January 16, 2014

could be 77,000 square feet according to the code and would not require a variance. Mr. Steck also stated that he would have to put sprinklers in the main house if the proposed structure were attached. Mr. Steck stated that this property is the largest privately owned property in Llewellyn Park and that the Edison property is the only other privately owned property in the Park. He said that the proposed structure is over 80 feet from the closest property line when it only has to be five feet according to the code, Mr. Steck said that if the structure was attached to the main house, then it would be more visible to people on Mountain Avenue. He said that the structure will be approximately 200 feet from the closest dwelling. Mr. Steck then detailed the negative and positive criteria stating that it is a unique property and the benefits outweigh the detriments. Chairwoman Gabry called for a recess at 9:33 pm. Chairwoman Gabry resumed the meeting at 9:45 pm. Mr. Steck resumed his testimony and stated that there are only three recognized historic sites in Llewellyn Park and specified which properties they were. He said that this property is not designated locally as a historic site. Chairwoman Gabry asked if any members of the Board had any questions for Mr. Steck. Mr. Sussman referred to #13 on page six of his report and asked Mr. Steck to clarify that diagram. Mr. Steck said that if the proposed structure was attached to the main building it could be 35° tall and 70,000 square feet from a zoning point of view. Ms. Weiss asked Mr. Steck how many square feet Glenmont is; he replied that he did not know. There were no further questions for Mr. Steck from the Board of the Professionals, Chairwoman Gabry asked if any members of the public had any questions for Mr. Steck. Mr. Rainone approached the podium and asked Mr. Steck if he toured Llewellyn Park; he replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Steck if he would compare the proposed accessory structure to any other accessory structure in the Park; he replied that the Edison property has one comparable to it. Mr. Rainone asked Mr, Steck if his testimony was that the proposed structure is not a dwelling; he replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Steck if this structure has a place that someone could live in; he replied that it is not designed for that. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Steck if there is a place in the

replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Steck if this structure has a place that someone could live in; he replied that it is not designed for that. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Steck if there is a place in the structure that you could put a bed; he replied yes.

Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Steck if there is a place in the structure that someone could sleep; he replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Steck if there is a place in the structure that someone could eat; he replied yes. Mr, Rainone asked Mr. Steck if there is a place that someone could cook in the facility; he replied yes that there is a snack facility. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Steck if there is sanitation in the building; he replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Mr. Steck if he was familiar with the Township’s Zoning Ordinance definition of what a “dwelling”; he replied yes. Mr. Steck said that there are no sleeping facilities in the proposed structure. Mr. Grossman approached the podium and stated, for the record, that the proposed structure fits in architecturally and enhances the area, He said that he recommends that the Board approve this application. Chairwoman Gabry asked if any members of the public had any comments. Mr. Rainone approached the podium and called his client, Ms. Day, to testify. Julie Day approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Rainone asked Ms. Day how long she lived in Llewellyn Park; she replied all of her life. Ms. Day stated that she grew up in the Park and that Mr. Schinman’s property was owned by her family at one time. Mr. Rainone asked Ms. Day when the indoor tennis court was built; she replied in the 1920’s. Mr. Rainone presented a copy of a survey prepared by Casey and Keller dated 8/29/89. Chairwoman Gabry asked to have the survey marked as Exhibit O-1 for identification. Ms, Day referred to the survey and detailed it. Mr. Rainone asked Ms. Day if she can see the Schinman residence from her property; she replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Ms. Day where the barn is now; she replied that it was demolished, He asked her if she could see the barn from her property; she replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Ms. Day if she can see the proposed structure being built; she replied yes. Mr. Rainone asked Ms. Day if the new structure will be bigger than the old barn; she replied yes. 10

Mr. Rainone presented two photographs. Chairwoman Gabry asked to have the photos marked as Exhibit O-2 for identification and asked who took the photos. Mr. Rainone said that he took the photos at approximately 9 am, January 16, 2014. Mr. Rainone referred to Exhibit O-2 and asked Ms. Day to detail where the proposed structure will be in the photo, He asked Ms, Day if the structure could be seen from Mountain Avenue; she replied yes. Mr. Rainone presented a photograph that was taken by a Mr. Davis with a superimposed structure in the photo. Mr. Williams objected to the photo and asked the Board not to consider it. Ms. Beirne said that she agrees with Mr. Williams and that the photo should not be considered. Mr. Rainone presented three photographs. Chairwoman Gabry asked to have the three photographs marked as Exhibit 0-4, 0-5 and O-6 for identification and she asked who took the photographs. Ms. Day stated that she took the photographs in 1998 or 1999 before Mr. Schinman bought the property. She referred to the photographs and detailed what the barn used to look like before it was demolished. Chairwoman Gabry asked Ms, Day what the purpose of these photographs was; she replied that she wanted to show what the original barn looked like and how big the barn was. Ms. Day stated that she is against the application because she is very involved in maintaining the beauty of the Park. She said that she has a problem with the size of the proposed structure and does not think that it fits in with the character of the Park. Ms. Day said that it will be a very large visible structure from her house and from the street and that she also felt that there will not be adequate parking for this facility. Mr. Rainone presented a photograph. Chairwoman Gabry asked to have the photograph marked as Exhibit O-7 for identification and asked who took the photograph. Mr. Rainone stated that he took the photograph the morning of January 16, 2014, and stated it is a view of the proposed structure from Ms. Day’s driveway. Mr, Rainone asked Ms, Day if she had a personal grievance with Mr. Schinman; she replied no. Chairwoman Gabry asked Ms. Day if she had any issues with parking; she replied that people visiting Mr. Schinman were parking at the end of her driveway and that she was told that people were taking tennis lessons there. Mr. Bullock asked Ms. Day if there was any

g; she replied that people visiting Mr. Schinman were parking at the end of her driveway and that she was told that people were taking tennis lessons there. Mr. Bullock asked Ms. Day if there was any opposition regarding the indoor tennis court structure at the time when her grandparents built it; she replied that she did not know. Mr. Merklinger referred to Exhibits O-4, 0-5, and O-6 and asked Ms. Day how long ago the photographs were taken; she replied 20 or 30 years ago. Mr. Merklinger said that in comparison to the old barn the new structure looks good. Mr. Rainone presented a photograph. Chairwoman Gabry asked to have the photograph marked as Exhibit O-8 for identification and asked who took the photograph. Ms. Day stated that she 11

took the photograph from her driveway and it shows the fence that surrounds the outdoor tennis court. She stated that the proposed structure will be higher than the fence. Chairwoman Gabry asked Ms. Day if she will only be able to see part of the proposed structure and not the full structure; she replied yes. Mr. Steinhart asked Ms. Day if there is anything the Schinman’s could do to mitigate any of the problems that she envisions from her property, other than changing the height or the stories; she replied that changing the height would be acceptable to her. Ms. Day said that she is concerned about the view of the structure from Mountain Avenue and that it will have a negative impact from the street because of the mass of the building. Ms. Weiss asked Ms, Day what year her family sold the property; she replied that they sold it in 1997, She said that her mother owned the nine acres surrounding her current house. Ms. Weiss asked Ms. Day who decided to sel{ off the land; she replied that her brother and her cousin were the executors and sold the piece of property in 1997. Ms. Day said that she had no say in the distribution of the property. Mr. Quentzel asked Ms, Day if she can see the indoor tennis court from her house; she replied yes. Mr. Quentzel asked Ms. Day if her concern is that people are going to sec a bigger structure from the street; she replied yes. Mr. Williams referred to Exhibit O-1 and asked Ms. Day if she objected to the other house that was built on parcel A; she replied no. Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Schinman could legally build the structure five (5) fees from Ms. Day’s property and asked Ms, Day if she would prefer that; she replied that she hopes that he would not do that. There were no further questions for Ms. Day from the Board Members or the Professionals. Chairwoman Gabry asked if any members of the public had any questions for Ms. Day; seeing none, Chairwoman Gabry asked if there were any comments from members of the public. Gerald Sweeney approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Sweeney stated that he lives at 24 Oak Bend in Llewellyn Park and is speaking on behalf of the Park as a community and the Committee of Managers of Llewellyn Park. He explained what the Committee of Managers is and stated that they manage the Park internally. Mr. Sweency stated that the committee has no authority over Zoning and

ee of Managers of Llewellyn Park. He explained what the Committee of Managers is and stated that they manage the Park internally. Mr. Sweency stated that the committee has no authority over Zoning and that they rely on the Township Zoning Ordinance to conform their buildings to the Master Plan and Zoning regulations. He said that he is here to report the findings of the Committee of Managers and said that they remain neutral, it is not one owner against another owner and that nothing personal is ever intended. Mr. Sweeney said that Mr. Schinman is a valuable member of the Park and that the Committee reviewed his plans and concluded that the scale of the proposed accessory structure was inappropriate; thatit was out of character with 12

the surrounding area and that it was too large. He said that the Committee recommended that they oppose the variance. Mr. Sweeney said that the Committee’s concern is preserving the Park, that the structure exceeded the height standard making it the largest accessory structure in the Park, that the structure would be visible from the road and have a looming effect to the site. He said that the Committee feels the scale of the structure can be adjusted by reducing the base and the height and that would be sufficient. Mr. Sweeney said that the Committee is also asking for a continuance of this hearing so that they can bring in their experts. Brian Mann approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr, Mann said that he lives at 57 Mountain Avenue in Llewellyn Park. Mr. Mann said that he hopes that visitors’ parking on Mountain Avenue will only be temporary because the hazard is that it is a hair pin turn and there has already been an accident there. He said that there are visitors coming and going all of the time now and that Mr. Schinman is going to need sufficient parking because there will be more people visiting. Mr. Mann said that he would suggest a landscape feature, as a condition, that would block the view of the structure from Ms. Day’s property to Mr. Schinmans property. There were no further comments from members of the public and Chairwoman Gabry declared the public hearing closed. Chairwoman Gabry asked Mr. Rainone if he would like to sum up. Mr. Rainone stated that there are two deficiencies in this application. The applicant’s attorney signed the application rather than the applicant and that there was no explanation in the application regarding why they needed a variance. Mr. Rainone said that the proposed structure will be an eyesore. He said that the applicant took away one non-conforming use and now he wants to build another non-conforming use but bigger. Chairwoman Gabry told Mr. Rainone that he was testifying; not summing up. Mr. Rainone disagreed and said that he was summing up. Mr. Rainone continued and stated that Mr. Schinman wants fo build a recreation house; Chairwoman Gabry interrupted Mr. Rainone and told him that he was testifying. Mr. Rainone objected and wanted the record to reflect that he was stopped from bringing up his legal summation. Chairwoman Gabry asked Mr. Williams if he wanted to sum up. Mr. Williams

s testifying. Mr. Rainone objected and wanted the record to reflect that he was stopped from bringing up his legal summation. Chairwoman Gabry asked Mr. Williams if he wanted to sum up. Mr. Williams approached the podium and stated that the proposed structure will be an excellent compliment to the site given its size and is a recreation facility that he would love to have in his own back yard. He said that the benefits outweigh any detriments. Mr. Merklinger said that he thinks the proposed structure is a beautiful building and that he will vote to approve the application. 13

Mr. Bullock said that he cannot dismiss the comments made by Mr. Sweeney regarding the objections to the size of the structure but thinks that it will bring value to the property. Mr. Steinhart stated that the issue here is the height of the structure; not the size. He said that the size of the structure is not out of scale for a 9+ acre property and he is inclined to vote in favor of the application. Mr. Sussman said that the size of the proposed structure is in keeping with the scale of the site and the residence. He said that he is sensitive to the concerns of Ms. Day and that Mr. Schinman may take steps to put additional screening from his property to the Day property. Mr. Sussman said that it is a good application and that he recommends that the Board vote in favor. Mr. Quentzel said that 18” is not that great of a difference and the design of the structure continues with the look of the barn that was demolished. He said that the structure is far from the street and not much of it is visible to Ms. Day from her property. Mr. Quentzel said that Mr. Schinman could have built a 70,000 footprint on his property and chose not to. He said that this is a much better use of square footage and he is in favor of the application. Ms. Weiss said that she agrees with the other Board members regarding the size in comparison to the property. She said that she feels for Ms. Day but this structure is aesthetically pleasing and looks much nicer than the large indoor tennis court. Ms. Weiss said that she is in favor of this application. Chairwoman Gabry said that he heard no evidence that the Schinman’s will use this structure for any type of living space. She said that she finds no standing regarding the Committee of Managers requesting an adjournment and makes a motion to approve with the following conditions: No living or sleeping in the structure. Excavation required must be done at reasonable hours of the day. Landscaping to be installed between the Schinman and Day properties to the satisfaction of the Township Planner. Ms. Weiss seconded the motion to approve. Mr. Williams stated that he will leave it up to the Township Planners to determine a simple landscape plan that will provide additional screening. The vote was as follows: Buechler: - Steinhart: Yes Bullock: Yes Sussman: Yes Merklinger: Yes Weiss: Yes Neuer: Recused Chairwoman Gabry: Yes Quentzel: