6 10 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

s rather than specifically in the garage. - Mr. Cardoza asks whether a column appears to be located on the culvert near the EV parking area. Mr. Jarmel identifies the columns on the plan and adds that the five parking stacker spaces located over the culvert could easily be relocated ○ Mr. MacNeill says relocating those stackers would be beneficial because it would reduce the load over the culvert PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS - Mr. Davis asks whether an ADA-accessible parking space will be added to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Jarmel says that if it is required, the applicant will provide it. - Mr. Davis asks whether the proposed building sign will project more than one foot from the building facade. Mr. Jarmel confirms that it is not anticipated to project more than one foot. - Mr. Davis asks whether the recent plan changes will result in a need for lighting variances. Mr. Jarmel says that it’s primarily a civil engineering issue. - Mr. Davis states that, given the variances required for the application, he believes that adding as much planting as reasonably possible would be a valuable addition to the project. - Mr. MacNeill returns to the issue of the culvert beneath portions of the proposed building and asks Mr. Jarmel to generally explain how the building would be constructed above it

14 and how the project would avoid creating problems for the culvert. Mr. Jarmel identifies the culvert on drawing SD101 and explains that it runs underneath the building. Mr. Jarmel states that the building has been laid out with constructability in mind. Mr. Jarmel says the design team has been careful to ensure that no building columns land directly on the culvert or in close proximity to it. Mr. Jarmel does not recall the exact depth of the culvert but knows that it is a concrete structure. He believes it was designed to support the vehicle loads that have existed over the culvert for many years and that the proposed project would not substantially change those loads. - Mr. MacNeill asks that Mr. Faccino later provide testimony regarding what would happen if the culvert failed or required repairs beneath portions of the building. Ms. Moore agrees and notes that the applicant had previously had the culvert tested and could provide additional testimony regarding its condition. BOARD COMMENTS - Council President Scarpa says the overall project looks very industrial and expresses concern that residents who moved to the community wanted a suburban environment. - She says the large sidewalks are positive and wants the project to maintain the suburban character of the area. - Council President Scarpa emphasizes that the landscaping needs to provide a substantial screen for nearby residents. - She says the residents do not want the project to look like Orange or Newark. - She wants substantial, mature trees rather than small saplings that could take many years to grow. - She specifically wants screening both in front of and behind the building to preserve the suburban feel of the community. ○ Mr. Jarmel explains that the proposed landscaping includes a combination of tree types. ○ Ms. Moore notes that questions concerning the precise landscaping, tree replacement, buffers, and compliance with the landscaping ordinance are better addressed by the civil engineer and landscape-related testimony. - Council President Scarpa reiterates that the residents want the project to maintain the character of West Orange. ○ Ms. Moore says the project includes sufficient landscaping and that the rendering shows a residential rather than industrial building. ○ Mr. Jarmel explains that the design is intended to be appropriate for a suburban community. - Council President Scarpa

ing and that the rendering shows a residential rather than industrial building. ○ Mr. Jarmel explains that the design is intended to be appropriate for a suburban community. - Council President Scarpa responds that residents continue to tell her that the building looks industrial and that they want substantially more trees in front of this type of development. ○ Ms. Moore says the applicant is receptive to adding trees and is willing to meet with the municipal tree forester. - Council President Scarpa emphasizes that the landscaping must provide a real barrier for the nearby residents. - She notes that residents have had concerns about development of this property for many years. ○ Ms. Moore references earlier testimony concerning the proposed buffer and landscaping from the April 15 hearing. - Council President Scarpa again states that the trees need to be mature enough to provide a serious screen for the residents.

15 - Mr Klein raises a concern that the three-and-two parking stackers appear to be located directly over the culvert. Mr. MacNeill explains that the stackers are in an area on the lower side of the site where the culvert is deeper, as well as another area farther upstream on the upper parking level. He identifies these as the two portions of the building area located over the culvert. - Mr. MacNeill says the Board should have testimony on the record explaining how such a repair would affect the building's operations, including whether units would need to be shut down or whether repairs could occur while the building remained occupied and whether the work could affect the certificate of occupancy. The Board then recessed for approximately ten minutes. - After the recess, Mr. Turteltaub begins questioning Mr. Jarmel on behalf of nearby property owners, Richard Gajdek at 64 Sheridan and Charlotte Westcott at 346 St. Cloud, and asks him to display the grading plan C400. - Mr. Turteltaub identifies the eastern side of the building on the grading plan and confirms that the building ends after the three parking spaces where the shading changes from light gray to dark gray. Mr. Jarmel confirms this. - Mr. Turteltaub asks about a curved line labeled 403 on the plan. Mr. Jarmel identifies it as a proposed grade. - Mr. Turteltaub then identifies another line labeled 402 inside the building and asks what it represents. Mr. Jarmel confirms that it is also a proposed grade. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel has reviewed the FEMA flood maps for the property. Mr. Jarmel says he has not personally done so. Mr. Jarmel explains that Mr. Faccino, the project's civil engineer and an expert in flood hazards, reviewed the FEMA information, met with the DEP, and participated in studies concerning the site's flood area. - Mr. Turteltaub shares a FEMA flood map from the FEMA website. ○ The map is marked as a separate exhibit, O1, identified as the FEMA flood map, and Mr. Turteltaub states that it was exported on June 8, 2026 at 5:46 p.m. - Mr. Turteltaub attempts to use the FEMA map to question Mr. Jarmel about the property's flood zone. When he asks whether the AE zone shown on the map is a floodway, Mr. Jarmel says he is not sufficiently experienced with those terms to answer. - Ms. Moore objects, explaining that Mr. Jarmel is appearing as the architect and is not

shown on the map is a floodway, Mr. Jarmel says he is not sufficiently experienced with those terms to answer. - Ms. Moore objects, explaining that Mr. Jarmel is appearing as the architect and is not the appropriate expert to provide testimony regarding the floodway or other civil engineering issues. - Mr. Turteltaub returns to the grading plan, limiting his questions to matters within Mr. Jarmel's architectural testimony. - Mr. Turteltaub confirms that the 402 proposed-grade line is located within the building structure. - Mr. Turteltaub confirms that most of the area is currently a parking lot and that the culvert runs beneath the parking lot. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether, if the culvert needed to be upgraded or repaired, it would be preferable to perform that work before constructing the building rather than after construction. Mr. Jarmel agrees that it would be easier to do so before construction. Mr. Jarmel states, however, that the culvert has already been inspected and is in excellent condition.

16 ○ Ms. Moore notes that there has been no testimony establishing that the culvert needs to be improved. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel has researched the property's flood history. Mr. Jarmel says he has not personally done so but explains that the project's civil engineers have reviewed the issue, communicated with the DEP, and obtained DEP approvals and letters. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether the property is located in the B2 zone. Mr. Jarmel says he believes it is. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether the proposed use is a conditional use in the B2 zone. Mr. Jarmel says that is his understanding but notes that it is primarily a planning question. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether the B2 zone's bulk standards refer to the R1 zone. Mr. Jarmel says he does not know and explains that the civil engineers and planners performed the zoning evaluation. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel researched the zoning when preparing the architectural plans. Mr. Jarmel reiterates that the civil engineers and planners conducted the zoning analysis and advised him regarding the applicable requirements. - Mr. Turteltaub asks where Mr. Jarmel obtained the permissible building height. Mr. Jarmel points to drawing C002, which contains a zoning schedule prepared by the civil engineer. Mr. Jarmel explains that the zoning schedule contains the information on which the architectural design was based. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether determining the applicable average height under the zoning ordinance would be a question for the planner. Mr. Jarmel agrees. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether the methodology for calculating average height would also be a matter for the planner. Mr. Jarmel says it would involve the planner and civil engineer. - Mr. Turteltaub points to the average-height calculation on drawing C002 and asks whether Mr. Jarmel prepared it. Mr. Jarmel says he did not. Mr. Jarmel explains that although his firm prepared the drawings, they are signed and sealed by Anthony Faccino, a professional engineer who is also a professional planner. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel can testify about site triangles for the site's access points. Mr. Jarmel says he cannot because that is within the expertise of the traffic and civil engineers. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel evaluated whether the plan and layout would work when designing the building. Mr. Jarmel states

hat is within the expertise of the traffic and civil engineers. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel evaluated whether the plan and layout would work when designing the building. Mr. Jarmel states that, from an architectural design standpoint, the project was evaluated for functionality and that he believes the design works very well. He also states that he believes the project provides significant benefits to the community by helping address its affordable housing needs - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel analyzed how vehicles entering through the western entrance would interact with cars backing out of parking spaces or leaving the area. Mr. Jarmel says that analysis would be more within the traffic expert's area of responsibility. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel's earlier comments regarding vehicles being able to make K-turns were based on his own expertise. Mr. Jarmel says the traffic engineer should testify regarding that issue, although the matter was discussed during the design process and the traffic engineer advised the team regarding the width of the drive aisles. - Mr. Turteltaub asks about the reduction of the project from the original 105 units to 95 units and then questions Mr. Jarmel about the West Orange Fair Share Housing Plan. Mr. Jarmel says he does not believe such a plan exists. - Mr. Turteltaub presents a document obtained from the West Orange website and asks Mr. Jarmel whether he has seen it before. Mr. Jarmel says he has not.

17 ○ The document is identified as the fourth-round plan and is marked as an exhibit, O2. - Mr. Turteltaub directs Mr. Jarmel to pages 87 and 89 of the document, which identify 525 Northfield Avenue, the former Essex House restaurant property, as a 2.5-acre lot. The document states that in 2025 a developer approached the Township regarding a potential mixed-use residential and commercial building and that the Township proposed rezoning the property to permit 60 units, including 12 affordable units. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether anyone had discussed that proposed 60-unit plan with Mr. Jarmel. Mr. Jarmel says he does not believe the plan existed when his plans were prepared, explaining that his plans were initially submitted in early November and that the fourth-round plan came about later. ○ Ms. Moore objects to the introduction and discussion of the document, arguing that the application concerns a permitted use, that no density variance is being requested, and that the application was filed and deemed complete before the plan was adopted or provided to the applicant. - Mr. Turteltaub argues that the document is relevant because the applicant is seeking variances, including height and setback variances, to construct a 95-unit building, and the Board must consider whether the proposed development is the only reasonable use of the property or whether other uses could better suit the neighborhood. ○ Ms. McGovern agrees with Ms. Moore's position that the application was filed before the fourth-round plan was adopted. She explains that the date appearing on the document is believed to be the date the Township Council endorsed the plan and emphasizes that the zoning ordinance did not contain a density limitation for the mixed-use zone when the application was filed or at the time of the hearing ○ She acknowledges that the requested side-yard, rear-yard, and other bulk variances could potentially relate to the number of apartment units. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel can testify about the proposed landscaping, including landscaping at the rear of the building. ○ Ms. Moore notes that the civil engineer previously testified about the landscaping ○ Mr. Jarmel clarifies that he did not prepare the landscape plan and that, when he previously answered questions about landscaping, he was simply reading and interpreting the plan, including the number and location

arifies that he did not prepare the landscape plan and that, when he previously answered questions about landscaping, he was simply reading and interpreting the plan, including the number and location of trees, rather than providing landscape-design expertise. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether Mr. Jarmel understands the grade difference between the base of the proposed building and the homes located at the top of the hill. Mr. Jarmel says he can read the grading plan and understand the grade differential. - Mr. Turteltaub asks what screening is proposed for rooftop mechanical equipment to protect homeowners on the hill. Mr. Jarmel explains that the building will have a parapet surrounding and screening the mechanical equipment. - Mr. Turteltaub points out that the homes are above the parapet and may have views and potential noise impacts from the rooftop equipment, Mr. Jarmel says the site already has a significant wall of trees and that the landscape plan provides for more than 40 additional trees to supplement that screening. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether the additional trees are located at the base of the hillside. Mr. Jarmel explains that the new plantings begin at the base but extend substantially up the hill. ○ Mr. Jarmel states that, to his understanding, the applicant intends to discuss the landscaping with neighbors and is open to creating a very dense wall of trees, ○ Mr. Turteltaub responds that, although the applicant has met with his clients, the plans have not been changed and additional landscaping could potentially mitigate

18 the neighbors' concerns because the proposed building would place the building and rooftop elements directly behind homes that currently overlook the area. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether the proposed trees would shield the homeowners from the rooftop equipment. Mr. Jarmel says they may not provide complete screening immediately, but the proposed trees will be approximately 8 to 10 feet high when planted. - Mr. Turteltaub asks how the structural columns for the building will be installed and whether driven piles will be required. Mr. Jarmel explains that geotechnical testing indicates the site has adequate bearing capacity for conventional spread footings. He describes the process as excavating holes, forming and pouring concrete footings, and states that driven piles are not intended to be used. - Mr. Turteltaub asks about the parking stackers and how long they take to maneuver a vehicle. Mr. Jarmel says he does not know the exact timeframe. - Mr. Turteltaub asks why the building is proposed to be approximately 2.5 feet from the property line rather than being moved closer toward the rear. Mr. Jarmel explains that the design is intended to avoid the steep slopes. - Mr. Turteltaub asks whether the number of units could be reduced further. Mr. Jarmel says that would ultimately be a question for the applicant because there are economic considerations involved. PUBLIC QUESTIONS - Mr. Weisleder, 17 Howell Drive, asks whether additional visitor parking is required. Mr. Jarmel explains that the proposed parking complies with both the Residential Site Improvement Standards and the West Orange zoning ordinance, and that the applicant is not requesting a parking variance. - Mr. Weisleder asks about deliveries from UPS, FedEx, and other last-mile delivery companies. He confirms that the plan is for those vehicles to use the visitor parking area and make deliveries into the lobby or vestibule. Mr. Jarmel confirms that this is the plan. - Mr. Weisleder asks whether the design accounts for food deliveries. Mr. Jarmel says his personal experience is that food deliveries usually arrive in cars rather than vans and could use the same parking spaces. - Mr. Weisleder asks where food-delivery vehicles would go if all eight visitor spaces were occupied. Mr. Jarmel points out that there are three additional spaces on the easterly side of the building - Ms. Roro, 24 Hutton, asks