Prior Resolutions of Approval submission

land). Further, Mr. Steck testified that the impervious coverage on the Subject Property with the proposed construction would be less than 1%. Steck testimony of September 10, 2009 at page 37. 35. The Board adopts the conclusions of its engineer, Mr. Eric Keller, that the revised specifications and design drawings by Seton Hall regarding the drainage and storm water management design were appropriate and adequate. Thus, the Board accepts the drawings and studies done by Mr. Stewart as confirmed by Mr. Keller as being acceptable and demonstrating that there is no adverse impact to the public and that any drainage issues will not be exasperated by the proposed construction. 36. There is no basis to consider the objector’s engineer Brian Freidlicht’s “proposal” to relocate the bio-retention basin. When pressed, Mr. Freidlich stated that he had not done any design specifications for such an underground bio-retention basin at the Subject Property and he did not know if it would work or fit in the location. His attempt to make a proposal and state that the Board should adopt it, and when pressed conceded that he had not done any of the design specifications or work to know whether it would actually work demonstrated that Mr. Freidlicht's opinions were unsupported by any studies or data and, therefore, are disregarded. It should be noted that Mr. Stewart, Seton Hall’s engineer, met with Mr. Freidlich in an attempt to resolve many of the issues discussed with regard to the bio-retention basins and other drainage issues. As a result, Seton Hall made additional changes to the site plan -35-