February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 117 to 120 of 154 30 of 68 sheets 117 The overall utility plan for the development1 is on Sheet SP-18 of the site plan, and that's the plan2 that is revised 10/28/2024. And then individual3 sections of the site are broken down and blown up on4 Sheets 19 through 24. Please look at them carefully.5 Zoom in on them on your computers, put on a great pair6 of reading glasses, everything on-site is shown in7 detail. Stormwater, sewer, water.8 We'll start with stormwater.9 We've repeatedly heard comments, the10 development will worsen stormwater runoff and flooding11 in the surrounding areas. The comments generally state,12 we have issues now, putting the buildings on site will13 make things worse. Those comments did not take into14 consideration the detailed stormwater management plan15 shown on the site plan and testified to by Mr. Anderson16 on July 30 on Pages 33 to 35. As the board is aware,17 the stormwater management plan was fully approved by the18 DEP in November of 2024. Those permits and the19 extension of the wetlands Letter of Interpretation,20 they're all part of this record.21 Now, those regulations are very technical22 and I'm not going to get into them, but when it comes to23 stormwater and runoff, those regulations have an24 overarching requirement, that when comparing the25 118 no-build condition to the fully developed project, there1 must be a net negative runoff for the site. Meaning the2 overall runoff from the site is lessened after the3 product is built than today under no-build conditions.4 The DEP has already determined that we meet that5 standard and your own engineer addressed the objectors6 comment and confirmed that the system meets DEP7 requirements. There is an August 15, 2025 memo, I8 believe from Mr. Hasse, and Mr. Rizzo testified on9 October 22, 2025 beginning on Page 14, in which he10 defers to the DEP approvals in response to Princeton11 Hydro's comments.12 Mr. Anderson's stormwater report, revised13 October 28, 2024, the same report was reviewed and14 considered by the DEP and it's also part of these15 application materials, shows on Page 7, 11 and 12 the16 significant reduction in runoff and recharge under17 as-built conditions compared to what exists today.18 With respect to the eastern slope. As per19 the ordinance there is no building or disturbance east20 of the peak of the ridge line. Whatever

nder17 as-built conditions compared to what exists today.18 With respect to the eastern slope. As per19 the ordinance there is no building or disturbance east20 of the peak of the ridge line. Whatever stormwater21 falls there today it will have the same condition after22 the project is built.23 Building D is being developed to the west of24 the peak and remember the peak goes up a bit to the25 119 east, after Building D, before it flattens out and1 ultimately slopes to the east.2 The stormwater management system approved by3 the DEP is designed to direct any stormwater around4 Building D to the west. The presence of Building D will5 not affect the stormwater runoff on the eastern slope.6 Mr. Anderson testified to this on July 30 at our very7 first hearing.8 The approved stormwater management system,9 which will control runoff for the rest of the site is10 comprised of four surface basins and a porous pavement11 system to which water from the building roof will be12 directed. This results in a reduction in flow from the13 site, which the DEP approved.14 Importantly, the DEP had the objectors15 comments and the comments of the objectors expert, it16 was Mr. Walsh from Princeton Hydro. Mr. -- he confirmed17 this in his own testimony on October 22, 2025 at Pages18 37 to 39. Those comments were considered by the DEP and19 they were rejected. The permits have been issued and20 the boards own expert deferred to the DEP.21 At the June 30, 2025 hearing, Mr. MacNeill22 testified at Pages 140 to 144, that the application23 meets the DEP requirements for runoff quantity, quality,24 groundwater recharge and drain infrastructure. He25 120 addressed Princeton Hydro's comments and discounted1 their arguments. Essentially your own expert deferred2 to the DEP, which has granted all permits required for3 this project. Mr. Walsh of Princeton Hydro conceded4 that he wrote the DEP on several occasions during the5 lengthy application process and that the DEP had6 Princeton Hydro's comments and objections, which were7 obviously discounted because the DEP granted the8 permits.9 Finally, this was brought up during the10 hearings. The newer stormwater standards are not an11 issue to be dealt with. We are proceeded as determined12 by the DEP under the previous stormwater rules pursuant13 to their own regulations. I'm not going to go into14 detail, but the regulation is NJAC 7:8-1.6B4i.

alt with. We are proceeded as determined12 by the DEP under the previous stormwater rules pursuant13 to their own regulations. I'm not going to go into14 detail, but the regulation is NJAC 7:8-1.6B4i. The DEP15 evaluated the application under the prior regulations16 and the board engineer, your board engineer, agrees.17 Sewer. Again, we've heard comments that we18 don't have a sewer plan. Nothing could be further from19 the truth. As testified to by Mr. Anderson and as shown20 in detail on the site plan, there will be a gravity flow21 system which flows from Building A, B, and C in the22 middle of the site, down past the road circle to a low23 point to the west of Building D. Building D also flows24 to that point, at which if you'll look, there is a small25