West Orange planning board hears revisions, parking mitigation for proposed 410 Main Street mixed‑use project

The West Orange Planning Board on Sept. 4 continued its review of a proposed three‑story mixed‑use building at 410 Main Street (PB24‑06), hearing architecture and traffic testimony and extensive public concern about parking and pedestrian safety.

Benjamin Wine, representing applicant 410 Main Street Holdings LLC, told the board the team revised plans after prior hearings and would present the architect’s changes and traffic testimony; the applicant’s planner will testify at the Oct. 9 continuation. "We believe that this puts our project into a better position," Wine said.

Architect Yogesh Mystery described six substantive changes to plans last revised Aug. 21, 2024: two modular green‑roof tray areas (800 sq ft each, 1,600 sq ft total) intended to reduce runoff and heat‑island effects; a flip of the residential lobby/elevator core and the dumpster room at the ground floor (a move Mystery said led to a net gain of one parking space); reconfigured unit layouts (keeping the total at 12 units); addition of an accessible toilet inside the 900‑sq‑ft commercial tenant space; four additional low‑intensity wall sconces along the rear walkway; and a small car‑warning device at the garage exit with both a visible indicator and an adjustable audio element that can be muted or limited by time. "We've added two areas of 800 square feet each, for a total of 1,600 square feet," Mystery said of the green roof.

Traffic expert Harold Maltz, accepted as an engineering witness, told the board he used the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip‑generation rates required by New Jersey residential site improvement standards (RSIS). He estimated roughly seven AM peak‑hour trips and 12 PM peak‑hour trips for the combined residential and commercial uses, which he characterized as a negligible traffic impact on Main Street and the Park Drive loop.

Maltz’s parking analysis identified a gap between RSIS/municipal guidance and the proposal: depending on credits, the combined residential and commercial requirement would be in the mid‑20s (about 25 spaces after accounting for two EV‑space credits and a modest transit credit), while the submitted plan shows 14 spaces in the garage. Maltz recommended mitigation rather than requiring 25 on‑site spaces. He described a mitigation package that includes assigned on‑site spaces, a lease restriction limiting each apartment to one tenant parking permit, use of municipal permit parking (Lot #1, the Harrison/Mississippi lot, which he said contains 74 spaces — 46 metered and 28 permit spaces — with roughly 16 permit slots currently available), and a commitment by the applicant to reimburse tenants for the cost of off‑site permits if needed. On this basis Maltz concluded the RSIS maximum could be reduced in this case.

Maltz also addressed specific geometric and pedestrian‑safety concerns raised in a consultant review: he recommended designating the corner stall as a compact space to address tight turning geometry; he said sight‑distance calculations show exiting vehicles would not encroach onto the sidewalk before the driver can see pedestrians; and he supported the proposed light/speaker warning device as an additional layer of protection.

Residents pressed several practical questions. Public commenters and board members repeatedly asked how a lease restriction limiting parking to a single assigned space per unit would be enforced and whether relying on a municipal lot 600 ft away or leasing spaces from a nearby church is realistic. MK Adams asked about alarm volume and whether the device is sensor‑activated; Mystery said the audio is adjustable and typically activates for about 10 seconds when a garage door or sensor is triggered. Multiple neighbors expressed concern that residents will park on the Park Drive loop overnight despite restrictions, that winter snow and grade could make entering or exiting the garage hazardous, and that the project will shade nearby yards and planting strips (no daylight/shadow or airflow studies have been performed). "If somebody had a need for a second car," one resident said, "they aren't likely to want to park 600 feet away every night." (Public comments were recorded in the transcript.)

Maltz also reported a field discrepancy in the posted bus‑stop length on Main Street: he measured 137 feet where the municipal ordinance describes 105 feet, noting the extra 32 feet could yield additional on‑street parking near the site if the signage/location is corrected.

No final approvals were taken. The board agreed to carry PB24‑06 to the Oct. 9, 2024 meeting so the applicant’s planner can present and the board can complete its review. Earlier in the evening the board unanimously adopted minutes from its July 10, 2024 meeting.

What’s next: The applicant will return Oct. 9 with the planner (Mallerie Clark), and the board said it will review any proposed lease language, permit arrangements and any additional materials the board professionals request. The public record remains open on PB24‑06 until the continuation.