CME Associates Review 1

\ ASSOCIATES Chairman and Members of the West Orange Township Planning Board June 26, 2024 Re: West Essex Highlands, LLC (PB 24-01) Our File No. VWRP0179.01 Preliminary & Final Site Plan - Review #1 Page 11 $:\West Orange\Planning Board\VWRPO179.01 - West Essex Highlands, Inc\Review #1 0 15. The front end of the report should be revised to adjust text outside the header of the report. \n addition, the language in the report should be revised to be consistent with the proposed conditions. We note several areas where the report references the incorrect number of basins as well as the incorrect type of BMP being proposed (i.e., infiltration basin vs. pervious pavement). 16. The tables at the front end of the SWM report which outline pre- and post-development peak runoffs should be revised to be consistent with the stormwater analysis. 17. The Pre-Development Drainage Area Map should be revised to remove all proposed improvements and should only reflect current existing conditions. 18. Each subdrainage area shall be clearly delineated on the drainage area map. In addition, the total area, CN, Tc, for each subdrainage area should be included on the map. Hydrograph names should be consistent with the drainage areas indicated on the revised DA maps. 19. Full size drainage area maps at an enlarged scale should be provided for review. 20. The Tc paths for all subdrainage areas should be clearly indicated on the drainage area maps. 21. Verify drainage areas indicated in the SWM report for all subdrainage areas as same are inconsistent with drainage area maps. Check and revise as necessary. 22. We note that the Point of Analysis (POA) in the Pre- and Post-Development Drainage Area maps are inconsistent; the POA’s should be the same to verify consistency in the analysis. The stormwater analysis should be revised as necessary. 23. Provide callouts for all Filterra systems depicted on the site plan. Verify that the dimensions included on same are consistent with the dimensions in the SWM report. 24. Revise names of proposed BMPs for consistency with the site plan and SWM report. We note that BMPs are identified as detention basins whereas small-scale infiltration basins and/or pervious pavement systems are proposed. Check and revise as necessary. 25. Verify drainage area for hydrograph ‘Basin 1 Undetained’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. 26. Verify

basins and/or pervious pavement systems are proposed. Check and revise as necessary. 25. Verify drainage area for hydrograph ‘Basin 1 Undetained’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. 26. Verify invert elevation of 8” orifice for Basin 1 in the site plan as same is inconsistent with SWM report. 27. Verify drainage area for hydrograph ‘All basin’s 2 undetained’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. 28. Verify drainage area for hydrograph ‘Basin 2-1’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. 29. Verify drainage area for hydrograph ‘Basin 2-2’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. docx

_ Chairman and Members of the West Orange Township Planning Board June 26, 2024 Re: West Essex Highlands, LLC (PB 24-01) Our File No. VWRP0179.01 Preliminary & Final Site Plan - Review #1 Page 12 30. Verify slope of sheet flow indicated in hydrograph ‘Basin 2-2’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. 31. Verify length and slope of shallow concentrated flow indicated in hydrograph ‘Basin 2-3’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. 32. Verify 10-year peak elevation for Basin 2-5 in the site plan. 33. Verify length and slope of pipe channel flow indicated in hydrograph ‘Basin 2-6’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. 34. Verify drainage area for hydrograph ‘Basin 3 undetained’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. 35. Verify drainage area for hydrograph ‘Basin 4 porous pymt’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. 36. Verify 24” x 4” orifice in the pond summary for ‘Porous pavement system 4’ as same is not depicted on the site plan and/or detail. 37. Verify drainage area for hydrograph ‘overland 5-A’ as same is inconsistent with the DA map. 38. Verify invert elevations and water surface elevations indicated on SP-25 as same is inconsistent with the SWM report. 39. Outlet Control Structure details should be revised to indicate ‘top of grate elevation’ in lieu of ‘100-year overflow elevation’ for consistency. 40. Sheet SP-14 should be revised to depict the lowest level of Basin 1 (540.5). 41. Verify OCS 2-1 information on Sheet SP-21 as same is inconsistent with the detail. 42. Verify all information indicated on profiles on sheets SP-60, SP-61, and SP-62 are consistent with the SWM report. Check and revise as necessary. 43. At least one (1) inspection port, with a removable cap, must be provided with its location denoted in the maintenance plan. The inspection port must be placed at least three (3) feet from any edge. Additionally, each inspection port must be flush with the surface of the surface layer and the depth of runoff for the WQDS must be marked on each structure and its level included in the design report and maintenance plan. The size of the inspection port must be large enough to allow for maintenance activities. 44. Site specific details for the emergency spillways should be provided for review. 45. To the maximum extent feasible, areas atop the proposed retaining walls should be graded to direct surface runoff parallel

cific details for the emergency spillways should be provided for review. 45. To the maximum extent feasible, areas atop the proposed retaining walls should be graded to direct surface runoff parallel to the top of the wall. Our office does not recommend grading these areas to allow runoff to cascade over the wall or along the back of the wall. S:\West Orange\Planning Board\VWRPO179.01 - West Essex Highlands, Inc\Review #1 06-26-24 docx

\ ASSOCIATES Chairman and Members of the West Orange Township Planning Board June 26, 2024 Re: West Essex Highlands, LLC (PB 24-01) Our File No. VWRP0179.01 Preliminary & Final Site Plan - Review #1 Page 13 46. It appears that a 15” HDPE pipe is proposed to traverse beneath Building D.1. Our office 47. 48. 49. has concerns with possible maintenance and access issues relative to this pipe. We recommend that design medications be made and/or Applicant provide testimony addressing same. The SWM report indicates that roof runoff will be directed to the proposed basins; however, no roof leader collections have been shown on the plans. Specifications and points of connection for roof leader collection system should be indicated. Rip rap sizing calculations should be provided to verify the dimensions indicated in the construction detail on SP-25. As stipulated in Section 25-29.10(b)(1) of the Ordinance, the design engineer shall prepare a maintenance plan for the stormwater management measures incorporated into the design of a major development. It further stipulates in Section 25-29.10(b)(4) of the Ordinance that the maintenance plan and any future revisions shall be recorded upon the deed of record for each property on which the maintenance described in the maintenance plan must be undertaken. Prior to recording, the form of the deed must be approved by the Board Attorney and our office. F. LANDSCAPING COMMENTS 1. The Applicant has proposed deer exclusion fencing for existing wooded areas to remain. Details of the proposed fence, method of installation, maintenance responsibilities and notes should be provided for further review. Revise the street tree layout to create uniformity within the site by providing the same species of trees on both sides of the roadways within substantial groupings. Review and revise match lines, as they create difficulties for review (and later construction), such as labels to corresponding graphics are not on the same sheet. Also, the overall landscape plan should indicate the match line locations. Our office recommends that street trees be provided on the lawn side of sidewalks, where feasible, to reduce future hardscape conflicts as well as to provide greater soil volume for a healthier tree. Revise the ‘Plant List’, sheet 29 of 66, as indicated below: a. Both BP (Paper Birch) and AS (Sugar Maple) are a northern

pe conflicts as well as to provide greater soil volume for a healthier tree. Revise the ‘Plant List’, sheet 29 of 66, as indicated below: a. Both BP (Paper Birch) and AS (Sugar Maple) are a northern tree species and with a warming climate, these species are not recommended. b. RP (Black Locust) is an invasive species, is not commercially available, nor recommended. The Applicant has included the 25 RP within the tree credits as native trees. ‘§:\West Orange\Planning Board\VWRPO179.01 - West Essex Highlands, Inc\Review #1 06-26-24 docx

Ne ASSOCIATES Chairman and Members of the West Orange Township Planning Board dune 26, 2024 Re: West Essex Highlands, LLC (PB 24-01) Our File No. VWRP0179.01 Preliminary & Final Site Plan - Review #1 Page 14 10. 11 12. c. Indicate single or multi-stem trees for proposed ornamental trees, to prevent any confusion, Single stem trees should be indicated by caliper and multi-stem trees by height. d. Provide oak species, a keystone species of our ecosystem. e. PA (American Plum) is not recommended as it is highly susceptible to black knot fungus. f. Correct the common name for AM (Black Chokeberry). g. Specifically indicate a minimum planting height/spread for proposed shrubs. Currently, only container sizes are listed, but many of these species will not be available at these sizes. h. Provide cultivar selections for proposed trees and shrubs, to prevent confusion during construction. i. Ensure shrub and perennial plantings located within parking islands do not exceed 30” at maturity to ensure visibility. Revise the plans to provide a four-season landscape screen around proposed trash enclosures. Currently, the Applicant has provided deciduous shrubs. Revise the plans to shift shrub landscape beds to be a minimum of three (3) feet from edge of curb, to reduce damage from vehicles, snow clearing operations and road salt spray. Review and revise proposed plant material locations, to ensure planting beds are not in conflict with proposed hardscaping. It appears shrubs are proposed across the parking garage entrance at proposed Building C, shrubs are within entrance walkway at proposed Building B, etc. Revise the plans to provide shade trees within the parking lot island and the traffic circle island located in the parking area between proposed Building C and the Clubhouse. Also, shade trees should be provided in lieu of proposed CF (Flowering Dogwood) at the north end of the parking lot between proposed Buildings B and C. Sufficient space is available to support a shade tree, rather than an ornamental tree as proposed. Revise the plans to provide additional native trees to revegetate open areas by the proposed basins. . Revise the plans to shift landscape materials outside of the dog park fence, to reduce damage. Also, benches and/or play equipment should be considered for this space. It appears labels are missing for landscaping in the vicinity

cape materials outside of the dog park fence, to reduce damage. Also, benches and/or play equipment should be considered for this space. It appears labels are missing for landscaping in the vicinity of proposed Building D.2. Provide shade and ornamental trees for this area. S:\West Orange\Planning Board\VWRPO179 01 - West Essex Highlands, Inc\Review #1 06-26-24 docx

\ ASSOCIATES Chairman and Members of the West Orange Township Planning Board June 26, 2024 Re: West Essex Highlands, LLC (PB 24-01) Our File No. VWRP0179.01 Preliminary & Final Site Plan - Review #1 Page 15 G. 13. The Applicant has proposed foundation landscaping for most of the proposed buildings; however, these do not consider the solar orientation of the planting beds. This should be revised to ensure a successful landscape. Also, provide foundation landscaping for the proposed buildings near the dog park and for screening the pump station. 14. Revise the plans to label proposed road names, buildings, basins, exterior utilities, etc., on the landscape sheets. 15. The Applicant has indicated Ernst Seed Mix #137 by the basins; however, there are two (2) distinct hatch lines at the basin. Revise the plans to clarify the difference. Also, provide mix specifications and maintenance notes. 16. The applicant proposes a dog park, pool, and two tennis courts, boardwalk, and a club house with a gym. Testimony should be provided that this recreation is sufficient for a development of this size (approx. 500 units). It appears that no child-specific amenities are proposed. Construction details should be provided. 17. Revise the plans to graphically depict and specifically label the proposed and existing woodline. Tree protection fencing should be depicted on the plans, to prevent confusion during construction. 18. Revise the plans to provide mulch bed lines on the plans, to prevent confusion during construction. 19. Revise the plans to indicate proposed disposition for all open areas, such as lawn, mulch, stone, sod, etc. 20. Revise the plans to provide general planting notes and planting details, to include, but not limited to, handling, quality, watering responsibilities, etc. Our office recommends that the tree planting details provide rigid, plastic open mesh trunk guards to prevent irreparable damage from buck rub, burlap around root ball to be removed and the root flare to be at final grade. 21. Revise the plans to provide a minimum clearance of fifteen (15) between proposed trees and light fixtures. 22. It appears that wetland education signs are proposed as details are provided on sheet 28 of 66. Revise the plans to indicate proposed mounting method as well as their specific locations on site, to prevent confusion during construction. LIGHTING

oposed as details are provided on sheet 28 of 66. Revise the plans to indicate proposed mounting method as well as their specific locations on site, to prevent confusion during construction. LIGHTING COMMENTS 1. In accordance with IES (Illuminating Engineering Society) standards, parking lots shall have a minimum of 0.50 footcandles and residential streets should be an average of 0.40- 0.45 footcandles. Revise the plans to provide a data summary chart, indicating maximum, minimum, and average footcandles, for further review. S:\West Orange\Planning Board\VWRPO179.01 - West Essex Highlands, Inc\Review #1 06-26-24 docx