PB 24 01 West Essex Highlands Inc Draft Resolution

24. The application was reviewed by the Site Plan Review Advisory Board (“SPRAB”) on March 12, 2024, and a report was issued summarizing the findings of the Board by Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Township Planner dated March 18, 2024. 25. The plans and testimony of Applicant’s engineer, Paul Anderson established that the proposed sanitary sewer system is a gravity flow system to the low point of the property near Building D and shall have its own sewer pump station to pump to the West Orange system. There is an existing system across the site from another condominium complex, and the applicant will not be modifying or connecting into that other system. 26. The landscape plans show that of the 102.5 acres located within the property boundary, the proposed area of disturbance is 27.85 acres and within that area of disturbance, approximately 5,900 trees will be removed, and 5,409 trees are required to be replaced on site; however, pursuant to the ordinance the Applicant would receive credit for 7,123 trees replaced with the installation of 33.6 acres of deer fence. The total number of trees that will actually be planted on site will be 279 trees. 27. The Applicant proposed to install and maintain 36.6 acres of deer fencing to preserve the undisturbed wooded area which will in turn, allow for the regeneration of the forest understory and allow for the native vegetation to re-generate and create a healthier forested area. 28. According to the Ordinance related to Zone IH-1, 212 trees shall be provided for each acre of disturbance which, for this application, would be 5,904 trees that are required to be replaced on site. The 33.6 acres of deer fencing results in a credit of 7,123 trees and the Applicant is proposing to plant an additional 279 native trees on site. Therefore,

Applicant proposed to plant 1,498 trees more than what the ordinance required when factoring in the credit from the deer fence. 29. In addition to the native trees that Applicant proposed to plant, they agreed to plant 1,013 native shrubs and 2,320 native grasses and ground covers throughout the site. 30. The Board’s environmental expert, Wayne DeFeo, LEED AP, BD&C, offered testimony which supported the position that the installation of deer fencing on the undisturbed portion of the property would create a healthier forest by permitting the underbrush to regenerate and so that new saplings, which are currently in short supply due to the ravishing of the deer, can grow to full sized trees which will in turn, provide additional benefits such as allowing native plants to regrow, and more stormwater absorption to take place. 31. Stormwater management is governed by the 2021 storm water regulations. The DEP determined that the project met the requirements of the Stormwater Management rules promulgated by the DEP and issued a permit dated November 15, 2024, which was provided to the Board. 32. Five (5%) percent of the parking stalls were provided for Electric Vehicles (EV) and another 5% of the parking stalls were proposed as EV make-ready. The project provided full parking, without the application of EV credits. 33. The buildings were designed with life safety in mind as they were fully sprinklered, had three (3) hour fire rated walls and floors in the lobby and garage and upstairs were one-hour fire rated. There were also areas located within each building to allow someone to be in a safe place waiting for first responders.

34. There was a trash compactor in each building and trash would be collected from a room on each floor with a chute to the compactor and then brought out for collection. Recycling was to be collected inside a trash room within each building and then taken out for collection. Both trash and recycling would be collected by a private hauler. 35. The clubhouse building was nestled into the slope of the property and was completely ADA accessible. The proposed Clubhouse amenities would change over time to meet the needs of the residents. 36. The Board accepts the testimony that due to the slope of the property, some portions of the ground floor have foundations that are more than 50% exposed, but rather than constructing retaining walls, the proposed architectural design creates more interesting architecture and allows for more landscaping. Additionally, the Applicant agreed to a condition suggested by the Board that a green wall on a louvered frame be installed which is an attractive alternative to camouflage the additional foundation above grade. 37. While by Code no more than 50% of foundation should be exposed above, grade (thus necessitating a variance) the percentages of each building foundation above grade varies: 76.5% for Building A, 76.4% for Building B, 69.1% for Building C and 54.8% for Building D. Members of the public would not see the exposed foundation of Building A unless they were visiting the building and the exposed foundation of Building C can only be seen from the Clubhouse. 38. The proposed design also provided green design features that included lighting, plumbing fixtures, AC/HVAC, roofs to accommodate future solar panels, downward lighting and energy efficient windows and appliances.

39. The affordable units were to be built on the shorter side of the buildings but were interspersed among market-rate units. Some of the market rate apartments had dens and were slightly larger than the affordable units. All of the apartments had the same HVAC, washers/dryers and similar bathrooms. The Applicant agreed to accept as a condition that all the apartments will have materially similar appliances in both the affordable units and market rate units. 40. Applicant’s traffic engineer, Karl Pehnke, testified that Oval Road, which provides access to the site from Eagle Rock Avenue is excessively wide and has the capacity to accommodate the traffic from the project. Additionally, Applicant is committed as per the Settlement Agreement, to work with the Township and County of Essex (as Eagle Rock Avenue is a county road) to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road and it is anticipated that “A” level service will be provided at the intersection of Eagle Rock and Oval Road once that signal is installed. 41. The site has three (3) points of access: from Warner Road, Kuzik Drive and emergency access from Howell Drive. The Applicant was concerned that daily traffic would be a burden on Kuzik Drive and so they offered that Kuzik Drive access would be for emergency access only (gated) and therefore they requested a de minimus exception to RSIS. 42. The Applicant requested two deviations from RSIS, specifically: the proposed closing of Kuzik Drive access (with emergency access exception) creating a loop road where there are greater than 1,000 average daily traffic trips, and, removal of a section of sidewalk located along the south of Building A, extending to the main roadway to the

west of the proposed traffic circle and extending to the west of side of the Warner Road extension. 43. The Board rejected the request for an exception to close the Kuzik Drive access and had serious concerns about the fact that opening access to Kuzik Drive, which is only a block and a half long and is not an actual separate access point to the proposed development, is merely a short loop extension and not a separate road. The request to close Kuzik Drive would concentrate traffic even more significantly within the development. 44. The development area embraced the Township’s Complete Streets resolution as it provides sidewalks, ADA accessible curb openings, marked crosswalks, street trees and is bicycle friendly. There are sidewalks on both sides of the streets with the exception of on Warner Road where sidewalks are on one side only because there are no homes in that location but still providing a connection to the development. However, the Board took notice that once out of the complex, there were no sidewalks along Oval Road making pedestrian access to Eagle Rock Avenue and connections to mass transit by foot dangerous. 45. At Building D, the sidewalks are located on just one side of the street and Applicant agreed to install a walkway from Building D to the clubhouse. 46. Objector’s traffic expert, Alexander J. Litwornia, P.E. provided a report dated August 22, 2025, and testimony where he opined that the application created a single cul-de- sac with an estimated daily traffic would be over 5,100 trips per day when the existing townhouse development is taken into account.

47. The Board’s engineer issued a response to the Objector’s expert dated October 29, 2025. The Board engineer opined that the average daily traffic for the 496-unit apartment complex is approximately 2,728 trips per day which requires a second means of ingress and egress and the proposed development included two means of ingress and egress via Warner Road and Kuzik Drive as well as emergency access via Howell Drive. Members of the Board; however, indicated that they were very familiar with the roadway into the proposed complex and Warner Road was the only access road into the complex as Kuzik Drive was merely a short distance road that also fed into Warner Road and provided no real secondary traffic path to or from the proposed development. 48. The Board engineer disagreed with the Objector’s expert (Litwornia) and agreed with the Applicant’s engineer that the roadways should be classified as minor collector roadways with total volume that should not exceed 3,500 trips. The Board engineer further opined that if the de minimis exception from RSIS to allow for the closure of access to Kuzik Drive (except in emergency situations) is granted then Warner Road would be classified as a multi-family cul-de-sac with a maximum of 1,000 average daily trips which would be exceeded by the proposed development, thereby requiring a de minimis exception. 49. The Board’s engineer also disagreed with the opinion of engineer Litwornia and opined that the Applicant is not required to widen the roadway widths of the adjacent existing roadways. 50. While Mr. Litwornia opined that the roadways within the complex were too steep and would contribute to accidents, the Board engineer opined that pursuant to RSIS Table 46, the maximum allowable grade for a minor collector roadway is 10% and the

Preliminary and Final Site Plan drawings indicate that the proposed roadway slopes are compliant with that standard. 51. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineering expert, Mark K. Seel, P.E. of Langan Engineering, testified that he was retained to assess whether Building D, located close to the top of a slope, is safe to build. 52. The Board acknowledged and accepted the testimony of Mr. Seel that the soil profile in the area of Building D is dense and overlays hard rock with a subsurface of dense vegetation cover. Mr. Seel considered the area of Building D to be a shallow slope of 10-17degrees and that it was stable as to where Building D would be built. 53. Mr. Seel opined that the area where Building D was to be built is inherently stable now and he anticipated it would continue to be stable after the building is constructed. 54. Mr. Seel testified that the closest part of Building D is about 13 feet from the top of the slope and there is low seismic risk. Mr. Seel further noted that controlled blasting techniques would be employed so that any blasting would be done safely without any risk to the slope. 55. The Board considered the testimony of Sean Walsh, a Civil Engineer from Princeton Hydro who was presented by the Objectors in response to the testimony provided by the Applicant regarding storm water management of the project. Mr. Walsh testified that the testing done by the Applicant’s engineer did not demonstrate mottling (coloration in the soil that shows the seasonal high-water table) and therefore he questioned the sufficiency of Applicant’s soil testing. 56. The Board’s engineering expert, John Hess, of CME, issued a report (August 15, 2025) in response to the testimony and report of Mr. Walsh and noted that based on their

review of the Applicant’s submission and the New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, (“NJ BMP Manual”), there are instances where mottling can be absent from a soil profile and therefore observing mottling in a soil profile is not a requirement. Additionally, Mr. Hess noted that Chapter 12 of the NJ BMP Manual specifically outlines the methods for determining the seasonal high-water table (SHWT) when mottling is not observed. The Board’s engineer concluded that the Applicant’s Engineer’s method of determining the SHWT was consistent with the NJ BMP Manual. 57. Sean Walsh of Princeton Hydro also testified that it was his opinion that peak flow rates shown on the Applicant’s storm water testing results were not correct and that this means that there will be more run-off so there can be more flooding. 58. The Board’s expert, CME, agreed that there appeared to be some discrepancies with the groundwater mounding calculation methodology completed by the Applicant’s engineer as compared to the methodology outlined in the BMP Manual; however, the Board engineer noted that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 7:8 alternative stormwater management calculations may be used if the design engineer demonstrates to the review agency that that proposed measure and its design will contribute to the achievement of the design and performance standards established by N.J.S.A. 7:8. The Board engineer also took note of the fact that Special Condition #2 of the NJDEP Permit issued to the Applicant determined that the project met the requirements of the Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:8. 59. Mr. Walsh also testified that the wetlands would be affected by the development because currently the water runoff is equal distribution, but after the development he

opined that the storm water runoff would travel down the road to the basins so instead of equal runoff there will be a change in the wetlands. Mr. Walsh further testified that despite the DEP already approving the project under the previous DEP regulations, Walsh’s opinions were based upon the new DEP regulations. 60. The Board’s expert noted in response to the report and testimony of Mr. Walsh that impacts to the Freshwater Wetlands are under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the Applicant received the necessary Freshwater Wetland Permit from the DEP. 61. Objector’s engineering expert, Walsh, suggested that the stormwater flow calculation were two times what they should be and that the Applicant should therefore create much larger catch basins. 62. Mr. Walsh also pointed out that the sanitary sewer line on the plans runs through the infiltration basin. While the Board’s expert engineer initially suggested that the sewer lines should be encased in cement as a condition of approval to prevent any infiltration of sewer lines into the basins, ultimately the Board engineer opined that the sewer lines be changed to a different location outside of the infiltration basin. The Applicant amended its plans to move the sewer lines from outside the infiltration basin. 63. In response to the CME report of August 15, 2025, Mr. Walsh returned to the Board and testified that he found it “suspicious” that the Applicant’s engineer’s used an alternative method for calculating the time of concentration to determine peak flow, but they did not state what that alternative method was and they did not provide a justification for why the alternative method was employed.

64. Mr. Walsh also pointed out in his testimony on October 29, 2025, that CME agreed that the sanitary sewer line proposed by the Applicant on the original plans that runs through the stormwater basin should be moved out of the basin, yet, the DEP approved the stormwater plan with the sanitary sewer running through the stormwater basin, suggesting that the fact that the DEP approved the plan, should not also be the subject of the Board’s review because the issue was one of safety for the public. 65. The Objectors also introduced testimony from Emile DeVito, an expert in forestry, forest ecology and zoology to respond to the testimony of the Board’s environmental expert (Wayne DeFeo). Mr. DeVito testified that the removal of the trees from the 143 acres present now will reduce the forest to 9 acres as “core” forest. The reduction of core forest will mean that certain animal species that require “core” forest animals (box turtle and wood thrush, for example) would disappear. DeVito admitted that there were no protected species in the forest as determined by the DEP. 66. Professor Luke Butler, PhD testified on behalf of the objectors as an avian biologist expert. He observed the forest bird life and saw 20 different bird species that will likely be decreased due to less forest being left after development. None of the bird species are protected species. 67. Objector, We Care Inc., introduced testimony from Mark Gallagher, Vice President of Princeton Hydro regarding wetland ecology and hydrology. Mr. Gallagher explained how the wetlands function at the site and that the development will modify the flow of storm water and change the environment of the wetlands. Mr. Gallagher opined that the DEP looks at compliance with the statute and water quality after construction from recharge, but the DEP does not review post construction changes to the environment.