September 20, 2012

Mr. Vena called his first witness. Nassir Alnukahtar approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Alnukahtar detailed his educational and professional background as a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey. Chairman Neuer accepted his credentials as an expert witness in the field of architecture. Mr. Vena began addressing the conditions of the prior resolution ZB-08-10. He asked Mr. Alnukahtar if there will be sufficient storage in the building with the loss of storage space on the first floor; Mr, Alnukahtar replied yes that they will still have 1054 sq. ft. of storage. Chairman Neuer questioned how there could be the same amount of storage if they are putting a pharmacy in that area now. Mr. Buechler stated that there will not be any storage on the first floor; 685 sq. feet is the new pharmacy and the remaining sq. footage is the staircase. He asked Mr. Alnukahtar if they wanted to modify that condition of the prior resolution; he replied yes. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Alnukahtar how he based his opinion about the second floor storage area being cnough. Mr. Keller stated that there is no set standard regarding required storage space for a medical practice. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Keller if the irrigation system has been addressed and if it was shown on the plans. Mr. Alnukahtar showed Mr. Keller where it was on the plans; Mr. Keller replied yes, it was on the plans. Mr. Vena noted that the sidewalk in the front of the property will be replaced as conditioned in the prior resolution. Mr. Vena stated that they will prohibit employees from parking onsite and that it will be used strictly for patients only. Chairman Neuer asked if they would accept that as a condition; Mr. Vena replied yes. Mr. Buechler stated that the prior resolution stated that as a condition and Mr. Vena said that he was just responding to a comment made by Mr. Keller. Mr. Vena referred to condition 15, regarding the entrance to the second floor being labeled for employee use or storage use, and condition 16, regarding the entrance to the 1,054 sq. ft. on the first floor being labeled for storage use only. He said that those two conditions will no longer be valid if the pharmacy is approved on the first floor and requested that they be modified. Mr. Vena asked the Board if they will require a fence to be installed along the property line. He said that the applicant

pharmacy is approved on the first floor and requested that they be modified. Mr. Vena asked the Board if they will require a fence to be installed along the property line. He said that the applicant prefers not to install one between commercial properties. Mr. Buechler told Mr. Vena that the applicant presented a fence to the Board. Mr. Keller said that he questioned the applicant about the fence. He said he told them if they want to keep cars out then they should put it up but if not, then there was no need to install a fence. Mr. Vena said that the applicant will abide by the decision of the Board. Mr. Keller said that he does not think a fence is needed between two commercial properties; he said that he thinks landscaping will suffice. Mr. Vena stated that he is going to let the applicant’s Planner address the free standing sign.

Mr. Keller stated that the current plans show walls on the second floor. Mr. Alnukahtar said that the walls were built for separate storage. Mr. Vena said that the application being presented tonight, with the new plans, reduces the number of variances from nine to five. He said that this application is less intense then the application they originally submitted. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Vena which four variances are being eliminated. Mr. Vena said that the driveway aisle will not need a variance because they are proposing 11’ and 12’ is required; the driveway width will be 11° and 14’ is required; the parking space size will be 9’x 18’ and 10°x18? is required, except for the compact car spaces and the curb at the parking space will be 9” from the fence and 5” is required. Chairman Neuer called for a recess at 9:30 pm. Chairman Neuer resumed the meeting at 9:42 pm. Mr. Vincenzo Pappano approached the podium. Chairman Neuer stated that Mr. Pappano is the applicant for application ZB-12-15 which is third on the agenda to be heard this evening. He said that it is probable that the Board will not hear this application tonight and asked Mr. Pappano if he would like to have his application carried; Mr. Pappano said yes. The Chairman announced that application ZB-12-15 will be carried to the Zoning Board meeting on 10/18/12 and that no further notice is necessary. Mr. Almukhtar presented the site plan drawings, sheets T1, T2, T3, and T4 with a revision date of 7/2/12. Chairman Neuer asked to have them marked for identification as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Almukhtar began detailing the plans and the variances that they are requesting. He stated that 37 parking spaces are required and they will be providing 21 onsite parking spaces. Mr. Almukhtar noted that 11 onsite parking spaces were approved with the original application. He said that this application proposes purchasing a residence to create more parking and, if approved, 10 more spaces will be provided. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Almukhtar if they still had seven parking permits in the Municipal Parking Lot; he replied yes, Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Almukhtar how many parking spaces were required with the last application; Mr. Almukhtar replied 37. Mr. Keller explained how they determine the number of parking spaces that are needed. He said that, according to the Town ordinance, it is based on the sq. footage of

cation; Mr. Almukhtar replied 37. Mr. Keller explained how they determine the number of parking spaces that are needed. He said that, according to the Town ordinance, it is based on the sq. footage of the building and not the number of employees. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Keller if only one handicap spot is required; Mr. Keller said yes because there are fewer than 25 parking spaces. Mr. Grygiel stated that the Town ordinance bases it on the number of spaces in the parking lot. Mr. Buechler stated that, due to the nature of their business, he would think they need at least two handicap spots. Mr. Almukhtar stated that

they can provide two handicap parking spaces and make them the two spaces closest to the building. This was agreed to on behalf of the applicant as a condition if approval is granted. Chairman Neuer stated that he did not see the height of the light posts on the plans; Mr. Almukhtar noted where it was on the plans. Chairman Neuer asked if the fixture is going to be placed on top of the pole; Mr. Almukhtar replied yes. Mr. Almukhtar said that the pole is 12’ and the fixture is 2’. He explained that the mounting height is at the level of the lens which is at 12’. Mr. Almukhtar detailed the sign stating that it will require two variances; one for the height and one for the location.Mr. Almukhtar stated that the placement of the sign is required to be 15° from the property line and that they were originally proposing to place it 6” from the property line. He said that they would now like to move it to the middle of the 15’ wide island that is located between parking spot #11 and the property line. Mr. Almukhtar said that, with this change, the sign will now be 7’ from the property line, Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Almukhtar if the sign would interfere with the line of sight; Mr. Almukhtar replied no. Mr. Buechler asked if the sign would be behind or in front of the stop line; Mr. Almukhtar said it will be behind the stop line in the middle of the aisle. Mr. Buechler asked how many feet the sign will be from the property lines; Mr. Almukhtar said that it will be 2’ from the front property line and 7’ from the side property line. Chairman Neuer questioned the brick base of the sign, asking Mr. Almukhtar if it was 4” high. Mr. Almukhtar replied yes but said that they are lowering it. Mr. Vena stated that if the application is approved that they will submit the new sign plan. Chairman Neuer stated that if he does not have testimony that says the new sign placement is safe then he will vote no. Mr. Vena stated that they will keep the sign where it is on the plans now. Mr. Bucchler asked if the sign, at this location, will interfere with the line of sight and Mr. Almukhtar replied no. He said that the sight triangles, for the sign placement at this location, are listed on the plans. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Keller if he concurs with Mr. Almukhtar and asked if he thought that there were any safety issues with the sign placement at this location; Mr. Keller said that he

the plans. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Keller if he concurs with Mr. Almukhtar and asked if he thought that there were any safety issues with the sign placement at this location; Mr. Keller said that he does not believe it will be a safety issue. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Almukhtar what the speed limit on Valley Road; he replied 25 mph. Mr. Bucchler asked Mr. Almukhtar how many feet a car would need to stop if they are going the speed limit; Mr. Almukhtar said he did not know. Chairman Neuer told Mr. Vena that he will need to provide testimony as to why they need the sign because the sign is prohibited. Mr. Almukhtar presented photos. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Almukhtar who took the photos; he replied that he did. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Almukhtar when he approximately took these

photos; he said that he took the photos during the spring. Chairman Neuer asked what source the aerial photos came from; Mr. Almukhtar said they were from Google Earth. Chairman Neuer noted for the record that the photos were not to scale. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Almukhtar why they are placing the pharmacy in the back of the building. Mr. Almukhtar said that there are other offices in the front of the building and they would have to relocate the bathrooms if they put the pharmacy there. There were no more questions from the Board for Mr. Almukhtar, Mr. Keller noted that, the parking space size is now in conformance with the Zoning ordinance but the cover sheet still lists it as a variance. Mr. Almukhtar said that this was overlooked and that there is no variance for the parking space size. Chairman Neuer asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Almukhtar; seeing none Mr. Vena called his next witness. George Wheatle Williams approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Williams detailed his educational and professional experience stating that he was a practicing Planner licensed in the State of New Jersey for 20 years. He said that he has testified before many Boards and served as a Municipal Board Planner. Chairman Neuer accepted Mr. Williams as an expert in the field of Professional Planning. Mr. Williams stated that he has reviewed the Township’s Master Plan, the Municipal Land Use Law, all of the reports in this application and has visited the site many times. He said that this application is meant to perfect their original one and bring it further into conformity with the Municipal code. Mr. Williams detailed the application and what they are proposing. He stated that he reviewed the Township’s Master Plan regarding the Valley Road corridor and that this application supports that policy which is to maintain and improve that area. Chairman Neuer asked Mr, Williams if the original improvements did that; he replied yes. Mr. Williams said that this application will improve the area even more by demolishing a vacant property. Mr. Williams stated that this project will promote employment, encourage economic development and revitalize the area. He stated that these improvements will also benefit the patients. At approximately 10:14 pm Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Vena if Mr. Bell, his other client that is on the agenda to be

evitalize the area. He stated that these improvements will also benefit the patients. At approximately 10:14 pm Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Vena if Mr. Bell, his other client that is on the agenda to be heard at this meeting, wanted to be excused or choose to wait it out. Mr. Vena stated that his client wants to wait it out.

Mr. Williams presented six (6) photos of the site and one aerial photo. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Williams if he prepared the photos and Mr. Williams said yes; he said that he took them in April of this year. Mr. Williams also stated that Google Earth was the source of the aerial view. Chairman Neuer asked to have the site and area description photos marked as Exhibit A-2 for identification. Mr. Williams began detailing the photos and reiterated the fact that, by the applicant demolishing the house, it will improve the site. Mr. Williams detailed the positive criteria for the Use variance. He said that the pharmacy will allow a location to serve the needs of the patients who utilize the facility and that people that live in the immediate vicinity can walk to the pharmacy. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Williams how many patients the doctors see at this location in a day; Mr. Williams said that he did not know. Ms. Zaolino said that she didn’t know how they could determine the number of parking spaces they would need when they did not know how many patients are seen in a day. Chairman Neuer asked if the applicant would accept a condition that prohibits people, who come to solely use the pharmacy, parking in the parking lot; Mr. Vena said they will answer that later. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Williams where the closest pharmacy is to the site; Mr. Williams said that there is a Rite Aid Pharmacy at the corner of Main Street and Valley Road. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Williams if he thought that this pharmacy serves the needs of the walk-able community; Mr. Williams replied yes. Chairman Neuer noted the time and asked Mr. Bell if he wanted to lcave stating that the Board will not get to him this evening; Mr. Bell said yes. - Chairman Never noted for the record that application ZB-12-10/Harvey Bell will be carried to the next Zoning Board meeting on October 18"'2012 and no further notice is necessary. Mr. Sussman asked Mr, Williams who will operate the pharmacy; Mr. Williams said a stand- alone pharmacist will operate it. Chairman Neuer asked Mr, Vena if he noticed for the other “D” variance for the pharmacy not being permitted in that zone; Mr. Vena said that they only noticed for the second principle use variance. Mr. Vena said that if the Board feels it is significant, then they will re-notice for that variance. Chairman Neuer stated that since the

hat they only noticed for the second principle use variance. Mr. Vena said that if the Board feels it is significant, then they will re-notice for that variance. Chairman Neuer stated that since the applicant did not notice the “D” variance for the pharmacy not being permitted in that zone then they must re-notice for that variance. Mr. Williams asked the Board if he can continue and the Chairman said yes.