May 3, 2017

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.