June 18, 2026, Regular Meeting

¢ 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