July 17, 2014

Mr. Steck referred to Exhibit A-8 and detailed the existing signs on the building. He said that there is a plaque on the front wall of the building showing that it was erected in 1958 and a sign that has the prior doctor’s names on it who were tenants at one time. Mr. Steck stated that the reconstructed stairway is more logical because it is further from the closest property line. He said that now there is a clear pathway to get in and out of the building and that the relocation of the stairs is safer. Mr. Steck stated that the applicant took away one regular parking space and installed a handicap parking space which now makes the parking lot ADA compliant. Mr. Steck said that there is no expansion of the residential unit and as long as it remains office space it is not a change of use. He said all they did was reduce one examining room on the first floor. Mr. Steck said that if they returned the second floor apartment to five (5) bedrooms then the “d” variance disappears. He said the applicant made the decision to supply a space for the staff on the second floor instead of keeping the five (5) bedrooms because it would not generate a need for more parking. Mr. Steck said, in summary, that two principal uses have been established as legal uses and not abandoned. He said that this is not the location for a five (5) bedroom apartment that would attract a large family. Mr. Steck said that the applicant is taking advantage of the perfect location for his medical office and that the benefits outweigh the detriments. Mr. Merklinger stated that Mr. Steck simplified things for the Board and explained it well. Mr. Bullock stated that he agreed with Mr, Merklinger and that Mr. Steck cleared up some of the questions that the Board had. Mr. Sussman stated that the Board may never know if the addition of the third floor was legal. Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Steck if the exterior access to the break room is built yet; he replied no. Mr. Quentzel asked Mr. Steck if he thought it would be better to have an interior access to the break room instead of having to go outside to access it; he said that the reason the applicant is proposing the access to the second floor from the outside is because he does not want to lose the square footage on the first floor. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck how many parking spots they are proposing; he said there are seven (7)

or from the outside is because he does not want to lose the square footage on the first floor. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck how many parking spots they are proposing; he said there are seven (7) existing parking spots and they are proposing five (5) parking spots and one handicap parking spot. Mr. Steck stated that the Township’s Zoning Officer told the applicant to ask for the parking variance. Chairman Buechler told Mr. Steck that his report states that they do need a parking variance. Mr. Steck said that he went by what was in the application when he prepared his report 12