April 4, 2012

would leave a portion of the existing chain-link fence and mix it with new fencing. Belony Guard, 9 Wilfred Street, Montclair, was sworn in. Mr. Guard identified himself as the current tenant of the property. Mr. Guard wanted to know when the new store would be built. Mr. De Vecchio said no date has yet been determined. Elizabeth Husarra, 14 Frances Road, Lincoln Park, was sworn in. Ms. Husarra identified herself as the leasing agent for the property located at 2 Central Avenue. Ms. Husarra said that she did not understand why this Application was allowed because the Applicant had no ties to the community and would negativity affect long-standing businesses in the area. Mr. Del Vecchio objected to Ms. Husarra commenting because she was not the property owner. Chairman Bagoff explained the Application procedure to Ms. Husarra. He said that the law allowed any Applicant to meet before the Planning Board; in this instance, the Applicant was the 7-Eleven Corporation. The Public had no further questions for Mr. Freud. Thomas Heigle, AIA, Harrison French & Associates, Lid., was sworn in, stated his credentials; and accepted to be an expert witness in the field of architectural design. Before Mr. Heigle presented his testimony, Mr. Eben stated the architect’s Title Block must be in accordance with the Statues and Regulations of the NJ Board of Architect law 13:27- 6.7, Chairman Bagoff said the final plans must have the correction. Mr. Del Vecchio said the error was duly noted and would be corrected. Mr. Heigle described the proposed building structure and materials, The exterior would be red buff brick, the actual color shade was truer in the color rendering on Exhibit A-8. Mr. Heigle said the design of the building was similar to look of the newer 7-Eleven stores. The design would have cornice crown molding painted beige; green fabric awnings with steel frame, beige sandstone base cements panels; continuous LED cove lighting at front and sides of building, and building signage would include harbinger sign above entrance and illuminated cabinet panel signs located above the right and lefi side of the entrance. Parapets would screen the mechanical units on the roof. The entrance door would not be power- operated; it was not an ADA requirement for this type of structure. Mr. Heigle concluded his testimony. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had any

the roof. The entrance door would not be power- operated; it was not an ADA requirement for this type of structure. Mr. Heigle concluded his testimony. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had any questions for Mr. Heigle. The Board and Mr. Heigle discussed the need for a canopy above fire exit door; whether gteen standards were considered in the design of the building; sustainability and heat island effect; what color was planned for the roof, Mr. Heller said the lighter the color, the better for the environment. Mr, Weston asked if the Applicant would consider a lighter roof color as a condition of approval. Mr. Del Vecchio said it would be considered if it would not be a significant cost factor. The Board and Mr. Heigle discussed clarification of the exterior materials to be used in construction of the building, and the height of the building. Director Lepore, Director Borg, the Public Advocate, and members of the Public had no questions for Mr. Heigle. NAPLANNING. BRDiWP\MINUTES|20124-4-2012 Revised Draft Minutes.doe a

Chairman Bagoff called for a brief recess at approximately 9:48 P.M. The meeting reconvened at approximately 9:56 P.M. Craig W. Peregoy, PE, Staigar & Peregoy, was sworn in, stated his credentials; and accepted to be an expert witness in the field of traffic impact analysis. Mr. Peregoy said he had prepared the traffic impact study for the Applicant. He described the traffic at Valley Road and Central Avenue. He discussed the peak commuter hours were between 7:00 A.M. — 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. — 6:00 P.M. Mr. Peregoy said the intersection of Valley and Central was classified to be level of service type “C”. The key thing to note was that most traffic in that area was “pass by” traffic. Daily commuters were already passing by the area. Mr. Peregoy said the proposed 7-Eleven would have minor traffic impact to the area; the current gas station on the site already had similar “pass by” traffic. Mr. Peregoy said the Applicant proposed two standard properly designed driveways, one on Valley Road and one on Central Avenue, an improvement over the current condition of the site. Mr. Peregoy said the new driveways would be located as far from the adjacent traffic signals as possible. The new driveway would provide two-way circulation access to the parking area by means of a minimum 24-foot wide isle. The parking spaces would be 9-feet wide by 20-feet deep, with fourteen spaces including one handicap accessible space. Mr. Peregoy said the proposed freestanding sign would be a better plan than a monument installation; he stated that a monument sign at the corner would not be seen by passer-bys. Mr. Peregoy concluded his testimony. Chairman Bagoff asked the Board if they had any questions for Mr. Peregoy. The Board asked Mr. Peregoy for details regarding the queuing of traffic along Central Avenue in front of the proposed driveway. Mr. Peregoy said the proposed driveway is farther back that the current one; typically the queues would not reach that far back to block the driveway. The Board and Mr. Peregoy discussed 24 feet back up space, and the location of the three parking spaces on the north side of the parking lot. Additionally, the Board, Director Lepore, Director Borg and Mr. Peregoy discussed traffic flow during peak hours, the number of proposed parking spaces, the height of the freestanding sign, and what would be the best and safest plan. The Board had no

Borg and Mr. Peregoy discussed traffic flow during peak hours, the number of proposed parking spaces, the height of the freestanding sign, and what would be the best and safest plan. The Board had no further questions for Mr. Peregoy. The Public Advocate had no questions for Mr. Peregoy. Chairman Bagoff asked members of the Public if they had questions for Mr. Peregoy. Mr. Jatarola asked if a no parking zone could be created on Valley Road between the two businesses. The Board advised that the Township Council was the governing body regarding parking. The Public had no further questions for Mr, Peregoy. Chairman Bagoff asked if the Board had any further questions for the witnesses. The Board and the Applicant discussed roofrunoff sheet flow; the landscaping maintenance and sprinkler system; track deliveries; and the freestanding sign. NAPLANNING. BRDUWVPUMINUTES)201214-4-2012 Revised Drage Mimures.doe 3

Mr, Del Vecchio requested the Board allow him to present his summation after final Public comment, Chairman Bagoff asked the members of the Public if they had any comments. Ms. Harsh Patel, 5 Rustic Court, Monroe Township, was sworn in. Ms. Patel identified herself as the tenant operating the Krauszer market at 2 Central Avenue. Ms. Patel said she was concerned that the 7-Eleven would hurt the area; a 24-hour business would create more crime. The 7-Eleven would hurt small business owners and the Board should consider hurting a business that has been operating in the community for thirteen years. Mr. Del Vecchio presented his summation to the Board. He said 516 Valley Road was an interesting location; it exists at a very busy intersection, currently use was a garage and filling station. 7-Eleven was looking to make a sizable investment in the community; the plan was an improvement over the current use. 7-Eleven market demographics indicate from a business model, that this was a good site. He gave a recap of the positive aspects of the Application. It was the intention of 7-Eleven to be a good neighbor, to work with the Board and the community and to be a good neighbor. Chairman Bagoff said the Board would discuss each issue before voting on the Application. The Board was polled on each requested variance: 1, The variances for impervious lot coverage was approved; 2. the variance for front yard parking was approved 3. the variance for free-standing sign was denied; The Board was polled; and approved the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall raise the ground level of the landscaping being installed near the street intersection at the southwest corner of the property subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director; 2. the perimeter fence shown on the plans shall be wooden board on board and its final design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director; 3. the existing chain link fence along the northern boundary of the property from its westernmost point to the nearest corner of the proposed building shall remain and shall not be replaced with new fencing; 4. the northernmost parking stall on the Valley Road side of the premises and the easternmost parking stall on the Central Avenue side of the property shall be for employee use and shall be marked with cross-hatched striping to indicate same all subject to the

the premises and the easternmost parking stall on the Central Avenue side of the property shall be for employee use and shall be marked with cross-hatched striping to indicate same all subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director; 5. Applicant shall provide the Planning Director with a LEED scorecard indicating the extent to which Applicant has employed “green” and sustainable development techniques in developing the site; 6. Applicant to correct the title block on its architectural plans to comply with New Jersey requirements; 7. Applicant to use lighter shaded building materials in the roof of the building; 8. the freestanding sign shall be no larger than 30 sq. ft. in size and shall be located at a height to be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director; and NA PLANNING. BRDUFP\MINUTES\20 1244-42012 Revised Druft Misutes.doe »

Applicant may install two 3 sq. ft. ground signs at the driveway entrances in size and location to be subject to the approval of the Planning Director; 9. Applicant to install a canopy over the second doorway / fire exit into the proposed building that shall be similar in size, shape and material as the one indicated in the plans over the other doorway. Additionally, the request for soil removal permit was approved. Mr. Dwyer recommended the Board vote on the Application as presented. The Applicant agreed to pre-submit the revised plans to the Technical Review Committee meeting on April 19, 2012. ‘The Board had no further questions or comments. Chairman Bagoff called for a vote on the Application. The Board voted on the Application as follows: Motion: Chairman Bagoff Second: Mr. Ghebremicael Carlucci: Yes Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes Gurland: Yes Heller: Yes Klein: - Lester: Yes McCartney: Yes Weston: Yes Wilkes: - Bagoff: Yes MEETING ADJOURNED at approximately 11:26 P.M. © 7 Minutes adopted May 2, 2012 Robin Miller, Planning Board Secretary **THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE JUNE 6, 2012 AT 8:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ** NAPLANNING.BRDUVPLMINUTES(2012\4-4-2012 Revised Draft Minutes.doc