2026 05 05 Response Letter rcd 5 6 2026

Mavis Tire Supply, LLC May 5, 2026 Page 7 of 21 9. Table 5-1 on page 5 of the stormwater report states that the bioretention basin does not have a maximum drain time since underdrains are proposed which is incorrect. The capacity of the underdrain system must be sufficient to allow the basin to drain within 72 hours while still retaining moisture below the surface for uptake by vegetation. Response: The enclosed Stormwater Report has been revised to provide basin drain time calculations and note the calculated drain time within Table 5-1 of the stormwater report. 10. The Point of Analysis #1 Table on page 6 shows that the proposed peak flow rate will be reduced for each storm event. However, it remains for the Applicant to demonstrate that the post-construction runoff hydrographs for the current and projected 2 year, 10 year and 100 year storm events will not exceed, at any point in time, the pre-construction hydrographs for the same storm events. Response: The Applicant requests a waiver from §25-29.4.s, to permit a deviation from strict compliance with this requirement. Testimony will be provided at the Zoning Board hearing. 11. The stormwater collection system calculations in the stormwater report must be revised to consider the stormwater conveyed through the existing 6" CIP upstream of the existing round inlet. Response: The pipe sizing calculations have been revised to account for the existing 6” CIP pipe upstream of the round inlet. Our office conservatively assumed the pipe will be flowing full into the proposed stormwater conveyance system. An upstream invert to the building was not identified, therefore, a conservative slope of 5% was utilized which follows the approximate pavement surface grade along the pipe run. 12. The stormwater report has a section which shows the results of several test pits performed on site. The test pit locations must be shown on the plans. At this time, our office cannot confirm if the required number of test pits were performed or if the minimum separation from the seasonal high water table to proposed basin was met. Response: The grading, drainage, and utility plans have been revised to indicate the locations of where the soil test pits and borings were performed on site, per the Infiltration Testing Report prepared by ECS. 13. The drainage area maps and hydrograph summary reports must be revised to include a separate

soil test pits and borings were performed on site, per the Infiltration Testing Report prepared by ECS. 13. The drainage area maps and hydrograph summary reports must be revised to include a separate drainage area within the ROW as sidewalk is now proposed. Response: The enclosed Stormwater Report has been revised to include a separate drainage area within the ROW to account for the proposed sidewalk.

Mavis Tire Supply, LLC May 5, 2026 Page 8 of 21 14. The existing and proposed drainage area maps and hydrograph summary reports must be revised to separate the drainage areas between which stormwater enters the underground pipe system and which stormwater sheet flows off site. Response: The enclosed Stormwater Report has been revised to separate drainage areas and hydrograph summary reports between underground piping and off-site sheet flow. 15. The maintenance plan should be revised to include as-built construction plans of the stormwater management measures and copies of pertinent construction documents such as laboratory test results, permits and completion certificates. Response: The enclosed Stormwater Management Operation and Maintenance Manual has been revised to include as-built construction plans of the stormwater management measures. 16. The maintenance plan should be revised to note that the party responsible for maintenance must submit to the Township every May 1st an annual maintenance report including all preventative and corrective maintenance for the structural stormwater management measures incorporated into the design of the development. Response: The enclosed Stormwater Management Operation and Maintenance Manual has been revised to note the Township submittal requirement of an annual maintenance report, by the party responsible for maintenance. 17. The maintenance plan must be revised to include the language from §25-29.13 (Stormwater License and Inspection Requirements). Response: The enclosed Stormwater Management Operation and Maintenance Manual has been revised to include the requested language from the Township Code section §25-29.13. 18. As stipulated in §25-29.12b7(d), the party responsible for maintenance of the site's stormwater system must post a two-year maintenance guarantee in accordance with N.J.S.A. 49:55D-53. Response: Acknowledged. 19. The stormwater management operation and 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. Response: Acknowledged. 20. There is a discrepancy between sheet 6 and the 'Underground Basin Outlet Control Structure' Detail on sheet 16 regarding the rim elevation. Revise plans accordingly. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to

ncy between sheet 6 and the 'Underground Basin Outlet Control Structure' Detail on sheet 16 regarding the rim elevation. Revise plans accordingly. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to eliminate discrepancy on rim elevation between plans and the “Underground Basin Outlet Control Structure Detail”.

Mavis Tire Supply, LLC May 5, 2026 Page 9 of 21 21. There is a discrepancy between sheet 7 and the 'Outlet Control Structure #2 Detail' on sheet 15 regarding the invert of the 6" pipe. Revise accordingly. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to eliminate discrepancy on the 6” pipe invert between plans and the “Outlet Control Structure #2 Detail”. 22. The Drainage & Utility Plan (sheet 7) shows an existing manhole at the southeast corner of the site which could not be opened. The plans must be revised to clarify the purpose of this manhole and to show any associated piping. In their February 19, 2026 letter, Messrs. Ritchie and Freud state that they are working with project surveyor to identify the purpose of this manhole, and this information will be provided as a condition of approval. Response: The project surveyor is scheduled to revisit the site to attempt to open the existing manhole and identify its purpose and any associated piping on May 5, 2026. A report to summarize these findings will be provided as a condition of approval. 23. Sheet 7 shows a proposed storm cleanout within the bioretention basin at elevation 619.39. This will result in the separation between the underdrain and the sand layer being less than the minimum three inches. Revise to ensure the minimum separation is met. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to ensure a minimum separation of 3 inches is held between the proposed underdrain and sand layer. 24. The 'Doghouse B Inlet Detail' on sheet 14 and 'Type B Inlet' on sheet 15 should be revised to include a N-Eco Curb Piece. Response: Note #4 within the “Type B Inlet Detail” includes the requested information regarding the N-Eco Curb Piece. The site plan drawings have been revised to include a similar note on the “Doghouse B Inlet” Detail. 25. The 'Outlet Control Structure #2 Detail' on sheet 15 must be revised to provide a trash rack on the 0.6' weir. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to provide a trash rack on the 0.6’ weir in the “Outlet Control Structure #2 Detail”. 26. The 'Outlet Control Structure #2 Detail' on sheet 15 shows a 2.5" PVC pipe in the structure noting "Stopcock gate to be closed for normal operations". The Applicant must clarify the purpose of this pipe. Response: The 2.5” PVC pipe with stopcock gate is proposed at the bottom of the outlet structure and near the basin

closed for normal operations". The Applicant must clarify the purpose of this pipe. Response: The 2.5” PVC pipe with stopcock gate is proposed at the bottom of the outlet structure and near the basin bottom elevation to allow the owner to drain the basin in the event infiltration failure occurs. The valve is to be closed during normal operations to maintain consistency with the design intent.

Mavis Tire Supply, LLC May 5, 2026 Page 10 of 21 27. There is a discrepancy between the sand layer callout and Note #2 on the 'Bioretention System Detail' on sheet 15 regarding the required thickness of the sand layer. This discrepancy must be resolved. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to eliminate the discrepancy of the sand layer thickness on the “Bioretention System Detail”. 28. The 'Bioretention System Detail' on sheet 15 includes a callout for a 6" gravel layer. However, the detail shows 3" of stone under the underdrain pipe and 6" of stone above the underdrain pipe. Therefore, the thickness of the stone must be 6" plus the O.D. of the underdrain pipe. This discrepancy must be revised. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to eliminate the discrepancy of the stone thickness in the “Bioretention System Detail”. 29. The 'Bioretention System Detail' on sheet 15 should be revised to note the size and type of underdrain pipe that is proposed. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to note pipe size and material on the “Bioretention System Detail”. 30. The 'Bioretention System Detail' on sheet 15 should be revised to note that the gravel layer must 0.5 inch to 1.5 inch clean, broken stone or pea gravel. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to note the gravel layer must be 0.5 inch to 1.5 inch clean, broken stone or pea gravel on the “Bioretention System Detail”. 31. The 'Bioretention System Detail' on sheet 15 must be revised to include a note which states "To ensure proper system operation, the permeability rate of the gravel layer must be at least twice the design permeability rate of the sand layer''. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to include the above referenced note on the “Bioretention System Detail”. 32. The 'Bioretention System Detail' on sheet 15 should be revised to specify the minimum permeability rate required for the soil planting bed and the sand layer. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to specify the minimum permeability rate required for the soil planting bed and the sand layer on the “Bioretention System Detail”. 33. The 'Bioretention System Detail' on sheet 15 should be revised to note the elevation of the bottom of the gravel layer. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to note the elevation of the bottom of the gravel layer on the

on sheet 15 should be revised to note the elevation of the bottom of the gravel layer. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to note the elevation of the bottom of the gravel layer on the “Bioretention System Detail”.

Mavis Tire Supply, LLC May 5, 2026 Page 11 of 21 34. The 'Bioretention System Detail' on sheet 15 should be revised to provide specifications for the soil planting bed which complies with Chapter 9.7 of NJ BMP manual. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to include specifications for the soil planting bed complying with Chapter 9.7 of the NJ BMP manual on the “Bioretention System Detail”. 35. The 'Bioretention System Detail' on sheet 15 should be revised to provide a note which states that "The soil bed material must be placed in lifts not to exceed 6 inches. Additional materials may be necessary to account for settling over time." Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to include the above referenced note on the “Bioretention System Detail”. 36. The 'Bioretention System Detail' on sheet 15 should be revised to include a note which states that "The minimum density of vegetation within the system is 85%." Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to include the above referenced note on the “Bioretention System Detail”. 37. The 'Underground Basin Outlet Control Structure' Detail on sheet 16 should be revised to show the proposed height of the 4' weir and the vertical distance from the top of slab (elev. 617.75) to the bottom of the 8" reinforced concrete lid. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to show the proposed height of the 4’ weir as well as the vertical distance from the top of the slab to the bottom of the 8” reinforced concrete lid on the “Underground Basin Outlet Control Structure Detail”. 38. The 'Underground Basin Outlet Control Structure' Detail on sheet 16 shows that the invert of the 48" pipe will be at elevation 617.75 whereas the '48" HDPE Schematic Underground Basin Detail' on the same sheet shows the bottom of basin elevation (6" minimum below the 48" pipe to also be at 617.75. This discrepancy must be resolved. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to eliminate the elevation discrepancies on the “Underground Basin Outlet Control Structure Detail” and the “48” HDPE Schematic Underground Basin Detail”. D. LANDSCAPING COMMENTS 1. Due to soil volume being a limiting factor for a tree, provide one (1) CCR (Redbud) in lieu of the middle QC (Scarlet Oak) within a grouping of 3 QC. Also, provide an oak in the white oak family due to bacterial leaf scorch (BLS). To maintain the same

ee, provide one (1) CCR (Redbud) in lieu of the middle QC (Scarlet Oak) within a grouping of 3 QC. Also, provide an oak in the white oak family due to bacterial leaf scorch (BLS). To maintain the same quantity of shade trees, move one (1) oak to the northeast corner of the site. Response: The site plan drawings have been revised to replace 1 QC (Scarlet Oak) with 1 CCR (Redbud) within a grouping of 3 QC.