6 10 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

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