March 20, 2014

Mr. Ricci referred to the side yard variance being requested and stated that the applicant is proposing 1.17°x.0.2’, not 1.17°x2.0’; Mr. Grygiel agreed with Mr. Ricci and said that was an error on his report. Mr. Ricci said to prove the positive criteria for a “D” variance the location of the proposed use must benefit the general welfare of the community. He said that there are forty-six (46) vacant properties in the Downtown area and some of vacant spaces were beauty care and nail salons. Mr. Neuer stated for the record that the witness does not have first-hand knowledge of this information. Mr. Ricci stated that the application does not meet ten out of the twelve bulk uses and listed what they were. He said that this site was not intended for this use and is not appropriate. Mr, Ricci detailed what the other uses in the area were and said that there is no other personal service use in the OB-1 zone. Mr. Ricci detailed the negative criteria and said that there are more appropriate places to put this business, Mr. Ricci said there are concerns with the driveway and detailed what he experienced when he visited the site, He said that the driveway was too narrow to accommodate two-way traffic and that there was poor visibility coming out of the driveway with cars parked on the street. Mr. Ricci said that there was no testimony regarding traffic and that he would like to know the level of activity. He said that he also feels the demand for parking is greater than the testimony presented, Mr. Ricci said that according to the Township’s Master Plan re-evaluation, no personal service use is allowed in an OB-1 zone. Mr. Ricci said that this application does not meet the “D” variance criteria according to his planning evaluation and does not represent a better zoning alternative. He said that he personally feels that it is not an appropriate place for abeautysalon. Mr. Neuer asked Mr. Ricci if he did a survey on the number ofbeautysalons in the downtown; he said no just the number of vacant properties. Mr. Ricci said that he does not know if there is a need for abeautysalon in the downtown, he said that his testimony is based on the multiplebeautyand nail salons in the downtown area of most communities. Mr. Quentzel stated that a new salon is not moving into the downtown, he said an existing salon is moving to a new location. He asked Mr. Ricci if he

salons in the downtown area of most communities. Mr. Quentzel stated that a new salon is not moving into the downtown, he said an existing salon is moving to a new location. He asked Mr. Ricci if he thinks that the building will be better looking after the renovations; he replicd no, Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Ricci if he considered the renovations to be a substantial change to the existing building; he replied yes, Mr. Ricci said that the changes to the building exudes a strictly commercial feel and is a different look.