October 3, 2018

space would be used for interior office space, including private offices and open office workspaces. Referring to Exhibit A-7, Mr. Kneis described the building as a linear building that abutted the existing Parking Lot “E”. The building was clad in a metal panel; there were punctured set-in windows that were non-operable; and a glass enclosed stairwell at the end of the existing building. Referring to Exhibit A-8, he described the structure as a brick clad building; he identified the space utilized by the Kessler Rehabilitation Institute. In response to question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Kneis identified the area of the existing generator; he stated it was located more than five feet from the proposed addition as required by code. Mr. Kneis conclude his testimony. The Board questioned Mr. Kneis. In response to question from Chairman Bagoff, Mr. Kneis confirmed he had read the memorandum from the Township Fire Official; he stated the building was compliant with the Fire Code. He stated the addition would not be sprinklered; he stated he had discussed the issue with the owner, Kessler Institute. Kessler Institute had indicated that long-term plans did include installation of sprinkler system; they would focus on patient areas before the new addition. He was not aware of timeline for the installation of the system. Mr. Kneis confirmed that with the exception of Item 4(c), Applicant would comply with all other recommendations of the memorandum from the Fire Chief dated 9/11/18. Chairman Bagoff stated a condition of approval to include all items from the 9/11/18 Fire Chief memorandum except Item 4(c); as well as a timeline from Kessler Institute for installation of sprinkler system for the building addition. In response to question from Mr. Wegner, there would be an addition of approximately 40 workstations; they were large spaces for a small number of staff members. He stated the existing roadway would be able to accommodate additional staff vehicles. In response to question from Chairman Bagoff, Mr. Kneis stated he did not have a rendering of proposed exterior building signage; he stated all signage would be compliant with ordinance. The Public Advocate and Public had no questions for Mr. Kneis. Mr. Williams recalled Mr. Petry to the podium to testify as planner for the Applicant. Chairman Bagoff stated Mr. Petry was still under oath. Mr. Petry stated the

blic had no questions for Mr. Kneis. Mr. Williams recalled Mr. Petry to the podium to testify as planner for the Applicant. Chairman Bagoff stated Mr. Petry was still under oath. Mr. Petry stated the Application required four bulk variances. The first was a minimum side yard setback on the northerly property line of 75 ft. He stated the stated should not apply; although the property was located in a residential zone, it was a non-residential use and it abutted a property that was also a non-residential use. The existing condition was a 58.5 feet setback; the proposed condition setback would be 44.2 feet. He stated the second variance was for the minimum number of loading spaces; standard required seven (7) spaces; there were currently two (2) spaces; the proposed new office, laboratory and storage addition did not require an additional space. The third variance was maximum lot coverage; 30% was required; existing impervious lot coverage was 36.02%; the proposal would increase it by 1.03% to 37.05%. The final variance was for maximum effective lot coverage after the steep slope area was also limited to 30%; there was currently 53.42%; the proposed would be 54.94%. Mr. Petry stated that when he looked at the positive criteria he opined that the medical research done at the facility was the driving force behind the work of the Kessler Foundation. He 9