May 28, 2026, Regular Meeting

Upon return from the break, the Chairperson requested a roll call, and the presence of a quorum was confirmed. PRESENTATION e Mr. Rodman Ritchie, Civil Engineer PE entered the record, was sworn under oath and credentials were accepted as an expert in the field of Civil Engineering. e Mr. Ritchie referenced Sheet 1 Aerial Map Exhibit (dated - May 18, 2026) explaining that the existing parcel is approximately .74 acres in size and is currently developed with an existing two (2) story commercial office building which was formerly occupied by Weichert Realtors and is presently vacant. He explained that the property is within the B2 Zone (General Business District) e Mr. Ritchie referenced Exhibit A1-Site Plan Rendering with Data (dated — May 18, 2026), More or less in the middle of the parcel. Prospect Ave to the lefi, running north- south, the west side of the property. Blueberry Bend is along the southern portion of the site. e In terms of site access, there is an existing driveway with access to Prospect Avenue that is being proposed to maintain. It's 28-foot wide, right-in, right-out driveway access to the site with a secondary access here, along the southern Portion of the property with a two (2)-way driveway on Blueberry Bend that then also connects to Prospect Ave. e An extension of the sidewalk along the Prospect Avenue frontage is being proposed, with a pedestrian connection to the Essex Green Shopping Center across the street, because this sidewalk extends up, to the next intersection to the north where there is a crosswalk across Prospect Avenue. ¢: Some of the Site Plan features were put on the record: e Monument sign at the driveway of the entrance (14.5 feet back from the property line.) e Building mounted sign which meets the area and dimensional requirements, so no relief is required. e In terms of building and orientation, this is a 6.205 square foot building inclusive of a 1,142 square foot retail space located generally in the front of the store. (front meaning the Prospect Avenue side of the store.) Seven (7) bays are located along the southern side of the building and face south (towards Blueberry Bend). e The one exception to the bulk standards is the impervious coverage where 60 percent is permitted and this application proposes 63.3 percent. e 22 spaces are being sought for this lot where 25 are required which in his opinion

ulk standards is the impervious coverage where 60 percent is permitted and this application proposes 63.3 percent. e 22 spaces are being sought for this lot where 25 are required which in his opinion as heard in the operational testimony the bays are actually used on a regular basis to park vehicles particularly overnight, so if those bays were counted towards the parking it would actually exceed what is required. e 10x10 trash enclosure located in the eastern portion of the site is proposed. Access from a trash truck is very favorable in the location proposed as a truck would pull directly in, load, unload, and then exit the site. The enclosure is located outside of the 20 foot buffer against the eastern property boundary with the belief that the size of the enclosure is adequate, as supported by the operational testimony previous heard.

e Air machine, which is for access by the general public located closer to the retail portion of the facility where general public would be able to pull up, fill their tires with air, and exit the site. e Lighting plan for safe design with seven (7) wall mounted fixtures around the perimeter of the building at a mounting height of 12.5 feet. For pole mounted fixtures throughout the parking lot at a mounting height of 18 feet. All fixtures are proposed to be LED fixtures with a low temperature with a setting on a timer and the lighting on the site would be reduced to security lighting around the entrance for overnight hours with the fixtures to be “Dark Sky compliant”. The relief sought regards the fact that there is a .5 foot candles maximum at the property line where .48 is being sought. Where this model does not account for any off-site ambient lighting. e Fencing proposed is a six (6) feet tall solid wooden privacy fence which will run from the southeast corner of the building and connects to the side of the trash enclosure. e Trees are being proposed to being supplemented along the eastern side within the buffer and an extensive landscaping package stating that they have done their best to minimize tree removal but despite best efforts four (4) trees. will still need to be removed, but are proposing replacement based upon a tree replacement plan in accordance with the West Orange Tree Ordinance. This would include 17 new trees, 4 shade trees, 6 otnamental trees, 7 evergreen trees, and a whole host of new shrubs, ground cover, and other perennials and grasses to really make the site look nice. In Mr. Ritchie’s opinion, the requirements of the tree replacement plan all have been met and are spelled out. It actually shows . up on the demolition plan and the site plan package. Mr. Ritchie reiterated that this application is providing stormwater flow reductions, just not to the full extent that's required by ordinance. The other relief being sought is to install a non-green infrastructure practice, and that's the, underground detention pipe to slow stormwater runoff from the roof. So it's considered a clean runoff in a pipe that's controlled by a small orifice at the end, and it's being used for detention purposes only which he believes is a better alternative than a green infrastructure alternative (such as a porous pavement), for example. In his

l orifice at the end, and it's being used for detention purposes only which he believes is a better alternative than a green infrastructure alternative (such as a porous pavement), for example. In his opinion, there's really no difference between an underground pipe and a porous pavement system in terms of the benefits to the environment, especially in Planning Area 1 where there's no infiltration. Infiltration is actually discouraged in Planning Area 1. Both, in Mr. Ritchie’s opinion, are structural systems, a structural approach to stormwater management, and they both are, in this case, achieving the exact same goal, which is to simply reduce stormwater flows from a clean rooftop. Ms. John-Basta Esq., Applicant Attorney asked for confirmation that Mr. Ritchie received the Board Engineer Review Letter dated May 19, 2026, and, to the extent that there are topics not touched on or dealt with any of the comments, are there any comments in here that, are adverse to the applicant, or could the applicant comply with, the comments made by Mr. Hess? To which Mr. Ritchie answered in agreement to comply with any other comments that he didn't specifically address in testimony. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS Mr. John Hess and Chairperson Neuer had a discussion about #41 in his memo (road and paving cross sections and profiles) stating that they are not doing anything with the street and #42 is about proposed street names, but stated that they are not creating a

street so Mr. Hess doesn’t believe that it is applicable. Chairperson Neuer said in response to those questions, waivers for those issues are granted. Mr. Hess said that Mr. Ritchie indicated the DEP requirements that they are not a major based on one (1) acre of clearing, but wanted it on the record that the West Orange Ordinance established a disturbance of a half acre of land since February 2, 2004 so this project is a major development which is in his report. Mr. Hess also stated that since Mr. Ritchie’s intention is to use a basin which does not meet the green infrstructure requirements for the underground basin and have asked for a waiver to be granted by the Board to permit the stormwater management system that is proposed which he believes that there will be no issues with it, but it is a technical issue where the applicant is not fully in compliance with the Ordinance. Mr. Hess confirmed that with the previous explanation there are no questions for Mr. Ritchie. Mr. Christopher Dochney had no questions. At a later point in the meeting, Mr. Dochney offered information stating one of the ways to rectify the impervious coverage variance is if you had shifted the parking of those 12 spaces on the south end off of Blueberry Bend if shifted, those to the south a little bit and expanded that, planted median, 60% could get achieved. But testimony was that doing that would be'a less safe condition where he stated that he was not quite understanding that, because right now, the way it's designed, cars would pull in, head forward into those parking spaces, presumably, and then back out into the easement of Blueberry Bend or the private drive. Mr. Ritchie said that they would be doing it at the same movement but the separation from the travel way is greater under this condition. If the spaves shift eight (8) feet the parking space is immediately adjacent to the travel way. Mr. Dochney said that it is functioning more as a drive aisle, it's not a, high-traffic roadway there. But either way, they're going to be backing out, they're not backing out into that 8-foot strip, they're backing and doing a turn there, are they. Mr. Ritchie said that it's a matter of proximity, and having a little more space to maneuver, to back up, and be able to look to see if there's oncoming traffic. I just think this is a more safe, or a safer condition. BOARD QUESTIONS I.

proximity, and having a little more space to maneuver, to back up, and be able to look to see if there's oncoming traffic. I just think this is a more safe, or a safer condition. BOARD QUESTIONS I. Schwarzbaum had a question for Consultant Engineer, Mr. Hess about the detention basin not being compliant. Mr. Hess said that there are various options available in the Ordinance in order to make it compliant but technically it is not in compliance with the green infrastructure requirements. In order to make it compliant, the applicant would have to go into the Ordinance and look at one of the permitted infrastructure improvements and modify the design to incorporate that. IT. Dubovy asked for confirmation that there would not be left turns allowed onto to Prospect from either exit points. Mr. Ritchie said that the flow would be right in, right out, only no left turns. You could not physically make that left turn unless the median was jumped which he doesn’t recommend. There is no signage restricting and no physical barrier so he does not know whether lefi turns are allowed or not. Essex County has jurisdiction over this and an application has been submitted but they have deferred comment until the West Orange Zoning Board has acted. T. Ben-Zvi asked for confirmation that the applicant could comply with the 60% impervious coverage, but the preference is not to. Mr Ritchie said that if the median is widened by eight (8) feet and the stalled are pushed further to the south that would add and then meet the 60% impervious coverage requirement. But it pushes these spaces closer to the travel way of Bluberry Bend and in his professional opinion, that is a less desierable confition. It is a less safe condition.

T. Ben-Zvi asked about parking where only 22 parking spaces are proposed but said that if the bays are included then the applicant might be in compliance, but isn’t that the other way around where the bays actually trigger the parking requirement because you need two (2) parking spaces for each bay so if you decrease the number of bays, in his opinion they would be in compliance. Mr. Ritchie said that there are a number of different ways to look at it, yes. M. Dannemiller asked about the drainage and the green infrastructure there are multiple ways that this application could be in compliance so was there a reason a green roof with any sort of to minimize runoff was not considered so that the thresholds that are required could have been met. Mr. Ritchie said that in his opinion a green roof really isn’t going to achieve anything different than what is being proposed with the underground detention system reducing flows the runoff from the roof would be considered clean anyway so the only benefit of a green roof is to increase and improve water quality which is not something this application is seeking relief for. M. Dannemiller asked what size vehicle for deliveries is accommodated in this parking lot configuration (i.e.: Single Unit 40, WB50). Mr. Ritchie said that it is a box truck technically referred to as an SU30 with an overall length of 30 feet. M. Dannemiller asked regarding lighting and a severe variation of 4.8 to five (5) foot candles at the driveway on Prospect Avenue and asked if it could be scaled back and if he had the ability to try and get it to be more consistent across. Mr. Ritchie said that it could be done: But it is really more of a function of the light being at the driveway and that he doesn’t think there is going to have a situation where drivers would be “blinded” as they are entering the property where he does not believe that is the case in the application taking place and that there are always a number of variables that have to be considered with these models. Mr. Hess joined the discussion explaining that the plan shows along the curb line that it is reduced to a maximum of 4.8 at the property line but at the curb line it is down to 1.6 and that is only in the center of the driveway and then it drops off significantly on either side of the driveway. M. Sussman asked whether or not Blueberry Bend is an actual street. Mr.

down to 1.6 and that is only in the center of the driveway and then it drops off significantly on either side of the driveway. M. Sussman asked whether or not Blueberry Bend is an actual street. Mr. Ritchie said yes. Based upon discussion between Mr. Sussman and Mr. Ritchie, Chairperson Neuer suggested to Ms. John-Basta that prior to the next appearance to contact the Engineering Department and see if they can get the status of Blueberry Bend, eventhough according to Ms. John-Basta her understanding is that Blueberry Bend is a private roadway and the town does not maintain/take ownership of it. Mr. Sussman asked if this goes through to the condos in the back. Mr. Ritchie said no. B. D. Scott asked for confirmation that they are taking down the existing structure there. Mr. Ritchie said yes. Mr. Scott followed up by asking what the length and width of the parking lot, including in and out of the driveway. Mr. Ritchie said that it is from the property line with approximately 30 feet to the edge of the parking stalls. Mr. Scott asked if Mr Ritchie would be willing to make a condition of approval to ameliorate for a heat island effect by using lighter materials and lighter colored materials in the parking stalls. Mr. Ritchie said that he is not familiar with those kind of products but that the applicant would be open to considering options, but he is not knowledgeable enough but willing to look into it and explore options. Mr. Scott asked if the applicant would consider as a condition of approval including green roofing and putting something there that the residents of the condominiums would have something other to look at than the rooftop of a Mavis. Mr. Ritchie said that other than the visual benefit, there is a cost benefit analysis there and in his opinion, it isn’t there as it is very expensive, with very little benefit, and he is unsure that is something the applicant would entertain. Mr. Scott asked if he has ever done green roofing before. Mr. Ritchie said that he has not. 10

R. Miller asked about the proposed privacy fence between the rear of the building to the east and the garbage area confirming that there is no plan for a perimeter fencingalong the eastern side abutting the condo area. Mr. Ritchie said no that they looked into that and had originally contemplated a privacy fence along the entire perimeter. But as mentioned in earlier testimony, there are a number of trees along the eastern property line and substantial vegetation along the southern portion of this eastern property line and to circumvent those trees with a new fence. But if the Board disagrees or feels differently, Mr. Ritchie believes that the applicant would be open to considering a fence along the entire way it just did not make sense at the time. Ms. Miller asked in reference to the Sustainability Checklist, if the applicant could agree to roofing material being light gray color instead of a dark material. Mr. Ritchie said that he’s deferring to the architect to answer, but he believes the roof color being white. L. Cohen asked in reference to trees, to which Mr. Ritchie referenced his plans to what trees were staying as opposed to those being removed. Mr. Cohen asked about the green roof and what the costs could possibly be. Mr. Ritchie said that he hadn’t looked at a green roof for this facility but from his experience they are very expensive per square foot and require structural reinforcement because they do have a load. There are a lot of other considerations that come into play with a green roof for a facility like this, but reiterated that he doesn’t believe the benefits would be justified based on the cost and the other design elements/criteria involved. Adding that there is no reason from a Sotrmwater Management perspective to install a green roof. Mr. Cohen asked if when the building is being taken down, would there be a way to recycle or use those stones again instead of just throwing it in the garbage. Mr. Ritchie said that if someone was found interested in reusing it, or wanted to take it that he is sure the applicant would be willing to work with them. PUBLIC QUESTIONS e (not heard and it was at this time that Chairperson Neuer announced this application ZB-25-07 Mavis — 460 Prospect Avenue is being carried with preservation of notice to the July 16, 2026, Regular Meeting via the Zoom platform, where this application will pick up with

this application ZB-25-07 Mavis — 460 Prospect Avenue is being carried with preservation of notice to the July 16, 2026, Regular Meeting via the Zoom platform, where this application will pick up with the public questioning of Engineer, Rodman Ritche.) Chairperson Neuer adjourned the meeting at 10:51 PM Adopted: Diana L. CHandler, Secretary ala