August 16, 2012

Mr. Bullock asked Mr. Stewart if there were any other considerations for the conservation area. Mr. Stewart stated that the conservation area is not part of this property. Ms. Zaolino stated that the conservation area is part of the recycling center. Mr. Buechler stated that the applicant submitted a storm water management report and asked Mr. Stewart if the changes in this report had been noted to Mr. Keller; he replied yes. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Stewart if there is a buffer requirement for the conservation area. Mr. Stewart stated that there is no buffer requirement because the property is more than 50’ from the conservation area. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Stewart if Mr. Staiger, their traffic expert, is going to testify again because the driveway is being moved; he replied no. Mr. Buechler asked if there will be any impact on the site lines from the last time he testified because of the change. Mr. Stewart stated that he thinks that it will be an improvement. Mr. Keller stated that the driveway is being moved approximately 50° and will be further away from the curve in the road. He said that the views to the west are wide open. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Keller, of the eleven items that were to be addressed on his technical review memo dated August 2, 2012, which are still open. Mr. Keller went down the list of items on his report to be addressed. Ttem #4 - Plans still show that there are four variances; Mr. Stewart said he would change it. Item #5 - The removal of 26 trees. Mr. Keller stated that they want to remove 80% of the trees which, according to the ordinance, would require a variance. Also, the ordinance says to preserve 30% of the trees and they are only keeping 6. Item #6 - Replacing trees. Mr. Stewart stated that he will talk to the Township’s Forester, John Linson, and see what he advises them to do. Item #7 - The wall that separates the parking lot from the building is not on the grading plan. Item # 8 - Elevations of the retaining wall are not shown on the plans. Item #9 - Recommendations for the placement of a fence on top of the retaining wall were offered by Mr. Stewart. Item #10 — Clarification regarding the water connection was presented by Mr, Stewart. Item #11 - Driveway entrance conform to NJDOT standards. Item #12 - Placement of the sign interfering with the site line; Mr. Stewart said that if it does affect the site line

sented by Mr, Stewart. Item #11 - Driveway entrance conform to NJDOT standards. Item #12 - Placement of the sign interfering with the site line; Mr. Stewart said that if it does affect the site line they will move it back. Mr. Keller also noted that because the site is on a County Road that they will need County approval. Mr. Buechler expressed a concern regarding moving the driveway. He stated that if they move it right on the lot line, they will need a variance for the side yard setback. Mr, Keller stated that he will lock to see if they need a variance for that. Mr. Keller stated that there were ten items on page three of the technical review memo. He said items #8 and #11 had been revolved but Mr. Stewart still needs to address items #1-7 and #9. (8]