February 12, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes

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