facilities; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Joseph R. Cairone, a licensed landscape architect in the State of New Jersey, who was recognized by the Board as such, Mr. Cairone testified about the proposed landscape plan, new plantings planned, the variety of species planned, the tree replacement plan, and the concurrence of his office with the Tree Removal Plan prepared by Mr. Stewart’s office and offered by the Applicant; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Joseph Staigar, P.E. a licensed professional traffic engineer in the State of New Jersey, who was recognized by the Board as such, who testified about the ingress and egress to and from the Subject Property both on normal traffic days and on football game days, about the compliance with parking space requirements with the provision of temporary overflow parking for football games, the proposed overflow parking and the likely on street parking, about pedestrian safety and traffic flows on football -3-

game days, about the Applicant’s willingness to employ parking personnel and off-duty police officers on football games days to provide parking direction and pedestrian and traffic safety, and about proposed turning restrictions out of the existing parking lot; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Dennis Galway, a tree expert and certified and approved forester pursuant to the Society of American Foresters and the New Jersey Forest Service, who was recognized by the Board as such, Mr. Galway testified about the West Orange Tree Ordinance, his review of the tree removal plan prepared by Mr. Stewart's office, as well as the tree replacement plan prepared by Mr. Cairone’s office, and various reports proffered by the Objector Malanga about an “old growth forest,” he concluded that the methodology used by the Applicant to determine the number of trees was appropriate, that the existing forest is not a healthy one and removal and replanting of some trees will be beneficial to the Subject Property, and that the tree replacement plan is adequate; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Peter G. Steck, a licensed professional planner of the State of New Jersey, who was accepted by the Board as such, Mr. Steck testified about the proposed use of the Subject Property from a planning prospective, highlighting the substantial proposed buffer on the northerly property line, the open Space aspect of the proposal in that building coverage will be less than 1% and impervious coverage will 15.937%, his examination of the West -4-

Orange zone plan and ordinances, Master Plan and Re-Examination report and its classification of the Subject Property, the permitted uses on the Subject Property as per the zoning ordinance, the history of the Applicant’s first application to the Planning Board and the determination of the Planning Director, as affirmed by the Zoning Board that the Applicant needs a D-1 variance for the use and is properly before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the other variances sought, his opinion that the use of the Subject Property as school athletic fields is an inherently beneficial use, despite not being on the same property where the academic building sits, that the inherently beneficial use would satisfy the positive criteria, that the Applicant also satisfies the four prong negative criteria analysis, as set forth in Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Wall Township, 127 N.Jd. 152, 156 (1992), that the use is a high priority use in that education is important to society, that any detriments have been identified and ameliorated with conditions that the Board is considering, and that it would be appropriate for the Board to find, as he opines, that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the detriments, and that it would be poor planning to build permanent parking capacity for football games that are estimated to encompass about 20 hours over a year, and that all of the bulk variances could be granted because their benefits outweigh any perceived detriments; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Richard E. Poltan, Real Estate Appraiser, who was accepted as the Board as such, Mr. Poltan testified that that impact of the proposed -5-

development on the value of adjoining properties is so minimal to be de minimus and that it cannot be reasonably calculated; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Phillip A. Hayden, a cultural resource consultant who was recognized by the Board as an expert in that field, he testified that he inspected the current Subject Property, researched the Subject Property at many venues, including the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, State Library and State Archives in Trenton, the Essex County Courthouse, Newark Public Library, Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. and the Olmsted National Historic Site in or near Boston, and examined a host of listed materials therein, he mapped the Subject Property to determine the location of past structures, that despite noted past property owners, nothing on the Subject Property is or would qualify to be eligible for recognition under National Historic Register Standards, that the Subject Property was used only as a summer home for General McClellan for approximately two years before his death, that the Subject Property was then subsequently owned by the Delanos which family hired the Olmsteds to prepare certain landscape designs, which designs, if in fact they were the ones that were implemented, transformed the previous property, but have been left to fallow for over 70 years, and finally that of three remaining structures, which are remains of a greenhouse, a caretaker’s cottage and the foundation of the Carteret School for Boys, none possess the significance required to meet the general threshold for National Register eligibility nor do they -6-

currently have the integrity that is required to convey that significance; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of William Kehoe and Edwin Johnson, the Director and an employee of the West Orange Recreation Department who testified about the schedule of current use of West Orange Township owned ball fields by the High School, Middle Schools, and two private schools in town and the various town recreational leagues; and WHEREAS Township Engineer Leonard Lepore was called to testify by objector Loren Svetvilas, and was asked about the conditions he observed over the years when called by adjoining property owners to inspect a basement flooding condition they have experienced since the construction of the first set of improvements by the Applicant, and that he sees the problem as a groundwater problem, not a run-off problem, and suggesting that thus that the current application should rely heavily on recharged ground water, he also indicated an open pipe discharging onto Mountain Drive should be capped and that the town would like to receive an easement on Mountain Drive to address drainage issues on Mountain Drive; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered Exhibits marked A-1 through A-63 and Linson 1 and Linson-2, the following which were admitted into evidence by the Board: A-1 Revised Cover Sheet A-2 Soil Sheet A-3 Engineering Site Plan(Sheets 1-11)

Color Coordinated Colored Rendering Landscape Plan A Original Site Plan (Initial Submission) Revised Parking Calculations Overflow Parking Exhibit Prototype Score Board Landscape Improvements Landscape Improvements Variance List Site Plan Phase II Detailed Utility & Grading Plan (Sheet 8 of 11) Landscape Improvements Master Plan Revised Site Plan (11 sheets) Reduced Landscape Improvements Master Plan Field House Elevations (Sheet A-2) 1°* & 27 Floor Plans-Field House (Sheet A-1) Floor Plan/Elevations-Storage Building(Sheet A-3) Floor Plan/Elevations-Food Concession & Press Booth Dugout Plan Letter Response from GC Stewart Batting Cage Tunnel Details (5 Sheets) Hooded Back Stop

Scoreboard Plan Picture of Poles & Netting Overall Clearing & Grading Plan Tree Removal Plan Visual Analysis of Existing Landscape Site Improvement Plan Landscape Details Revised 5.4.09 Revised Architectural Floor Plans Food Concession and Press Box 4.28.09 Revised Sheet A-4 of Architectural Plans - Concession Stand with Bathrooms/Plumbing Code 2° Sheet A-4 Revised Press Box Plan Eliminating Elevator Seton Hall Letter Re: Use of Press Box Copies of Foresters Certifications NUJDEP-Certified Tree Expert Membership Society of American Foresters Panorama of Ridge Line (5 Pictures & Map) Proposal of Amy S. Greene Environmental Consultants, Inc Letter of Schoor DePalma(now CMX) by Jillian L. Weber to US Fish & Wildlife Service Request for Information Regarding Endangered Species Letter of Reply to Schoor DePalma (now CMX) from Fish & Wildlife Service re: Tree Survey Tree Removal Plan, Photos of Existing Conditions Letter of Reply to Schoor DePalma from Fish & Wildlife Service Regarding Approval Conditioned to Protection of the Indiana Bat

A-52 Existing Conditions Map Highlighting Gen. McClellan Property and Greenhouse A-53 Aerial Photograph of area in 1931 A-54 Detailed Layout & Dimensioning Plan A-55 Detailed Utility & Grading Plan A-56 Tree Removal Plan A-57 Phase II Utility & Grading Plan A-58 Utility & Grading Plan A-59 Utility & Grading Plan A-60 Utility & Grading Plan B-61 Overall Clearing & Grading Plan A-62 Existing Conditions Map A-63 Site Improvements Plan (Sheet 2 of 3) Linson-1 letter Linson -2 letter WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga, an adjacent property owner, was represented by Herbert Waldman, Esq.; and WHEREAS objector Kevin Malanga introduced the testimony of Amy Greene, an environmental scientist, certified wetlands delineator, certified senior ecologist with the Ecological Society of America, certified ornithologist and aquatic ecologist with the NJDEP and also certified in habitat evaluation procedures by the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, who was accepted, by the Board, over objection, as an expert in the field of environmental science, Ms. Greene opined that the Applicant had not complied with the Township ordinance’s -10-