May 21, 2015

Chairman Buechler stated for the record that by the redesign the driveway that went behind the building on the right side of the property was also reduced and also asked if the impervious coverage was increased. Mr. Petry responded that by eliminating the garage in the back the applicant created a situation where there is no need of vehicle access to the back of the building. We have decreased the impervious coverage; on straight analysis it is in conformance with the 40 percent maximum. So by sliding the building forward we have held the 125 foot front setback; increased the rear setback to 70 and have a minimum side to our north of 63.83 and to our south of 123.99. Chairman Buechler asked about the footage from the parking lot on the right hand side to the property line. Mr. Petry stated that the parking is setback 20.83 feet from the property line. That is an increase of what was proposed before. They have maintained 46 parking spaces. All of these spaces are in front of the rear of the building. Parking stops about 134 feet from the rear property line. A two car garage in the caretaker’s home will be serviced by the separate driveway. Since there is no space open to the public the handicapped access to the building has been eliminated. They have maintained access to the refuse area which remains on the side of the caretaker’s house. A lighted walkway has been provided as previously discussed by the Board. Chairman Buechler inquired about a walkway from the parking lot to the front of the caretaker’s house. Mr. Petry responded that there is a walkway from the parking lot to the front and to the rear of the caretaker’s house. Also, the entry driveway to both the main parking lot and to the caretaker’s home remain in the exact same place as what had been previously discussed. Mr. Petry referred to the grading plan SP-5 which has been marked P-23 for the record. He stated that the recharge system on the side of the proposed temple has been eliminated because of the concern from the Barton Drive residents who felt by putting water in the ground would further exacerbate the problem that exists in their basements today. He continued that doing this required an increase in the size of the detention system that is in the front which is still located below the driveway and overall it remains in compliance with the Township’s storm water management standards.

n increase in the size of the detention system that is in the front which is still located below the driveway and overall it remains in compliance with the Township’s storm water management standards. He further stated that by moving the building forward they have realigned the easement that was offered before which comes through the site in front of the building and service the lots immediately to the North. Chairman Buechler asked if the issue with the two homeowners to the North had been resolved regarding the pipe being built under the easement. Mr. Williams responded that he has not been contacted by them therefore there in no agreement with them at this time. He stated there was a comment by the Municipal Engineer that it would be nice if we put the pipe in for therm. However, our position is that the easement is sufficient.