June 18, 2026, Regular Meeting

ng condition. Mr. Barbee asked about the slope being a 10 feet incline or going down from north to south, and it was mentioned that the snow would be pushed to the rear, and that brings up whether it would be pushing snow up against their fence inclined. Mr. Miskov answered, saying that this application site would have its own fence, along that property line as a post-development, as long as approval for this application is granted. Chairperson Neuer asked for confirmation on how the shared parking works. Mr. Miskov said that the basic concept is that when people are at work, the people living there will be going to work, while the office space demand will be people coming in to work in the offices so they are not there at the same time. Chairperson Neuer asked if the application has filed with the Essex County Planning Board yet. Mr. Miskov said no, but will file with the Essex County Planning Board and Soil Conservation District after approval from this Board. Chairperson Neuer asked for confirmation that there will not be a dumpster, but there will be individual trash containers. Mr. Miskov said yes that is the idea right now. Chairperson asked if there has been any investigation into any car accidents regarding traffic entering and leaving this property historically. Mr. Miskov said no. Chairperson asked for confirmation that this application intends to consolidate two (2) driveways into one (1). Mr. Miskov said yes.

¢ Chairperson Neuer asked if the applicant would be willing to accept a condition to prohibit medical office uses without coming back to the Board. Mr. Sullivan said that he would have to speak to his client and find out. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS e J. Hess asked for confirmation if there were going to be dedicated parking spaces for residential use. Mr. Miskov said that on (Site Plan Sheet #5) plans do show a reserve for residents on three (3) of the parking spaces. e J. Hess asked for confirmation that there is no problem complying with the comments in Review Letter #2 (Dated — April 6, 2026) regarding drainage, because that's really the major items that remain to be addressed. Mr. Miskov said yes. * C. Dochney asked about the air conditioning units proposed on the right side of the building, being screened by a fence and whether that fence and the one proposed for the back will be made of the same materials. Mr. Miskov said yes that it is a screen fencing with accessible gates made out of white vinyl. ¢ C. Dochney asked about the lighting proposed clarifications where it was indicated that the lighting being all directed downward and shielded, and the details are directed down, but that it looks like the pole-mounted light won’t be shielded. Mr. Miskoy said that it was his understanding that they can also direct the individual LEDs into certain directions, and it didn't need the shielding. But deferred to the lighting expert and landscape architect. PUBLIC QUESTIONS e Kevin Malanga (Ridge Road) asked Mr. Miskov how many parking spaces are presently on the two (2) sites and how many are proposed. Mr. Miskov said 11 and 21 spaces are proposed. e Mr. Malanga asked where a resident would park as an alternative. Mr. Miskov said that with the mixed use of the site, he does not think it would happen given that the residential component to the application is only requiring six (6) spaces, two (2) for each unit. Mr. Sullivan did not offer any redirect for this witness. PRESENTATION e Mr. Brian Conway, Landscape Architect entered the record, was sworn under oath, credentials were provided and accepted as an expert in the field of lighting and landscaping. e Mr. Conway displayed Sheet 7 — Lighting and Landscaping (Revision Date — February 13, 2026) and explained that in regards to light fixtures, spillage, and glare that the intention is to use LED

ng. e Mr. Conway displayed Sheet 7 — Lighting and Landscaping (Revision Date — February 13, 2026) and explained that in regards to light fixtures, spillage, and glare that the intention is to use LED fixtures with two (2) pole mounted fixtures which are on the left side of the parking lot and two (2) building mounted fixtures that on the right side of the parking lot. There are fixtures around the building mounted at 12 feet and one (1) mounted at six (6) feet. They are both 32 watt- 33 watt lumen fixtures with a forward distribution. For the pole-mounted fixtures, which is a DSX0,size 0. Those are mounted at 15 feet with a 35-watt fixture, which is 3,500 lumens, and they have a Type 4 distribution, which is a forward throw with a highly efficient backlight control. The way that the LED fixtures are rated is called a“BUG rating” (B for backlight.U for uplate, and G for glare.) rated on a number from 0 to 5. (Zero being the least amount of glare, or, offensive light, and 5 being the most amount of glare, or offensive light.) The building-mounted fixtures, the bug rating is a 1 for the B, which is the backlight 0 for the uplight, a 1 for the glare,and for the 8

pole-mounted fixtures, the backlight is zero (0), the uplight is zero, and the glare is two (2). What that glare represents is the light that comes forward out of the fixture, into and towards the parking lot. The way that these fixtures are designed and set up is that the LEDs are recessed up into the fixture and aimed specifically out to specific patterns to create the, the distribution, asymmetric distribution that's provided. There is a lip on the backside and those are slightly recessed up into the fixture themselves. There are, state-of-the-art LED fixtures that are efficient, and do a great job of lighting. The statistics for the lighting plan which are really important matrices. The minimum is 0.6, and maximum is 2.5, the average for this application is 1.3 foot candles, and then the next two (2) are critical to evaluate lighting design. The first one is the maximum to minimum, which is 4.2 to 1, and the next one is average to minimum, which is 2.2 to 1. He testified that those are far better than standard or average in terms of uniformity, so there won't be light spots and dark spots because it will all low-level uniform lighting, throughout the site with the minimum is 0.6, and the average of it being 1.3. ° Mr. Conway brought up Exhibit A2 Lighting & Landscape Plan (Colorized- Sheet #7— Revision Date — February 13, 2026) explaining that for the landscape plan is a simple foundation planting in front of the building with some loriope and some boxwood to help mitigate the front parking setback variance, an evergreen hedge along the edge of the parking to help mitigate and buffer the parking from the street was provided. In addition to that, behind the sign and on the opposite side of the driveway, there are two (2) trees (Yoshino Cherries), in the back left corner of the parking lot, there's an additional tree, and then, coming forward, to the right side, there is an additional cherry tree for three (3) Yoshino Cherry Trees and one (1) Willow Oak with four (4) deciduous trees provided on site across the back of the property, in addition to the 6-foot-high solid vinyl fence, we're also proposing 35 emerald green arborvitae trees at 7 to 8 feet tall to provide some buffering for the rear yard neighbor, and although it is only a 7-foot wide buffer at the narrowest point, between the solid 6-foot-high fence, and the Arborvitae Hedge, providing

tall to provide some buffering for the rear yard neighbor, and although it is only a 7-foot wide buffer at the narrowest point, between the solid 6-foot-high fence, and the Arborvitae Hedge, providing an effective buffer for the rear yard neighbors BOARD QUESTIONS e Chairperson Neuer asked if any trees are being removed. Mr. Conway said no. e Chairperson Neuer asked if the applicant would consider additional plantings in the area that did not obstruct the vision of cars coming along Pleasant Valley Way. Mr. Conway said that the applicant intends to keep clear of any sight triangles for the neighboring driveway. But they are willing to tuck some in the back near the building. e L. Cohen asked about trees along the southern section of the property and whether or not the parking lot is under the regulation of having some shade trees within 25 years. Mr. Conway said that he had looked through the ordinance for all the relevant parts for landscape previously that when the plans were prepared, a little bit of time was spent looking for that, and he couldn't find anything. However, he saw some things related to larger parking lots, with one (1) tree for every 10 parking spaces. There are 21 parking spaces and three (3) trees directly related to the parking lot,.but nothing could be found other than that. Mr. Dochney interjected saying that he was looking at the code, and under Chapter 28, it is in Environmental Protection Article 1: Tree Protection for the tree removal and replacement, and specifically 28-4,8, stating that all parking lot owners shall maintain trees in compliance with the Township Code, and shall create 50% of shade in the parking lots within 25 years. However, the larger section includes development applications. Every development application filed with the Board that proposes tree removal and replacement shall

follow, and if tree removal is not proposed here, he doesn't know if that section would then technically apply to this application but wanted it noted for the record. eR. Miller asked about a buffer in the parking lot on the left side. Mr. Conway said that on the left side, the application proposes to abut the neighboring parking lot on the other side and that there is not much room for any type of buffer there. Ms. Miller asked as a follow up if there is going to be a fence. Mr. Conway said that one is not proposed on that side. eT. Dubovy asked what kind of trees are proposed for the three (3) mentioned on the plans. Mr. Conway said that the two (2) nearest the street are Yoshino Cherries and the one (1) in the back left corner is a Willow Oak. Mr. Dubovy asked how big the Yoshino Cherries grow to be. Mr. Conway said the tree is probably a mid-sized omamental tree probably in the neighborhood of 20-25 feet tall and 20 feet wide. The Willow Oak, depending upon what its environment is grows to approximately 30 or 40 feet wide. e Mr. Dubovy asked for confirmation of the maximum Lighting number being 4.2 and if that is the maximum number that, I would indicate glare. Where on the property is that 4.2 reading? Mr. Conway siad that it will likely be underneath one of the, light fixtures with a maximum of 2.5 when it compares to the minimum, it's 4.2 to 1, so the maximum foot candle level is 2.5 underneath the light fixtures. e Mr. Dubovy asked what does the maximum to minimum represents? Mr. Conway said that the two, statistics (4.2 to 1 and 2.2 to 1) is the, the 4.2 to 1 would be the brightest light on site as compared to the darkest light on site.With the 2.2 to 1 would be the average illumination level compared to the minimum. The close... the smaller that gap is, the better the uniformity. He opined to say that a typical project with, average uniformity would be potentially up to 10 to 1 for the maximum to min, and up to, say, 5 to 1 for the average to min. So these numbers are far better than those. ¢ Mr. Dubovy asked where on the property is the 4.2 maximum appearing? Mr. Conway said that it's a 2.5 maximum, and that the 4.2 is a ratio, it's nota light level, but that he believes it is right there underneath the light at that sidewalk. No PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS PUBLIC QUESTIONS ¢ Kevin Malanga (Ridge Road) asked Mr. Conway what qualities of the

t level, but that he believes it is right there underneath the light at that sidewalk. No PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS PUBLIC QUESTIONS ¢ Kevin Malanga (Ridge Road) asked Mr. Conway what qualities of the Yoshino Cherry Tree caused him to select it for this site. Mr. Conway said that it’s a mid- sized tree that has some flowering attributes to it. Mr. Malanga asked if the Yoshino cherry tree is native to the Northeast United States. Mr. Conway said no, but the Willow Oak is native and he would be happy to select another native tree if that is a concern. Break 9:28 PM - 9:42 PM Upon return from the break a roll call was performed and the presence of a quorum was confirmed. PRESENTATION e Mr. Larry Appel, AIA entered the record, was sworn under oath, and qualifications were accepted as an expert in the field of Architecture. ¢ Mr. Appel explained Exhibit A3 -Five (5) sheet set (dated - January 12, 2026) e The existing buildings are quirky and lack a lot of street appeal. The existing building had a basement and cellar space, which was accessible from the street, office space on the ground floor, and a rental dwelling on the second floor, as 10

well as the attic. The current celler is really not usable. It's broken up on several levels. There's low ceiling height, obstructions, and lots of structural conflicts. Most of this is because there was just an existing structure and additions where over time, it's (in his opinion) not a suitable space, and very difficult to use. Regarding the architectural set, building height is calculated, including from the average grade up to the highest point of the roof. So, the design and the intention was to match the current roof height. The current ridge on the existing property at a side elevation and the addition, are lined up. Otherwise, the same structure which is a little bit taller, but hesitant to do so because of tespect for the rear neighbors, primarily the residential neighbors. So with an existing height of 35 feet,and the current proposed height as well in this attic space, and two (2) dormers up in there can be seen, it is that this attic level is not considered a story. By definition, the attic of the addition and the expansion complies with the town's definition of a half-story. In reference to the floor plan, it will show on the cellar level and the ground floor, the front portion is the existing, and the rear portion is the addition. The way this is planned is this and what is being proposed is the structure built behind the existing, so all of this new space is behind the existing building in place of the existing parking lot. The new parking in the neighboring lot, was discussed extensively during the site testimony. The areas of the building include what is proposed is 1,790 square feet at the cellar and 1,510 square feet, at the ground floor for a total of 3,300 square feet of new space. This proposed office space is entered at the rear of the property, and this was done because, it was needed to create an accessible entrance appropriate for the space. There was some discussion by the site engineer as well, discussing how the upper floors were handled, and there's an existing dwelling unit in the front and what is proposed is two (2) dwelling units in the new portion. So the dwelling unit has a bedroom on the second floor and then an attic level that includes a bedroom and a bathroom as well. The main level of each of these units is 920 square feet. The attic level is 365, combined with a living area of 1,285 square feet, which is pretty

evel that includes a bedroom and a bathroom as well. The main level of each of these units is 920 square feet. The attic level is 365, combined with a living area of 1,285 square feet, which is pretty typical. The main entrance is at the center. The side facing residential entrance and the parking area, provide a common entrance. On the opposite side of the stairway is another entrance that will allow residents to use some of the grass area on the south side of the property. The front portion of the building is existing, and the rear portion is proposed for code purposes which will be maintained with a firewall separating these structures. Fire sprinklers will be required in those portions, mandated by the building code, which is going to be the whole new area. There are existing HVAC units on the parking side of the building that will be relocated to the opposite side, as well as new HVAC units for the proposed addition. The way this works is that these are small split systems, very similar to what people would have in their homes, but possibly a little bit smailer in size and capacity, and which means they have an inside unit, which is a furnace and an outside condensing unit. Based on the site testimony, these will be screened either by landscaping or what was discussed as a 4-foot-high, white vinyl fence with the elevations that are being proposed as an improvement to the existing portions of the building. So the front portion, has been redesigned, with a facelift providing decorative roofing at the front, and a portico in the front as well. The portico did trigger one of the variances, but the aesthetic and streetscape improvements are well justified, and this is not an enclosed space, but an open-air space, and it creates a little bit focus, and greatly improves the front appearance of the building. In addition, the propsed is re-cladding both of the existing areas to match what is being proposed on for the new. This provides an updated look with a cohesive 11

design. It's an updated, traditional aesthetic, incorporating appropriate vernacular details, which will respond well both to the Pleasant Valley Way side and to the residential neighbors at the rear of the existing building's exterior which includes large windows, sliding doors, and Juliet balconies. The area up above for the attic provides functional dormers to provide light for the upstairs portions of the apartment. Overall, in his opinion all of this enhances and improves the, prior design and it benefits both the neighbors as well as the Streetscape, and most importantly, this is not a building with one (1) front side. It is designed with all four (4) sides to have a similar vibe and a similar feel. In regards to lighting, Mr. Appel said that even if it is not showing on this rendering there are lanterns (small accent lights) flanking the entries, This is important in his opinion because it helps identify the entries, but these are small lanterns, very similar to what one would have at a home. These are not the kind of sight lighting that was testified by Mr. Conway earlier. In addition, on the rendering there is a proposed monument sign, and this was an appropriate compliment (especially being on Pleasant Valley Way), and is a conforming sign. The materials and colors are stone accent, with two (2) types of siding, architectural windows, but windows with not a lot of muntins. This area was kept to provide a little bit more of a modern vibe to the building. Warm grays and earth tones will be utilized, and then have also provided some accent metal roofing. D QUESTION BOARD Q: S e Chairperson Neuer asked for an explanation of the front area utilizing a “portico”. Mr. Appel said that the little peak up in the front of the property is what triggered the front yard variance issue. Chairperson followed up by asking if he were to enter through the doorway below that peak where would he be located. Mr. Appel said that the entry door brings you into the ground level and referenced the floor plan (PB-1) where it shows that the ground floor level bring you right into the center area where there is existing office space to the left, existing office space to the right, and a door at the center that leads to a front- facing apartment and if someone were to go to up the staircase, a person would be in that existing apartment. Chairperson Neuer asked about cellar