November 29, 2012

— Location - allowed in side or rear only, none existing, loading space in front yard proposed; 9. Signage - monument and directional signs not permitted, none existing, one (1) monument and two (2) directional signs proposed. eS Mr. Polyniak said he believed the project was a safe design plan and would promote a desirable visual impact to the community. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Polyniak if he would like to provide testimony regarding the size of parking spaces. Mr. Polyniak opined that going from 10 ft parking spaces to 9 ft was consistent with the updated ordinances, the reduction of spaces advanced MLUL. Mr. Eben had no questions for Mr. Polyniak. Councilwoman McCartney had no questions for Mr. Polyniak. Ms. Carlucci had no questions for Mr. Polyniak. Mr. Weston asked Mr. Polyniak to explain the basis for “C1” hardship, should the Board make NAPLANNING.BRDUVPIMINOTES20141-29-2012 Special Meeting Mftnutes.doc

interpretation based on “C2” hardship. Mr. Weston said the testimony provided indicated the hardship was self-imposed, and indicated a “C2” hardship. Mr. Polyniak agreed that the variances needed could be justified under “C2” because the benefits outweigh the detriments. The project promoted appropriate land use. Mr. Gurland had no questions for Mr. Polyniak Mr. Klein had no questions for Mr. Polyniak Mr. Keller said he was concerned that the 30 ft deep loading area was a little slim to accommodate a truck of the same depth. Mr. Polyniak said he believed the 30 ft was sufficient but would agree to move it an additional five feet. The Public Advocate had no questions for Mr. Polyniak. Manuel Lin, 938 Pleasant Valley Way, asked if geological information would be gathered; should borings be done further up the slope of the property. Mr. Keller answered that he had not heard testimony that the slope would be disturbed. Mr. Polyniak did not comment. Chairman Bagoff voiced concern about adolescent pedestrians congregating/loitering at the site; he inquired if the Applicant had a loitering policy. Mr. Del Vecchio said that there would be a sidewalk. along the building frontage, however, the Corporation had a strict anti-loitering policy. Mr. Del Vecchio advised the Board that the Applicant’s testimony had concluded. He further advised the Board that two of the three principals of Harrison French & Associates, Ltd. were New Jersey licensed architects; the Board should be satisfied with their credentials. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public for comments. Manuel Lin, 938 Pleasant Valley Way, was sworn in. Mr. Lin testified that when the property was an Amoco station there were at least two vehicular accidents per year. He said he observed during peak hours that when school buses picked up students, cars zoom by. He recommended a one-way directional sign and a traffic signal be installed. He voiced concern that existing businesses in the area would close, and when businesses on one side of the street closed, he was concerned for the safety of pedestrians crossing the street. He said he was concerned about the stability of the slope. He concluded by stating he did not believe the Application was a good plan. The Board deliberated on the Application. Mr. Eben said the Applicant had listened to what the Board had asked them to consider, He believed the development

believe the Application was a good plan. The Board deliberated on the Application. Mr. Eben said the Applicant had listened to what the Board had asked them to consider, He believed the development would be 110% better for the area. He was impressed with other 7-Elevens; they were maintained impeccably. Mr. Eben said he was assured by Mr. Del Vecchio that the plan was a positive improvement to the site, and while he did not like 7-Eleven stores in general, the new business would be a tax-ratable. Councilwoman McCartney said the area was zoned for this type of business. She said she appreciated Mr. Lin’s concerns, the Application did conflict with other businesses but it was the nature of the business. She reminded the Applicant to abide to ordinance rules for 24-hour operation of a business. She said she appreciated all the revisions made by the Applicant. NAPLANNING.BRDUYPULNUTES 2012\17-29-2012 Special Meeting Minutes.doc 8

Ms. Carlucci had no comments, . Mr. Weston said the Applicant had been responsive to the Board; the plan was consistent with land- use law. He said he did have reservations regarding the left turn in to the southern entrance to the site, but overall the plan was acceptable, Mr. Gurland said the Applicant’s team had been amenable. He commented he was not a fan of the architectural design; and voiced concern there was a discrepancy regarding elevations and was wortied there would be a step; but otherwise he said he was very positive regarding the proposed plan. Mr. Klein said he was concerned about the left turn; he said that if there was a problem perhaps it could be monitored and re-addressed at a later date. Mr. Keller voiced concem regarding the legality of requiring a post-construction traffic study; he noted that Pleasant Valley Way was a County road and the County might impose additional restrictions. Mr. Weston questioned if would be safer to have the south driveway be a right-turn in, right-turn out only. Mr. Keller said it was not a simple question; should a restriction be imposed for a condition that occurred only occasionally. The signage should help with enforcement; and installing an island would not deter a motorist from making the left-hand turn, Mr. Keller advised the Board to remember it was a County road and the County might make restrictions. Chairman Bagoff polled the Board regarding restricting left-hand turn. The Board voted not to restrict the left-hand turn. Mr. Dwyer advised the Board that they could make a condition for a traffic study in a year. Conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Township, County, State and Federal laws, ordinances, regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining all applicable local, state and federal approvals and/or permits. Without limitation of the foregoing, prior to the signing 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. Tfanother 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

y 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 NSPLANNING BROWPMINUTESI2072 17-29-2012 Special Meeting Mimutes.dac 9

10. il. 12. 13. the event Applicant or its successors or assigns construct or attempt to construct any 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. Ali 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. 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. An engineer’s estimate is to be provided for all site improvements for the purpose of establishing an engineering inspection escrow during construction in accordance with the MLUL. The engineer’s estimate is to be submitted to the Board Engineer for review and approval. A pre-construction meeting is to be scheduled prior to the start of construction with the Township Engineer and Board Engineer. 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. Applicant to revise the site plans in accordance with Omland Engineering’s completeness review letter dated July 11, 2012, and comply with Items 4, 5 and 17 in Omland Engineering’s review letter dated November 26, 2012 except that no street trees need be provided. Applicant to comply with Items 4, 5 and 17 in Omland Engineering’s review letter dated November 26, 2012. One year after issuance ofa Certificate of Occupancy Applicant shall submit for review by the Board a traffic study detailing the traffic patterns, levels of service, number of accidents and all other pertinent information regarding parking and circulation for the improved site. In the event the Board determines that traffic and/or parking changes need to be made at that time the Applicant shall comply. The roof shall be made of reflective materials so as to reduce light and heat absorption with a roofing

es that traffic and/or parking changes need to be made at that time the Applicant shall comply. The roof shall be made of reflective materials so as to reduce light and heat absorption with a roofing material having a “solar reflective index” equa! to or greater than 78. Applicant shall limit deliveries by trucks having a wheelbase of 50 ft. or longer to between the hours of 7 p.m. and 5 a.m. Applicant to provide truck turning templates to Omland Engineering. Applicant to maintain all plantings. Applicant to add evergreen shrubs in the rear of the lot and to provide more columnar shrubs in front of the retaining wall both subject to the review and approval of the Board Engineer, NAPLANNING. BRDUPPUMINUTES\2012\11-29.2012 Special Meeting Minutes.toc 0

14. Applicant to revise the architectural plans to accurately reflect the same first floor elevation as shown on the site plans. 15. Applicant to add east-west cross-sections to the site plan. 16. All retaining walls shall be of the same material and color. 17. Applicant to extend the loading area by five (5) feet so that it will be 35 feet in length by moving the dumpster enclosure to the west. 18. The parking space width is to be changed to 9 feet with the adjacent islands increased in width with additional landscaping provided. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Eben Carlucci Y Eben Y Ghebremicael - Gurland Y Heller - Klein Y Lester - McCartney Y Weston - Wilkes - Bagoff Y MEETING ADJOURNED at approximately 10:44 P.M. —,. Robin Miller, Planning Board Secretary Minutes adopted January 2, 2013 **THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE FEBRUARY 6, 2013 AT 7:30 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ** NAPLANVING BRD'WPUMUINUTES201N 1-79-2012 Special Meeting Minutes doc