August 15, 2013

Mr. Neuer said that he is trying to figure out who should have been responsible to find out the cost to move the utility poles. He said the reason to change a condition of a resolution because it would be too expensive to move the utility poles is not a good one. Mr. Buechler read Mr. Page’s testimony from the 2011 adopted resolution. He said that in 2011 they needed to widen Gregory Avenue and now they said that they do not need to. Mr. Buechler said that it is difficult to believe the testimony. Mr. Russo said that, based on his experience, the cost to relocate a utility pole is very expensive. Mr. Buechler said that they did not do their homework before they came here tonight. He said that they opted not to have PSE&G here to testify and that their testimony is inconsistent. Mr. Neuer asked Mr, Page if they knew what the traffic light would cost; he replied that they do know approximately what it would cost. Mr. Neuer said that they took the effort to find out what the traffic light would cost but not the cost to move the utility poles. Mr. Russo asked Mr. Vena if they received anything from Essex County regarding the proposed plan to not widen Gregory Avenue; Mr. Vena said that he submitted the proposed package to them and they approved it. Mr. Buechler referred to the Proposed Traffic Circulation Plan that was submitted with the application package. Chairwoman Gabry noted for the record that the Proposed Traffic Circulation Plan dated September 11, 2013 was pre-marked as Exhibit A-6 for identification. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Page to explain what he was looking at in that diagram; Mr. Page said that Mr. Maltz will answer that question. Mr. Dwyer asked Mr. Page what the land use goal was initially to widen Gregory Avenue; Mr. Page said that Mr. Maltz, will answer that question. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Page if they considered widening Gregory Avenue across the street; Mr. Page said no because it would not have been a good engineering design. Mr. Vena stated that his traffic expert will present testimony as to why it is not necessary to widen Gregory Avenue because they have satisfied the safety concerns. There were no further questions for Mr. Page from the Board or the Professionals. Chairwoman Gabry asked if there were any members of the public who had any questions for Mr. Page; seeing none Mr. Page was excused. Mr. Vena called his next

age from the Board or the Professionals. Chairwoman Gabry asked if there were any members of the public who had any questions for Mr. Page; seeing none Mr. Page was excused. Mr. Vena called his next witness. Harold K. Maltz approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Maltz detailed his educational and professional background as a Professional Engineer licensed in the States of

New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania in Civil Engineering and Transportation. Chairwoman Gabry accepted Mr. Maltz as a Professional Traffic Expert. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Maltz if there was not a utility pole situation, is the plan being proposed this evening any different than the plan that was approved in 2011; Mr. Maltz replied yes. He said that they are proposing to increase the driveway width from 20 feet to 30 feet and eliminate the widening of Gregory Avenue which is related to the relocation of the utility poles. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Maltz to explain why it is not necessary to widen Gregory Avenue. Mr. Maltz stated that the new traffic circulation design allows more cars to be stacked onsite and eliminates the stacking of cars on Gregory Avenue. He said that in 2011 there was only a single line of stacked vehicles along the access drive towards Gregory Avenue and now they are proposing to incorporate a double line. Mr. Maltz said that previously the total number of cars queued onsite was 31 and 4 cars on Gregory Avenue and with the new design you can queue 50 cars onsite with no cars on Gregory Avenue. He also stated that student enrollment is currently down and that his traffic study in 2011 was performed when the student enrollment was higher. Mr. Maltz said that lower student enrollment results in less cars. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz who designed the double stacking of cars in tonight’s proposal. Mr. Maltz said that Mr. Page scaled the plan and that he provided his comments and corrections to that plan. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz if anything prevented this design from being proposed in 2011; Mr. Maltz replied no. He said that they could have done it at that time also. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Maltz if there is a “no left turn between 2 and 4pm on school days” sign currently posted when exiting on to Gregory Avenue. Mr. Maltz replied yes and stated that there are people who make that left turn going south on Gregory Avenue even though the sign is there. Mr. Buechler said that he is concerned about increased student enrollment in the future. Mr. Buechler asked Mr, Maltz how many students they calculated per car; Mr. Maltz said 1.76 students per car per average. Mr. Bullock stated that there is a fot of congestion on Gregory Avenue in the morning even though Mr. Maltz testified that it is worse in the afternoon. He asked Mr. Maltz whether or

car per average. Mr. Bullock stated that there is a fot of congestion on Gregory Avenue in the morning even though Mr. Maltz testified that it is worse in the afternoon. He asked Mr. Maltz whether or not widening Gregory Avenue will affect the traffic coming in both directions; Mr. Maltz replied no. Mr. Merklinger asked Mr. Maltz why they are enlarging the school if enrollment is down. Mr. Maltz said that the new building improves the condition of the existing rooms and what they offer inside of the school. Chairwoman Gabry called for a recess at 9:43 pm. Chairwoman Gabry resumed the meeting at 9:55 pm.

Frank Regan, Esq. approached the podium stating that he is the attorney for application ZB-13- 03/Prism Green Associates scheduled on the agenda to be heard tonight. Mr. Regan said that he is anticipating that this application will not be heard this evening and requested to have it carried over to the regular Zoning Board meeting on September 12, 2013. Chairwoman Gabry approved Mr. Regan’s request and announced that if any members of the public were at this meeting for application ZB-13-03 Prism Green Associates that it will be carried to the next Zoning Board meeting held on September 12, 2013. She also noted, for the record, that no further notice will be required. Mr. Vena approached the podium. Mr. Neuer referred to section C of the current Zoning Board application submitted and asked Mr. Vena why there is no mention of the 2003 Zoning Board application. Mr. Vena asked to amend the current application to include the resolution from the 2003 application. Chairwoman Gabry approved Mr. Vena’s request to amend the application and instructed Mr. Vena to supply a copy of the adopted resolution, for the 2003 application, to the Board Secretary. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Maltz if the plan being proposed tonight is safer and more practical than the original plan approved in 2003; Mr, Maltz replied yes. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Maltz if not widening Gregory Avenue along with the increase of the onsite stacking of cars is a better plan then the 2003 plan; Mr. Maltz replied yes. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Maltz if they will be striping the lanes; Mr. Maltz replied no. Chairwoman Gabry asked Mr. Malitz if they will still have staff members outside; Mr. Maltz said that they will have the same staffing outside and they are not changing the loading operation. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz what the genesis of this application is; Mr. Maltz said it is the moving of the poles. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz if he approved the widening of Gregory Avenue in 201 1; Mr. Maltz replied yes. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz if he is testifying that the current plan is safer and better than the 2011 plan; Mr. Maltz replied yes because you can now put more cars on site. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz if there is any other reason this plan is safer or more efficient besides being able to stack more cars on site; Mr. Maltz replied no. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz if they could have presented this in 2011; Mr.

is any other reason this plan is safer or more efficient besides being able to stack more cars on site; Mr. Maltz replied no. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz if they could have presented this in 2011; Mr. Maltz replied yes. Mr. Neuer stated that Mr. Page testified that it was not his responsibility to find out the cost of relocating the utility poles and asked whose responsibility it was. Mr. Maltz said that it was not his responsibility either and that he does not get invoived in construction related issues.

Mr. Sussman stated that he is concerned about the lanes not being striped; Mr. Maltz said that Mr. Page can testify to that issue. He said that staff members supervise the traffic circulation and he believes it is safe. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz what hours the staff members supervise the traffic circulation; Mr. Maltz said that they supervise during the dismissal period. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Maltz if there is a capacity for a fourth lane for buses; Mr. Maltz replied no. Mr. Neuer stated that the condition in the prior 2011 resolution did not mention anything about a traffic director at Gregory Avenue. He said that safe ingress and egress is dependent on having a traffic director at Gregory Avenue. Mr. Neuer said that the condition in the 2003 approval mentions two staff members outside supervising traffic, and he is suggesting a third staff member in the driveway at Gregory Avenue. Mr. Maltz. presented a supplemental report from the Essex County Planning Board dated 7/25/13. Chairwoman Gabry noted for the record that the supplemental letter dated 7/25/13 from the Essex County Planning Board has been pre-marked as Exhibit A-5 for identification. Mr. Maltz, stated that in this letter the County is requesting a follow up inspection after all of the work is completed. He said that the applicant is agreeing to do whatever the County requires. Mr. Neuer stated that if the County determines that the utility poles have to be relocated and Gregory Avenue widened, then the applicant will comply. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Vena what legal basis they are here for that meets the legal standards for secking a change in the condition. He said that the Board needs the conclusion of law for the resolution. Mr. Vena asked Mr. Maltz if the stacking of the cars will improve safe ingress and egress and traffic patterns on Gregory Avenue; Mr. Maltz replied yes. Mr. Neuer said that nothing has changed since 2011 and there is no reason that it could not have been done at that time. Mr. Sussman asked Mr. Maitz if there is no physical change to the property and the only difference is that the double stacking of cars onsite will prevent the cars from spilling out to Gregory Avenue; Mr. Maltz replied yes. Mr. Sussman asked Mr. Page to explain Exhibit A-6, the traffic circulation plan. Mr. Page stated that this Exhibit is just a sketch to show how many cars can be stacked. He said

r. Maltz replied yes. Mr. Sussman asked Mr. Page to explain Exhibit A-6, the traffic circulation plan. Mr. Page stated that this Exhibit is just a sketch to show how many cars can be stacked. He said that the site plan shows the striping lines that were approved in 2011. Mr. Page said that he is going to recommend that they stripe the lanes before school starts even if the top coat is not finished. ‘There were no further questions for Mr. Maltz from the Board or the Professionals. Chairwoman Gabry asked if there were any members of the public who had any questions for Mr. Maltz; seeing none Mr. Maltz was excused. 10

Mr. Vena stated that there were no further witnesses. Chairwoman Gabry asked the applicant for ZB-13-05/Nicolas to approach; Naomi Nicolas approached the podium. Chairwoman Gabry noted the time and informed Ms. Nicolas that her application would not be heard tonight and said that the application will have to be carried over to the next meeting on September 12, 2013 because the Zoning Board meetings do not go past 11:00 pm. Ms. Nicolas asked why she was not informed about this earlier tonight and expressed. her displeasure. Chairwoman Gabry apologized and said that the Board had all intentions of hearing this application tonight and unfortunately the application that was scheduled before them is running longer than anticipated. Chairwoman Gabry noted for the record that application ZB-13-05 for Nicolas will be carried over to the next regular Zoning Board meeting held on September 12, 2013 and that no further nolice will be necessary. Chairwoman Gabry asked Mr. Vena if he would like to sum up. Mr. Vena approached the podium and stated that the plan being proposed tonight is a better operating plan and provides safe ingress and egress. Mr. Vena said that the applicant has already received Essex County approval and because school starts in three weeks they would prefer not to have any disruptions when opening the school. He said that there are no variances required and asked the Board to approve this application tonight. Mr. Vena asked the Board if they would also memorialize the resolution at the meeting tonight. Chairwoman Gabry declared the hearing closed and asked if any of the Board members had any comments. Mr. Merklinger stated that the applicant is lacking documentation from PSE&G, regarding the relocation of the utility poles, and he would like to see something in writing from them. Mr. Bullock likened this application to a three headed monster and said that two of the heads were not good. He said that Mr. Maitz’s testimony was credible and for that reason he will support it tonight. Mr, Steinhart stated that, from a practical stand point, approving this application makes sense to him based on Mr. Maltz’s testimony. He said, other than any legal issues with this application, the practical side of it is acceptable. Mr. Neuer said that he is not sure if he knows what to vote; he said that the attorney in him says no. He said that the applicant

issues with this application, the practical side of it is acceptable. Mr. Neuer said that he is not sure if he knows what to vote; he said that the attorney in him says no. He said that the applicant failed to research the price of relocating the utility poles. Mr. Neuer said that the Zoning Board is created by the MLUL and must comply with the Statute.. He said that he has not seen sufficient credible testimony and the applicant has nothing in writing from PSE&G regarding the relocation of the utility poles. Mr. Neuer said that the change of circumstance has not been satisfied by this applicant, and he feels the four lane concept that they are presenting is not safe. He said that if he did vote yes it would be because he feels pity for the applicant. 11