July 30, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

encies only. 5 MR. AFRAN: My question was. What 6 studies have been done with respect to the carrying 7 capacity of the roads past the gate for purposes of 8 accepting and facilitating the movement of emergency 9 vehicles, fire trucks and the like. What study of 10 that nature has been done? 11 MR. ANDERSON: So you're asking 12 whether the roads have the capacity to -- the 13 pavement could handle the traversing of a fire 14 truck; is that what you're asking me? 15 MR. AFRAN: I asked what study has 16 been done to determine whether the road past the 17 gate and the network of roads past that gate are 18 suitable and capable of adequately accepting the 19 emergency truck traffic. 20 MR. ANDERSON: I'm not aware of any 21 study. I did not do a study myself. 22 MR. AFRAN: I couldn't hear the last 23 part. 24 MR. ANDERSON: I did not do a study 25 myself. Page 109 1 MR. AFRAN: And you're not aware of 2 any such study. 3 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. 4 MR. AFRAN: On the zoning schedule 5 slide, there's a reference to "design into 6 hillside." What do you mean by that reference? 7 MR. ANDERSON: Well -- could you zoom, 8 please? 9 MR. AFRAN: If you could go to the 10 zoning schedule page. 11 MR. ANDERSON: I'm trying to show what 12 I mean by that -- 13 MR. AFRAN: Oh, okay. 14 MR. ANDERSON: -- with a pictorial 15 view. So, for example, Building B is here 16 (indicating). It's -- this is uphill going downhill 17 and we built this building into the slope where the 18 back of this parking lot is almost at grade at the 19 curb line and then we cut into the slope and then at 20 the back of this building, the existing grade is 21 very close to where the finished floor of the 22 building is. That's building the building into the 23 slope. 24 MR. AFRAN: Okay. That's what you're 25 referring to.

29 (Pages 110 to 113) Page 110 1 MR. ANDERSON: That is what I was 2 referring to, correct. 3 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. I just wanted 4 to clarify. 5 Did you do any balloon tests to 6 determine height viewpoints, sight lines, things of 7 that nature, from any adjoining areas? 8 MR. ANDERSON: We did not. There was 9 discussion of a balloon test. We had difficulty 10 getting the balloons through the dense trees, and as 11 an alternate, we met with representatives of the 12 condo association who was requesting the balloon 13 test so that they could see where the building was 14 proposed and what their visibility of the building 15 would be, and after meeting with them on site and 16 realizing that they could not see any portion of 17 their development from where the building was, they 18 dropped their concern. After that, the settlement 19 agreement was signed by those same representatives 20 or that organization. 21 MR. AFRAN: The answer is no balloon 22 study was done. 23 MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. 24 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. 25 MR. PLOCKER: But I believe, for the Page 111 1 record, Mr. Anderson did testify that one was 2 attempted but the conditions did not allow it to 3 occur. 4 MR. AFRAN: Well, Mr. Anderson, what 5 you meant was the tree canopy is so dense that you 6 couldn't get any balloons through it; isn't that 7 correct? 8 MR. ANDERSON: That is one of the 9 impediments, yes. 10 MR. AFRAN: That speaks to a very 11 mature set of woods that you're going to destroy for 12 this project; isn't that correct? 13 (Applause by members of the public) 14 MR. PLOCKER: Chairman Bagoff, I 15 believe the settlement agreement does speak for 16 itself. The quality of the forest at the time the 17 settlement agreement was entered into was vetted by 18 the township's professionals, which is why that 19 language wound up in the settlement agreement. I 20 just want to state that for the record. 21 MR. AFRAN: I think the witness really 22 could handle this himself. But the woods is a 23 mature, dense woods that will be destroyed by these 24 buildings; isn't that correct? 25 MR. ANDERSON: There will be 27.85 Page 112 1 acres of tree removal, yes. 2 MR. AFRAN: 25 acres or 27 acres? 3 MR. ANDERSON: 27.85 acres. 4 MR. AFRAN: 27.85 acres of trees will 5 be removed; is that correct? 6 MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. 7 MR. AFRAN: What percent of the tree 8 cover on the existing

acres? 3 MR. ANDERSON: 27.85 acres. 4 MR. AFRAN: 27.85 acres of trees will 5 be removed; is that correct? 6 MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. 7 MR. AFRAN: What percent of the tree 8 cover on the existing conditions does that 9 represent? 10 MR. ANDERSON: 23 percent. 11 MR. AFRAN: So approximately one- 12 quarter of the trees on this property will be 13 destroyed; is that a fair statement? 14 MR. ANDERSON: Correct. 15 MR. AFRAN: Now, I'd like to review 16 specifically the number of trees that will be 17 physically removed. I want to clarify this issue. 18 How many trees will actually be removed under this 19 plan? 20 MR. PLOCKER: Chairman, this was 21 already testified to. It was in Mr. Anderson's 22 presentation, we comply with the tree ordinance, so 23 I don't mind Mr. Afran having some leeway, but this 24 has already been testified to. 25 MR. AFRAN: I'm not sure my Page 113 1 cross-examination is limited to what the witness 2 said on direct. 3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, Mr. Afran, the 4 testimony has been provided already, you really have 5 no foundation for an additional question. 6 MR. AFRAN: Well, I certainly do. 7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So this has been 8 heard about four or five times how many trees are 9 being removed. 10 MR. AFRAN: Well, I certainly do have 11 a foundation, I'll go further. 12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Okay. 13 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go quickly. Please. 15 MR. AFRAN: What is the definition of 16 "tree" that is being used to reach this total of 17 approximately 5,000-something trees that you said 18 would be removed? How are you defining "tree"? 19 MR. ANDERSON: The trees were defined 20 previously in terms of what the tree was acreage -- 21 per acre, so there was counts done by, I believe, 22 the municipality with regard to how many trees per 23 acre we would have on average here, it was not based 24 on a specific diameter of a tree, type of a tree or 25 condition of a tree, so it was 212 trees per acre

30 (Pages 114 to 117) Page 114 1 and that's the number that we used. 2 MR. AFRAN: Well, are these mature 3 trees; are they six-inch-minimum trees; what is the 4 actual data point that supports the number of trees 5 you calculate will be removed? 6 MR. ANDERSON: The data point that was 7 determined by the town is unknown. I don't know 8 what their standard was. It is likely to be 9 something on the order of six inches and above, but 10 I don't have that actual fact. It was determined 11 and given to the applicant to use. 12 MR. AFRAN: Well, saplings, for 13 example, are very numerous in many wooded area and 14 yet they're usually much less than six inches. 15 Would you agree with that general statement? 16 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would. 17 MR. AFRAN: So how many saplings are 18 going to be removed that are below this four- to 19 six-inch-diameter width? 20 MR. ANDERSON: I do not have an answer 21 for that. 22 MR. AFRAN: In other words, the number 23 of trees you've given is based on some minimum 24 diameter four to six inches, but you're unable to 25 tell us how many thousands of other trees will be Page 115 1 destroyed. Is that correct? 2 MR. ANDERSON: We only have the 3 formula that was given to us in the settlement 4 agreement and in the ordinance of 212 per acre of 5 trees that could be relied on. It was not a site- 6 specific study that we went out and counted every 7 tree out there, so we don't have the information 8 that you're looking for in terms of how many 9 saplings and so forth. So -- 10 MR. AFRAN: So no one actually knows 11 how many trees are actually going to be removed; 12 isn't that correct? 13 MR. PLOCKER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going 14 to renew my objection. These numbers are set forth 15 in the settlement agreement and the ordinance. This 16 is the Planning Board; for all the power that it 17 has, its job is to not revisit or re-litigate or 18 renegotiate that agreement or ordinance -- 19 MR. AFRAN: I'm -- 20 MR. PLOCKER: -- so I'm going to 21 respect -- 22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Wait, wait, wait. I 23 don't think he's renegotiating, he's asking what the 24 methodology was to get to that number, which is -- I 25 think that's a fair question. Page 116 1 MR. AFRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And if there's no 3 methodology, then there's no methodology, that's the 4 answer, but you guys will have to provide that. 5 MR. AFRAN: Do you have

. AFRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And if there's no 3 methodology, then there's no methodology, that's the 4 answer, but you guys will have to provide that. 5 MR. AFRAN: Do you have any further 6 information you can provide in answer to these 7 questions? 8 MR. ANDERSON: No. 9 MR. AFRAN: Has any examination been 10 taken with respect to other animal species whose 11 movement will be limited by the deer fences? 12 MR. ANDERSON: I have not undertaken 13 any such study. 14 MR. AFRAN: Are you aware of any? 15 MR. ANDERSON: I am not. 16 MR. AFRAN: Has your clients or you, 17 in connection with your client, consulted with any 18 experts to determine whether the placement of the 19 deer fences will have an adverse effect on the 20 movement of other fauna aside from you? 21 MR. ANDERSON: I am not aware of any 22 such inquiry. 23 MR. AFRAN: Has any environmental 24 impact statement been done in connection with this 25 project? Page 117 1 MR. ANDERSON: It has not been 2 required. 3 MR. AFRAN: That's not what I asked 4 you, I simply asked if it's been done. 5 MR. ANDERSON: It's not been done as 6 part of this application. 7 MR. AFRAN: Has any ecological study 8 of any kind been done as part of this application? 9 MR. ANDERSON: There's environmental 10 studies done with regards to the wetlands 11 application. 12 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry, you'll just 13 have to speak up. 14 MR. ANDERSON: There's environmental 15 studies done with regards to the wetlands 16 application. 17 MR. AFRAN: Besides what you have 18 submitted to DEP, have any other ecological studies 19 been done? 20 MR. ANDERSON: No. I am not aware of 21 any other studies. 22 MR. AFRAN: Now, is there a credit 23 built into the formula under which a certain number 24 of shrubs for replanting are equal to one tree? 25 MR. ANDERSON: No.

31 (Pages 118 to 121) Page 118 1 MR. AFRAN: There's no credit in which 2 a certain number of shrubs will allow you to avoid 3 planting a full tree? 4 MR. ANDERSON: Not that I've seen. We 5 have shrubs and they're not included in our tree 6 count. 7 MR. AFRAN: So you say you're going to 8 actually physically plant 279 actual trees. 9 MR. ANDERSON: Actual trees and 1,013 10 native shrubs. 11 MR. AFRAN: And how many shrubs will 12 be removed that are in the woods at this time as a 13 result of this project? 14 MR. ANDERSON: I do not know. 15 MR. AFRAN: Has any survey been done 16 as to the age of trees that ought to be removed? 17 MR. ANDERSON: Not that I'm aware of. 18 MR. AFRAN: Have you done any study as 19 to the presence of vernal ponds or vernal -- strike 20 that. Have you done any study as to the presence of 21 vernal ponds on this site? 22 MR. ANDERSON: The wetlands scientist 23 for this project has studied it in its entirety, and 24 if they had found vernal ponds, it would have showed 25 up on the letter of interpretation that was granted Page 119 1 by the DEP. 2 MR. AFRAN: Are you able to answer 3 that question yourself sitting here? 4 MR. ANDERSON: I did not do the study. 5 MR. AFRAN: Okay. And if I asked you 6 about vernal habitat in the area of disturbance, 7 would you be able to address that issue? 8 MR. ANDERSON: Could you restate that, 9 please? 10 MR. AFRAN: If I asked you about the 11 presence of vernal habitat in areas of disturbance 12 for this project, would you be able to address -- 13 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 14 MR. AFRAN: -- that question? 15 MR. ANDERSON: There's no vernal 16 habitat that's been identified within the limit of 17 disturbance. 18 MR. AFRAN: Is there any vernal 19 habitat that's been identified on the site outside 20 the limits of disturbance? 21 MR. ANDERSON: Not that I'm aware of; 22 I don't recall it in the LOI. 23 MR. AFRAN: So you're basing that on 24 your recollection of the LOI; is that fair to say? 25 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's correct. Page 120 1 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. 2 Several members asked about the 3 movement of fire trucks and other types of emergency 4 vehicles, if you recall. What actual test did you 5 do to determine the efficacy of these plans with 6 respect to the movement of such emergency vehicles, 7 particularly fire trucks? 8 MR. ANDERSON: We use a program called 9 AutoTurn that places a fire truck -- a

mine the efficacy of these plans with 6 respect to the movement of such emergency vehicles, 7 particularly fire trucks? 8 MR. ANDERSON: We use a program called 9 AutoTurn that places a fire truck -- a vehicle the 10 size of a fire truck and basically routes it through 11 the street network to see if it stays within the 12 curb lines. 13 MR. AFRAN: Did you do that analysis 14 for the movement of trucks past the Howell gate? 15 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I did. 16 MR. AFRAN: On the actual layout of 17 streets beyond Howell? 18 MR. ANDERSON: Just for the initial 19 portion. 20 MR. AFRAN: The initial portion is 21 where? Please point to that. 22 MR. ANDERSON: Zoom, please. 23 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry, are you 24 pointing? 25 MR. ANDERSON: So right up here Page 121 1 (indicating). So you see it coming into the 2 cul-de-sac and it gets down to here just before the 3 first intersection (indicating). 4 MR. AFRAN: Right, so aside from that 5 small stretch just above the northern limit of the 6 site, did you do any actual study beyond that point? 7 MR. ANDERSON: The study has not 8 extended past that point. 9 MR. AFRAN: I couldn't quite hear you, 10 I'm sorry. 11 MR. ANDERSON: The study has not 12 extended past that point. 13 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. Did you 14 contact the fire chief? 15 MR. ANDERSON: No. 16 MR. AFRAN: So when you say the fire 17 chief hasn't gotten back to you, it's fair to say 18 you never asked the fire chief about his viewpoint 19 or her viewpoint on these plans? 20 MR. ANDERSON: What I said is it's 21 typical to get a review letter from the police 22 department and fire chief outlining any concerns 23 that they have, and I have not seen that review 24 letter come. It is not that I requested a meeting 25 and it was -- and it was rebuffed or anything like

32 (Pages 122 to 125) Page 122 1 that; I expected a review letter based on our 2 submittal. 3 MR. AFRAN: Why didn't you call and 4 say "Where's your review letter?" 5 MR. ANDERSON: It's -- we got review 6 letters just this past week. We submitted these 7 latest set of drawings just a few weeks ago and it's 8 a fast turnaround. It might not have had a chance 9 to get there -- get to that review, so it's not 10 something -- I was giving it more time. 11 MR. AFRAN: Now -- 12 MR. PLOCKER: And we certainly welcome 13 the input of the fire department. 14 MR. AFRAN: I couldn't hear that. 15 MR. PLOCKER: We certainly welcome the 16 input of the fire department and we would look 17 forward to any review letter that may be 18 forthcoming. 19 MR. AFRAN: You might want to give 20 them a call. 21 (Applause by members of the public) 22 MR. AFRAN: Why haven't you spoken 23 with the Joint Commission? 24 MR. ANDERSON: Because it's -- you 25 typically apply for a sewer extension permit after Page 123 1 municipal approval, at which point, we get approval 2 of the conveyance system and then we get approval of 3 the sewer gallonage. It is not something you do 4 prior to -- prior to this -- prior to the approval. 5 MR. AFRAN: You say it's not something 6 you do prior to the approval, but there's no rule, 7 regulation or statute that requires it to be done in 8 this chronological, is there? 9 MR. ANDERSON: You can't process the 10 permit without a municipal approval. 11 MR. AFRAN: You can't even consult to 12 find out the actual statistics on the carrying 13 capacity before this body meets? 14 MR. ANDERSON: The carrying capacity 15 or -- 16 MR. AFRAN: Well, what is it you need 17 to know from the Joint Commission that you haven't 18 found out yet? 19 MR. ANDERSON: To know whether they 20 have sufficient gallonage -- treatment gallonage 21 available at the sewer treatment plant. 22 MR. AFRAN: Okay, it's carrying 23 capacity. So why don't you find that information 24 out before you come here? 25 MR. ANDERSON: As I had mentioned, the Page 124 1 sequence is done after this approval. 2 MR. AFRAN: Well, who says the 3 sequence is done that way, you or some rule, statute 4 or regulation? 5 MR. ANDERSON: I can't file the 6 application until after the approval, so I do not 7 personally file applications or garner this unless 8 there's a sewer ban on the application, there's no 9 sewer ban

MR. ANDERSON: I can't file the 6 application until after the approval, so I do not 7 personally file applications or garner this unless 8 there's a sewer ban on the application, there's no 9 sewer ban for Joint Meeting, so there's very likely 10 to be gallonage available but we have to get through 11 this phase first, then the phase of getting the 12 conveyance system approved, and then the treatment 13 works approved. 14 MR. AFRAN: You said you had a verbal 15 discussion, didn't you? 16 MR. ANDERSON: With the municipal 17 engineer. 18 MR. AFRAN: Why didn't you put down -- 19 well, strike that. 20 Did you ask questions of the engineer 21 or did you present information to the engineer in 22 that verbal discussion? 23 MR. ANDERSON: We discussed the type 24 of gallonage that we would have with this property 25 and we discussed where we were discharging it to and Page 125 1 their concerns about where we were discharging it to 2 and the potential solutions to that. 3 MR. AFRAN: So you can't answer those 4 questions at this time because you haven't yet 5 spoken to the Joint Commission; is that fair to say? 6 MR. ANDERSON: The Joint Commission 7 has nothing to do with conveyance, they have to do 8 with the treatment capacity of the sewage flow. 9 MR. AFRAN: Okay, so these are 10 separate issues. 11 MR. ANDERSON: These are separate 12 issues, yes. 13 MR. AFRAN: Thank you, I appreciate 14 that. 15 Have you done any analysis as to the 16 present natural drainage and movement of water 17 across this site under existing conditions in terms 18 of how water reaches the wetlands and other 19 watercourses on the property? 20 MR. ANDERSON: We have done a drainage 21 analysis of the existing condition, yes. 22 MR. AFRAN: And have you made a 23 comparison of the change in the movement of water to 24 the wetlands under existing conditions compared to 25 after construction?

33 (Pages 126 to 129) Page 126 1 MR. ANDERSON: Well, we have designed 2 systems that mimic the existing conditions, so 3 instead of having one large detention basin at the 4 base of the hill and draining the wetlands, we have 5 -- 6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Anderson, speak 7 up. 8 MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry. 9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. 10 MR. ANDERSON: We have basins 11 throughout the site, including, say, for example, a 12 porous pavement system that is located up in this 13 area here (indicating) that recharges into the 14 ground and will be, by groundwater flow, this 15 wetland system, so that is similar to what is done 16 in existing conditions. 17 MR. AFRAN: That's at Building D where 18 you were just pointing. 19 MR. ANDERSON: That is the -- yes, 20 that's the example I have for Building D, correct. 21 MR. AFRAN: Well, what about the rest 22 of the structures, what impact are they going to 23 have on the natural movement of water that presently 24 exists in connection with the wetlands? 25 MR. ANDERSON: Well, we tried to Page 127 1 discharge water to -- to the ground and -- all 2 right, so -- so, for example, we have porous 3 pavement in this area here where it's dark, there, 4 there, there (indicating), so in each of these 5 locations where you have the darker color, those are 6 porous pavement systems. They recharge water from, 7 uh, from the pavement through the porous pavement, 8 also water from the roofs, that would typically have 9 flowed naturally down towards the wetlands here or 10 down towards this wetlands here, and it recharges it 11 into the -- into the ground, and therefore, the 12 groundwater flow will go back and feed these natural 13 systems. And this is -- 14 MR. AFRAN: Where is -- sorry. 15 MR. ANDERSON: This is the preferred 16 methodology that the DEP wants with multiple 17 locations of stormwater management throughout the 18 site. 19 MR. AFRAN: Well, that's a groundwater 20 recharge; isn't that correct? 21 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 22 MR. AFRAN: That's not for the purpose 23 of making certain that the wetlands are not deprived 24 of the normal water flow they receive under existing 25 conditions. Page 128 1 MR. ANDERSON: They receive water from 2 underground, from groundwater flow, as well as 3 surface flow. 4 MR. AFRAN: Have you made a study of 5 what losses from surface flow will be experienced by 6 the wetlands after construction? 7 MR.