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

19 of 54 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 73 So I want to go out on a ledge and I'm going to suggest1 to the board that we ask the applicant to review that2 and see if they can redirect the stormwater to that3 superior aspect where it starts now and in the lower4 aspect is where we have stormwater management, where you5 have different percolation and it is reclaimed so you6 will decrease the overall amount of stormwater7 management, but you keep the wetlands the wetlands. So8 -- and the board may not vote that way. I'm just9 throwing it out there.10 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, I don't want to push11 back on that request.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead, push back.13 MR. MacNEILL: But one -- so any motor14 vehicle surface, right. Every pavement area you see15 beside building needs to be treated, right. So that's16 another DEP requirement. You have to meet 80 percent,17 it's called, Total Suspended Solids Removal for your18 motor vehicle surface areas. So everywhere where a car19 could drive they have to send it to a basin. And in20 this case they're sending, in most stormwater designs,21 your basin is at your low point of the site to avoid you22 raising the site with additional fill and having a23 disturbed additional area. So in this case their basin24 is at the low point of the site right before discharging25 74 to the wetlands and they built their whole site, all the1 finished floors for the building, it's based really off2 that discharge elevation, that basin bottom and that top3 of basin. So one, the only thing that you can send to4 the northern areas without treatment would be some5 potentially roof area which is clean, but then you get6 into a situation where now you're not going to comply7 with the runoff quantity requirements. So it, again,8 it's two different aspects that is a contradiction in9 the regulations.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Maybe rainwater from the11 roof that's clean, can feed that basin starting upwards12 and I understand the topography of the land, it's easier13 to go down to the bottom of the basin, decreasing the14 amount of flow at the top of the basin. However, the15 buildings that are up there may in some way drain and16 provide clear water in rainwater to the top of the17 basin. So it's going to be something the engineers have18 to look at to see if we can keep the upper area wet.19 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. And, again, I don't20 have

r water in rainwater to the top of the17 basin. So it's going to be something the engineers have18 to look at to see if we can keep the upper area wet.19 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. And, again, I don't20 have any issue asking the applicant to take another21 look. I do feel though there is some, the major22 challenge is to juggle that with your compliance with23 the stormwater regulations. Specifically like, when24 you're not controlling impervious coverage runoff with a25 75 basin you're going to very quickly not comply with the1 runoff quantity standards. If you're just allowing it2 to go detained without holding it back. Because really3 in stormwater, any site, this is a wooded site, you're4 adding impervious, you're increasing in your overall5 stormwater volume, right. So this site is going to6 generate more stormwater volume. What stormwater basins7 do is they control that runoff, like a bathtub they have8 outlet controls that you have to hit the 2, 10 and9 100-year storm cutbacks. So you're just controlling10 your flow. You're letting out your flow slower to meet11 50 percent reduction in flow in your 2-year storm. 7512 percent reduction in your 10-year storm event. And 8013 percent reduction in your -- or, I'm sorry, not14 reduction, but 80 percent of those existing storm15 events.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: But if you have a longer17 area for the water to dissipate into the ground because18 you're emptying higher up, you'll have greater19 percolation further up, so you still may have, you may20 still come up with the same total number, but it may21 percolate and keep the upper wetlands wet, which seems22 to be what we're taking away.23 MR. MacNEILL: I, I understand your point.24 I do just think technically speaking it will be a tough25 76 engineering task to accomplish that. But, again, I1 don't think there's any reason why you can't push that2 back on the applicant to try his best to come up with a3 solution that appeases the board.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We can ask.5 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Ans still complies.6 You should be an engineer coming up with all these,7 outside of the buttons.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sorry. I work in small9 areas. I build very small bridges.10 MR. KLEIN: The only bridges you should work11 on are in the mouth.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: They would have let me do13 the Verrizzano. No.14 Mr. Alper.15 MR. ALPER: So I do have a bit on traffic16 circulation and

IN: The only bridges you should work11 on are in the mouth.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: They would have let me do13 the Verrizzano. No.14 Mr. Alper.15 MR. ALPER: So I do have a bit on traffic16 circulation and safety.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let me just say one thing.18 MR. ALPER: Yeah.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The traffic circulation,20 you all have to understand is in the area of the21 application based on the way the IH-1 zone is written.22 It is not in the other part of West Essex Highlands. It23 is not on Oval Road, that's not part of this24 application. However we look at it, flow will come out25