May 3, 2017

ucture. The interior lights would be shut off at approximately 10; 15 P.M. and the structure would be locked at night. Anthony Marucci, PE, PE, Marucci Engineering Associates, LLC, was sworn in under oath, and accepted by the Board to be an expert witness in engineering. He stated he had prepared the site plan drawings dated March 20, 2017. He stated Crestmont had come before the Board in 2007 for a minor subdivision; the golf course was separated from the remainder of the property. There were two separate lots but for the purpose of the Application, all surrounding property owners were required to be notified. He stated the properties were over 240 acres in the R-2 Zone; a golf course was a permitted use, a swimming pool and tennis courts were permitted accessory uses. He stated the Applicant was proposing to install a seasonal bubble over the club's four existing tennis courts.

Referring to Exhibit A-1, he stated there was a significant buffer of trees. He stated the bubble would not be above the tree heights; during the winter time there may be a view of the structure from the residential side, but it would be very little. In respect to the lighting, it would also not be visible from the residential side. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Marucci said the bubble was being installed on the inside of the fence line; there would be no tree or soil disturbance other than what was already on the tennis courts. The existing grading would not change; there would be no adverse effect to the drainage. Mr. Marucci stated the one variance was required for height; the required height for an accessory structure was 15 feet, however, for the structure to work, 36 feet was required. He opined it could be granted under the “c2” criteria. Although the structure exceeded the height variance, the club was on a 240-acre site and the existing tennis courts were separated from residential homes. The proposal would provide year-round use to not only benefit the Applicant, but also the community since the courts would now be open to the Public during the off-season. The actual location of the tennis courts from the nearest residential structure on Ferris Drive was 263 feet. He opined that since the structure would be far away from nearest neighbor and there was a wooded buffer area, the variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the Public good. He opined the variance would not impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and ordinance. Councilwoman McCartney asked if there could be a deed restriction to maintain the wooded buffer within the subdivision. Mr. Grygiel stated the Applicant would have to come back before the Board to place a restriction. Mr. Dwyer stated a condition of approval could be to maintain the buffer between the bubble and residential homes. Mr. Keller stated the tree removal was governed by Township code. Chairman Bagoff stated the Club would have to agree to maintain the buffer, not the Applicant. Mr. Eben asked Mr. Marucci if the evergreen trees were remaining. Mr. Marucci stated no trees were being removed as part of the Application. Referring to the Exhibit A1 and A-2, Mr. Keller stated there was a dirt pile on the north side of the tennis courts; he asked how would the foundation for the bubble fit within the

f the Application. Referring to the Exhibit A1 and A-2, Mr. Keller stated there was a dirt pile on the north side of the tennis courts; he asked how would the foundation for the bubble fit within the existing fence. Mr. Marucci stated he believed part of the fence would be taken down during excavation to pour the foundation. He deferred to Mr. Ligas to explain the process. Mr. Ligas returned to the podium. He described the construction process; the mesh fencing would be removed to install the foundation and the gates for the structure openings including the doublewide entrance. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Marucci explained the generator and the propane would be located on the north side of the court area, entirely fenced-in. Mr. Keller stated it did not appear there was a lot of room between the fence, swale and dirt pile. The plans indicated there was only 10 feet. He asked if it would be over the swale. Mr. Marucci stated he would have to work it out; he would move the swale if necessary. He stated he would meet with the propane company and the contractor to provide Mr. Keller with the exact measurements required. Mr. Keller stated he would work out engineering issues with Mr. Marucci.

Mr. Keller asked for clarification regarding parking, the walking path, area lighting, and fencing around the pool area. Mr. Wlodychak said the parking would be near the structure where golf carts were stored; he described the walking path area would lead past the bath houses/restrooms; there was existing lighting but additional lighting would be installed along the path to the bubble. Mr. Keller stated the plans should indicate walking path directional signage, and lighting. Mr. Keller asked for clarification regarding walkway improvements. Mr. Wlodychak stated there was an existing wooden walkway from the pool house area; there had been discussion about what could be done to make it safer during the winter so people would not slip. It was a safety issue. Mr. Wlodychak stated there was existing fencing around the pool; the plan was to have additional temporary fencing to ensure the area was not accessible. Mr. Keller and Mr. Marucci discussed the topography of the area between the tennis courts and Eagle Rock Avenue, and the size of the generator and propane tanks. Mr. Marucci stated the tennis courts, generator and tanks would not be visible from Eagle Rock Avenue. Mr. Keller opined the fencing around the generator and tanks could be a black vinyl chain link or solid earth tone PVC. Chairman Bagoff stated that to the northern side of the swale, which was the northern side of the tennis courts to Eagle Rock Avenue, there was a currently a large storage container. He stated the testimony was slightly incorrect; there were not trees in that area. There was a storage container, a mound of dirt and open land; the trees were further away from the area. Mr. Wlodychak answered yes. Chairman Bagoff stated that none of those elements were visible from Eagle Rock Avenue. Mr. Wlodychak answered yes. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had questions for Mr. Marucci. Ricki Roth, 25 Ferris Drive, stated she lived right behind the tennis courts; there was a wooded area; however, over the years many trees had fallen down. She had clear vision of the tennis courts even during the summer. She stated that unless the club replaced the fallen trees she would continue to have full view of the tennis courts and the bubble. Councilwoman McCartney asked if a black vinyl fence was the best choice to camouflage the generator and propane tanks. She stated the white pvc

to have full view of the tennis courts and the bubble. Councilwoman McCartney asked if a black vinyl fence was the best choice to camouflage the generator and propane tanks. She stated the white pvc fencing might be a better choice to match the existing fencing in the area used to camouflage the area behind the courts with the dirt pile. Mr. Wlodychak stated the fencing for the tennis courts was currently black chain link, he opined it would be a better choice for year round. She asked Mr. Ligas about the continuous noise of the generator. Mr. Ligas stated the noise level would meet all code guidelines. Mr. Keller asked if there was a concern about the noise levels of the generator, would the Applicant agree to perform a noise study once all mechanicals had been installed. Mr. Wlodychak answered yes. Chairman Bagoff asked the Public if they had comments on the Application. Adam Goldman, 40 Ferris Drive, was sworn in under oath. He stated he was a resident of Ferris Drive for over twenty-five years and also a ten-year member of Crestmont Country Club. He stated his wife had taken tennis lessons from Mr. Wlodychak for many years. He had met with Mr. Wlodychak and the club to discuss the project; sound and lighting issues had been discussed in detail. He stated the Club was in the process of a major renovation 8

to upgrade its facilities; it wanted to remain in the community for many years to come. He stated he understood and respected the concerns of his neighbors. He stated the plan for the generator mechanics would place it away from the wooded residential area. There were no further comments from the Public. Chairman Bagoff closed the public hearing; the Board deliberated. Conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Township, County, State and Federal laws, ordinances, regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining all applicable local, state and federal approvals and/or permits. Without limitation of the foregoing, prior to the signing of the approved site plans, and prior to the commencement of any land disturbance or construction, the Applicant shall submit to this Board, with a copy to the Board Engineer, proof that it has obtained all required governmental approvals. If another governmental entity or agency grants a waiver or variance affecting the plans and/or exhibits submitted by the Applicant, this approval or the conditions attached to it, then the Applicant shall re-apply to this Board respecting the same and this Board shall have the right to view that issue as it relates to this approval and these conditions and modify and amend same, if appropriate. In the event that any other required regulatory approval conflicts with the terms and conditions hereof, or materially alters the same, or the terms and conditions hereof are materially altered by any change in applicable law or regulation other than those municipal regulations for which change is prohibited by the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), or in the event Applicant or its successors or assigns construct or attempt to construct any improvement in conflict with or in violation of the terms of this approval, the Board hereby reserves the right to withdraw, amend or supplant the instant approval. All construction, use and development of the property shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein, all representations of the Applicant and its witnesses during the public hearing, all exhibits introduced by the Applicant, and all terms and conditions of this resolution. The Applicant shall pay all outstanding taxes, tax liens, application fees and technical review fees, as well as any inspection fees that may be required hereunder. The Applicant

of this resolution. The Applicant shall pay all outstanding taxes, tax liens, application fees and technical review fees, as well as any inspection fees that may be required hereunder. The Applicant shall pay any additional fees or escrow deposits which may be due and owing within thirty (30) days of notification or this approval shall be deemed withdrawn. All notes included in the approved plans, including notes required by this Resolution, shall be deemed conditions of approval having the same force and effect as conditions expressly set forth in this Resolution. Applicant to submit revised plans showing the location of the generator and proposed propane tank, the structure and location where the bubble will be stored in the off-season, the propane tank, the door opening to the bubble, any gates or

fences, how the pool area will be blocked off, the directional signs, the walkway and path lighting. 8. The generator shall only be tested mid-day and mid-week subject to the review and approval of the Building Inspector. 9} Propane delivery shall be during the same hours as currently for the Club. 10. The vegetative buffer between the bubble and residential homes shall be kept in place and maintained, and the Club shall improve this buffer with additional landscaping and trees so as to block the view of the bubble even during the winter months subject to the review and approval of the Board Planner. 11. Applicant shall re-grade the swale as shown on the plans. 12. — Applicant to comply with any recommendations set forth on review letters from the Board professionals. 13. Applicant shall conduct a noise study within 30 days after the bubble becomes operational and submit same to the Board to show that it complies with allowable noise levels. 14. The bubble shall be opaque and shall not emit a glow when the interior lights are on. 15. Any proposed tree removal shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board Engineer. 16. Fencing to be chain link or solid pvc and subject to the review and approval of the Board Planner. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Eben Cardoza: Yes Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Absent | Klein: Yes Keigher: Yes McCartney: Yes Trenk: Yes Wegner: __Yes Weston: Absent Wilkes: Absent Bagoff: Yes Chairman Bagoff announced a brief recess at approximately 9:40 P.M.; he reconvened the meeting at approximately 9:50 P.M. Chairman Bagoff announced Mr. Eben and Councilwoman McCartney had recused themselves from hearing the next Application. PB-17-04/GBSJ Properties LLC Block: 83; Lots: 5 & 23; Zone: B-2 303 Mt. Pleasant Avenue & 9 Marcella Avenue Preliminary and Final Amended Site Plan with “C” variances and Soil Removal Permit. EXHIBITS A-1: — Colorized version of the Site Plan (Sheet C-300) A-2: Color Rendering of Architectural Style of Proposed Building 10

A-3: Google Area Image of the subject property A-4: Architectural Elevation A-5: Google Earth aerial view of the property with evacuation route shown DISCUSSION Sal M. Anderton, Esq., Porzio Bromberg & Newman, P.C., approached the podium. He stated he was the attorney representing the Applicant and contract purchaser of the property, GBSJ Properties, LLC. He stated the application was for site plan approval to demolish a vacant house and the former Mt. Fuji restaurant for the construction of a Goddard Childcare center. He stated the site was L-shaped located on two lots that would be consolidated by deed; a number of bulk variances were being requested; and two waivers were requested. One waiver for off-site conditions 200 feet off the survey; they had not been included in the plan; and one waiver for landscape design prepared by a licensed landscape architect; the landscape plan had been prepared by the Applicant’s civil engineer. Referring to the Township Planner’s Report (4/28/17), he listed the variances required: Minimum Side Front Yard, Maximum Lot Coverage, Accessory Structure Location, Accessory Use Location, Yard Encroachments, Fence Location in Nonresidential District, Required Parking, and Maximum Monument Sign Width. Regarding the variance for Disturbance of Slopes of 25% or More, he stated he did not believe the intent of the Natural Feature Ordinance applied to a lot that was developed. It was a very small portion of the lot that was steep slope, it was not a natural feature, it was an existing site condition and was listed in the ordinance as an exception. Mr. Anderton called his first witness to the podium. He stated that in addition to being the Applicant’s expert in architecture, he would qualify also as an expert in childcare operations. Matthew Jarmel, AIA, Jarmel Kizel Architects & Engineers, Inc. was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert witness in architecture with a specialty in childcare center operations. Mr. Jarmel stated that childcare facilities were designed for children aged six weeks to five years, licensed by the NJ Department of Children and Families, and pre-approval from the Department of Environmental Protection after the issuance of local Certificate of Occupancy. The Applicant proposed to build a Goddard School, a franchise started in 1986. There were currently sixty-three

rtment of Environmental Protection after the issuance of local Certificate of Occupancy. The Applicant proposed to build a Goddard School, a franchise started in 1986. There were currently sixty-three operating in New Jersey. The building would be approximately 8,800 square feet; the hours of operation for the proposed facility would be 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Referring to Exhibit A-1, he described the site location. He stated the current Mt. Fuji building would be demolished. He stated the new building had been designed for a maximum enrollment of 136 children. He gave a brief description of a typical day including morning drop-off, building access including security system, and parking lot configuration. He described the interior floor plan including entrance vestibule, reception area and offices, and classrooms. Each classroom had two means of egress. The childcare center was an I-4 Building Code classification, which meant there were greater life safety requirements. The building would have a mandatory sprinkler system. The building had a much greater outdoor air requirement; a tremendous amount of outdoor air would be brought in. Other site improvements would include a 5,600 square feet outdoor playground to the rear of the building with a new walkway secured by a 6-ft. fence. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Jarmel stated the rendering was a typical of a Goddard School architectural design. 11