October 24, 2012

igning of the approved site plans, and prior to the commencement of any land disturbance or construction, the Applicant shall submit to this Board, with a copy to the Board Engineer, proof that it has obtained all required governmental approvals. 2. If another governmental entity or agency grants a waiver or variance affecting the plans and/or exhibits submitted by the Applicant, this approval or the conditions attached to it, then the Applicant shall re-apply to this Board respecting the same and this Board shall have the right to view that issue as it relates to this approval and these conditions and modify and amend same, if appropriate. 3. In the event that any other required regulatory approval conflicts with the terms and conditions hereof, or materially alters the same, or the terms and conditions hereof are materially altered by any change in applicable law or regulation other than those municipal regulations for which change is prohibited by the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), or in the event Applicant or its successors or assigns construct or attempt to construct any NAPLANNING.BRIWAMINUTES\2012110-24-2012 Special Meeting Minutes.doc 7

improvement in conflict with or in violation of the terms of this approval, the Board hereby reserves the right to withdraw, amend or supplant the instant approval. 4, All construction, use and development of the property shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein, all representations of the Applicant and its witnesses during the public hearing, all exhibits introduced by the Applicant, and all terms and conditions of this resolution. 5. The Applicant shall pay all outstanding taxes, tax liens, application fees and technical review fees, as well as any inspection fees that may be required hereunder. ‘The Applicant shall pay any additional fees or escrow deposits which may be due and owing within thirty (30) days of notification or this approval shall be deemed withdrawn. 6. All notes included in the approved plans, including notes required by this Resolution, shall be deemed conditions of approval having the same force and effect as conditions expressly set forth in this Resolution. 7. All of the repairs and modifications to the tower recommended in the report by Yulung Chung, PE in the L&W Engineering report dated April 5, 2012 shall be undertaken and completed by the Applicant. The Applicant shall also conduct an inspection of the existing tower to identify any necessary maintenance issues. The inspection report is to be submitted for the review and approval of the Board Engineer. 8. Applicant to correct the scale of the zoning map and tax map on page T-] of the plans. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Vice Chairman Heller Carlucci Y Eben Y Ghebremicael - Gurland Y Heller Y Klein Y Lester - McCartney Y Weston- Wilkes Y Bagoff Y Chairman Bagoff announced a brief recess at approximately 8:59 P.M.; he re-convened the mecting at approximately 9:05 P.M. Chairman Bagoff announced that Mr. Grygiel was recused from the next Application, PB-12-12/Forsons Partners, LLC on behalf of 7-Eleven Inc.; Mr. Keller would be acting as Planner and Engineer for the Township. PB-12-12/Forsons Partners, LLC on behalf of 7-Eleven, Inc. Block: 172.02; Lot: 8.01; Zone: B-2 955 Pleasant Valley Way Preliminary and final site plan with bulk variances and soil removal permit for a retail convenience store. Carried from the October 10, 2012 meeting. NAPLANNING. BRDWPULINUTESI201 10-24-2012 Special Meeting

ry and final site plan with bulk variances and soil removal permit for a retail convenience store. Carried from the October 10, 2012 meeting. NAPLANNING. BRDWPULINUTESI201 10-24-2012 Special Meeting Minutes.doc ry

EXHIBITS A-1 - Affidavit of Public Notice; A-2 — Site Plans; A-3 — Neglia Engineering Associates response letter dated August 24, 2012; A-4— Environmental Status from Envirotrac dated July 31, 2012; A-5 - Title Commitment dated November 8, 2011; A-6 ~ Neglia Engineering Associates Planning Report dated June 18, 2012; A-7 — Neglia Engineering Associates Traffic Report dated June 19, 2012; A-8 — Neglia Engineering Associates Drainage Report dated June 18, 2012; A-9— Neglia Engineering Associates Environmental Impact Statement dated June 18, 2012; A-10— Harrison French & Associates Exterior Elevations dated June 19, 2012; A-11— Harrison French & Associates Floor Plan dated June 19, 2012; A-12 — Aerial Site Plan Exhibit; A-13 — Colorized Site/Landscape Plan; A-14— Truck Template Plan A-15 — Harrison French & Associates Site Rendering dated June 12, 2012; A-16 — Neglia Engineering Associates Site Section dated October 24, 2012; A-17—Neglia Engineering Associates Six (6) Site Photos dated June 7, 2012. DISCUSSION Antimo A. Del Vecchio, Esq. Beattie Padovano, LLC, attorney representing the Applicant, 7-Eleven appeared before the Board. Mr. Del Vecchio gave a brief recapitulation of the Application carried from the October 10, 2012 meeting. Mr. Del Vecchio advised the Board that Gregory J. Polyniak, P.E., P.P., Neglia Engineering Associates had been mid-way through his testimony and would be back on record to continue his testimony. Mr. Polyniak said 7-Eleven proposed to build a 3,010 square feet store on the lot located at 955 Pleasant Valley Way; the proposed site improvements included a nineteen space parking lot, a loading area, landscaping, lighting, utility improvements, and a storm water conveyance system. Mr. Polyniak described the proposed planter beds, trees and sod coverings. He said all planting would have a permanent irrigation system. Decorative planter beds would be located at the base of the proposed monument signage. There would be one tree planted for every ten parking spaces. Juniper plants were proposed for the area closest to the steep slope. Mr. Polyniak described the proposed lighting plan, which included a series of 17 ft. high poles with mounted LED area light with backlight control, decorative LED Goose Neck fixtures on the building structure and foot-candles near the pedestrian walkways and parking areas. The lighting would

les with mounted LED area light with backlight control, decorative LED Goose Neck fixtures on the building structure and foot-candles near the pedestrian walkways and parking areas. The lighting would not affect any adjoining properties. Referring to Exhibit A-16 (Site Section), A-17 (Site Photos) and Exhibit A-15 (Site Rendering), Mr. Polyniak detailed the steep slope and issues related to grading. Mr. Polyniak said the western side and northern side of the property were fairly steep sloped. The proposal would require disturbing the slope areas; there would be a new retaining wall and the structure’s building wall would ensure slope stability and limited landscaping disturbance. The steep slope area disturbance would not be noticeable; there would be a seventy-five feet buffer depth to the west. Mr. Polyniak said he had visited the site today and could not see surrounding residences. The existing brush and tree canopies shielded the site from other residences. NAPLANVING BRDUWP MINUTES 201210-24-2012 Special Mecting Minntes.doc

The Board questioned whether the proposed structure could be moved further south on the property to minimize disturbing the steep slope. Mr. Polyniak stated that moving the structure would affect the proposed drive isle. The Board inquired as to the structural design of the rear wall; Mr. Polyniak said the material would be a typical poured concrete. The Board expressed concern that the dumpster location was too close to the residential area; would it be possible to “flip” its location. The Board inquired about the site’s drainage system; there was concern that the water leading into pipes from the trench drain would possibly back-up and run-off would pool on Pleasant Valley Way. There Board inquired about the proposed landscaping plan; there was concern that some of the proposed plantings would not work at the location. It was suggested that more native plantings; shade trees and street trees be incorporated; and that the proposed juniper plantings would not stabilize the steep slope. Mr. Polyniak said a certified landscape architect who believed the proposed plan would work; and with regard to street trees, they could not be located in the site triangle had prepared the landscaping plan. The Board asked if the Applicant had considered eliminating left turns out of driveway. Mr. Polyniak said the plan did not incorporate eliminating left turns. Mr. Keller inquired regarding the truck-turning path; from where would delivery trucks be coming; what was the size of the trucks, and what times were scheduled for deliveries. Mr. Polyniak said that tractor-trailers would be coming from Route 280 to make deliveries between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 5:00 A.M. utilizing the parking lot but not impede the lot usage. Mr. Keller inquired about the grading of site. He noted the Applicant was seeking a variance for a fenced-in wall greater than 6 feet. He asked if there was a way to eliminate the need for the variance; additionally he wanted to know the length of the proposed wall. Mr. Polyniak said the proposed wall was 8 feet in height; the fength would be approximately 15 feet. Mr. Keller inquired if it would be possible to move the proposed structure to the south; Mr, Polyniak said moving the structure would affect the drive isle. Mr. Keller commented that Mr. Polyniak should review the provision for street trees with the Applicant’s landscape architect. Mr, Keller

Polyniak said moving the structure would affect the drive isle. Mr. Keller commented that Mr. Polyniak should review the provision for street trees with the Applicant’s landscape architect. Mr, Keller noted that the plan indicated modular block wall with perforated drain connecting to the storm sewer system but the drainage plan did not indicate any inlets. Mr. Polyniak said there are drainage structures that could tie in to the system. Mr. Keller asked for details regarding the lighting plan; was there a difference between the color pattern and intensity of the fixtures; Mr. Polyniak said those issues had not been specified. Mr. Keller advised that the lighting plan specify those issues. Mr. Keller said that the proposed trench drain was appropriate, but said the leaf litter would make maintenance difficult. Mr. Polyniak agreed that the system would have to be maintained; it would not be easy. Mr. Keller asked if the parking lot had designated spaces for employees; Mr. Polyniak advised the lot did not have designated spaces. Mr. Keller asked if Mr. Polyniak was satisfied that the dumpster area was properly screened; Mr. Polyniak indicated he believed the screening was sufficient. There were no questions from Public Advocate, Chairman Bagoff asked members of the public for their questions on heard testimony. Manuel Lin — 938 Pleasant Valley Way. William Wai, 37 Mt. Pleasant Place. Thomas Heigle, AIA, Consulting Architect, Harrison French & Associates, Ltd., was sworn in, stated his credentials; and accepted to be an expert witness in the field of architectural design. In response to the Board’s inquiry regarding whether the Applicant’s architectural firm was licensed in the State of New Jersey, Mr. Del Vecchio said that Harrison French & Associates, Ltd. believed they met the conditions of N\PLANNING.BRDUPPMINUTES2012110.24-2012 Special Meeting Minutes.doc 0

certification. Chairman Bagoff requested that Mr. Dwyer and Mr. Del Vecchio confirm certification. Mr. Heigle described the exterior of the proposed structure; to the rear, the structure would be buried in to the hillside, there would be some poured concrete, The architectural details would include a strong cornice, typical 7-Eleven, Inc. signage in front, and green awnings. The floor plan for the site was typical for a 7-Eleven; the entry was close to center of the building. Mr. Heigle described the interior layout of the store; he noted that there would be two handicap accessible restrooms; and a side exit for Emergency use only. Al! deliverics would come through the front double doors. A parapet would screen all electrical equipment located on the roof. Mr. Heigle concluded his testimony. The Board inquired if it was possible to create a dumpster enclosure as part of the wall; also would be possible for the Applicant to present a more efficient plan; and would a more efficient plan trigger additional variances. The Board reiterated it would like to see a revised plan that moved the location of the structure to the left of the property. ‘The Board and Mr. Del Vecchio agreed to carry the Application to the November 7, 2012 regular meeting; additionally, the Applicant agreed that revised engineering and architectural site plans would be submitted prior to the next meeting. MEETING ADJOURNED at approximately 11:01 P.M. 2 Robin Miller, Planning Board Secretary Minutes adopted November 29, 2012 **THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE DECEMBER 5, 2012 AT 8:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ** NAPLANNING.BRIVWPMINUTES\201210-24-2012 Speclat Meeting Minutes.doc n