V4 06 Response to Board Engineers Review 2 1 26 2023

155 Passaic Avenue, Suite 350, Fairfield, New Jersey 07004 973-227-7004 973-227-7074 (fax) www.petryengineering.com January 26, 2023 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 #3 1155 Pleasant Valley Way Block 171, Lot 12 Dear Mr. Hess: Pursuant to your letter dated November 15th, our subsequent site visit on January 12th, 2023, and the Zoning Board Meetings on January 12th and 19th, we have prepared revised plans and reports. The plans have been revised to eliminate the Phase IV portion of the building. The reduction of Phase IV resulted in changes to the overall unit counts which are now, 76 one-bedroom and 87 two-bedroom independent living units, 64 assisted living beds, and 84 skilled nursing beds. Based on the reduced unit counts, the updated parking study showed that the proposed site would be considerably overparked when compared to industry standards. To balance the West Orange standards with the industry standards, we have included two areas of the parking lots as future parking. It should be noted that these areas are within the footprint of the previously submitted plans. These spaces would not be constructed unless they were deemed necessary by either the applicant or the Township in accordance with the ordinance requirements. If these spaces are not constructed, the site would have more open space. If the future parking in the south-westerly corner of the parking lot is not constructed, it would also result in less steep slope disturbance, and approximately 30 trees will be preserved. In addition to these modifications, based on conversations with yourself and Walt Kipp, the Township Forester, the Tree Removal Plans has been revised to save additional trees. These trees are located primarily in the south-westerly corner of the parking lot and along the frontage of the site. These trees are able to be preserved by modifying the limits of grading on site and moving some of the sanitary and storm sewers to avoid the trees and their roots. Finally, we have revised the plans based on your comments. Below is a detailed response to each

2 comment. It should also be noted that the Stormwater Management Report was revised to include the reductions associated with the green roof. Our revisions include the following documents: • Site Plans • Overall Phasing Plan • Tree Removal Plans • Stormwater Report • Maintenance Manual • Environmental Impact Statement • Parking Study • Lighting cut sheets (enclosed) B. DESIGN COMMENTS 1. The Applicant has not requested any submission waivers in support of this application. PETRY RESPONSE: Statement. No response is required. 2. The Applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to incorporate green infrastructure into the design of the project. The Applicant states that the soils from the site that were tested did not have adequate permeability for infiltration. PETRY RESPONSE: Statement. No response required. 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: 381 parking spaces represents only the physical spaces. When applying the EV credit, the total onsite parking spaces is 429. It should also be noted that based on the revised unit count, the total required parking spaces has been reduced to 448 spaces. 4. Sheet SP-3 of the site plan drawings states that 8 electric vehicle stations in the garage will be installed within 3 years of C.O. and an additional 12 electric vehicle stations in the garage will be installed within 6 years of C.O. Sheet Al .0 of the architectural plans must be revised to identify the electric vehicle stations that will be installed within 3 years and the electric vehicle stations that will be installed within 6 years.

3 PETRY RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to show that all the required EV spaces that need to be installed by the 3 year mark are shown within the surface parking lots. The Remaining EV spaces and the spaces within the parking level will be installed by the 6 year mark. The plans have been revised to note this. (See SP-3) 5. Sheet SP-3 must be revised to dimension the width of the sidewalks in the interior courtyard area. PETRY RESPONSE: The site plan has been revised to dimension the sidewalk widths in the courtyard areas. (See Sheet SP-3). 6. It shows on sheet SP-3 that the southerly handicap parking space in the parking lot at the northeast corner of the site will not be electric vehicle ready. However, this parking space includes a callout which indicates that the electric vehicle station will be installed within 6 years of C.O. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: The site plan has been revised to remove the electric vehicle callout for the southerly handicap space. (See Sheet SP-3). 7. The Basin #2 callout on sheet SP-4 states that the rim elevation will be at elevation 419.00 whereas the callout for OS #5-6A shows a rim elevation of 418.00. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: The site plans have been revised to differentiate between the top of the basin and the grate of the outlet structure. (See Sheet SP- 4). The grate of the outlet structure has intentionally been set 1 foot below the top of the basin, acting as a 4’ weir. 8. The Basin #3 callout on sheet SP-4 states that the rim elevation will be at elevation 421.00 whereas the callout for OS #1-9 shows a rim elevation of 420.00. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: The site plans have been revised to differentiate between the top of the basin and the grate of the outlet structure. (See Sheet SP- 4). The grate of the outlet structure has intentionally been set 1 foot below the top of the basin, acting as a 4’ weir.

4 9. MH #8-1 must be shown on the profile on sheet SP-10. PETRY RESPONSE: MH #8-1 is now shown on the profile (See Sheet SP-10.) 10. The Basin #1B — OS #8-5 detail on sheet SP-21 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: The detail has been revised to show that OS #8-5 will not be within a pavement area. (See Sheet SP-21). 11. Section A-A on the Basin #1A — OS #5-7 detail on sheet SP-21 shows that the grate will be at elevation 423.30 whereas Section B-B it shows that the grate will be at elevation 423.32. This discrepancy must be resolved. PETRY RESPONSE: The detail has been revised to show the correct rim rim elevation of 423.32. 12. Section A-A on the Basin #2 — OS #5-6A detail on sheet SP-21 shows that the orifices are to be installed in the exterior wall of the structure which is incorrect. Therefore, the detail must be revised to show the correct installation of the orifices. PETRY RESPONSE: The orifices are shown on the exterior of the wall within the surface basin. This is typical of an outlet structure within a surface basin. 13. Section A-A on the Basin #3 — OS #1-9 detail on sheet SP-21 shows that the orifices are to be installed in the exterior wall of the structure which is incorrect. Therefore, the detail must be revised to show the correct installation of the orifices. PETRY RESPONSE: The orifices are shown on the exterior of the wall within the surface basin. This is typical of an outlet structure within a surface basin.

5 14. As required by §25-29.3a of the Land Use Regulations, the minimum standards for groundwater recharge, stormwater quality and stormwater runoff quantity shall be met by incorporating green infrastructure. Since the property in question is located in the Metropolitan Planning Area, the Applicant is not required to address groundwater recharge. In addition, it states in §25-29.4q that stormwater runoff quality standards are only applicable when the major development results in an increase of one-quarter acre or more of regulated motor vehicle surface which this project does not. Therefore, the Applicant must demonstrate that the project meets the minimum standards for stormwater runoff quantity set forth in §25-29.40 and r. As stipulated in §25-29.403, the design engineer shall utilize BMPs from Table 1 or from Table 2 and/or an alternative stormwater management measure approved in accordance with §25-29.4g. The Applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to incorporate green infrastructure into the design of the project. The Applicant states that the soils from the site that were tested did not have adequate permeability for infiltration. The Applicant should provide testimony to the Board setting forth the reasons why the requested waiver should be granted. PETRY RESPONSE: Testimony has been provided. 15. Our office has reviewed the Stormwater Maintenance Manual and finds that Section I must be revised to include the telephone number of the responsible party. PETRY RESPONSE: The telephone number for Daughters of Israel has been added to the Maintenance Manual. 16. The Stormwater Maintenance Manual and any future revisions must be recorded upon the deed of record for the property. Prior to recording, the form of the deed must be approved by the Board Attorney and our office. PETRY RESPONSE: A note to this effect has been added to the plans (See Sheet SP-1). 17. It remains for the plans to be revised to include the following details: a. Fence. b. Screening fence. c. EV charging station. d. Wet tap. e. Grease trap. f. Emergency generator.

6 PETRY RESPONSE: The details have now been added to the plans. (See Sheet SP-20 and L2.0 and A2.1 of KDA Architectural plans). C. LANDSCAPING COMMENTS 1. In accordance with Section 25-27.8g, the Applicant is to provide 149 major trees and 43 major or minor trees for a total of 192 replacement trees. Currently, the Applicant has provided 86 major trees and 110 minor trees, which leaves a deficit of 63 major trees, even though the total quantity of trees has been provided. This should be discussed with the Board. PETRY RESPONSE: A revised Tree Removal and Replacement plan is included in this submittal. The revised Tree Removal Plan calls for 110 major trees and 39 minor trees to be removed. Additionally, the landscaping plan has been revised to include 86 major and 143 minor. Testimony will be provided on the deficit in major trees. (Including those within the future parking areas, which shall not be removed until the parking is constructed.) 2. Revise the plans to graphically depict and specifically label the location for tree protection fencing in accordance with Section 25-27.9. PETRY RESPONSE: The Tree Removal Plan has been revised to indicate the trees along the Pleasant Valley Way frontage that are to be protected. Any additional tree protection will be provided at the direction of the Township Forester, and a note to this effect has been added to the plans (See Sheet TR-1). 3. Our office has concerns regarding the accuracy of the provided tree inventory as some of the listed trees are vines; however, the size indicates a semi-mature tree and not a size a vine would be. PETRY RESPONSE: The tree removal plan has been updated to reflect the correct species. We have walked the site with the Township Forester and incorporated his comments.

7 4. Our office has concerns regarding the close proximity of proposed oak trees near the proposed retaining wall along the southeast side of the property. The Applicant might provide an alternative species in this spatially constrained location. KDA RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to specify a smaller- growing species in this location. 5. Revise the plans to provide native plant materials and seed mix for the proposed detention basins, in accordance with the updated stormwater management regulations, for further review. PETRY RESPONSE: Native plants and seed mix has been specified on the plans (See Sheet SP-4). 6. Revise the plans to provide an alternative for proposed PS (White Pine) due to the species' mature habit of losing its lower limbs, which does not provide for an adequate buffer. KDA RESPONSE: Testimony was provided. Due to slope conditions lower level screening is not necessary, and the growth rate and crown spread of the white pines is desirable. 7. Revise the plans to provide building foundation shrubs, perennials, and grasses, to enhance aesthetics. Currently, plant material has not been provided. KDA RESPONSE: The landscape plan has been revised to include building foundation plantings. 8. Revise the plans to indicate the Township Engineer within the 'Landscape Specifications' on sheet L2.0 for plant relocations and substitutions, prior to install. KDA RESPONSE: Note #8 of the ‘Landscape Specifications’ has been revised to require the approval of the Township Engineer for plant relocations and substitutions.

8 9. Revise the plans to provide rigid, plastic, open mesh trunk guards for all deciduous trees, to protect form the irreparable damage from buck rub. KDA RESPONSE: The tree planting details have been revised to specify trunk guards for all deciduous trees. 10. Revise the plans to indicate the proposed disposition for all open areas, such as lawn, stone, mulch, etc., to prevent confusion during construction. KDA RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to label All open areas with the materials specified for each location. D. LIGHTING COMMENTS 1. Revise the plans to provide the concrete strength for proposed light pole foundation details on sheet SP-17. Staff recommends a strength of 4,500 PSI. PETRY RESPONSE: The light pole foundation details have been revised to indicate a concrete strength of 4,500 PSI (See Sheet SP-17). 2. Revise the plans to indicate proposed timers and hours of operation. Also, indicate proposed color and finish for all fixtures and poles. PETRY RESPONSE: The lighting plans has been revised to include the existing and proposed times of operation for lighting. Additionally, a note has been added to the plans which shows that the proposed color of the fixtures is bronze. (See Sheet SP-16 Lighting Notes #1-3.) 3. Revise the plans to provide isolux pattern details with a scale and graph to correspond with the proposed fixtures. Also, provide the manufacturer's catalog cuts and ordering information for the proposed light poles, for further review. PETRY RESPONSE: The requested isolux patterns, and cut sheets for the poles have been attached to this letter.

9 We trust that we have provided sufficient information for your continued review. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, PETRY ENGINEERING, LLC J. Michael Petry J. Michael Petry, PE, PP, AIA

PR4 ALUMINUM POLE currentlighting.com/aal © 2022 HLI Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. Information and specifications subject to change without notice. All values are design or typical values when measured under laboratory conditions.Page 1 of 2 Rev 06/29/22 aal_pr4_spec_R01 AAL Poles CONSTRUCTION • Base casting shall be heat treated to a T-6 condition, and of uniform wall thickness, with no warping or mold shifting. WARNINGS • Caution must be exercised in the selection of a design wind speed when the pole is to be installed in a special wind region (as indicated by the wind map) or in an area where wind speed is unpredictable. • AAL recommends consulting a local engineer when the pole is to be installed in an area that may be subject to extreme weather and exposure. • Poles installed on structures such as buildings and bridges may be subjected to vibration, oscillations, and other fatigue effects which are not covered by the AAL warranty. • The use of banners or other appendages can severely affect the loading of a pole. No banner or other appendage should be attached to an AAL pole unless approved by AAL. • If the products are to be used on an existing foundation or on other structures, the customer assumes all responsibility for the structural integrity of the existing foundation, anchorage or structures and all the consequences arising therefrom. SPECIFICATIONS DATE: LOCATION: TYPE: PROJECT: CATALOG #: YPE X IMUM ALLOWABLE EPA (MPH) 85 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 12.3 10.9 8.7 7 5.7 4.8 4.1 3.6 9.1 8 6.3 4.9 4.0 3.3 2.8 2.4 6.9 6 4.5 3.4 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.5 5.2 4.4 3.2 2.3 1.5 1.2 1 0.8 3.9 3.2 2.1 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 21.5 19.2 15.5 12.7 10.6 9.0 7.7 6.7 16.5 14.6 11.7 9.4 7.8 6.6 5.6 4.8 13.0 11.4 9 7.2 5.8 4.9 4.1 3.5 10.3 9.1 7 5.4 4.3 3.6 3 2.5 8.3 7.2 5.4 4.1 3.1 2.5 2.1 1.8 6.6 5.6 4.1 2.9 2.1 1.6 1.3 1 5.1 4.3 3.0 1.9 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 YPE SPECIFICATIONS Base shall be cast aluminum #356 alloy, free of any porosity, foreign materials, or cosmetic fillers. Base casting shall be heat treated to a T-6 condition, and of uniform wall thickness, with no warping or mold shifting. WARNINGS Caution must be exercised in the selection of a design wind speed when the pole is to be installed in a special wind region (as indicated by the wind map) or in an area where wind speed is unpredictable. AAL recommends consulting a local engineer when the pole is to be