TOWNSHIP OF LOPATCONG

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 26, 2016

The meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Lopatcong was called to order by Chairman VanVliet at 7:00 pm. A silent prayer was offered followed by the Oath of Allegiance.

Chairman VanVliet stated “adequate notice of this meeting has been provided indicating the time and place of the meeting in accordance with Chapter 231 of the Public Laws of 1975 by advertising a Notice in The Star Gazette and The Express Times and by posting a copy on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building.”

Roll Call: Members Fox, Johnson, Olschewski, Pryor, Woolf, Mayor McKay, Vice-Chairman Gural, Chairman VanVliet. Attorney Sposaro, Planner Ritter and Engineer Sterbenz were also present.

Old Business: Minutes – Approved April 21st, 2016 as there were no corrections. New Business: Coordinated Health Major Site Plan Application – Block 85, Lot 5 – Completeness and Waiver Requests. Attorney Peck was present to represent the applicant – Phillipsburg Properties Group – Coordinated Health Stage 2 application located at 222 Red School Lane also known as Block 85, Lot 5. Previously that was Lot 5 and 5.01 but in connection with the earlier approvals, the lots were merged. The subject property is just than a 10 ½ acre lot. It is primarily in the Professional Office or P.O. Zone District. There is a very small portion in the R75 Zone District but all of the contemplated improvements tonight are only in the P.O. Zone District. The approval they are seeking is to construct an approximate 21,507 sq. ft. Ambulatory Surgical Center which will be Phase II to the existing Coordinated Health Facility on Red School Lane. This is a permitted use and they are seeking Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval looking for two Bulk Variances and one Design Waiver more or less. The only outstanding issue was the Highlands Consistency Determination which was received yesterday; a letter dated October 25th. Engineer Sterbenz – Mr. Chairman last meeting we had reviewed the application for completeness and approved waivers as part of the review but the application was deemed incomplete due to four items identified as deficiencies. Three have been addressed and the Highlands Consistency Letter was outstanding. It is my recommendation since all the

1

deficiencies that were identified at the last meeting were addressed we can deem this application to be complete and move into a public hearing tonight on the application. Chairman VanVliet – Any questions from the Board? I’ll entertain a motion to approve completeness on the project. Member Fox – I’ll make a motion. Chairman VanVliet – Do I hear a second? Member Pryor – I’ll make that motion. Chairman VanVliet – Beth roll call please. AYES: Members Fox, Johnson, Olschewski, Pryor, Woolf, Mayor McKay, Chairman VanVliet. NAYS: None Chairman VanVliet – Thank you very much. I guess you are deemed complete. Attorney Peck - Thank you very much and we are very appreciative of this determination and as a preliminary matter we did publish and serve the required notice and we did provide Ms. Dilts with the necessary affidavits. I believe jurisdiction is properly before this Board and we can proceed. Again, we are seeking Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval. We are looking for two variances; the first of which is a Bulk Variance to permit a retaining wall in excess of two feet in height in your front setback area and there is also an issue with parking. Our plan as Mr. Sterbenz indicated, we did have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Sterbenz after our initial submission to review the plans and we did revise them after we met with Mr. Sterbenz. We did also speak with Mr. Ritter on the telephone and we are grateful for that opportunity so there is a question with parking but we technically, we do need a variance. Your ordinance requires 357 parking spaces. Our plans, as currently constituted, call for 355 parking spaces so there is a deficit of two but that possibly based on our testimony and based on the Board’s opinion and the professionals recommendations that may be reduced further based on how we slice the onion here tonight. But those are the two variances we are looking for. We are also looking for a design waiver that has to do with landscaping; basically the landscaping mix. Our plan right now shows 21% evergreen where your ordinance requires 50%. We put that out there and Coordinated Health, I believe has been a good neighbor to the surrounding residents. They want to remain being a good neighbor, so, whatever the Board, whatever the residents want in terms of buffering, in terms of landscaping so long as it’s reasonable. We don’t want to have to replant a redwood forest or something like that. So long as there are reasonable accommodations, we are more than happy to work with the Board and with the neighbors to find the most satisfactory

2

outcome with that but that is a design waiver that we are looking for. So anyway I’m not going to beat a dead horse here. I have Mr. John Colagrande or engineer from Pennoni. He is our primary witness tonight giving testimony but I also have from MaCada Properties, Mr. Michael Campion who is the facilities manager and development team that oversees Coordinated Health and also Cristo Santos from Coordinated Health who can answer any questions and fill in the blanks. Attorney Sposaro – Swear you in would you raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm the testimony you will give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? Mr. Colagrande - Yes sir. Attorney Sposaro – State your name for the record and spell your last name please. Mr. Colagrande – John Colagrande – c-o-l-a-g-r-a-n-d-e. I am employed by Pennoni, 24 Commerce Way, Newark New Jersey. Attorney Sposaro – Your witness. Attorney Peck – John, before we get going, would you give the Board the benefit of your educational background. Mr. Colagrande – I have a Bachelor’s Degree and a Master’s Degree in Civil Engineering from Steven’s Institute of Technology. Graduated 1990/94 respectively. I’m a licensed professional Engineer State of New Jersey and have been licensed since 2001. I’ve provided testimony before Planning Boards and Zoning Boards in the State of New Jersey for the last ten years on various land use applications and also testimony in New York State and Pennsylvania. Attorney Peck – And just to clarify you have been accepted as an expert before New Jersey land use boards? Mr. Colagrande – Yes I have. Attorney Peck – And the plans you are about to present to the Board, did you have a part in preparing those? Mr. Colagrande – Yes, the plans that the Board has in front of them were prepared under my direction by my team of civil engineers and designers in our north Jersey office.

3

Attorney Peck – I offer Mr. Colagrande as an expert in the field of civil engineering. Chairman VanVliet – He is acceptable. Attorney Peck – Thank you very much. Mr. Colagrande – So, the first plan I’ll call your attention to is the Demolition Plan. It shows the exiting conditions on site as they are today. There is the existing one story medical building. The parking lot in the front along Red School Lane and the rear parking lot which abuts the neighborhood; the residential neighborhood, it also shows the access out the back – S. 7th Street and the current driveway that takes us out onto Red School Lane. There are currently two above ground detention basins out the front and a large portion of the southern side of the property is currently lawned with some trees mixed in. That about sums up this sheet. Member Johnson – As you are going through this, can you point out specifically what has changed on the previous submission that we took a look at last time? Thank you. Mr. Colagrande – So this shows, for the record, CS1001 Site Plan and this sheet shows all the improvements that the applicant would like to make to this site. So the applicant proposes a 21,507 square foot medical facility to be located on the southern portion of the property. The applicant would like to add some additional parking in the front to accommodate patients as well as some additional parking in the back for staff. There’ll be a new dumpster enclosure to accommodate the waste from the site. The proposed generator and a new, I’ll get to it on the next sheet, but there will be two underground detention systems to handle stormwater runoff generated by all the new impervious material. Some of the things that have changed since the last time is in order to satisfy the 30 foot separate from the building for the fire access, we relocated the dumpster area a little further away from the building. We moved the proposed generator more interior to the property, we redesigned the parking in this front section in the southeast corner of the property to do two things; 1. It provides separation from the building – 30 feet and 2. It gets the parking lot out of the front yard setback which is a comment in the initial review letters. Those are really the main features that were changed between the last application and this application. So as I was saying, as part of this application, is to enhance the parking lot in the rear of the property so that will be additional parking spaces; ingress and egress on S. 7th Street, curbing to widen the driveway to meet the code requirements for the town and then additional parking in the front with a new driveway on Red School Lane Road and again, the width was adjusted to 25 feet to meet the requirements in the last letter; ingress and egress out to compliment what is currently here and both parking lots will be connected. Because of the grading on site, kind of slopes towards the south and it gets to be a little bit more severe as you work your way towards the rear of the property or to the southern end of the property so there’ll be a couple of retaining walls interior for the property. There’ll be some retaining walls along

4

the south side of the property at the rear of the building and as we stated earlier, Mr. Peck stated earlier, there’ll be a retaining wall in the front of the property. I’ll get to that on the next sheet but this is in the area where the proposed underground detention system is going to be installed so with the grades as they are to get the system in place, we need to build a wall that contains the system. Attorney Peck – So John, so we are clear, so the wall that’s going to be in the front setback area, and I know you’re going to get to that on the next sheet, but that’s necessary because of the grading in order to have the detention basin and the stormwater management system. There has to be a wall unfortunately in excess of two feet correct? Mr. Colagrande - Yes. Chairman VanVliet – How high are you looking? Mr. Colagrande – The high point of the wall is 4’9” tall. Okay, next sheet is the Grading and Drainage Plan. It is Sheet CS1501. This sheet is showing how we are going to rework the existing grades on site to accommodate the improvements. In the southern rear part of the property near 7th Street, we show the underground detention system. This will capture the stormwater runoff from the rear of the property. It will put it into the system. The system is a sealed system. It is packed in dence graded aggregate. There is a concern in town with limestone so we don’t want the water to penetrate into the soil and possibly get into the limestone and create issues. From there it feeds into what we call a jellyfish filter which brings the water, cleans the water, gets the solids out of the water so we can meet DEP regulations and then it puts it into the stormwater system of the municipality. Likewise in the front, we did the same thing. We graded the parking lots and the detention system up front that basically operates the same way; captures the water, cleans the water, puts the water into the system. We submitted full storm water calculations to Mr. Sterbenz for review so all that has been documented as well as a Maintenance Plan we also submitted as well to provide direction on how often the filter should be checked and cleaned and how often the system should be checked to make sure it is functioning as it should be. Member Fox – Where you able to get your proper storm water detention by using basins on the other side of the property. Do you have to go underground or was it a choice? Mr. Cola Grande – It was more difficult to try to get the basins in because of the grades, the slopes, things start getting really high and steep plus the option now as we weren’t 100% clear on whether we were going to get a parking variance so if we do have to put parking spaces back in, we still have this area to put parking back in if we need to but the intent was not to put the parking back. A lot of that depends on how things go tonight what we can and can’t do. Next

5

sheet is just profiles of the road for the driveway indicating site lines and road profiles nothing really much to say here. The Utility Plan showing how utilities are going to get to the site. In the rear of the property right now there’s a utility pole and transformer that will be used for the electric. Communications also comes from an existing pole in the back for telephone and internet. The existing building connects to a sewer line which runs out towards 7th and that would also be reconnected to as well and then water would come in from the rear property where the existing water comes in. So all the utilities are in place. We sent the will serve letter to all the utility companies and are starting to hear back and there are really no issues so far for them to provide utilities to us and if approved by the Board will continue to coordinate with the utility companies to get the permits in place to get the connections made. Next sheet is just utility profiles where we identify how the utilities are run underground. Now we get to the Landscape Plan. So we complimented the existing landscaping on site especially around the perimeter to try and mimic what was currently in place at the facility and sticking with the ratios (inaudible). We did provide the 25 foot landscape buffer around the perimeter. We provided trees within the parking areas as well and we are doing what the intent of the ordinance with regards to 25 foot landscape buffer. Member Fox – In the center between the two buildings there are trees. Mr. Colagrande – Those big ones? Member Fox – Yep. Mr. Calegrande – Yeah, they’ll be remaining. Member Fox – Oh really, cause it seemed like in some other details that you have things going right through them. Mr. Calegrande – We have a sewer line that we are tapping into here which is right at the edge of the drip line so we are not going to need to do anything so the trees should be fine. And finally we did a Lighting Plan for all the parking lot lightings so we can adequately, so that the lighting proposed for the new area is consistent with the lighting that is currently on site right now and there is not much to say there it’s a Lighting Plan. Member Pryor – Could you go over that in a little more detail because people expressed an interest in that? Mr. Calegrande – Okay sure. Member Pryor – Where the poles are going to be and

6

Mr. Calegrande – Okay so Member Pryor – there’s a concern about too much light and so on. Mr. Calegrande – Right. Okay so the poles wherever we had a parking area, so wherever we are installing parking spaces and parking lots we have to obviously provide lighting so there will be pole mounted lights around the perimeter coming into the facility; there will be some lighting around here like this and lighting interior to this. We tried to design the lighting so that there would not be the back light up over the property line to the extent possible but we will provide lighting into the parking lot and we do have a 31 foot setback so with that in mind, I’ll go back to the other sheet. At the property line, we’re actually registering 0 to .1 foot candles which is extremely minimal. Zero is obviously, is no ambient light spilling over. That’s not to say the residents won’t see the light in the distance obviously they will but that light will not encroach upon their property (inaudible). Member Pryor – Will there be any more lighted signs any place or Mr. Calegrande – Well the signs are all going to be handled via separate application so we are not, I’m not in a position to speak about that tonight. Attorney Peck – We don’t have any sign package tonight; we’ll come back with that. Chairman VanVliet – Is the parking lot on a timer situation? They go off at a certain time in the evening or burn all night long? Mr. Calegrande – The intent at this point is to have them burn all night long. For security and what not, that’s the way we prefer to do it. Attorney Sposaro – I have a question concerning the variance for a wall Mr. Peck asked you what lawyer’s fondly refer to as a lead question. I would like to hear from your mouth why you need the variance and then I have a couple of other questions. Mr. Calegrande – Sure. As I stated earlier, in the front where the detention system is, okay, we have to address the grading issue. So, there was a couple things at play; one was if you build a basin a traditional basin what kind of slopes is that going to create on the property; steep slopes, we don’t want steep slopes that creates a whole other erosion issue. That was one thing we considered. Second thing we considered, was originally, we had parking over that area which we pulled back and we’re going to ask for a Parking Variance weren’t sure if we are going to get it. Wasn’t sure if you guys are going to ask me to put the parking back so we left that alone and that’s the reason why. We couldn’t get it underground at the proper elevations with the current

7

grading so we had to build the wall to enhance the grading to get it underground at the elevations that was to drain it out. Attorney Sposaro – Any negative impact as a result of the wall height? Mr. Calegrande – In terms of? Attorney Sposaro – Any detriment to the public good. Mr. Calegrande – I don’t think so we are proposing a (inaudible). Attorney Sposaro – I believe there was a comment about the size of the fence. Mr. Calegrande – Yes and we’ll concede. Attorney Sposaro – But the fence is designed to address any public health or safety concerns it would be with the bulk of it a wall that’s too high correct? Mr. Calegrande – Right, right there are codes in place for fall protection and we are going to adhere to those so it will be, what we will ultimately discuss when we get to the review letter is that will be a 42 inch high fence. Attorney Sposaro – And is it your opinion that this will not substantially impair the intent of purpose of the zoned plan, zoning ordinance? Mr. Calegrande – I don’t believe so. Additionally, one of the comments which we will get to later, is maybe we provide some landscaping in front of the wall and we’d certainly be amenable to that as well. Attorney Sposaro – While we are dealing with the wall and fence, what’s your proposal in light of the comment contained in one of the professional reports; the comment that wall is 8 feet and seems excessively high. Mr. Calegrande – We’re going to cut that down to 42 inches. Attorney Peck – 42 or 4 feet? Mr. Calegrande – I think the code says 42 but I’ll double check. Attorney Peck – Whatever the code says.

8

Mr. Calegrande – It will be code compliant but it won’t be any taller than 4 feet. Chairman VanVliet – I think I saw comment somewhere that you were changing a chain link fence to a decorative steel fence. Mr. Calegrande – To make it more appealing. Attorney Sposaro – Thank you. Chairman VanVliet – While we’re on the subject, what material are you going to be making it out of – concrete or? Mr. Calegrande – We have a detail of the retaining wall. What that is is a pre-manufactured stone like rocks typically known as uni-blocks or plain block so yeah it is manufactured block that you use geogrids to support the lateral pressures behind the wall. On one of the comments that Mr. Sterbenz had was to discuss how to design with impact the underground detention system which we will address with Mr. Sterbenz (inaudible) that’s fine we’ll work through that. Chairman VanVliet – I was just looking at the decorative value of the wall. Mr. Calegrande – They’re intended to be decorative as opposed to just doing a poured in place concrete wall. Member Olschewski – Can I ask one or two questions please now I’m not sure if you are the right person to ask. I think the last time I saw the plans I was actually seeing on the other side but when you guys came first here right for the original building right I think you promised the public things like there would be a walkway for the public and a park and a sitting area and there would be a walkway – maybe Tom you could help me with that. Mayor McKay – I have a vague recollection Attorney Peck – I believe the public was opposed to that though. Members talking over each other. Member Pryor – We discussed before there was a lot of opposition. There was some preliminary discussion but it was omitted in the final plan.

9

Attorney Peck – We were willing to do it but there was opposition to it thinking it would attract people after hours and become an attractive nuisance type situation. So again, we are happy to accommodate. Member Olschewski – I was just, I remember that was something which you guys said you wanted to do I don’t know what happened to it so I didn’t know about the opposition. I had no idea that that was. The second question I had, the wall right is that going where Red School Lane is meeting Baltimore? Mr. Calegrande – No. I’ll show you. Attorney Peck – Can you offer some testimony on how long the wall would be? Mr. Calegrande – As I stated earlier there are several retaining walls throughout the property. There is a wall starting out at S. 7th that we’re going to run along the rear of the building. We have to level the building pad to accommodate the structure. At the top point here the wall is approximately a foot tall and then as we work down, it’s still a foot as we make the bend and if we come all the way down it drops to 2 to 3 feet and then way down in front here where everybody is concerned because it’s in the setback Member Olschewski – That’s where Baltimore meets Red School Lane right? Mr. Calegrande – Baltimore meets Red School Lane way, way down here. We are not any; we’re a couple hundred feet away from that. The wall is actually about 180 feet away from the corner. So the area in question where the variance is required (inaudible) Member Johnson – I don’t remember your original Site Plan; did it have a secondary access point? Mr. Calegrande – This driveway? Member Johnson – Yeah is that what was intended to be? Mr. Calegrande – That was always part of it. Member Fox – Are you proposing the fence on top of the wall only when the wall is two feet or greater or will the fence go all along the wall? Mr. Calegrande – It will go along the wall adjacent to the parking lot and then along the front. I think we have that on Site Plan detail.

10

Member Fox – And how about between what is the wall height between the two parking lots? Mr. Calegrande – The fence we have it shown on the plan basically, just in this “L” and wall height in the parking lot is about between 1 and 2 ½ feet. Engineer Sterbenz – I have an observation. It appeared to me that some of the wall along the frontage there where it parallels Red School Lane can be taken out and actually do some grading. Mr. Calegrande – We could certainly entertain that and work on that and by all means we are not close-minded at all. Engineer Sterbenz – So I’ll take a look at it? Mr. Calegrande – I’ll reach out to you and get your opinions and do what we can do. Engineer Sterbenz – I think it can stop at the southeast corner of the parking lot. The wall is almost 5 feet high and I don’t think that would be the location to take the wall out but as that wall moves northward I think the disparity between the grades along the right-of-way line of Red School Lane and the grades for the curbing in the parking lot aren’t, there isn’t as great of a disparity so I think you could grade that out. Mr. Calegrande – Okay. Member Woolf – At my calculations, I had you at 2.8 feet on the Red School Lane side and back at your basin at 6 inches. Attorney Sposaro – Mr. Calegrande maybe you can address the technical comments contained in Mr. Sterbenz report and then we can deal with the landscaping. Mr. Calegrande – Mr. Sterbenz October 21st, 2016 letter. Attorney Sposaro – Technical comments start on Page 5. Mr. Calegrande – Okay, a lot of these we can go through quickly because we really don’t have any problems with them. Attorney Peck- John, why don’t you just start it at 2.0 and just go through each line and say whether we comply.

11

Mr. Calegrande – 2.01 we don’t have any problems providing. We are on Page 5 of 12. Okay, so 2.01 Site Plan and Grading Sheets we have no problem revising those site lines. 2.02 Site Triangle Profile we have no problem working that out. 2.03 Site Plan 4-Way Stop for safety reasons no problem. 2.04 Hammer Head Turn Around Area for the rear parking lot not a problem, we’ll provide that. 2.05 coordinating confusion with the parking space callouts but we’ll get that resolved and get that corrected it’s not an issue. 2.06 Variance on Number of Parking Spaces so maybe we can just come back to that one and hit that one after or hit it now. Engineer Sterbenz – 2.06 and 07 are related. It is my observation that we had requested the applicant submit a parking analysis. George and I had an observation that there seems to be too much parking on this site. There’s you know, one building is in operation now and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of (inaudible) in the parking field and we thought perhaps there should be less parking so we asked for an analysis to be done. The analysis came back and sort of confirmed what our thought was and there is low usage and a large surplus of parking stalls so maybe just to cut to the chase here I think that some of these stalls on the southerly portion of the site are not needed and should either be removed (inaudible) southwesterly corner of the property adjacent to all the residents (inaudible). Last year they were concerned about the walking path and the landscaping and wanted that area left open and I suspect they are here tonight because there is landscaping again on the plan because there’s a parking lot there and perhaps due to the findings of the parking analysis I think that is an area that we target to either just leave banked or remove all together perhaps landscaping would be able to be removed in conjunction with that. I just want to throw that out. I don’t know if George has commentary. Planner Ritter – Well, I think I agree. The times I was there even before the Parking Study came in, it just seemed like the level of use at the site was really low and that we had an extensive amount of parking and I think the area in the back adjacent to the residential area particularly that one side “L” parking area could either be, if the Board agrees, could either be put in a reserve, i.e. you just reserve that if ever needed it could be built or actually the variance be approved that they can actually remove it and also in our letter we pointed out that at the previous approval, the neighbors didn’t want any landscaping in that area because they wanted it open and we had just indicated to the applicant that if that’s still the feeling of the neighbors, they may remove the buffer from that portion of the plan so that goes back to when we get to the Audience Participation, their opinion in that area. So, I think there’s a real possibility that parking could be eliminated or banked and then of course the question as to the neighbors desire whether we provide the landscape buffer or not at this stage. If they still want it open I have no objections to leaving it open; that’s their choice. But yes I think it is a very good idea and like I say, they have plenty of parking on that site and though we never hoped this, the parking ratio is so high and even if we removed some of the excess parking, they’ll be plenty of parking on that site for another use if for some reason the use would have to change, there’s plenty of parking on that site so I think it is well worth the Board considering the variances.

12

Attorney Peck – And just two quick responses to that – first more than happy to bank the parking whatever the Board prefers and with the landscaping and the buffering, especially in that particular quadrant, you know, whatever the neighbors want, you know, we’ll work with the neighbors, the Board; we’ll do whatever’s best. Chairman VanVliet – Would you have any concerns with going in that direction? Mr. Calegrande – No, no, no. Mr. Sterbenz had alluded to; we had done a parking study where we had individuals from our firm actually spend their day in the parking lot counting cars and our conclusions were that just based on what we counted there is actually a surplus of 193 spaces after what we proposed to put in versus what is actually used so even if we banked 25 in the back we are still looking at 116 and change worth of surplus so we are comfortable either way. Chairman VanVliet – Thank you. Mr. Calegrande – Okay 2.08 discusses Off the Street Loading Berths – the applicant is going to ask for a variance or waiver on that. The deliveries that we made the site will be consistent with what is being done now so that the trucks will just park in the parking spaces as need be. 2.09 We discussed briefly that the 8 foot fence will certainly be reduced to 4 foot at the maximum and I’ll double check on the design code for the barrier so that’s not a problem there. 2.10 asks for some Additional Dimensions for Sidewalks, Parking Lots and Angles of Parking Stalls – that’s not a problem, we’ll provide those as well. That puts us into Item 3 and Grading, Drainage and Utilities. 3.01 discusses that we are non-compliant with Grade – our grade is at 6% on our driveway; that’s something we are stuck with because of the grading at the site. Just the steepness of the property as it relates to Red School Lane in that location. We really can’t make it any less than 6% so we are going to have to request a design waiver on that. 3.02 Chairman VanVliet – One comment on that proposal you say your 4% within 100 feet of an intersecting street; you just measured it is 180 feet I think the way you put in the driveway. Mr. Calegrande – It is more than 182. Member Johnson- Does Red School Lane count as your intersecting street – is that what you are saying? Chairman VanVliet – Red School and Baltimore. Mr. Calegrande – So from Red School to Baltimore to the driveway is approximately 300 feet. Member Johnson – So you’re saying you don’t need a waiver for that now?

13

Mr. Calegrande – Well, I was addressing Mr. Sterbenz comment but if we do need one Engineer Sterbenz – I think a design waiver is needed. I don’t have a problem with it. Mr. Calegrande – I mean I was just more stating for the record I can’t do much about the 6%. Member Johnson –Your other entrance, what’s the grade on that? Mr. Calegrande – I don’t know on the top of my head. 3.02 Curb Grades and Top of Grade Elevations – no problem there we will get that squared away with Mr. Sterbenz’s office. 3.03 Retaining Wall – how it is to be constructed with the new embankment and the proposed storm water system – We’ll get that squared away with Mr. Sterbenz office as well that is not going to be a problem. Attorney Sposaro – Mr. Calegrande the items on Page 7 are all technical and I take it you’re going to address those? Mr. Calegrande – Yes. Attorney Sposaro – Same thing for 3.1 thru 3.14. Mr. Calegrande – Correct and correct. 3.15 I’m going to defer Attorney Sposaro – Glad to address 3.15 (inaudible). Mr. Calegrande – 3.15 The recommendation from Mr. Sterbenz office is that the Board should have a discussion with the applicant regarding improvements on 7th Street including curbing and milling and resurfacing of the cart way. So, it’s not in as much as a technical question about the Site Plan as much as it is something the Board, he’s recommending the Board discuss and consider and discuss with the applicant. Attorney Peck – And if I can step in, I mean certainly if it involves milling the roadway, throwing down a top coat of asphalt something like that, we don’t have a problem doing that. We are concerned with, you know, sort of when you get into building roads and having them feed into other roads and you know, sort of peeling an onion and it leads to you know you have storm water drainage and things like that and 7th Street presenting isn’t in the best condition based on just my layman’s observations, you know, we are more than happy to restrict access to 7th Street to prevent Coordinated Health from utilizing this so it is really almost an emergency secondary access road and again, if it comes to if you want us to resurface the roadway, not a problem, you

14

know, when you get into more involved improvements, you know, where going to have to talk about that. Engineer Sterbenz – The section of road we are talking about is 150 in length. It’s between Baltimore Street and where they’re starting their road improvements on their site. We are not talking about a long length of improvements there. The road is in rough shape. The road is being used more and it’s going to be used even more now with this new building coming in so that was my rationale for bringing this up to the Board and am I looking for a complete reconstruction, no I don’t think we need to do that. I think we curb it between the site and Baltimore Street and do some milling and leveling and some resurfacing. I think that would do the trick. I’m not looking for a complete reconstruction. Mr. Calegrande would have to put a plan together and detail what exactly he would do there. So, I’m not looking for a complete rebuild. Member Pryor – I’m sorry if I heard you incorrectly Paul, you talk about curbing there too (inaudible) and I haven’t, I don’t remember what it is like; is there enough pavement there to facilitate milling or is it in just non Engineer Sterbenz – I’m not sure of the depth of the asphalt. Member Pryor – you know you can only mill under certain circumstances. Attorney Peck - It is in pretty bad shape. I mean I have no engineering perspective, I just know what you know my visual observations. It’s not the best. Brian Weeks – (Inaudible) Member Pryor – There’s going to be nothing to mill. My impression is it would benefit from curbs, drainage and it’s you know if you look at the impact on the area, it’s no hardship to put some paving down for 150 feet. Attorney Sposaro – Any objections? Attorney Peck – Can we call a three minute time out? Attorney Sposaro – Two minutes. Member Woolf – Can I make a suggestion? The black top you are going to save in the back parking lot you can use on 7th Street.

15

Attorney Peck – I don’t think it is so much the black top we are concerned about. It is more the subsurface. Member Woolf – Well, you got subsurface going under your parking lot too. Member Pryor – The milling sounds impractical so it’s going to have to be something. Mayor McKay – Brian you said that is a cobblestone road right over there, the old road. Brian Weeks – The part I can see. Chairman VanVliet – Okay, we are going to reconvene the meeting. Attorney Peck – Thank you for allowing us to huddle up and discuss 7th Street and I’m going to defer to Mr. Calegrande Mr. Calegrande – We’ve been discussing what the applicant is willing to do. The applicant is willing to mill the existing top coat off and replace the top coat of the road, put the curbing in and maintain the same configuration, topography that is there right now – no changes and then what we don’t want to get into is we don’t want to get into having to box out doing a full rebuild and dealing with a new base so it is just going to be a top mill, retop curbing and it is going to be at the same elevations now so we can just maintain the same surface runoff. Attorney Sposaro – I’m confident that you can work with Paul, Mr. Sterbenz and come up with a plan that’s mutually acceptable. Mr. Calegrande – Okay thank you. Member Woolf – One question on curbing that includes curb cuts for the driveway access? Mr. Calegrande – Yes. Member Pryor – I just have one comment – Paul I have no idea what the grading is out there now. If you put curbing in, you got to do some leveling. Engineer Sterbenz – Yeah there’ll have to be some leveling so and I think Mr. Calegrande understands that. Mr. Calegrande – Within reason yes.

16

Engineer Sterbenz – He’s got to protect his client from getting into a big road reconstruction project but I understand what they are committing to and I think we can work out a compromise or a balance here. Member Johnson – Could that work in theory if there’s only an inch left of asphalt and they want to mill and repave, there’s not enough asphalt there really to support a road. So, if there is only really one inch out there. Engineer Sterbenz – Let’s say we find there’s an inch there you might mill 2 and then maybe they come and put 3, 3 ½ inches of top in there. I think you can get 3 ½ inches in there. Attorney Sposaro – Let the professionals work it out. Engineer Sterbenz – We’re going to have to look at it. Probably have to walk the job together as part of the conditions of approval we gonna know exactly what we are going to do. I think the applicant doesn’t want to see a foot cut out of there and have to put 6 inches of dense grated aggregate and 4 inches of base and 2 inches of top – that’s what they are trying to avoid. Member Johnson- Right, I understand that, but if you mill and inch and there’s nothing left of it, you really can’t salvage it so what happens then? Can we address what happens if what’s out there isn’t adequate to support you know the milling and overlay? Maybe it’s a discussion to; you have to have once you know what’s there. Member Fox – Perhaps there might be a slight elevation change for the finished grade as opposed to the existing grade and then if the onsite analysis determines that you wouldn’t cause drainage or ponding on the edges at the residents then it might still be okay to just raise everything up that edge. Engineer Sterbenz – I think what would happen as part of this process is we would core the road and see what the average depth of the existing pavement is and that’s going to tell us what we need to look at in the way of you know an improvement plan. Member Woolf – That’s been an existing road for 25 to 30 years and it really hasn’t just disintegrated to a point where it is impassable. I mean when Baker Chemical was in there, Mallinckrodt Baker, Advantor whatever you want to call them, that road hadn’t deteriorated with all the traffic that’s been on that over the years. Chairman VanVliet – Enough grade on it to if you raised the elevation of the pavement several inches you’ll have enough asphalt there, you don’t have to disturb the base and come in for a full compaction.

17

Mr. Calegrande – You have to make sure that the existing grades at Baltimore and the proposed grades for the driveway can still get the proper Chairman VanVliet – And we saw cut in Engineer Sterbenz – If we see that there’s 3 inches of asphalt there through the course, we may not mill it. We may just do leveling and resurface it with some spot base repairs. Chairman VanVliet – Okay, thank you very much for your consideration. We’ll move on to the rest of the comments. Attorney Sposaro – The next area deals with landscaping and lighting. In fact, you indicated in your (inaudible) comments you are going to work with the Board with respect to landscaping and landscaping requested. Attorney Peck – Yeah, that’s absolutely correct based on the Board’s preferences, based on the president’s comments and whatever works best for everybody. Attorney Sposaro – We still have to hear from the public on that whether they want landscaping and that at one corner where the parking is going to be banked, there are comments that you would work with our engineer and our planner to come up with a mutually satisfactory Landscaping Plan. Attorney Peck – Absolutely. Attorney Sposaro – Except of course the neighbors input we want to get their input. Attorney Peck – Of course their input is very much important to us. Engineer Sterbenz – So 4.01 to 4.09 you will work with us on the landscaping Mr. Calegrande – We’ll work with you. Attorney Peck – (Inaudible) something that I acceptable for everybody. Mr. Calegrande – So, we’ll jump to Item 5.0 everybody’s, we are good? Okay, so 5.01 require some additional discussion by me. The comment was to go back to the 2014 traffic count data and compare that to the 2016 traffic count data to determine whether there is any substantial difference in volumes along Red School Lane so our traffic department within Pennoni, we went back and we looked at it and in fact there are some changes. The 2014 data had more vehicles at

18

the am peak hour than the 2016 data did. So what we did was we used the 2014 data, we increased the volume by one percent per year and we ran our analysis and the conclusion for our analysis was that the level of service at each of the intersections didn’t change. So, the conclusion of the first traffic report are still valid conclusions despite the uptake in traffic from the previous data. Chairman VanVliet – So no substantial changes. Mr. Calegrande – None at all. Engineer Sterbenz – And, I guess as a condition of approval will you submit the updated traffic report. Mr. Calegrande – We can certainly do that. Attorney Sposaro – Geotechnical issues. Mr. Calegrande – Geotechnical 6.01 that’s not a problem we did the Geotechnical Report before we even had the Site Plan done so we were just guesstimating on (inaudible) elevations, so we’ll get that adjusted; that is not a problem and 6.02 we discussed it with the applicant we will provide some additional test pits for the purposes of looking for the seasonal high water and basin (inaudible) material. As long as we are clear and Mr. Sterbenz understands that we are not going to go out and do percolation tests. Engineer Sterbenz – Test pits only. Mr. Calegrande – Test pit only. Attorney Sposaro –Miscellaneous comments seem to be technical in nature. Mr. Calegrande – And we are comfortable in addressing all of those comments. Attorney Sposaro – George, is there anything in your report that that hasn’t been addressed? Planner Ritter - There’s only two items and they’re actually quite minor. It’s just a matter, in the applicants plan, the MRI facility, the proposed addition on Phase I has been removed in this submission. I’ve heard and understood that the facility may have been integrated in the building but that’s it. I just think it should be clear that the applicant is withdrawing the approval for that addition. They are essentially not planning to do an addition there and if you do in the future,

19

you’ll come back and ask the Board to get it re-approved because it’s been taken out of your parking analysis. I just want to see how to handle that. Attorney Peck – Yeah, we’re okay with that. Planner Ritter – The only other thing that should be made clear and it was at the beginning of the meeting that this does not involve the approval of any signage. That’s going to be made at a later day. Attorney Peck – Correct. Planner Ritter – And my comments only on the landscaping we have to hear from the public as to what they want to do in that corner so that’s pretty much my review at this time. Attorney Peck – Thank you. Member Fox – We did kind of skip a couple, skip around we didn’t go page by page review. In one part we started to asked lots of questions and we started flipping all around and I don’t know if we got all the way to the end. Mr. Calegrande – Well, the last couple of sheets are detail sheets so it provides the various construction details that we are going to employ. It is a lot of what Mr. Sterbenz commented on in his technical sections about certain references and things he kind of wants to see in terms of construction details that we are fine with providing. Additionally you get further back into the set is storm water system details, the underground system, landscaping details, trees and then we get into our Soil Erosion Sentiment Control Plans which we will be submitting so that the county district sentiment control guys to get our permit. Member Fox – So, actually, I did have so remembered how I mentioned that space between the two buildings, (inaudible) stock pile where those trees are. Mr. Calegrande – Yeah, I saw that what we’ll do is we’ll adjust the stock pile further away cause (inaudible) hope it don’t kill the trees. Member Fox – Right and right because in your details you show putting up fence around the drip line of the tree (inaudible) and it seems like they would kind of conflict. Mr. Calegrande – It’s a good catch we’ll show the trees on this plan and move that over to accommodate that.

20

Member Fox – Okay and then along the southern side, you go straight down the poppy line with your silt fence and your protection but yet that whole row of trees and shrubs and grading are unaffected. It seems like you wouldn’t want why not just go to the other side to the north side of all those existing trees and shrubs. Mr. Calegrande - We could, it doesn’t matter one way or the other. Member Fox – Because again, it seems like that line was going right Members talking over each other. Mr. Calegrande – That’s just a silt fence so that’s just going to be a silt fence with a couple stakes in the ground and that Member Fox – Well, it gets buried six inches Mr. Calegrande – Yeah, we do it according to the detail but Member Fox – It just seemed like it was going right through the existing trees and shrubs. Mr. Colagrande – Well, we could jock it in if that's what the Board wants us to do. Member Fox - I mean honestly, you could go through the wall. Chairman VanVliet – Go with best practice on that. Does that conclude your presentation? Attorney Peck – That would conclude our testimony. Chairman VanVliet – You have no other experts to testify? Attorney Peck – No other experts. Chairman VanVliet – Okay, in that case I'll ask if the Board has any questions? Member Johnson – I do have a question. I just can't compare as it was part of Phase I, the 21,500 square foot facility that's consistent with what you were thinking you were going to get in there back in the Phase I. Mr. Colagrande – I'll defer to the (inaudible) I was not involved in Phase I.

21

Attorney Peck – Phase I was the adapted reuse of the existing building. There was no new construction it was as Mr. Ritter indicated, there was contemplated an MRI bump out section that we abandoned. This is the only new construction is Phase II that's the 21,507 square feet. Member Johnson – (Inaudible) Phase I you knew that this was coming Chairman VanVliet – The original application showed that building in a concept plan that you were going to construct a new building Attorney Peck – It was really contemplated, yeah. Chairman VanVliet – and that was in the original part of the completeness for the application for the original application you had but for reasons known to you, that building was eliminated so Members talking over each other Engineer Sterbenz – I actually recall the building in concept when we first saw the redevelopment of the site being a lot larger. I recall a building of 48,000 square feet. That's my recollection. Michael Campian - Absolutely true when we went through the design phase Attorney Sposaro – I have to swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear in the testimony you will give in this matter is the truth nothing but the truth? Michael Campian - I do. Attorney Sposaro – State your name, spell your last name. Michael Campion – Michael Campian. Last name is spelled C-a-m-p-i-a-n. Attorney Peck – Michael, can you just advised the Board as to what position your hold? Michael Campion – I'm the Chief Facilities Officer for MaCada Properties. Attorney Peck – And have you been involved in the development of this Site Plan? Michael Campion – I have. Attorney Peck – Okay, how have you been?

22

Michael Campion – Everyone is referring to the original set of drawings that were from before. It was always a concept plan. It was always something that they had wanted to develop. There was never any clear indication of exactly what the specifics were going to be inside the buildings. We go through many types of meetings where we try to figure out what services to offer the community, what exactly we are going to put in there and we don't really know exactly what is going to happen until we start to do our business plan and our Performa. So yes, the proposal was probably a lot larger. I don't know the exact number but once we fine-tuned the business plan of what services we could offer and what services this community would need and what we'd want to work with, this is what came out of it. So this is a matter of many, many months of going through business plans and try and attack the right type of business to the area for the surgical center. Attorney Sposaro – Thank you. Planner Ritter – I will just add one other thing. You had asked the applicant at that time not to carry this huge proposal on the approved plans because it wasn't clear what his intentions were. So that's why they don't appear. We actually asked them not to show any future plans because they weren't fixed. Member Johnson – I understand that and certain things were anticipated during Phase I with this might come and some of the work that was done previously during Phase I was anticipating the structure. I was just making sure it didn't get a lot bigger because that's some of our assumptions that we're already taken into account and the Phase I wouldn't be applicable any more but that you're saying it was actually maybe twice as big so it got smaller I'm not concerned now that its smaller than what's possibly going to happen at Phase I. Another comment that had to happen, we were looking for updated elevations of the facility to vary heights and what not. I have not seen that. It was one of the comments. Chairman VanVliet – It was indicated Attorney Peck – If I, we did provide elevations about two weeks ago. Engineer Sterbenz – You supplied it at the last meeting. Chairman VanVliet – Yeah you had Member Woolf – Something was said that elevations have subsequently been provided. Chairman VanVliet – You were under the ordinances of 40 I believe it is 35 something

23

Members talking over each other Attorney Peck – And, I don't think that any of our subsequent plan changes would affect the elevations or the architectural renderings. Member Johnson – I think we were looking for verification that it wasn't meeting the height and the elevations by themselves is not being labeled or detailed or dimension you couldn't tell and maybe our professionals have it but I do not. Attorney Peck – And I apologize I don't know if I have (inaudible) waste your time My understanding is we are within the building box. Member Johnson – Okay, so not to go in step by step, if there were any comments that were previously not addressed I'd like to just put a blank statement out there that conditional approval is based on you addressing all the comments whether or not you actually remembered to talk about a point. Attorney Peck – Absolutely. Engineer Sterbenz - Is there a question about the building height? Member Johnson – It was a question brought up by somebody else, not me. Engineer Sterbenz – The maximum building height is 26 feet and that has to do with the architectural feature in the front of the building. The lion share of the building is on the order of 17 and 19 feet. This is based on the architectural renderings that were provided at the last meeting. Attorney Sposaro – I have one question for you Mr. Colagrande you indicated earlier that you were indeed seeking a variance or a waiver for (inaudible) Am I correct in assuming that the reason you are seeking a waiver or variances, you don't need this type of facility and the services that you provide there (inaudible) small box trucks and you don't need a loading berth. Mr. Colagrande – That's correct yes. Mr. Colagrande – I'll just clarify that also by saying the initial set up for the facility when there initially bringing in all the furniture, might require some larger trucks but that's a short time, one time hit.

24

Member Johnson – When we were talking about the retaining wall there was a little wall between one parking area and the other parking area – is there something to keep cars from actually going over the wall or is it high enough to be a curb? Mr. Colagrande – (Inaudible) to answer your question there is no guardrails on those. Member Johnson – Is it high enough to keep people from Mr. Colagrande – Well, this is the high end so this is the low end, so the wall is pretty close to the existing grade on the high side so to answer your question no. Member Johnson – So, do we want to see a little high increase to make it look, to make it like a curb so a car can't go over? Mr. Colagrande – We could amend it or do something Member Johnson- At least to get a curb up there. Engineer Sterbenz – The applicants agreed to do something to prevent the over fall, that was part of our review letter. We can take a look at doing a railing or we can take a look at what you suggested Eric which is maybe pump up the elevation of the wall to, you know, provide a barrier there. Mr. Colagrande – I don't really think raising the wall is really the solution there because if we go with the block wall, it (inaudible) going to stop anything but some kind of rail would probably work (inaudible) situation. Member Fox – Could it be the same decorative fence that you are using along the front? Mr. Colagrande – No, the decorative fence along the front is really designed for 200 hundred pound point load – 50 lbs. per linear foot load for a railing to keep persons from tumbling off. That would not work for a car, so, it would need to be more robust. Chairman VanVliet – Okay, at this point, I think we'll open it up to the public for comment, questions. Does anybody have anything they would like to say? Please come forward, state you name and where you live. Carl Muentnich - 215 Sixth Street – Up in the corner that we are talking about, I do have a couple of questions. One is with the resurfacing in front of Brian's there on 7th Street. I think there is a lot of money being saved here with the landscaping if you don't do the parking and

25

asking them to only do a milling on the top I don't think makes really good sense because the top follows the base. So it would be better for them to prepare the base and the Township pick up the tab on milling the top. It's just my perspective, I don't see, you know, when you start doing these overlays, they are going to fall apart so that's just my little (inaudible) and there is a lot of money being saved here from the first application. We all in the neighborhood so don't put up the buffer so there's monies being found and saved so I don't know why there’d be an argument to doing that with the street but that's not the main premise here. I'm just throwing that out there for consideration. I, just on the parking up there, without having an elevation view looking at the building this way, it's hard to say whether we want landscaping or we don't want landscaping but I think landscaping should always remain in play because of what may change there. If they add parking or they do something else with the property, maybe we want landscaping. Maybe we don't want it now. So right now I can't tell whether or not we would want to get a buffer up in that corner up there so I'm saying maybe put it on the back burner that if we want to come back to it that we can. Chairman VanVliet – We are eliminating the parking there anyway so whatever Carl Meuntnich – But if something changed down the road, where all of a sudden we need the parking, Chairman VanVliet – If they had to come back, we can adjust it, if they want to rebuild it, then we would revisit it at that point. Carl Muentnich – Okay that's about it for me. Thank you. Chairman VanVliet – Anyone else? Brian you have anything that you would want to come up with? Brian Weeks - 208 S. 7th Street. My concern is, again, I agree with Steve, but I'd actually like to see the parking lot go away and it's not because of the neighbors we have today. It's the neighbors I have tomorrow. All right. I witnessed three companies go through there now. Okay, nobody knows where that future goes. If they feel they need a parking lot down the road, let them come in front of you and present that, you know, what I mean, but today, let's, if they don't need it, they don’t need it. All right. Let's not make the next company build it cause they want to. All right. That is my opinion on that. I do agree with Steve with the trees. Again, my house has been broken into three times. I cut my trees down. I don't want buffers around my house. Okay. I ask for respect in that area. Down the road, if you put something in there that's next to my property line, you're going to keep me up all night with cars coming and going. You know, I'd like to have that ability to change that a little bit. All right, but everything stopped once I cut the trees down so I know it's about too much privacy around the tree line. Too easy for them. I hope

26

the parking lot does go into limbo and just disappears but I need to know a little bit more about what's underneath there. I have a 70 foot basement and I need to know whether if that let's go, what it is, how it works you know what I mean I'd like to have a little bit of knowing if you are going to hold water there, what it's going to do. You know what I mean. Is it going to affect my property five years down the road? It’s not what am I going for here, you know, what I mean so. If you do away with it, we don't have to discuss it. If you plan to keep it then I have, I'd like to have a set of plans to be quite honest with you because I need to know where to go with it. So, that's my concern and if it effects my basement in any way right now, I don't have any water in my basement but if I get water in my basement I'm going to come knocking on some doors. Attorney Peck – Is this your property here? Brian Weeks – No. I'm right here. Attorney Peck – Okay. Weeks. Just wanted to clarify that. Brian Weeks – That's my concerns at this point. The other thing is just a question I was thinking about why do we put the lights on the outside of parking lots and not on the inside of parking lots. You worried about going over onto people's property; you are putting them closer to my property line, closer to the neighbor’s property lines. You have an inside curbing why are they facing that way and not coming down so they don't come over that driveway at all. Why do you have to fight um? Is there an ordinance or something that it has to go that way? Engineer Sterbenz - Lighting design on the outside and fixtures on the inside of the parking lot you are trying to eliminate. Of course any designer is trying to do it as effectively as possible and as cheap as they can. The parking lot goes there won't be any lights by your house. Brian Weeks – I'm hoping it disappears you know. All right. Thank you. Chairman VanVliet – Anyone else? Joe Lusardi – Corner of Baltimore and S. 7th. So, I was here two years ago when we talked about the lighting and signage on it and I have to say these guys did an excellent job of keeping the back flow from our property so very good there. So my newest concern is if this parking here is eliminated, now you have new parking here and I'm worried about the lighting. You know, visually your back lighting which only has eight posts versus your front and I think there's like twelve. You are much brighter in the front than you are in the back and if you're using LED lighting, as you did in the past, it's dropped down, I understand that. My concern is how we're going to light this area because I'm right here, right next to Brian. So this will shoot straight down. The way you have it lit right now, with your landscaping in place, we're still good. I'm

27

concerned about this area. I know you are using directional blankers in all foot, the thing that we are considerably closer now and your landscape (inaudible) blocking so I do have some concerns about that and my other concern with the new building and signage. Attorney Peck – We're going to come back with a sign package. I mean the signage hasn't been developed yet and you know if it is consistent with the municipal ordinances and regulations then we'll just get the sign permits and do that and if there is any variance or deviation from what is permitted from the Township regulations, we're going to have to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance. Joe Lusardi – Right because we had this concern a few years ago. You made adjustments to it. So it's, basically, eliminated any concerns we had about that. Wanted to know if possibly we could do that now so we wouldn't have that in the future. Attorney Peck – I think they're still at the drawing board. Engineer Sterbenz – I'll just address Mr. Lusardi's comment here. I think there are quite a few lights that this parking lot's removed, quite a few lights are going to be removed. We should be able to work with Mr. Calegrande on how to illuminate the smaller parking lot behind the building to try to get that light cast inward toward the building as opposed to outwards, so I think we can address this gentleman's comments. Mr. Lusardi – Thank you. Thank you very much. Chairman VanVliet – Any further comments? Brian Weeks – I have one more. I don't know how you want to handle this gentlemen; my wife and I have a little concern. You guys have on your property a no-smoking policy. My property has become your dumping ground. All right, I can show you the can of cigarettes if you'd like to see them. Okay. I'm not happy. I don't like it. I don’t' smoke. I understand people do and I'm okay with that but don't burn my house down and I don't like going around picking up cigarette butts everyday so either give them a spot to throw their cigarettes as they come up in their car or I don't know what, I don't know how to handle that but I think the other neighbors are having the same problem you know what I mean. Attorney Peck – Is it patrons of the site or employees? Brian Weeks – I don't know but I can watch.

28

Attorney Sposaro – Raise your right hand do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. State your name and spell your last name. Chris DosSantos – Chris DosSantos. That's D-o-s-S-a-n-t-o-s. Attorney Peck – And Chris what is your position with Coordinated Health? Chris DosSantos – I am the Associate General Counsel for Coordinated Health and this is the first I heard of that concern. I would like to say that if it is employees, I will personally speak to our clinic manager tomorrow about my concern and see that it ends. I would invite you to please and I'll give you a card afterwards, this evening, if you see employees continuing to do that after tonight or after the next week or so once we get the word out, kindly let me know and I'll make sure it doesn't happen because we have a non-smoking for a reason and that doesn't mean just go down the block to the neighbors and smoke so it's meant to engender a healthier environment right? You know, we are a health care organization; we want our patients to feel like we embrace health care ideals by parking near a neighbor’s property and smoking, that doesn't engender that. First I'm hearing it so I'll make sure I get the word out. Chairman VanVliet – Last call on the further comments. Hearing none, we'll close the public portion of the session. Member Pryor – John can you point out exactly what is being eliminated – what we’re discussing eliminating in the parking, is it just the upper part or the one on either side of 7th. Mr. Calegrande – As of now we're Member Pryor – Just how does that impact your detention basin up in that area? Member Fox – I was going to say, can you go to the landscaping page and the detention page? Mr. Calegrande – It's west, it will make it a little smaller but not significantly we’re really the big drain area is up in here. So yeah, it will reduce it by maybe 25% but Member Pryor – And, I really didn't look at the details but the, this underground storage area. I usually see and there just big pipes and nothing is really percolating into the ground correct? Mr. Calegrande – Correct, what we have Member Pryor - Can you review the operation of that?

29

Mr. Calegrande – So, running horizontally on the page, we show that the piping Member Pryor – And, what's the diameter of those pipes? Mr. Calegrande – Right now the diameter is 48” polyethylene piping. Member Pryor – All right, it's not the solid wall. Mr. Calegrande – It's all solid wall it's going to be not packed in stone. It's going to be packed in densely grated aggregate so that it doesn't collect water and then it is a sealed system. Essentially, the sealed system all pipes connect to a manifold. They go into the filter so we can get the suspended solids out to meet DEP requirements and then from the filter it goes out into the storm sources. Member Pryor – And, that will be piped all the way to Baltimore? Mr. Calegrande – Yes. Did Brian you does that answer your Brian Weeks – I don't, I mean, you know, do you mind if when you're doing it I work over and take a look at it? Mr. Calegrande – I won't be there, help yourself. Member Fox – Can you show on the proposed landscaping plan what we're also looking to table along with that parking lot? Mr. Calegrande – What we're going to eliminate for now is these trees around the parking lot. Attorney Peck – Is that actually what the Board and what the residents want? I mean it's, are we cause we were just discussing that to try to we wanted clarity with the plans. Do we want to eliminate the landscape buffer here? Do we want to keep it or do we want to have some modification to what's proposed now? Member Fox – I also sit on the Environmental Commission, so obviously, from the Environmental Commission we want more trees now that I am aware of the resident’s concerns they don't want those right up against the property lines forming a solid barrier, it won't be immediately unless the use in the development of the new building changes their mind and they want an alternative put in place in which case somehow we set something up that they can inform us and we

30

Attorney Peck – Well if, we if there was any additional development on the site, we would have to get amended Site Plan approval anyway and this would trigger another review of the landscaping. Member Fox – I think they were kind of they kind of wanted the option of once you've built what’s proposed Attorney Peck – Let's see what's there and then we'll decide what kind of Member Fox – Yeah so they all sounded like they kind of wanted that option of Attorney Peck – I'll leave that to Mr. Sposaro for how you handle it after that Attorney Sposaro – The times now. Member Pryor – The time is now but I'm wondering if through the developers we can put some time in there, so many months after completion make a decision or something like that. Attorney Peck – And, we're certainly amenable to working with the community to find something that reconciles everybody's needs and wishes. We’re not looking to be bad guys here. Member Fox – And, possibly just as an initial bringing a couple of those perimeter trees up to do you see how you have a line of five or six were that Attorney Peck – Called a mandolin Member Fox – Right, if you just kind of put five or six behind them. Attorney Peck – Like where the parking was going to be. Member Fox – Right, do like a staggered and you're what is that 50 feet, 60 feet off the property line. Mr. Calegrande – Yeah, about. Member Fox – So, where they were proposing those five spaced trees so you had indicated that you wanted all those gone but they are proposing a few trees here and what if they just did like an alternating stacking along there so it wasn't thick, it wasn't a big wall but it would help with whatever lighting they did have.

31

Resident – What are the benefits for where we live? Is that still going to obstruct our view site which is always nice to (inaudible?) Members talking over each other. Chairman VanVliet – So you want it basically left the way it is now? Members talking over each other. Chairman VanVliet – We are down to the point now that we are eliminating the parking lot. We're probably going to offer a variance to eliminate the screen. Attorney Peck – We used to love them in this corner. So okay is that the amended Site Plan that we will be seeking approval for them would have the elimination of these trees in the southwest, kind of the southerly corner here that's adjacent to 7th Street. We are going to remove those trees as per the wishes of the community. Attorney Sposaro – And the reason would be too long (inaudible). Attorney Peck – And how many parking spaces would we be eliminating? Cause I know we are technically, we know it's a parking variance because your parking regulations require 357 parking spaces and we did come in looking for 355 but we are going to remove this parking area – how many are we Mr. Calegrande – 25 there. Attorney Peck – So, we're actually looking for 230 parking spaces. So that would be one of the variances that we are going to seek. So again, not going to belabor the point we are seeking Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval, we're seeking a bulk variance to permit 330 parking spaces where 357 would be required by the municipal ordinances, we are also looking for permission to have the walls in excess of two feet as well as the zoning waiver for Engineer Sterbenz – Driveway grading. Attorney Peck – For the driveway grading and also to eliminate the need for a loading dock. Engineer Sterbenz – And then, we also need to, if we are going to eliminate the buffer along the property line that's a variance also. It is actually in the use regulations for the P.O. District.

32

Attorney Peck – In the southerly corner adjacent to 7th Street, we look for a variance from the Landscaper compartments. Mayor McKay – May we instead ask that you put in shrubbery in lieu of trees? Shrubbery that does not get too tall. Shrubbery that only grows to be four or five feet tall. Brian Weeks – I would recommend that you take that shrubbery and run it alongside your five foot wall over there. Not eliminating it Attorney Peck – Well, can we do that then with our professionals working with the Board's professionals? Chairman VanVliet – Absolutely. Attorney Sposaro – I think that's something you stipulated to with respect to the last (inaudible) that's part of that. Member Fox – The tree count one of the reviews indicated that the tree count for replacement of the trees that you are taking down you (inaudible) or at least the original (inaudible) I didn't see it. Members talking over each other. Attorney Peck – Well we'll work with Mr. Ritter and Mr. Sterbenz to find, you know, with whatever we're losing if we could do some infill elsewhere. I'm sure we are happy to do that. Chairman VanVliet – Any further comments from the Board? Member Johnson – So Page 2 of 12 it was mentioned that December 26th utility letters were sent out but only one was received so I'd like to receive all the utility responses also. Chairman VanVliet – That's a condition of approval. We have the five variances we have to include here. Looking for variance on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval. Member Johnson’s – I have one additional comment real quick I think it was 7th Street paving. If we go out there and do pavement cores can we put something in there right now saying that whatever is left of the existing plus whatever we put on top of it is going to have a minimum of five inch total thickness just to make sure we get something a real road out there? Attorney Sposaro – I don't think that’s what the applicant – that's not what we are asking for.

33

The applicant agreed to basically resurface it, put curbing in, to clean it up but they are not giving us a new roadway in that area. Engineer Sterbenz – Two inches might be enough because there might be twelve inches of stone under the road right now. So, I think we have to go and do a few cores and look examine the roadway a little bit more and then we'll come up with a logical plan for that roadway to have it improved between Baltimore Street and the site. Chairman VanVliet – All right I’ll entertain a motion for Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval with the variances and waivers that we have indicated. Member Olschewski – I'll make that motion. Member Pryor – I will second that motion. Roll call vote: AYES: Members Fox, Johnson, Olschewski, Pryor, Woolf, Mayor McKay, Chairman VanVliet. NAYS: None Chairman VanVliet – Will again open up for public comment on anything else other than the applicants? Hearing none I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Motion by Member Pryor, seconded by Mayor McKay. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Margaret B. Dilts Secretary

34