September 6, 2017

Mr. Eben stated he was hesitant to grant approval based on the existing property maintenance issues. He stated he wanted commitment from the Applicant that the property would be cleaned up. Mr. Angowski asked Mr. Ackerman questions related to Mr. Eben’s statements about trees and debris. Mr. Ackerman stated there were thousands of trees on the property; no outside entity was dumping wood on the property. The golf course managed and maintained its property. The trees shown in Mr. Eben’s photographs were all dead or dying. Together with the Club's golf course manager and agronomists from Rutgers University, and a golf course architect identify trees that have a negative impact on the course. The Club had an ongoing project - it retained the company “Tree Tech’ to take down unhealthy trees, chop them up and remove them from the property; it was not the Club’s intention to have the stumps and tree debris remain on the property in perpetuity. Mr. Eben asked if the Club had a tree report from its tree specialist that it could share with the Board. Mr. Ackerman stated the Club had several tree reports. Mr. Grygiel asked if there was any plan to expand the Club's hours existing of operation. Mr. Ackerman stated no. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public Advocate and the Public if they had questions for Mr. Ackerman. Harvey Grossman, Esq., Public Advocate, asked Mr. Ackerman if the Club anticipated replacing the trees that had been removed as part of its overall maintenance plan. Mr. Ackerman stated no, because those specific trees were dead or dying. There was an ongoing program of replanting with fescues because they were more beneficial to a golf course. Mr. Ackerman confirmed that when dead, dying or overgrown trees were removed, they were replaced with other types of sustainable plantings. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had had questions for Mr. Ackerman. He advised the Public their question(s) must address Mr. Ackerman’s sworn testimony on the Public record. Robert Daniel, Buckingham Road, asked what was the estimated cost of the project. Mr. Angowski stated that would be a question for the Applicant’s professionals; it was not part of Mr. Ackerman’s testimony. Mr. Daniel stated that he understood that the country club sat on Block 174, Lot 1 and Lot 1.01; he asked what was the difference between the two lots, and why was the club divided between the

timony. Mr. Daniel stated that he understood that the country club sat on Block 174, Lot 1 and Lot 1.01; he asked what was the difference between the two lots, and why was the club divided between the two lots. He stated one lot had a greater primary assessed value; he asked if the values of the two lots could be explained. Mr. Angowski stated the he or the Applicant’s Planner could address the question, but it was not a question for Mr. Ackerman. Chairman Bagoff told Mr. Daniel to address the question to the Applicant’s Planner. Mr. Daniel asked what were the club's gross revenues. Chairman Bagoff stated the question was not part of the Application. Mr. Dwyer told Mr. Daniel the Application before the Board was for site plan approval with potential variance; the question was not relative to a land use application.