9 19 24 West Orange BOA ZB 24 06 PSEG Condensed

ndum was provided that was in 18 accordance with the requirements of the Ordinance which 19 state that in connection with the application the 20 applicant shall meet with the Planner to discuss the 21 parameters in which the environmental impact shall be 22 addressed. That was specifically done in this 23 instance. The applicant had originally requested a 24 waiver. However, based upon feedback that we received 25 from the Board at the first meeting we had that

cbd6abed-8cda-4dba-9ebd-560688bcfcb2 25 (Pages 97 to 100) Page 97 1 specific discussion with the Board's Acting Planner, 2 and they directed specifically the scope of what was to 3 be provided and that was provided by PSE&G. So 4 therefore we have fulfilled the requirement for an 5 Environmental Impact Statement. No waiver or relief 6 from this Board is needed in that respect. 7 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Thank you. I agree with 8 Ms. Porter's analysis. If you would direct your 9 attention to section 25-13.2 of our Ordinance, Subpart 10 B, and it says "A pre-application conference shall be 11 held with the Planning Director to determine the 12 content of the Environmental Impact Statement." That 13 was done. The applicant met with Nishuane Associates. 14 They agreed on what the content would be of the 15 Environmental Impact Statement for this project and 16 such a statement was submitted. Labeling it 17 Environmental Impact Statement is exalting form over 18 substance. The substance of what we received in this 19 submission from the Applicant satisfied the Planner who 20 ruled that it was in accordance with their meeting, and 21 as a Board we are obligated to accept it. 22 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: Thank you for that 23 clarification. 24 CHAIRMAN NEUER: You're certainly welcome. 25 Now, do you have questions for the witness? Page 99 1 again, Mr. Scott. A little louder, please. 2 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: Okay. You got me now? 3 I'll get as close as I can. 4 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Much better. 5 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: Great. I'm a 6 researcher by profession, and I'm looking at research 7 that points out that -- and this is written by the 8 National Library of Medicine, that infrastructure of 9 the kind that I believe you're proposing the fence that 10 you're proposing, infrastructure of that kind when it 11 looks restrictive or overly -- 12 CHAIRMAN NEUER: You faded, Mr. Scott. We 13 didn't hear you. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. I just got a flash that 15 my Internet connection is not stable. I hope that 16 substation is working. 17 CHAIRMAN NEUER: I hope it wasn't referring 18 to you. 19 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: Maybe. You never 20 know. I'm looking at research that shows that the 21 appearance of infrastructure is very important not just 22 for beautification purposes of a community, because 23 what you might refer to as infrastructure such as tall 24 fences you're asking for above 8 feet maybe, 8 and

ucture is very important not just 22 for beautification purposes of a community, because 23 what you might refer to as infrastructure such as tall 24 fences you're asking for above 8 feet maybe, 8 and a 25 half to 9 feet, very tall fences, fences that look like Page 98 1 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: Yes. As -- in your 2 position as a Planner can you discuss the -- or was it 3 discussed at all the possibility of using detention 4 tanks as opposed to the ponds? 5 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Mr. Scott, the witness did 6 not testify as to any engineering matters. 7 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: But no, not to 8 engineering, am I incorrect at that that is part of the 9 job to oversee the whole project? 10 THE WITNESS: May I answer? 11 CHAIRMAN NEUER: If you have an answer to 12 that Ms. Merainer, please do. 13 MR. PORTER: You can answer in your 14 capacity as the permitting manager for the project, if 15 you have familiarity and only to the best of your 16 knowledge. 17 THE WITNESS: I can tell you that we have 18 used underground facilities at some of our stations. 19 It was -- I had been informed that that was no longer 20 allowed by NJDEP. Therefore, I must rely on 21 engineering expertise for this. 22 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: Thank you. I'm 23 looking at -- professionally speaking I'm a researcher 24 and I'm actually looking at a study from 2022 on -- 25 CHAIRMAN NEUER: You're starting to fade Page 100 1 prison -- like someone's in prison invites vandalism 2 and public destruction. 3 Has that ever been taken into consideration 4 in respect to this project? That what you're offering 5 in the way of the fence at 9 feet, maybe 8 and a half 6 feet from what you just showed us from Jersey City 7 which is a municipality of 300,000 people, whereas this 8 is a municipality of 50,000 people that that type of 9 infrastructure, according to the studies that I've 10 read, invites destruction and vandalism. 11 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Are you familiar with such 12 studies, Ms. Merainer? 13 THE WITNESS: I am not. The style of fence 14 is dictated by our corporate security department. So I 15 am not aware that the style of fence dictates -- excuse 16 me. I'm not familiar with the studies that Board 17 member Scott is referring to. 18 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: Okay. I just wanted 19 to be clear on that particular variance. I'll leave it 20 at that. Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. 22 Dannemiller? 23

eferring to. 18 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: Okay. I just wanted 19 to be clear on that particular variance. I'll leave it 20 at that. Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. 22 Dannemiller? 23 BOARD MEMBER DANNEMILLER: Thank you for a 24 very thorough presentation. I have no further 25 questions for this witness.

cbd6abed-8cda-4dba-9ebd-560688bcfcb2 26 (Pages 101 to 104) Page 101 1 CHAIRMAN NEUER: And just one point I would 2 like to make to you Ms. Merainer, respectfully. Public 3 service standards are not binding on this Board, which 4 is why I'm glad you gave a more factual explanation 5 with regard to what it is that you were trying to 6 accomplish. I didn't want it to drift into the area of 7 a net opinion, because when somebody tells me that 8 that's my company policy it's not necessarily this 9 Board's policy. So you might want to refrain from 10 doing that in the future. 11 And just so the record is clear, is the 12 height of the entire fence 9 feet or is it just the 13 pillars? 14 THE WITNESS: It is just the pillars. The 15 reason we're asking for more than 8 feet is the fence 16 will be 8 feet but the pillar has a cap on it, and 17 that's what I'm trying to include. 18 CHAIRMAN NEUER: So it is clear that the 19 black slats going up and down without that hook at the 20 top that you showed us from Jersey City which will not 21 be there, that's 8 feet. And the supporting pillars in 22 between the brick with the cap on top is what goes up 23 to 9 feet? 24 THE WITNESS: I don't even think it will go 25 up to 9 feet. Page 103 1 THE WITNESS: The sections from the 2 Municipal Land Use Ordinance or the West Orange 3 Ordinance? 4 MR. WILLIAMS: Correct. 5 CHAIRMAN NEUER: The Municipal Land Use 6 Statute? 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes. I do have those 8 written down if you'll just bear with me for a second. 9 MR. WILLIAMS: Certainly. And this is just 10 for the record. 11 THE WITNESS: N.J.S.A.40:55D-2(a), 2(b), 12 and D-2. 13 MR. WILLIAMS: Wait. I'm sorry. So 14 purpose of zoning (a) is the very generic first purpose 15 of zoning. 16 THE WITNESS: It is. 17 MR. WILLIAMS: And purpose (b) is? 18 THE WITNESS: This is -- we're seeing an 19 advance in safety. 20 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. And then the 21 last one was? 22 THE WITNESS: Promoting energy resources, 23 D-2. I have my Cox book here, which I'm sure is also 24 on your desk. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. Page 102 1 CHAIRMAN NEUER: But that's what you're 2 asking for? 3 THE WITNESS: That's what we're asking for. 4 CHAIRMAN NEUER: But it the pillars, not 5 the -- 6 THE WITNESS: Exactly. 7 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Slats? 8 THE WITNESS: It is the pillars and the 9 little decorative cap. 10 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Those are my only 11 questions. Mr.

t it the pillars, not 5 the -- 6 THE WITNESS: Exactly. 7 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Slats? 8 THE WITNESS: It is the pillars and the 9 little decorative cap. 10 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Those are my only 11 questions. Mr. Williams, questions for the witness? 12 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. 13 Chairman. Good evening, Ms. Merainer. How are you 14 this evening? 15 THE WITNESS: Very well. Your question? 16 MR. WILLIAMS: I will also thank you for a 17 thorough testimony. I have mostly points of 18 clarification. Let me get back to my notes. Bear with 19 me one second. So you mentioned the purposes of zoning 20 that would be advanced, but could you just give us the 21 sections, please? 22 CHAIRMAN NEUER: You mean the sections from 23 the statute? 24 MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. Thank you, 25 Mr. Chairman. Page 104 1 CHAIRMAN NEUER: We call it the drill book. 2 THE WITNESS: And Mr. Miller's as well, Mr. 3 Warner's desk. So I'm sure you have all of this. 4 MR. WILLIAMS: We do. Thank you. I'm just 5 clarifying that for the record. You mentioned that you 6 included the at least one of the past Resolutions for 7 an application for this site. In your opinion are the 8 proofs today similar to the proofs in the past for the 9 D-2 Variance? 10 THE WITNESS: They are. And D-6. 11 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Member Scott 12 asked about the chain-link fence. And I think we were 13 hoping you could respond to that question about not the 14 new fences being proposed but the chain-link fence. 15 THE WITNESS: The chain-link fence is 16 located on the western-most entrance by -- along Mount 17 Pleasant Avenue. That is the entrance to our 230kV 18 yard. And 8-foot high fencing was put up to protect 19 those assets. 20 Actually, what we are proposing is to 21 replace that chain-link and barbed wire with decorative 22 fencing. That is shown on our plans. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Bear with me. 24 You and Ms. Porter mentioned that there are at least 25 one other pre-existing nonconformity. Does the

cbd6abed-8cda-4dba-9ebd-560688bcfcb2 27 (Pages 105 to 108) Page 105 1 proposed development exacerbate that or any other 2 pre-existing nonconformity in your opinion? 3 THE WITNESS: No, it does not. 4 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 5 THE WITNESS: Actually, specifically we are 6 getting rid of a brick shed. So if that is considered 7 a building, and if that is considered the 8 nonconformity, that shed will be removed. It is brick. 9 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 10 THE WITNESS: And that is on the site plan 11 that is presented. 12 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you. 13 THE WITNESS: Two meetings ago. 14 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm fairly 15 comfortable that I heard and noted correctly the proofs 16 for the D-2, which is the expansion of a nonconforming 17 use, and you spoke about the use being inherently 18 beneficial. You went through the first and second 19 prong of the negative criteria. Of course, you 20 mentioned the purposes of zoning. 21 For the D-6 Variance could you just provide 22 a bit of context about the standards for this Board's 23 review of a D-6 Variance? 24 THE WITNESS: I believe it would be 25 essentially equivalent to what I already testified Page 107 1 wasn't sure if you gave context for those. In other 2 words, was it a C-1 standard you were applying or a 3 C-2? 4 THE WITNESS: For the bulk variance for 5 setback that would be a C-1, but I'm essentially 6 arguing a C-2. 7 MR. WILLIAMS: And your argument is that 8 the tradeoffs, the benefits outweigh the detriments? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 MR. WILLIAMS: Did I hear that -- 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 MR. WILLIAMS: And then lot coverage, the 13 proof there was -- 14 THE WITNESS: Was also the benefits 15 outweigh the detriments. 16 MR. WILLIAMS: And that's based on in part 17 the civil engineering testimony? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. 19 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 20 think that concludes my questions for now. 21 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Thank you so much, Mr. 22 Williams, for being so well prepared. Mr. Hess? 23 MR. HESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 24 no questions of this witness. 25 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Thank you so very much. Page 106 1 about. Again, it's a height variance and it's height 2 of structures that are exactly the same as to what we 3 already have, specifically, the lightning masts. 4 It could even be argued that the lightning 5 mast is not the principal structure but is an accessory 6 structure, but

xactly the same as to what we 3 already have, specifically, the lightning masts. 4 It could even be argued that the lightning 5 mast is not the principal structure but is an accessory 6 structure, but then we are getting into the weeds of 7 planning law. 8 MR. WILLIAMS: Let me ask it a different 9 way. In your opinion is the standard for the Board's 10 review of the D-6 different than that of a D-2? And if 11 so, how, in your opinion? 12 THE WITNESS: In my opinion in this 13 particular case the D-2 and the D-6 go together, and I 14 have addressed the proofs needed for that. 15 MR. WILLIAMS: And in your opinion can the 16 site accommodate the extra height that's being 17 requested? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. We are mostly asking 19 for lightning mast. It was discussed last week by John 20 Copa, our electric engineer, what the lightning masts 21 are for. 22 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, and I'm almost 23 done. I think I have one more question and that is, 24 you provided the recitation of the bulk and area 25 deviations, and I think I heard you address them but I Page 108 1 Now is the time for members of the public 2 to pose questions to the witness based upon the 3 testimony that she has presented this evening. Mr. 4 Fagan, do we have any hands up? 5 MR. FAGAN: Yes, Mr. Chairperson. Before I 6 go to members of the public we have Kevin Malanga with 7 his hand raised. 8 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Welcome back, Mr. Malanga. 9 MR. MALANGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. 10 Merainer, good evening. 11 THE WITNESS: Good evening, Mr. Malanga. 12 MR. MALANGA: You refer to the fence as a 13 decorative fence. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 MR. MALANGA: So it is not a security 16 fence? 17 THE WITNESS: It is. That is the 18 decorative version of what we use. 19 MR. MALANGA: It was indicated at the very 20 beginning of this hearing that the piers or the 21 columns, the brick piers or the columns were going to 22 have a distance of 30 feet between them as proposed by 23 PSE&G. Is that your understanding? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. We are proposing that 25 because this station is rather unique among our 300

cbd6abed-8cda-4dba-9ebd-560688bcfcb2 28 (Pages 109 to 112) Page 109 1 plus substations. This one has landscaping that exists 2 and that will be replaced. Most of the photos I showed 3 you are actually of city areas where we have used the 4 decorative fence with 20-foot brick spacing to provide 5 something decorative to look at. 6 In this case we believe that with the trees 7 and the new fence which is 8-feet high we think 30 feet 8 between pillars will be sufficient. We have tried 9 10-foot spacing, we find that to be too busy, too 10 distracting. 11 MR. MALANGA: What is the present distance 12 between the brick piers? 13 THE WITNESS: Twenty. 14 MR. MALANGA: And why would you not use 15 20 feet for this site? 16 THE WITNESS: Because of the existence of 17 copious trees and even more trees that we will be 18 replacing. 19 One concern we have is that installing the 20 brick pillars may cause additional trees to be removed. 21 We do not want that. In fact, we propose that we work 22 out the engineering details with the Board 23 professionals. What we do not want is during 24 construction we attempt to install a pier and find out 25 -- or a pillar and find out that there is something Page 111 1 from 96 years ago. 2 MR. MALANGA: You said you need -- that is 3 PSE&G needs a more robust fence. Why is that? 4 THE WITNESS: That is because you yourself 5 have probably read in the news that utility substations 6 may or may not be targets. We need the most robust 7 fence we can get. That's why we have updated our 8 standards over the many years. And this I can speak to 9 due to my longevity as a PSE&G employee. In the '80s 10 and '90s it appears we were mostly using chain-link 11 with barbed wire. Then we were mostly using chained 12 link. We have evolved to using this decorative fence. 13 MR. MALANGA: And when did you evolve to 14 using the decorative fence? 15 THE WITNESS: In the 2010s. That is when 16 we started using this fence. And I have projects from 17 that era where we have used this decorative fence. 18 MR. MALANGA: Do you have any information 19 as to incidents of trespassing or vandalism or acts of 20 terrorism at this site? 21 THE WITNESS: I do not but I may not be 22 privy to that information. If you are able to walk 23 along the sidewalk with this fence you perhaps have 24 noticed that there are sections that perhaps don't look 25 the most secure. Page

not be 22 privy to that information. If you are able to walk 23 along the sidewalk with this fence you perhaps have 24 noticed that there are sections that perhaps don't look 25 the most secure. Page 110 1 that prevents it. 2 MR. MALANGA: Is there any reason why you 3 could not use the existing footings for the piers? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, there is. 5 MR. MALANGA: What is that? 6 THE WITNESS: I have had extensive 7 conversations with our engineering department, this is 8 PSE&G Engineering. We believe that this fence dates 9 back to 1928. I apologize that we have no one in the 10 company who has first-hand knowledge of this anymore; 11 nor do we have retirees with first-hand knowledge, but 12 the drawings we have found shows this fence from 1928 13 and the piers which we checked in the field do conform 14 to the drawing from 1928. 15 We cannot validate the suitability of the 16 existing piers; nor can we validate the foundations for 17 the existing wrought-iron fence. 18 MR. MALANGA: Did you visit the site? 19 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. 20 MR. MALANGA: Did you see any piers that 21 were not plumb; that is, straight up and down, 22 vertical? 23 THE WITNESS: I apologize that I am not an 24 engineer and cannot tell you if they are plumb or not. 25 We believe it is better not to rely on construction Page 112 1 Also, some of the spokes or pickets on the 2 top appear to be twisted. That could have been through 3 human activity. It could also have been from a tree 4 limb falling on it. But I personally cannot say if 5 there have been human trespass. 6 MR. MALANGA: How long has the standard of 7 the National Electric Safety Code suggesting 7-foot 8 tall fences been in effect? 9 THE WITNESS: I am not an expert on this. 10 I know this has been PSE&G's basic standard. We 11 believe that stations in our territory need a more 12 robust 8-foot high standard. 13 MR. MALANGA: For how long has the 8-foot 14 tall, chain-link fence been in place at the site? 15 THE WITNESS: I believe that it was 16 installed either in 2007 or 2014. 17 May I ask, are you referring to the chain 18 link and barbed wire that's at the western entrance to 19 the station? 20 MR. MALANGA: I'm referring to any 21 chain-link fence that's 8-feet tall at the site. 22 THE WITNESS: I do not know exactly, but I 23 can tell you that our Resolutions do allow for 8-foot 24 high fencing. And the Resolutions are in