July 30, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

14 (Pages 50 to 53) Page 50 1 the drainage design, and part of this design is that 2 we maintain the discharge from the site at a rate 3 that is, for the 100-year storm that you're 4 discussing, at 80 percent of the rate that is under 5 current condition with all of the trees there. We 6 have to hold back the water in all of these 7 locations that I pointed out before, the porous 8 pavement areas and the four detention basin areas to 9 slowly, carefully let the water out and into the 10 stream so that they don't impact the next-door 11 neighbor. That's the stormwater ordinance of this 12 community as well as the ordinance for the state. 13 DEP is reviewing it for those standards and we have 14 to meet that standard for each point of analysis. 15 In this case, the point of analysis would be "What 16 are you putting into the Canoe Brook and what are 17 you putting into the Canoe Brook tributary?" Those 18 are the only two places that we are discharging. 19 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: So you 20 mentioned one of these hundred-year storms, 80 21 percent of that water would be managed by your 22 system and the additional 20 percent would be -- 23 now, I'm a layman so I don't -- 24 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. No, let me 25 restate it, then, because you did not understand Page 51 1 what I said. 2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Can you speak a 3 little louder? 4 MR. ANDERSON: I will try. 5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. 6 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Speak into the 7 microphone. 8 MR. ANDERSON: I'm speaking with the 9 microphone almost into my throat, so there's not 10 much I can do with the volume -- 11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay, let's work 12 together, guys. 13 MR. ANDERSON: -- we're just trying to 14 make the best of it. 15 So if, on the 100-year storm, 100 cubic 16 feet per second is discharged under today's 17 circumstance -- under today's conditions, the 18 regulations state that I can only discharge 80 cubic 19 feet per second, so there's a reduction in the total 20 discharge from the site by regulation. That's what 21 I -- those are the standards that I have to meet in 22 the design, and that is reviewed by your Board 23 engineer and by the DEP and ultimately approved by 24 the DEP when we get our permits. 25 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: All right. I Page 52 1 think I understand that. Again, I am a layman so 2 I'm going to ask some questions that seem basic. I 3 hope you will indulge me. 4 MR. ANDERSON:

mits. 25 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: All right. I Page 52 1 think I understand that. Again, I am a layman so 2 I'm going to ask some questions that seem basic. I 3 hope you will indulge me. 4 MR. ANDERSON: Um-hum. Of course. 5 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: You mentioned 6 there's a gate on Kuzik and I don't know what -- 7 what is that street at the top of the map? 8 MR. ANDERSON: Howell? 9 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Howell? 10 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 11 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: So we're 12 anticipating a gate there should the exception be 13 granted. Is that for both or just Kuzik? 14 MR. ANDERSON: Kuzik is the only one 15 we're seeking exception. Howell is a classic just 16 emergency access only; the gate would only be open 17 if, say, a fire truck needed to get into there or an 18 ambulance needed to get into there. All right? But 19 Kuzik is the one that we are requesting a de minimus 20 exception for. You could say "No, you're not going 21 to get that," in which case, it will be open all the 22 time, or you could say "Yes, we'll give you the 23 de minimus exception," in which case we will build 24 the roadway and leave it there for emergencies and 25 put a gate across it so it could not be used by the Page 53 1 general public just leaving every day. 2 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: So can you 3 characterize the gate for me? How would that work 4 in case of emergency? 5 MR. ANDERSON: It's a gate that the 6 fire department would have the key for that they 7 could open up if they needed to get through there. 8 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Got it. 9 Similar to the box that you have on a building, they 10 show up, they have their key? 11 MR. ANDERSON: We'll have a method 12 where they can get in there so they can use that 13 emergency access and get to the emergency in a 14 timely way. 15 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: All right. 16 I'm going to follow up on Vice Chair's question with 17 regard to the fire department. You said you had not 18 yet discussed your fire truck accessibility with the 19 fire department and I gather that's because we're 20 not at that point in the process yet. Did I 21 understand your comment correctly? 22 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, we do not have a 23 review from the fire chief and if he has any 24 concerns with that, we'll be happy to go over it 25 with him and make any modifications needed to do

15 (Pages 54 to 57) Page 54 1 that, but I think what I was trying to demonstrate, 2 that there's an easy route for his fire trucks to 3 get in and around, and I don't believe that he would 4 have an issue with it but, obviously, he has to 5 review it and approve it. 6 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: I'm a layman, 7 again, so those terms look relatively navigable for 8 large vehicles to meet but, you know, I'm not a 9 fireman. I just wanted to know, did you -- when you 10 were looking at your turn radiuses, did you look at 11 the largest piece of equipment we have or the pieces 12 of equipment that would be needed for this 13 development? 14 MR. ANDERSON: I looked at a large 15 fire truck that is representative of -- that would 16 get through this community. I didn't go and get the 17 exact truck and that exact turning radius, but it's 18 a larger fire truck that I use to go through this 19 area. And it made it actually -- it wasn't like 20 you're going to have to go over this curb here or 21 that curb there to make it; it made it fairly 22 easily. 23 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Yeah, I will 24 echo the sentiments of the Vice Chair. I think, 25 understanding the type of equipment that the fire Page 55 1 department would have to deploy to address an 2 emergency there is important. There are different 3 size fire trucks that have different functions -- 4 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 5 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: -- and we want 6 to make sure that all of them can get in or out. 7 MR. ANDERSON: We do as well. 8 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Building D, 9 which is west of the ridgeline -- 10 MR. ANDERSON: Correct. 11 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: -- you stated 12 you don't know how close to the steep slope that it 13 is. Is that accurate? 14 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, because steep 15 slope is not part of this application. We haven't 16 studied steep slope, it is not part of this zoning 17 ordinance. So I don't have a lot of information for 18 you as to where the steep slope begins by your 19 definition of "steep slope" on the new steep slope 20 ordinance because it's not relevant to this 21 application. 22 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Well, following 23 the ordinance may not be relevant, but understanding 24 the impact on the steep slope is relevant -- 25 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Right. Page 56 1 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: -- and so I do 2 think it's important -- 3 (Applause by members of the public) 4 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD:

the steep slope is relevant -- 25 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Right. Page 56 1 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: -- and so I do 2 think it's important -- 3 (Applause by members of the public) 4 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: I think it's 5 important to understand how close to the steep slope 6 you will be building. I understand you are building 7 into the ridge, which will minimize, according to 8 your testimony, the impact on the ridge, but we 9 already had a tragedy in town where a hillside 10 collapsed on an apartment building that has now been 11 vacant for almost three years and we certainly would 12 not like to see a similar tragedy because we're 13 building close to the -- to the edge of the steep 14 slope. 15 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I understand 16 that, I heard of that, that tragedy that happened, 17 and I don't believe you will have any concern for 18 this building having a similar circumstance. The 19 architect will be testifying with regard to the 20 building, how it lays with the land and how it will 21 be stable, as it's built into the top of that hill, 22 into the -- into the, you know, almost to the top of 23 the hill, but it is -- it -- when he demonstrates it 24 to you, I believe you'll see that there's not a 25 concern for that same circumstance to happen again Page 57 1 here. 2 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: And I 3 appreciate your answer; this is not -- this is 4 agnostic to you as a professional and an individual, 5 but the township has some difficulty accepting some 6 of these professional opinions when we've seen those 7 types of opinions here before and then an accident 8 has still occurred. So I don't know what you can do 9 to assuage the fears of the residents in those 10 neighborhoods and this Council member and the 11 Planning Board, but that is a serious concern and it 12 should be understood and addressed. 13 Now, with regard to that steep slope, 14 it appears to me on that map that very -- that very 15 little of the foliage approaching the slope will be 16 disturbed, but I can't really tell. Are you taking 17 trees down off the top of the slope? I see some 18 light green along Building D but I'm not... 19 MR. ANDERSON: Immediately behind the 20 building, some trees come down. 21 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Okay. And 22 that line that is immediately behind the building, 23 does that line represent the high point on the map? 24 MR. ANDERSON: The curved line 25

me trees come down. 21 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Okay. And 22 that line that is immediately behind the building, 23 does that line represent the high point on the map? 24 MR. ANDERSON: The curved line 25 represents the high point, the ridgeline, yes,

16 (Pages 58 to 61) Page 58 1 correct. 2 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: So that 3 Building D, it looks to me that the bottom of 4 Building D is literally at that line. Am I 5 understanding that correctly? 6 MR. ANDERSON: There is one point 7 where it is very close to that line, that's correct. 8 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: So that can't 9 possibly be 30 feet. 10 MR. ANDERSON: Well, what I'm trying 11 -- what I -- well, first, number one, I said I don't 12 have an exact measurement, but if I was to suggest 13 it's 30 feet, it's because I know at the top of the 14 ridge, there's a flat area at the top of the ridge, 15 and before it starts going downhill again, which is 16 where your steep slopes occurs, I would be just 17 estimating from my experience walking the site. So 18 it -- so, again, you can't hang your hat on the 19 number 30, 30 feet. You can say "I'd go to the top 20 of the center of that ridge or just short of it but 21 before it gets steep." I don't know where that gets 22 steep, so that's why I don't have the answer for 23 you. 24 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: All right, 25 turning to the tie-in to the sewer system that's Page 59 1 located at -- 2 MR. ANDERSON: Bakley Terrace. 3 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: -- Bakley 4 Terrace. So you discussed flow data verbally with 5 our engineer, our township engineer; is that right? 6 MR. ANDERSON: Right. 7 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: But from your 8 testimony, it is -- we're not at the point in the 9 application process where you would discuss that 10 with the Joint Meeting? 11 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. We 12 can't make an application to the DEP for sewer 13 before we actually have a municipal approval. So 14 once we have a municipal approval for the -- for 15 this thing that -- for this application, then we can 16 start the process of going and getting the 17 concurrence that the collection system -- the 18 conveyance system is appropriate or whatever we're 19 doing to it is appropriate and it can convey the 20 flow and then we'd go, after that, the next step is 21 to go in the Joint Meeting. 22 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: And this 23 verbal discussion, is that where you determined that 24 it was difficult to understand the available 25 capacity at Bakley and the impact on that capacity Page 60 1 or do you understand the impact but don't understand 2 the available capacity? 3 MR. ANDERSON: No, we don't understand 4 -- there's a lack of

pacity at Bakley and the impact on that capacity Page 60 1 or do you understand the impact but don't understand 2 the available capacity? 3 MR. ANDERSON: No, we don't understand 4 -- there's a lack of existing records in the town 5 engineering department. They do not have pipe size, 6 slope location, so those are the items that are 7 necessary to determine capacity. So it will require 8 some engineering discussion with the town engineer 9 to identify a path where they can sign off on the 10 conveyance. 11 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: And by 12 "identify a path," you mean to somehow analyze and 13 understand what the -- 14 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 15 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: -- available 16 capacity is and then compare that with the 17 anticipated flow. 18 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. And 19 understand when we could pump, what pumping that 20 amount of effluent would mean to the system and so 21 forth. It's a -- yes, it's a calculation that has 22 to be done in conjunction with the West Orange 23 engineering department. 24 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: All right. I 25 wanted to go back to the wetlands. You talked about Page 61 1 the disturbance relative to the trees. 2 MR. ANDERSON: Um-hum. 3 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Have you -- 4 well, actually, the entire site. Have we discussed 5 disturbance or displacement relative to the birds or 6 animals, any of the other creatures that call that 7 forest home? 8 MR. ANDERSON: We have not discussed 9 that. 10 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Are we aware, 11 do we have an understanding of what endangered 12 species may live there or if there are any that live 13 there? 14 MR. ANDERSON: It's not my expertise. 15 It's part of the environmental expertise. 16 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Is that 17 something the DEP is going to weigh in on? 18 MR. ANDERSON: There's -- yes, they 19 will look and see whether there's threatened and 20 endangered species as part of the application. I 21 don't believe that they've found them previously on 22 this site. The buffers have been 50 feet -- 50-foot 23 buffers. If there was threatening endangered 24 species on site, they typically would require 150- 25 foot buffers and it would change the parameters of

17 (Pages 62 to 65) Page 62 1 the application that we already have in, so although 2 I'm not, you know, privy to what exactly is there 3 and what their service is, the DEP has not indicated 4 that it's exceptional resource value because of an 5 endangered species. 6 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: If it were to 7 determine that, how would that impact this project? 8 MR. ANDERSON: It would change the 9 permit requirements from the DEP for crossings of 10 wetlands. 11 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: So those 12 buffers that you have now between the buildings and 13 the wetlands would not be sufficient? 14 MR. ANDERSON: There's buffers 15 associated with the wetlands and we are crossing the 16 wetlands in two locations, so those buffers would 17 increase and the amount of buffer to service would 18 increase, it would change the permit that we would 19 have to get from the DEP, but it would not 20 necessarily change the design after the roadway 21 network. It would change the permits that we are 22 seeking. 23 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: But it would 24 not force you to relocate any of the existing 25 buildings or parking lots? Page 63 1 MR. ANDERSON: I don't know that, I'd 2 have to -- it's a more complicated question than 3 just shooting from the hip. I'd have to look and 4 see which ones, if any, were within 150 feet. 5 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Do we have an 6 estimate on when DEP will weigh in? 7 MR. ANDERSON: On whether there's 8 threatened -- they've already -- we have an LOI that 9 we can rely on for the next period of time, for next 10 year, that, uh, that indicates that they're not 11 exceptional -- there's not exceptional resource 12 value wetlands and there's not threatened endangered 13 species on it. We can rely on that legally with 14 this application and for this application because 15 that is in place. 16 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: But your 17 application is being reviewed now by the DEP; is 18 that right? 19 MR. ANDERSON: For permits, yes, 20 correct. 21 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: And when that 22 application -- when that review is complete, they 23 will then, as a part of returning that application 24 to you, whether they approve it or not, they will 25 give some detail with the endangered species and any Page 64 1 impact on the site plan? 2 MR. ANDERSON: So -- no, I think -- so 3 as part of this application, there is a natural 4 heritage report that the environmental

ith the endangered species and any Page 64 1 impact on the site plan? 2 MR. ANDERSON: So -- no, I think -- so 3 as part of this application, there is a natural 4 heritage report that the environmental scientist 5 obtained and -- 6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Anderson, I'm 7 sorry, a little louder please. 8 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. 10 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for your -- 11 let me know when it happens next time. 12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yeah. That's all 13 right. 14 MR. ANDERSON: So the natural heritage 15 report comes out and it indicates what, you know, 16 species are available or are around within this 17 habitat and they look at it. That's already been 18 done and that's -- when we had our LOI granted many 19 times, it's never found threatened and endangered 20 species. We've been at this project for many years 21 and it's been -- we've had several LOIs and none of 22 them have ever found threatened endangered species, 23 so -- and we have a valid LOI we can rely on that 24 states that. So there's no further determination 25 with our permit application. Page 65 1 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: All right. 2 Last thought is with regard to ingress, egress and 3 the number of cars, because there's 1,070 parking 4 spaces, 900 and something are required for the 5 development, and the way I understand your map, 6 there's only one road to get in and out. Is that -- 7 I know that there's a gate on Kuzik and a gate on 8 Howell, so they are not going to be used except in 9 emergency, so on a daily basis, there's one road in 10 and one road out; is that right? 11 MR. ANDERSON: If the de minimus 12 exception is granted, that is the plan. 13 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: Have we done 14 traffic -- is that -- would that fall under you, the 15 environment? That's not under you? 16 MR. ANDERSON: We have a traffic 17 engineer who will be testifying after -- not 18 immediately after me but at some point after me. 19 COUNCILMAN RUTHERFORD: All right, 20 that'll do it for me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank 21 you, Mr. Anderson. 22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, Council 23 President. 24 (Applause by members of the public) 25 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper.

18 (Pages 66 to 69) Page 66 1 MR. ALPER: Sure. Mr. Anderson, 2 first, on the ridgeline, is it the case that the 3 ordinance that's been agreed to -- is it the case 4 that the ordinance that's been agreed to as far as 5 the ridgeline doesn't specify a number of feet but 6 only says that construction needs to take place west 7 of the ridgeline? 8 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. 9 MR. ALPER: Okay. I do think that 10 we're -- speaking just for myself, I think we're 11 going to want to know the exact footage when you're 12 able to. I realize we're in a multi-day process, 13 but I think that's going to be an important number 14 that we're going to want to hear. 15 MR. ANDERSON: All right. 16 MR. ALPER: What would the plan be to 17 protect the ridgeline during construction? 18 MR. ANDERSON: We would be setting 19 silt fence out. We don't anticipate any significant 20 amount of water going in that direction because 21 we're on the west side of the ridge, so everything 22 is coming towards the -- towards the interior of the 23 development. So we would put silt fence out maybe, 24 hay-bale barriers, something like that, to delineate 25 exactly where that ridge, uh, ridgeline is. But Page 67 1 there's -- I don't -- without having water running 2 over, I don't know what you're really protecting 3 that from. 4 MR. ALPER: Would there be any issues 5 from construction equipment being on that bridge 6 while you're building that portion of the building 7 that comes close to it? 8 MR. ANDERSON: It shouldn't be in any 9 significant way because, you know, it's supposed to 10 be no disturbance to the east of that. 11 MR. ALPER: On the foundation exposure 12 being higher than allowed, are there renderings of 13 that so that people can see what exactly we're 14 talking about, what it looks like? 15 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I think that's an 16 architectural question. 17 MR. ALPER: That's fine. 18 MR. ANDERSON: He will show you how it 19 is calculated, those are actually his numbers. 20 MR. ALPER: Gotch ya. If we can go to 21 the fire-truck turning radius, the west version of 22 that, I did have a question on that. 23 MR. ANDERSON: Which one? 24 MR. ALPER: The west version, the 25 second one you showed us. Page 68 1 MR. ANDERSON: This one? 2 MR. ALPER: Yeah, I think so. 3 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, okay. 4 MR. ALPER: Can you zoom in on that? 5 Yeah, that's good enough, I think. 6 Could a fire