February 12, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes

MINUTES TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING February 12, 2025 7:30 P.M. The Township of West Orange Planning Board held its regular meeting on February 12, 2025, at 7:30 P.M. via virtual ZOOM videoconference. Chairman Bagoff called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. He announced that notification of the meeting was given to the Township Clerk, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board, sent to the West Orange Chronicle and the Star Ledger, and posted on the Township’s website calendar. This meeting has been properly noticed to the public in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. No new matters will start after 10:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE + Chairman Bagoff requested all persons stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ANNOUNCEMENTS e The next Planning Board special meeting will be held Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 6:30 P.M in person. ¢ The next Planning Board regular meeting will be held Wednesday, March 12, 2025 at 7:30 P.M via Zoom. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dr. Robert Bagoff; Mr. Jerry Guarino; Mr. Ken Alper; Mr. John Cardoza; Mr. William Wilkes; Mr. Lee Klein; Mayor Susan McCartney; Councilwoman Susan Scarpa; ABSENT: Ms. Lori Kapferer; Mr. Peter Smeraldo; Mr. Christopher Morgan, Sr.; ALSO PRESENT: Diana P. McGovern, Esq., Planning Board Attorney; Gerry Haizel, Consulting Town Planner: Mr. Phil Scott, Board Engineer; Jamilet Baquerizo Vite, Planning Board Secretary SWEARING IN ¢ The Township Professional(s) sworn in. APPLICATIONS

e PB-24-19 TheWayMaker LLC Block: 106 Lot: 20.03 Zone: R-1 40 Eagle Ridge Way The applicant, TheWayMaker, LLC, proposes to undertake site work on a lot with an existing one-family dwelling. The proposed site work includes the installation of a subsurface chamber infiltration basin in the rear yard, as an enhancement to a previously approved stormwater seepage pit detention system. PRESENTATION BOARD QUESTIONS ¢ Chairman Bagoff asked is there a geotechnical survey with this application. Mr. Cokeley said there was not one conducted. e Mayor McCartney asked how will this comply with the steep slope ordinance. Ms. Triolo said there is no application before this board concerning steep slopes, they are here for a storm water management system. The grading has been provided for the storm water management system as well as the details and calculations. ¢ Mayor McCartney asked how far away is the system from the steep slope. Ms. Triolo said there is no steep slope. ¢ Chairman Bagoff asked what is the relation with the storm water management system to the steep slope. Mr. Cokeley said the storm water system is placed roughly 100 feet or more from the property line. e Mr. Klein asked Mr. Scott they picked C type soil, is there a worse soil than C. Mr. Scott said yes, there is a category D and that is an even lower permeability. PROFESSIONALS COMMENTS ¢ Mr. Scott said they question whether or a geotechnical investigation was done on this site either for the proposed storm management system or the previous system that was done as part of the Matarazzo Engineering design. ¢ Mr. Scott said based on his review of the storm water report they are using the practice infiltration for this design of this space. ¢ Mr. Scott said with this development and the number of concerns that they have with regard to the storm water, Mr. Scott prefers to have a geotechnical study in advance of the approval. ¢ Mr. Scott said without having that specific information, it is hard to say that they should move forward with the application. Or if the board sees it fit, they can approve it as a condition. Ms. Triolo replies by saying this application was deemed complete without a geotechnical report and they will object to any carrying of it in order to provide more reports. The applicant will keep the escrow account for the engineer funded to assure there are funds for the

a geotechnical report and they will object to any carrying of it in order to provide more reports. The applicant will keep the escrow account for the engineer funded to assure there are funds for the engineer to attend and do inspections during testing and installation. They welcome Mr. Scott to be an active participant as far as his observations and recommendations during construction but to ask for a geotechnical report at this point in time is unnecessary, unwarranted and not required. ¢ Mr. Scott said based on his site visit, he has witnessed water flowing out of the 36-inch elliptical pipe. The day he was there, it was not raining. It was a day after a snowstorm and it was 17 degrees and Mr. Scott didn’t anticipate that there was any snow melt that was contributing to the water flowing through the pipes. ¢ Mr. Scott followed that pipe back and saw that water was flowing through the drainage ditch that site between both properties, 40 and 42 Eagle Ridge Way.

Mr. Scott said he saw that water was flowing through there and continued to follow it all the way up to 40 Eagle Ridge Way. At that point he saw two pipes come together that flow into the drainage ditch. He saw that some of that water was flowing from across 40 Eagle Ridge way which is the property of Crystal Point Townhouse Development and there is another pipe that is coming from the northern direction of Eagle Ridge Way. Mr. Scott said in terms of this application, Mr. Cohn’s seems to be handling his storm water with the design of the Collier’s plans with what they are proposing is going to reduce in theory that this design should reduce even more what would contribute to the drainage ditch. Mr. Scott said he feels they can deal with this application with regard to the storm water management system the applicant is proposing and the water flowing through the ditch and into Llewellyn Park is a separate issue. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS Mr. Scott asked have you done any type of geotechnical investigation for this project. Mr. Cokeley said they did not prepare or are aware of prior geotechnical. Ms. Triolo also added that the Matarazzo design that was submitted to the township of West Orange did not require a geotechnical investigation and none was requested or required when the approvals were given from engineering and building to construct and those approvals have been provided to the board. Mr. Scott asked where did you get your calculation rates without a geotechnical study. Mr. Cokeley said they will utilize web soil survey to take a look at the mapping of the hydraulic soil groups. Mr. Scott asked how did you come about with your seasonal high-water table. Mr. Cokeley said they were going based on the web soil survey that will provide an estimated range. A survey was also conducted in 2023 that was a base map they were using so they had elevation information. They assumed if that system was installed then they can reasonably assume that the ground water wouldn’t fluctuate too much beyond that. Mr. Scott asked would you conduct a geotechnical investigation in the event this project is approved. Mr. Cokeley said yes, that will be a condition of approval. OBJECTORS COMMENTS The attorney, Robert Simon, on behalf of Llewellyn Park said with regard to the geotechnical survey and seasonal high water table information, that information was specifically

l. OBJECTORS COMMENTS The attorney, Robert Simon, on behalf of Llewellyn Park said with regard to the geotechnical survey and seasonal high water table information, that information was specifically requested as part as the site development storm water plan. There are requirements for submission of that plan and that includes information as the seasonal high ground water elevations, geotechnical information, soil reports, seasonal high water table, and soil borings. Mr. Simon said they will present information that demonstrates that steep slope variance relief is required as part of this application. It has not been applied for or called out to any plan in terms of deviation. Mr. Simon said the storm water management system and the resulting clearance and disturbance of this site which has now triggered a major site plan application has disturbed steep slopes of various categories and percentages that substantially exceeds what is permitted under the ordinance. Mr. Simon said under the municipal land use law, you cannot bifurcate development approvals for a particular site where you are asking for certain reliefs and then go back to a different board and ask for different relief. Mr. Simon said the steep slope ordinance specifically states that all relief as part of site

plan approval that implicates steep slope disturbance shall be reviewed concurrent with any site plan review. Under section 60 of the municipal land use law, the statue states you can apply for a bulk variance and then subsequently apply for any necessary site plan approval. The reason for this is if certain site plans requirements are expensive, you go into the variance first, if it’s granted, you go back to the site plan approval and at that time you have to reprove the negative criteria for your variance. In this case, you would be doing it backwards. Here they need steep slope variance approvals and cannot go back in and subsequently ask for a bulk variance approval after receiving a site plan approval, where the grading and the disturbance of the site dictates and triggers the need for hat steep slope relief. Mr. Simon said the information that was provided by the board shows the disturbance of the steep slope and how that implicates the storm water management system which is an issue here and with regard to a site development storm water plan, it is also required to indicate to plot topographic conditions within 200 feet of the property which hasn’t been shown and steep slope information. As part of a storm water plan analysis it says that the written description of the features of the site including soil conditions and slope conditions corresponding with regard to the steep slope ordinance says disturbance of steep slop result in accelerated erosion process from storm water runoff. Mr. Simon said due to the interplay between steep slope disturbance and storm water management, especially here when the applicant is applying for a major site plan, the fact that the applicant has failed to apply for the necessary steep slope variances that they need relief for and the interplay of those variances due to prior disturbances where they are asking for forgiveness not permission. Ms. Triolo replies to Mr. Simon by saying this application has been deemed complete, they are looking for storm water management. They did not apply for a steep slope variance because they believe they don’t need one because the area that is being considered for this storm water management system does not impact steep slope. Based on the engineer’s testimony, the mechanism for the storm water management is 100 feet from the property line. They already have seepage pits that were

agement system does not impact steep slope. Based on the engineer’s testimony, the mechanism for the storm water management is 100 feet from the property line. They already have seepage pits that were designed to accept and collect all of the impervious on the site. They have added to that and restricted even more storm water and this application includes significant reduction in storm water. The applicant they would like the storm water application to be considered. Mr. Simon said when an application comes before the planning board and it is brought to the attention of that board, if the board determines that based on their ordinance that the application is complete and/or where the member of the public raises questions as to not just checklist completion but whether the applicant has applied for all the relief that is required of them for approval of a site plan of a development application. The ordinance says that for any development application before the planning board it shall consider and review the steep slope ordinance for compliance. There is no geotechnical information, seasonal high water table information, or hydraulic measurements. Mr. Simon said he does not want the board to go through the process of hearing an application and then realizing that it has to be a do over because it is not completed or it is missing critical information. For these reasons, Mr. Simon said for these reasons this application should not proceed as submitted or as a notice to the public. Mr. Simon said the notice to the public state that no variances were required when they are and it talked about permission to construct the 2-tier wall at the rear of the property and it is in the middle of the steep slope. Mr. Simon said the rear of this property is consumed by steep slopes which has already been disturbed and are proposed to being disturbed as well.

APPLICANT’S REPLIES The attorney, Priscilla Triolo, on behalf of the applicant said the application is for a storm water management system. Ms. Triolo states what Mr. Simon would like to do is go back and undo West Orange’s approval of the Matarazzo plans and the construction of the Matarazzo seepage pits. The proposed storm water system is setback away from the seepage pits. It is in the flat of the yard. The driveway that’s being replaced from impervious to pervious pavers is 300 feet from the rear yard property line and it is not near steep slopes. They do not deny different elevations on the property; however, there were no steep slopes that were under consideration for this storm water management plan. The idea of having a geotechnical report before an application is submitted is not standard or ordinary. It is a condition of approval to submit it to the engineer and most boards when there is technical construction, they always require that the applicant agrees to keep the escrow account funded, the applicant agrees to have the engineer notice when any testing is done, agrees to have the engineer for the town present while construction is being done. There are standard conditions of approval which West Orange does on a regular basis with their major site development plans. The geotechnical is done as a function of construction and the engineer is then given the opportunity to get the reports. They already said they agree to that. As far as steep slope, they are not here for steep slope because the storm water system that is proposed is not adjacent to or near the edge of the mountain. The applicant has put in a drain to collect surface water from the grass area such that where there is a lot of rain comes down before it can be absorbed in the grass, there is a drain for that to collect it. The storm water chambers are going to restrain water. Mr. Cokeley testified last time that there were standards in New Jersey that are used to calculate what can leave the site and he testified that what he did in his calculus was made it so that less storm water would leave the site than what the state allows. PROFESSIONAL COMMENTS Ms. McGovern said that the planning board they does not have the power to over rule permits or construction assessments that were made previously by the code department. In terms of what the planning board can do is to judge the

lanning board they does not have the power to over rule permits or construction assessments that were made previously by the code department. In terms of what the planning board can do is to judge the application before them. Ms. McGovern said while the requirements for site development storm water plan do mention under 25-29.9 section C2 environmental site analysis, this description should include a discussion of soil conditions, slopes, wetlands, waterway, and vegetation. There should be a description of that and Ms. McGovern is leaving it to the board in terms of whether their engineer can satisfy with that. Ms. McGovern said the ordinance does require in section 25-29.96B under calculations, when the proposed storm water management control measure infiltration basin depends on the hydrologic repellency of soils and a soil report shall be submitted. The soil report shall be based on on-site borings logs or soil pit profiles. Ms. McGovern said she believes that Mr. Scott was describing his preference before final vote be taken. Ms. McGovern said she would suggest that the board should listen to the board engineer as to what he thinks is best and what the timing of something like that is whether it’s a long process or short process. Ms. McGovern said in terms of steep slopes, the applicant is not here for that. They were not cited for it and she doesn’t believe this board has the power to overrule a permit that was issued in the past but they are here to review their storm water management proposal. 5

Ms. Triolo replied to Ms. McGovern by saying if the geotechnical is made a condition of approval and if the requirements with regards to permeability testing is made a condition of approval that in the event that the soil fail and are Group D or less they will go back to the board with a new design system. But they think to make it a condition of approval and to require a funding of Mr. Scott to be engaged on behalf of the board to review the geotechnical report, to be present when they are taken, to watch the testing, and to see that the Collier’s design bears out. The applicant will provide all the information with regard to the soils and soil testing as it is in live time. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Scott does the board need to have all these items prior to their deliberation or can he condition and which is ideal. Mr. Scott said in a lot of instances it can be done as a condition in a situation where you may have an existing building and it doesn’t allow for you do the testing in advance of doing demolition. In this instance they do have the ability to do the geotechnical investigation because there is no building that has be razed in order to do such investigation. Mr. Scott says he doesn’t see any reason why they can’t do this as a condition. He will leave it up to the board if they would like to move forward even without having that information at this time and making it a condition of approval. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Scott how long would this study take. Mr. Scott said it would take approximately 2 days in the field of drilling and testing. It will then take sometime for them to send the information to the lab, have them analyze it, get the information back and then for them to put together a report can take another few days so in total this can take 2-3 weeks. Mr. Simon said this is not a long process to make sure the system that is seeking approval is the system that is intended to be installed. Mr. Simon said after taking a look at the plans, the Collier’s subsurface system is encroaching on steep slope. If this system needs to be modified in size, it may implicate steep slopes and they have no idea what the soil type is, what the seasonal ground water table is, if there is any mounding in the area, and they don’t have any hydraulic calculations. Ms. Triolo said this house only has one backyard and the applicant only has