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

03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM Page 69 to 72 of 136 18 of 54 sheets 69 resolved, at least not as of that meeting.1 Stormwater management and slope stability, I2 don't think I want to get into to much of that right3 now, I assume that's coming from more engineering4 people, maybe. But it does stick in my mind that we had5 the testimony of Geoffrey Goff from Princeton Hydro all6 the way back in July last year, saying he would not live7 in Building D. Not to say that, you know, Princeton8 Hydro is not a biased source, because obviously they're9 the objectors, but that is a qualified engineer making10 that statement and I give that some credibility.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So just everybody remember12 that the objector and the applicant have both sides, but13 our expert, our independent expert, is CME. So after14 everything we've done, CME reviews things that we ask15 them to review and they came up with their opinions. So16 that is our townships independent engineering firm. And17 our independent planner is Ms. Apte, so if you have18 questions about either report, what one says this way19 and one says that way, that goes to Mr. MacNeill or Ms.20 Apte, and they're going to give us their view on, as you21 see, what they feel is reasonable to condition the22 application on for safety and health and welfare.23 Mr. Alper.24 MR. ALPER: The destruction of the wetlands25 70 at the top of the Canoe Brook. I don't see how we can1 permit the treated water to be dropped lower in the2 stream, which after all grading is obviously going to3 dry up what's at the top of the stream. That seems like4 a bad idea and something DEP should have caught and I5 understand it might outside our power to address but it6 should look at that to whatever extent we can.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Mr. MacNeill, can8 you find a solution or is that for the applicant to9 solve?10 MR. MacNEILL: The problem is for, and I11 understand the -- it's a valid point, but there's no12 specific regulation about moving -- so stormwater13 management they look at the point of analysis for the14 site. Where ultimately does all this runoff go. So in15 that case they are meeting the runoff quantity to the16 point of analysis. There is no specific regulation that17 I'm aware of that you need to have the exact same flow18 to your wetland area at every point within that site.19 The problem on top of that is the township does

There is no specific regulation that17 I'm aware of that you need to have the exact same flow18 to your wetland area at every point within that site.19 The problem on top of that is the township does not20 regulate wetland areas. That is for NJDEP. So if21 there's any noncompliance that's where DEP would bring22 that up, under that review. And I will say this project23 did receive flood hazard area permits, as well as24 freshwater wetland permits. So in some cases maybe you25 71 skirt by the rules of freshwater wetlands if you're just1 getting a flood water hazard permit, but both, different2 departments had a hand in reviewing this which is why3 they have multiple permits. So flood hazard area as4 well as freshwater wetland general permits for the5 project.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: But it stands to reason7 that if you decrease the flow of water to the superior8 aspect area of the wetlands and direct it to the9 inferior area of the wetlands the superior area may dry10 up and you may change the topography of the wetlands.11 So it may be a condition, you'll have to decide of the12 board. To have the applicant go back and review this13 how they can redirect the flow back to superior area of14 the wetlands, which would be within keeping of the DEP's15 concept, to keep the wetlands flowing, and they may have16 go back to the DEP if they have to -- if you have flow17 of X and you cutting flow down by half, and the DEP18 agrees that it's a wetland, I don't see that the DEP,19 and I'm not them, that the DEP would say, no, don't do20 that. It would maintain the wetlands in the condition21 it is pre-application.22 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, so it --23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Does that make sense?24 MR. MacNEILL: It does make sense from a25 72 practical standpoint, right. But I don't disagree with1 anything you're saying or even Princeton Hydro's saying2 from a practical standpoint. It will be less water to3 the northern area of the wetlands, but DEP's regulation4 essentially, one, they don't, to my knowledge, they5 don't regulate to every specific area of runoff volume6 to a wetlands area.7 And two, they want you to reduce flow.8 Every development and how this development complied with9 the stormwater regulations is reducing flow to your10 point of analysis. So it's almost, it's contradicting11 itself by wanting to put the same exact flow back when12 the site is required to reduce the

he stormwater regulations is reducing flow to your10 point of analysis. So it's almost, it's contradicting11 itself by wanting to put the same exact flow back when12 the site is required to reduce the flow to comply with13 the stormwater management regulations. So you have two14 contradicting aspects of this project of, you want more15 flow or the same flow to your wetlands but you need to16 reduce your flow in order to comply with NJAC 78.17 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: And this is the18 problem I still struggle with. I mean, meeting the19 minimum technical threshold does not automatically make20 a project appropriate for the site.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So I'm not saying reduce22 the flow, I'm saying, move it to where it started, which23 is -- - if you're going to reduce the flow it's going to24 be lower down by other stormwater management systems.25