November 29, 2012

where the Exxon station was located. He asked if it would be a good idea to install an additional traffic signal at the site. Mr. Intinola said that the traffic itself would control the flow because of the design plan. He opined that while it might be a good idea to have an additional traffic signal installed, he did not believe the County would consider a new light, Chairman Bagoff announced a brief recess at approximately 9:32 P.M.; he re-convened the meeting at approximately 9:39 P.M. Mr. Del Vecchio advised that Gregory J. Polyniak, P-E., P.P., Neglia Engineering Associates would be providing testimony as the Applicant’s professional planner. Mr. Polyniak indicated he had prepared the Applicant’s Planning Report dated June 18, 2012. He described the topographical features and reiterated the site was constrained by considerable slopes on the west and north sides, and a sixteen feet reservation for Essex County on Pleasant Valley Way. He testified that those factors constituted conditions resulting in difficulties in developing the property. After the site had been reconfigured per the comments of the Planning Board, he noted the Applicant was requesting the following variances: 1. Parking Location - permitted only in side or rear yard, none existing, proposed in front yard with 42.4 ft. setback; 2. Steep Slope Disturbance - no disturbance on slopes more than 25% and limited on lesser slopes, none existing, 15 — 19.99% slope 40% disturbance allowed, 75.35% disturbance proposed; 20-24.99% slope 20% disturbance allowed, 66.96% proposed; 25% and over slope no disturbance allowed, 6.12% proposed; 3. Vegetated Buffer to Residential Zone - 75 ft. required, 53.25 ft. to existing driveway/69.3 ft. to RR tie wall existing, 53.25 feet to northern driveway/69.3 ft. to retaining wall proposed; 4. Maximum Lot Coverage - 60% allowed, 77.36% allowed, 72.40% proposed; 5. Parking Stall Size - 10 ft. x 18 ft. or 9 ft. x 20 ft. required, none existing, 9 fi. x 18 ft. proposed, Parking Setback — Building - 15 ft. required, none existing, 6 ft. proposed; Off Street Loading — Size - 10 ft. x 40 ft. required, none existing, 20.3 ft. x 35 ft. proposed; Off Street Loading — 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)

— 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