6 10 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

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 whether the larger one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments are expected to attract school-age families and whether the project could affect local school capacity. Mr. Jarmel says the question regarding school-age children would probably be better answered by the project's planner. However, based on his familiarity with New Jersey affordable-housing requirements, he believes the larger apartments are intended to allow residents to live with children, although he cannot say whether those children would necessarily be school-aged. - Mark, 362 St. Cloud Ave, ask whether the architectural design included any studies or changes specifically intended to address increased pollution or noise pollution associated with the development's proximity to South Mountain Reservation and wildlife across the street. Mr. Jarmel says there were no specific design measures undertaken for that purpose. He explains, however, that the building will comply with applicable building codes, energy codes, and New Jersey stormwater rules and regulations, which provide those protections through the required standards.

19 - Mark asks whether any additional requirements apply because of the property's proximity to South Mountain Reservation. Mr. Jarmel says that, from a building-code or zoning perspective, he is not aware of any - Sacha Eaton, 62 Lenox Terrance, asks to display the elevation/section showing the proposed building from Sheridan, looking east toward the houses at the top of the slope and asks about the actual height of the building, noting that the elevation identifies it as 48 feet. Mr. Jarmel explains that building height can be confusing because municipalities in New Jersey measure height differently. He points to the sea-level elevations on the drawing and explains that the roof is approximately 48 feet above the entryway elevation at Northfield. - Ms. Eaton explains that her house is on the east side of the property, on the north side and at the top of the slope. She is concerned that the proposed building appears to be above the level of the houses and questions whether the proposed trees would actually reduce noise or the visual impact of the building. Mr. Jarmel responds that the roof of the proposed building is slightly below the roof of the house shown in the section, while also noting that there is already dense vegetation in the area. - Ms. Eaton explains that because she lives on top of a hill, she sees the existing trees every day, but because they are deciduous, she has a completely clear view of the lot during the winter. She also says she does not think the proposed building fits the architectural style of the neighborhood and asks Jarmel how he would characterize its style. Mr. Jarmel describes it as a “contemporary suburban multi-family home.” - Ms. Eaton asks about the culvert and whether the parking garage on the east side will be built below grade. Mr. Jarmel explains that the property slopes approximately 18 to 20 feet from a low point along Sheridan on the west side to the higher east property line. Rather than substantially excavating the property, the project takes advantage of the existing slope to create two levels of parking, one at the lower grade and one at the higher grade. He confirms that the higher parking level will be above ground. - Ms. Eaton asks whether the east-side parking garage would require digging into the area where the culvert is located. Mr. Jarmel says no and explains that, if anything, some material would be

round. - Ms. Eaton asks whether the east-side parking garage would require digging into the area where the culvert is located. Mr. Jarmel says no and explains that, if anything, some material would be added to level the area. - Ms. Eaton asks about the noise level of the 95 HVAC units proposed for the roof. Mr. Jarmel says he does not know the exact decibel level if all of the units were operating simultaneously. - Richard Mensah, 68 Sheridan, asks whether the proposed egress door could be moved farther away from his house and closer to Northfield Avenue because there is already considerable foot traffic in the area. Mr. Jarmel explains that the door is a fire stair and fire exit that opens to the street, which is required by building code for exits to open onto a public way. He says it therefore cannot really be moved, but he does not expect it to be used regularly. - Mr. Mensah also raises concerns about the loss of his current view once the deciduous trees lose their leaves in the fall and winter, saying that residents will then essentially see the back of the proposed building. Mr. Jarmel states the proposal includes approximately 37 evergreen trees along the hill, which he says would provide additional screening when the deciduous trees lose their leaves. - Justin Goldsman asks whether any comparative topography or slope studies were conducted, including in comparison with the nearby Ron Jolyn Apartments. Mr. Jarmel says he is not familiar with the apartments but explains that the project was made smaller because West Orange has a steep-slope ordinance intended to protect slopes from runoff and deterioration.

20 - Joe Scott, 36 Birchwood Ave, asks for the height of the building from the sidewalk at the corner of Northfield and Sheridan, specifically from the perspective of someone standing at the front door and looking to the top of the parapet. Mr. Jarmel states that the grade at the corner is approximately elevation 384 and the roof is at approximately 432.04, producing a height of approximately 48.04 feet. - Mr. Scott asks where the private truck collecting trash will stand while loading because there is no loading zone. Mr. Jarmel explains that the truck will drive through the parking lot. - Mr. Scott asks what type of use the retail space was designed for. Mr. Jarmel explains that the space has not been marketed because the building has not yet been approved. He says the eventual use must comply with the uses permitted in the zone, which allow a variety of retail uses, including restaurants. - Mr. Scott asks about the number of family-sized apartments. Mr. Jarmel clarifies that there are 95 apartments total: 68 one-bedroom units, 22 two-bedroom units, and 5 three- bedroom units. He explains that the five three-bedroom units are affordable units and, under UHAC guidelines, are generally intended to accommodate families. He also notes that approximately 65% of the building consists of one-bedroom units, which he says are not designed for families. - Mr. Scott asks how many cars can fit between the street and the gate before vehicles would have to back up onto Northfield. Mr. Jarmel says there are eight parking spaces between the gate and Northfield, with approximately 20 feet between the curb of Northfield and the point where vehicles enter that area. He states that all eight cars can park there and none would have to back onto Northfield to exit. - Asad Shaikh, 53 Sheridan Ave, asks whether the building was specifically designed and evaluated from the perspective of St. Cloud Elementary School, which is located diagonally across from the site. He asks whether the design considered the children, the school's views, and the pedestrian routes used by students. Mr. Jarmel says the building was not specifically designed with the school in mind. He says, however, that the project will enhance sidewalks and pedestrian safety along Northfield and has eliminated vehicle access and entrances from Sheridan, which he says will improve traffic safety around the school. -

the project will enhance sidewalks and pedestrian safety along Northfield and has eliminated vehicle access and entrances from Sheridan, which he says will improve traffic safety around the school. - Mr. Shaikh asks how many units on the top two floors along Sheridan Avenue have windows facing Sheridan. Mr. Jarmel states that there are five units per floor on the third and fourth floors facing Sheridan, for a total of 10 units. - Mr. Shaikh expresses concern that these units will have direct visibility toward the school, whereas the current site does not provide comparable visibility. He asks whether consideration was given to protecting the privacy of children entering and leaving the school, including through additional trees or other screening. Mr. Jarmel states that there was no consideration given to screening the school from the building and that no such provisions were included in the plan. - Mr. Malanga asks Mr. Jarmel whether he reviewed the March 13, 2026 Planning Review Number 1 memorandum prepared by Heyer, Gruel, and Associates. Mr. Jarmel confirms that he reviewed it but notes that the report was outdated and had been supplemented on April 8. - Mr. Malanga references the report's recommendation that the applicant consider exterior facade materials and design elements that would be harmonious with the historic character of the neighborhood and asks what materials and design elements were incorporated to satisfy Municipal Code Section 25-16. Mr. Jarmel says the proposed building uses materials similar to the apartment complex immediately to the west, which he estimates is approximately 570 feet away.

21 - Mr. Malanga asks whether Jarmel considers the proposed building a luxury building, and if so, what are the elements of a luxury building. Mr. Jarmel says yes and identifies amenities as a general characteristic of a luxury building. - Mr. Malanga asks whether ceiling height is an amenity and whether an 8-foot-4-inch ceiling is indicative of a luxury space. Mr. Jarmel says ceiling height is not necessarily an amenity - Mr. Malanga references the March 13 planning report's discussion of several triangular- shaped one-bedroom units adjacent to the amenity space and asks about the distance between the windows of those units. Mr. Jarmel states that the distance between the windows is 10 feet. - Mr. Malanga asks whether having only 10 feet between apartment windows is indicative of a luxury space. Mr. Jarmel says the term luxury is subjective. - Mr. Malanga asks about the location of the lounge, club room, and gym due to The Heyer Gruel report critiquing the location. Mr. Jarmel explains that he does not recall the exact original concern about the location but believes the planner was seeking additional information about what activities would occur in those rooms. He says the applicant supplemented the submission with drawings and an exhibit showing the room layouts and amenities. - Mr. Malanga asks whether Mr. Jarmel considers it a good design to place apartments next to a lounge, club room, and gym. Mr. Jarmel says yes. - Mr. Malanga asks whether residents in the adjacent apartments could be affected by noise. Mr. Jarmel says he does not believe they will be affected because the walls will be insulated and the amenity rooms will have established hours of operation. - Micaela Bennett, Old Indian Road, notes for the record that during a previous attempt to participate, she had asked questions similar to Mr. Malanga's and was disconnected and forced to log back in. She says she wants the issue documented in case the same thing happened to other members of the public. - Ms. Bennett asks why 95 units is the appropriate number for the site rather than a lower number such as 60, 70, or 80. Mr. Jarmel says that 95 units fits well on the site. He also says the distribution of units is beneficial because the high percentage of one-bedroom units reduces the number of families and school-aged children, which he says has been a concern raised by members of the public.

ution of units is beneficial because the high percentage of one-bedroom units reduces the number of families and school-aged children, which he says has been a concern raised by members of the public. He adds that a greater number of units also produces more affordable housing units, helping West Orange meet its affordable housing plan. - Ms. Bennett asks whether the number of units and associated parking requirements result in stacked and tandem parking. Mr. Jarmel confirms that they do and says the parking is designed to meet the Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS) - Ms. Bennett asks whether the proposed property differs from 555 Northfield because water runs underneath the proposed site, whereas at 555 Northfield the water runs behind the property. Mr. Jarmel says he did not comment on the water at 555 Northfield and is not familiar enough with that site to know where the water runs. - Ms. Bennett asks whether Mr. Jarmel believes it is safe to construct a four-story building above the culvert and whether he knows when the culvert was installed. Mr. Jarmel says he does not know when it was installed but says it has been inspected and reported to be in excellent condition. - Ms. Bennett asks what material the culvert is made from. Ms. Jarmel says it is reinforced concrete. - Ms. Bennett asks whether concrete has a life expectancy and whether it can eventually deteriorate. Mr. Jarmel agrees that it can.

22 - Ms. Bennett asks Mr. Jarmel has concerns for the concrete that's running underneath the building to deteriorate during the lifetime of that building. Mr. Jarmel acknowledges that both he and the owner have concerns about the possibility of the concrete deteriorating during the lifetime of the building. He says this is why the applicant has discussed establishing a maintenance plan with the board and engineers. - Ms. Bennett asks how heavy the proposed building will be. Mr. Jarmel says he does not know the weight yet. - Ms. Bennett asks whether the stated building height includes the four-foot-tall air- handling units described in Mr. Jarmel’s testimony. Mr. Jarmel says it does not. - Ms. Bennett asks how many stories of the proposed building would be visible from the adjoining residential properties to the north. Mr. Jarmel refers back to the previously presented section exhibit. He points out that the proposed roofline is slightly below the roofline of the adjacent house shown in the section. - Ms. Bennett asks Mr. Jarmel to identify where the air-handling units would sit in relation to the roofline. Mr. Jarmel points to the roof section and explains that the air-handling units would be placed on top of the roof, below or approximately at the height of the parapet. He says they would be screened from view by the parapet on all sides. - Ms. Bennett asks whether the use of tandem and stacked parking has accurately estimated the building's carrying capacity and number of units. Mr. Jarmel states that the parking was designed to comply with the state Residential Site Improvement Standards, the West Orange Zoning Ordinance, and state requirements concerning electric-vehicle charging. - Ms. Bennett then asks about emergency safety and whether Mr. Jarmel is familiar with flooding that allegedly occurs on the property during hurricanes, including situations in which the culvert cannot handle stormwater runoff and water flows through the parking lot. Mr. Jarmel says he is not familiar with that specific flooding. ○ Ms. Bennett responds that, as a licensed architect, Mr. Jarmel has a responsibility to consider issues such as hurricane flooding and to design buildings to withstand applicable storm events, particularly because the building is proposed above a water culvert. ○ Mr. Jarmel responds by explaining that New Jersey's flood-hazard regulations establish

ings to withstand applicable storm events, particularly because the building is proposed above a water culvert. ○ Mr. Jarmel responds by explaining that New Jersey's flood-hazard regulations establish requirements governing where and how buildings can be constructed. He says he believes information presented during the hearing established that the site is not within a flood-hazard zone and that the residential units are located in a position where they would be permitted even if the area were subject to flood- hazard regulations. - Ms. Bennett asks Mr. Jarmel directly whether he is saying that the building and residential units are not within a flood-hazard zone. Mr. Jarmel clarifies that flood hazards are not his area of expertise, but says the project has been reviewed by the New Jersey DEP, which has jurisdiction over flood-hazard matters in New Jersey. - Ms. Bennett asks whether the architectural design accounts for the health, safety, and welfare of residents and neighboring properties when the culvert overflows and flooding occurs. Mr. Jarmel responds that the project follows applicable code requirements and therefore, in his view, the design has accounted for the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. The application will be carried to the July 1, 2026 regular Planning Board meeting with no additional notice required. - Before the hearing was adjourned, Ms. Moore added that Ms. Kapferer previously asked about making the sidewalks similar to those at 555 West. She says the applicant

23 discussed the suggestion with the client, who liked the idea, and the applicant agreed to comply with it. ADOPTED: ___________________________________ Jamilet Baquerizo Vite Planning Board Secretary