127 Mitchell LLC’s mixed‑use expansion at 512–516 Pleasant Valley Way draws technical review; hearing continued to July 16

The West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment on June 18 heard multi‑disciplinary testimony on a proposal by 127 Mitchell Street LLC to demolish a single‑family house at 512–516 Pleasant Valley Way and expand an existing two‑story mixed‑use building with a new 21‑space parking area on the adjacent lot.

Attorney William Sullivan said the project, in the OB‑1 zone, requires a use variance to expand mixed‑use activity, a D variance for lot area per unit, bulk relief and a parking variance. "The property's located at 512 and 516 Pleasant Valley Way," Sullivan told the board, describing two adjacent undersized lots and a plan to consolidate them if the board grants approval.

Civil engineer Peter Miskov testified that Lot 11 has 8,770 square feet and Lot 12 has 7,412 square feet, and described the proposed site changes: a rear addition, a relocated parking field with 21 spaces and two electric‑vehicle charging stations (one in a handicapped stall), and a permeable‑paver stormwater management system. "The proposed parking spaces provided is 21, like I mentioned, resulting in a two‑space deficiency," Miskov said. He told the board the stormwater design would reduce peak runoff by 50% for the 2‑year storm, 25% for the 10‑year storm and 20% for the 100‑year storm, and that the system would use permeable pavers and perforated storage piping to match historic discharge points.

Landscape architect Brian Conway presented the lighting and planting plan (sheets dated Feb. 13, 2026), noting LED fixtures and low uplight. "Our minimum is 0.6, our maximum is 2.5, our average is 1.3 foot candles," Conway said, citing uniformity ratios he characterized as better than typical practice. He described foundation plantings, three ornamental cherries and a willow oak, and a rear buffer of 35 emerald green arborvitae behind a six‑foot vinyl fence to screen the parking area from nearby homes.

Architect Lawrence Appel described the addition’s massing and interior program: the plan retains the building's existing ridge height (35 feet, 8 inches) and adds roughly 3,300 square feet of new internal area (1,790 sf cellar and 1,510 sf ground floor). The proposal would create two new two‑bedroom apartments in the addition, bringing the building’s total residential units to three. Appel said the attic portions include approximately 365 square feet of habitable attic area per new unit and testified that cellar space would be limited to storage only.

Board professionals and members pressed technical details. Questions included: whether the site meets town tree‑shade requirements for parking lots; the proximity of a utility pole (about four feet) to the new driveway and whether that would impede turning; emergency‑vehicle and trash‑truck circulation; the sound and placement of HVAC condensers; and the amount of reserved resident parking. The township planner and engineer asked the applicant to show truck‑turn exhibits, add a note specifying a four‑foot screen fence around mechanical equipment, and confirm compliance with outstanding review comments.

A member of the public, Kevin Malanga of Ridge Road, asked how residents would be accommodated "if a resident is closed out of a parking spot because the lot is filled." Miskov said the shared‑parking approach is typical for mixed‑use developments and noted the applicant has reserved three spaces for residents, but acknowledged a two‑space shortfall relative to the code calculation that gave credit for EV stalls.

Several board members also queried the architect about egress and life‑safety issues related to the cellar; Chair Philip D. Neuer said the board wants any cellar use limited or made demonstrably safe and suggested delegating final life‑safety determinations to the construction official if the board were to approve the application.

No final votes were taken. With planning testimony still outstanding, the applicant agreed not to proceed to a vote that evening. Chair Neuer said the matter will be carried to the board’s July 16, 2026 meeting with no further notice required, and the hearing record will resume at that session.

What’s next: The board will hear planning testimony (Mr. McDonough) and additional public comment on July 16 before considering any motions or votes.