February 12, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes

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.