March 4, 2026, Planning Board Regular Meeting - WEHI Transcript

13 of 54 sheets Page 49 to 52 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 49 avoid a reduction of the stability of the slope.1 5. The requirements for construction should2 include an excavation and dewatering work plan3 addressing the stability of the slope during the4 construction. This work plan should prepared by a5 licensed professional engineer currently registered in6 the State of New Jersey.7 6. Support of the excavation should be8 required along the ridge. Cutting back the slope beyond9 the limits of the earth work should not be permitted.10 Rock excavation should be controlled to11 minimize vibrations and disturbance of the ridge. The12 design of blasting charges if required should consider13 the controlling distance to the distance -- to be the14 distance to the top of the slope, which is in the15 maximum range of 40 to 100 feet.16 Dewatering and control of runoff should be17 required. Ponding of water in the excavation could18 surcharge the joints in the rock and should not be19 permitted.20 Slope indicators -- number 9. Slope21 indicators should be installed on the slope to monitor22 for movement during construction.23 10. Installation of groundwater monitoring24 wells should be considered at infiltration basins25 50 located along the ridge.1 And finally number 11. Final grading and2 landscaping should be strictly performed to ensure that3 runoff is intercepted and prevented from runoff over the4 slope.5 So to add that, I do think we will, our6 recommendation would be to have a separate condition, if7 it gets to that point, of requiring the blasting plan,8 the pre-survey as well as the post-survey as a separate9 condition, just to clarify, make sure that is included.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mayor McCartney.11 Oh, I'm sorry. Council President Scarpa.12 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: I wanted to say --13 yeah, what would have happen if some of those things are14 not done? Because, you know, there's always15 construction people that are not maybe paying attention16 to detail. What would happen, and what recourse do we17 have to ensure that those things are done? Or how is18 the accountability.19 MR. MacNEILL: For a project this scale20 on-site inspections is going to be the most important21 phase. Construction phase is the most important for22 this type of project. So you're going to need full-time23 on-site inspections. You will have your inspector, or24 working side by side

important21 phase. Construction phase is the most important for22 this type of project. So you're going to need full-time23 on-site inspections. You will have your inspector, or24 working side by side with the contractor to ensure all25 51 the conditions, on top of this one, all the conditions1 of approval are complied with and if this townships2 inspector identifies a violation they would immediately3 contact the construction official, the township engineer4 and then they could put a stop work order on the5 project, for them to remediate that problem before they6 could then proceed with the construction.7 COUNCIL WOMAN SCARPA: Do we have the8 personnel to be able to do that kind of oversight?9 MS. McGOVERN: I think that the applicant10 pays for our consulting engineer.11 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, so if they approve, one12 of the standard conditions, is they have put up a13 performance guarantee, an inspection fee escrow. So for14 performance guarantee they're required to put up 12015 percent of the bondable improvements. And then on top16 of that, 15 percent of that is your inspection fee17 escrow and if determined if we need additional you18 always replenish through the applicant.19 COUNCIL WOMAN SCARPA: Okay. While I have20 the floor, I have some questions and concerns about the21 December 8 that we referenced. Particularly under the22 general comments B and some of the things concerned on23 the on-site sanitary sewer comments.24 I still have a concern that, you know, it25 52 was just in December a few months ago that a capacity1 analysis of this site sewer was never done. The2 developer did not show that the existing streams and3 pipes and ditches or the stormwater drains downstream4 can handle the extra water. Shouldn't we be taking this5 into consideration, serious consideration, at that time?6 At this time and it just seems that the scale and the7 intensity of the proposal are a little out of proportion8 with what the site could support. I mean, we've heard9 consistent credible concerns about traffic volume,10 stormwater management, the environmental impact, and11 like these are not abstract worries, they're rooted in12 real limitations of our existing infrastructure and the13 lived experience of people who rely on it every day, who14 we've heard had real flooding and such. You know, like15 meeting minimal technical thresholds does not16 automatically make

ructure and the13 lived experience of people who rely on it every day, who14 we've heard had real flooding and such. You know, like15 meeting minimal technical thresholds does not16 automatically make a project appropriate. Our role is17 not to rubber stamp, right. It's to evaluate whether a18 proposal aligns with the Master Plan, the neighborhood,19 and the long-term capacity of what we have. So the20 technical compliance seems to me it should be the floor,21 you know, not the ceiling. So that's something that I'm22 very, very concerned about. In fact I know Millburn, a23 Millburn Fair Share Housing development just was24 rejected because of poor infrastructure. So I am very,25