Board hears detailed testimony on mixed‑use plan at 512–516 Pleasant Valley Way; hearing continued

The West Orange Zoning Board on June 18 took testimony on a detailed mixed‑use redevelopment proposal for 512–516 Pleasant Valley Way (filed by 127 Mitchell LLC) but did not vote; the hearing was continued to July 16, 2026 so planning testimony and public comment could be completed.

Counsel William Sullivan summarized the proposal: demolish a single‑family dwelling on lot 12, build a rear addition to the existing two‑story mixed‑use building on lot 11, consolidate the lots, relocate and expand parking to the north lot, and create two new apartments above the addition while maintaining office space at ground level. The parcels are in the OB‑1 office‑business district.

Civil engineer Peter Miskov gave the core site testimony, describing lot sizes (Lot 11: 8,770 sq ft; Lot 12: 7,412 sq ft), existing nonconformities, and specific setback variances the project would require. Miskov said the post‑development front yard setback would be 12.2 feet where 30 feet is required, side yard 1.69 feet (25 required) and rear 9.23 feet (25 required). He told the board the plan proposes 21 parking spaces; after the two‑space allowance for EV charging the Township Code effectively requires 23 spaces, so the project shows a two‑space deficiency. "The proposed parking spaces provided is 21... resulting in a two‑space deficiency," Miskov testified.

To address stormwater, Miskov described a permeable paver area with underlying gravel, perforated storage pipes and catch basins intended to reduce peak flows and remove suspended solids, with design reductions quoted as 50% (2‑yr), 25% (10‑yr) and 20% (100‑yr) compared with existing conditions. He said the applicant will file with the county planning board and the Soil Conservation District as required and agreed to comply with outstanding items in the board engineer’s April 6, 2026 review memorandum.

Brian Conway, the landscape architect and lighting designer, presented the lighting photometrics and planting plan. He said the parking area would be lit by two pole‑mounted and two building‑mounted LED fixtures; "Our minimum is 0.6, our maximum is 2.5, our average is 1.3 foot candles," Conway testified, and showed uniformity ratios well within typical design practice. Conway proposed foundation plantings, four deciduous street trees (three Yoshino cherries and one willow oak in the plan) and 35 emerald green arborvitae at 7–8 ft tall to screen rear parking from adjacent residences. He also confirmed a six‑foot solid vinyl fence and offered to add screening near the HVAC and trash enclosure.

Architect Lawrence Appel described elevations and the proposed interior layout: the project would keep the existing front building and add a rear footprint containing office space and two two‑bedroom apartments (one attic level bedroom included in each), resulting in three residential units on the combined lots (one existing plus two new). Appel said the addition matches the existing ridge height (35 ft, 8 in) and that some attic area would be habitable; he provided the board with calculations based on the zoning definition of a half‑story and stated the habitable attic space for the new units totals about 365 sq ft per unit component.

Board members pressed several practical concerns: driveway circulation and right‑turn ingress/egress, the proximity of a utility pole about 4 feet from the proposed curb cut, the number of reserved residential parking spaces (three), possible impacts of remote work on shared‑parking assumptions, retaining wall heights (2–4 ft) and condenser placement/noise. The board engineer and planner asked for truck‑turning exhibits and for the applicant to address outstanding technical comments. A member of the public, Kevin Malanga, questioned whether residents could be displaced if the shared parking fills; the board chair noted offices typically vacate spaces after hours but the question remains part of the public record.

No vote was taken. Chair Philip Neuer and counsel agreed that planning testimony and additional public comment would continue the hearing on July 16, 2026; the applicant consented to the schedule and the board will receive remaining professional memoranda and final conditions after that session.