here. >> Good evening. This is the August 4, 2015 regular meeting of the planning board of the township of Bernards. Please rise for the flag salute. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. In accordance with the requirements of the open public meetings law of 1975, notice of this meeting of the planning board of the township of Bernards was posted on the bulletin board in the
reception hall of the municipal building Collier Lane, Basking Ridge, New Jersey was sent to the Bernardsville News, Bernardsville, New Jersey to the Courier News, Bridgewater, New Jersey on January 12, 2015 and was electronically mailed to all those people who have requested individual notice. The following
procedure has been adopted by the Bernard Township Planning Board. There will be no new cases heard after 10 p.m. and no new witnesses or testimony will be heard after 10:30 p.m. >> Friend, roll call, please. >> Miss Alper >> here. >> Mr. Galluchcci >> here. >> Mr. Hagen
>> here. >> Miss Kleiner told us in advance she would not be here. Mr. Malay >> here. >> Miss Pavlini >> here. >> Miss Padichi >> here. >> Mr. Santoro told us in advance he would not be here. Miss Ax >> here. >> Mr. Harris >> here. >> Mr. Blaza
>> here. Uh, is there a motion with respect to Miss Kleinard and Mr. Santoro? >> So moved, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. And that's a motion to excuse >> to a motion to excuse both of them meeting. >> Thank you, Mr. Pichi. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second, Miss Alper. All in favor? I. All opposed.
>> Hearing none. The motion's carried. The minutes will so reflect. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes. the July 21, 2015 regular meeting minutes which were disseminated in advance of the meeting. Is there a motion?
>> Mr. Chair, I move that we adopt the minutes as drafted for the July 21st, 2015 meeting. >> Thank you, Miss Oper. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Axe. Is there any discussion on the motion? >> Um, I will note that I need to make a
small change. Um, I realized it after I printed them out that is not a special meeting. It's a regular meeting. Um, small little detail, but I will that change will occur on the final copy. >> Okay. So, that's just a that that's not in the body that of the minutes. It's
just in the title >> by the title >> on the first page. Okay. So, uh, Miss Padichi, you're you're good with that amendment with that. Would that change? >> I didn't make >> Oh, Miss Al. So, you >> motion as amended. >> Okay. And Miss Ax, do you still second? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Fran, roll call, please. >> Miss Alper. Yes, >> Mr. Kuchi. >> I'll abstain, >> Mr. Hagen. >> Yes, >> Mr. Malay. >> I'll abstain, >> Miss Padichi. >> Yes, >> Miss Ax. >> Yes,
>> Mr. Plaza. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Next item on the agenda, approval of charges against escrow accounts. Tonight, we're considering those of David Schlid, July 2015, and EKA Associates, July 1-5, 2015. Is there a motion?
>> Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the charges against escrow as stated in the memo which we were given for this meeting. >> Thank you, Miss Albert. Is there a second? Thank you, Miss Ax. Uh, any discussion on any contents of the memo
or the motion? >> Seeing none, Fran, roll call, please. >> Miss Albert, >> yes. >> Miss Kuchi, >> yes. >> Mr. Hagen, >> yes. >> Mr. Mle, >> yes. >> Miss Pedweeni, >> same. >> Miss Padichi, >> yes. Next. >> Yes. >> Mr. Harris. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Plaza. >> Yes. >> Next item on the agenda, completeness review. First up, United States Golf Association PB15-00003 block 9601, lot 5.01,
77 Liberty Corner Road. Preliminary and final site plan approval. Council, your appearance for the record, please. >> Yes. Good evening, chairman, members of the board. Craig Janetti of the law firm Dave Fitney on behalf of the applicant of the United States Golf Association. >> Mr. Janetti, we need to turn it on.
>> Don't turn it on. Says on. >> Is that better? >> Oh, wow. Look at that. >> David, do you want to get is there anything you need to bring us up to speed on before we hear from >> Yeah. the uh I issued a completeness review memo dated June 30, 2015 and as
stated in the memo all of the required uh checklist items have been submitted. >> Okay. Uh do you have anything to add sir? >> Not just uh hearing date. >> Okay. So is there a motion as to the completeness review? >> So move Mr. Chair and I will second. >> Thank you Mr. Chi Madichi on the second.
Any discrete >> deem it complete? >> I understand. Uh, any discussion on the motion? >> Seeing none, end roll call, please. >> Miss Alper, >> yes. >> Mr. Kuchi, >> yes. >> Mr. Hagen, >> yes. >> Mr. Malay, >> yes.
>> Mr. Bewini, >> yes. >> Miss Padichi, >> yes. >> Miss Ax, >> yes. >> Mr. Harris, >> yes. >> Mr. Plaza, >> yes. >> Okay. Uh, do we have any idea as to dates for Mr. Getty or is it >> We discussed
um putting that on October 6th. October 6th. >> Great. >> We have another one this time. >> What was that date? I'm sorry. >> October 6th. >> Just make a note that that's >> okay. Thank you. Have a good evening, sir. >> Next item up for completeness review is
Reed, Peter V, and Linda E. PB15-004, block 11601, lots 31 and 32, uh, 30 and 40 Wong Road, minor subdivision and variances. David. >> Uh, yes. I issued a completeness review memo dated July 6, 2015.
There in that memo, two items are listed as deficient. Item number one has been submitted. Uh, item number two is still outstanding. >> Okay. So, as of tonight, it's incomplete. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is there a motion? >> I move, Mr. chair that we deem the um
minor subdivision PB15-00004 block 11601 lots 31 and 32 to be incomplete. >> Thank you, Mr. Pichi. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Pavini. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, friend, roll call, please.
>> Miss Alper, >> yes. >> Mr. Kuchi, >> yes. >> Mr. Hagen, >> yes. >> Mr. Mai, >> yes. >> Mr. Pini, >> yes. Miss Padichi, >> yes. >> Miss Ax, >> yes. >> Mr. Harris, >> yes. >> Mr. Blaza,
>> yes. >> Okay. Next up is uh ordinance review. And this ordinance review, first one being 2317, amending chapter 21, article 22, section 3, definitions, flood. Uh Dave, you want
to take us through that? >> Yeah. The the uh township engineer prepared this ordinance for the purpose of updating the uh definitions in the land development ordinance relating to flood plane and flood map uh eliminating some old references such as um Doria
1971 and making it consistent. Pull >> that microphone the echo. This is uh an update of the definitions in the land development ordinance that relate to um flood plates, flood maps, and some special or flood hazard areas.
Uh bring us up to speed uh with the uh what's current. There's some outdated provisions in there that we're deleting. >> And Mr. Drill, as with all our ordinance reviews, the the standard we're to employ is to find or to ensure that it's not inconsistent with the master plan.
>> Correct. And >> yeah, this this subject matter is not really the kind of thing you'd find in the master plan. So I would my opinion say it's not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any questions from the board?
>> Is there a motion? I guess I move that ordinance 231 17 as um amended is not inconsistent with the Bernard's township master plan. >> Is that correct? >> Terrific.
>> And we send a letter to the township committee. Is that because they asked us to review it to the township committee stating we find it consistent with the master not inconsistent. not inconsistent with the master plan. Thank you. >> That's been introduced before the tent committee. We're waiting for this
board's review and then we will find the final hearing. >> Okay. All right. So, that's the first and by Miss Kichi, a second by Miss Pavlini. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no indication of such fan, roll call, please. >> Miss Oper?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Kuchi? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hagen? >> Yes. >> Mr. Metain. Miss Pavini, >> yes. >> Miss Petichi, >> yes. >> Miss Ax, >> yes. >> M Harris, >> yes. >> Maza,
>> yes. >> Next ordinance up for review this evening is ordinance number 2318 amending chapter 21, revised land use ordinances regarding submission requirements for variance applications. Uh David, if you could just again walk us through this and then give us your
ultimate opinion as to whether it is uh inconsistent or not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Uh this is an update to the uh submission checklist for variance applications um which includes applications that will be at the zoning board. No site plan, no subdivision,
just uh additions to residential homes and knockdown rebuilds of existing dwellings. Uh it's adding one item. Uh the item is the same in both checklists and that's a uh a plan showing ex existing topography grading and proposed storm water infiltration measures.
Basically a drainage plan. Um right now there is no requirement for a drainage plan when somebody submits a variance application. Uh there never was. Uh back in 2006 when the township amended the um drainage ordinance to require uh
drainage improvements for projects that added 1,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. Uh the um the variance applica applicants still did not have to submit a drainage plan. They would have to submit one when it comes time to ultimately uh for apply for a
construction permit, but the the zoning board has never had the benefit of always having that drainage plan. Sometimes it gets submitted, sometimes it doesn't. Um, sometimes you run into an issue with drainage, you know, concerned neighbors asking questions and things and if there's no drainage plan
with the application, it makes it difficult for the board staff to, you know, kind of review that and and give the board advice on that. Uh, so this basically is catching up with an ordinance amendment that happened 10 years ago to require a drainage plan only in those cases when one ultimately
will be required anyway. It's basically moving up the submission of drainage plan from the time you apply for a construction permit to the time you apply for a variance. >> And do you have any opinion as to whether it's inconsistent? >> Yeah, similar to the last ordinance, this is more of a procedural thing, not
a topic that's covered in the master plan. I I would say it's certainly not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions from board members? I just have a you say that add new item 13 double underline but it's single underline and it's 15.
So you have to change the discrepancy. >> No, they're double it's 13 in one checklist and 15 in another. >> There's two different checklists that are being amended. In one checklist it's number 13 and >> okay >> uh maybe it printed single underline in your copy because sometimes the computer
does funny things but it's double underlined in the official version posted on the website. No, I won't. That's for the committee to sort out on any of them. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, there's not any >> No, it's it's correct. There there's um
there's two checklists and in one list it's item 13 and in the other >> and the difference in the two checklists >> there. One is for a a bulk variance uh and the other is for use variance. >> Okay. Your the echo is so bad. I I can't I know that it's horrible. I don't
>> it's a C variance checklist and a D variance checklist. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Carluchi, >> is there any significance to the thousand square foot minimum? >> That's the threshold for whether or not a project requires a drainage improvement.
>> Any reason for >> Well, I don't know where the engineers came up with the thousand square feet. I guess you had to draw the line somewhere. >> Is that the thousand square feet? Is that from the ordinance? That's what that's our local ordinance. That's not a
D thing. That's a it's what we call a minor development. Uh D regulates it once it hits a quarter acre. Uh and it's considered a major development. >> This is not changing what the ordinance says. This is adding a submission requirement in accordance with that. >> It's the standards design standards in
the ordinance are exactly the same >> and it's also something that would be submitted under current rules later in the process. This is just requiring it to be submitted. Well, a lot of times actually it's requested by the board anyway, you know, before or as a a submission requirement, but now it's
actually on the checklist. >> Very good. Okay. Any other questions from board members? >> Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we send a letter to the township committee confirming that ordinance 2318 is not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Thank you, Miss Pavini. Is there a
second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Albert. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Uh, Fran, roll call, please. >> Miss Alfred, >> yes. >> Miss Mr. Kuchi, >> yes. >> Mr. Hagen, >> yes. >> Mr. Malay, >> abstain.
>> Miss Bini? >> Yes. >> Miss Padichi? >> Yes. >> Miss Ax? >> Yes. >> Mr. Harris? >> Yes. >> Mr. Plaza? >> Yes. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda. Continued public hearing in the matter of Finley Real Estate LLC PB15-00001
block 1801 lot 155 South Finley Avenue preliminary and final site plan approval. Good evening Mr. Pagano. >> Yes, good evening chairman. >> So Mr. Pagano, maybe it would be a good idea if you just give us the thumbnail overview of what we did last time. We left a little loose end and out there
and you could let us know what we're going to be focusing on tonight and we'll get to it >> and I'll try to give you the fast version of this application. Uh we were last here on July 7th if you recall. Uh we basically completed our case. Uh as a brief synopsis, uh this is an
application for preliminary and final site plan approval. And what we want to do is put outdoor dining at the uh Washington House restaurant in front of the restaurant. Uh it's some somewhat similar to what's across the street at the Mockingbird. We're going to have 24
seats outside and about seven or eight tables. And we agreed that when we have outdoor dining, we will uh take out of service in a specific location 24 seats inside the restaurant. So there's no increase in parking. Uh at the last
meeting, uh Mr. Jeepson testify, Klaus Jeepson, he's one of the owners of the restaurant. Um he described the protocol of how we're going to handle this outdoor dining. And also Joe Marches, our land, our architect, testified. Um,
an issue came up at the last hearing by Mr. Drill. Mr. Drill felt that possibly a parking variance was required because if you recall back in 1999 at the last expansion of the um Washington House restaurant, um there
was a parking requirement. Uh we had we had 72 parking spaces and today we only have 60 parking spaces. And the reason for that is we we lost the spaces contiguous to us on the adjacent lot. Um
if you also recall back in 1999 there were 174 seats in this restaurant and today we only have 129 seats a reduction of 45 seats. Um the um and the
reason for that was we expanded the the uh the kitchen. We doubled the size of our kitchen and a lot more space between our tables inside. Um, Mr. Drill wanted me to renotice uh and also include in the notice lot number two, which is our
parking lot across the street. And I did that and uh served the proper notice and I filed proof of service. >> And I reviewed the notice and the notice is not just sufficient, it's very good. >> Very good. Thank you. Um, at the last hearing also, the board professional, Mr. Banish wanted us to file a lighting
and landscaping plan and we did that and the board gave us the courtesy of allowing us to submit it 10 days instead of the usual period of time. So right now I have the lighting and lands I have the lighting and landscaping person who designed it to testify very briefly and
I also have Mr. Marches who is identifying where the dumpsters are located and the type of um enclosure for the dumpsters and that's that's our case. >> Okay. Terrific. >> I call Joe Davi. >> Joseph.
>> Good evening. How are you? >> Good. Can you raise your right hand? >> Yes. >> And do you swear the testimony you're going to give in this proceeding is going to be the truth to hold truth. Nothing but the truth to help you guide. >> I do. Yeah. >> Can you state your name and spell your last name for the record? My name is Joe Davi. My last name is D apostrophe capital A. V is in Victor I.
>> Your address? >> My address? Uh 6 Franklin Road, Menum, New Jersey. It's my office. >> Thanks, >> Joe. We're going to speak into the We're going to speak into the same microphone. Okay. Can you tell the board your occupation? >> I'm a landscape designer. I do uh
residential and uh outdoor dining areas for both residential and for uh banquet halls, catering halls, and uh occasionally country clubs. >> Okay. Can you tell us uh your educational background? >> I went to school for landscape architecture and ornamental horiculture and outdoor design.
>> Okay. And uh after you graduated school, uh what did you do in >> I've been in the fe in this industry for 12 years now doing both residential and uh outdoor design. >> Okay. And does that include when you say outdoor outdoor dining and does it include landscaping etc.
>> That's right. Yes. >> Are you a licensed uh landscape architect? >> I am not. No, I'm a licensed home improved contractor. >> We're having a problem because board members are not understanding what you're saying. It's not your fault. >> Okay. >> Do you want to grab the other mic? >> So you don't have to pass it back and
forth. >> Or maybe if you're just not moving the mics the wrong way. >> You want? >> Yeah, you were on. >> Okay. Good. Can you hear me? Yes. >> Okay. >> And there's a copy of the plan going up, right? >> You have a copy of the plan, >> Dave. Do you have a copy of the
landscape plan? >> Do you want him to repeat any of his testimony regarding his >> background? >> Background. >> No, but you're going to get him qualified. >> That's what I'm doing right now. >> Right. >> Right. We just went through his educational background, went through his
work experience. Um, have you ever testified before a board before? I I have not. >> Okay. How long have you been in business for yourself? >> Since November of this year. Of last year. Yes. >> Uh are you you're not a a licensed
landscape architect? >> That's correct. I am not. >> What are you proposing him as? >> He's a designer of outdoor dining areas and also for landscape. He has a degree in horiculture. He has designed u
outdoor dining before. He has worked in the field about 12 years. >> Yeah. >> Bring in a landscape architect for something like this. >> Right. >> We have an architect. G >> given the the narrow scope of this
particular application. We will accept him as an expert in the area of outdoor dining design >> with the understanding that this were a full site plan approval. Uh, >> I understand >> it wouldn't be sufficient. We don't want to set a precedent here that
>> I understand. We would have brought in a landscape architect if something like that. >> Okay. Yeah, that that's fine. >> I kept my drawing more conceptual to to illustrate what we're trying to propose out there. >> Any questions from other board members on qualifications? >> Um, can you tell us what restaurants
you've done outside design dining for and country clubs? Uh, personally I've done the Crestmont Country Club which is in um Caldwell and um the the Venetian which is the banquet hall over in um Garfield.
>> Any other questions? >> Then so accepted as previously stated. Any any board member have a motion concerning that? >> Okay, then we're good. >> Joe, you prepared a landscape um and lighting plan. Is that correct? >> That's correct. and the board has a copy of that. Could you just generally review
with the board u the plan that you prepared starting in the upper leftand corner of the plan that you submitted? >> Yes. What we've what we've done is we've gone ahead and created what we feel is an appropriate amount of space for people both to get in and out of the uh
area for dining as well as um circulation for both waiters, waitresses, and uh you know members of the restaurant. So, we've laid out the the site conceptually based on where tables can be placed, not necessarily how they will be placed with the event
that sometimes a two-top table will have to become a four top if people come in obviously like they would like to move things together with a maximum seating capacity of 24 seats. Um, on the area we we're planning a deck, which would be the best material for this for this use.
It would be a wood material of some sort or a composite. Um the reason being is because there is a great deal of slope going from the front door the front steps down to the uh property line where the rose bushes and and the apple is planted now. So without that we would don't have the room to create the
retaining walls that we would need to give you proper you know um space for everything to be level. So we felt that the deck with wood would be a lot uh better better use of space there. And we've created a um small 30-inch high picket type fence to create a barrier, a
buffer around the space so that when patrons come in to dine, they feel that it's very, you know, somewhat closed, confined, but also open and airy so they could see out across the street, down the street at Finley, as well as the beautiful landscaping that we're putting around the space.
>> Can you just generally describe the landscaping? >> Sure. Right now, we have um more or less a field of mulch out there with uh roses and a couple apple trees. We're going to try to make use of what we have since we've already invested the time and money with that uh those plant materials. will actually pick up the
roses, plant them in more of a mass to the right side of the uh dining space, which will help buffer the the walkway between the the properties, as well as a couple of boxwoods, which you can see against the top of the uh the sheet there, which will help break that that wall up there under the two windows
against the uh the space. Um, we're we would like to put some outdoor rope lighting. So, some type of lighting so it's has a nice ambiance at night to create a feeling of not being bright, but just so people could see where they're going in and out, as well as some mood lighting and low low voltage
landscape lighting underneath the apple tree and uh maybe even against, you know, part of the rose bushes. >> I have no further questions of the witness. >> Just the landscape lighting plan prepared by distinctive design and management. That's the one up on the screen.
>> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. And you prepared that? >> Yes. Um >> and it's it's undated. >> Okay. Um >> Right. Can you just for record purposes, can you date the one you have on the table now? I know that you submitted it at least 10 days before. So you put the date on it when you prepared it and
let's get that entered as an exhibit as A1. >> This was done I believe it was uh the 11th of July or perhaps the uh around the 10th of of July. >> So put a date on it and then After that, walk it down to Fran, please. And Fran's
going to take it from the file and we're going to mark that as exhibit A1. >> What's that date? >> 7-Eleven. >> Any questions from board members for Mr. Dobby? >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. Aler.
>> Um, Mr. Dobby, how high is the deck going to be off of the ground? >> Okay. Um, at one point where the stairs meet, it's going to be flush with the brick walkway that's there along Finley right now. Uh, towards the furthest end where that uh last lampost light would
be, it's about to >> the right. Correct. It is about um 14 in more or less. >> So that's why we felt that both the um the railing or you know deck the picket fence type fence would be both containing people in and also preventing
the need for some kind of a wall. I believe someone brought up the point of um maybe a two-inch lip last time. I wasn't at the meeting, but they mentioned something like that. We felt that might be more of a trip hazard on the edge of a of a of a dining area. So, we felt that going up to the 30 in would
would work a lot better. >> So, the pig fence is going to be flush against the deck. >> Yeah, the bottom of the deck. So, that'll remain level with the with the flat deck. that'll remain all the same height >> and there will be no um no space between
the deck and the fence. Even as you go looking at this diagram that's shown up on the screen, as you go to the right, the fence is going to go straight along the deck and there won't be any >> That's right. There might be there might need to be some like lattice paneling of
some sort just to ground it a little bit, but we're hoping to do that with some vegetation as well. Um the illustration there's a 3D sketch as well which is not up on the board there but uh that does show it a little bit better. >> And what kind from the from the fence
out toward the street? What is the fence going to be up right against the sidewalk or will there be some space between the fence and the sidewalk? >> The fence out by the street. Where would that be? >> The fence that's going to be on the outside of the deck. Uh, well, it stops
at the walkway, so it wouldn't be out by the road. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> To follow up on that, Mr. Debie, how wide is the walkway that is left once the decking is placed out there? >> There's no change to the existing walkway.
>> Any other board members have questions? >> Yeah, I do. In terms of is the fence going to be, you said a picket fence? Is it going to be white like restaurant. >> Yes, we're leaning towards matching it some kind of architectural element to the house of the Washington house and
that's going to be a white. We felt that that went best with the trim on that on the windows as well as the architecture of the of the building. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And minor detail on that. We were thinking of some type of um you know flat top to the top of the pickets. Nothing real sharp, no finials or
anything like that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> About 2 inch by two inch. So it's not heavy. I you probably said it, but the echo is pretty bad. Is it is it wood or is it composite? >> Uh, which are we talking about? >> The actual decking, >> the flat deck. Um, I think we're leaning
towards a composite just to help with the splintering and s, you know, the maintenance that comes with it. >> The last meeting it was going to be wood. So, now going towards composite. >> Um, I would have to ask, uh, you know, the builders what they wanted to use for
that, the installers of that. But >> would you ask them right now? Yes. >> Talk to him. >> Whisper in his ear and then he'll answer. We're going to lean towards a natural wood um either a teak or an e pay type.
>> Okay. >> Do you have anything further? >> Any other questions for members? >> Anything from the professionals? >> Mr. Banish. >> Oh, yeah. >> All right. They're going to be draped on fence.
>> Yeah, I was afraid we'd get more echo. >> The lights are going to be draped on the picket fence. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. And are they going to be maintained on all the time? And the reason I ask that is during the colder weather months when it's dark outside, what you've basically introduced next to
the sidewalk there is a 30-inch high fence. >> Yes. >> And it's just for pedestrians visibility. So, will the lighting be maintained on a continual basis even when the outdoor seating area is not in service? We typically run our low voltage lighting on a photo cell timer so that even on a dark day at 5:00 pm,
you know, if a storm's coming in, the lights will turn on. So, we would try to set this up in the same fashion where as it got gets dark or dark enough that the lights will actually turn on. Same with the low voltage to uplight the uh trees. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is this the witness that's going to deal
with the fencing around the um dumpster? >> No. >> Okay, that's it for me. >> Thank you, Mr. Spanish. Anyone else? Okay. And just one more time back to the board. Anyone? No. Okay. We're going to open it up to uh the public for both
questions. Uh we'll just do questions of this witness. Anyone have a question of this witness concerning the testimony you just gave? >> For the public, is there any way we could show them also this sectional that I did the uh 3D drawing? It might help for most people who can't read the site plan down. Is there a way to get both
drawings up there? >> Okay. There you go. Thank you. >> Can you test out that mic? >> Um, testing. >> Can you give me that? >> We don't have >> I just have one question.
>> I'm going to ask David to >> Michael. >> Could you identify yourself? >> Michael Bart, uh, 14 and Road. >> Ju just a question on the outside dining. Um, are the are the people can be blocked from the cars or any is it
are the people safe from cars or >> um Yeah. Well, we're up about, you know, six feet higher than the road. So, I think we would be safe from cars. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Any other member of the public have a question for this witness concerning the
testimony he just gave? Seeing none, close that. Mr. Baga, your next witness, >> Joe Marzy. Mr. Maresy was previously sworn. You know that you were in under oath. Correct. >> Correct. >> Joe, uh, since the last meeting, I
understand that you made some changes in lot number in the survey for lot number two. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> What did you do? Um because the town is uh I went to the town and got the
topography map which showed the surrounding buildings and I used that to add it to the survey so we could see the location of the existing house in relation to where the existing garbage. >> Mr. Marie, I I'm real sorry. I'm have I
I'm having a hard time hearing you. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> We can't hear you either. >> Yeah. >> Well, we heard that. >> I was able to put the existing residents on this the survey showing the lower lot. So we can show the distance between
where the exi where the propo um the existing garbage dis dumpsters are just to know how get a location for that. >> Dave, can you put up the plan he's talking about please? And then based on um comments from the
last meeting, we worked out an enclosure for the the garbage dumpsters. And can you uh point out to the board where the garbage >> and just for the record that drawing up
on the screen is the AR is one which set of which sheet of the architectural plans it sheet S1, S2 or S3. >> It's not on any sheet right now. Is this a standalone sheet? >> That's a standalone survey. >> That's a standalone survey.
>> And is what's the date on that? December last date is June. No, I don't know. What's what's the date on the updated survey? It's slot number two that that identifies it and >> correct. But that survey was dated June 3, 2010. It looks like you added
something to >> That's correct. He did. He just testified to that. >> I understand. What So what is the date on that document that's up on the screen? >> When did you enter? >> Now what's the date on the document? Does it still say June 3, 2010? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. So when did you update that and
draw in the dumpster enclosure? about um July 10th. >> Do you have one of those sheets with you? >> Yes, I do. You submitted it to the board. >> Understand that. I want to make it A2. I want to get a date. I want to get a date. I want him to put the date that he
prepared that and have Fran mark it in as an exhibit A2. Joe, do you have a um an example of what this uh enclosure is going to look like? >> Yes, I believe I >> you gave me sent me pictures. Is that right?
>> Yes. Is this the way it's going to look like or it's going to be much more much better? >> Well, it's going to be new and okay. You know, better, but it's >> Are those pictures? Do we have those pictures? >> No, we do not. We do not. So, I'm going May I intro introduce the >> Who took those pictures?
>> The owner. >> Okay. Um, we already have the owner. Swan. >> This is so example of what the enclosure will look like. Understood. How many pictures do you have? >> I have 11 12
>> of the same image. >> Oh, same. >> One image. One >> one picture of the enclosure. >> The picture is going to be marked exhibit A3 by Fran. And could you hand out and the owner took those pictures, correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Give one to Fran and give one to all the board members and you can
describe it. This is a picture of a similar type dumpster enclosure. Is that correct? >> That the applicant is proposing for this site. >> That is correct. Something similar to what you see under pictures,
>> but new. Uh yeah, >> the base frame is a chain link metal structure and then on on top of the frame we'll be ch um attaching hor horizontal wood slats to create a
privacy for the dumpsters. >> What color? >> Natural or very close to um the color of the wall that's there now, which is a brownish Victor is a going on to another subject.
>> Before you do, uh, is the purpose of this picture to indicate the general height and obscurity of the materials you're going to put up as opposed to the overall quality? >> The only one we can find.
>> But what what are the materials that are going to be? only because this I mean this obviously obstructs the view of the dumpsters >> but the dumpster might be nicer >> but compared to what's going on at that particular lot now this would be I I'd hate to say this wouldn't be an
improvement this would be a detraction so >> no that is only an example of the type of structure >> so it's going to be square >> it's going to be square it's going to be five how tall is this uh >> five feet >> what type of wood
Just tell him >> cedar plywood slats. >> Cedar >> plywood slats. >> Cedar plywood planks. >> Slats slats. >> Thank you. cedar post or metal?
>> No, it's a metal frame, but >> All right, I don't want to cut you off. You keep going. We'll we'll I'm sure there's going to be further questions and comments on this, but once you get through your presentation, >> there is a report from Mr. slide that I think the the date of the report is July
24th, 2015. Did you see that report? We went over it, you and I, together. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is there anything in that report that we cannot comply with? >> No. >> Okay. Mr. Schlly had a question in the report regarding how this impacts upon
the master plan in the historic district. You see any impact at all? >> No, I do not. >> I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. B. Any questions from the board professionals? Mr. Banish.
>> Okay. Um, >> Mr. Quinn, thank you. >> Two questions. The I see that the dumpster is located for maximum access, easy access. I'm presuming that that area of the parking lot is flat enough to accommodate a dumpster. So,
you're not at a tent. Um, the other comment I had about the deck area is since there is some fall of grade and it is right against the street in order to keep it aesthetic, I think you're going to need some sort of band along the
front and sides where the deck will be where the grate falls away and the deck will be up here. You don't want to be able to look under the deck or have access under the deck or so you're going to have to provide some sort of banding so that it's a seamless look from the street that there's no annular space
underneath for critters or anything to get under or just >> you know for aesthetic value. >> Yes. >> All right. >> That's it for me. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Bann. >> Yeah. I I'm a little bit troubled by the design of the um dumpster enclosure and I'd like to suggest something a little
bit more substantial and um well I know we don't have really time to deal with that right now. I think that this should probably include a concrete pad um and a more substantial design than um the example that's put in front of the board and that design should be subject
to approval by the board professionals. >> How does the applicant feel? Terrific. you know that condition. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Banish. >> Okay. Anything further from Mr. Shaw? >> The um the size of the uh the two decks, they're shown a little bit bigger on the
landscape plan compared to the U architectural plans. So, which one are we going with? And what's ultimately going to be the size? >> The architectural plans. >> Okay. The architectural plans are >> Yes. >> Yeah. Correct. and the um
>> Okay, you did say you agree to all the other comments in my >> Mr. Schlide, do you know how much larger the architectural plan is than the >> No, the landscape plan was actually larger. >> Okay. >> The architectural plan are the all the numbers that I cited in my report uh on
the top of page two landscape. >> How much larger is the landscape plan? the landscape plan. Um it there was on either side of the front stoop the the uh the architectural plan shows that there's going to be a space of about 2 and 1/2 ft between the sides of the
stoop and where the deck starts and the landscape plan showed the decks going all the way up to meet the uh the stoop. That was my question. >> Mr. Carluchi >> from the level of the deck to the
right hand corner. >> Yes, I believe so. >> No, it'll be enclosed. >> What kind of enclosure will be >> uh some sort of band board and I believe there's also going to be um at least along the at least along the side
there'll be some shrubbery, but across the face it'll be a band. It'll be solid. I guess my concern. >> Yeah. No, >> I want to know. I just want to make sure it's going to be protected.
>> Okay. Do do you have is there an exhibit that shows that lattice you're talking about now? >> No. >> Yes. >> Is there do you have an exhibit that you submitted that shows the lattice that he's talking about right now? >> I don't think there is one.
>> Did that landscape rendering by any chance? Can you get the landscape rendering? If it does, great. If it doesn't, then I'm going to suggest that as the board feels strongly about that, that you impose a condition that it be revised to include ladders to the
satisfaction of the professionals. >> I agree. >> Is the ladder shown on that? >> No. >> Okay. >> So, >> Mr. Can I ask you tell me what you're looking for for that lattice so I can make sure I get the condition right?
>> I want to make sure that the lattice or anything else just protects things from >> you know when when somebody decides their hamburger falls off down there something else gets it. >> So hearing the board members concern what do you propose what revision do you
propose to the plan to deal with that concern? that the if there are any openings that it should be covered with some sort of uh screening behind the lattice >> to prevent barns from getting in
>> Are you good Mr. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Padichi >> Mr. Mark Casey, now we're on the issue about the deck and everything again. The planks on the base of the deck, how I
mean they going to be flush the one I mean someone goes on that deck that has heels and they could essentially get in the seam of this. >> No, it'll be a it well it'll be a smooth transition. I don't
>> It'll be a smooth transition. And there will not be a space large enough to to catch heels or anything like that. >> Okay. So that means that what Mr. Carluchi said then that someone spills something on the from the table, it's
not going to go down. It's going to sit on the deck then, right? >> Yes. >> In other words, your testimony is that there's no separation between the boards on the deck. >> No, >> that can't be your testimony. If it rains in a big problem,
>> right? >> So, what's what's the testimony? >> Can can you can you approximate the spacing between the planks? Is it a >> 16th of an inch or less? >> So, it's minimal. >> Yes. >> Enough to let water through, but not
enough to let a woman's heel and shoe through. Is that your testimony? >> Yes. And there'd have to be sufficient lighting at night so that someone can navigate to that furthest table. >> Yes,
>> I believe that was testified to by the land by the designer. >> Unfortunately, Mr. Miso, with this echo, it's all mumbo jumbo at this point. >> Yes, he indicated that there will be sufficient lighting uh for safety purposes.
>> Okay. Okay. >> Okay, that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Pichi. Any other board members? >> Mr. Chair, I have a a question for Mr. Banish. Um, it's actually regarding the enclosure, which you're going to be weighing in on.
>> Do it. It troubles me a little to have the metal um poles rather than wooden posts. And I'm wondering if you have a thought on that since you'll be the one who's ultimately going to make the call. Well, it's going to be dependent on the
design that they propose. If they want to put uh steel columns in a concrete pad and mount the wooden enclosure to those steel columns, they'll have to be substantial enough to support that construction. So, I wouldn't be troubled about that. And in fact, I'd probably
prefer that to having wooden posts uh in the concrete, which would be subject to rotting over time. I I think I think the steel post might be a more permanent uh installation. And so we're also going to be looking for sufficient width on the dumpster so that the dumpster can be easily rolled in and out
without the enclosure being damaged over time as well. >> Thank you. >> Any other board? M >> um Mr. Banish had said that perhaps they should be on a the dumpster enclosures
on a cement pad, but if the dumpsters are being I don't know if they're being dumped emptied into a dumpster or if they're being traded off as they're empty would be difficult if it were on a pad. >> My guess is the truck is going to open
the doors, drive into the dumpster, dump it, put it back on the concrete pad, and close the doors. But I do agree about the metal post better than the cedar for the rot. >> Any other board members?
>> Keep in mind that uh the storm water rags that were put into effect a number of years ago do deal with uh dumpsters and garbage enclosures and and things like that. So there are other there are other uh regulations that apply here.
>> Okay. Anyone else? Okay, Mr. B, do you have any other testimony? >> No. >> Is this it? You're done? You're going to make a closing statement or Okay. So, then at this time, I'm going to open it up to the public for questions of Mr. Marches concerning his testimony this
evening. Plus, if anyone has any comments concerning the application, now would be the time to do so. Does anybody have any questions or comments? Any member of the public? Seeing none, we're going to close that portion. Okay. Mr. Vagna, final comments. >> Yes. Just very briefly, um I think this
is something that we should encourage more so in downtown Basky Ridge and to bring people downtown. I think it serves the master plan. Uh the only issue involved here is uh apartment. You know, there may be a technical variance regarding parking. We have now 60
parking spaces that are on site. But the percentage if you if you calculate the number of seats in a restaurant that's required for a restaurant and an office, we meet the coordinates requirements even at 60. Uh there's plenty of parking on um on the street right in front of us
on side street. uh we have reduced our number of seats from 19 from what existed in 1999 from 174 down to 129. So the ratio is about the same and we are taking out of service 24 seats inside
the restaurant in the particular area so that it could be enforced. Um so overall I think that um the parking issue is something that is not substantial. It is something that um I think is going to be a benefit to downtown Bas. Thank you.
>> Just to clarify, when you had the the variance for the 72 spaces, you had 174 tables at that time. At present, you have 129 tables. That is correct. And versus 60. >> Yeah. Seats.
>> So it was 174 seats. Now 129 seats. 72 spaces then. 60 spaces now. >> Correct. And one of the key points of this application is that to the extent you're going to have seats outside on this new proposed space, you're going to be decommissioning seats inside for that
for that evening. >> That's correct. That's something right in the beginning. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. What is the pleasure of the board? >> Mr. Chair. Did you want to comment on the on the criteria a little more detail concerning
the variance? >> Well, uh, we're dealing with a a hardship issue here. >> We don't have any more parking to provide for the board. Uh, but um, >> is it a C2 or a C1? >> This could be either one, C2 or C1, you
know. Um, I I think um And you see it more and more today. Outdoor dining is becoming something that is quite common in downtown areas because it brings people downtown. It brings business downtown to Baskin Rich. You have a hardship here because of the fact there
is no further parking that we could have on site. We meet the orphan requirement. If we were counting the number of seats that are required in a restaurant, we meet the orth requirement at at 60.
That's just part of our summer theme. Don't don't be distracted by it. Just to set a mood. >> We're with you, Mr. Passio. We're with you all the all the way. >> You are not you are not wiped out.
>> Actually, that's the cube music >> like the Oscars. You've exceeded your time. Please >> step down. If you count the number of uh available spaces that along the side street, you know, where our restaurant
is and where our parking lot is, you will find there are at least 20 additional spaces that can accommodate our partners. So I think we've established the uh the negative the positive criteria that there is a hardship that there's a benefit the benefit outweighs the detriment and
there's no substantial detriment to the zone plan or the zoning ordinance because it's something that exists now in downtown Baskin Ridge right across the street you know and in several other restaurants in Bernard Township the corner the copper kettle all the ambian
I take it this application It doesn't create the need for that variance. >> No. >> The fact that you lost the extra parking created the need for the variance. And the fact is that you then eliminated number of seats. Correct. >> And we may correct. That's correct.
>> Okay. >> I have a question, Mr. Chair. Are we Is there an agreement that there will be no more than 129 seats? They agreed last time no more than 129 and they agreed last time that when they put seating
outside they will eliminate 24 inside in a designated area on the on the plan. Correct. >> Correct. >> So there's no increase in parking parking requirements. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. M. >> Yeah.
Just so I understand, he speaks to the number of seats spaces in relation to restaurant seats. Do we also consider the office space? >> Just so the the number of spaces
required by the ordinance is set by the ordinance. >> They need a variance from that. They needed one in 1999, right? >> They were granted one in 1999. They were granted a variance that said they had to provide 72 parking spaces. At that time they had
17, >> pardon me, >> for the entire building. >> 72 spaces for the entire building. >> There wasn't an office. There weren't offices. >> There weren't offices then. >> No, but I No, I think I think that's important. Yeah, but
>> I believe there were offices, but they were for growth cater. So >> there's there's offices included in the requirement, the parking requirement. There's 13 I believe 13 spaces are the requirement for the office which gets
you from 99 for the restaurant to 112 total. >> Right. >> So the requirement has not changed. How many they're providing has changed. What they're arguing is I'm not arguing for or against. I'm just telling you what
the requirement is 112. They were granted a variance to 72 in 1999. Unrelated to this application, they lost 12 spaces in an area where the actual the resolution required them to park
there. It was owned by someone else. They lost that. They then reduced their seats in the restaurant from 174 down to 129. Their argument for why the board should grant >> a new variance. They still need a
parking barrier but now to provide 60 70 instead of 72 spaces is because of the reduction in the number of seats in the restaurant. That's their >> and the number. >> Has anything changed in regard to the office space? >> No, it's occupied by the restaurant
people >> and same is it the same square footage the office has changed. >> They told us it was something different back then. I don't know. >> No, I don't speak any outside.
>> Sir, you got to be in the microphone. >> Stinley Enterprise and we also scan the builders. We uh occupy the entire office space. We do sublet out to um to to a couple different uh uh to a charity um
some other financial people that that occupy three offices and an architect. Um but everybody's through us and we were under the understanding when we did the renovations for the building. We checked with the zoning officer that that was that was all okay to do as long
as everything was under our master lease. We occupied it and then we were able to to sublet out offices as we >> and there were offices before. >> That is correct. >> All right. Any other questions? All right. Then is it anybody have
deliberations or a motion? I move that we accept the application with the conditions that have been stated. >> Yes. >> So you you making a motion to grant preliminary and final site plan approval with the parking barriers. >> Yes. >> Subject to all those conditions.
>> Correct. >> Thank you, Mer. Is there a second? >> Second. >> I think Mr. Hagen beat you there, Miss A. I'm sorry. Okay. Uh Mr. Hagen on the second. Any discussion on the motion? >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, Mr. I would note that uh shortage
of parking in downtown Basking Ridge is uh a problem. Uh it's not unique to this particular applicant. It's not their fault. It's uh we're short of parking spaces in downtown Basking Ridge and I would argue that we should not penalize
this particular applicant for what is a generic condition. >> Thank you, Mr. Mle. Any other comments? Then I would say that um since they have agreed and as a condition they are going to take away 24 spaces inside the building when they
have 24 spaces outside the building that they you know they're not going to be this is not going to increase the number of people who they will be serving at any particular one time because they have to do a one for one swap inside and
outside. So that would not exacerbate the the parking issue in and of itself. >> Thank you, Mr. Di. Any other board members have any comments or deliberations? >> Okay, seeing nothing further than roll call, please on the motion made by Miss
Alfer, seconded by Mr. Hagen. >> Miss Alfer, >> yes. >> Mr. Galluchi, >> yes. >> Mr. Hagen, >> yes. >> Mr. Mallay, >> yes. >> Miss Pavlini, >> yes. >> Miss Padichi, >> yes. Miss Ax. >> Yes. >> Mr. Harris.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Plaza. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. >> Okay. Uh before we move on to the next application, are there board members who will be leaving us? Mr. Kuchi, Mr. Malay, Mr. Harris. >> Yeah. I I would just like to call the
application because there's going to be another board member leaving and I'd just like to put it on the record. >> Okay. So, we're gonna Thank you. >> Next item on the agenda is the continued public hearing in Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, Inc. PB12-00001,
block 9301, lot 2,124 Church Street, preliminary and final site plan approval. >> Okay. So, um, we will see. I don't know exactly, um, there members of the public that are going to testify. Just so for the record,
Mr. Quick had submitted a tree expert report from Tampy Tree Service. I did not have it distributed to the board because who knew if he was going to actually show up to testify, so I didn't want to distribute anything ahead of
time. As it turned out, there was an objection made by Mr. Rayar as to a conflict of interest is apparently um Mr. Rayar's client sent in a letter that they had consulted with TAMP in 2012 and 2013 and Mr. Quick had
consulted with TAMP um in the past couple of weeks. So it then came to my attention that Ms. board member Axe husband has worked for TAMPK for over 30 years. So at this point
for an abundance of caution. I have spoken to board member Axe and I have suggested now she is not eligible to vote right now. In any event, she would have had to have reviewed approximately two and a half years worth of of tapes which she was seriously considering
doing. But because a conflict, an appearance of a conflict on behalf of a board member cannot be weighed. So even though Mr. Ramar told me he had no objection and I assume that Mr. quick would have had no objection. Once both sides consulted Tampy, whether they
whether someone testified from Tampy or not, I felt uncomfortable enough that I suggested that Ms. Axe forget about trying to listen to the two and a half years and just recuse and move off the dis for the rest of the proceeding and
not participate at all. And she agreed. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Paul. Mr. >> for for the benefit of the public, I think that that was, you know, a little bit of bits and pieces as to what maybe
have had transpired. for a board member who was considering to listen to the tapes that catch up so to be an eligible voting member. I think it's only fair to the public that a little more explanation be given as to the background of this. The public has no
idea the public doesn't have to when a board member recuses they can recuse without giving a reason. I gave as much of a reason more of a reason than legally has to be given >> and in fact Mr. Okay. The description
given is the limit of what the board members are aware of. >> The board members don't know. I've never handed the report out on purpose. >> So, what's going what you're proposing and I I'll I'll hear from Mr. Drill as to his opinion on this, but what you're
proposing would actually put before the board information that was decided should not be before the board. So, >> that's correct. And I I'll defer to Mr. Drill for his explanation as to why he thinks that's that's the appropriate
course here. >> If we go into any more detail, then the board is going to hear about what was in the Tampy tree report, expert report submitted by Mr. Quick, and they're going to hear what Tasky said to the
applicant. And there's documents on both sides, and I want all those documents out of the record and not considered by the board. >> I couldn't disagree more. I'm not asking at all, nor do I believe it's appropriate for anything to be divulged to the public or members of the board
regarding the summoned substance of what was in this document or what what constituted, you know, what it actually said and what someone said to someone. What I'm saying is that if in fact the attorney representing the board contacts
a board member and says, "Hey board member, I think that there could be a potential conflict." >> I asked her questions in the attorney client privilege. I asked her questions and in response to the questions I asked her, I felt that out of an abundance of
caution, she should recuse herself. And I am not going to divulge my conversation to her or her answers back to me. So, so your the board's position is that the the reason for the conflict without getting into any specifics at all should not be made public as part of the
proced. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> May I ask a question? >> Sure. Mr. Mark, >> do I take it from the colloquy is not appearing? >> I don't know. And I and what I what
happened was it doesn't matter because after I spoke with the board member with the conversation, I felt that the board member should recuse herself. And we're not going into any more detail than that. I have no idea if they're going to call the expert or not.
>> So, it's time for Mr. Quick. >> It's time for Mr. Quick. >> It's time for Mr. Quick to do his presentation. matter. >> Come on up, Mr. Wahi. >> Sorry for that. I couldn't understand.
>> My name is Ashok Wahi. Uh, without disclosing any more than what you are legally allowed to do in this thing, from a layman's point of view, I just didn't understand what just happened. Okay. So, for for the benefit of the
public, um, and because I I was not involved, I'm I'm going to ask Mr. Drill to just explain one more time what transpired uh, in the limited fashion that was explained and how it relates to the fact that Miss Axe is now recused and stepped
off of the day. So, Mr. Drill, thank you, Mr. Wahhee. If you could resume your seat, Mr. Drill, explain it to everybody. Mr. Quick submitted an expert report from Tampy Tree Service. Mr. Quick, the
date that you sub, just for the record, what was the date that you submitted it? >> Last week, perhaps. >> No, I know last week. >> It was Friday. >> Friday, correct? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, Mr. Quick submitted an expert report on Friday. He he copied he sent
it to Fran. He copied me, Mr. Rayar, and Mr. Simon. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I told Fran, I advised Fran not to hand the report out until tonight after
the expert from Tami testified because what happens if he didn't appear in the report that I handed out? In any event, he was going to testify about the report. That was Friday. I didn't think twice about it. I got a Now things happened that I
wasn't involved in between the parties yesterday. I wasn't a party to it. I don't know about it. I do know that I got a letter today, a copy of a letter that ISBR had sent to Tempy. Without going into the details of that letter,
it's fair to say that ISBR objected to anyone from Tempee testifying because the letter said at least that ISBR had actually consulted with someone from Tempee in 2012 and 2013 about this site.
Correct. That's what the letter said. >> I haven't seen the letter yet. >> Okay. You were emailed. It was also emailed to you. You probably didn't >> not denying that. >> Right. >> Okay. So, I then did some research on whether or
not a board has the legal authority to prevent someone from testifying if there is a conflict, a witness conflict. And just for the record, because this is not revealing any attorney client privilege, I my opinion was that the board had no
authority to bar a witness who has a conflict from testifying. I had written an article about this in 1996 up on the firm's website and I'm sure some people checked and they could see what my opinion was and my opinion hasn't changed. And so I thought that
that was going to be the issue. It then came to my attention that board member Ax's husband has not just worked for Tampy for a couple years, worked for Tampy for 30 years
and knows the people involved on both sides of the consultations. I then called her to say that if someone from Tamky was going to testify, I was going to suggest
that she recuse herself. I then we had a discussion which I'm not going to go into. And after the discussion, I felt that regardless of whether the person from Tamky testifies or not, she should recuse herself and she agreed. Is that correct? Without going into the details. >> Yes.
>> That's what happened. may uh privately just approach. >> No, there is no private hearing. >> Well, um >> it's on the record. It's not. >> I don't want to jeopardize. He wants to go hearing about what I'm going to say about this. >> Mr. Quit,
>> Mr. Quick, you are not close to a microphone. All of this is completely lost. >> Okay. The other >> This meeting would be incomplete. Please, you can't >> Mr. Quick. >> No. You you can't under any circumstances have any private conversations with any board member. I I
think what you're asking is if you can have a private conversation with Mr. Drill. We're going to take uh and I'm going to defer to Mr. Drill on whether that's going to happen or not. >> That's fine. You want to talk to me? >> I don't want to jeopardize. >> No. No. So, we're going to take a we're going to take a hard five minute recess.
So, please don't go too far because we're >> Mr. Simon might want to talk to me also. >> Mr. Rayar might also >> we're going to take a fiveinut rec. All I wanted to do is just to clarify that the explanation that Mr. Drill just gave was exactly what I had asked for seven minutes ago. So I am satisfied at least
from my perspective. So I do not need >> Do do you still want to speak to Mr. Okay, we're going to take a fiveminute recess. That's a hard time. Yeah, that's why. >> Okay, >> we're not we're not on yet. We have to wait for the
>> Wait, wait, wait. >> Okay, we're back on the record. >> Okay, we have one last piece of housekeeping and that is Mrs. Quick, if you recall, gave that PowerPoint presentation dated May 19th, 2015. There's been back and forth going
between Mrs. Quick and the attorney for ISBR and the ISBR representatives for a couple of months now. I'm happy to say, announced for the record, they've reached an agreement. And so I have the document Loretta Quick's PowerPoint public comment ISBR application dated
May 19, 2015. And this hard copy of the PowerPoint with the two slides removed that they agreed to remove is going to go into evidence by consent as exhibit P9 with today's date. So Fran Okay.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. >> Um, a little unorthodox thing before I bring in a little model. >> Mr. Quint, you're going to have to have some sort of microphone in front of you. Pick it up. Make sure it's turned on. Okay. >> Yes. No.
>> Is it turned on? >> The green light. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if I'd be permitted to ask each of the board members, and they don't have to answer. Um what their perception of is of how
many trees are in the buffer in in that area. You can ask it rhetorically, but you you can't question the board members as to their specific. >> I'm not I'm not interested in the answer. I'm just trying to see how many were close. >> Okay.
>> So, >> don't Okay, >> you'll have to you'll you'll just have to you Well, you can ask us to imagine then tell us. >> Okay. We tried to create >> I tried to create a little more of an image for the board members because it's
looking up at the screen. It's it's very hard to uh sometimes picture what's actually in the uh in the buffer area. And this is actually a uh >> reproduction of CO6.
>> Okay. >> And it's just onethird of it is magnified. >> When you say it's a reproduction, you don't really mean what you mean is you've taken CO6 and you've made it 3D to the best of your ability. Correct. >> Correct. And Staples did magnify it
three times. They said so I just get this this portion here. the whole the lower part of the bride is the uh >> you're you're going from south to from west to east. >> This the street is here. >> Okay.
>> And then it runs the property line. >> Okay. So that that is a portion of CO6 that has been blown up three >> three. Got it. >> And the the reason I did this is because
um there are actually 40 trees in this buffer and some of them are insignificant small cedar trees but there are um several very significant trees and as Mr. Drill had said we were going to have a uh an expert here but uh
the explanation for the certified arborist not showing up will remain a secret. Um Mr. Jill has also informed me that I have no shot at uh >> No, no, no, no. Oh, no. >> I have no shotight at at at doing better
than Mrs. Quick did, >> which which >> was that wasn't legal advice. That was my personal opinion. And and to put it the other way, I said Mrs. Quick hit a home run with her presentation on trees, and I'd like to see you even get close to her. If for
the record, that's what I said. >> So, am am I allowed an assistant here for help me with the slides? >> Of course. And I would choose the same one I choose chose 30 years ago to help at this point.
>> Now that's that's not a surprise. >> Get a microphone. >> I thought what Mr. Quick represented this to be was a 3D depiction of all the trees in the buffer
that are on CO6. >> CO6. >> Yeah. But when you follow the lines which staples also magnify three times not all of the lines line items like 9
in tree, 10in tree, 7in tree, 13inch tree, 10in tree end up in a vertical dowel. So, at least as far as I can look at
this document and compare it to what Mr. Quick represented it to be, either I'm not understanding it or it's not what Mr. Quick said it was. >> Mr. Quick, can you explain
what those dowels represent? What what merited a Dow being inserted into an indication on that portion of CO6 >> where a tree is located? >> What may have been eclipsed in my opening remarks was that there were approximately 40 trees existing in the
buffer. And these are what I consider to be significant. The smaller cedar trees. >> When you say these, the dowels, >> the dowels, thank you. >> Represent a 3D depiction of the more significant trees, >> right? Was there a scale or a minimum
criteria that you used to determine what got it down? What didn't? >> The for the majority of them, they were the the the stronger deciduous trees, the maples, the oaks, and the uh cherries. And the smaller cedars grow so
much I I I wouldn't even want to try to to depict them there because they're they're nowhere near as significant in the scheme of things to to the buffer. >> So I I'm counting 18 dowels, but Mr. Quick has now said there are 40
trees in the buffer, >> I think, including the ones that did not get the Dows. >> Mr. Quick, is that correct? >> Yes. Now at least we know. >> He said he put it down >> in the significant species, not the
>> he said the first time, >> but he just clarified it. >> Okay, now we know. >> Okay. >> So that to the extent it's a visual depiction, the board should know there's twice as many trees here as he's put dowels in. >> Quick question. Mr. Schlly, have you taken a picture of this exhibit?
>> Not yet. >> Okay. because I want you to take a picture of it just for purposes of the public and the board knowing you know France putting together these exhibit notebooks for all the board members. Most of the the vast majority of exhibits are small. I think we had two
exhibits on boards. I think that um Mr. Zimmerman I think had a big color board and I I believe that Mr. Mr. Schalai took a picture of that and so we have that digital to reproduce in the
board notebooks and Fran I think there was also some sort of um what's the word for it like a rendering or something a large rendering and we also have a smaller rendering so I'm going to ask Dave whenever you get a re okay so what is the this the large
rendering what exhibit number is Right. So, we have small We also have 8 by10s. Right. So, again, Mr. Schlly, when you get around to it, get a picture of this from uh you know, the front and back. So, we can put that in the exhibit notebook. >> And I'm assuming it's going to be
entered as an exhibit. It hasn't been entered as an exhibit yet. We'll let him testify about it. Right now, this is demonstrative evidence. You It's going to um show what your testimony is going to be saying. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> So, why don't you keep on going?
>> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Um I'm a little bit of a loss where to begin. Um our expert was going to back me up here and and couldn't make it. >> Couldn't make it. >> Objection. Look, can I ask you something?
>> Did anyone bar your expert from coming tonight? >> Did the board borrow him from coming? >> Did Did the board bar your expert from coming? >> You don't want me to say what I said? >> I want Did the board Did I have Did I >> have no no contact? >> Did I have anything to do whatsoever with the fact that your expert didn't
come tonight? Yes or no? >> No. >> Okay. So, your expert's not here, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, you can't you can't talk about what he may or may not said. He's not here. No, I I'm sorry. I just was saying that he wasn't here. >> I But you shouldn't mention the expert at all. >> Okay. Sorry.
>> I was trying to be careful even. >> Yeah. Don't The only way to be careful is not even to mention the expert, >> Mr. Schl. >> Thank you, sir. >> The purpose here is just to give the board a better example. I I guess if I
was back in fifth grade, and maybe that's my level today, too, still is. I would entitle this um what the buffer means to me. Um, and just it'll be just a simple depiction of uh of the significant trees, the ones I consider significant. And I think they're in
serious jeopardy by the uh the fact that there's a swale very close to them and a retention detention basin that is at points 25 ft wide and one's the length of a football field and is 4t deep. But
we're we're just trying to give some um again position and and uh description to >> No, I just put that >> what just appeared to be a bunch of trees in there. >> Yeah. Yeah. As long as you Yeah. >> Okay. Which
and there's just basically pictures to accompany these individual trees. And Mr. Quick, you'll be explaining the significance of the writing on them and the um the numbers. >> We attempted to identify the the type of
tree it was and we attempted to identify the approximate height as as best as we could approximate. >> Okay. And there's the diameters and the tree canopies or drift lines were taken from the plans originally submitted by the >> So up on the board now it says ISBR tree
analysis public comment August 4, 2015 Christopher Quick and your address. I assume that you want to present this PowerPoint and that's going to be keyed into this exhibit. Surely go again portions of of of
the layout are examined here just to orient where we are. Um we we may come back to sections to this a little bit later. We have some uh direction
for just again orientation. Um, >> do those correspond to your dowels, Mr. Quick? >> The numbers >> numbers match. Okay, >> that's the idea. >> Um, wait, I want to start at the street
level and the the first set of three trees. I'm going to kind of group them together here. A cherry, an oak, and an oak. >> Okay. You were just indicating one, two, and three on your example. >> Yes. >> Is that right? And >> well, and and these are just we have
some perspectives of the whole tree line here. First also. >> Okay. These are my the first two three trees. Um, in this area is the the termination of a swale and that swale's goal is to dump water out to take water
um from a a high level to a low level and it it dumps it out right on this this first tree here which I don't think is healthy for the tree. Um the other next point that comes to mind is that
the applicant has proposed putting 8 to 10 arbor vis um I think it's approximately 30 foot long in under these same trees and it's it's hard to conceptualize if they want to
put a 10-ft tree under two or three trees that currently have branches that stick out 15 ft. Yeah. >> Did they get to shear their side of the >> of the tree to to stick them up there? >> Um it's it appears to be so detrimental
to the tree, let alone not just putting these two to three foot root balls right in the same the same footprint of the existing roots of these trees. >> Um that I I have a problem with. It doesn't seem like it would be
>> constructive, beneficial. Mr. Chair, >> do you have an objection or >> I may have to ask a question >> of the witness? >> Yes. >> Uh, no. You'll have to >> I'll just object. >> Okay. Well, that's >> the witness has not established any
basis to be able to identify the species of the trees. And I wanted to ask the witness whether he knows that of his own knowledge or whether someone told it to him. >> Okay. But without a foundation, the
species of the tree is not on CO6. >> And you know, most people know an oak. I don't know if most people know a pin oak. I don't know what Mr. Quick knows or not. I may or may not have an objection to based on what he says. >> It goes goes to his qualification to be able to identify. What is the basis of
your knowledge? >> Um, just common general knowledge and uh the good advice of my wife. >> Okay. >> I knew that. >> I'm a tree hugger. I know. >> So, it's it's personal knowledge. It's >> okay. At least now we know the source.
>> Some of these these trees go. Uh these are the the younger ones actually are are 30 ft high. And I just hate to see those lost to an inconsiderate placement and digging and trenching of a swale.
the uh the swale is is shown to be um seven feet from the I'm sorry, let me just say the the most of the trees depicted right on the line here are are not even all mine or almost charteries. They they cut they weave in and out of
the property line so that it's it's nearly impossible to to attempt to identify what belongs to who as far as the base of the tree goes. But either way, neither of us should should harm the tree would be the would be the inference here.
Um, the swale runs for I think some 260 ft and is basically a ditch that that runs um that uh that runs 7 ft wide and is is uh at some
points raised above the soil, the current grade uh 2 feet and it could be cut down to under the grade at the end of it when it gets to the street level. So I'm suggesting that there is uh going
to be what I will try to show later that there's significant harm to the uh to the roots of these trees uh that are all along the swale and basically almost all of them are along the swale and the property line.
Um I I won't even uh you'll see in some of the the tree some of the uh slides the uh the substantialness of the the trees. They're just not cedars that I've chosen to ignore in this in this discussion.
And I I think we'll just where we will make a comment while we're here. Please going down to number five. Um which is on the border. Uh we're calling it a a pin oak 22 inches in diameter
approximately 50 ft high. Um, then we have a a pin oak, another pin oak, 24 inches in diameter, almost within 10 ft of that. But it's it's uh the trees. There's a uh a maple and a um
a pine tree, 5B in this little cluster here, 5B and 5C, that the applicant apparently has missed putting on the tree plant, which which uh there's two trees here. I'm suggesting that our phantom trees as as regards to u the plan goes. So I don't know how that
affects the uh tree p canopy calculation and and whether they're planning on taking those down since they aren't even on the the plans. But um that there was in such a tight cluster. I can see how somebody missed them. There's there's so many little trees. It's it's not
impossible. I mean it's it's easy to do. I I can pass around a um I Are they allowed to see pictures? >> Yeah, but do you have that up there? >> It is up there, but I for a closer view to see how close these actually are. I don't know if they want to >> That's the one you just showed on the screen.
>> But they're they're really tight. >> And I don't I don't know if they're marked for >> Well, I assume when you're all here, >> you're going to want to >> move your PowerPoint into evidence. >> Right. But I just for you know in case there was any questions on the
>> if anyone wants to see any of the individual slides what he's saying is he has the individual slides there. So if anyone wants to see any up close just ask him. I'm sure he'll be happy to pass them up. >> So in summary at at 0.5 there's there's two substantial trees a 35 ft maple
approximately and a uh a 50 foot tall large pine tree that are not on their on their plans. So, is number five on the plan and A and B are not on the plan? Is that what you're saying? >> Number five, we we kind of numbered them in this cluster because they're so
close. Number five is on the plan. Um five A is on the plan. 5B and 5 C are not. >> Okay. 5C is not on the plan. >> Correct. >> The white pine that you're showing on the side, >> the big pine. Um right, that's Yes.
That's not on the plan. and the the tree 10 15 feet in front of that the the maple is not on the plant either. But it's it's easy to understand how they missed all this because it's it is so densely populated very very close to a forest.
>> You think that white that white pine was hard to easy to miss? >> I don't want to get in trouble here. >> Um Okay. So again, the five the the the five
number five tree is is a a significant substantial tree and and being 24 in in diameter. I'm going to suggest and try to prove later that the basic root growth the the protected root zone as
we'll refer to it later is um one and a half times the diameter which would make that roughly 36 and then change to feet. So this part just using this one tree as an example I'm
going to suggest that the protected root zone the absolute necessary protection for this root zone for the tree to survive is 36 ft and that does not count um feeder roots that go on after that >> objection
>> basis >> Mr. Quick has not put in the record any expertise uh or ability to testify what a protected root zone is.
He just said it's one and a half times the diameter. Uh we have nothing in this record that shows his expertise to either discuss what a protected root zone is or to calculate it. Do you have an expertise as to that? Do
you have experience with trees that that gives you that knowledge? >> I do have some experience, but rather than rely on experience, I I found and I was going to bring it out later, but I could bring it out now. >> I found an internet article that sort of describes that very well.
>> Objection. We've been through this before. >> I mean, unless it's a it's a government. >> Is it a state publication? Is it a >> No, it's actually United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State Private Forestry. >> That is >> Well, then I have to see it. >> Well, I was going to give it to
everybody a little later, but I can give it to you now. >> Well, because because your credentials as to your ability No, it's not that they're lacking. It's just that the basis of some of the opinions that you're given uh haven't been established on the record. You haven't held yourself out as an arborist, for instance. So, it
is a relevant inquiry. So, why don't we take a moment share that >> with with Mr. Rayar? >> Oh, you have you have multiple copies here. Then you can you can keep going. Well, >> yes, I do. >> You don't hand them out to the board
yet. >> Okay. Mr. Joel, if if you could just identify that with particularity for the record. >> Yeah, just for the record, what Mr. Quick just handed out is it says tree owners manual for the northeastern and
midwestern United States and on the top leftand corner it indicates that this has been published by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service North Eastern Area State and Private Forestry and it has a date of November
2008 and so the issue will be under the board rule whether whether or not the board can take judicial notice of this document. If the board takes judicial notice of the document, then it would seem to me that Mr. Quick could rely on
the information in the document to support his testimony. >> It we haven't yet seen it. Can you tell me if there's any information contained in that that isn't directly attributable to that source to that agency? In other words, it's a it's >> it's not like last hearing when
>> attaching articles from other sources. It's that's the forestry service >> at least >> work product. >> That's what it appears to me to be. >> Okay. So then as as a preliminary ruling >> Well, let's why don't you wait to hear from Mr. Rayar and see what he thinks
about it. Happy Christmas. Mr. Rayar, I object to the document in the present form. This document perhaps if it were complete might not be objectionable. But
for example, >> I forgot to mention, right, it's got page 1, 2, 23, 22, 24, and 25. So there were selected pages from it. >> Correct. And part of the section
on page 24 which doesn't start on page 24. It starts on page >> 23 >> or >> probably 23. >> Oh, is there a 23? >> Is is there an indication in the table of contents of what the total number of pages are? >> Yes.
>> Yes. 35. >> Okay. Mr. Quick, did you access this online? Yes. >> Okay. Uh then with respect to that objection, I think the way we'll handle it is I'm going to let Mr. Quick proceed and rely upon this prior to your
opportunity to conduct cross-examination. We'll take a recess and if you want to review the entirety of the document online to see if the excerpts are somehow uh misleading relative to the entire document, we'll do that. >> Well, they're absolutely misleading because
>> how do you know that if you haven't seen entirey of the document >> because the title of the section on page 24 and Mr. Drill says there is a page 23 someplace here but I don't have it. >> No. Um
>> 23. I see it. Page 24 says protecting trees from construction damage. >> Okay. Careful tree protection will help you avoid the expense and heartache of later repairing or removing the trees.
But then the pages which proposed to show how you protect the trees from structure damage >> aren't here. >> It's on page 25. And so he talks about the pro he's he's
presented to you what is a protected root zone and then has not presented to you has not presented to you what you're supposed to do to protect the trees and as you know your ordinance
in part provides what you're supposed to do to protect the trees. So, I don't know what the USDA has to say about that subject because he's giving us an incomplete document and it would be unfair for me to have to try to access this on the internet. And then what do I
do? >> How do I cross him from the internet? >> How? >> Unless I can project it on the screen. >> How how would it be different than if he handed you the complete document >> right now? >> Then I would cross-examine him from the complete document. Are you saying you
you don't have a device that >> gives you internet access? >> Oh. >> Oh, so you're going to give me time to access the internet? >> Yeah. >> And then check everything he represents? >> The same amount of time you'd need to do that digitally that you would have if you were sitting here with the document to page through. If you need a little
bit more time to do that, yes, we would accommodate that. >> Well, then I would object to his using this document till I can access the entire document. >> Okay. So then >> and and what I have is an iPhone.
>> We we we're going to let Mr. Quick go and then we'll take a recess. You can take the time you feel you need to be in a position to cross-examine him. It actually makes better sense for you, Mr. Ray Martin to have him done with his testimony. So, you know exactly what you need to do relative to that document to
satisfy yourself that you're ready to cross-examine him. >> Well, fairness and completeness makes the best sense of all >> and I think we're I think we're accommodating that to the interests of all concerned. We have to it's a balance, Mr. Rayar. So, Mr. Quick,
please proceed. Uh well, hold on. So, as as a preliminary finding, I I'm ruling that the uh the document has it been marked? >> No, it hasn't been marked yet. Um >> can we put an ID on it? Just so >> Why don't we mark it for ID only at this
point as P10 just because um yeah, it might be end up >> going in. So, P10 for ID only at this point. >> Okay. is a is is as a preliminary matter a document that pursuant to our rules is something that the board can rely upon and take judicial notice of the
information contained therein. Is is there a motion by any board member >> concerning that decision? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I don't think that it's fair to um have Mr. Ramar try and access a 35page document from a phone that's, you know, 4 in x 6 in and be able to
have to go back and cross-examine Mr. Quick. >> Okay. Is that a motion? >> Make a motion to overrule you. >> Is there a second? >> Okay. Mr. Hagen's on the second. Any discussion? >> Mr. Chair, I just think that Mr. Rayar should be given enough time. But I I
don't see a problem with um Mr. Quip going ahead now with portions that he has as long as Mr. Rimmer has the time to access the rest of the portions of it to do the cross examination. >> Okay. Anyone else want to be heard on that? >> So, what does a yes Will this
>> a yes would be to o overrule the initial ruling and to exclude the board from relying on the information in P10. >> So Fran roll call >> and just if you overrule the chairman's preliminary
>> reverse >> just if you reverse it that also means that Mr. Quick is not going to be able to rely on the information in the document at this time >> until Mr. Rayar was given the adequate opportunity >> until he's given a full and complete
document because >> well it would it would be subject to Mr. >> Quick reintroducing it at a later date at a later time. >> Correct. >> If he doesn't bring it up again and so maybe that would happen, maybe it wouldn't. And it would seem to me that
>> entitled he'd be entitled to come back. >> Okay. So it might get he Mr. Quick might would be entitled in my opinion if you overrule the ruling to come back at the next hearing session >> with a full document >> with a full document and
>> and Mr. Rayar has has reviewed Correct. >> Okay. So, a yes is to reverse grand. Roll call, please. >> Okay. To reverse a motion to reverse the chairman's preliminary ruling. >> That's excuse, Miss Alper.
>> Uh, I don't think it should be reversed, but I think that Mr. Ramar should be given enough time to review the remaining portions of the document if he wants to use that for cross-examining. >> Is that a yes or a yes or no? >> I don't
>> Well, an attorney without a decision and I don't think it should be reversed. >> That's a no. >> That's a no. >> No. >> Okay. >> No, >> Mr. Hagen. >> Yes. Miss Pavlini,
>> yes. Miss Padichi, >> yes. >> Mr. Plaza, >> no. >> Okay. So, the ruling is reversed. So, under the ruling, you're not going to be able to testify tonight about this, but again, unless
I think the chair should make a ruling, I'm only giving advice. My advice would be, since Mr. Rayar is the one who objected that Mr. Quick should be given the opportunity to provide the whole document to Mr. Rayar and then at the next continued hearing session he should
have the opportunity to then after he's given him the whole document >> come back and try it again. That's my advice. So the board has to make a ruling on that. So my preliminary ruling on that would be that on on given the basis of the objection which was one for
completeness I I concur with the suggestion of Mr. Drill. So being that that document that was marked P10 is out uh and that it's out for now but that obviously forms the basis of a lot of
your testimony. Uh, do you want to cease at this time >> and go to storm water and then at the next hearing session come back and do the trees? >> Um, >> or proceed without it. It's your right to proceed without it. >> No, no. I I think I'm relying heavily on
that document. So, yes. Yes. >> So, you want to suspend the tree testimony for now and you're going to come back on that? Okay. Are you ready to proceed to another portion of your public comment that doesn't involve the trees? Can you can you give me a little break and uh take some other people and
then I'll come back up with uh reorganized here with I I'm ready to do it. I just >> We'll just What do you need? A couple five minutes. >> Um why don't we take a fivem minute recess and then tea up the power? >> Yeah, let's get it going because you won't be able to do it if other people are talking. So all right, five minute recess and then we're going to come back
with the continuation of Mr. Quick's presentation. Excuse me. He's videotaping private citizens having a conversation by the bathroom. That's intimidation. >> Check this phone. Should
I >> one second? No, hold on. >> All right, we on. >> Yes, sir. All right, we're back on the record. >> Okay, just when we were off the record, a member of the public um complained
that someone is videotaping people. I will say this, there people taking pictures in here. There people videotaping. There's a New Jersey Supreme Court case that says there's a constitutional right to take pictures and videotape. If you believe that you're intimidated or something, there's
a police officer in the back. You can ask him if there's a problem. But I'm telling you that everyone in the room has a constitutional right under New Jersey case law to video to take pictures as long as they don't disturb anyone like with bright lights or
anything like that. So as far as the board is concerned, my advice is the board cannot stop anyone from taking pictures or videotaping where they could be infringing on someone's civil rights. So take it up with with someone else, not the board. That's my advice.
Mr. Chair, at the break, >> and if you're going to take that up with someone, can you take it out of the room? >> At the break, I went to my car. I got my iPad. I looked up the uh entire document
um that Mr. Quick is referring to as P10 for ID. And uh the missing pages are not pertinent to what Mr. uh Quick uh is
presenting and therefore uh in the interest of fairness, I'm withdrawing my objection now that I've had the opportunity which the board gave me to look at the entire document. >> Okay. So then that means P10 is now in on consent. >> Right. So P10 is now in on consent. Is
that correct, Mr. Ramar? >> Yes. >> Okay. So without having >> Okay. So, hold on. So, Fran, you now have to put a P10 tag onto the document. So, can someone get one of these documents down to Fran, please? So just to be clear, P10 is now up the
document entitled Tree Owners Manual for the North Eastern and Midwestern United States published by the United States Department of Agriculture is now in evidence as exhibit P10. And that is the portion of the document that we have, which is the the cover page, the table
of contents, pages one, two, and then I'm going to put the pages in order. They're out of order here. 22 23 24 and 25. >> Okay. So that's in. All right. Mr. Quicky, you can proceed. >> Thank you. I I was trying to describe I
believe the uh protected root zone as described by the uh the Forest Service. Um so I I took the diameter of the tree as described basically from the print and it seems to suggest that I can do
one and a half times that diameter. So I was I believe at a a 24 25 inch tree and I I half that roughly if my math is still close at 12. So I'm I'm I'm at 36 37 feet for the protected root zone. I
that I'm sorry in that calculation it says to change it to feet. >> Is that one and a half times they convert to feet. Okay. >> Yes. I'm sorry I did that. Um and and that would be the zone that they recommend no disturbance whatsoever.
So, taking one of my better examples in the tall oak tree, that would put it 37 feet from the property line into the buffer, which not only encounters the swale, but also the detention basin, as several of these trees do with that
protected root zone. >> Does that make some sense? Are you in a position to identify which of the Dows that applies to? Can you go through them and tell us which ones are going to be encroached upon based on that calculation in P10?
>> Surely. >> Um if if we're if we're talking about the swale affecting it, it would seem to be uh all the trees from
1 through 8 approximately. And there's a group of four in the ones number five. Um >> and then the rest >> the rest are are um two of them are
marked for take down by the applicant and the others are are pines that that would be affected depending on their diameter to reach the uh the detention base. >> Okay. Are are two of the dials marked for
takedown? >> The these were shown just because they were in the buffer zone and I I was trying. Yes. >> So 11 and 12 are indicated on CO6 is yes marked for takedown. >> Big X, right? >> Okay.
>> The next part of the document that I wanted to rely on was I'm not sure if Mr. Remar seen it would be changing the grade. >> We're going to try to put it up on the screen here. >> What page? Just what page?
>> It is page 25. >> So there, >> by the way, do you have now that this is in evidence, why don't you hand them out to all the board members? You have extra copies. >> I think I did. Oh. Thank you.
>> I'm sorry. I should have done that. >> That may be all we have right now. The next section of the article that I'd like to refer to is called Changing the Grade. It's a short paragraph. It's probably a little hard to read up there. And it states, "Adding adding or
removing as little as 2 in of the soil in the PRZ zone can kill a tree. To minimize damage, consult an arborist about methods to protect the roots if fill is needed or whatever.
And I would suggest that a swale within seven feet of many of these trees that is going to change the grade uh at least by two feet both in some areas uh raising the grade and some areas going
below the grade. um would certainly offer a significant challenge based on this article uh for them to survive or suffer significant damage or to
show serious trouble in in a in a couple of years. And I I don't believe that the applicant has presented any type of evidence that these trees are protected. Uh their own perhaps version of
uh a certified argus to um to state that these trees will be in relatively uh safe environment after the construction activity is finished. the the plans. Next, the next little
group of of challenges for these trees on the plans is is um some white pines. There's five of them a little further down the road. And uh they they are significant size as you can see our our
lovely model there standing under them. But they are nice mature trees and and they have a uh a a giant canopy that is um very accommodating as far as as blocking the view. And and the plans by the applicant
in this particular little area show um three things happening. actually in the in the whole line where they want to put the u the fence they will I guess every six feet uh be
drilling down 3 feet and plunking a cement post a cement base for a post and in some cases it's right through these trees under these trees and around these trees um also in this particular area of the
the small white pines there is um slated to plant some other trees, but it pract in the plan show it's practically on top of these trees. Actually, they're within the circles of the drip lines of
the trees. So, that seems to me to suggest that they're going to shear from the ground up to eight or 10 feet, whatever trees they're going to plant there, and uh plump these other ones down there. And I I can't see how that is beneficial to the life of of these
these trees. There there's a little depiction of what they showed on their uh their construction drawing for a a fence footing to to lend credence to the the one foot cement post and at 3 ft deep. It's probably not the one they intended
for the uh the stockade fence, but that's the only one I could find on the plans. So with with all this stress, I'm um I'm advising I'm scared that a lot of these trees will be seriously
compromised and and the effect may not be known for for quite a while. You dig a 4 foot ditch in a root zone um for 300 some feet and that's bad enough, but then to have a swale that changes the grade by two feet mostly all along these
trees is is just very significant event for their their life cycle. >> Are are you able to tell us just relative to your model and you've already indicated that 11 and 12 are indicated on the plans as being taken down. So as to the remaining trees represented by the dowels, can you tell
us how many of those >> uh you you have a concern about >> but how many of the dowels are shown in the plan to remain and how many of those dowels are shown to be taken down? >> Three of the dowels are shown to be
taken down these back three here. >> 10 11 and >> 12. So your testimony is that on the plan 10 and 11 and 12 are shown as being taken down and all the rest of those bowels on your exhibit are shown as remaining. >> Correct.
>> And of those remaining trees, you have concerns as to all of them relative to the disturbance from the project. According to according to the article, if we're not only taking two inches of soil and changing the grade of these existing trees, we're adding and
subtracting as much as 2 feet through throughout these significant trees. I'm not even mentioning the other 20 little cedar trees. >> We're just talking about the dowels. >> No, no, I I hear you. >> So, is it going to impact all of the remaining dowels? >> Yes. >> Okay. That's what I was trying to get. >> So, if you have 19 dowels on that exhibit, correct?
>> 18 or 19. >> 18. >> I'm not sure. We have a multiple >> because you have an A and B. >> You have an A and B. >> A B and a C actually. I believe he testified before he had 19. But just at some point, can you tell us how many dowels are on there so we could take the number of dowels? >> Sure.
>> Subtract three, 10, 11, and 12. >> Those should be the ones that are shown on the plan to remain. And what you're testifying to is that it's based on what you've >> read from exhibit P10. You believe that the remaining, whether it's 16, 15, or
whatever, they're all going to end up dying. Is that your testimony? >> Yes. >> Or be seriously compromised. The the um the um the area of these two lots is is
very uh much comprised of a shale, a short uh hard shell foundation. So if you dig down two feet, and I'm very familiar with both lots, uh, you hit solid shale. And what I'm
trying to refer to is that you can see the tree roots, uh, are not able in many cases to penetrate below that. So they rely much more on that two-foot ground level for their stability and structure than
maybe a normal anchoring tree would be. For instance, I have a silver maple on the other side and I've measured its root above ground or along the ground at at 20 ft. So it's it's a very similar situation in the same area.
So we we have um things. >> Is there anything else you have to add on the point about the trees? >> Uh that's what I'm just trying to wrap up here and get up. Um we we have the two phantom trees. I
don't know if those were in some way going to stay or are going to be taken down. Um again based your testimony based on what you've read is all the trees shown in your exhibit >> 10 11 and 12 are shown to be removed.
All the rest are going to either be they're either going to die or be seriously compromised due to the incursion of the swale andor the fence posts. That's your that's your >> the fence post and the retention basin. >> Retention base. Okay. Go ahead. Um,
the other the last point I want to make is while I was on the the trees, um, I don't know if it was noticed the last time, I don't know if I have a slide, but there is another phantom object that's not on the
plans, and that's a, uh, 15 foot, at least a 15t patch of wetlands at the rear of this site on the applicant's property. And I don't know if they should have put that on or not, but it it is not there.
>> Mr. How do you know that it's wetlands? >> I I guess from being in there and knowing that it's been swampy over the years, we did a lot of help with our neighbors. Uh it seems to have the three necessary ingredients for wetlands. The vegetation, the cattails, and the cabbage. It has the water and the water
source there and it has the soil to be qualified I believe as >> is that on the border of your property. >> Well, it's it's more actually in the corner more in the area of where the easement the gas easement is but a little bit in front of the uh a little
bit in front of the tree line. I believe if you look back in some previous pictures you might catch a glimpse of an indication of that. Where exactly is this? >> Um, how do I describe it to you? In the very rear
>> in in the back of the property. So the southern end of the property >> all the way back right where the where the easement cuts through the gas ement cuts through on the map >> there's a a patch of uh >> do you know if this has been designated a wetlands or this is just
>> I don't think that the applicant has chosen to mark that in his letter of intent to the >> but I you know I could be >> interpretation >> letter of interpretation not the That's correct. >> Right. So, I don't know. Just like I'm
saying that these trees aren't there. I I don't know why the wetlands isn't on there. And maybe it's that it's not significant enough. I you know, I don't know the public, >> but it it doesn't seem to appear on the >> All right. Uh
I think this is in part redundant and in part not correct because Mrs. Quick presented a photograph of an area to the rear. I think it may be the same photograph. In response to which we I
think presented again the April 3rd, 2012 LOI from the Department of Environmental Protection in which they said that they actually visited and walked the site. >> So what Mr. Quick is now doing as a lay
person is giving testimony that should come from an expert that's actually contradicted by the LOI we've presented and is in this board's record. >> Mr. Ramar is right. I'm not an expert and I'm suggesting that they perhaps the
planners or whoever missed that just as they missed these two trees here on their plan. >> Okay. All right. Uh before we move off of trees, do any board members have any questions for Mr. Quick concerning the testimony thus far? How about the board professionals? Any
questions concerning what we've covered so far? >> Okay. Yeah, >> I think I do have a question I'd like to ask Mr. Quick. >> Mr. Quick, should I uh take the point from your testimony that what you're saying is the root protection zone is
going to be injured by the grading associated with the swale on that side of the property adjacent to your property line because it's within what the USDA describes as the use um as the
root protection zone and that the amount of soil that they warn against removing will be disturbed in the root protection zone. Is that essentially what you're saying to the board? >> I think that's a fair statement for helping me. Yes. >> Uh thank you. >> Recalculate. Yes.
>> Thank you, Mr. Bish. Uh while we're on the topic of trees, any cross? >> No. >> Okay. Anyone? Mr. Simon, you got cross on what's been testified to so far? Okay. So, do you want to move to storm water then? >> Can I take a few minutes? >> You got to set up again. Let somebody
else go in. >> No, no. Just we're gonna just You can set up. We're not going anywhere. >> Okay. >> No, no, no. >> We're gonna stay on. Take your time. So this is our theory board exhibit ever. >> My god.
>> Mr. While you get set up. Okay. But so from housekeeping. We have Mr. Quick's PowerPoint that I believe he's going to want to move into evidence as P1. Can that go in on consent? >> Well, maybe he needs a chance to look at everything.
>> I don't know that we reviewed all the pages. >> Okay. So, you want to hold that till the next you you can review that and then at the next hearing see if we have any between this hearing and the next hearing see if you have any problems. See if you can work it out or the board will have to make a ruling on that. Okay.
>> Just like we did with Mrs. Quick. I'm sure we can work it out. >> It runs in the family. >> The next question is the exhibit on the table. I assume Mr. Quick wants that exhibit to be moved into evidence. Do you work >> there? Any objections though? Sure.
>> So, Mr. Ramar, what about the uh I'm going to call it the three-dimensional tree exhibit for lack of a better term. >> Well, now now that we've clarified what it is and what the source of the information is, we don't have any objection. >> Okay. So Fran, like it or not,
that exhibit's going in. Bring it down to Fran. We'll have to figure out exactly what we're going to do with it. >> That was deliberate. >> But we do have we do have pictures of it. So we will get those pictures into the uh into the evidence. >> What's that one?
>> Does that have a number yet? >> That's going to be P11 in evidence in evidence. The threedimensional tree exhibit. And that is in evidence on consent. >> Mr. Quick, before we get off this topic, make sure Mr. Mr. Ramar has a full copy,
a full paper copy of the tree PowerPoint and make sure I have a full copy of the tree powerpoint. >> Do not get one of the plan at this point. >> Mr. Simon, you want one? >> You all you queued up with this drainage now? >> Yeah.
>> So, on the screen. I'm sorry. One more before we leave it. I'm sorry. >> Mr. Chairman, we just have a a short video shot of the uh trees and and uh sort of just a walk back of the the
protection that it does offer us. >> It's a video depiction of a portion of the applicant's property. >> No, it's on >> on your side shooting towards the the applicant's property from your property and you videoraph it? >> Yes, I did. Okay.
>> And when did you do that? >> Um perhaps four days ago. >> Okay. And it still it still accurately depicts the conditions out there today. >> The rain. Yeah, it might have helped a little bit. No, >> before you play it, please. >> Mr. Ray, do you have any objections?
>> No. >> Based on Okay. >> It this just goes again with, you know, what the buffer means to me and what these trees mean to me. And >> in the >> Can you play it? >> It doesn't. There's no uh there's no sound and it's mostly just the uh the tops of the trees. And you can see in
spots how well it does block out the sun. a lot of places in the summer and how really long this 300T tree line is. >> So, you're going from the back to the front to the back of your property. >> Yes. >> Were you walking quick? Is that how you
were walking? Okay. Is it looking back to the beginning now? >> No. Well, I don't know if the video is >> finished. I think >> so. Now you're about to go into your drainage analysis and up on the screen
it says ISPR drainage analysis public comment dated August 4th 2015 Christopher Quick and your address and I assume that you're going to you want to present this PowerPoint to the board now on drainage. >> Yes, please. >> And after you're done I assume you're going to want to move that PowerPoint
down >> if it's acceptable. Of course. >> Could you make that full screen? >> I forgot how to do it. >> Thank you. Um why it matters to me. Um
this is a a terrifically terrible area for uh for water groundwater for for my house and for this this general area. Um I have two sump pumps that often go quite a bit. They can run
um for minutes on end and they can they can pump 8 to 10 times an hour. Um they even have a a a ditch in the front yard that I I try to even get lower with to get the water out before it even gets to
the house. And and when I when we lose power, unfortunately, there's there's times when it backs up very fast. I I I'm just trying to make the point that it's a very wet area and it's a little hard to control. And that's why I want to make sure that um every consideration is given to the storm
water management plan and uh and it's uh review. Um some of this might get a little tedious. I I don't know if I could just put it on a screen or you want me to read this. Um >> can I make a suggestion?
>> I think you should read it. If you want to get it into the into the record >> forthcom Okay. forthcoming events contain comments pertaining to key aspects of both the Burners Township Ordinance regarding storm water management and the state's storm water
management regulations. The analysis of the ISBR storm water management report. The most revision that we found in the office was uh October 8th, 2014 and is based on a preliminary review of the project storm water management. This
presentation aims to highlight important aspects of the design which do not appear to comply with the requirements in both the ordinances and the regulations. These highlights are therefore intended to further review by the warrant further review by the board's engineers.
At a minimum, the uh the project drainage features must comply with Bernest Township ordinances, Somerset County ordinances, and the state of New Jerseys. The the first um foot footpath is is
Bernest Township Ordinance 212321. All development applications shall include drainage facilities capable of providing for storm water as described below. and E is required for approval for drainage structures shall be obtained from the appropriate municipal, county,
state, and federal agencies and offices or such approval shall be a condition of preliminary approval. When seeking final approval, the drains plan must be approved by the Burns Township Planning Board and not deferred to another agency. Definitions used throughout this uh
report. Uh the report refers to Mr. storm water management report prepared by for the ISPR AWZ engineering revised October 8 2014 SBPM New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Storm Water
Best Management Practices Manual and 78 uh part of New Jerseys Administrative Code on storm water and management in the handbook. It will be referenced just a few times. And that refers to the uh the county public works center. Storm water management measures for
major developments shall be developed to meet the erosion control, groundwater recharge, storm water runoff, storm water runoff quantity and storm water runoff quality standards at New Jersey administrative
code against 78- 5.4 4 and 5.5 to the maximum extent practical practical these standards shall be met by incorporating nonstructural storm water management strategies at NJAC 7.8-
5.3 into the design. These measures alone are not sufficient to meet the standards. Structural storm water management measures at the administrative code 7.85.7 necessary to meet these standards shall be incorporated. And we're just trying
this slide is just to set the overall framework for our discussion. As seen in the regulations, we're concerned about storm water quantity, storm water quality, groundwater recharge. These requirements can be obviously met by nonstructural techniques, the I guess
preferred method, and structural measures. After that, areas of interest, groundwater recharge. The applicant asserts it does not have to comply. In the index in the U
storm water manual prepared by Mr. Khan, he lists uh recharge worksheet NA not applicable. Proof of groundwater recharge standards are met, not applicable. Uh storm water runoff quantity uh broad
considerations structural issue non-structural storm water runoff quality uh concerns mostly with the suspended solids and storm water concerns. Um, storm water runoff in this case, proposed storm water runoff generally proposed the proposed site is comprised
of two separate areas or systems. Parking lots, off-site runoff, the front portion of our property, front half of the ISBR project. They've sort of categorized it into uh and he's got these flowing directly into the count county storm water management system.
and the other half would deal with the structures, the roof of of the structure, the off-site runoff, the rear portion of our property uh back in western portions of the ISBR project flow to the wetlands and ultimately flow offsite into the county
storm water management system. Um that that'll be a little bit demonstrated on a slide. I was just kind of wording storm water runoff quantity ground recharge the proper statute uh New Jersey 78-5.4
4 A2I the design engineer shall using the assumptions and factors for storm water runoff and groundwater recharge calculations at again NJC AC 78 5.6 Six. either demonstrate
through um you demonstrate hydraulic and hydraologic and hydraulic analysis that the site and the stormwater management measures maintain 100% of the average annual preconstruction groundwater
recharge volume for the site or demonstrate through hydraologic and hydraulic analysis that the increase in storm water runoff volume from preconstruction to post construction for the two-year storm is infiltrated.
The next slide is actually a a cut right from Mr. Khan's uh submission. >> It's page 12 of his uh 11. >> No, that's slide 11. It's page 12, I believe, of the storm water management.
>> 4.9. Yes. >> So, here uh Mr. Con states that groundwater recharge is being promoted by the detention basins and the overland relief of the runoff to the basins. However, due to the inadequate permeability rates of the present soils,
recharge is not being accounted for nor is required on such permeability rates. Existing soils under the proposed basins are low permeable silty lone material. storm water runoff quantity ground
recharge. The applicant has claimed that the low infiltration rates on the site mean that the project does not require to meet the recharge requirements. There is not an exception for low recharge rates unless the New Jersey groundwater recharge spreadsheet
indicates the soil provided no recharge. He is correct. This is the case for the Croin soils on site but not the remaining soils that pen in the reill. Um, I object I'm not quite sure what Mr. Quick is
doing here. There's a lot of slides that I object to because they're redundant. He's just reading things into the record that are either a matter of statute, a matter of the New Jersey Administrative Code, or part of the stormwater
management report. So that's already in the record. And to the extent that he maybe is going to make an argument one way or the other about whether we comply or not, he hasn't established any qualifications
to enable him to challenge anything. So I I move that the the entire presentation, at least as far as we've heard it so far, is completely irrelevant.
duplicative and the witness is not competent to do any more than put in the record what's already in the record. >> But h hasn't he just laid out the requirements as established by New Jersey statute and administrative code and then began to compare those
requirements with this with Mr. Collins report to point out what he feels are insufficiencies in that report is is >> I don't think he's pointed out any insufficiencies. I just >> take a look at slide 12 that's up there. He he went through he had he mainly
cited the administrative code and then that last sentence as I take what his argument is he says I'm reading the second sentence there is not an exemption for low recharge rates unless the NJ groundwater recharge spreadsheet indicates the soil provided no recharge and his argument is this is the case for
croin soils on site but not the remaining soils pen and revo I assume when we see the next slide he's going to have further support for them >> I assume that language up there is simply a quote from either the NJAC or from Mr. Kra report. >> Yeah. Where did the language on slide 12
come from? Is that your own language or does that come from >> Slide 12 is um my language. Slide 11 was Mr. Kry. >> Well then I object on the grounds of expertise. Mr. Quick hasn't established
that he even knows what a quotin soil is. So I think the question is how do you know that it's the case for croin soils but not the remaining soils pen and how do you know that the remaining soils on the site are in fact pen and reo he wants to know the basis for your knowledge
>> it's it's listed in his report >> well then to the extent it's listed in the report this is completely redundant >> no either he's citing the report or not citing the report now he says he's paraphrasing the report >> for for that basis the objection's overruled if he's taking the information
the standards from New Jersey statute statute and administrative code if he's applying it to information in the report such as the types of soils that are located there and can independently confirm through public sources of information
how that code and statute applies he's allowed to make the argument it's not redundant we yes yes we if he were to sit here and simply read Mr. Khan's report that would be redundant but he's excerpting Mr. Khan's report and pointing out in in his opinion based on
statute and administrative code where it's deficient. >> He hasn't told us where in Mr. Khan's report Croin Pen or Reville soils are are. He's now said he's paraphrased the report. We don't even know that he has the expertise to paraphrase an expert's
report. >> The one was a direct excerpt. It was direct quote from >> not this page. He said it wasn't. >> This is his own work. He says so again. Can you explain? I think Mr. wants to know the basis of his the bottom line of his objection is how do you know what
what page of the report shows which soils are on the site and how do you know that >> one is permeable and one is >> that is the case for croton but not pen and rever includes a chart in the back of his uh his booklet and he lists some of those
soils there and we're we're also searching for a geo techchnical report that was said to be submitted to the office um but there is no record of that.
>> So put what is the point that what's the takeaway point for the board from slide 12? What do you want the board to to know about slide 12? In the opinion of of the information contained here, he's exempted himself from all groundwater
recharge on the site and it's not permitted by state statute. >> But that that's even a conclusion about what Mr. Khan did. That would take a another expert to say I believe this is what Khan did or he misinterpreted the
data. Well, that that >> he's not even telling us. >> That's for you to argue in your closing perhaps, but he's allowed to look at the report, draw the inferences of the plain meaning of the language contained in the report and make arguments based on it. >> Well, first of all, none of this
language has plain meaning, but secondly, he hasn't told us where we we can't even challenge it. We don't even know from what page. >> He was referencing the index before. I I I was following along with it where it said recharge rates not applicable. So if it's if Mr. Khan's designating
recharge rates is not applicable, you don't think it's fair for this member of the public to assume that Mr. Khan then relieve the applicant of having to establish recharge rates? >> We don't know if that's true or false, but that's what that's what he's that's his position and you can cross-examine
him on it. And I imagine ultimately that when the board gets around to questioning, they probably even want to question Mr. Quinn about it and not I mean yeah, Mr. Quinn about it and not Mr. Quick about it. But those those are the steps. >> All right. >> Do you agree? I mean, you're ruling. I'm
just giving advice, but I >> So So the summary of presenting this to say that the the test um for this for the recharge isn't required. Infers that no infiltration occurred before the construction. So adding a parking lot
has no effect. It's it can't be the same. does recharge now and and he has to do it later. Storm water runoff quantity structural concerns. The on-site collection system is designed for the 25-year storm. The
detention system is designed for the 100redyear storm. Although seemingly permissible under firm section 2123.3 design storms for Bernard Township, no exception is made in New Jersey
administrative code 78 or the best practices manual or the handbook. Moreover, how does the applicant propose to achieve the required performance if a flow can't reach the detention facility? And where we're going with this is that the the basis of Mr. Khan's information.
He designed this on a 25-y year storm capacity. So the volume of water that has to flow through those pipes given the 25 year storm, that's what he designed it for. So at the 100redyear level is a is a greater storm capacity,
but it has if the greater storm occurs, there's no predictable way for the water to reach the detention. >> Need to ask clarification question. is what you're arguing that what they designed is permissible under the Bernard Township ordinance, but it's not
permissible under the best practices management handbook. >> The the township code seems to give it credence, but maybe that wasn't the original intent. It does appear that it has to be sized properly for the 100red-year storm. Maybe. >> Well, again, I'm sure the board's going
to want to ask Mr. Quinn that when >> Absolutely. I'm sure he's going to tear me to shreds, but >> keep on going. >> Okay. I just wanted to see if that was the point we're making. >> Can we just establish for the record what Mr. Quick's qualifications are, if
any, on storm water management or on reading this kind of report? I'm entitled to have in the record if he has any qualifications or not. >> Mr. Mr. Quick, are you holding yourself out as an expert in in storm water management? >> Absolutely no.
>> Okay. And you don't have any specific qualifications or licensing in that field? >> Correct. >> Okay. Is that satisfactory? >> The uh next portion of the report I'd like to focus on the test pits.
Um there's sort of a layout here. And the test pits are it's there's a table in the back. I I don't maybe they didn't. >> The board doesn't have copies of this. >> Yeah, they do. They do. You keep on going. I always want to find the public page number just to keep things rolling >> in in the very back.
>> Um the uh the test pits are are precursors to determining water levels in in the different portions of the area. Um, the part I' I'd like to focus on, and we
will touch on all of them, but the part I'd like to focus on would be the area where the detention basin is supposed to be going, and that would be, if you can see it up there, 8, four, and seven. Um, test pit 8, according to Mr. Khan's
report, just right, the yellow one back there, um, shows that that he did a a se he determined seasonal high ground depth at at 6 and 1/2 ft down. Um, no problem
here. Moving to the north number four, which is the area under the future detachment basin, for some reason was only dug to six feet and that's in his report. You know, if I was a person that didn't want a lie and
didn't want to didn't want a fib, I should say, and didn't want an adverse answer, uh when a few feet away, I found water at at 6 and a quarter, I would only dig six feet. Um but this is the
number four is where he says he encountered no none groundwater. Zero. Um, and this is the shallowest of all the test pits that he dug. These test pits do have dates that spanned that did
span three years in time. He did several ones in in different years. Uh, maybe, you know, two or three in different years. Um, test pit seven states it was dug to a depth of 9 ft. Uh there's a footnote in
his his notation that the sewer line was ruptured at approximately 4 ft and also that no groundwater was encountered. Um I have a problem with that because I was there on that day and when they ruptured
the sewer line they had only gone down four feet and very stinky water started to come out. Um, it's my recollection that they stopped digging and I don't believe that maybe it's a a miscalculation in his notes, but he did
not go down to the 9 foot level as his report would seem to suggest. Um, I actually went over to help him stop the the sewer pipe leak because they were unfamiliar with that type of uh that type of system that we have in that area.
>> What location was that at? This is test. >> Okay. When you when you say that they went down to that the report says it went down to 9 and a half ft plus or minus, you're then referring to not just the test kit location but the individual test kit data sheets. >> Yes, that's what I went back to rely on
that numbers from. Yes. Um the the other issue here is the the tension basin sort of continues out of line with that 8,4 and seven. And if if you see where the driveway is there, um the driveway has since been moved. So,
it would seem that they would want to do a a test pit there to determine um what the ground level water would be there since it's so critical to the uh to the proper functioning of the
retention basin. Uh conclusion that the applicant has not performed sufficient test pit measures. The um seasonal high groundwater for seven and four is suspect in that no groundwater was detected while surrounding test pits the down and the
downgradient test pits it was detected as relatively shallow. A localized depression in the seasonal high groundwater at at four and seven is unlikely. At a minimum the groundwater upgradient from the wetlands would be at
least as high if not higher than that has been in the wetlands. And I again I it's my recollection that test pit 7 did not go any further than the seven than the 4 foot where they they broke the sewer mark.
Now, based on the uh the test bin information, we're we're going to touch a little bit on uh runoff quantity, the structural concerns, and and this is kind of going to the basins. The the invert the bottom of the basin, as Mr. Quinn taught me once, the front
is uh is marked at 253.3 and the number two basin at 253.6. And again the um in Mr. Khan's report 4.6 seasonal groundwater seasonal groundwater was determined by
on-site test kits as shown with it in the geotechnical analysis. Again I'm looking for that report in the areas of the proposed basin. Mr. Khan states a twoft minimum clearance has been maintained between the seasonal high
water elevation and the bottom of the detention basins. Um you can it says see the seasonal high groundwater elevations in the geotechnical analysis prepared by our office and attached. I did not find it.
Um it may have been hard to find but Mr. Sly and Fran did not seem to have a copy of it either. This this is an approximation and we can we can prove these numbers by looking at the uh where the CO2 sheet for where the
um the actual uh elevations are in in CO2 in approximate areas of of the uh test bit datas. So, we've recorded the dates um and the the elevations where
the approximate test pit numbers are and we've marked also Mr. Khan's numbers of where the seasonal high groundwater is. So subtracting those we have approximate approximate
252 252.5 elevations uh that we come up with um and so from the test bit data it appears the seasonal High ground level for the site is around 252.
It does not m does not appear that he did maintain the two foot minimum clearance that that he has stated he has. Going to leave that subject for more boring stuff. concerns with the spec specified
drainage areas as depicted in ED1 and PDA of the report. ED1 refers to the existing drainage area and PD1 I believe is postdevelopment. um delineations. We want to look at contours, attenuation,
um just sort of the process of of him being able to accumulate the water and release it slowly in order to comply with the uh with all the ordinances that uh that he has to. [Applause] You have to read it, right?
the the drainage area that they drew for these maps is is a little bit suspicious. Um, typically drainage areas uh boundary and contour lines cross each other at right ang right angles. However, the the delineation included in the report crosses the contours of a
number of 45deree angles. It's it's going to be a little hard to see, but sort of the red box area is is what we're referring to here. This is slide 22. I assume, but you told me this is a reproduction of part of these existing drainage area maps.
>> There there were. Yes, you have them there. They were in there included with the storm water management report. Yes, I think there were three altogether, three different types. and a larger version of of that uh map EDA uh refers to I don't know if you can
make it out well enough. It's it isn't that great. Um um what I'm going after on this slide uh you can sort of leave that up because it's not going to be much help. sort of in the uh the southeast corner the the
the the gradients and the the contour intervals are very confusing. It may be because it's a a conflicting computerenerated um item or not. I don't know. But uh uh this what I'm going to read is actually
on the next slide, but it it may help a little bit if I leave it there for now. Two sets of contours appear to have been used possibly with different contour intervals. The contours do not agree. In particular, on the southern end of the site, the contours cross each other.
Also in this area, well, those are just also in this area. Two sets of contours imply different directions of the surface gradient. There may be other flaws in the topographical data should be resolved to ensure a proper evaluation. This is just a larger view of that
southeast corner. Again, it's pretty hard to make out, but the squiggly lines that cross each other really shouldn't be. And again, this is this is how he broke up his evaluation with the different pages in the back of the uh
storm water management report. Um this is a a general part of the topographical map of the area. Um, if you can picture the the curl driveway at the at the top there is is pretty
much the existing driveway of the site. And we I'm just trying to give the overall impression that there there appears to be a lot more water infiltration that Mr. kind is accounted for because of the uh I'm trying to show with the arrows that the the difference
in the U heights at these levels would indicate that it's draining very much so to the the lowle property and particularly from the back it it appears that he's made no consideration for the water that will um head to his property
in in the back area Yeah, I don't know if you can see the some of the square boxes on the rear of our property are an elevation of 264 and uh right above the yellow area up top there is is 259. So there's
approximately a a 5 foot slope there. And in the back the bottom of the area, it it it shows like 260 and it's headed for in the back of the applicant shed area there 257 256 and then obviously
you know where the wetlands are there if it's you know 254 it's headed down Well, again more just definitions to read. I'm sorry. Um, storm water runoff quantity drainage system which was 7 col 8 5.4 3. In order to control storm water
runoff quantity impacts, the design engineer shall using the assumptions and factors for storm water runoff calculations at the admin administrative code 785.6 complete one of the following. So this presented a choice to Mr. kind of pick I
think one of four choices and he elected to pick this number three to uh design a management measure so that the post constructive peak runoff rates for the 2 10 and 100year storm events are 50 75 and 80%
respectively of the post construction construction peak runoff. The percentage is applied not only to to the post construction storm water runoff that is attributable to the portion of the of the site of which I'm reading too fast
here of which the proposed development or project is to be constructed. Um the applicant has stated that he he complied with number three. So that's what he uh he attempted to do. And these requirements will will generally
be aimed at reducing the runoff rates, cubic feet per second and such that you know he can store the water and then and slowly let it dissipate over the times. Um the rule that that section number three
says that the requirements he must use the the measuring along the portion of the site on which the development is constructed. Um, that's important because sometimes he seems to jump back and and grab some
some calculations from the the higher uh portions of our property. Um, and I'm sure again Mr. be the expert on that. Um, this whole thing again is aimed at drawing his attention to this and hopefully he has
some to making it correct if it's not. um runoff quantity drainage system. It appears the applicant has used a simple waiting measure to determine the peak flow reduction required when incorporating offsite drainage.
Applicant should document where in the regulations that this is permitted such as where in 7 colon 8 and the best practice practices manual that he's allowed to do this. The larger offsite drainage the quick property is
vegetated and contributes a smaller portion of the total flow as opposed to his impervious parking lot. Again, quantity attenuation slowing that water getting up. The storm water runoff calculations claim credit for
attenuation of off-site runoff. This ignores the possible future development of the adjacent site and its storm water being managed on site. If the adjacent site, the quick property, were to be developed, the storm water management system for the ISBR project would no
longer be compliant. The proposed drainage system should allow for the required attenuations to be met under both circumstances. U Mr. Khan has elected to build this swale and he's he's sending a lot of
that storm water right out to the street that comes off our property. And this sort of artificially reduces um some of his his needs. Uh a small section from Mr. Khan's report. Um
the red boxes show he's using 6.2 acres in his calculations. The RSBR lot is only 4.3. So he's sort of taking credit for some of the water coming from other sites. In addition, the regulation states that
the percentages apply only to post construction storm water runoff that is attributable to the portion of the site on which the pro proposed development or the project is to be constructed. It appears that they won't even be using
the entire 4.3 acres uh for that calculation either. Um the little blue circle shows that he's taking a a partial credit there um in his calculations.
Um and if they only used the development on site, that number would be closer to uh 100. Um again, this just seems to artificially reduce the pre-development basis for determining the post-development compliance with the
storm water reduction. Um, another item that we seem to have trouble with again in runoff quantity attenuation administrative code 7.8 5.6 A4. In computing storm water runoff
from all designed storms, the design engineer shall consider the relative storm water runoff rates and/or volumes of pvious and impervious surfaces separately to accurately compute the rates and the volume of runoff from the
site to calculate the runoff from unconnected imperous cover. um urban impervious area publication modifications. He he does have the resources to go to the uh NRCS technical release uh 55
um to uh employ those methods. Basically 32 says that you can't average pvious and impervious coverage together. Um and the best practices manual chapter 5 pages 5 through 12 also draw on that
subject. um the the national resource curve uh scale um I don't I guess not says that due to the nonlinear character of the the NRCS
oneoff equation and primarily the presence of the initial abstraction u the abstraction term inaccurate runoff estimates can result when the mixture of pvious and directly connected imperous surfaces within the drainage area or watershed
area are modeled with a weighted average NRCS curve. Um it discuss it discusses it a little more there also. Um the combination of imperous areas with pvious areas can imply a significant initial loss that may not take place.
The problem will be particularly acute for small rainfalls less than an inch or two where the large but incorrect initial loss can be 50% or more than the total rainfall. Okay. Storm water runoff quantity
attenuation. Again the issue the calculations make use of the weighted average that you assume this uh USDA natural resource conservation service curve amounts because of the impervious coverage areas are not directly connected. This may be appropriate under existing conditions. However, it is not
appropriate for the proposed conditions. This can be seen on page two of the hydro worksheets of Mr. K. Um note that some of the drainage areas are listed multiple times in both pvious and impervious areas. Um categories that are
used are are seem to be in the wrong places. Um uh I can refer to page three of the the two-year uh event. It appears to be a weighted average based on the the CN amounts on page two.
And again, this is confirmed when I look at the hydroad worksheets on some of the subchapters. I I can show some of this on the next slide where he's mixing the impervious
and pvious sections. He refers to using some of them in both areas. You'll see some common numbers and you just shouldn't be mixing them. the uh the curve numbers the factor used in the
calculation to determine the water mole um the the red line sort of divides the the factors used obviously for pergas and impervious the sheet above assumes that the uh the assumption design for
the 125 pages of calculations in his runoff report u that follow are using this material Um again if if you want to look at you want to know you can see a 2S uh which I I could go back to the training sheets
but I won't even do that. Um is used in in both sections of the uh previous and imperous coverage. Um and just while we're here the the 3S is is is the pre-development area that
includes my house and he's missing some And I don't have this slide to show it, but uh some of the areas he forgot to include the uh the structures on our property because he was considering some of the runoff that comes down that way.
Um so that may slightly affect his calculations also. Storm water runoff quantity again attenuation. The calculations make use of the approximate method to evaluate the attenuation from the wetlands. This reduces the reported value of the
runoff. The ISBR's engineer should document that this method is acceptable according to NJ78 and or the uh best practices manual. Furthermore, it should be uniformly
applied to both existing and proposed conditions. The storm water management plan should also document through calculations that the proposed plans will not adversely alter the wetland hydraology
which does not seem to be taken care of at all. And I don't know who looks at that. This is this is a chart again out of Mr. T stormwater book um existing versus
proposed runoff analysis and and he grabs a um in the in the red boxes here he he calculates his area of wetlands but the red boxes he uses a reduction factor and uh
he's already sent a lot of the storm water out to the street via the swale and I just don't see that this reduction factor is uh is permitted. um he plays with these numbers and I don't think he that I that he follows a
firm basis for doing that. All right. 37 again runoff quantity nonstructural concerns. nonstructural concerns are the um the retention basin and and ways that
he can help the project uh retain the water and preserve the the infiltration rate and and the the current methods. So he has a list of um well first I'll give you the rule that the New Jersey uh
statute administrative code 78 5.3 outlines nonstructural storm water management strategies. Uh in particular 5.3A states that to the maximum extent practical the standards in the code shall be met by incorporating
nonstructural storm water management strategies. He's supposed to uh implement as many of these as possible so that he can rely less on the structural facilities such as the basement.
This this this uh this non-structural strategy involves a uh the applicant discusses this on his pages 6 through eight uh where he he gives himself credit for um applying a
lot of these strategies. And um the appendix B uh includes a report uh um where he scored himself on the uh NJP uh
point system to uh to the quantity compliance. Any claims on this sheet need to be documented. Uh this the spreadsheet where he scored himself is not well documented and the uh
the next slide. Uh some of the uh again in the same boat some of the imports to the NSP spreadsheet do not really meet the definitions in the manual that accompanies the spreadsheet. Um he has uh
in a couple of those instances sort of repeated the same um the same issues that he's that he's taking credit for something. In other words, he's taking credit for something more than once. Um uh items A and B specific definitions
are included for disconnected impervious vegetated conveyances, but the amounts claimed do not meet the definitions. Imperous surfaces such as he claimed he's done have not really been disconnected or broken up. In fact, the opposite is true. All impervious
surfaces are served by only two point discharges. One directly to the pipe conveyance center and the other through the roof pipe of the uh discharge to the wetlands. I I consider that uh other uh runoff quantity nonstructural concerns are are
there um the uh other inputs to the spreadsheet are incorrect or incomplete. Item B the site has been been identified as being in state planning area two when contrarily um the way I look at it NJP grow identifies the site as being in
plan in uh planning area three. This this changes the required set point ratios to uh to be in a spreadsheet. Item three is just referring to construction vehicles uh that they they don't they minimize the soil compaction
and and uh he's mentioned that but I don't know what he can do to implement that. And I I wonder what specifically about the lawn areas make them low maintenance that they require minimal fertilizing and pesticides and and how
will this project ensure that this happens? Very little vegetative conveyance that is the swale provided but primarily that collects again the flow from the offsite mostly our yard areas that used to sheet
flow across the site. How does this provide a benefit when all the impervious areas are collected by structural facilities again towards the end? How many slides do you have? >> 53. >> Is it right if she reads something
>> just what's on the slide? I could probably pick up the piece. >> You know what? She already went. You got just keep on reading towards your head. >> All right. Storm water runoff quality. We're switching the quality now from quantity.
And the object of the quality is to to make sure that the suspended solids that is is moving around the the area get removed. And there's he uses a single calculation. There are some miscalculations and he failed to document some items. Uh when it comes to
the uh detention basis storm, this is the rule. Storm water management measures shall be designed to reduce the post construction load of total suspended solids. TSS formula in storm water runoff generated from the water water quality design storm by 80%
of the anticipated load from the developed site as expressed in an annual quality again TSS removal runoff from the site drains to two different locations the county storm water system and the on-site wetlands which do not
converge merge on site. The administrative code, again, New Jersey 78 5.5 says if there is more than one on-site drainage area, the 80% TSS removal rate
shall apply to each drainage area, unless the runoff from the sub areas converge on site, in which case a removal rate can be demonstrated through a single calculation using a weighted average. Um, and
It appears that that was not done. Um it appears the applicant has made a single weighted average calculation. See his report appendix B which is not allowed. In particular, it appears the applicant has created a weighted average for the required TSS removal that includes the
roof area. That's the clean water that drains to the wetlands under the proposed condition. This artificially reduces the required reduction from the paved area which flows through the detention basin. Services not travel by vehicle should
also be removed from this average. We're taking a the next couple of slides come from Mr. Khan's report and I'm not going to dwell on this too. This this is this is how he uses the weighted average to his advantage. Um
if you see in there the uh just pay if you would pay attention to the building that the uh that he uses a square footage area of 4267 but his his product is zero. So he doesn't have to um
account for anything. So that it's it's my consideration that that this is not the proper place for this. It shouldn't be in here. This sort of artificially inflates his percentage that he has to meet. So his results here
based say that he's got uh a 65.57 uh% rate. And if we if we remove
if we take the same slide but change his building area to zero we see that the rate changes to 71.5. Um so where I'm going with this is one more
step. Um So it it gets a little uh the storm water runoff quality again TSS removal. The applicant claims a 40% TSS removal rate that was uh to be shown on the next slide.
um uh he claims that uh 40% removal rate from the extension extended tension basin too. In order to obtain this credit for the TSS removal, it must be shown that 10% of the water quality storm that is a 1 and a/4 inch rainfall
with a two two hours time frame must be maintained in the retention basin for 12 hours. Again, this is this is shown in best practices manual chapter 9.4. This has been this has not been documented
and may not be supportable. Um it's just a new point on quality and the next slide will show where he tries he uses that that 40%. Um this is a chart from Mr. Khan's report
just of the 125 charts and this is the only one I'm going to show from there. This slide shows the detention basin draining significantly before the required 12 hours to achieve the 40% TSS removal for the storm quality for the
storm water quality ST. Um so the inference is that the it it doesn't stay long enough to comply for the uh to to achieve that rate. um and and some of the calculations we
can do to go back into his calculations and and refigure that on the next three slides, but it'll be fast. I hope um
this is this is the extended math for what Mr. Colin uses in in his uh in his table um calculation strictly from the report 40% removal from the the basin two therefore 60% of the solids remain upon storm water leaving the base of the
60% remaining the jellyfish filter at the exit of basin one removes 80%. um 12% remains there's a little bit of the math when leaving the site for an 88% efficiency. Um
this is a this gives him an overall efficiency of of 69.72 and those are his numbers. So revised changing his his TSS calculation to zero in basin number two because it hasn't stayed there for 12
hours. Um therefore 100% of the solids remain in basin 2 upon the water leaving basin 2. The jellyfish filter at the exit of basin one removes 80% of the 100% and leaves an overall efficiency of
of 80%. 80% for his his numbers brings him down to a 62% efficiency, which um if you go back to his next chart where we we superimpose it, it's not 52.
where he uh he he needs 71.5 and it looks like um he only has 62 based on the revised the assumptions.
The report references a low impact development checklist as included in appendix B or I didn't find it. Um there are some concerns that uh the hydraulic drop around the jellyfish is insufficient and um I would leave that
to the engineer to ask him to review to see if I made a mistake. >> I think that's it. >> Thank you, Mr. Uh before we go to the board members and across from anyone, Mr. Quinn, this
clearly was a presentation uh primarily directed for your benefit to call certain things to your attention to see if reconsideration of of prior opinions you've given the board concerning the storm water management report uh should be changed in any way.
Can you give us your your response to the issues raised by by Mr. Quick for the benefit of all? >> Sure, I'd be happy to. Um, Mr. Quick is to be commended.
>> His presentation covers a lot of ground. You may not be right. >> Oh, but still it covers a lot of ground and it touches upon a lot of the gerine aspects of storm water management. I don't know if he had any professional guidance in preparing this, but if he didn't, it makes it even more
impressive. And I would say instead >> instead of the fifth grade level he tried to assert before, I would say he's more like a savant if this is the case. >> Um, >> no. Well, really, I I do appreciate the time and energy you you spent on this.
Obviously, you gave it a lot of thought. Um, I would step back a little and say that we had at least three separate meetings with the applicant to discuss drainage at the applicant's office.
Each time it resulted in changes to the storm water management plan in order to bring it into conformance with the storm water regulations. Mr. Quick has thrown a lot of things on the wall. I don't want to testify for
the applicant and I'll go through point by point whatever the board wants to but suffice it to say that I am confident that the storm water management plan complies with the regulations and again I don't want to testify for the applicant and I don't want to ruminate
through his entire presentation but let me just pluck out an example um so one of the more relevant topics that Mr. The quick talks about is the soils and how it appears that the
engineer has utilized uh one soil parameter for the recharge and another soil parameter for the hydraulic calculations. In fact, that is spoton. The in New Jersey they break down soils
for storm water calculations into four groups. Hydraologic soil groups they call them A, B, C, and D. A being the most permeable. Think of beach sand at the Jersey Shore. D being the least permeable, almost impermeable. Silty clays,
>> massive rock, high groundwater. >> So, >> we all live in Bur Township, please. >> Right. Right. So, I I'm I'm I apologize. I don't mean to be I'm I'm doing this for the background and also really for Mr. Quick's benefit because he's put a lot of time into this. So the the county
soil survey is what all engineers utilize to generate the soil groupings that they use to to develop curve numbers to do calculations. The soil survey for this property would indicate that there are some D soils no
permeability and some C soils limited but still some permeability. The applicant has performed 11 test pits and some permeability tests on the soils on the site. 11 is a huge number, way
more than he had to. My feeling is the reason why they engaged in so many test pits was because they were looking for um pl they weren't sure where the basin was going to go yet. They weren't sure if they were going to have an infiltration basin yet or how it was going to be designed. So they went and they peppered the site with these soil
tests. The results of this soil test would indicate that there is very high groundwater as Mr. Quake had alluded to. There's almost no permeability. So the soils act more like overall the soils act more like these soils which means
there's very little if any recharge occurring in the preexisting condition which means the applicant is not responsible to provide recharge which is why when we discussed this early on we took recharge off the table not only because the soils didn't seem to be
permeable but it didn't seem to make sense where there's high ground water and impermeable soils to develop some sort of recharge pit which is never going to recharge was going to work one time and then never work again. So we decided that he was maintaining the existing condition recharge which is
almost nil so that there was no formal recharge calculations nor formal recharge area proposed as part of the design. At the same time or I should say conversely for the hydraulic calculations which develop runoff we required the applicant to use a
seessoil calculation which is conservative for the drainage design in the following way. The the drainage design is predicated on a target which means you analyze the existing runoff and as you know by now for major developments whatever that
number comes up to be you provide reductions to it. Those are the targets for your postdevelopment runoff by considering the existing soils of sea soil. We are dampening down the existing
target runoff reducing the amount of runoff the target runoff that the development can discharge in the post-development situation. If we had used a doil which we were using for recharge because it didn't make sense. But if we used a diesel for
the hydraulic calculations, our existing runoff targets would have been higher, which meant the the applicant would have been allowed to discharge more water in the post-development condition, not a conservative design. So there was a dichotomy in terms of the soil parameters that were used for the
recharge and for the the quantity, the water quantity calculation. That's one example of of the myriad of ones that Mr. quick throughout there in in how the design is actually conservative. And I can tell you unequivocally I have
designed dozens if not a hundred of these. I've reviewed dozens if not a hundred of these. And this design is conservative in a number of fashions, one of which I just laid out. And again, there's a lot of material that Mr. Quick
has gone over. I'm happy to I know this is not a question answer format. I'm I'm only sorry that Mr. Quick didn't present this earlier when we could have a proper question answer form and the applicant be involved. I'm happy to answer any of
his points as the board sees fit, but I'm going to leave it at that for now. Again, with the understanding that in my professional opinion, the the stormwater design does meet the regulations, the storm water regulations. Can I ask Mr. P two
questions? What about this is two little things that stuck out. Mr. Pit says that the engineers storm water management report used 6,276 acres for the drainage area and he noted
that the prop that the uh that's larger than the property. >> The reason for that is you're and as Mr. A quick point out, you're you're only responsible to reduce the runoff from your development area. However, you have
to account for runoff that's crossing the property. So, you can't just draw boundaries at the property or even the development area and say, "This is our drainage analysis area." That would be improper because as long as water is from off-site areas, as long as it's
traversing the applicant's property, a proper storm water design encompasses all of that water that runs across the applicant's property. It would be incorrect not to do so. That's why the drainage area considered is substantially larger than either the the
development property or even the development area or disturbed area limit. >> One other question, Mr. said that the it seemed to him that the storm water management complied with the local governance council coordinator but not the NJAC or the best management
practices. >> What's your opinion? >> Well, he he made that reference or the comment with regard to the storm piping there and and he's absolutely right. The storm water management requires you design the pipes for 25 years, but you
must also provide overland flow so that water storm water that exceeds the 25 year storm or the pipe capacity can flow over land into the basin. That's exactly the case we have here where the applicant has raised the grade on the
downhill side of the property so that if the pipes are insufficient to carry the flow, water flows over the parking area through the curb cuts in the basin and gets to the basin regardless of whether or not they get through the pipe or they flow over land. The water still does get
to the detention basin. >> Any cross? >> No. >> Any further questions? Well, any questions from board members? >> I just have one question, Tom. Are there certain months when you're supposed to do those water groundwater tests?
>> Well, uh, usually you try to do it. You can't. Yes, there are preferred times to do it, but that doesn't always coincide with the applicant's agenda or the the time submission requirement for so that's why you're not measuring the presence of water or where you see
seepage. If water inundates the soil horizon above where groundwater is observed or seepage is observed, you get what's called redoxomorphical changes. The soil changes a certain color. And people who are expert at
this, who can read soils, can tell you, oh, this saturation, even water, even though water is down here, this this horizon above it, because of the coloring of the soil, water has obviously fluctuated through this area. So we're going to call this the the uh seasonal high water table elevation and
you'll see that in the soil samples that were taken the test bits groundwater where seepage is observed is not where the seasonal high water table is indicated to be in the test bits. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions?
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Quick. >> Any other members of the public have any question any comments? Any public comment? Anyone else? >> How long is How long is your presentation? >> Come on up, sir.
>> Come up to the microphone. >> I can hear Mr. Simon. He projects >> just really elevate. He doesn't want to >> I don't know if your comment was clear in terms of asking the public who else is in
>> I don't think your I don't believe uh respectfully that your comment was clear in terms of asking the public who else is interested in providing public comment with regard to the application. as I think you'd have said anybody else but and I think it was a little unclear
at least to me. >> Okay. >> So thank you >> to avoid the confusion experienced by Mr. Simon. Does any other member of the public in addition to those people that have already raised their hands to indicate so have a desire
to make public comment on this application? >> Can you raise your hand so we can get a count? >> One, two, three. Is that up or down? One, two, three. You got to keep it up if you want to be counted. >> One, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
eight, nine, 10, 11. >> Okay. In light in light of the hour, we're going to adjourn for the evening. >> Let's we're going to tell you what we have scheduled so far and then
the applicant this hearing has been continued to August 18th. portion of that meeting and the applicant previously extended the time within which the board must act to September 30th. During Mr. Cook's presentation, not that I wasn't paying attention because I was, but at one
point I went down to Fran and looked at the schedule and we could also put ISBR on for September 8th for a portion of that meeting. We'll see what happens with another application on that night. Then we have Fellowship Village on
September 24th and it was scheduled tonight the US Golf Association and there was another 131 Mountain View. Are those two on October 6. Are those two by the same county? >> Yes. >> Right. Then October 20th is fellowship
and then we're into um November. >> So I I really don't know what to do about it other than to say that uh we should add November 8th except that's the day after Labor Day.
>> September >> I'm sorry September 8th. What did I say? >> You said November. >> I meant September 8th. It's the day after Labor Day. Now, is everyone on the applicants team going to be here? >> November. >> Huh? >> Oh, September 8th. >> September. September 8th. >> Yeah.
>> Is everyone on the applicants team going to be here on September 8th? >> I I cannot be Is everyone the board experts has a meeting? Anyone other board members other than the chairman have a problem on September 8th?
So let's add September 8th. >> How about the objections? I have that tomorrow. >> Can I ask something? If it's public comment, is your presence necessary? Because you you're going to be giving your your closing, but if you say that
no closing will be done September 8th, then does it matter? It's only if they say closings are on for September 8th that it would matter. Correct. >> Uh presumably correct. Although I just want to have want to have an opportunity to certainly listen to the tape of that. >> Yeah.
>> Correct. We're going to have a problem after September 8th. >> There's no dates after September 8th until November 3. >> Is September is September currently a regular meeting? September. >> Oh, it is.
>> All right. Just have to come up. >> So, the first thing we have to ask the applicant is I think at this point knowing that we have 11 other people and knowing we have closings and that the board needs some time before it deliberates and realistically we have to ask for an extension until the end of
December. >> So what is the applicant prepared to do in terms of an extension? >> I have no idea. >> Well, let's find out from the applicant. >> Should we take a minute? Do you need a couple minutes to talk about this or not? >> Can we extend for a month and get a
special meeting for us? >> Well, just so you know, okay, for ISBR, even more than fellowship, but both of these applications have taken up basically the entire board's agenda, okay, for more than for more than two
years. And the board, in my opinion, and doing this for 30 years or something, this board has bent over backwards on scheduling. There's other applicants that are backed up. We're at We're out at the time limits of these other applications. I
understand your perspective, but you're not understanding the board's perspective. So, they're bending over backwards now. They're jammed up for September and October. You're not going to give them an extension until November, at least, not December.
What date are there? What is >> the next date is is November 3. Now, if you want to >> Is there a November 3? >> Yeah, November 3 wide open. Now, just so you know, if you want a special meeting, we need time to check the schedules and everything, but I don't want to walk out of the room tonight with not having an
extension into the end of November at minimum and maybe December. So >> can we finish the public comment on the 18th no matter how long it goes? >> Well that I mean there are limits. >> Put it this way Bob. Right now it's
11:20. Okay. Tempers get a little tight including you know mine including the chairman's once you get past >> I object to that comment. >> Once once you get past 11 o'clock they've been bending over backwards with with you know keeping staying the meetings late.
>> First Tuesday in October is our the first >> I can only extend till October 30th 31st whatever the last day was >> okay so we could actually >> do do you not want the November meeting >> you don't want the November meeting if you don't >> you you got a November meeting wide open
but you're not going to extend past October have we given you that meeting >> you want the November 3rd meeting you got to extend to the end of November at minimum if you don't extend to the end of November then you know what >> okay then don't extend past um you get right now you're extended to November
Right now you're extended to September 30th. Okay. So, >> wait. You know, Bob, do you need two minutes? Because I we're going to take we're going to take a quick recess so this can be discussed. >> Okay. Goodbye. Jody wants to go home worse than me. She really must be hurt, you know, for your
breakup. >> It's over. >> It was so nice. >> It was nice while it lasted. This seems like a couple >> back on >> about both of them. All right, we're back on the record. >> Okay, we're back on the record.
>> Quiet, please. >> Okay, so first of all, housekeeping. The same thing I said about Mr. Quick's uh tree analysis PowerPoint pertains to the storm water analysis
PowerPoint. You guys are going to get together and see if you can come to an agreeable form of those things coming in. Now, as to schedule it on the break, my understanding now is that ISBR is going to extend the time for the board to act till November 30th, 2015. Is that
correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. You're going to send a letter into Fran. Correct. >> Okay. Now, >> previously the hearing was continued to August 18th, and it remains on August 18th. However, just to let everyone in the room know, there's another
application on first that night. It's the Bell application. the Bell application. I asked Mr. Quinn, there was primarily an engineering issue, irony of irony, storm water, which Mr. Quinn says is now he thinks in order to
have the thing heard. And the chairman has indicated that his feeling is he's going to split that meeting in half. Half for Bell, half for ISPR. Now, if Belle all of a sudden, you know, disappears, you should all call up Fran to check to see if Belle has come off
the agenda. In which case, ISPR will start, you know, right at 7:30. But if Bell is on, you go 7:30 to say 10:30, which is what's supposed to happen. Each would have an hour and a half, which would mean for the attorneys, for planning purposes, I don't think the
closing could happen that night. The problem is on September 8th, the board is was able to clear its schedule. On September 8th, the board was a Is there any way you can get out of the other one? >> Well, I I I represented earlier that I will I don't know if I can get out of it. I think I made a commitment, but let
me just confirm it tomorrow and I'll let the board know. >> Yeah, because the board will schedule IPR for the entire meeting on September 8th. And if the public comments don't conclude on August 18, then hopefully they will conclude on September 8th. And then the terms of that letter between
you guys would still apply on those closings. >> Yes. >> Now, the board is going to try to schedule a special meeting in September, but Fran needs to pull board members >> offline >> offline about that. And we're we are going to schedule ISBR for the full
meeting. Again, being optimistic about this, assuming that the public comments have concluded and the closings have concluded on September 8th or in some other date in September for a special meeting, then November 3, we're going to
schedule we're going to continue the hearing to November 3 and that would be for board deliberations because that will give them a built-in remember they wanted to take about a month off in any event to collect their thoughts. That would give them the built-in month off. So that's the plan. The hearing is being
continued. August 18th, half the meeting. September 8th, the entire meeting to November 3, the entire meeting. And there's going to be no need for further notice. >> Okay. Before we go, somebody did have a question, and I just wanted to give them a chance to come on up, sir. Just if you
could state your name and address for the record. >> Patrick Hennessy, 45 Mine Brook Road, Far Hills, New Jersey. I'm not going to be here on the 18th. So, I just want to reserve the right to be able to speak on the 8th of September if that's okay. We we can't hold public comment open for
an individual that's not going to be here. So the risk you run is if comment concludes on August 18th, if if the public stops uh asking to be recognized for that purpose and it gets closed, uh being here tonight and making that
request won't preserve that right. That having been said, you know, the whether in fact we get to that point with half a meeting on August 18th, I I couldn't say. It's certainly possible. I don't know if it's likely, but you have
to calculate that risk. Uh you could uh I guess how >> um I don't know how in-depth your presentation is, but if you can't be here, you could hire a legal representative to come and make your presentation for you. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. >> Okay. this uh so no the this is the ISBR matters carried as previously uh addressed by Mr. Drill to those dates no further notice next item on the agenda is comments from members seeing non comments from oh sorry Mr.
moving a little quick on the >> responsible. I wanted to say that was a tremendous response from the county. >> You know the letter he's talking about? It was a letter that said that the Burners Township just was beyond belief
on how diligent they were >> on the affordable housing >> on the affordable housing COA. >> Oh, that was >> it was from >> the county. The county responded to >> the county. >> One second, David. L ladies and
gentlemen, we we still are in session. So if if you're going to have conversations as you're please take them into the hallway. If you could just quietly leave so we can conclude the meeting. Thank you. The county received a copy of the adopted housing plan element and fair share plan and they
sent back a response letter essentially applauding the board for its forward thinking um and and proactive stance in addressing the municipal affordable housing obligation and specifically recognize Bernards for its accomplishments in that regard. >> Yeah, I would say it was more than
applauding. It just it was an extremely congratulatory letter to Berners Township for what they forwardlooking for accommodating now for being in the forefront. And >> true. >> I don't know if anybody here had a
participation in that, but if if so, I wanted to make sure that they got recognized for the exemplary work that they did. Exemporary. >> Just just so you know, you guys adopted that plan. >> Wasn't that David? >> Primarily David. Let's call you David was the primary office. >> It's a tip of the hat.
>> Thank you, David. >> No, David Vanish. Congratulations. Well done. >> Thank you. >> But the town is really a stellar performer when it comes to affordable housing. >> I I just wanted to make sure that the person's person or persons is recognized
for their great work. >> Thank you kindly. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> That's a motion. >> Comments from staff seeing none. Okay. Motion to adjurnn. Seconded. Thank you. All in favor? I. All oppose. We're ajourned. [Music]