May 20, 2021 Regular Meeting

— Mr. Tuvel explained that after the 3/29 Meeting, the main issue of comment discussed was the disturbance of the slope. The applicant reduced the building size once again. The reduction moved the building further away from the cliff by nearly sixteen feet, thereby reducing the disturbance to the steep slope. This also reduced building coverage by 14%. Another thing done was a large change to the architectural plan but added an additional feature of shutters to the building to break up the facade and make it look more residential in nature. - Mr. Jeffrey Martell was sworn under oath and presented his credentials as an in the field of civil engineering; Mr. Martell is a licensed professional engineer in the State of New Jersey and he was accepted as an expert. The witness showed the core changes made to the Site Plan based on the reduction in the size of the building, how it affects the rear set back as well as the buffer to the rear (referring to Exhibit A-26 dated May 7th 2021). Generally speaking, the applicant has pulled the building back to reduce the depth of the building. The steep slope to the rear of the property begins about two-thirds of the back and the construction disturbance in the slope is significantly reduced. The witness referenced an updated version of what was marked for identification as Exhibit A-27). Full elevations and floor plans show the shutters that were introduced, the planter areas, etc, A Site Plan rendering dated May 7, 2021 was marked for identification as Exhibit A-28. Based on these revisions, more than double the Slope stabilization will be implemented. A cross section comparison exhibit dated May 7, 2021 was marked for identification as Exhibit A-29. The site plan rendering, elevations and floor plans are based on all these latest changes on the architectural plans. The application meets or exceeds all the residential setback and buffer requirements and the latest change caused the reduction in building coverage and lot coverage by approximately 14%. Board Questions: - Mr, Eben asked why landscaping isn’t being filled in? Last time it was relatively close to the rear of the building. There could be additional landscaping added into that void created by the reduction of the size of the building. Mr. Martell responded that they obviously wanted to keep the landscaping output on the higher side of the Hill so it would be

added into that void created by the reduction of the size of the building. Mr. Martell responded that they obviously wanted to keep the landscaping output on the higher side of the Hill so it would be effective as a buffer for the neighboring properties. - Mr. Eben asked about the percentages that were violating steep slope requirements and how much of the slope has been in violation. Mr. Martell explained that the steep slope calculations are on Sheet T-17 in the Site Plan set. The calculations are all there. - Mr. Peter Ricci, asked if by moving the building and cutting off several feet is it more than one story and is actually below grade. -Mr. Eben stated his interpretation of the calculation of the lot coverage due to the steep slope application. He then quoted the steep slope and natural features ordnance. Section 25-28 of the Land Use Regulation Ordinance or zoning ordinance of the Township code stating that applicant cannot cover this much of the lot. PUBLIC QUESTIONS