May 28, 2026, Regular Meeting

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