Page 4 of 6

another building and it was decided the proposed building be back 30' from the right of way line, and the building was pushed back 40' and that site visibility is 500'. Exhibit A-3 shows the landscape plan and the street scape was desired to be made very attractive and there was upgraded landscape and this design improves the street scape and benefits the community and that is why there was relief sought for the front yard setback and Exhibit A-5 is a rendering of the building and it can be seen that this building is proposed to be a gateway structure from Lakewood and Jackson and it's a vision to be unique and has value of presentation and there is a rendering to show the treatments of the building and one reason why this was stated it was not to be pushed through fully and there were some comments on the building and it was settled and it's an innovative design and it's a huge upgrade to what is on the site now and input is welcomed on the concept and there were discussions on a rooftop space or a me signee and it was decided to keep that removed and its a 2 story building and the applicant would like some use of the rooftop as an outdoor space for a break or a phone call, and there is some feedback from the neighbors behind the site and there was concern of the activity on the rooftop. Mr. Alfieri stated the applicant also agreed it would be for use of the tenants and it would be from 9 a.m. -5 p.m. so there would be no activity later than 5 pm. Mr. M acfarlane advised at the back of the site the ordinance requires a 20' setback where 10' is proposed and there is a privacy fence and landscaping proposed and the site identification sign is 72SF; 12x6 and 30SF is required and that is to small and it's hard to see when there is a multi-tenant facility and 72SF is appropriate for identification and there would be no impact of visibility and its proposed closer then what is allowed which is 25' and it's in the public interest to have that sign closer to the street at 15', there were design waivers that relate to the entrance, and what is designed is safe and it allows for 3 cars to stack on the entrance drive. Mr. Alfieri asked even though this is undersized does the site comply with the building coverage and impervious coverage. Mr. M acfarlane stated that is correct, there are waivers on those items aside from the front yard setback.

Mr. Alfieri asked for testimony regarding the storm water management. Mr. M acfarlane stated when this was submitted there was no component other than on site collection and there were comments received back from the County and there was a recharge system added to the back of the building and that recharge system will promote ground water recharge. Mr. Alfieri advised Mr. Peters pointed out a dumpster variance. Mr. M acfarlane mentioned the dumpster may need relief for accessory structure setback, and if the variance is needed it would be located as far as possible from the side and its 25' from the rear and it's at 18' from the side and on Exhibit A-3 the dumpster can be seen. Mr. Alfieri asked how that is enclosed. Mr. M acfarlane stated there is a fence enclosure and landscaping. Mr. Alfieri asked for testimony on the EIS waiver. Mr. M acfarlane advised the ordinance requires an EIS for 20,000SF and we have 11,000SF, so it would be requested to be waived. Mr. Alfieri asked if that is in terms of the use it's a general office use, not medical. Mr. M acfarlane advised that was correct, with 1 space per 200SF. Mr. Alfieri asked if the parking is conforming. Mr. M acfarlane said yes and mentioned one technical item it was noted that one is on the back left corner is 6' wide and the design waiver would be required for the 10'. Mr. Alfieri asked for testimony on the lighting and landscaping. Mr. M acfarlane stated in the landscaping plan there is a planted area in front and there is landscaping along the frontage and in the rear of the property, and along with the landscaping in the rear there is privacy fencing. Mr. Alfieri asked for testimony on the site lighting. Mr. M acfarlane stated there will be 6 free standing poles all pointed to the inside so there is no impact on adjoining properties. Mr. M acfarlane advised there was comment in Mr. Klee's report that there was no loading zone proposed, and it's not necessary for this building, and Exhibit A-7 is the color rendering showing the outside of the building and Exhibit A-8 is similar to what was shown and there is no me signee space, and there is no basement. Mr. M acfarlane stated this application and the variances required meets the goal of the master plan and they are important points of the Jackson Township master plan and this bring the site into conformance a little more than it was and these variances can be granted without detriment to the zone plan.

Dr. Campbell was pleased to see a rendering and a plan for a unique building to welcome people into Jackson, and usually there is a suggestion or question about solar panels because flat roofs and no trees seem to be a good area for solar and it's un sure for the use of the rooftop, there might be some areas to consider solar possibly at the top of the staircase there is a window looking view and to the left there is open area for solar just enough to power the external lighting. Mr. M. Mcalerane advised there is no objection to reviewing solar. Mr. Wall mentioned the architecture is bazaar and asked what theme is it, also if the glass is mirrored because it would be interesting to see how the sun reflecting off the building will affect the cars. Mr. Wall also asked what the total height of the building is because there are going to be people standing on the roof. Mr. Mcalerane advised there will be people on the rooftop as it's an outdoor air open amenity. Mr. Wall asked how tall the buildings along the corridor are. Mr. Mcalerane advised there is no relief on the height and with flipping through the plan the proposal is not current, and the building will be 35' to the rooftop. Mr. Wall asked the height of the stairwell overhand. Mr. Alfieri stated the architect should address that question. Mr. Burnstein asked the height of the fence in the back. Mr. Mcalerane advised that it is a solid fence. Mr. Burnstein asked if that will suffice. Mr. Mcalerane mentioned it could be done however there would be a need for a variance. Mr. Peters noted on the right hand side of the building there is a second floor overhang that overhangs parking spaces, however what are the sizes of the parking spaces. Mr. Mcalerane advised the spaces are 8x18 and on the revised plans. Mr. Peters raised concern regarding the bollard taking space between the parking spaces and the building, and asked how much distance that is. Mr. Mcalerane said 17.5'. Mr. Peters stated there is not a lot of extra room in that area, and those spaces will be for tenants assuming that customers have no customers. Mr. Peters stated there is not a lot of extra room in that area, and those spaces will be for tenants assuming that customers have no customers. Mr. Peters stated there is not a lot of extra room in that area, and those spaces will be for tenants assuming that customers have no customers. Mr. Peters noted on the right hand side of the building there is a second floor overhang that overhangs parking spaces, however what are the sizes of the parking spaces. Mr. Mcalerane advised the spaces are 8x18 and on the revised plans. Mr. Peters raised concern regarding the bollard taking space between the parking spaces and the building, and asked how much distance that is. Mr. Mcalerane said 17.5'. Mr. Peters stated there is not a lot of extra room in that area, and those spaces will be for tenants assuming that customers have no customers. Mr. Peters stated there is not a lot of extra room in that area, and those spaces will be for tenants assuming that customers have no customers. Mr. Peters stated there is not a lot of extra room in that area, and those spaces will be for tenants assuming that customers have no customers. Mr. Peters stated there is not a lot of extra room in that area, and those spaces will be for tenants assuming that customers have no customers. can be made smaller and this isn't a 50' right of way with housing, it's a 4 lane highway with a full shoulder and a divider and when the testimony is bringing the building forward 20' and the sign forward 10', it needs to be thought that this is not going on a regular street in town, and the proposed variance can be addressed, the argument has been made on what exists on County Line Road and regarding to the waivers, the waiver that should be spoken too is the loading zone, they may not need a loading zone but they should have a drop off location and there should be a stripped delivery space and that would be the recommendation to the loading area. Mr. Klee noted there is a design exception relating to the drive islands, and there is question why can't it comply with 10'. Mr. Mcalerane advised the plans submitted shows 6' and that is adequate given the location, and it's not going to be visible to the street and it will be landscaped. Mr. Klee mentioned the others are 10'. Mr. Mcalerane stated the site would lose a parking space and the plan complies with 57 spaces and that is with the waivers requested. Mr. Klee mentioned this shows the building is too big.

Richard Tokarski- with Tokarski Millemann Architects, licensed in the state of NJ and has been before both Jackson Boards and other Board across the start- credentials accepted- sworn- Mr. Alfieri asked what the building is designed as. Mr. Tokarski stated its glass and not intended to be mirrored, it will be glass. Mr. Hudak mentioned when you look at this it's like art, some see it one way and others another way. Mr. Wall noted Mr. Tokarski has appointed as Township Architect. Mr. Gertner stated there is a conflict and there may be plan reviews before the Planning Board. Mr. Tokarski advised he has not done any official work for the Township. Mr. Wall asked is the height from the dirt to the top structure. Mr. Tokarski advised its 41' and the roof height will be 30' and the top of the stairs and sky light is 41' and there is a 4' parapet around the building. Mr. Wall asked if 2/3 of the space will be open for the people on the roof. Mr. Tokarski said yes. Mr. Wall asked if its 41' where 35' is the building height requirement, how big is the top