February 12, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes

t 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 one place that he can put the storm water management system in. They will expedite as a condition of approval to get all the soil testing and if has to be moved, it will be moved, if it has to be enlarged, it will be enlarged, and if the chambers have to be changed, it will be done. These are all engineering in-field situations and are common and ordinary. This is not a major development, it is a singular family home and this system is going to be put under his backyard. BOARD QUESTIONS Mayor McCartney asked how will this comply with storm water regulations. Mr. Cokeley said they are increasing impervious coverage by more than a quarter of an acre; they are actually reducing with the introduction of porous pavers so water quality is not required. As far as the water quantity requirement, the system has ben designed to meet the required reductions and exceed them. Mr. Klein asked Mr. Cokeley to explain if a mistake was made and the soil testing came out that it’s the worst soil, how much larger would the chamber be, how many more chambers would you need, how much bigger of a piece of pipe would you need. Mr. Cokeley said the groups A, B, C, and D are typically indicative of what you can expect

from an infiltration rate. The number they used in their infiltration rate is the worst allowable by the state. In theory if they were to go out and get a test this is the biggest the system would be. Anything below that rate which is a half an inch per hour, they would be not be able to do an infiltration system. The fact that is C and not D, gives him the confidence that they will get a percolation rate of an acceptable level. Mr. Klein asked if you have this the double the size would you be able to put in a spot that wont impact the steep slope. Mr. Cokeley said they could increase the size within the area and not encroach into the steep slopes OBJECTORS QUESTIONS Mr. Simon asked have you reviewed all the documentation that was linked on the agenda for this evening’s meeting. Mr. Cokeley said he doesn’t know; he hasn’t clicked on the link that was in the agenda. He has reviewed past documentation. Mr. Simon asked for clarification that the applicant has submitted to the board all those documents. Ms. Triolo said those documents were submitted because the board requested copies of the documents to which Mr. Cohn, the manager of the WayMaker, referenced while he was testifying. Mr. Simon asked Mr. Cokeley with regard to the requirements of a submission of a site development storm water plan; you have not provided a topographic base map of the site which extends a minimum of 200 feet beyond the limit of the proposed development. Mr. Cokeley said no, he doesn’t believe it was submitted. Mr. Simon asked have you submitted any evaluations of steep slopes on this property. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked if this property doesn’t infiltrate and it doesn’t percolate, then not only will you have to design a new system but further you will not be in compliance with the storm water regulations. Mr. Cokeley said if they don’t get a percolation rate then the system will have to be redesigned but a detention system at a site that does not have infiltration capacity will comply with the town’s ordinance. Mr. Simon asked will you have to design something to make it comply. Mr. Cokeley said yes, it would be similar to what they have and it will not be an infiltration system, it would be a closed system. Mr. Simon asked with regard to your zoning table on your plans, did you indicate certain steep slope information as it related to affected lot area. Mr.

iltration system, it would be a closed system. Mr. Simon asked with regard to your zoning table on your plans, did you indicate certain steep slope information as it related to affected lot area. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked where did you receive that information to lead you to put that information on the zoning table to calculate affected lot area. Mr. Cokeley said he doesn’t recall. Mr. Simon asked the affected lot area for this site per your zoning table, is it less than 80,000 square feet. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked have you seen any documents submitted with this application that shows steep slope disturbance. Mr. Cokeley said he has seen the Matarazzo plans. Mr. Simon asked did the Matarazzo plans identify the location of steep slopes on the property. Mr. Cokeley said the plans he reviewed did not, they just indicated the system, the pipes and some of the grading. Mr. Simon asked did you review the documents from Robert’s dated April 28", 2021 titled Topographic Survey and Slope Analysis Plan that was submitted by the applicant prior to this hearing. Mr. Cokeley said he did not. Mr. Simon asked other than the Matarazzo plans, have you seen any plans that show any type of slope analysis for this property. Mr. Cokeley said no, he has seen the Matarazzo plans and the as-built survey which was used as their existing conditions demo plans.

Mr. Simon asked did you do any type of independent investigation to determine whether any activity or structure is located within steep slopes. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked are your plans remain based on the Osterkorn survey from 2024. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked have you performed the local code review including the steep slope ordinance review. Mr. Cokeley said he didn’t do a steep slope ordinance review. Mr. Simon asked since you became involved have you reviewed the Robert’s survey from 2021 that was submitted with the application materials. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked is it new information to you that the ditch on the western part of the property is in a different location than the Osterkorn survey from 2024 that you relied on putting together your Collier’s plan. Mr. Cokeley said he would have to review to determine if it was different. Mr. Simon asked are you aware of whether any survey that was for plans other than your Collier’s plan to identify beds and banks as part of ditches. Mr. Cokeley said no he is not aware. Mr. Simon asked have you reviewed the Robert’s Topographic Survey and Slope Analysis Plan dated April 28", 2021 that was submitted by the applicant. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked have you reviewed the site and grading plans prepared by the pool artist dated April 28", 2021 that was submitted by the applicant. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked have you reviewed the Matarazzo grading plan dated December 17", 2022. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked when did you first review that plan. Mr. Cokeley said he thinks it was after July 2024 when they were preparing their storm water report. Mr. Simon asked the 2022 Matarazzo grading plans shows the drainage ditch that is on the western side of the property meandering across Lot 24.01 and then coming out on the southern side by the Llewellyn Park Lot 11 before turning back to the east across the subject property, correct. Mr. Cokeley said he believes it does. Mr. Simon asked does the Matarazzo grading plan also shows a 24-inch pipe going from the proposed cabana and pool area to the south side of the property. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked does it also show an outlet structure from the dry well system to the south of the property. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked does the Matarazzo grading plans contemplate disturbance to

on asked does it also show an outlet structure from the dry well system to the south of the property. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked does the Matarazzo grading plans contemplate disturbance to the southerly property line. Mr. Cokeley said he doesn’t remember if it does to the southerly property line. Mr. Simon asked does the plan identify the location of any steep slopes on the property. Mr. Cokeley said he didn’t see that. Mr. Simon asked if you remove the pipe and the scour hole and the outfall structure, what was there previous. Cokeley said the 36-inch pipe is there. Mr. Simon asked are you familiar with Mr. Cohn’s testimony that the 2 12-inch clay pipes were broken and replaced with the 36 inches of elliptical pipe. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked in terms of storm water management in complying with the storm water management ordinance and the township of West Orange in best management practices, if you removed the 36-inch elliptical pipe and the outfall and scour hole what do you replace it with. Mr. Cokeley said he is not removing the 36-inch pipe. Mr. Simon asked does the Matarazzo plans show the ditch on the western side of the

property. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked are you familiar with the 2024 survey from Osterkorn because you refer to it on your plan. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked does the survey that you rely on shows the discharge point of the channel entering the newly installed 36-inch pipe. Mr. Cokeley said it shows the channel ending at the 36-inch pipe. Mr. Simon asked do you know the extent of which that area is encumbered by steep slope disturbances. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked based on the 2024 survey, the 36-inch pipe is approximately 70 feet long with a slope greater than 8%. Mr. Cokeley said he doesn’t know. Mr. Simon asked the proposal is that the slope length and conditions of the drainage channel have been changed from what you saw on the Matarazzo plans. Mr. Cokeley said the Matarazzo plan he was using was to get information about the dry well system. Mr. Simon asked do you recall submitting a memo to the board dated July 19", 2024, Mr. Cokeley said he remembers a memo. Mr. Simon asked is it relevant to this application. Mr. Cokeley said it is not part of this application. Mr. Simon asked if in your July 19", 2024 memo, it stated you would study storm water from both your client’s property as well as the Crystal Point property. Mr. Cokeley said he doesn’t remember. Mr. Simon asked the Crystal Point water is not going to be mitigated in any way by the proposed storm water system, correct. Mr. Cokeley said correct. Mr. Simon asked did you investigate whether the ditch location was different than what you have put on your Collier’s plan. Mr. Cokeley said no, he visited the site and confirmed the conditions that were on the survey. Mr. Simon asked in preparation for tonight’s proceeding did you go through and review the about 1000 documents that are now comprised as part of the record of this proceeding including documents that are linked on the agenda for tonight’s hearing. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked with regard to the 36-inch pipe, you have not performed any type of evaluation of any erosion caused by water coming out of the pipe, correct. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked the 2 12-inch clay pipe, were they identified on either your plans, the Matarazzo plans or the Osterkorn survey. Mr. Cokeley said no those were part of Mr. Cohn’s testimony with the images he shared last hearing. Mr. Simon asked you don’t

tified on either your plans, the Matarazzo plans or the Osterkorn survey. Mr. Cokeley said no those were part of Mr. Cohn’s testimony with the images he shared last hearing. Mr. Simon asked you don’t know as the engineer on the project where the 2 12-inch pipes were located. Mr. Cokeley said correct. Mr. Simon asked if you remove the 36-inch pipe, what would you put in its place. Mr. Cokeley said what Ms. Triolo referred to it being removed was the scour wall and the outlet control structure that are proposed on the plan. The pipes are not proposed as part of the plan. Mr. Simon asked when did you first become involve with the project. Mr. Cokeley said middle of 2024. Mr. Simon asked were you given any information about this site or documentation. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked who provided that information. Mr. Cokeley said the applicant. Mr. Simon asked did the applicant provide you any information that indicated that the 36- inch pipe was approved as installed. Mr. Cokeley said he saw the SCD requirement and.

then they came and inspected the site and said everything looked good. Mr. Simon asked do you know about the township’s involvement. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon with regard to your plans on sheet 4 of 8, there is a proposed subsurface infiltration basin that leads to the existing seepage tanks. Mr. Cokeley said correct. Mr. Simon asked the area in the rear of the property with the darker lines, that indicates grading disturbance. Mr. Cokeley said correct. Mr. Simon asked are you able to calculate how many square feet of the site is subject to regrading from your plans based on sheet 4. Mr. Cokeley said he would need to get on the computer to do so. Mr. Simon said the entire rear of the property from about 60 feet to the rear property line and then it continues long the western portion is being disturbed as part of this development, correct. Mr. Cokeley said correct. Mr. Simon asked do you recall on the Matarazzo plan there is an outfall that goes from the seepage tanks directly to the south towards where the 36-inch elliptical pipe is located. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked do you recall on the Matarazzo plans in blue there is a 24-inch pipe that is going from the cabana and pool to the exact same location outside of the seepage tank field. Mr. Cokeley said he does remember the outfall. Mr. Simon stated on Mr. Cokeley’s plans, it is not showing an outfall coming from the seepage tank field as compared to the Matarazzo plan and in addition to which it didn’t show an inlet to the right of the seepage tank field on sheet 4 of 8 which is inconsistent with the Matarazzo plan. Mr. Simon asked is there a reason why on your plans it doesn’t show where the water is going once it gets to the seepage tanks field. Mr. Cokeley said it is a function of the survey and it is something he noticed when viewing conditions of the site is that the outfall is there but the Osterkorn survey did not pick it up. Mr. Simon asked lot 24.01 contributes runoff to the storm water report points of study but it is not included in the calculations, correct. Mr. Cokeley said correct. Mr. Simon asked if the storm water report does not include any contributing offsite subareas in the pre proposed development calculations, correct. Mr. Cokeley said correct. Mr. Simon asked in terms of the disturbed area, are you aware whether any tree removal permits were issued in

subareas in the pre proposed development calculations, correct. Mr. Cokeley said correct. Mr. Simon asked in terms of the disturbed area, are you aware whether any tree removal permits were issued in connection with trees or vegetation removal. Mr. Cokeley said he is not aware of that. Mr. Simon asked are you aware of tree replacement requirements in connection with any type of grading plans. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked have you provided any geotechnical investigation or soil testing. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked if the storm water facility does not infiltrate, it is not in compliance with the storm water regulations, correct. Mr. Cokeley said it would be dependent on an infiltration rate available at the site. If the site cannot infiltrate, then an infiltration green practice is not feasible and a detention system would be required. Mr. Simon asked have you performed any investigation to determine the direction of ground water flows from the site to adjacent off-site properties. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked the project is going to increase the amount if storm water that recharges the site ground water. Mr. Cokeley said as he mentioned in his previous testimony, it is in the reports that they meet the recharge requirement. Mr. Simon asked you haven’t evaluated the hydraulic of the mounding impact on the adjacent properties. Mr. Cokeley said that is correct.

Mr. Simon asked you haven’t also determined what sort of impact that increase would have on the ground water levels on your property. Mr. Cokeley said correct. Mr. Simon asked have you done any type of hydrologic or hydraulic analysis regarding this property. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked based on images, the rear of the property is currently covered with gravel or stone based, do you recall seeing that. Mr. Cokeley said yes. Mr. Simon asked is the intention to keep the property covered with that type of material. Mr. Cokeley said it is there for construction stabilization purposes and it is not going to be there long term. The plan proposes landscaping or lawn areas. Mr. Simon asked did you notice that in the prior plans that there was contemplation for a tennis court on this property. Mr. Cokeley said he doesn’t know. Mr. Simon asked if you are going to add impervious coverage to the site, you have to modify the storm water system you have designed, correct. Mr. Cokeley said it would be subject to any building permit review to the extent the impervious is added. Any new impervious would require storm water mitigation. Mr. Simon asked your storm water system didn’t contemplate the maximum permitted impervious coverage of 24%, correct. Mr. Cokeley said the system is overdesigned because they are going beyond the minimum reduction required. Mr. Simon asked are you aware of any environmental impact before it was prepared for this application. Mr. Cokeley said no. Mr. Simon asked what is the purpose of the curtain drain you are proposing on your plan. Mr. Cokeley said it is an addition item that the applicant was willing to consider to put at the perimeter of the proposed flat area of the lawn that would capture surface runoff from the lawn area and then it has a connection back to the subsurface system. Mr. Simon asked is the purpose of it to prevent the backyard from flooding. Mr. Cokeley said it is just to capture additional runoff. Mr. Simon asked are you proposing any new inlets. Mr. Cokeley said they are not proposing new inlets but they are resetting a few of them. Mr. Simon asked do you know to what extent these inlets are constructed on areas that have steep slopes. Mr. Cokeley said he doesn’t know. Mr. Simon asked is there a reason why you didn’t propose any landscaping along the south or the western side of the property adjacent to