July 16, 2026, Regular Meeting

an office building versus the building proposed, which would create a lot of sound. Mr. Ritchie said that the proposed placement of the building takes into account required setbacks, required parking, access to stormwater management facilities, and what is proposed is a layout that accommodates and addresses all of those requirements and concerns. Ms. Feld asked why there is an increase on the setback of three (3) sides of the building, but not increasing the setback on the building. On the side of the building that's closest to homes where the noise would be most intrusive. Mr. Ritchie answered that the proposed building meets the required setback. So, its been placed in a location that is compliant with the ordinance. The fact that the other setbacks have changed is more a function of the dimensions and shape of the proposed building than anything else. Mr. David Dockery (Becker Law Firm — legal counsel for the Villas at Eagle Ridge) asked for an explanation as to why the bays do not face directly onto Prospect Avenue? Mr. Ritchie said that it was actually originally proposed that way, but after meeting with the design review committee, the town's design review committee (Site Plan Review Advisory Board — SPRAB), and hearing from the professionals, the orientation that's now proposed with the bays facing south is what was recommended, and so the application complied with that recommendation. Mr. Dockery asked if there is going to be any operational activity to the backside or the current north side of the building? Mr. Ritchie said that no, there's no 7

proposed loading. There's no proposed vehicle access to the north or the east side of the building, for that matter. Mr. Ritchie said that if the building orientation was rotated so that the base faced Prospect Avenue, it would mean that really the residential condominiums would not see any operational activity. Mr. Ritchie continued, stating that it would block all of the Mavis activity. Mr. Dockery asked regarding traffic that the last time he testified that Essex County had not yet completed its review of the traffic ingress or egress? Mr. Ritchie said yes. Mr. Dockery said that it’s still correct; they still have not reviewed that. Mr. Ritchie said yes, that there was an informal phone conversation with an engineer at the county, and some input, but deferred that conversation to the Traffic Engineer to provide testimony later. Mr. Dockery asked that although the site plan could better meet the legal requirements, that he had testified previously about the parking layout, the number of parking spaces, in particular regarding that parking median, but in his professional opinion that the way the plan was designed was due to more of a design choice and not to comply more fully with the bulk requirements. Mr. Ritchie said yes that there won’t be any issue complying with bulk requirements with this layout. That the way the parking is laid out now, works with this arrangement. Mr. Dockery asked about the impervious coverage, stating that he testified that the 63.3% exceeds, but that it could be laid out in order to comply with the 60% limitation. Mr. Ritchie said that they have actually looked at that since the last hearing and have confirmed that the island could be widened in order to comply with the impervious coverage requirement. But as stated, previously at the prior hearing that would then shift those parking spaces closer to Blueberry Bend. Which is a less safe condition. So the benefit of granting the variance is that there is a safer condition with those parking spaces further away from the Blueberry Bend Cartway. Mr. Dockery asked if Mr. Ritchie would agree that the project could be redesigned to provide additional buffering and reduce the impervious coverage to comply with the ordinance standards. Mr. Ritchie answered no, not for increased buffering. No, we would be able to demonstrate compliance by increasing the width of that landscape island

s coverage to comply with the ordinance standards. Mr. Ritchie answered no, not for increased buffering. No, we would be able to demonstrate compliance by increasing the width of that landscape island between the parking spaces and just to complete the answer, there has been a conversation with the board engineer about this condition, but it was his understanding that he agreed with what is being proposed Mr. Dockery asked regarding the fence, if there is a reason why more fencing wasn't provided that previously he testified that he thought it would interfere with vegetation, but he was still not clear why the fence is only a limited space between the building and the trash enclosure, Mr. Ritchie said that it's really for practical reasons that the gap between the building and the trash enclosure is any noise from vehicles on that access drive aisle area would be sent so a fence in that location is really all that's required to mitigate sound effects to the acoustical engineer to expand on that and then what was contemplated was a privacy fence along the property line to install a 6-foot privacy fence along the line would have significant impact on the existing trees and vegetation within that buffer area. He continued, stating that it just didn't make sense to take down all those large, mature trees in exchange for a 6-foot-high privacy fence. He opined that additional fencing could be put in a buffer area along and to the right of the building, extend, to the south a bit from the trash enclosure and agree to look at that would have to stay outside of any sight triangles associated with that driveway but there could be room for a fence. But additional plants are being proposed. There's existing landscaping and trees in that area but applicant is just replacing trees and vegetation with a fence and in his opinion, the proposed landscaping is a preferred design.

Mr. Dockery asked if it would be feasible to move the trash enclosure further away from the residences (the condominiums)? Mr. Ritchie said that the location of the trash enclosure is appropriate for the use for the operations, and access for trash collection. It's surrounded by an enclosure that's facing away from the residence placed and located currently is the most appropriate but it would be feasible to locate it somewhere else on the property and can't think of a better place. Mr. Andrew Matt (6 Cerone Court) asked if safer alternatives that might reduce the need for people to have to walk in front of traffic in order to leave were considered. Mr. Ritchie said that crosswalks are provided for safe pedestrian access from one side of the drive aisle to the other for the interior crossing and then to provide a connection, safe pedestrian connection across the driveway within the county right away and the proposed sidewalk within the county right of way was a request from the town. Mr. Nicholas Stroumtsos (214 Cerruti Court) asked where the used tires will be stored waiting to be disposed of. Mr. Ritchie said that both used and new testimony Ms. Stacey Harris (304 Araneo Drive) asked about the underground stormwater storage system and if that could be elaborated. Mr. Ritchie answered that it is referred to as a “buyer retention system” and an underground storage system with rainwater that is released within 72 hours. Ms. Harris asked for confirmation that the facing of the bay doors would be perpendicular to Prospect Avenue (not facing Prospect Avenue). it won't face the residences; it's going to face one of the other buildings. And if I recall correctly, you also stated that the bay doors would be closed to reduce noise and what is the, plan during inclement weather? Ms. John-Basta answered stating that this expert did not testify that the bay doors would be closed. Chairperson Neuer agreed that it was not this witness. Ms. Susan Kruger (25 Cerone Court) asked in reference to stormwater runoff as it was stated that it is released within 72 hours and where it is released to. Mr. Ritchie said that there is an existing pipe which leaves the site that handles stormwater today on the site today. He continued on stating that they are proposing to maintain that same connection. Mr. Dan Moore (50 Musano Court) asked how the applicant plans to deal with

andles stormwater today on the site today. He continued on stating that they are proposing to maintain that same connection. Mr. Dan Moore (50 Musano Court) asked how the applicant plans to deal with the noise for the surrounding wildlife and the care center patients? Ms. John-Basta asked to defer this question to the acoustical expert. Mr. Moore asked for the reason behind this being the application site with two separate service stations located on the same street. Chairperson Neuer said that he is going to save that question for the applicant’s Planner. Mr. Kevin Malanga (53 Ridge Road) asked how many Mavis Tire sites he has designed. Mr. Ritchie said that this is his second one. Mr. Malanga asked how many feet from the east wall of this building is it proposed to the closest residence. Mr. Richie said that it is approximately 60 feet between the eastern wall of the proposed building and the nearest adjacent residential unit. Mr. Malanga asked for the address of the other property designed. Mr. Ritchie said 860 Union Mill Road in Mount Laure. Mr. Lou Hammel (305 Cerruti Court) asked about impervious coverage and stated that they would comply and could eliminating service bays achieve the coverage requirement instead of asking for a variance. Mr. Ritchie said that they could but it was covered in the operational testimony about the viability of the site and at the prior hearing as an Mr. Barry Kirschenbaum (269 DeRose Court) asked whether flammable tires and oil will be stored on site, and if they would consider putting in a sprinkler system.

Chairperson Neuer let him know that this is the wrong professional, as it should be for the architect instead. e Ms. Marcia Davis Allison (Coccio Drive) asked about the demolition of the current building on the property and the construction on the Mavis facility and whether or not it will have any vibrational impact on the adjacent property owners. Mr. Ritchie said that he understands the question but honestly believes that it is more of a construction related question and would fall on the contractor to comply with all Building and Construction Codes. e Mr. Oscar Soria asked if a formal and legally binding worst case scenario emergency plan has been established for this specific site. Mr. Ritchie said no. e Ms. Sue Donas (108 Coccio Drive) asked what Mavis could do to benefit the 108 residential homes that are adjacent to this property. Mr. Ritchie said that they would certainly take another look at the landscaping within that buffer area to the east of the building and include additional plants to the extent that is feasible. e Dr. Fran Reibman (350 Stiles Court) asked how sewage is being addressed and flooding capabilities Mr. Ritchie said that there's an existing sewer lateral that they plan to connect into an existing sewer line that heads out toward Blueberry Bend in an existing pipe with it and there's an existing lateral that connects to that existing building that is going to be abandoned but will continue to use the pipe that leads from the property and connect into that existing pipe. Ms. John-Basta Esq. offered redirect about Stormwater It was at this time that Chairperson Neuer announced this application ZB-25-07 Mavis Tire (460 Prospect Avenue), will be carried with preservation of notice to the September 17, 2026, Regular Meeting via the Zoom platform. Ms. John-Basta waived the statutory time period for this application. Chairperson Neuer adjourned the meeting at 10:53 PM Adopted: 8/20 Janae Diana L.“Chandler, Secretary 10