9 19 24 West Orange BOA ZB 24 06 PSEG Full size

Page 91 1 objectives, interest, and welfare of the public. This 2 is specifically provision of reliable service. We've 3 been doing this since 1928 and I intend that we will 4 continue another hundred years, even though many of us 5 may not be there to see it. 6 The second purpose in the West Orange 7 Zoning Ordinance that is advanced is promoting in the 8 public interest the utilization of land for its most 9 appropriate purpose. Again, the station has been used 10 since 1928. That is 96 years of service at this 11 location. 12 And finally, the purpose of the Municipal 13 Ordinance that we advance is encouraging coordination 14 of the various public and private procedures and 15 activities shaping land development with a view of 16 lessening the cost of such development into the more 17 efficient use of land. It makes sense to utilize the 18 land at the substation to its most practical extent. 19 We put the station there for the long-term and we plan 20 for the long term and we are using the station to its 21 maximum extent practical. 22 The third reason that the Board can approve 23 these variances is because the upgrades provide 24 electric reliability and aesthetic benefits explained 25 by Miguel, our project manager, Mike Blake, and John

Page 92 1 Futey. 2 The improvements in my opinion will not 3 adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of 4 existing residents, the surrounding area, or alter the 5 character of the neighborhood. We understand that 6 trees will be removed. That is why we have proposed a 7 planting plan that is found by the Township Forester to 8 be in compliance. We are not changing the character of 9 the neighborhood by introducing a new type of use. We 10 were probably the first use in the neighborhood and we 11 are continuing that use. The requested zoning 12 deviations are related to beneficial improvements; 13 namely, the provision of safe and reliable electricity. 14 The improvements will have a de minimus 15 impact on things like site grading, drainage, and 16 lighting. Again, we recognize the trees that must be 17 taken down for this application, but we'll continue to 18 be an unmanned facility that generates minimal traffic. 19 I believe it was stated before but I will say it again, 20 typically during operation the station has minimal 21 traffic consisting of one or two technicians coming by 22 once a week or every two weeks. They come by in a 23 light duty truck or a minivan. They pull into the 24 station using a card reader and they park in the 25 station. When they are finished they leave the

Page 93 1 station. 2 The facility will remain a public utility 3 that serves the public and advances the general 4 welfare. We satisfy the positive criteria because the 5 upgrades are for an inherently beneficial use and the 6 benefits are for greater electric reliability. The 7 property's particularly suited for public utilities due 8 to its history and longevity of use. 9 The 26kV switchgear and ancillary equipment 10 will cause visual impact, we acknowledge that. 11 Therefore we have done our best to try to retain as 12 many trees on the property. However, there will be an 13 impact. I believe that this impact is outweighed by 14 the provision of safe and reliable electricity. We are 15 proposing improvements that are similar to what we 16 already have at the station. 17 The lightning mast. There are already 18 lightning masts at the station. So I believe that the 19 improvements will be seen as an intensification of the 20 use. The station aesthetics will be improved by a 21 modern fence. This is a modern equivalent to the fence 22 that exists. And we will -- and the most important 23 thing is that it complies with modern security 24 standards. 25 John Futey, our landscape architect, has

Page 94 1 explained that the tree plantings will be a mix of 2 deciduous and evergreen trees. They will be more 3 sustainable, coordinated, and attractive than much of 4 the random landscaping that exists. 5 Station security will be enhanced 6 particularly due to the new station fence and the 7 landscaping. The negative criteria is satisfied 8 because the upgrades don't substantially impair the 9 intent or purpose of the Master Plan and the 10 development regulations. Safe, reliable, and 11 sufficient electric energy is needed to support all the 12 objectives of the Municipal Land Use Law and the 13 Township's Planning documents. There are no adverse 14 public safety or health impacts, and there's no 15 substantial public welfare or fiscal impacts. In my 16 opinion the benefits outweigh any deviations of the 17 Zoning Ordinance, and on balance the benefits outweigh 18 any detriment. 19 I'd just like to go through some of the 20 performance standards. I've already explained traffic. 21 The station's unmanned. We will not be increasing 22 traffic. There is no impact to township water, sewer, 23 community facilities or schools. There will be no 24 creation of dust or negative air emissions upon 25 operation. No odor, no industrial waste discharged

Page 95 1 from equipment. There are no wetlands, floodplains or 2 water courses on the property, therefore, there will be 3 no impact to that. And for stormwater we are creating 4 bioretention basins and we will capture all of our 5 stormwater. 6 Therefore, its my opinion as a Professional 7 Planner that the variances to upgrade the West Orange 8 switching station can be granted because there's no 9 detriment to the public good and no impairment to the 10 intent or purpose of the Township's Zoning Ordinance, 11 development regulations, and Master Plan. Thank you 12 for listening. I'm happy to entertain any questions 13 you have. 14 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Ms. Porter? 15 MR. PORTER: You called me? Yes. 16 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Anything further from this 17 witness? 18 MR. PORTER: No, Mr. Chairman. We would 19 make this witness available to questions from the Board 20 and the public. 21 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Thank you so much. Let's 22 work in reverse order this time. Mr. Sussman, 23 questions for the witness? 24 BOARD MEMBER SUSSMAN: I have no questions 25 at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Page 96 1 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Thank so you much. Mr. 2 Scott? 3 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: Yes, can you hear me? 4 CHAIRMAN NEUER: Now we can. 5 BOARD MEMBER SCOTT: Great. All right. 6 This is as much for the Chair as for the witness. I 7 don't understand why we don't have an Environmental 8 Impact Statement as opposed to an information piece. 9 And that is a requirement, the impact statement is a 10 requirement. What I've heard from Ms. Noreen is a lot 11 of her opinion, but I prefer studies. And that is a 12 part of what is supposed to be presented and how 13 exactly do you get a variance from presenting the 14 documentation that you are required to present? 15 MR. PORTER: Mr. Chairman, I believe for 16 the record just to clarify that an Environmental Impact 17 Statement memorandum 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

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 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 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 a 25 half to 9 feet, very tall fences, fences that look like

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 BOARD MEMBER DANNEMILLER: Thank you for a 24 very thorough presentation. I have no further 25 questions for this witness.