September 22, 2011

Ms. McKenzie offered the Board her resume and Chairman Neuer asked that it be marked as Exhibit A-12, Chairman Neuer asked why Ms. McKenzie’s report was not attached with the application. Ms. Borg stated that she never realized there was going to be a request for a “1D” variance and that the rule is you only need a report from a planner when they are requesting a “D” variance. Chairman Neuer asked if the Board recommends Ms. McKenzie proceeding based on her summary attached to the application; the Board allowed her to proceed. Ms. McKenzie stated that she is prepared to testify on the additional impervious coverage this evening besides her argument that will prove why the “C” variances should be granted. Ms. McKenzie began by describing Mr. Carp’s property; specifically the area that encroaches the Seton Hall property and how nicely Mr. Carp had landscaped it. She stated that the fence that also encroached onto the Seton Hall property has since been removed. Ms. McKenzie stated that the 5” set-back that is required is for the purpose of doing maintenance around the building. She stated that a tennis court or a shed can be maintained without that 5’ distance. She also stated that even though screening or buffering is not required they can provide it. She noted that the Seton Hall property has an extremely wooded area of about 300’ before it actually gets to the football field. Ms. McKenzie went on to explain that the tennis court could be cut back, but to move it over would compromise the surface. She claimed that the cabana and the pergola would also have to be removed and this would create a lot of disturbance in the neighborhood. She stated that if they can find a solution, without moving the tennis court, they will comply. She also stated that the tennis court is out of the way and not near any other property except Mr. Farley, the neighbor who testified, and he stated that he does not have a problem with it. Mr. Buechler asked Ms, McKenzie why the cabana had to be removed because there is 30-40’ from the property line to the back area. Chairman Neuer asked why they would tear down the pergola when they can just go around the other way to move the tennis court; he stated that he’s just not buying it. Ms. McKenzie stated that in order to relocate the tennis court, changing anything would disturb the neighborhood. Chairman Neuer stated that

the tennis court; he stated that he’s just not buying it. Ms. McKenzie stated that in order to relocate the tennis court, changing anything would disturb the neighborhood. Chairman Neuer stated that violation of our set back law is also disturbing. Ms. McKenzie continued by saying that there is quite a bit of lawn area before you get to the Seton Hall property. She stated that the tennis court has been there for a long time and it is attractive to the site; it might not be necessary to take that step to relocate the hard surface area of the court. That is her argument, she said. Mr. Buechler said to Ms. McKenzie that she stated the tennis court is attractive to the neighborhood but yet said that no one is near the Carp property. Ms. McKenzie responded by saying that the tennis court and all of the landscaping is already there now and is attractive. She said that she’s not saying it was done correctly but just saying that it’s already there now and asking how they can correct this.