May 28, 2026, Regular Meeting

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