September 6, 2017

aware of one. Ms. Malanga stated (the club) hired a tree service that told them what trees to take down; she asked for clarification regarding the club’s tree removal process. He stated the club retained a tree service; the tree service did not tell the club which trees to remove. Ms. Malanga stated that the club was not processing its tree removal through the Township Forester under the Tree Ordinance; she asked if Mr. Ackerman was aware that golf courses did fall under the Tree Ordinance. Chairman Bagoff advised Ms. Malanga she was testifying. Mr. Angowski stated a layperson was asking a question that was legal in nature, and there was no foundation for the question. Chairman Bagoff asked if any Board professionals had an answer to the legal question. Mr. Grygiel stated that based on his review of the Tree Ordinance, golf courses were exempt from getting tree removal permits for trees further than 75 feet from the edges of the property line; he cited Section 25- 27.4(c.)(5.). Ms. Malanga asked if Mr. Ackerman was aware that some of the trees to be removed were within the 75 feet limit. Mr. Angowski stated the question called for speculation. Ms. Malanga asked a question related to Essex County/Climate Control which both Mr. Angowski and Chairman Bagoff stated was outside the scope of Mr. Ackerman’s testimony. Ms. Malanga asked how fescue grass was considered a tree replacement, and what did it look like. Mr. Ackerman stated it was a knee-deep grass. He had read articles from the United States Golf Association that said fescue helped the course, maintained the ecology of the area, helped other small plants, animal life, and was better for the environment. He stated the fescue was used only to replace the dead or dying trees that had been removed; the application was limited to the clubhouse area, not the actual course. There were no further questions for Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Angowski called his next witness to the podium. Wayne J. Jacques, AIA, JGA Architectural Design, was sworn in, stated his professional credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert witness in architecture. Referring to Exhibit A-1, Mr. Jacques indicated the brown areas represented the proposed improvements. He gave a brief description of the clubhouse existing conditions and the improvements including the removal of old porticos and construction of new porticos at the main

nted the proposed improvements. He gave a brief description of the clubhouse existing conditions and the improvements including the removal of old porticos and construction of new porticos at the main entrance and members’ entrance, expansion of the Donald Ross room, and restrooms (north side of the club members entrance). Referring to Exhibit A-2, he described the minor interior changes including where a new deck would connect with existing deck, stairs, and the new ADA accessible ramp. Mr. Angowski stated the revisions were based on Township professionals responses to Applicant's submissions dated 8/26/17; the revisions had not yet been submitted to the Board. Exhibit A-3 represented the proposed floor finishes. Exhibit A- 4 indicated two views; the top was a rendering of the guests and members entry view at the north side of the club facing the parking lot. Mr. Jacques confirmed the dumpster area previously noted by Mr. Eben would be enclosed. The bottom rendering was the view from the golf course; he noted there would be some adjustments to the roofline. Mr. Jacques stated that Exhibit A-5 was based more on the architectural drawings; it showed two renderings - the top view represented the guest entry front elevation, and included construction materials. The roof materials would match existing materials; two exterior building colors would match those existing stucco colors. In response to question from Mr. Angowski, Mr. Jacques stated the renovations were not intended to change the character of