December 18, 2025, Regular Meeting

part of the approval, the concems about the fencing (albeit it’s a bit old and still historic in nature). ¢ I. Schwarzbaum asked if the swale system has been used by PSE&G on other sites? Mr, Blake said yes. ¢ T. Ben-Zvi asked if the 47 trees saved include the trees that Ms. Porter referred to as "we're tweaking a bit to save a few more trees,” does it include these tweaks that she was referring to? Mr. Blake said Yes. That the whole reason for the redesign was to remove the bioretention basins because the footprint was so much larger that it impacted a lot more trees. By switching to an underground detention basin system the footprint and disturbance is a lot smaller, which allows us to preserve more trees. eT. Ben-Zvi referenced the Forester's report dated December 16, 2025, where he wrote,"I would like to meet on-site to see if I can save more trees on site." And questioned whether such a meeting was scheduled with The Forester? Ms. Porter said that The Forester has actually been to the site on several occasions. Forester also wrote prior memos indicating that the prior tree removal plan was consistent with the ordinance, as well as this plan. Ms. Porter answered that to the extent the Board wanted to impose a condition that the Forester have the opportunity to come to the site again, as the Forester had previously been to the site and made statements indicating that they were satisfied with the prior plan. But the applicants’ happy to agree to that as a condition of approval that the Forester is welcome again to come to the site, T. Ben-Zvi questioned further as the memo was dated two (2) days ago. Ms. Porter responded that they did see that and are happy to comply with it with a note for the record, that the Forester has been to the site on several occasions. © Chairperson Neuer asked for clarification on the sidewalks, Is it that the sidewalks will — are intended to remain intact and not to be removed? Mr. Blake said that it is correct. Unless there’s a utility, like a duct bank or something that has to leave the site, but it would be a minimal impact. It wouldn't be tearing the whole thing out. It would just be whatever is needed for that underground duct bank to leave the site. ¢ Chairperson Neuer asked for further information where to the extent that any sidewalk is disturbed or removed in part it will be replaced before the project can get a

d duct bank to leave the site. ¢ Chairperson Neuer asked for further information where to the extent that any sidewalk is disturbed or removed in part it will be replaced before the project can get a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Blake said yes, and also, because the entrance will be redone this entrance so there's going to be some adjustment to the sidewalk there as well. PROFESSIONALS QUESTIONS ¢ R. MacNeill said that as seen in the letter dated December 12,2025 the drainage comments is the primary source of concern with some of the revised design. Mr. MacNeill said that he spoke to another engineer in Mr. Blake’s office and wanted it noted for the record that there are intentions to switch the underground detention basin to an infiltration basin to comply with both the Township as well as DEP regulations. Mr. Blake said Yes that it will be all part of the infiltration design will all be taken into consideration in accordance with NJAC-7.8 when the full design is done. e R. MacNeill asked regarding if they are willing to state on the record if they are willing to advise Stormwater and MTDs to meet that water quality requirement on 7