July 16, 2026, Regular Meeting

variance relief is required to permit a motor vehicle service station in the general commercial district. PRESENTATION Ms. Lisa John-Basta, Esq. entered the record on behalf of the applicant. She then provided a brief synopsis of the previous testimony. Mr. Rodman Ritchie, Engineer, was sworn under oath and confirmed that no new drawings have been submitted. PUBLIC QUESTIONS Ms. Mindy Feld (193 Zeppi Lane) asked for clarification, testifying that the trees would create a sound barrier in the back, separating the new building from the residences and whether or not a sound barrier wall was considered instead of the trees as what would work during the winter when the trees do not have leaves on them. Mr. Ritchie said that he did not testify that trees would have a mitigating effect on sound or noise. But offered that there is a noise expert/sound acoustical expert, planning to testify. But was willing to speak to a robust landscaping plan. Proposing to supplement the existing trees behind the proposed building adjacent to the residential property where they are open to adding plants there, but it's very dense and.an extensive existing root zone from those existing trees creating a limit to how many trees planted in that area, and have those trees be viable, and grow to their full height, so open to a condition to increase the amount of trees or plants in that buffer area that can be worked out with the board's professionals if so inclined. There are lots of existing trees and roots to contend with the shade from those existing trees. Ms. Feld asked about the setback on three (3) sides of the property, but not the side of the property that is adjacent to the residential area and the reason behind it. Mr. Ritchie Well, I don't know that we have increased the setback from what's there now. Because the shape of the new building is different than the shape of the existing building. But that existing building, the proposed Eastern Wall is in basically the same location as the eastern wall of that existing building. Ms. Feld said that with two (2) very different types of businesses, it creates a big disparity. The existing business not needing a variance being just 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,

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