July 16, 2026, Regular Meeting

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.