September 14, 2011

PB-L1-17T/Hot Topic d/b/a Torrid Block: 155.21; Lot: 40; Zone: P-C 455 Prospect Avenue, Ste. 506B, Essex Green Shopping Center Technical Site Plan to lease space for retail clothing store, DISCUSSION Vice Chairman Heller told the Board that the application was for a women’s retail clothing store. The application was heard and approved at the July 18, 2011 Technical Review Sub-Committee meeting. Councilwoman McCartney and Vice Chairman Heller were present to review the application at the Tech Review meeting. The Board voted on the resolution as follows: Motion: Vice Chairman Heller Second: Councilwoman McCartney Carlucei Yes Eben Yes Ghebremicael Yes Gurland Yes Heller Yes Klein - Lester Yes McCartney Yes Wilkes Yes Weston - Bagoft - APPLICATIONS PB-11-16/Montelair Golf Club Block: 151; Lot(s): 1, 5,7, 11, 14, 15.01, 23, 34, 37, 41, 45.01, 49; Zone: R-2 25 Prospect Avenue Preliminary and final amended site plan with a variance for number of required parking spaces. EXHIBITS A-1— Block & Lot Area Map A-2,— Site Grade & Drainage Plan A-3 — Main Level & Renovation Plan A-4— Building Elevations West and North A-5 — Building Elevations South A-6— Aerial Photo A-7— Topographic Survey A-8 - Basement Level Renovation Plan A-9 — Copy of Architectural Plans by Hart Howerton last revised August 5, 2011 with signature block by Jim Tinson, RA added. DISCUSSION Robert Williams, Esq., introduced himself as the attorney for the applicant. He presented to the Board Exhibits A-L — A-7. Mr. Williams said that he would be introducing several witnesses to testify on behalf of the applicant. The first witness would be George Derrick, PE, Langan Engineering and Environmental Services. Mr. Williams told the Board that Mr, Derrick would be testifying in the capacity of a member of the Montclair Golf Club and the Chairman of the club’s steering committee. Mr. Derrick was sworn in, Mr, Derrick told the Board that he was a thirty-year member of the Montclair Golf Club. He gave a brief history of the properly and an overview of the application. He told the Board that the key fact was that the proposed construction addressed the changing necds of the club’s members and that all the proposed changes were to improve the functionality of the facility. He told the Board that the club was not expecting or experiencing an increase in membership; in actuality, membership

d that all the proposed changes were to improve the functionality of the facility. He told the Board that the club was not expecting or experiencing an increase in membership; in actuality, membership had remained stagnant due to the NAPLANNING. BRIAWP\MINUTES (201 19-14-11 Draft Minutes.doc/10/6/2011/9:16:18 AM. 2