October 28, 2013

Jersey. He stated that he has testified before this Zoning Board many times. Chairwoman Gabry accepted Mr. Burgis as an expert in Professional Planning. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Burgis if his August 27, 2013 report supersedes the April report; he replied yes. Mr. Burgis stated that he is going to focus on the Township’s 1989 Master Plan, the 2004 Master Plan Reexamination Report, the 2010 Master Plan update and the criteria. Mz. Burgis referred to page 6 of his report and presented a larger aerial photo of the site. Chairwoman Gabry asked to have the aerial photo marked as Exhibit A-7 for identification. Mr. Buechier asked Mr. Burgis if this was the same photo on page 6 from his report; Mr. Burgis replied yes. He said that the Exhibit shows a little more of the photo then the one in his report. Mr. Burgis said that it was slightly altered to fit on the page. He said that the photo was taken from Google and that he marked the boundary around the property. Mr. Burgis detailed the site noting that it does not have any frontage on Rooncy Circle. He said that there is an access easement from the adjacent property through a 10’ strip of land. Mr. Burgis detailed the surrounding area and the other uses in the area. He said that the proposed use of a fitness center feeds off of the other uses in the area. Mr, Burgis detailed the proposed building coverage and the building height. He said that the applicant is proposing 199 onsite parking spaces plus 30 offsite parking spaces. Mr. Burgis said that this is consistent with the Township’s Master Plan, serves the purpose identified in the Master Plans and maintains a balance of land uses in the 2010 re-exam. Mr. Burgis stated that the fitness center is not a permitted use in the O-R zone and requires a “D” variance. He said that they also require a “D” variance for the building height. Mr. Burgis stated that the applicant is secking bulk variances for lot area, building setbacks, building and impervious coverage, parking setback, number of parking and loading spaces, parking on an adjoining fot, steep slope disturbance and signage. Mr. Burgis listed the special reasons that support and justify this use and stated that the use fits in. He detailed the negative and positive criteria and said that granting these variances will not result in any substantial detriment to the area. Mr. Burgis said that the added

ed that the use fits in. He detailed the negative and positive criteria and said that granting these variances will not result in any substantial detriment to the area. Mr. Burgis said that the added height of the building does not affect the area adversely; he said that it screens the unsightly Public Service sub-station facility behind the site. Mr. Burgis stated that the applicant is proposing a 345 sq. feet sign and a 220 sq. ft. and only one sign is permitted. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Burgis if the applicant is considering a free standing sign on Prospect Avenue; he said that he does not know.