September 6, 2017

made berm. Additionally, along the northeast side of the parking lot there was an artificial steep slope that was probably the result of the cutting of the auxiliary area of the lot. In response to question from Mr. Angowski, Mr. Morris stated the construction of the new driveway would be intercepting those two slopes; the new slope of the driveway would be 8.3%. Referencing his memorandum dated August 31, 2017, Mr. Keller asked Mr. Morris what was the reason the water and gas lines did not follow the new roadway and cut through the new retaining wall and up the slope. Mr. Morris answered that originally, the plan was to keep the lines in their original trenches, and the issue was still being discussed. Mr. Keller said it would reduce the number of trees to be removed. Mr. Angowski stated the Applicant would be willing to consider the matter and potentially save seven to ten trees. Regarding his testimony on steep slopes, Mr. Keller advised Mr. Morris that Township ordinance made no differentiation between man-made slopes and natural slopes. He advised Mr. Morris the Board still needed a steep slope map to identify where the steep slopes were located and were there disturbances in excess of 25%, and secondly, were any trees being removed on slopes greater than 15%, both which would trigger variances. Mr. Keller stated he had spoken with Mr. Linson (Township Forester) this date; he would be issuing a memo to the Board. The Tree Removal Ordinance required identification of major and minor trees as they related to ones within 75-feet of the property line. Mr. Morris stated there were a total of sixty-nine trees being removed, twenty-two trees were within the 75- feet. Mr. Keller asked if the sixty-nine trees total included those within the retaining wall geogrid/excavation area in compliance with OSHA requirements. Mr. Morris answered in the affirmative. Referring to Exhibit A-9, Mr. Keller stated one of the goals was to add landscaping and improve circulation. He stated he still had concern about the area of main porte cochere service corridor and then the big, open paved area. He asked if the Applicant had explored some additional modifications to better define travel paths, circulation and additional landscaping. Mr. Morris stated he and the applicant had reviewed the issue; one of the problems was maneuverability of trucks. Mr. Keller suggested the area

ne travel paths, circulation and additional landscaping. Mr. Morris stated he and the applicant had reviewed the issue; one of the problems was maneuverability of trucks. Mr. Keller suggested the area be better defined. Mr. Keller stated in the eastern most parking isle there was an existing tree surrounded by paving. It might be more viable with some deep root feeding and expanding the size of its island; he suggested the club consult its arborist. Mr. Morris stated it appeared the tree was listed for removal but he agreed to look in to the matter to try to save it. Mr. Keller stated there was also utility pole in that area; he stated the circulation plan should show clarity as to how to drive. He suggested looking at the auxiliary parking area for further enhancements to reduce the pavement area; he noted there were there were some code issues near the maintenance building. Mr. Keller stated that Mr. Morris testified that he would mill out the existing driveway and put back topsoil; he asked what was the plan for the remainder of the parking lot. Mr. Morris stated there would be some milling; he stated he would have to look at the edges; the way the lot was currently graded was a problem. He did not know how much asphalt was in the lot; some of the grids would have to be revised. Mr. Keller stated that could be a condition 11