May 21, 2015

Mr. Petry didn’t recall, but believes there is an elevator. Mr. Williams said to Mr. Petry that there is one area in the back that you didn’t show a stairwell. Mr. Petry replied that in finalizing the plans the architect had a stairway coming out of the basement that is not shown on our plans. It doesn’t make a material change but our plans don’t show the exit stairwell coming out of the rear of the basement. Chairman Buechler asked if it is just an additional mean of egress and ingress and Mr. Petry agreed with that statement. There was dialogue between Chairman Buechler and Mr. Petry concerning ingress and egress to the building which finally Mr. Petry stated that he would let the architect clarify when he testified. Chairman Buechler asked the Board if they had any questions for Mr. Petry. The Board had no questions at that time. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Grygiel and Mr. Keller if they had any questions. Mr. Grygiel had no questions. Mr. Keller asked if the wall being extended along the westerly property line is consistent with the style and construction to the existing wall which is a concrete block wall and if the homeowners in the area were agreeable to a six foot concrete block wall. Mr. Petry stated the extended wall was consistent with the existing wall but the six foot wall is in the rear of the property and in fact the homeowners requested it. Mr. Keller stated that he did not find any details on the plan and asked what it would be finished with. Mr. Petry apologized for not having the details on the plans and would correct it and continued to describe the existing wall as not a retaining wall but a screen wall, a freestanding block wall stucco on both sides and the new extended wall would be the same. Ms. Weiss stated that this was a totally different wall then the low wall behind Barton Drive she saw on the detail sheet. Mr. Petry explained that was a 12 inch high landscape wall and what Mr. Keller was referring to was the six foot concrete block wall in the rear of the property. Mr. Keller asked instead of a fence they have a solid concrete wall and the homeowners agreed to that. Mr. Petry replied that is what the neighbors requested.

Mr. Keller stated that Mr. Petry referred to a 12 inch high landscape wall but the plans say 18 inches high. Mr. Petry replied its two block high and varies in height. The blocks are eight inches so the height can be from 12 to 16 inches depending how the land slopes from the Temple toward Barton Drive. Mr. Keller asked if the neighbors are going to see the face of the wall. Mr. Petry replied that face of the wall will be facing into the property. The purpose of the landscape wall is so that the storm water runoff from the lawn area doesn’t get to Barton Drive. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Petry how they were going to cut the existing ground so that its lower and drains away from Barton Drive. Mr. Petry replied that they would install the wall and mulch the landscape bed behind the wall so that the area is above the lawn area. Mr. Keller asked that the plans be clarified regarding the modifications to the contours so that it is clear as to how that’s going to work. Mr. Keller informed the Board that he didn’t receive the plans until Monday afternoon in the mail which is why they do not have a review letter from him. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Keller from an engineering standpoint would this work. He continued that he did not think mulch could be used to change an elevation because it would wash off. Mr. Keller responded that the intent of wall is to help remove the surface flow that comes into the backyards of the neighbors on Barton Drive and maybe reduce some of the ground water that gets in their basements today. This is a technical issue that Mr. Petry and his office can deal with. Ms. Weiss stated that ultimately Mr. Petry will work out something that Mr. Keller feels is adequate. Mr. Petry stated that from past dealing with Mr. Keller technically they will be able to work through any engineering issues that come up in his report and any other actions the Board takes Chairman Buecler asked Mr. Keller if he had any other issues to raise with Mr. Petry. Mr. Keller suggested changing the lawn drain piping from eight inch to 12 inch. He also suggested Mr. Petry modify the piping system for the underground detention system so that its not going to eliminate the ability to plant there. Mr. Petry was agreeable to these changes.

Mr. Keller stated that he was going to need descriptions for the sight triangle easements, they need to be recorded and to be appropriately approved by his office and by legal counsel. He also stated that the sewer easement due to a failing septic systems at some point will need to be replaced. They now run through the drop off lane right at the front of the church then runs across through the parking lot to the property line that abuts the neighbors. Chairman Buechler stated that it was his understanding that it’s not going under the building itself. Mr. Keller replied that it was never under the building it was always in the parking lot. He continued to describe how and why a manhole will be needed at the sewer easement. He continued to state that they need to come to an agreement and plan as to how they are going to do that. The concern is if the sewer line goes in later it will be difficult getting into the front of the church because the work with happen in that drop of lane. Chairman Buecler asked if the Town would be to pay for the sewer hookup. Mr. Keller stated because it is on someone else’s property the Town would do the work and would recoup the cost by an assessment to those properties. Chairman Buechler stated that there isn’t a legal or factual basis to compel the temple to foot the bill for putting in the piping. They have to give an easement which they are willing to do. He continued to state that is why I asked Mr. Williams earlier if the issue with the two homeowners to the North had been resolved regarding the pipe being built under the easement. We cannot force them to do what is right but neither can we force the applicant. He agreed that Mr. Petry had to refine his drawings in that section in the front of the building. Mr. Keller agreed and added the applicant needs to weigh what the additional cost is to put in the the manhole and some piping versus the potential disruptions to their operations. Chairman Buechler suggested that maybe have Mr. Lepore call the neighbors to say that it behooves them to reach out to Mr. Petry or Mr. Williams now because it is economically to their advantage to do it today than to wait a year or more. He continued to tell Mr. Petry to make those changes because the revised finalize drawings will be a condition that will have to be done. Mr. Keller noted Chairman Buechler’s suggestions. There was a

e continued to tell Mr. Petry to make those changes because the revised finalize drawings will be a condition that will have to be done. Mr. Keller noted Chairman Buechler’s suggestions. There was a dialogue between Chairman Buechler, Mr. Quentzel, Ms. Weiss and Mr. Keller regarding what the cost would be to the neighbors Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Keller if he had anything else. Mr. Keller responded that he had a standard condition that they need a review from the fire official. He continued that there’s a well indicated on the plan, well closure will be needed from the Health Department. He further stated that County Approval would be a condition and obtaining building permits for the six foot concrete wall.

There was dialogue between Mr. Keller and Chairman Buechler regarding an Engineer’s Estimate of the site improvement cost. Chairman Buechler asked the Public Advocate, Mr. Grossman if he had any questions, he responded no. Chairman Buechler asked if any member of the public had any questions. Mr. Travis McManigal of 5 Allsop Court approached the podium. He asked Mr. Petry if the gazebo was primarily used for meditation purposes or for some sort of ceremonial purposes. Mr. Petry replied that it was used for mediation purposes only and added it also had a fountain. Mr. McManigal asked just how big is the overall square footage of the new design. Mr. Buechler told Mr. McManigal they would come back to his question but wanted to know what happened to his counsel Mr. Trautner from Wolf and Samson. Mr. McManigal replied that he asked them to step down since he was negotiating directly with the applicant. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Williams if he had any objection to this and Mr. Williams said he had no objection. Mr. Petry responded to Mr. McManigal’s question saying the architect would be better suited to talk to you about the overall square footage. Mr. McManigal explained the reason he asked that question had something to do with the parking. He stated that he really liked the fact there is less parking since his property is behind it. However, his concern was what if the property was sold what would prevent the new owners to add parking places due to the extra square footage which could create a negative impact to his property. Mr. Petry began to explain certain restrictions the Township had regarding impervious coverage and steep slope ordinance pertaining to this application. Chairman Buechler stated that he thought the answer to Mr. McManigal’s question is given the current state of law and the Town’s ordinances if the property was sold two years later and they wanted to change or pave the parking lot they would have to come back before the Board to seek a variance. Mr. McManigal also stated that he was concerned about the lighting specifically in the back over the stairwell. He wanted to know if the lighting could be triggered by some type of motion detector. 10

Mr. Petry responded that these lights are bollards the light source is at 36 inches so its that high off the ground which shouldn’t be intrusive to anyone living behind it. A motion detector could be put on but he didn’t know if it would be worthwhile for something that low. Mr. McManigal thanked the Board and Mr. Petry and stepped down from the podium. Chairman Buechler asked if any other members of the public had any questions for Mr. Petry. Ms. Michal Kasher of 11 Barton Drive approached the podium. Ms. Kasher asked Mr. Petry if he could show the Board where Barton Drive is related to the site. Mr. Petry indicated that Barton Drive is located along the left side of all the plans. Ms. Kasher stated she was concerned that there was only one choice to exit from Barton Drive, Laurel Avenue, which is a County road with high traffic volume. She continued to ask Mr. Petry if he was ever at the site. Mr. Petry replied that not only has he been to the site but traveled Laurel Avenue to get to his office. Ms. Kasher asked Mr. Petry if he has been on Barton Drive and tried to exit the street on the right or left. Mr. Petry replied that he has been on both of the driveways that currently service the site. Ms. Kasher asked Mr. Petry if there were bushes along Laurel Avenue. Mr Petry replied that there was actually a stone wall along the frontage of the subject property and runs along the frontage of the corner property on Barton Drive and Laurel Avenue. Ms. Kasher was making statements to Mr. Petry regarding overgrown bushes. Mr.Quentzel and Chairman Buechler reminded her that she was to ask Mr. Petry questions not argue with him. Ms. Kasher continued to state how the bushes obstruct the view. Once again she was admonished by Chairman Buechler about asking questions only and she would have a chance at the very end if she wanted to make a statement to the Board. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Petry if there were bushes along the front of the property. Mr. Petry replied that there are trees and shrubs along the front of the property behind the wall and have grown over the wall. He continued to state that actually the wall will be eliminated and the landscape will be pulled back from the road so to add better sight visibility and we have incorporated this into the plans. 11

A dialogue followed between Mr. Petry and Ms Kasher regarding the maintenance of the property and the landscaping. Chairman Buechler asked Ms. Kasher once again to ask questions and that she would get a chance to make a statement under oath at the end. Chairman Buechler asked if any other members of the public had questions for Mr. Petry. Tal Benzvi of 5 Allsop Court approached the podium. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Benzvi to show the Board where you live on the Plan. Mr. Benzvi indicated where his house was on the plans. Mr. Benzvi asked a question pertaining to the landscaping. He asked if the trees would be 15 feet high. Mr. Petry responded that the Red Maples would be 15 feet high at planting. Mr. Benzvi stated that when they met with the applicant they asked for trees to be planted in front of the parking for screening. Mr. Petry had a dialogue with Mr. Benzvi regarding the types and height of trees that would be planted as a screen for the parking lot. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Petry if where he was indicating was 130 ft. from the property line. Mr. Petry replied affirmatively. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Petry that between the property line and there, there is going to be a row of Norway Spruce and Red Maples. Mr. Petry responded there is a Blue Spruce and a double row, staggered of Red Maples between the property line and the building. Mr. Grygiel stated there will also be a six foot high wall. Chairman Buechler stated that he was trying to create the record that there will be 130 feet, three or four rows of trees and a concrete wall. Mr. Benzvi asked Mr. Petry how many parking spaces there are. Mr. Petry replied that there are a total of 46 in the main parking lot to service the temple. There are two in the garage that service the caretaker. Mr. Benzvi asked according to the parking ordinance how many are there supposed to be for a project this size. 12

Mr. Petry answered the ordinance requires us to have 73 spaces total. He continued to explain the requirement of the parking ordinance regarding this application. Mr. Benzvi asked Mr. Petry about his previous testimony regarding moving the mediation room from the small building to the large building and the hours of operation. Mr. Petry confirmed for Mr. Benzvi that he previously testified that the small building would be operational at certain hours and the large building only on Thursdays. Mr. Benzvi said that if he recalls correctly the large building will be utilized every day. Mr. Petry agreed this was correct. Mr. Petry and Mr. Benzvi had a dialogue regarding the security lighting; trash disposal by the caretaker; elevation and placement of the extended concrete wall; water flow from the gutters Mr. Benzvi thanked Mr. Petry and the Board and left the podium. Chairman Buechler asked if there were any more question for Mr. Petry. Mr. Keller had one or two more questions for Mr. Petry. He asked if the existing evergreens on the Barton Drive property line affected the sight lines out of the driveway because they extend into the right-of-way. Mr. Petry replied that the traffic expert would testify about sight distance as well. He continued to state that they haven’t proposed to change or to remove them. He further stated that he did not believe that they affected the sight distance since they are behind a wall and you would have to get pass the wall to see. Mr. Keller suggested that if one or two of the trees affect the sight distance out of the driveway or out of the main driveway that they could be pulled back. Mr. Petry stated that they would have no issue with that. Seeing there were no further questions Chairman Buechler excused Mr. Petry. Mr. Williams called Mr. Joseph Staigar to the podium where he was sworn under oath. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Staigar what is your occupation which Mr. Staiger replied he was a professional civil engineer, licensed in the State of New Jersey. Chairman Buechler stated that they would accept Mr. Staigar’s expertise as a licensed traffic engineer since he has testified before this Board on numerous occasions. He continued to make it clear that the only report they had was Mr. Staiger’s revised report dated November 5, 2014. Mr. Staigar confirmed that was correct. 13

Mr. Williams asked Mr. Staigar if he was retained by the applicant to do a traffic analysis of the improvements proposed for this development. Mr. Stager responded affirmatively. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Staigar to tell the Board what he did and what were the results. Mr. Staigar proceeded to tell the Board he had taken traffic counts on Laurel Avenue during peak hour times, rush hour times, between four and six pm to determine the characteristics of peak hour volumes on the roadway. However, during that time period this house of worship is going to generate a nominal amount of traffic. Chairman Buechler asked if he did any counts at the morning rush. Mr. Staigar stated no that he only did the afternoon rush and it was primarily for comparative purposes to determine what the midday peak hour volumes were, compared to what the rush hour volumes are. He continued to state that the facility will generate traffic during the midday, on a week day, primarily Thursdays between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm and then on the new moon and the full moon. So it will vary depending upon which day of the month it is. He further stated that the differential between the traffic volumes of the midday versus the pm peak hour is that the midday peak hour occurred statistically when we took counts between 11:45 and 12:45 pm 656 vehicles traveling two way on Laurel Avenue compared to the pm rush hour between 4:30 and 5:30 of 1, 040 vehicles. The point is the facility is not coincidental with the peak hour of the roadway. It will not be generating traffic of a significant degree that’s coincidental with the peak hour of the roadway. It’s going to be off peak. Mr. Staigar stated that the next step was to determine how many vehicles could be generated by this facility. The application states a maximum of 75 attendees at any given time. At present there are about 29 attendees. Using the ITE trip generation of a church service which is similar to 75 attendees would generate 48 vehicles in and out of the driveway. Chairman Buechler asked the driveway meaning the proposed driveway for the temple. Mr. Staigar stated yes for the temple. He continued to state that the site would not have any negative impact on traffic conditions because they are a low trip generator because its significant amount of traffic during the non-peak hours of the roadway and generates nominal traffic during the peak

tive impact on traffic conditions because they are a low trip generator because its significant amount of traffic during the non-peak hours of the roadway and generates nominal traffic during the peak hours of the roadway. He also stated that working closely with Mr. Petry in the design of the site would ensure that there is safe access to the site. Mr. Staigar continued to describe how AASHTO standards were used to ensure that there is adequate sight visibility. He continued to state that since they are on a County road they will need to make a County application for this driveway and they will be looking specifically at those standards as well. He also stated that the site will operate safely and efficiently and have relatively no impact on traffic conditions. Mr. Williams had no more questions for Mr. Staigar. 14