FREEHOLD BOROUGH PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2018

MONTHLY MEETING The monthly meeting of the Freehold Borough Planning Board was held on Wednesday, October 24th at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Room of the Municipal Building. Chairman Reich stated that this meeting was provided in accordance with the Open Public Meeting Act, by providing a copy of the agenda to the official newspaper and posting same on the official bulletin board of the Municipal Building. Mr. Reich called for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT MR. WILLIAM BARRICELLI PRESENT MR. CORNELIUS BEGLEY PRESENT MS. JAMIE BENNETT ABSENT MR. PAUL CEPPI ABSENT MS. MICHELE GIBSON PRESENT MR. GARRY JACKSON ABSENT MS. ANNETTE JORDAN PRESENT COUNCILMAN GEORGE SCHNURR PRESENT MR. ADAM REICH Mr. Reich – read Item No. 3 on the Agenda as follows: Approval of Minutes from the Planning Board Meeting of October 10, 2018. Mr. Reich – any questions or comments: Mr. Jackson made a motion to approve the minutes, Mr. Barricelli seconded. ROLL CALL Yes 5 Barricelli, Bennett, Jackson, Councilman Schnurr & Reich No 0 Abstain 1 Begley Disqualified 0 Absent 3 Ceppi, Gibson & Jordan

2

Mr. Reich read Item No. 6 on the Agenda as follows: Memorialize Resolution for Norkus Enterprises Inc. - Sign Application Number: PB-UV-2018-014 Location: 597 Park Avenue – Block 108 Lot 8 / Zone B-2b Request: Use Variance Relief / Interpretation relating to signage Mr. Reich – any questions or comments: Mr. Barricelli made a motion to approve the resolution, Mr. Jackson seconded. ROLL CALL Yes 5 Barricelli, Bennett, Jackson, Councilman Schnurr & Reich No 0 Abstain 1 Begley Disqualified 0 Absent 3 Ceppi, Gibson & Jordan Mr. Reich read Item No. 4 on the Agenda as follows: Proposed Ordinance #2018/12 Amending and Supplementing Chapter 18.07 (Freehold Center Core Redevelopment Plan) and the Visioning and Revitalization Plan for the Freehold Center Core Plan Area Ron Cucchiaro – This deals exclusively deals with parking requirements in the Core Redevelopment Zone area as they relate to houses of worship; providing them with a grandfathering provision for the existing parking they have if they are going to move forward and expand or improve their area. It provides them a more generous parking standard than other uses in that zone. That will be what the applicant tonight will be relying upon as well; so the responsibility of the Board tonight, is if this is substantially consistent with the Municipal Master Plan or not. Councilman Schnurr – St. Peter’s successfully opined that the parking demands for houses of worship generally do not conflict with the parking demands with business, retail, office and other commercial type businesses in the Downtown zone and the Council agreed. Mr. Reich – does anyone from the Board have any questions or comments on the document before us; Councilman Schnurr – this would also be on a case by case – we looked at St. Peter’s and the parking demands of the Downtown businesses and have concluded that we don’t think there will be a conflict; that is why the Council decided to go ahead; Mr. Reich – it makes since, St. Peter’s is an interesting situation, they are land locked and I know the application being heard later has a provision for a few extra parking spaces and that’s it; there are other houses of worship in town, not necessarily in this zone that have larger pieces of land with parking lots and they can accommodate more; but it makes sense to allow this house of worship to expand upon their buildings and parking

3

requirement without having to demand upon them to find additional parking for a site that doesn’t allow for it; Ron Cucchiaro – it you make a positive motion – it would be to a find that the proposed ordinance is substantially consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Begley made a motion to approve the proposed ordinance, Mr. Barricelli seconded. ROLL CALL Yes 6 Barricelli, Begley, Bennett, Jackson, Councilman Schnurr & Reich No 0 Abstain 0 Disqualified 0 Absent 3 Ceppi, Gibson & Jordan Mr. Reich – Mr. Cucchiaro what are the next steps so we all know; Mr. Cucchiaro – it goes back to the Governing Body for a public hearing; Mr. Reich read Item No. 5 on the Agenda as follows: Application Number: PB-SP-2018-012 Applicant: St. Peter’s Episcopal Church Location: 33 Throckmorton Street Block 36 Lots 28, 29 & 30 - Zone: B-2 Request: Preliminary & Final Site Plan with Variance Relief Good evening gentlemen; Steve Gouin, Esq. – Good evening; Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla representing St. Peter’s Church, sitting next to me is Reverend Dirk Reinken of St Peter’s Church who will do a much better job of explaining what the church does and what the project is, than I can; we have presented this project to the Historic Preservation Commission on two occasions and also the Borough Council in the context of a redevelopment plan review, as the project is in the Freehold Center Core Redevelopment Plan Area; it has been vetted by those 2 advisory Boards; HPC primarily with respect to the architectural we are proposing, elevations; and Borough Council with respect to the parking; the Board has the benefit of those two reviews in front of it; now we present the site plan from an engineering perspective, the architecture we have our project architect here, Father Reinken and our planner to provide planning testimony; I would like to introduce Father Reinken; Mr. Reich – would you like to swear in all the professionals now; Mr. Gouin – Pat Darrow, Architect, Nick Graviano, Planner and Franz Laki, Engineering each sworn in by Ron Cucchiaro; Mr. Reich – as they appear each professional can provide their credentials; do you want to go through the exhibits;

4

Mr. Laki – exhibit A-1 Color Rendering Proposed Site Plan Mr. Cucchiaro – lets mark the exhibits as we get to them; Mr. Gouin – ok, well A-1 is what Father Reinken needs for his testimony; Mr. Cucchiaro – please state your name and address for the record; Rev. Dirk Reinken – As a congregation St. Peter’s goes back to 1702, in our current location 1737 we received the property, started to build the church in 1772 and finished in 1792, a little bit of conflict in between that we had to settle first; we have been a continuous Episcopal congregation in the area through this time; we are unique in the Diocese because we are not close to other Episcopal Churches; we are the only Episcopal Church between the Turnpike, Parkway, 1-95 and Route 18, so we draw from a fairly large area; the building in question is the youngest building on the property – dates to the 1920s’, the Parish House; The first floor steps down a little below ground, has meeting rooms, 2nd floor has kitchen and Parish Hall; it is the kitchen and Parish Hall where we do most of our gathering space; for the last 20 years we have been trying to replace this building because it is in use every day of the week; at any given time up to 100 people in the building for church functions, out reach purposes, community gatherings, soup kitchen serving meals 3 days a week, supper program serves 2 Friday nights a month, 4 days a week we have an afterschool program for 3rd, 4th and 5th graders of the Borough Schools, often assisted by the National Honor Society high school students; we also share with other churches in the area emergency housing program in the winter months to provide in take service for 12 homeless men who are then provided a place to sleep each night and we participate in that program; we are a host site for various community gatherings, Monmouth County for Coalition meets there twice a week, we were also privileged to host Freehold Borough Representatives for the transit plan discussions over the summer; in addition to our own parishioner use, religious education and fellowship gatherings; The problem we have with the building is it is out dated; it is to small for our purposes and the largest room on the second floor, our entire parish can’t gather at one time for fellowship meals or other events; the kitchen needs more space, we don’t have any storage space for any of the ministries we do; class rooms have been taken over to become storage space; and it is not handicap accessible, there is no level of that building that is on ground level; and of the five levels of that building none of it is shares an access point with another part, so there is no way an elevator could reach the entire building; So our goal is to replace that building with a new building elsewhere on the property that would be adequate to our needs; the first floor would be meeting rooms used for religious education for our tutoring programs and other things; we are developing relationships with non-profits in the Freehold Borough area that are looking for meeting space for their meeting groups; we have a relationship with the Freehold Borough Arts Council through our Downtown Concert Series, we want to use the new building to strengthen the relationship with the arts community and to be able to host receptions after the concerts which we currently can’t do because they are not handicap accessible;

5

Many of the clientele we serve in our outreach program are elderly and have trouble climbing the stairs; our own parishioners can’t climb the stairs in many cases; we just had a funeral for a very prominent parishioner a couple of weeks ago and whose husband could not go up to the fellowship house so they had to have it off site; which meant our Parish had trouble gathering together for that; we have also had to use the Parish Hall for overflow space in the church for prominent funerals; It is out dated; it does not meet our needs anymore; the cost of refurbishing it would be similarly to the cost of a new building, while at the same time reducing our square footage; and not going us full handicap access to all the levels we would need; we are a growing congregation and we need the space for our needs; Mr. Gouin – that is a good summary of why we are here; We did get an engineering letter from Mr. Wentzien, dated October 19, 2018; there are couple of questions dealing with operational issues, we’ll get to later in the testimony ; of all the recommendations in the Mr. Wentzien’s review letter we can comply with all those, in terms of plan revisions and working on things like stormwater management to his satisfaction; unless there are more questions for Rev. Reinken I will call up our engineer; Mr. Reich – anything from our Board; we will save public questions for the end; Mr. Cucchiaro – please state your name for the record. Franz Laki – eight plus years in site civil design, work for SESI Consulting Engineers, I have been in front of several Boards in both New York and New Jersey to provide similar testimony; Mr. Gouin – I stated we will comply with all the recommendations in the engineers review letter; Mr. Cucchiaro – Mr. Gouin before we start, at the beginning of the engineering report there is a question raised; the application identified 3 lots, the improvements seem to be on a single lot, please confirm what the subject lots of this application; Mr. Gouin – good place to start – Franz please address; Mr. Laki – the 3 lots listed on the application are lots 28, 29 and 30; they are all owned by St. Peter’s Episcopal Church; the main improvements are on lot 28, there are some improvements on lot 29 and a small sliver of the parking lot which abuts an adjacent building; Mr. Cucchiaro – when I read the engineering report, all improvements were on a single lot; Mr. Wentzien – all the presentation and zoning criteria is, only relates to lot 28, lot area, lot coverage, set backs – is only lot 28; I only reviewed lot 28; Mr. Cucchiaro – you are saying there are improvements on lot 29 as well;

6

Mr. Laki – lot 28 on this site is this larger portion here, lot 29 the only portion were any work will be done is this small strip paving right along here , where the property line is off skew from the building; Mr. Wentzien – so the property line doesn’t actually follow the wall, it is actually in just a hair by technicality, a piece on the black top, a sliver is on lot 29; Mr. Laki – at the front of Throckmorton it looks more or less at the building but it goes off a skew not parallel to the building; Mr. Wentzien – the issue I have is I only review as lot 28 from an engineering point of view because that is how the information was presented in the bulk zone chart; Mr. Reich – where is lot 30; Mr. Laki – lot 30 is on this side; this is just a poster of a site plan you already have; Mr. Gouin – do you want to mark this – this is the exact site plan you already have, no changes; Mr. Cucchiaro – let me run through the exhibits – you already marked A-1 A-1 – Coloring Rendering of Proposed Site Plan A-2 – Planning Board Application Form A-3 - Zoning Denial A-4 – Correspondence from Giordano et al dated 6-22-2018 A-5 – Correspondence from Giordano et al dated 6-22-2018 A-6 - Site Plan Application dated 6-22-2018 A-7 – Plans prepared by SESI Consulting Engineers consisting of 10 sheets dated 6-12-2018 A-8 – Architectural plans dated 8-4-2017 A-9 – Stormwater report dated 6-12-2018 Mr. Cucchiaro – so the exhibit you refer to has already been marked as A-7; Mr. Reich – so 95% is on lot 28, it is that sliver of overhang on lot 29; Councilman Schnurr – when you get to our parking lot, how many feet are we talking roughly; Mr. Laki – we are looking at 8 feet roughly; Mr. Reich – so it goes from 0 to 8 feet; Mr. Laki – about 1 to 8 feet; Mr. Reich – Mr. Wentzien does this affect your review; Mr. Wentzien – yes, the chart presented on S-1 against the zone and all the criteria that goes with it, only covers lot 28;

7

Mr. Cucchiaro – if I can make a recommendation Mr. Chair, lets get started with the lot that is subject of Mr. Wentzien report and see how far we can go; Mr. Laki – the existing site, the Parish Hall which is what we are looking to demolish; there is also an existing church and rectory building; the proposed parish hall will be located directly behind the existing rectory building in what is now a grass lawn space; The existing parish hall that we plan to remove will be replaced with a memorial garden with benches and planters; utilizing some of the existing walls as seating wall and a buffer wall between the property and the memorial and the adjacent ally way that has dumpsters located on it; The new building is approximately 4170 sq ft is the foot print; Rev. Reinken spoke of earlier; the main purpose of this building is to update the building to give a little bit more space, they don’t plan on adding any more services, they are not expecting more people, not expecting more truck deliveries; taking what they have from the existing building to putting in a new building to allow them to spread out and provide more storage and allow parishioners to get up and down because they will have an elevator, larger kitchen and a lot of that makes up for the extra square footage – bring up to code; In addition to parish hall we are updating the parking lot; it is gravel now and we propose to pave with asphalt and strip out 4 spaces including 1 handicap space; which the layout will change slightly based on recommendations from the engineers letter; there is a better layout for the ADA compliance that we are working on and will with the engineer on that to his satisfaction; We propose a dumpster enclosure in the rear of the lot in order to house at least one dumpster and it will house all the garbage from the church, parish hall and rectory; it will be screened and put up an opaque fence and gated; also the parking lot has a fence all along the rear of the property; we propose to remove that chain link fence and replace with a ornamental 5ft tall picket metal fence that will match what is in front and the sides and rest of the property; As part of that work, we propose to remove the portion of the fence at the drive isle to allow the parishioners to a park in here and the emergency vehicles can access from Throckmorton down into the rear parking, Borough Parking lot; This provides substantially better maneuverability especially for emergency vehicles; before coming this way they had no way to get out, they had to back out of the back lot, so they can come through this driveway and straight through the back and not issues with turning; The trash enclosure has enough room for the trash and also recycling; pick up times can be coordinated; the way it is laid out on the angle, it provides easy access for the garbage truck to pull up, pick up the dumpster unload, set back down, and continue down the driveway and drive out; We are proposing angle parking in order to, the width is approximately 30 feet and the angle allows us to have a 12 foot drive isle along with four parking spaces which meets the New Jersey resident’s improvement; Mr. Cucchiaro – why would you have to meet RSIS for a house of worship;

8

Mr. Laki – we don’t have to meet the RSIS for a house of worship but it’s a common practice – it’s a good guideline; Mr. Cucchiaro – essentially the ordinance that has been proposed by the Governing Body addresses your parking situation and would be complying; and if there is an approval, any condition would be contingent on the adoption of this ordinance and if it is not adopted there would have to be another trip back here to seek relief; Mr. Gouin – correct; Mr. Laki – in addition to the parking waiver, we are providing additional parking; In terms of stormwater and reducing our run off and the effect on neighboring properties, since we are turning a grass lot into an impervious with a roof we are proposing a detention system underneath the proposed parking lot and that is a series of pipes that will hold all the stormwater and release it slowly into a municipal system; there is a man hole in the back parking lot; we are not increasing demand on that system, we are not increasing run off on neighboring properties, front, side any where; we are actually improving the lot; the run off from the parking lot will be directed into the inlet in the rear and will be cleaned using treatment devise and will be detained as well as the roof leaders from the new building will all be run into the detention system as well; We are providing ADA access from the parking lot, all the way around the building to get in front of the building; all the pathways, pavement will be brick pavers to match what is out there; trying to keep the look consistent with as it is now; Landscaping is kept to smaller bushes directly around the building, for security purposes; add a couple of shade trees to the landscape isle in the front and more of an evergreen bearer around the rear of the building where we will have a generator pad and HVAC equipment; keeping screen from the Borough parking lot and neighbors; we also propose lighting improvements to light the pathways, parking lot and proposed parish hall; that plan was not originally submitted with the application and will submit an additional lighting plan; all light fixtures will correspond with existing fixtures to the best of our ability and meet all ordinance requirements; Mr. Cucchiaro – you are asking for preliminary and final – neither the Board or the public will ever see; it has to be at least subject to review and approval by the Board engineer to ensure ordinance requirements are in fact complied with, unless the Board wants to see it; unless there is relief necessary, then that is not something the engineer can grant, if you’re looking for relief you would have to come back for Board review and approval; Mr. Gouin – we are okay with that and we made some stipulations before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) about what the lights would look like, so we would comply with those recommendations as well; essentially to match what is existing at the facility, there are some specialized lights there now and we are going to do our best to match; certainly we will meet ordinance requirements subject to Mr. Wentzien review and approval; Mr. Laki – that is it - there are no proposed signs other than some traffic control signs; stop signs, ADA signs – no new large signs for the church are being proposed;

9

Mr. Gouin – before we wrap up, there where two (2) waivers requested from a design stand point; 1 is the location of the trash enclosure being 2 feet from the property line; please address and explain why it is warranted here; Mr. Laki – the trash enclosure is at the rear of the property and the corner is closer than 2 feet to the rear property line; we are trying to get the maximum trash enclosure while still providing parking on site; it will be screened and follow the Borough ordinance; Mr. Cucchiaro – what adjoins it; Mr. Laki – the Borough parking lot; Mr. Cucchiaro – is there screening so it is less visible; Mr. Laki – aluminum fence; Mr. Cucchiaro – can you see it from the Borough parking lot; Mr. Laki – with the fence you can’t see it from anywhere; Ms. Bennett – but it is on a driveway by a parking lot so you will see the enclosure; Mr. Laki – yes, you will see the enclosure, it is an opaque color fence – you won’t see the dumpster or trash; Ms. Bennett – what do you mean opaque; Mr. Laki – it is a board on board fence, the material hasn’t been decided; Ms. Bennett – I don’t want to see a chain link with vinyl slats running through; if the point in the rear is to have the nice matching fence matching the front, I would hate to look through and see a chain link fence; Mr. Laki – understood – that is not the plan; Councilman Schnurr – we could specify; Ms. Bennett – we should; Mr. Cucchiaro – before we move on, is there something specific the Board would like to see; Mr. Reich – something that will compliant the rear and front fence, maybe the fiberglass composite board system or similar; Mr. Laki – when I said vinyl, I did not mean chain link with vinyl slats; something like the white vinyl you see popping up all around; Mr. Barricelli – how will the trash be picked up; Mr. Laki – there is a gate in the fence, the garbage truck will pull up, pick up and dump; or if using cans, they can pull up, dump the cans and close back up;

10

Mr. Barricelli – cars will be exiting next to the dumpster to go to the parking lot; Mr. Laki – correct; Mr. Barricelli – I don’t think a wooden fence will make it; I would think you would need block or brick due to the traffic; Mr. Jackson – are you afraid of vehicle impact; Mr. Laki – we could provide bollards on the corner for impact; Mr. Reich – so you put bollards on the corner of the parking enclosure, what does that do to the isle width; Mr. Laki – it wouldn’t reduce, we would put on either corner so no matter where the car comes it would hit the bollard instead or avoid the bollard; Ms. Bennett – is this signed for one direction; the way it is configured now we don’t have people cutting through but now it is going to be open; Mr. Laki – it will be open, so for traffic control we can put no through signs; Mr. Reich – so it will be passive controlled; Ms. Bennett – we have a lot of pedestrian traffic on both sides of that with people cutting through from Broad Street to Main Street; Mr. Laki – based on configuration, it is a relatively narrow isle and with the landscaping on one corner, aluminum fence and curbs on both sides I don’t think this will be a cut through; Mr. Reich – that is going to be a Thursday, Friday and Saturday night cut through with people looking for restaurant parking; Councilman Schnurr – if you have someone walking behind there, a car could be coming out; Ms. Bennett – no other traffic now is coming from that direction so no one can get hit, so it is a new way; Mr. Reich – as side from the garbage pick up, are the four spaces for the parking lot and the potential cut through for parking only going to be active when there is an event going on at the church, will there be someone from the church on the property; Rev. Reinken – the parking lot is primarily used by staff and occasionally parishioners if they come there if they need an evening meeting; only a handful of people will be using the lot to begin with; I tend to be the only one that shows up at odd hours; Mr. Jackson – if your having a service most of your parishioners wouldn’t drive through there they would park in the rear;

11

Rev. Reinken – correct – at the 8:00am service, they are parking on Throckmorton Street, in front of the Keith building and the 10am service they usually park in the Broad Street lot; Mr. Jackson – you have any intention of closing that gate at night; Rev. Reinken – my only concern would be a gating system that would be affordable and easy to manipulate for the people using the lot so we are not getting out in the middle of the night or a rain storm and having to manually open and close; Mr. Reich – there is a concern, if we were to put an active gating system on the Throckmorton side street, someone turning would have to stop traffic; if there any time of gating system it would make sense to do it at the exit on the parking lot side; it would potentially prevent cut through during anytime when the church is not being used and it also provides a speed deterrent to make some stop at that exit before they go into the parking lot; as Ms. Bennett said, pedestrians travel from all along the parking lot down the walk isle and with a new entrance that both vehicle and pedestrians are new too; not necessarily a gating system but something that can be implemented that requires…… Councilman Schnurr – is it your testimony that just the staff will be using; Rev. Reinken – primarily the staff; Councilman Schnurr – if on the parking lot side you have a ‘Do Not Enter’ and on the other side vehicles only – then it is really not a cut through per say, it is for them; Mr. Reich –I think those are great but we both know it will be come a cut through and an enforcement issue; Ms. Bennett – it will be a deterrent to some but we all live next to those pass throughs all over town, that people are speeding through all the time; Mr. Reich – just like Chase Bank, but people use it to cut through from Main to Broad; Rev. Reinken – we would be open to looking into a gate and installing, whatever makes sense for the safety of the Borough and the property; Ms. Bennett – I don’t mean to push for a gate, I walk that stretch all the time with my kids and pulling them out of the way when making that turn; but are there other speed management things that could be implemented so people are slowing down before they get to that sign; Mr. Laki – there are speed humps and that sort of thing that we could implement; also for traffic calming are pavers in the road so people realize there is a potential for pedestrians; Ms. Bennett – what about the lighting at that intersection so drivers can see pedestrians coming down that dark corner;

12

Mr. Laki – our lighting will be sufficient so that you see the pedestrians as they are approaching the corner; we don’t want the light to spill over to much into the neighboring properties; Ms. Bennett – isn’t that the church building too; you could light from that other church building so there is a lit cross walk or walk way the area that will appear to be walking; Mr. Laki – we could put a motion detector light or something like that; so when a pedestrian is crossing it will light up; Mr. Cucchiaro – from a resolution stand point, the last several things we discussed your open to it, you’ll look at it, we haven’t required anything; so what is it the Board would like to see on those issues; Councilman Schnurr – I’m not a big fan of the gate, I understand some Board members think it will help, I would be more interested in a traffic calming device; Mr. Reich – the gate makes sense from cut through standpoint but creates a hindrance for the use, you’re not gating off the site; above all our concern is the safety of the vehicles using the site and the pedestrians crossing the site; as side from a traffic calming device, a stop there but a as a blind intersection, dumpster on one side, new building on the other side with green scaping, it will create a blind intersection – maybe we can create a sensor like in parking garages, so that when a vehicle gets close there is a beeping sound or strobe to let a pedestrian know a car is coming out; it will create a visual warning that this is an active intersection; something to get the vehicle to stop, even if a bump that will make them stop; Mr. Laki – keep in mind this is not a large distance to really accelerate with to much speed; Mr. Reich – in response to your questions regarding the resolution, we should put in the language of traffic calming devise with a visual; Ms. Bennett – I don’t like that, it kills the historic of the building; I think it just needs to be really well lit and the cars have to see coming down and that people might be there; it needs to look like a cross walk at the end so people will slow down; Mr. Laki – we can provide, a stop sign, stripping – wide stop bar that pedestrians can see and on the fence we can put a sign showing ‘ Caution Active Driveway’; Ms. Bennett – I’m fine with that – also doesn’t our redevelopment plans provide criteria for lighting; Mr. Reich – there is lighting style requirements for HPC; Mr. Wentzien – it goes into the style and appearance; illumination is left to the technical parts of the code; Mr. Reich – as they presented before the HPC, the approval they gave was to match the existing style; but it is basically the style that is set forth by the HPC requirements;

13

Ms. Bennett – that is what I was going to ask, is it what is existing on site or what is required in the plan or both, are they the same; Mr. Gouin – I think those are generally the same, what is on the site now are historic looking and the plan requires us to be consistent with that; and that is what we are proposing; Mr. Reich – Mr. Cucchiaro said it potentially has to come back to us but it definitely has to be reviewed by Mr. Wentzien; Mr. Cucchiaro – that is the condition I said, but also predicated upon weather the Board was comfortable with that; if the Board wishes to see the lighting certainly you have that right if you want to see; Mr. Reich – so style would be for the HPC, so the lighting plan; Ms. Bennett – it is part of the redevelopment plan, this is an owner not an outside redevelopment so it could be a condition; Mr. Cucchiaro – they have stipulated they will comply, they are not seeking relief – but the threshold issue to understand that you raised and I don’t think ahs been answered to my satisfaction; are we talking about the same thing; is compliance with the ordinance requirement the same as compliance with the recommendation of the HPC; or is compliance with the HPC require relief from the lighting requirements; Mr. Reich – the requirements of the HPC are the style of lighting waivers would be over property spillage, levels and other things; Ms. Bennett – except the redevelopment plan speaks to the style as well; Mr. Gouin – I think the answer to your question is no, Ron; the complying with the recommendations from the HPC should not trigger relief form the redevelopment plan; so as long as we comply with the redevelopment plan and the HPC guidelines; Mr. Cucchiaro – to be clear, if Mr. Wentzien finds, predicated that the Board is comfortable with that, and Bill finds that is not the case with what he is seeing you will have a return trip here; Mr. Gouin – agreed Ms. Bennett – remind me what the existing lights look like on that on the property; Rev. Reinken – there are 2 carriage style lanterns in front of the church; as you walk to the Broad Street parking lot there is a third, slightly different lamp; the 2 in front of the church were handmade, unable to duplicate; our plan is to compliment and comply; Ms. Bennett – you can replicate that light on a pole in the rear to light up the driveway; Mr. Cucchiaro – the Board can do whatever it wants to but I need to speak on behalf of Bill, things like that are subjective, that is not Bill taking a look at an ordinance and

14

saying you comply or not; you’re asking for Bills opinion as to whether it is close enough; Mr. Gouin – we have a second waiver; There is a requirement in the Redevelopment Plan, in letter from Mr. Wentzien on page 8, build to line requirement; the proposed building construction shall be no greater than 20 feet nor less than 10 feet from the face of the curb; we need relief from that, I think this is for buildings downtown right on Main Street; Mr. Wentzien – it relates to any new building construction; this is the first time we are getting any new large building being built in the Redevelopment Zone; Mr. Gouin – the building is set back more than 20 feet and we need that waived; Councilman Schnurr – we did that for the 7-11; Mr. Gouin – any questions for Mr. Laki; Mr. Reich – Mr. Wentzien should run through his report; Mr. Cucchiaro – there are variances as well, do you want to go over those now; Mr. Gouin – no we will go over with the planner; Mr. Wentzien – page 5 & 6 we did not have the final resolution from the Governing Body for the change needed to the Core Zone because of the timing, I did my normal parking calculation review pending that, so that will just wait; Mr. Cucchiaro – the parking has been established but not the loading; Mr. Wentzien – page 6, variance needed for building over 5,000 square feet, could have some deliveries should have a loading zone; Mr. Gouin – we will need a variance, Mr. Graviano can give details as to why but Rev. Reinken can explain; Rev. Reinken – we receive no deliveries other than the mail and our parishioners bring things needed in their cars; those are the only deliveries; Mr. Cucchiaro – what about the soup kitchen; Rev. Reinken – he brings his stuff on his own and parks to the right of the parish house and takes his good upstairs then moves his car around and puts in the lot; Mr. Jackson – other than the soup kitchen you don’t plan on having dinners or events; Rev. Reinken – if we did they would park in a parking spot and off load; we don’t have huge deliveries; Mr. Laki – something like that would come in a small catering van and could park in one of these spots on this driveway and off load;

15

Mr. Cucchiaro – then we should define what maximum size truck can be accommodated; Mr. Laki – a box truck can run through and deliver items, such as UPS size and move on; Councilman Schnurr – so box truck or less, not an 18 wheeler; Mr. Wentzien – a 12 foot isle a box truck will be the largest; Mr. Wentzien – staying on page 6, #9 noted incase we had to go through the parking; fencing and gates, where the new sidewalk is going behind the building, there is an existing pedestrian gate and will be utilized more now – it is going to stay; Traffic control signage, no other proposed signage for the use; Mr. Reich – there was a recommendations from the HPC to put a sign mounted on the fence to announce it is St. Peter’s; Mr. Gouin – we are not looking for approval for signage; we discussed at HPC about perhaps adding but we are not; Mr. Wentzien – balance of page 6, variances related – in the code book, churches are considered conditional use in any zone; Exterior of the building will come from the architect; any brick work we suggest you use the Freehold Borough detail brick to keep consistent with the town; Page 8, #8 improvement beyond lot 28, the plans indicate behind the new building is a 2 foot sidewalk and curb; plans say they are removing and putting a 3foot wide sidewalk and new curbing, all of the work is on the Borough parking lot property; Mr. Cucchiaro – everything in #8 is not happening on this property; Mr. Laki – that is correct; that is an improvement to the Borough Property; Mr. Cucchiaro – that is an issue between the applicant and the Borough; we are not approving anything on a piece of property that is not the applicants; Mr. Laki – we can remove that; Mr. Cucchiaro – you don’t have to do that either; I am saying we are not approving anything that is not on the applicants property; that is strictly between the applicant and the Borough; Bill on page 7, #6 it is noted that adjacent lot 29, same owner contains several trash containers behind the existing building, is that an issue; Mr. Wentzien – no, I just made a note of reference, there is no trash enclosure; Mr. Wentzien – page 8 items 9, 10, 11 and 12 – you’ll comply with; item 13, please describe the wall in the garden;

16

Mr. Laki – the existing Parish Hall, we are demolishing the whole top of it and the remaining foundation wall, on this side we are proposing to cut down to roughly 18 inches above grade and put a stone seating cap on it so people can sit there to reflect and pray; on the other side we are proposing to keep the wall about 5 feet tall to provide a screening against the neighboring ally way; Mr. Wentzien – provide details for how this is going to be designed; Design items – set back, architect will need to address item 2, there are some restrictions on materials in the Core Zone; no awnings or canopies on the plan is that correct; additional details to be provided for the driveway comes; you’ll do #3, #4, your testimony is there is no particular detail and use a 12 ft lane, I note the curbing behind the 12 ft lane is less than 2 feet from the new building; people backing out need to be careful, there is not a lot of overhang room, the curb is it; Mr. Reich – what is the adequate width for a fire truck; Mr. Wentzien – 12 ft is close but there is a little space going either way; and if it is only fencing it will work; trucks go where they need to go; I do recommend that this be presented to the fire official for review for his take on it, that is under item 11; Mr. Jackson – do you know if Matt Young has looked at or made recommendations; Mr. Wentzien – not to my knowledge; Mr. Jackson – he is the official that designates fire zone; Mr. Wentzien – yes he is; Mr. Jackson – he doesn’t need approval from anyone else under New Jersey State regulations; Mr. Wentzien – he has sole authority; Mr. Cucchiaro – lets get an answer from the applicant; have you made any inquires on it; Mr. Gouin – Matt Young is also the zoning officer? He has reviewed the application, we have not received any official correspondence about fire lane designation from him, he certainly reviewed it; Mr. Jackson –keep in mind he can designate that separate from anything the Board says, that is my understanding; Mr. Wentzien – that is my understanding also in terms of a recommendation from him, it is do this; Mr. Cucchiaro – then a follow up question, if Matt has not looked at and he makes certain determinations, does that change the circulation on the site at all; Mr. Laki – without knowing the recommendations it definitely could;

17

Mr. Cucchiaro – I am making a list of things we don’t know and that the Board my want to know before it gives an approval and you never have to come back here; Mr. Laki – I can’t speak for him; fire commissions can dictate whatever they want when it comes to fire safety; however, typically whatever is in fire code and as long the fire trucks can access 350 feet around the building; in many cases this back Borough parking lot would be sufficient for there means, and along Throckmorton would serve the rest of the site as it is; it is our interpretation that this a better flow for emergency vehicles that what was there with a gated gravel parking lot; Mr. Reich – so it is not necessary for emergency vehicle access but adds to the ability for emergency vehicles to access the site; Mr. Jackson – I reviewed earlier, there is no fire hydrant in the parking lot, so they will come from Throckmorton Street; you may be correct, this may be enough but the fire official has the final say and Mr. Wentzien made the recommendation in his report; Perhaps in the future we can ask Matt to have this ready for our meetings; Mr. Wentzien – we will need a mechanism set up for that; Mr. Jackson – when I was the fire official I would get in advance and I would submit before the hearing; Mr. Reich – the applicant did say Matt Young did review as the zoning officer; Mr. Cucchiaro – that is different; Mr. Reich – I understand, the person in question did not get a copy, he needs to switch gears; Mr. Cucchiaro – he needs to be directed to do that; Mr. Wentzien – once directed he will issue something written; Mr. Cucchiaro – what he was ask to do was to issue an opinion as the zoning official, it wasn’t appropriate for him to do something that was not in the zoning official capacity at that time; Mr. Reich – we’ll keep in mind for when we speak of Board recommendations; Mr. Wentzien – continuing on, page 9, #7 – we do need to look at the handicaps in the isle; Mr. Reich – will you please explain your recommendation; Mr. Wentzien – the angle parking is at 30degree which is the most severe angle you can put on a one way diagonal isle; when you do that you can see the layout of the stripped isle is not along the handicap vehicle will be, the stripped isle is not functioning if it is painted this way; we need to review; it should be side by side, when you get out of the car you should have that isle to get onto, they are so skewed;

18

Mr. Laki – we do agree, our proposal is to put a parallel space and will make sure we comply with the engineers recommendations; Mr. Cucchiaro – for the resolution, the handicap parking will be reoriented; Mr. Gouin – yes, parallel to the drive isle; Mr. Reich – did you review before tonight, you can still do the four parking spaces; Mr. Laki – yes; Mr. Wentzien – continuing – page 9, # 8 and #9 you will do; Mr. Laki – yes; Mr. Wentzien - #10 you’ll do, noted someone tried to note that it might be a waiver but in the site design section the parking spaces are 9 x 18; and #11 I noted it goes to the fire official; Grading and drainage are extremely technical; this is something we need to work out to your comfort level; if he says they will do everything recommended I can do that, but understand it is technical and there were some things to really dig into because of the way it was proposed; I have no trouble going through everyone of these items, engineer to engineer if you’re comfortable with that; Mr. Cucchiaro – does compliance with your plan, will that result in a change in location of anything else on the property or will it trigger any additional relief; Mr. Wentzien – it should not, it may change the way elevations but should not trigger a change in the overall design; Mr. Laki – I agree with that, it should not trigger any design change; mostly additional information; Mr. Wentzien – Sanitary and water, details; reviewed landscaping; it is unfortunate but to put the building in a very large tree must come out; # 4, I note your proposing in the back, the 4 squares are air conditioning units, the fencing in the back you said it will mimic the front, which means open spaces; is there anything we can do to shield the air conditioning units; Mr. Laki – we are proposing evergreen bushes along the side; Mr. Wentzien – lighting, I note there is nothing in here for me to review for lighting but you say there is alighting plan coming; so however the Board is comfortable with that; I have soil recommendations because of the underground basin and the architect might get into; the architectural plans show a basement; I am asking for 2 borings, one in the basement area and the building area; Mr. Laki – we will get for you;

19

Mr. Wentzien – I list details to be added; you’ll need Monmouth County and Freehold Soil district approval; Mr. Reich – are there any additional questions from the Board for Mr. Laki; Councilman Schnurr – when St. Peter’s came before the Council, it was more focused on parking and a conceptual of what the applicant was going to propose; this is the meeting where we make the sausage and the reasons are 1. make sure it is safe, 2. water run off when you know it will increase the impervious coverage, 3. where people are going to park, 4. where is the garbage going and if you focus on those four things, they work pretty well; I think we have dealt with the safety aspect with the drive isle, run off – my question there is, is any of the run off going to go into the Borough lot; Mr. Laki – no, it is contained within the detention system and going into a Municipal storm line, with no run off into the parking lot; Councilman Schnurr – discussed parking, so now garbage; we spoke of the enclosure but when St. Peter’s came to the Council we spoke of eliminating the other trash enclosures by the Keith House and having them use the proposed garbage area by the drive isle; I want to hear testimony about that on the record; Rev. Reinken – some of the tenants are our own, the thrift shop and will do whatever we tell them to do and the other tenants may either to elect to use our enclosure or the central dumpster; they are our tenants and we will remind them they have to do whatever the Borough requires them to do; Ms. Bennett – is there a central dumpster, you mean by CVS; Rev. Reinken – yes, if I’m remembering correctly; Councilman Schnurr – do I see a hand up; it is important; Jeff Friedman – sworn in – on behalf of the Freehold Center Management Corporation (FCMC) – FCMC along with Freehold Cartage has a dumpster system behind the CVS that all the merchants are required to use in the those two lots; they pay based on their usage; that is what the Borough ask us to do to consolidate garbage, we did it in the market yard, in the CVS lot and now we are working on two others to consolidate the garbage; the partnership recommendation for that would be to use one dumpers enclosure supplied by the Church or to use the common dumpster in the CVS lot; keeping dumpsters at a minimum is safer; Mr. Gouin – we are fine with that, the Keith building tenants will use either the new dumpster proposed or the common dumpster by CVS; Mr. Cucchiaro – what lot is the Keith building on; Mr. Gouin – lots 29 & 30; Mr. Cucchiaro – Mr. Friedman do you happen to know the block and lot for the CVS; Mr. Reich – you are better off looking at the engineer cover page;

20

Mr. Cucchiaro – applicant represents it is lot 13; Ms. Bennett – the dumpsters are a barrier between the driveway on the Borough lot and those buildings, it seems to be an area where people are congregating, where the dumpsters stick out and the building, that area there; Councilman Schnurr – that area there is not the Borough property, that is the church property; Mr. Wentzien – at my site visit, along the entire strip of the adjacent building it is solid concrete where it then meets the black top of the Borough parking lot; by scale of the rear of the building and the property line is 10 feet; Mr. Reich – Board members anything else Councilman Schnurr – no that is all; Ms. Bennett – no Mr. Barricelli – nothing; Mr. Jackson – nothing; Mr. Begley – no; Mr. Gouin – I would like to call up the architect now, Rev. Reinken will also be available for questions; Ms. Pat Darrow with MPD Architecture and is the project architect; Mr. Cucchiaro – new exhibit or same; Mr. Gouin – same exhibit – A8; Pat Darrow Mabel; I am a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey; member AIA, accredited professional, I specialize in religious structure and gathering places, community halls and things of that nature in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania; The business opened in 2006 and I’ve been practicing in the business since 2006; Mr. Gouin – do you accept Ms. Darrow credentials; Mr. Reich – yes we’ll accept; Ms. Darrow – based on the rendering submitted to the HPC was approved by the HPC; this is similar to a bell tower without the bell; sits on top of the roof deck, show only; New England Federal style parish hall; the height is 32 foot 8 inches, zoning requirement is 35 feet; materials we are using is a siding, we would like to use a Hardy Board but because of the expense we may use a high grade vinyl siding approved by the HPC; Mr. Cucchiaro – Mr. Gouin, does that statement mean that there will be a return trip to the HPC, that is what I just heard; Mr. Gouin – there shouldn’t be; no we have already receive a recommendation from the HPC based on this;

21

Ms. Darrow – the windows are Marvin windows and they have the grading mullions to mimic the style of that period; foundation concrete, ramp concrete, the railings for the ramp will be steel with blacking coating and space bars vertically; The existing parish hall has 3,588 square feet, holds occupancy of 170 people; this proposed parish hall has a square footage of 890 sq ft with a maximum occupancy of 340 people; the existing parish hall, when removed they will have the ruin foundation with steps and façade; the rest of the walls will match the existing structure itself; The floor plan shows the basement with elevators; the basement is for storage only; Mr. Reich – when the application came before the HPC there was discussion of potential expansion for bathrooms in the basement; the plans show outlines for plumbing fixtures; Ms. Darrow – yes in the future, not now; Mr. Cucchiaro – when you say storage only the Board is not asking right now, this is a meeting for the ultimate plan; the plan is it is for storage now but will have bathrooms in the future; Mr. Gouin – correct; that is the purpose for putting the plumbing in now; Ms. Darrow – the first floor – basically the meeting area with the elevator; you enter from the lobby and there is woman’s and men’s restrooms & will meet the requirements of the occupancy there; this is the parish hall, showing cathedral ceilings, circulation full bath, full kitchen; the dormers at the top you won’t see them through the cathedral ceiling, they are just there for architectural style; Mr. Jackson – is there a 3rd floor attic; Mr. Darrow – no, no attic; Ms. Darrow – that is all I have here; Mr. Cucchiaro – highlight where she needs to comment on the engineering report; Mr. Gouin – item 1 the proposed use of the basement, page 3 #7; item 2, page7#2 and page 8 core development; the redevelopment doesn’t include a requirement that the exterior of the building requires it says, aluminum siding, vinyl coated siding, metal panels, concrete block and mirrored glass exterior surfaces are prohibited; So please address what we are proposing for exterior treatments; Ms. Darrow – there is a choice between hardy board with cementitious siding that is coated and a vinyl siding that is high grade, where the color goes all the way through not just coated; we are doing this based on economics whether or not we can afford, hardy board is very expensive; Mr. Cucchiaro – Bill, the hardy board is permitted;

22

Mr. Wentzien – yes, the hardy board is not a listed prohibited item, the vinyl siding is a prohibited item; Mr. Cucchiaro – Mr. Gouin are you asking for relief; Mr. Gouin – yes at this point we need to; we did go through with the HPC also; it comes down to economics; Ms. Darrow – they basically look the same; Mr. Gouin – I could offer, that they vinyl siding would have a wood grain look to appear like wood and not just vinyl siding; Mr. Reich – it would be a higher quality; if you’re using hardy board, it is pretty top notch so if you’re going to use vinyl siding you should look at using a higher quality; Ms. Bennett – it sounded like there was a difference in the testimony and what was read; Mr. Cucchiaro – I would seek the relief anyway; Mr. Gouin – yes and our planner will speak about it further; I don’t think there is anything further for the architect; Mr. Reich – is the basement being considered for a shelter, not living space but as an emergency shelter; Mr. Reinken – we have not talked about that; Mr. Reich – it is fine either way, my experience housing of worship or schools there is usually some sort of emergency shelter aspect to it; Mr. Cucchiaro – I think for our purpose they have not ask for and sounds like they have not anticipated; Mr. Reich – the design of the basement made me bring it up; Ms. Bennett – regarding the HVAC, I see there was discussion at HPC, what was behind the decision to put them outside; Mr. Gouin – there is no 3rd floor, the entire 2nd floor is open and no other place to put them; Ms. Bennett – the dormer windows are real windows, you will get the light in; Ms. Darrows – yes; Mr. Wentzien – the outside siding color is white, what color is the roof; Ms. Darrows – probably be grey, dark color; Mr. Gouin – anything further for the architect or can we move to the Planner;

23

Mr. Reich – anything from the Board; Councilman Schnurr – no Ms. Bennett – no Mr. Barricelli – no Mr. Jackson – no Mr. Begley – no The bell tower that doesn’t have a bell, is that all aesthetics; is it a bead board ceiling; it is just to bridge the cap between the rectory and the church; Ms. Darrow – correct; Mr. Gouin – Mr. Nicholas Graviano, professional planner – Planner (AICP) and Partner with Graviano & Gillis, Holmdel NJ – BA is Geography and Urban Studies from Rutgers University, Master for City Regional Planner from Rutgers Univ.; Law degree from Temple Univ. School of Law and received distinguished Class Performance for State and Local Government Law; licensed planner in the State of NJ and testified before Boards and Governing Bodies in 14 different counties including Aberdeen, Howell, Holmdel, Red Bank and Keansburg here in Monmouth County; Mr. Reich – accepted by the Board; Mr. Gouin – from a planning prospective please describe the relief we are seeking and the justifications; Mr. Graviano – as described in previous testimony this is an application by St. Peter’s Church to demolish a part of the existing parish hall; to reconstruct a new parish hall to meet the needs of the congregation; this is located within block 36, lots 28, 29 & 30, known as 33 Throckmorton St; applicant is requesting preliminary and final site plan approval; this parcel is located within the Freehold Center Core Redevelopment Plan Area with the underlying general B-2 commercial zone designation; This site has been the home of the church for over 250 years, it predates the Borough and the nation itself and the applicant is before you to modernize the facility to be there for another 250 years; The revitalization plan is the governing document for this application before you – that document kicks it back tot the zoning ordinance for any standards not specifically stated in that plan; this is a principal permitted use within the revitalization plan; houses of worship are a by right use according to the zoning document that governs this parcel; the applicant does need relief from the provision of both the Borough code and the Revitalization Plan; First piece of relief is the minimum lot area for churches is 3 acres and less than 3 acres is existing and proposed; additionally the minimum street frontage for a church is 300 feet and 20.9 feet is existing and proposed on East Main Street; that is a very small piece of the site which is a pan handle which comes to East Main Street; when you come to Throckmorton is does contain in excessive of 300 feet of frontage; lastly in terms of deviation of Borough code the applicant requires a variance for maximum lot coverage, standard for churches is 20% and excess of 20% is existing and excess of 20% is proposed;

24

With respect to the variances, all the conditions exist today; this Board has the ability to grant the variances under the C1 criteria by exceptional narrowness and shallowness specifics of a shape of a piece of property and reason of extraordinary and exceptional situation effecting this piece of property; the strict ordinance of the Borough will create and undo hardship to the applicant; Additionally there is no substantial impairment to the Revitalization Plan or the Borough code with the granting of those variances; Mr. Cucchiaro – would you want the Board to consider the C2 criteria? The site coverage, while it is over the 20%, there is a change, it is going from 28.2% to 42.1%; this is not an existing condition, it is an existing violation but it is being intensified; Mr. Graviano –yes, it most certainly is being intensified; my purpose in highlighting is the existing condition in excess of Borough requirements; yes, the applicant is intensifying the coverage on the parcel; Mr. Cucchiaro – I have a question, goes back to when the hearing began, Mr. Wentzien as a single lot, not 3 lots; so the .71 acres in the report is just the 1 lot correct; if you were to count the 3 lots it comes closer to the 3 acres; Mr. Gouin – no it does not, it is still under 2 acres; Mr. Cucchiaro – yes but the .71 acres is deceptive, it is more than that for all 3 lots which make up the church; Mr. Gouin – yes, it is more than .71 acres; Mr. Graviano – the applicant also requires relief from the parking standard and we discussed the future adoption by the Borough of the ordinance which would alleviate the parking variance required as part of this application; we also discussed the need of relief for lack of a loading doc; I think it is a great solution to utilize the proposed parking area f or the unloading of any material or goods that may delivered to the site; in a sense there is an area that can be utilized for the parish house purposes; both variances can be granted under the C2 criteria as well as the variances that I discussed before; with respect to the C2 variances, hardship is not required for that; what must be demonstrate is that the relief must relate to a specific piece of property, in this case the 250 year old (plus) house of worship, located in the Boroughs downtown Core; Additionally the applicant must demonstrate the proposal fulfills a purpose of zoning which is listed in the Municipal Land Use Law, in this case the proposal helps fulfill 3 proposes of zoning; 1. purpose A – to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development in the lands which will promote health, safety, morals and general welfare; 2. purpose G – to provide sufficient space in an appropriate location for a variety of uses both public and private to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens; 3. purpose I – to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development and techniques good civic design and arrangements; elements such as provision of handicap and wheelchair access, a condition that doesn’t exist today; Deviations required from the Revitalization Plan – we touched on one earlier, building construction shall be no greater than 20 feet or less than 10 feet from the curb; as discussed this is more for commercial / retail buildings in the downtown Core; the additional relief need regarding the building materials, the appli9cant seeks to use high

25

quality vinyl; as you heard from testimony by the architect, this is the material that mimics the look of wood, mimics the look hardy plank and other high quality materials; I think you must look at the building itself, the building is recessed from the street, considerable amount of distance that will be garnered between the street and someone looking at the building – the average eye won’t be able to tell the difference from between high quality vinyl and a more costly material such as hardy plank; I think relief is more than able to be granted; both of the variances can be granted under the C2 criteria for the purposes of zoning; no substantial impairment to the Revitalization Plan with that proposal; When we look at substantial impairment to the plan, the plan was adopted September 30, 2008 by the Borough; some of the goals that we listed, specifically on page 11, to provide a range of quality civic uses that will capitalize on the properties strategic location, additionally to provide for the creation of places that promote citizen security, pedestrian activities and social interaction; this is certainly a building that helps promote those goals; When you look at additional objectives, to provide a catalyst for the continued revitalization of the Borough of Freehold and to ensure long term productive use to reuse the parcels situated in the Plan area; these are certainly projects and buildings that help accomplish those objectives; In summary all the requested relief can be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan, both the Revitalization Plan and the zoning ordinance itself; you have a building existing on this site for over 250 years, inherently beneficial use providing great charitable and other services tot the community and fits with the goals and objectives with the downtown Revitalization Plan. Mr. Gouin – any questions; I don’t think there was anything in Mr. Wentzien’s letter we didn’t address; Mr. Wentzien – the only one I don’t think was discussed was the refuse being within 5 feet of the rear property line; Mr. Graviano – we discussed earlier in previous testimony, given the proximity to the property boundary which is the Borough parking lot, relief could be granted without substantial impairment of the Revitalization or the Borough Zoning Code; Mr. Reich – very impressive; any questions from the Board; In our packet of information received, historic documents from the church, some difficult to read because of the age and copying but one caught my eye was a historic preservation easement, can you provide detail; 31 Throckmorton Property is a basis for easement, continued preservation of grant assisted historic properties and public benefit continued from the grant monies; the page has a bar code on the top but the second page talks about the granters obligations, “the grantor is not to demolish or remove the protected features of the property described in schedule B” – I can’t find schedule B; Mr. Gouin – you are referring to a title report provided for the subject property as part of the application, providing any existing deeds, restrictions etc; a title search shows, on the first page a deed into St. Peters from King George II, 1730; so the document you are referring is a historic documents associated with grant money used to refurbish the church building – applies to the church building only and is expired; it was for a duration of ten years;

26

Mr. Reich – thank you – do you have any other testimony; Mr. Gouin – no; Councilman Schnurr – can we take a break; Mr. Reich – a five minute recess Mr. Reich – we are back on record – we will open to public comments or questions; Mr. Cucchiaro – swears in Marlene Rogala, 39 West Main Street; I own Especially For You Florist, on the corner, the back of the property is along side of St. Peter’s Parish House that is going to be taken down; several questions regarding the wall that is going to be left at the alley, which is adjacent to our property where my current dumpster is located; also the length of the wall appears to me, according to the plan, the front of the garden back to the church building not being demolished; is there a footage; Mr. Laki – length is abut 60 feet, same length of the existing building, it is part of the exiting building that will be cut and shaped; Ms. Rogala – when you say cut and shaped, what do you mean; Mr. Laki – the intent is to look like an old ruin, a memorial to the building that was once there; approximately 5 feet tall, to be able to shield the dumpsters and not provide a place to climb or sit; cleaned up so it is not old foundation looking wall, an architectural coating; Ms. Rogala – originally you said seating or cap on there which made me think lower in the front and higher in the back providing seating space for people to sit, that is what I thought I heard; Mr. Laki – that is on the other side, closer to the parish side; there will be a small seating wall for the memorial garden but won’t see beyond to the other buildings; Ms. Rogala – information and back ground for the statement I’m going to make, a bench or two would be nice for the memorial garden but to provide extra seating for folks that may not need to be there but because there is seating would be allowed to congregate there and spend long hours there that don’t belong; Mr. Cucchiaro – who would not belong on the property; Ms. Rogala – people that might want to sleep there over night, I am concerned about; people like to hang out on public property and have had to deal with over the years; there have been benches up and down Main Street but have had to remove because people abuse the fact that they are there; sleeping there, items that don’t belong and not in public; I am concerned;

27

Councilman Schnurr – If the benches had a middle slat that would prevent people from laying down that would be ok or better; Ms. Rogala – during the demolishing of that building, we are very close, adequate notice to us; we have a multitude of deliveries that go down that alley to us every day, two and three times a day that come through there and our dumpster would need to be rolled out or put on top of the cemetery so Freehold Cartage can access; I am going to presume you would do the new construction before you demolish the old one; Mr. Cucchiaro – are you saying you utilize the church property when the dumpster is getting picked up; Ms. Rogala – no the dumpster are on my landlords property but the alley between the two buildings is where that is but the dumpsters are against my landlords building; Freehold Cartage rolls them off through that driveway adjacent to the little cemetery property; Mr. Reich – there is a path there; Mr. Gouin – yes, the alley way will continued to be used and accessed it will not be closed off; we will agree to provide any necessary protection for the alley way and construction code requires; There will be construction demolish measures that the Borough will make us follow; we will make sure there is no disruption we will comply; the alley way will not be a construction staging area; Ms. Rogala – we do have oil tanks back there on our property, our side of the fenced; Mr. Gouin – one of the recommendations of Mr. Wentzien, in his letter was that we enter into a developers agreement with the Borough; I imagine those kind of protections will be in the agreement; Ms. Rogala – and just to be notified as a courtesy; Jeff Friedman - on behalf of the Freehold Center Corp. ; 2 suggestions and 1 question; The bollards around the dumpster for protection, if they could be decoratively sleeved that would be nice; the exiting into the Broad Street, worried how they exit, we do this thing down town, where it is painted red, creates a crosswalk that is relatively inexpensive and creates that differential that you might be looking for; the garbage containing looks like it is angled the wrong way; Mr. Reich – no, going the other direction; Mr. Freidman – the Partnership would support St Peter’s to work with the Borough to widen that sidewalk, Mr. Gouin – we can do the requested options, protective sleeve and crosswalk; Mr. Reich – anyone else for comments or questions; seeing none - motion to close public comments Mr. Jackson made a motion to close – Mr. Begley seconded;

28

Roll Call Mr. Barricelli – yes Mr. Begley – yes Ms. Bennett – yes Mr. Ceppi – absent Ms. Gibson – absent Mr. Jackson – yes Ms. Jordan – absent Councilman Schnurr – yes Mr. Reich - yes Mr. Cucchiaro – Mr. Gouin, I recommend, if there is an approval, there be a condition that the table be revised to the satisfaction of Mr. Wentzien to includes information for all three lots on the property; I can’t do an accurate resolution at this point because I don’t have the area and frontages; I need for the resolution but will be a condition precedent; Mr. Gouin – we will provide immediately; Mr. Reich – Board – Councilman Schnurr - we had a list of wants and wishes but in addition is the benches, so we make it so you can’t lay down; Mr. Reich – the wall, spoke of being used as a wall with capstone, not physical benches that are being installed; Mr. Gouin – correct; we are ok with the wall being capstone so you can’t lay down; we can put design feature to discourage people from laying down; we are willing to accommodate, the church doesn’t want that anyway; Ms. Bennett – nothing further; Mr. Jackson – how wide would the wall be; Mr. Laki – 18 inches; Mr. Barricelli – when Mr. Wentzien do you keep a list of items that still need to come before you; Mr. Wentzien – yes, one of the open items is lighting plan that you don’t have at all; Mr. Barricelli – what else that we won’t see; Mr. Wentzien – reorientation of handicap spaces; trash enclosure; Mr. Barricelli – my concern is we are leaving a lot to Mr. Wentzien; Mr. Cucchiaro – we should go through; that is what I was explaining earlier, you all need to be comfortable with this; Design of the wall, to discourage laying down; decorative bollards; no plans to use the alley way in construction process; wall maximum of 5 feet tall; basement used for storage

29

only, eventually install restrooms; wood grade vinyl siding, waiver; tenants in Keith building to use church dumpster or merchant dumpster in the CVS lot – block 36 lot 13; dumpsters on lot 29 to be removed, evergreen to screen mechanicals; handicap parking reoriented parallel to drive isle; present plan to Matt Young, fire official – determine fire lane; no awnings or canopies; deliveries limited to box truck size at maximum; stop sign, brick cross walk; bollards at corner of parking; drainage They will comply with all recommendations contained in the engineering report from Bill Wentzien; Mr. Barricelli – I think we are leaving a lot to Mr. Wentzien and that we won’t see; All the relief they have requested I have no issue with except I am concerned about the building; it is a big building and to have just vinyl siding will be one ugly building; there is a reason why the redevelopment zone didn’t want vinyl siding; this is the largest building going up and you can do a much better job than vinyl; my recommendation would be that we ask for more than white vinyl siding; you have shakes; the wood grain you don’t see from the road; you can do better than looking like a white barn Mr. Cucchiaro – you will have to open back up; Mr. Barricelli – what can you do to make it not look like a white barn; Ms. Darrow – the premise of the siding is to match the existing building, mimic as close as possible; that is what the HPC approved; if we go with cedar shake it doesn’t accomplish the style criteria; Mr. Barricelli – could you put on the top of the tower the cedar shake to break up the lines that go 92 feet; we can do better, biggest building going up in town; Mr. Gouin – can we add another witness to the list, not an expert but our builder; Mr. David Bossart, Swear in by Mr. Cucchiaro; Mr. Bossart – a few things to dress up the exterior, trim could be dental molding along the soffit areas, heads to give the colonial look above each window; shakes may not go according to existing building so you may want to avoid; Mr. Barricelli – that is better, thank you; Mr. Bossart – we can also update the color rendering; Mr. Gouin – we would be happy to agree to a condition to look at other architectural elements to spruce up the building but not sure if it gets us anywhere; Mr. Cucchiaro – here are few scenarios; 1. if you like as is, you can give approval tonight; 2. you could grant a preliminary approval tonight and some conditions of preliminary conditions are what were discussed also providing a coloring rendering or improvement; and after the Council adopts the ordinance they come in for final approval in November; you could not grant any approvals and say you have to get us that information;

30

Mr. Reich – the third option is extreme; I think we have enough information to make a decision regarding the site even without the lighting; design style is the concern of Mr. Barricelli; Mr. Cucchiaro – you are granting relief from the vinyl; it is not just a generic design, your granting relief from what is required; you can’t leave to Mr. Wentzien to decide what should be on the building; Mr. Gouin – we need to discuss maybe not asking for the waiver for vinyl; Mr. Cucchiaro – do you need a short break; Mr. Gouin – yes, thank you; Mr. Reich – we’ll break for a few minutes; Mr. Reich – back on the record; Mr. Gouin – we have decided to remove the waiver request for the vinyl entirely; whatever we are providing for an architectural style will be conforming; Ms. Bennett – this is a critical moment for the Board and things need to be discussed about how we do things; I feel like we lost something; I know the builder was only suggesting and understand they don’t want to come back, so remove the waiver; Mr. Cucchiaro – Planning Board is much more limited than when you have your Zoning Board hat on; Mr. Reich – we will reopen to public comments or questions; seeing none; Mr. Jackson made a motion to close public comments; Mr. Begley seconded; all in favor; aye, opposed - none Mr. Reich – do you want to revisit any of your previous comments, Mr. Barricelli Mr. Barricelli – no thank you Mr. Begley – no comments Mr. Jackson – no comments, agree with conditions our attorney outlined previously; Ms. Bennett – no Councilman Schnurr – no Mr. Reich – I think we can grant as previously stated; I agree with Mr. Graviano regarding the application promotes health, safety and welfare, specifically because of the work the church does; sufficient space for public and private use; promotes desirable and visual elements, in general; no potential hindrance to surrounding properties, the lot next door is owned by the applicant, adjacent lot is a parking lot and store fronts offered concerns; I think we can provide a positive resolution for the application tonight; Mr. Cucchiaro – you are saying preliminary and final with ancillary relief; Mr. Reich – I understand we are leaving a lot up to Mr. Wentzien to review but I think the items on his plate are in his purview and think in the past we have ask him to review these items; on a personal note, if the church could do some detailing on the parish; father

31

you made a comment early about the church being around for another 200 years, if you have the opportunity now, give it life, it will serve you well in the years to come; I understand of budgeting but put forth the effort now, your builder has some good ideas that you could implement if you can; The design waiver for material is being removed all else stands; would anyone like to put forth a motion; Mr. Barricelli – made a motion to provide preliminary and final site plan with ancillary waivers and conditions; Councilman Schnurr – seconded; Roll Call Mr. Barricelli – yes Mr. Begley – yes Ms. Bennett – yes Mr. Jackson – yes Councilman Schnurr – yes Mr. Reich – yes Mr. Reich - a few more minutes of meeting so kindly exit quietly; I brought this up at the last meeting but if anyone would like to be liaison position with the Historic Preservation commission; we are in need of HPC members, Mr. Kuperberg resigned, Carl Steinberg resigned; Greg Clark has to step down as he moved out of town; If anyone is interested please let me know or the Mayor or Councilman Schnurr; Mr. Reich – calendar Ms. Napolitano – we will not have a meeting on the 14th; meting on the 28th will be for a use variance for a taxi stand, 55 West Main and 49 Patten Street; Mr. Reich – Mr. Cucchiaro, anything more; Mr. Cucchiaro - no Mr. Reich - anyone else, the Board; Mr. Begley made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Jackson. All in favor, Aye (everyone), no one opposed. Mr. Reich – good night everyone; Meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM. Respectfully submitted, Joseph B. Bellina