6 24 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

12 connects to the walkway on this property. The applicant would continue that walkway directly to the front door. - Mr. Guarino asked whether guests would have access to move their cars from the Residence Inn onto this property. Mr. Petry said they could, but it would not be necessary - Mr. Guarino asked whether the site would have ADA accessibility, including appropriate crosswalks and step-downs for people with ADA needs. Mr. Petry confirmed that the site would have complete ADA accessibility. - Mr. Guarino asked whether there would be greenery and shrubbery along the front of the property to block passersby from seeing the parked cars. Mr. Petry stated that the Phase 1 landscape plan included substantial landscaping throughout that area. - Mr. Guarino asked whether the parking lot under discussion was employee parking only and whether it would be accessible from a separate entrance. Mr. Petry confirmed that it was employee parking and explained that the entrance was already located there and had historically been used in that configuration for as long as he had been visiting the property. - Mr. Guarino asked whether employees would have adequate sight lines when leaving that parking area. Mr. Petry confirmed that they would - Mr. Guarino asked whether trees could be planted along the sidewalks going down Prospect Avenue or whether that would be part of another phase. Mr. Petry confirmed that trees were already included along the Prospect Avenue sidewalk as part of Phase 1. - Mr. Cardoza recalled that Mr. Petry had mentioned an elevator and said he could see the elevator just outside the plans. He asked whether the elevator had been discussed as part of the Phase 1 review. Mr. Petry explained that the elevator had been installed in 2012 when the manor underwent renovation. He stated that the elevator services every floor in the facility except La Dome - Mr. Cardoza asked whether the elevator serves both as a service elevator and a guest elevator. Mr. Petry confirmed that it does and stated that it is fully ADA compliant - Mr. Cardoza then asked about the carriage house and the architectural plans for the proposed second floor. He pointed to a balcony on the left side of the plan and said it was not clear to him how the balcony would be accessed. Mr. Petry stated that there is currently no access to that space. - Mr. Cardoza said the lack of access seemed

left side of the plan and said it was not clear to him how the balcony would be accessed. Mr. Petry stated that there is currently no access to that space. - Mr. Cardoza said the lack of access seemed unusual and questioned whether leaving an inaccessible space could create concerns, such as the space collecting dust or becoming a fire hazard. Mr. Petry said they could either provide a stair to the second-level space within the area or potentially place a stair just outside of it in the new lounge area. He explained that they had not yet assigned a use to the space, so he agreed that the issue should be reviewed. PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS - Ms. McGovern asked whether the renovated upstairs apartment unit would be restricted to staff, since the notice describes the space as being used for staff, chef, or other employee accommodation or support purposes. She clarified whether the applicant intended to keep the apartment in-house for employees rather than rent it to anyone else. Mr. Petry confirmed that this is how the property has historically operated and stated that the applicant would accept a condition restricting occupancy of the apartment to someone who works for the facility. - Ms. McGovern noted that the notice adequately describes the renovation and that the proposed use fits within the definition of mixed use because a separate

13 entrance has been created. However, she stated that a condition should be imposed limiting the apartment's use to staff members. - Ms. Apte asked Mr. Petry if he had reviewed the planner's reports dated June 5, 2026, and June 17, 2026. Mr. Petry confirmed that he had reviewed them. - Ms. Apte asked for clarification regarding the parking described in the testimony. She asked whether the restaurant and banquet facility would have a combined maximum occupancy of 1,563 persons. Mr. Petry confirmed that the combined maximum occupancy of the restaurant and banquet facility would be 1,563 persons. - Ms. Apte stated that the technical parking requirement would be 488 spaces and asked whether Mr. Petry’s testimony was that the 486 spaces being proposed would be sufficient, based on his extensive experience as the architect and engineer for the site. Mr. Petry said that he believes the proposed parking is sufficient. - Ms. Apte recommended that the Board recognize that the zoning permits a shared parking arrangement and that the apartment is a deed-restricted unit. She stated that the maximum occupancy of the site is 1,563 and that the proposed parking would be sufficient, but she wanted the record to be clear regarding the technical parking requirement. - Ms. Apte asked Mr. Petry whether he believed there would be sufficient lighting on the property based on the amount of lighting being proposed. Mr. Petry testified that the proposed lighting is comprehensive, appropriately scaled, and night-sky compliant. He stated that they believe it will adequately service the site, including the entry and exit serving the property. - Mr. MacNeill asked Mr. Petry whether the EV parking spaces would be make-ready spaces or whether all of the spaces would be installed during the first year. Mr. Petry stated that they agreed to complete at least the Phase 1 EV spaces during the first year. If the Phase 2 spaces are completed at a later time, they will be installed in accordance with the applicable regulations. He noted that, depending on the vendor and financial considerations, they may decide that it makes more sense to install all of the spaces at once. - Mr. MacNeill clarified that the applicant was essentially retaining the option to make all of the Phase 2 spaces make-ready or have them fully installed, while following the State statute governing those make-ready spaces.

that the applicant was essentially retaining the option to make all of the Phase 2 spaces make-ready or have them fully installed, while following the State statute governing those make-ready spaces. Mr. Petry confirmed that this was correct. PROFESSIONAL COMMENTS - Ms. Apte stated that she agreed with Chairman Bagoff’s suggestion regarding the gazebo and recommended that, if the variance for the buffer is granted, landscaping in that area be maintained. - Regarding signage, Ms. Apte explained that her memo only identified an existing freestanding sign. She stated that she did not have details about the sign and did not know whether a variance was required. She wanted the record to make clear that she had not identified any sign variances unless the applicant had identified them and provided that information. - Mr. Petry testified that the intention is to maintain the existing signs in their existing locations and simply re-letter them. He stated that the signs are smaller in scale than what is typically seen for facilities of this type. - Ms. Apte reiterated that she simply wanted to make the record clear that she was not aware of any sign variances. If the signs remain as they currently exist, they would remain as is.

14 - Mr. MacNeill clarified the requested relief concerning the requirement to hold one-half of the projected two-year storm retention volume. He explained to the Board that, with new development, stormwater management regulations require reductions in stormwater flow for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. - Mr. MacNeill explained that when grass and trees are removed during new development, there is generally an increase in stormwater volume because additional areas become impervious. The regulations therefore require the applicant to hold back that additional volume. - Mr. MacNeill stated that the Township adopted an ordinance or code that is more restrictive than the DEP code. He clarified that this requirement is specific to West Orange and is not a DEP requirement. - Mr. MacNeill stated that, in his opinion, it makes sense to enforce this requirement for new development applications. However, in this particular case, Mr. Petry had indicated that the project is reducing impervious coverage. - Mr. MacNeill explained that reducing impervious coverage automatically reduces the stormwater volume, which is the intent of the ordinance requirement. Based on this, he agreed with the justification for the requested stormwater relief that Mr. Petry had placed on the record. - Mr. MacNeill stated that Mr. Petry had also confirmed that he could comply with all of the comments in Mr. MacNeill’s June 4, 2026 review letter. BOARD COMMENTS - Chairman Bagoff stated that he would be amenable to recommending to the board that, based on the applicant providing the information Mr. MacNeill needs, the C2 variances be provided. - Chairman Bagoff also addressed the gazebo. He stated that if the gazebo remained in its current location, he would recommend a condition requiring the owner to add evergreens or other greenery if the greenery behind it ever became sparse enough for neighboring properties to see through it. - Mr. Petry agreed to that condition. - Chairman Bagoff asked whether some of the lighting in the parking lot could use solar panels. - Mr. Petry said they could certainly look into it. - Chairman Bagoff stated that he had no problem with the signage because the applicant was revitalizing the existing signs rather than changing them, although the name would be changed. - He said that if the entrance or exit sign had to be moved, he would recommend granting the

pplicant was revitalizing the existing signs rather than changing them, although the name would be changed. - He said that if the entrance or exit sign had to be moved, he would recommend granting the variance with a condition that the zoning official approve the final location of the sign because the signs are related to safety. - Chairman Bagoff acknowledged the requirements of the ordinance but stated that creating all of those tree islands would cause significant damage. He also questioned whether the trees planted in those islands would ever become tall enough to fulfill the intent of the ordinance. - Chairman Bagoff recommended that there instead be one tree island in each parking lot. He suggested trees similar to those at the Target Shopping Center or Essex Green Shopping Center because they would be more consistent with what would work well at the property.

15 - Chairman Bagoff stated that his recommendation would avoid losing a large number of parking spaces and that the architect-engineer could determine the most appropriate locations for the islands. - Mr. Petry clarified that the applicant was already adding tree islands in Lot C. He pointed out that several areas shown on the plan were new islands and emphasized that the applicant had already incorporated landscaping into the parking lots. - Mr. Petry then explained that in Lot B they were adding several islands as well. - Chairman Bagoff asked whether those islands would contain trees. - Mr. Petry confirmed that trees would be planted in those islands, consistent with how they had planted them elsewhere, but indicated that he did not believe this necessarily eliminated the need for the variance. - Chairman Bagoff stated that he would definitely agree with the C2 variance if trees were placed in the islands. In his view, that would satisfy the ordinance. - Mr. Guarino stated from his experience artificial turf generates approximately 20% more heat than regular grass. He said there is a significant difference between running on grass and running on turf and offered that information as another consideration when looking at alternatives. - Mr. Petry responded that his firm had been responsible for the first cork-based turf field in New Jersey, located in Glen Ridge near the Glen Ridge-Montclair border. He stated that the cork-based turf was considerably cooler but acknowledged the concern that black rubber pellets can heat up significantly. PUBLIC QUESTIONS - Kathy Dent, 5 Deerfield Drive, raised a concern regarding the landscaping in the rear of the property, along her lot and the other lots on Deerfield Drive. She stated that trees had been removed and that dirt and earth had been moved, changing the landscape in the rear of the property. Ms. Dent asked whether anything further would be done on the property side along Deerfield Drive, including whether additional trees or plants would be added and whether the dirt that had been thrown down the incline into people’s yards would be stabilized or otherwise addressed. Mr. Petry responded that they had received notification of an issue at that location and had looked into it. He stated that he had not personally looked into whether soil had moved down the hill, but he would make it a point to inspect the area

otification of an issue at that location and had looked into it. He stated that he had not personally looked into whether soil had moved down the hill, but he would make it a point to inspect the area and coordinate with the municipal Engineer’s office. GENERAL DISCUSSION - Ms. McGovern began reviewing the proposed conditions and the requested C2 variances. - Ms. McGovern stated that the first condition was that the apartment would be used for staff members or employees only and would be deed restricted for that purpose. - Ms. McGovern stated that one of the requested variances was from the stormwater ordinance. In consideration of that relief, the applicant would submit the requested information and comply with all requirements and requests contained in Mr. MacNeill’s report. - Mr. MacNeill clarified that the relevant report was dated June 4, 2026, and that the requested relief was from Section 25.29.4S2. Ms. McGovern confirmed the information and continued reviewing the conditions.

16 - Chairman Bagoff asked the Board whether anyone had a problem with granting the stormwater relief, provided that the applicant submitted information demonstrating that stormwater impacts had been reduced by decreasing impervious coverage. - Mayor McCartney asked Mr. MacNeill whether there was anything else in the stormwater management plan that needed to be addressed. Mr. MacNeill stated that there were a few minor cleanup items that Mr. Petry’s office had agreed to address as part of resolution compliance. He characterized them as a couple of clarification items and cleanup items, and stated that nothing major remained that would require additional testing. - The Board then moved on to the next conditions. - Ms. McGovern stated that, in the rear, the owner would add greenery and would replace it if it ever became sparse, maintaining it in perpetuity. - Chairman Bagoff clarified that this condition specifically concerned the area around the gazebo. - Mayor McCartney asked whether maintenance of the trees across the entire site would be the owner’s responsibility. Chairman Bagoff and Ms. McGovern confirmed that the owner would continue to maintain the greenery in accordance with the landscape plan, with particular attention to the area around the gazebo in the rear. - Chairman Bagoff explained that the gazebo area was adjacent to one-family residential homes and was less than 50 feet away. - The landscaping condition would therefore address that issue in connection with potentially granting the C2 variance. - Ms. McGovern stated that the applicant would attempt to use solar panels for at least some of the parking lot lighting. - Ms. McGovern stated that any signs for ingress and egress would be handled in coordination with the zoning official for approval of the sign locations. - Regarding the parking lot islands, Ms. McGovern stated that a variance would be granted. - Ms. McGovern stated that the turf area would be reviewed and that the applicant would come up with something acceptable to the Board professionals as a condition. - Ms. McGovern stated that the applicant would comply with the planner’s reports dated June 5 and June 17, 2026, as well as any information requested in those reports. - Chairman Bagoff noted that lighting spillage onto the roadway was related to improving ingress and egress and was a safety issue, as testified to by Mr. Petry. -

ormation requested in those reports. - Chairman Bagoff noted that lighting spillage onto the roadway was related to improving ingress and egress and was a safety issue, as testified to by Mr. Petry. - Ms. McGovern confirmed that the lighting issue would be treated as a waiver. - Ms. Apte clarified that there were three lighting waivers: one for the pedestrian walkway, one for the parking areas, and one for the street. - Ms. McGovern noted that there were no sign variances identified and confirmed that the parking was sufficient subject to the technical requirement for two additional spaces. - Ms. Apte explained that, technically, the applicant was required to provide 488 parking spaces based on the 1,563 maximum occupancy and the employee apartment, but the applicant was providing 486 spaces. - Ms. McGovern stated that this would therefore constitute a variance for two parking spaces. - Ms. McGovern also stated that the applicant would address the neighbor’s concerns regarding the piles of dirt in the rear near the property at 5 Deerfield Drive. - Mr. McPherson confirmed that someone would go to the property the following morning to investigate the alleged piles of dirt. - Ms. McGovern asked who would determine whether the issue had been addressed satisfactorily. Mr. McPherson stated that he would contact anyone in the Township necessary and report on the matter.