V3 RESUBMISSION Response to Township Engineers Review 1 Dated November 3 2022

155 Passaic Avenue, Suite 350, Fairfield, New Jersey 07004 973-227-7004 973-227-7074 (fax) www.petryengineering.com November 3, 2022 John Hess, PE, PP, CME Zoning Board Engineer 66 Main Street West Orange, New Jersey 07052 Re: ZB-21-21 Daughters of Israel, Inc. Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan Review #1 1155 Pleasant Valley Way Block 171, Lot 12 Dear Mr. Hess: Pursuant to your letter dated June 20th, we have prepared revised site plans that address your comments. Our revisions include the following documents: • Site Plans • Stormwater Report • Maintenance Manual • Tree Removal Plan • Lighting cut sheets B. DESIGN COMMENTS 1. The Applicant has not requested any submission waivers in support of this application. PETRY RESPONSE: Statement. No response required. 2. The Applicant has not requested any design standard exceptions in support of this application. PETRY RESPONSE: Statement. No response required.

2 3. The Applicant has requested a de minimis exception from the Residential Site Improvement Standards to permit 381 parking spaces whereas 479 parking spaces are required. PETRY RESPONSE: Statement. No response required. 4. It states on sheet SP-1 of the site plan drawings that the Applicant is JCF 1155 Pleasant Valley Way LLC whereas it states on the Application form that the Applicant is Daughters of Israel, Inc. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: The site plan has been revised to state that the Applicant is Daughters of Israel, Inc. (See Sheet SP-1). 5. NJAC 40:55D-66.20 stipulates that electric vehicle supply equipment shall be installed in at least one-third of the EV parking spaces initially. Within three years following the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy, electric vehicle supply equipment shall be installed in an additional one-third of the of the EV parking spaces. Finally, within six years following the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy, electric vehicle supply equipment shall be installed in the final one-third of the EV parking spaces. The plans must be revised to identify the EV parking spaces in which the electric vehicle supply equipment will be installed initially, after 3 years and after 6 years. PETRY RESPONSE: The site plan has been revised to identify which EV spaces will be installed initially, after 3 years, and after 6 years. (See Sheet SP-3). 6. Sheet SP-3 of the site plan drawings shows that the southerly driveway intersects Pleasant Valley Way at an obtuse angle. The Applicant should address the Board regarding the feasibility of improving the alignment of the southerly driveway at this location. PETRY RESPONSE: The southern driveway entrance has been realigned to allow for better traffic circulation. (See Sheet SP-3). 7. Sheet SP-3 includes a note which states "Construct 5' wide concrete sidewalk (Typ.). However, the plan shows that some of the sidewalk will be wider than 5 ft such as by the drop off area and in the courtyards. Therefore, the plans must be revised to dimension the sidewalk areas which will be wider than 5 ft.

3 PETRY RESPONSE: Dimensions have been added to the plans for the areas that are not typical. (See Sheet SP-3). 8. Sheet SP-3 must be revised to dimension the proposed front yard, rear yard and side yard setbacks to the proposed building. PETRY RESPONSE: These dimensions are shown on the Overall Layout Plan (See Sheet SP-2). Sheet SP-3 is not at a scale that allows all the property lines to be shown. However, we have added the setbacks where practical. 9. Sheet SP-3 must be revised to dimension the widths of the various landscape islands in the parking lot on the southerly side of the building. PETRY RESPONSE: Dimensions have been added to the plans. (See Sheet SP-3). 10. Sheet SP-3 must be revised to dimension the width of the pickup/drop off aisle under the Porte Cochere. PETRY RESPONSE: Dimensions have been added to the plans. (See Sheet SP-3). 11. Sheet SP-3 must be revised to dimension the length of the flush curb within the drop off area on the northerly side of the building. PETRY RESPONSE: Dimensions have been added to the plans. The proposed curb cut is 13 feet wide. (See Sheet SP-3). 12. Sheet SP-3 must be revised to show the radii of the proposed curbing in front of the parking spaces in Employee Lot #1. PETRY RESPONSE: Dimensions for the radii have been added to the plans. (See Sheet SP-3).

4 13. Sheet SP-4 shows that 2 subsurface detention basins and 2 surface basins are proposed whereas it states on page 1 of the Stormwater Management Report that 1 subsurface and 3 surface basins are proposed. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: The Stormwater Management Report has been revised to state that we are proposing 2 subsurface detention basins and 2 surface detention basins. 14. Sheet SP-4 must be revised to specify the type of pipe that is proposed from OS #8-4 to MH #1-1. PETRY RESPONSE: The pipe information has been added to the plans. The pipe size and slope are 15” HDPE and 5.0%, respectively. (See Sheet SP-4). Also please note that OS #8-4 and MH #1-1 are now called out as OS #8-5 and MH #8-1, respectively. 15. Sheet SP-4 must be revised to show the length, slope, pipe size and type of pipe from Type "B" #7-2 to Type "B" #7-1. PETRY RESPONSE: The pipe information has been added to the plans. The pipe size and slope are 15” HDPE and 1.0%, respectively. (See Sheet SP-4). 16. Sheet SP-4 must be revised to label OS #1-10 and to show the appropriate information for this structure such as rim, elevation, invert elevation, etc. PETRY RESPONSE: The outlet structure information has been added to the plans. Please note that the outlet structure is now called OS #1-9. 17. The callout for the pipe from Type "B" #6-1 to Type "B" #7-1 is illegible on sheet SP-4. PETRY RESPONSE: The callout has been revised to be more legible. The pipe size and slope are 15” HDPE and 1.0%, respectively. (See Sheet SP-4).

5 18. The site plan drawings must be revised to include profiles of the following storm sewer lines: a. Basin #1B to Structure — (61). b. Structure — (62) to Structure — (60). PETRY RESPONSE: The profile from Basin #1B to MH #8-1 has been added to the plans (See Sheet SP-11). It should be noted that Structures 60, 61, and 62 are existing structures that are to remain. The plans have been revised to clarify this. 19. Sheet SP-4 shows that Basin #1B will have 2-80 ft lengths and 2-40 ft lengths of 48" HDPE pipe (total 240 ft). However, the Pond No. 3 — Basin #1B Pond Report in the Stormwater Management Report shows 5-60 ft lengths of 48" pipe (total 300 ft). This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: Basin #1B has been revised to call out for 5-60 ft lengths of 48” HDPE pipe, totaling 300 ft (See Sheet SP-4). 20. Sheet SP-4 shows that the 48" HDPE pipes in Basin #1B will have an invert elevation of 404.00 whereas the Pond No. 3 — Basin #1B Pond Report shows that the invert elevation will be 409. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: The Pond Report has been revised to show the correct invert elevation of 404.00. 21. Sheet SP-4 shows that perforated HDPE pipe is proposed in Basin #1A and Basin #1B. We note that 25-29.4h stipulates that whenever a stormwater management design includes one or more BMPs that will infiltrate stormwater into subsoil, the design engineer shall assess the hydraulic impact on the groundwater table and design the site so as to avoid hydraulic impacts. PETRY RESPONSE: The site plan has been revised show that the pipes are not perforated, as the systems are detention basins and are not designed for infiltration. (See Sheet SP-4).

6 22. It shows on sheet SP-6 that PVC sanitary sewer pipe is proposed. The type of PVC pipe must be specified on the plans. PETRY RESPONSE: A note has been added to the plan calling for SDR-35 PVC pipe to be used for the sanitary sewers. (See Sheet SP-6). 23. Sheet SP-6 must be revised to specify the type of water main pipe that is proposed. PETRY RESPONSE: The water main callouts have been revised to call out for Blue Brute pipe to be used. (See sheet SP-6). 24. Sheet SP-6 must be revised to clarify the meaning of the "W" and "R" symbols that are shown on the water main at the point of connection to the existing water main in Pleasant Valley Way. PETRY RESPONSE: The “W” symbols are existing water meter pits and the “R” symbol is an existing water riser. Callouts have been added to the plans to indicate that they will be replaced (See Sheet SP-6). 25. Sheet SP-6 must be revised to show the size and type of pipe for the existing water main and sewer main in Pleasant Valley Way. PETRY RESPONSE: The existing water and sewer main information have been added to the plans. (See Sheet SP-6). 26. Sheets SP-6 and SP-13 show San. MH #1-10 having a 6" pipe with an invert out elevation of 422.00 and an 8" pipe with an invert out elevation of 422.14 which is incorrect. The plans should be revised to indicate that the 6" pipe is entering the manhole. In addition, the 6" pipe invert elevation cannot be lower than the invert elevation of the 8" pipe exiting the manhole. PETRY RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to correct the invert information. There will be a 6” pipe entering the manhole with an invert of 422.31 and an 8” pipe exiting the manhole with an invert of 422.14 (See Sheets SP-6 & SP-13).

7 27. Sheets SP-6 and SP-13 show San. MH #1-9 having 1 pipe entering the manhole and 2 pipes exiting the manhole which is incorrect. The plans must be revised to show that 2 pipes (6" & 8") are entering the manhole and one pipe (8") is leaving the manhole. In addition, the 6" pipe invert elevation cannot be lower than the invert elevation of the 8" pipe exiting the manhole. PETRY RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to correct the invert information. The 8” pipe inverts are correct, while the 6” pipe will be revised to enter the manhole at an invert of 421.39 (See Sheets SP-6 & SP-13). 28. Sheets SP-6 and SP-13 show San. MH #1-6 having 1 pipe entering the manhole and 2 pipes exiting the manhole which is incorrect. The plans must be revised to show that 2 pipes (6" & 8") are entering the manhole and one pipe (8") is leaving the manhole. In addition, the 6" pipe invert elevation cannot be lower than the invert elevation of the 8" pipe exiting the manhole. PETRY RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to correct the invert information. The 8” pipe inverts are correct, while the 6” pipe will be revised to enter the manhole at an invert of 414.51 (See Sheets SP-6 & SP-13). 29. The pipe slopes shown on Sheet SP-6 do not agree with the slopes shown on sheet SP-13 for the following pipe runs: a. San. MH #1-9 to San. MH #1-8 b. San. MH #1-8 to San. MH #1-7 c. San. MH #1-7 to San. MH #1-6 d. San. MH #1-6 to San. MH #1-5 PETRY RESPONSE: The pipe slopes on Sheet SP-13 are correct. The pipe slopes on Sheet SP-6 have been revised to match. 30. It shows on sheet SP-6 that the 8" sewer line from the grease trap to San. MH #1-7 will have a slope of 0.0% which is unacceptable. PETRY RESPONSE: This pipe slope has been revised to reflect the correct slope of 0.010 ft/ft. 31. Sheets SP-6 and SP-14 show both a 6" pipe and an 8" pipe exiting San. MH #2-7 which is incorrect. The plans must be revised to show that the 6" pipe is entering the manhole and the 8" pipe is leaving the manhole.

8 PETRY RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to correct the invert information. The 8” pipe invert is correct, while the 6” pipe will be revised to enter the manhole at an invert of 408.23 (See Sheets SP-6 & SP-14). 32. The callout for the pipe length from San. MH #2-3 to MH #2-2 is illegible. In addition, it points to San. MH #2-3 instead of to the pipe run. PETRY RESPONSE: The callout has been revised. It reads “59’ of 8” PVC @ 0.050 FT/FT”. 33. The pipe slopes shown on Sheet SP-6 do not agree with the slopes shown on sheet SP-14 for the following pipe runs: e. San. MH #2-7 to San. MH #2-6. f. San. MH #2-6 to San. MH #2-5. g. San. MH #2-5 to San. MH #2-4. h. San. MH #2-4 to San. MH #2-3. PETRY RESPONSE: The pipe slopes on Sheet SP-14 are correct. The pipe slopes on Sheet SP-6 have been revised to match. 34. The Basin #2 Profile and the Basin #3 Profile on sheet SP-12 must be revised to specify the material to be installed on the basin bottom. PETRY RESPONSE: The profiles have been revised to indicate that the basin bottom will be 4” of topsoil over native soil. Please note these are both detention basins, not infiltration basins. The soils in these portions of the site do not have adequate permeability. 35. Sheet SP-19 includes a Typical Hi-Visibility Crosswalk Pavement Markings detail. Therefore, the plans must be revised to show the locations where crosswalk pavement markings are proposed. PETRY RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to show the location of the crosswalks (See Sheet SP-3).

9 36. Sheet SP-19 includes a Typical Sign Detail. Therefore, the plans must be revised to identify where each type of sign is proposed. PETRY RESPONSE: The Sign Detail has been revised to only show the signs that are proposed (See Sheet SP-19). 37. Sheet SP-20 includes a Doghouse Structure detail. Therefore, the plans must be revised to identify the locations where Doghouse Structures are proposed. PETRY RESPONSE: The doghouse structure detail is now noted as “if required” (See Sheet SP-20). 38. Sheet SP-20 includes a Type "E" Inlet Detail. Therefore, the plans must be revised to identify the locations where Type "E" Inlets are proposed. PETRY RESPONSE: The Type “E” Inlet Detail has been removed from the plans. 39. The Basin #1A — OS #5-7 detail on sheet SP-20 shows that it will be installed within a paved area whereas sheet SP-6 shows no pavement in the area. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: Basin #1A is proposed within a parking lot, therefore the detail is correct. 40. The elevations of the 4"x 7" orifice, the 6" x 18" orifice and the 4' weir shown on the Basin #1B — OS #8-4 detail on sheet SP-20 do not agree with the elevations shown on the Pond No. 3 — Basin #1B Pond Report in the Stormwater Management Report. PETRY RESPONSE: The orifice elevations on the outlet structure details have been revised to match the Pond Report.

10 41. The Basin #2 — OS #5-6A detail on sheet SP-20 shows that the grate will be at elevation 418.00 whereas it shows on sheet SP-6 that the grate will be at elevation 419.00. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: Sheet SP-6 has been revised to show a grate elevation of 418.00. 42. The Basin #2 — OS #5-6A detail on sheet SP-20 and Pond No. 1 — Basin #2 Pond Report in the Stormwater Management Report show that a 10 ft weir is proposed at elevation 418.00. The Applicant should clarify how a weir length of 10 ft was determined. PETRY RESPONSE: The weir length has been revised to be 4 feet at an elevation of 418.00. 43. The Basin #3 — OS #1-10 detail on sheet SP-20 shows that two 6" x 10" orifices are proposed at elevation 418.00 whereas the Pond No. 2 — Basin #3 Pond Report shows that two 6" x 10" orifices are proposed at elevation 417.00 and two 6" x 10" orifices are proposed at elevation 418.00. These discrepancies must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: The outlet structure details have been revised to match the Pond Report. 44. The Basin #3 — OS #1-10 detail on sheet SP-20 shows that a 6' weir is proposed at elevation 420.00 whereas the Pond No. 2 — Basin #3 Pond Report shows that the weir will be 4 ft long. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: The weir length has been revised to 4 feet on the detail. 45. The Stormwater Management Report includes a New Jersey 24 Hour Rainfall Frequency Data chart which shows that the 100-year storm has a rainfall of 8.66" in Essex County. However, the Precipitation Reports show that a rainfall of 8.24" was used in the calculations for the 100-year, 24-hour storm. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: The hydrograph models have been revised to use a rainfall of 8.66” for the 100-year, 24-hour storm.