December 18, 2025, Regular Meeting

system. This allows for an additional 44 trees to be preserved which were previously marked for removal. °o PSE&G's application to this Board was originally submitted in May of 2024, in terms of the lengthy process involved in connection with the Site Plan and use variance review. It was submitted before the Township adopted the Stormwater Ordinance amendments modeling DEP's green infrastructure requirements, and therefore opined that this application is grandfathered from the current requirements, which are contained in Chapter 25 of the Land Use Code, Section 25-29 Stormwater Controls, with respect to the use of green infrastructure as a stormwater design measure. Therefore, no further relief would be required from this Board in connection with the change to stormwater design for this application that is part of the proposed testimony, and part of the proposed agreement with the Objectors in connection. In addition to stormwater design, changes to the other design changes were made in an effort to save several other trees. PSE&G will be making a shift to the circulation path in order to save an additional tree, and tweaks were made in connection with an existing tree that was previously noted for temoval, which can be saved and will be shown on plans later by the engineer, but that specific tree is no longer impacted. o Ms. Porter continued testimony stating that a shift in connection with one of the manhole locations will also result in the savings of one of the larger London Planes at the site. In connection with this, it can be represented that the Tree Removal Plan provided to the Board is the same plan that forms the basis of the agreement between PSE&G and Mr. Turteltaub's client (Mr. Kevin Malanga). This depicts the total number of viable existing trees on the site being reduced from 136 to 89 trees. With a total savings of 47 additional trees where the tree removal plan remains in compliance with the new Tree Ordinance, and in addition as aresult of the additional trees being saved a contribution to the tree fund would no longer be required because all of the replacement trees that are being provided in addition to the ones being saved satisfy the requirements of the ordinance without further contribution being necessary o Inresponse to Ms. Porter’s statements, Mr.Turteltaub said that Ms, Porter did an accurate, well-done summary of the

sfy the requirements of the ordinance without further contribution being necessary o Inresponse to Ms. Porter’s statements, Mr.Turteltaub said that Ms, Porter did an accurate, well-done summary of the agreement. He wanted the number of trees noted to be saved through a lot of effort on all parties to make this a plan that hopefully the Board appreciates. It is the product of a lot of work to figure out the best way to save as many trees (especially the larger historical trees that have been part of the community for many years). ° Ms. Porter provided a brief overview of the prior testimony in connection with this application due to the reasons of: passages of time, and changes in Board/Professionals’ membership since the initial application was applied for. Variances sought: ¢ PSE&G’s application sought a 40:55D-2 Variance for the expansion of a nonconforming use, since the table of district regulations does not list public utility buildings or structures as a permitted or conditionally permitted use. ¢ A 40:55-70(d)(6) Height Variance for exceeding the required height by more than 10 percent because the Applicant is proposing to install six, approximately 70-foot lightning 5