February 26, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 45 to 48 of 115 12 of 46 sheets 45 flow at Kuzik and at Warner are not increased.1 All right. I have just two more points.2 I would like to talk about the inland flood3 regulation rules that DEP uses, and now I understand4 that this project was grandfathered and wasn't, it5 wasn't held to the standards of the new inland flooding6 rules and those who are unfamiliar, inland flood rules7 are basically meant to protect the residents of New8 Jersey from increasing storms. DEP has observed, as has9 many other people, that storms are being more intense10 and larger over time. So what they did is they updated11 the size of the storms from two to ten or 100 year, but12 then also instituted another evaluation tool. They have13 the present storm flow rates, storm sizes, but then they14 have future conditions, which is even larger. A15 100-year storm in the present condition is about16 8-inches. But in future condition it's 11 inches. It's17 a lot more water.18 MR. PLOCKER: I'm going to object very19 quickly, Mr. Chairman. Part of the application of the20 stormwater rules, the witness is reciting to the21 requirements and the rules the he recognized, we were22 grandfathered in. It is the DEP's own regulation which23 allowed us to be grandfathered in because the24 application was filed on or before a certain date and I25 46 wanted to state that for the record.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.2 MR. AFRAN: Our position is that the DEP3 made a judgment on its view that the older rules applied4 in this case. We have appealed that and that is pending5 in the Appellate Division. It's not briefed and the6 appeal was just recently filed challenging that7 decision, so we don't have a decision from the Court yet8 as to whether DEP is correct, as Mr. Plocker suggests,9 or whether it is incorrect, as we suggest. So the issue10 will be litigated. As Mr. Walsh said earlier, the board11 does have an independent duty to understand and assess12 and he's offering testimony to address that. And in13 addition this is responsive to testimony the applicant14 offered on its own initiative on these very issues. So15 all though I respect Mr. Plocker's view, we obviously16 have a different legal view of the condition.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.18 Mr. Walsh.19 I want to speak to the fact that what they -- I20 A. understand they were grandfathered in and that's

ously16 have a different legal view of the condition.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.18 Mr. Walsh.19 I want to speak to the fact that what they -- I20 A. understand they were grandfathered in and that's under21 appeal, but you could still run these storms, you could22 still take your model, it's not a giant effort to change23 a few numbers and at least for the sake of the town and24 the community you can give an idea like hey, how25 47 resilient is your design in case of these storms. You1 don't have to meet the reduction requirements but you2 could show them what that would mean, give them some3 peace of mind, which I don't think would be a negative.4 I have one last point I want to bring up.5 So we're looking at the construction plans6 submitted by the applicant, let me get the sheet number.7 I did not change this at all, just looking at the plan.8 Looking at SP-16.9 This is porous pavement area number 9 on the10 plans. I wanted to point out a concern I have here. If11 everyone can see where my cursor is going, you see the12 line that has the S running through it. So that is a13 sanitary sewer line that is running through the14 infiltration basin, and I'm going to go to the profile15 view just to confirm it. Again, this is the 8-inch S,16 this is the sanitary line, this is the in infiltration17 stormwater storage basin. They have a sanitary line18 running through it. I can't find anything explicit in19 the stormwater BMP manual that prevents you from doing20 this, but it seems like generally a very bad idea to run21 a sanitary line through a storage system that's going to22 fill up with water.23 Now, in -- there are other rules keeping about24 keeping stormwater infrastructure apart from sanitary25 48 lines, the risk is obviously the sanitary lines carry1 human waste, you don't want a leaking sanitary system.2 These pipes get old sometimes, they leak into the3 stormwater pipe and then suddenly you're discharging4 bits of raw human waste into your local water body.5 That's not very good. In fact typically you need to6 keep stormwater pipes about ten horizontal feet away7 from a sanitary line or one vertical foot away. There8 are conditions where there are site constrains so you9 can't do that, so you have to encase the sanitary line10 in concrete to protect it from leaking and impacting the11 sanitary line.12 I think this line should be moved. I mean,

site constrains so you9 can't do that, so you have to encase the sanitary line10 in concrete to protect it from leaking and impacting the11 sanitary line.12 I think this line should be moved. I mean, now,13 again, I said you can't find a rule against it, but to14 give you a better idea, another way to look at it is,15 what I couldn't do is I couldn't take, like if I have a16 stormwater pipe 64 inches in diameter, a massive17 stormwater pipe, it could happen. I couldn't run a18 sanitary line through it, that would not be allowed and19 I don't think you should be allowed -- they shouldn't be20 running a sanitary line through this. So this porous21 pavement section should be eliminated and they should22 find another way to store the water or they should move23 the sanitary line out from underneath the roadway.24 Now, the consequence of that, I think it would25