August 15, 2013

Ms. Weiss said that she is interested in a safe plan and the applicant has provided the Board with that. She said there are ways to make things work and they came up with an alternate plan that is safe and efficient. Ms. Weiss said that the witnesses were not great but she feels it is a good plan and that is all that counts. Mr. Quentzel said that the once they finish construction, Essex County will have a study done and whatever they have to do should be a condition in this Board’s resolution. Mr. Sussman stated that he is on the fence about this application. He said that physically, the conditions have not changed. He said if there is a reason, by law, to grant the relief then it should be left to the legal experts. Mr. Buechler read from the New Jersey Zoning & Land Use Administration book written by William Cox and Stuart R. Koenig regarding the standard for seeking modification for the lifting of a condition, i.c., a change in circumstances. He said that the testimony from the first witness was inconsistent, and that in 2011 both Mr. Page and Mr. Maltz testified that Gregory Avenue had to be widened. Mr. Buechler said that this Board should have a traffic expert determine if the new traffic circulation plan is safe; not the applicant’s professional traffic expert. He said that there is no factual basis from the applicant for the approval of this application. Mr. Buechler said that he finds it hard to believe that the utility pole relocation just “popped up” and no one knew about it. He said that there are too many unanswered questions and, intellectually, he just does not get it. Mr. Buechler asked the Board’s Counsel if what the applicant has provided tonight meets the MLUL criteria. Mr. Dwyer stated that there has been a change of circumstances and the proposed traffic circulation plan is better. He said that the queuing of the cars also makes sense. Chairwoman Gabry said that she feels that there is not enough evidence and credible testimony to approve this modification. She said that she is not in favor of this application. Mr. Buechler suggested that the applicant adjourn this matter and come back before this Board in October with a representative from PSE&G or they have the option to have the Board vote on the application tonight. Mr. Neuer said that the applicant could also submit a new application. Mr. Dwyer said that he does not think

tive from PSE&G or they have the option to have the Board vote on the application tonight. Mr. Neuer said that the applicant could also submit a new application. Mr. Dwyer said that he does not think the issue should be conclusive. After some discussion with his client, Mr. Vena asked to have this application carried to the October 17, 2013 regular Zoning Board meeting. The meeting was adjourned by Chairwoman Gabry at 11:15 p V lle- > Adopted: September 12, 2013 U7 Z /31)3 [(~7 Rose DeSena Zoning Board Secretary 12