Okay. >> Okay, now it's on. Marty, whenever you're ready. >> No, no. But are you ready? >> Um, whenever you're ready. >> Ready. >> Okay. >> Oh, Kate is coming. Let's her situated.
Good evening and welcome to Homedale Township Reorganizational Planning Board meeting today, January 13, 2026. In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act NJSA 10-410, I hereby announce that the adequate notice and electronic notice of this meeting was
provided in a notice dated January 18th, 2025, was sent to Aspbury Park Press, Two River Times, posted on the bulletin board, and on the main access door to town hall filed in the clerk's office and posted on the township website, www.homedelltownship.com.
Um, just for the information, today's meeting will have two parts. Part A is its reorganizational meeting and part two that's when the application that was carried from December 20 25th will be discussed. Uh please rise for pledge of allegiance followed by a moment of
silence with military to have been voted and killed in action. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Thank you. You may be seated. At this moment, I would ask Mr. Flagger to swear in our two uh newly appointed board members, which are Mr. Michael Antonucci and Mr. Gary Wayne. I gave you
>> Oh, back here. Okay. >> Why don't you give these to one of you guys so you can share that? >> I'm prepared. at the same time. >> So I >> do solemnly swear
>> swear >> that I will support the Constitution >> that I will support the Constitution >> of the United States >> of the United States >> and of the State of New Jersey >> of the State of New Jersey >> that I will bear true faith and allegiance >> that I will bear true faith and allegiance >> to the same >> to the same >> and that and to the governments established
>> to the governments established >> in the United States >> in the United States >> and in this state >> and in this state under the authority of the people. >> under the authority of the people. >> And I will faithfully >> That I will faithfully >> and partially >> impartially >> and justly >> and justly >> perform all the duties >> perform all the duties >> of the office
>> of the office >> of the Homedale Township Planning Board >> of the Home Township Planning Board >> according to the best of my ability >> according to the best of my ability. >> God congratulations. >> Welcome. >> Yeah. Welcome everyone. Mr. Connelly
>> here. >> Mr. Caran is absent. Mr. Bundham >> present. >> Congratulations. Mr. Fagan >> here. >> Mr. Man >> here. >> Mr. Antonucci >> here. >> Congratulations. Mr. Bell
>> here. >> Miss Plaus >> here. >> Mr. Silverman >> here. >> Mr. Dorse. Mr. Dorse is absent. And Mr. Robbins is absent. At this moment, I would ask if there's any nomination for the chairman of the
board. >> I'd like to nominate Scott Silverman. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. Mr. Bell, if he's an alter. >> Thank you, Marty. Uh, Mr. Bell will be seated instead of Mr. Carrian. Mr. Bell,
you can you can just stay there, but you'll be voting. Uh, so motioned. Uh, Miss Plaus's motion. Mr. Man seconded. Mr. Connelly, >> yes. >> Uh, Mr. Vanderham, >> yes. >> Mr. Fagan, >> yes. >> Mr. Man,
>> yes. >> Mr. Antonucci, >> yes. >> Uh, Mr. Bell. >> Yes. >> Miss Plausus. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sberman. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Dors. Motion passed. Mr. Sberman. Congratulations. >> Thank you.
>> Take over at this point. >> All right. Um, do we have any uh nominations for the vice chairman at this time? >> I would like to nominate Mr. Man. >> Yeah. >> Second. >> Please make sure the microphone works.
>> Yeah. Oh, I'd like to nominate Mr. Man. >> I'll second that. >> Mr. Connelly? >> Yes. >> Mr. Vanderham? >> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan? >> Yes. >> Mr. Man?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Antonucci? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bell? >> Yes. >> Miss Plauses? >> Yes. >> Mr. Sberman? >> Yes. >> And Mr. Dors. Thank you. Motion pass. Congratulations. All right. Um, for planning board
secretary, we have to nominate Arena. >> Nominate Arena. >> Okay. So, I'll >> to bring you back. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, um, I guess I'll nominate Irena for the planning I I'm not even going to try your last name, but uh,
Inrea for the planning board. Uh, secretary. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Connelly? >> Yes. >> Mr. Vanderham? >> Yes. Mr. Fagan, >> yes. >> Mr. Man, >> yes. >> Mr. Antonucci, >> yes. >> Mr. Bell, >> yes.
>> Miss Plaus, >> yes. >> Mr. Silberman, >> yes. >> Mr. Dors, motion passed. Thank you. It's my pleasure. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh well, now we have the executive uh session. Um if anyone would like to
have one, I'll throw it out there. I know for those who are new, I think that's when we just go upstairs and we >> That's correct. >> talks amongst ourselves, personnel on the board. So if no one does, we can get right to the meeting. >> Okay. Um All right. So we got appointments for
2026. Uh the first appointment would be the planning board attorney. I'm bad with these titles. I believe that's Marty. Is that correct? >> Yep. Uh so we just uh make a motion to >> please motion and second.
>> Yeah. I we make a motion to accept uh Harter and Fleger as the planning board attorney. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Mr. Connelly, >> yes. >> Mr. Vanderham, >> yes. >> Mr. Fagan, >> yes. >> Mr. Man, >> yes. >> Mr. Antonucci, >> yes.
>> Mr. Bell, >> yes. >> Miss Plaus, >> yes. >> Mr. Silverman, >> yes. >> Mr. Dors. >> Motion passed. >> Marty, congratulations. >> Thank you, members. >> All right. Um All right. So, uh, special consulting
attorney, who would that be? >> No appointment for that day. >> That's right. We'll do that later. >> The planning board engineer. Um, I believe that's PSNS, right? >> Uh, make a motion to, uh, >> I make a motion. >> Second.
>> Second. Anyone? >> Second. >> Mr. Connelly. >> Yes. >> Mr. Vanderham. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Man. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Dantoni, >> yes. >> Mr. Bell, >> yes. >> Miss Plauses, >> yes. >> Mr. Silberman, >> yes.
>> Mr. Dors, motion passed. Congratulations. PSNS. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Thank you. >> All right. The special consulting will be done at a later date. Uh, now for the planning board, uh, planner. Uh, we have um, Phillips Price, Griel, Lehaney, use
>> Keller. Keller >> get an official part of the firm here. >> Oh, blame Arena. >> Congratulations. >> Oh, congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Uh motion to accept them. I'll make a motion. >> I second >> Mr. Connelly.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Vanderham? >> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan? >> Yes. >> Mr. Man? >> Yes. >> Mr. Antonucci? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bell? >> Yes. >> Miss Plaus? >> Yes. >> Mr. Silverman? >> Yes. >> Mr. doors. Motion pass. Congratulations, Kate.
>> Thank you all. Looking forward to another year. >> Yeah. Thank you, Kate. Thank you, uh, Craig and Marty, of course, for your service. Um, okay. Number four on the agenda is resolutions providing for annual notice of 20 26
meetings pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act. Um, that's one, right? We're all good on that one, Morning. Nothing to move on that. All right. And then the awards awarding contracts for professional services which we just did. Right.
>> Right. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. And the now we got to adopt the planning board rules and regs. Make a motion to accept. >> So we have to do we do the annual notice. We have to >> Yes. So I would just like to make a comment with annual notice. There was a
um change uh with the state law which we have to comply starting March 1st. um there will be no need to post um in newspapers our notices they will just be posted on our website. So this correction
I guess it reflects the the resolution. So that's what we will be adopting. >> Right. So we have to move that resolution. >> All right. So we had a All right. So there's no one. >> Do you have a formal resolution to them or >> just a verbal?
>> No, it's um it's part of the um Yes. >> Just a verbal. >> Just a verbal. I guess >> just a motion to accept >> accept the new new notice rules. >> Then I'll make a motion to accept the new notice rules. Anyone second? >> Second. >> Okay. Mr. Connelly. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Vanderham? >> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan? >> Yes. >> Mr. Man? >> Yes. >> Mr. Antonucci? Yes, >> Mr. Bell. >> Yes, >> Miss Plauses. >> Yes, >> Mr. Silverman. >> Uh, yes. >> And Mr. Dors. Motion passed. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh, and what about So the contracts? We did We did that. >> We did that already, right? Okay. So, that's >> All right. So, now we have the planning board rules and regulations for 2026. Uh, do we have a motion to accept those? >> I think you just you just changed it to
reflect the that's correct. The posting of the notices. Yeah. Um, >> I just need motion and second. >> Yeah, I'll make a motion. >> Who wants a second? Joyce. >> Joyce. Second. Mr. Connelly. >> Yes. >> Mr. Verham. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Man.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Antonucci. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bell. >> Yes. >> Miss Plaus. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sberman. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Dors. Motion passed. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, so number six, the Asbury Park Press. >> No, we did that already. We just We need
minutes. >> Okay. Just All right. So, uh, we have the public meeting minutes from 1220 1216 2025. We have a motion to accept them. >> Any comments, corrections? >> Anyone?
>> Nope. >> Okay. The motion and second, please. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Thank you. Eligible to vote. Mr. Connelly, >> yes. >> Mr. Fagan, >> yes. >> Miss Plauses, >> yes. >> Mr. Sberman, >> yes. Mr. Man.
>> Yes. >> Uh Mr. Dors, that's it. Motion passed. Thank you. For the record, minutes for December 16th, 2025th were successfully adopted. >> Okay. Okay. Uh now the one item on the
agenda is item number one, PB2025-TG, 23 Main Street Urban Renewal LLC. The applicant, 23 Main Street, Homeell, New Jersey. Block 13, lot 15 has applied to the board for the property located at which is the former Vonnage headquarters. The
property which is owned by 23 Main Street, Propco LLC, an affiliate for the applicant for preliminary and final major subdivision. Preliminary major site plan and final major site plan for phase one known as Azora at Homeell.
Um, okay. At this time, I believe uh I'm going to turn it over to >> Okay, unless Mr. Cam has anything to say, we have finished the uh applicants presentation and we're now going to open to the objector's council for his witnesses.
>> That's correct. I have no opening comments. Thank you. >> Approach. You can take that off the stand if you want and sit or you can stand there. >> Uh my name is Ron Tajeroski. My name is Ron Gajeroski. I'm an
attorney. I have offices >> My name is Ron Gajeroski. I'm an attorney with offices in Redbank, New Jersey. I I am appearing this evening at behalf of a resident of Homeell. Can everyone hear him back there? No.
>> Is his mic on? >> Is that okay or what? >> You gota ask them. I could hear you facing me. So, >> should I take it out? >> Just try and try and uh >> speak loud. >> That's right. >> Is this better? >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you. My name is Ron Gajeroski.
I'm an attorney with offices in Redbank, New Jersey. I appeared at the prior hearings. I've listened to the testimony of the applicant's witnesses and I'm prepared to proceed forward this evening. I I have brought with me three
witnesses along with my client. I represent Christine Solaris who's a resident of your community and I have brought three witnesses. The first witness will be Daniel Knackman. He is a scientist as well as an engineer. My
second witness will be Barry Sutherland who is an engineer and my final witness will be Peter Stack who is a licensed planner of the state of New Jersey and I will call them in that sequence. Uh how
are we going to you want my witnesses to be here and I'll sit over there? How would you like to do this? >> How they want to sit at your table or they want to stand? That's up to them. All right. Whatever's more comfortable for her. >> Well, how about would you object if my witness sat at your table?
>> As we're all getting older, we have to sit. >> Thank you for your courtesy. >> Yes. We're gonna swear you in first. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, not about the truth? I hope you got it. >> I do. >> Okay. Just spell your name for the record. >> Sure. My name is Daniel.
>> My My name is Daniel Knockman. N A C H M. Uh I apologize ahead of time. My statement's about 10 minutes long. >> My statement's about 10 minutes long. Just want to let you know. >> Um thank you for giving me the >> background. So just give a brief of your
background. >> Oh, it's right here. Have I not? >> Yes, you have. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> He's got Craig's mic. >> I I I'm on I'm on now. I'm on now. I
wasn't on. I'm on now. >> Okay. Thank you, M. Mr. enactment. You have been retained by me to give testimony in this matter this evening, have you not? >> Yes, I have. >> And you're being compensated for that? >> Yes. >> You hope so. Right. Yes. Okay.
>> Uh having said that, uh were you present at the prior public hearings which took place with regard to this application? >> I was at the last meeting and I watched the uh videotapes of the prior meetings. >> So you're fully familiar with the testimony that was given by the applicant.
>> Yes. Now, did you also have occasion uh to review any and all documents which are part of the record of this proceeding by way of reports by the professionals and whatever else it may be that's in the file? >> I've reviewed many reports. I don't know if it's all of them, but I've reviewed many. Yes.
>> Okay. Now, uh by way of your background, have you appeared before planning boards or boards of adjustment uh previously in various municipalities? >> Yes, I have. >> And how many occasions would you say? uh at least uh seven or eight. >> Okay. How about with regard to uh you're
being retained at any time or employed by a municipality? >> Yes, I have. >> In what capacity? >> As an environmental consultant. >> Okay. Fine. Uh I would ask that this witness be accepted as an expert witness in this matter >> for in which >> what field?
>> In the field of hydrogeeology. >> Okay. I I look I'm not going to object. I don't know if you really explained your background, but I have no objection. >> I have I have an explanation beginning of my statement. I'll give a brief synopsis of my background. >> Sure. Um, as Mr. Gazerowski says, I'm
here on behalf of Christristen Solaro. I have two degrees in geology. I've been a groundwater scientist working for government, commercial, and industrial clients for 46 years, devoting my career to the study of aquifers, the development and protection of groundwater supplies, and mostly the
investigation and cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination. I've been doing that work in New Jersey for the last 40 plus years. I've been teaching courses on practical aspects of hydrogeeology through Rucker's continuing education program for the last 20 plus years. In my volunteer
life, I sat on my township's environmental commission for 14 years, the planning board for eight, and volunteered with the ambulance unit for six. I've looked over the plans for the proposed development and listened to the testimony of the previous two at the previous planning board meetings. My
focus as a hydrogeeologist is on the proposed method of discharging partially treated waste water uh from the proposed development. The applicant proposes to use the same disposal method employed when the site was an office building, discharge the same percolation lagoon
six months of the year, and discharge of partially treated sewage to the east branch of Willowbrook during the winter months. You've heard a lot of testimony about how Willowbrook is a tributary of the Swimming River Reservoir, which is a source of drinking water for more than 300,000 Mammoth County residents,
including Homeville. And this percolation lagoon is only about 150 ft from the center line of Willowbrook within the stream corridor, the 300 foot buffer referred to by a planning board member last month and the stream's floodway. The lagoon and treatment system were constructed and permitted
around 1977, less than a decade after the NJD was formed, before the current stream classifications were in place, before a lot of the regulatory framework that's in place today was constructed. The lagoon and discharge to a category one
stream, a tributary of a drinking water reservoir, would not be approved today if this were coming before the D is a new proposal and a new project. In simple terms, this is a terrible way and an awful location to discharge partially treated sewage from the proposed project
and importantly is not consistent with Homedale's own wastewater management plan. Homedale had the vision in 2002 to take inventory of its resources and passed a comprehensive wastewater management plan. This plan was crafted for inclusion in the Monmouth County
water quality management plan in accordance with the D's water quality management regulations and was approved by the D. The plan states, quote, "Wastewater discharge in this area, which is referring to the southern slope where this unseeded area this project is
located, is limited to subsurface disposal systems as defined and outlined in chapter 199." And it gives a citation and New Jersey pollutant discharge elimination system regulations. The township committee retains the wastewater planning authority for the
DGW to discharge to groundwater areas and other non-se areas of the township. Subsurface disposal disposal of treated wastewater allows for the infiltration of the waste water through the subsurface soils which act as a filter to remove contaminants as they migrate
through the surface water body. Unfortunately, it's much simpler to apply for a renewal of an existing permit. If net renewal, the D doesn't require all the same information that a new application would require. It's highly unlikely the D would approve
this as a new application. An application for a new lagoon would require soil borings to define the geology, percolation tests to see that the the soils have the receiving capacity. The applicant would require to submit data showing they've determined the depth to the seasonally high water table to see if there's enough room for
that waste water to infiltrate. A similar project was denied on the other side of the same brook because the cre it was determined that there wasn't enough freeboard enough space between the ceiling high water table and the bottom of the lagoon. This lagoon was built and and
originally permitted so long ago. I don't know if saw borings were ever drilled or mounding calculations ever provided. The geological formations in this part of Mammoth County are characterized by clays and silt layers that can impede infiltration. And there's iron stone sands that are
cemented by iron oxide where the there's no percolation. We do know from the D's own website that when this lagoon was operating, there were numerous violations and significant fines were assessed. Over $150,000 worth of fines. The violations
included exceedences of groundwater quality parameters required in the permits including sodium, phosphorus, nitrogen in the form of ammonia, several metals and caulifform bacteria. Phosphorus and nitrogen are nutrients and high concentrations in surface water
can create alooms which can be toxic and render surface water unfit for drinking. The proposed treatment plant will remove solids and hopefully kill all the bacteria with the upgrades that are proposed, but it will not remove the dissolved constituents like phosphorus,
ammonia, and sodium. And the discharge to groundwater permits and discharge to surface water permits, if renewed, will not require testing for several other chemicals, the forever chemicals that we're hearing about, the perfllorinated compounds that are are closed and
household products, and certainly won't have any uh standards for pharmaceuticals. This is a senior living community. Eventually there'll be a a nursing uh station. Um so all the anti-depressants, steroids, hormones, all that will go right through the
wastewater treatment plant into your drinking water. As I mentioned earlier, an application for uh a new application for a lagoon would certainly require all the testing that I described earlier, but because this is a renewal, that information isn't required. And I think it's
important to do a reality check. I listened to the last two months meetings. The board members are correct that the wastewater discharges to the environment are under the jurisdiction of the D. And there's a presumption they're making sure that environmental protections will be carefully monitored. But the reality is the D is an agency
that is underststaffed, overstretched, and has lost an awful lot of institutional knowledge in the last five years. and they don't always assign experienced reputrient scientists to evaluate the complicated technical aspects of many of these applications. We know of an example in Colts neck
where the D allowed an engineer to self-certify, not checking any calculations. The mounding calculations were based on erroneous assumptions, not even consistent with the applicant's own boring logs. So, the D didn't catch all the mistakes, errors, and potential for
failure. More importantly, the D has already failed to protect your drinking water by as evidenced by repeated renewals of vonnages discharged to surface water permits despite the fact there were frequent ongoing violations. Exceedes of
the permit limits for a range of contaminants and several of these contaminants will not be treated by the upgrades proposed to the system. The applicant says they'll meet all NJTP standards and from the scant information they've provided about the proposed upgrades. It's possible the revamped
system will filter out enough particulates so they don't repeat the exceedences for total suspended solids and the new UV system may kill enough bacteria so they don't report repeat the cifform exceeded but the proposed upgrades and my colleague will speak more knowledgeably about than I will did
not include any component to remove the soluble components for which vonnage had violations, metals, sodium, ammonia, phosphorus. So, here's the question. Yeah, the D has jurisdiction over discharges to groundwater and surface water, but I believe the township has
the authority to require this new development, this new project to comply with your own wastewater management plan. You don't have to you don't have to approve this permit grandfathering a vintage 1970 scheme. Uh, can't you require something that is more
protective? allows development to go forward but also protects your drinking water. Consistent with your thoughtful wastewater management plan, this project should be quote limited to subsurface disposal systems as defined and outlined in chapter 199 and the New Jersey
pollutant discharge elimination system regulations. This means subsurface septic tanks and leech fields or some other engineered subsurface disposal system. And they should be located as far from Willowbrook as possible. So you have the benefit of that filtration of
the subsurface soils for that matter. The treatment building should probably also be moved out of the stream corridor so it's not subject to the damage it would be caused by a large flooding event. We all seen the devastation that flooding can cause when an area gets many inches of rain dumped in a short period of time in New Jersey
and elsewhere. Your wastewater management plan states the township committee retains the wastewater planning authority for the DGW areas and other non smooth areas of the township. So I would humbly suggest that this board consult with council and determine
whether you can require this applicant. But it's my professional opinion that treated wastewater this project should never be discharged to Willowbrook and that the current lagoon is located in a terrible place within the stream corridor and therefore vulnerable to flood events and too close to the creek
to allow for any appreciable filtration of contaminants as the wastewater migrates to the brook. This is a new project and should not include grandfathering of a decades old disposal system that has failed, not only because inadequacies of the treatment system,
but because of its location. Can you require this applicant to manage their waste water in a more protective way consistent with current best practices and your own wastewater management plan? It's been almost 50 years since this plant was constructed and the wastewater
disposal plan for the single office building was established. Today, there are much better, safer alternatives to this and any other applicant for the management of partially treated wastewater. Homedale has the authority to require any new development of the site to comply with your wastewater
management plan and current best practices. And if you decide to approve this project, I believe you should impose conditions that protect its residents and all the residents of Mammoth County who rely rely on the Swimming River Reservoir for their
drinking water. Take any questions. Yeah. Um at this before I respond, uh I'll we have uh Don here from um I forget what's the is it CME? Which >> CSF? P right. >> Um
>> so Dan, you want to we need to swear him in. >> We do. >> Yeah. Just stand up or just let's swear you in Dan. >> So you haven't been here before. So story and you just want to tell the truth, nothing about the truth. So help you got and again state your name and record. Uh your name and spell it for the record. If >> you could just pick up the microphone.
>> Is it on? >> Is the red light on >> underneath? It's not on. >> You want to go sit at the at that table there? Maybe Don. >> Oh, you got it. Okay. >> Hello.
>> Yes. Yeah. Uh Don Whitehead. PSNs. Whi t a d square. >> No, he's he's been square. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Did you have any questions or comments to respond to that, Don? >> Um, I've worked in the wastewater group
very similar to >> closer. >> Very close. >> Hello. Yeah. I've worked with PSNS for some 38 years doing a number of water wastewater infiltration both back to groundwater and some surface water discharge permitting. And there's, you
know, a lot of credence in what Dan had said. And of and of course the D is going to be reviewing all of this information that goes in. We are aware that >> you Oh, can Oh, can you hear that? >> All right, >> there we go. Um, we're aware that there's an Egyptians permit out there.
It's in the process, we understand, of being renewed um out there by by the D. Um, but, you know, the D we hope would look at this with regards to this C1, the changing use of the site and so forth and be, you know, proactive in
raising these questions with the applicant. Uh unfortunate unfortunately uh that that is a hope but it's not a reality. >> A a resident a resident spoke to the D today. She's been asking for months for copies of the applications applicant
submitts. >> She submitted OPER requests to date. They've not been provided. But she was told that an application to renew the discharge to groundwater permit has been received. Yes. >> It only provided a site plan for phase one. So, it it didn't represent the full
project and it they it provided some minimal information with some some tables and the D said it was administratively complete and they're not going to require any additional information. They said it's an established permit and they don't need anything else. So, they're going to rubber stamp this renewal. They're not
going to look at all the issues about >> First of all, I object to this testimony because it's hearsay. You did not speak with D. This is thirdand fourthand. So, I would object to this whole line of testimony. Okay. Well, I mean, this was a hope and a wish. I'm responding to that.
>> No, but I understand, Don, also, correct me if I'm wrong, that uh when this goes to D, they're going to have a whole bunch of information that they're going to require from the applicant, right? >> Yes. >> And then at some point, you said we I heard something about uh they're going
to have their own public open meeting where things these issues can be addressed at that time. >> Typically, yes. Yeah. Now, for new permits, that's definitely a requirement in there. For the new permits, there's definitely a requirement. However, you know, sometimes during the renewal
cycles, they they don't >> they don't, >> you know, and this would be one to bring up with them. >> I I I will repeat the D's already failed to protect your drinking water. They've renewed this permit repeatedly every five years when it was vonnage despite
the fact that they had numerous violations. They're not going to have any more scrutiny and they have even more less experienced staff now than they did back then. So relying on the D to protect your drinking water is a false hope. That's my personal opinion.
>> All right. You guys have questions. >> Oh, look. First of all, uh you said you're on the planning board, right? for eight years at one point, right? >> I I was on a planning board. So, you know what the rules what the planning board's rules and obligations are, right? >> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. So, you would you would also agree that the D has better qualifications than the people sitting on this board right now to make a determination about proper groundwater. Correct. >> You have the authority to to to enforce
your own wastewater management plan. I believe that you can impose a condition on this applicant to discharge discharge waste water to discharge this wastewater in compliance with your own plan. You don't have to approve this grandfathered system.
>> I'll defer to um our professionals about that. If if do you agree that that is something that we have the ability to do because that's not what I'm aware of. >> So I know there is a uh a wastewater management plan in effect. So, um I would think you could condition that it
meets uh that requirement. Ed, do you have anything to add to that? >> Yes, that they should follow the >> You got to get real close to the microphone. um they should meet that criteria of the wastewater management plan for the town here.
>> And and so what is the wastewater criteria for the because you're our professionals, right? So I'm sure it was reviewed when they submitted the application. So does it not meet the the town's wastewater management plans. I haven't reviewed it for the um
I haven't reviewed it because uh TNM was reviewing for the wastewater the treatment facility. So um I didn't specifically water management plan was a review by the township engineer massive amount. >> Hey Jay, be quiet.
>> All right. >> We have not reviewed that at this time. I don't believe a formal submission has been made. Uh, m Mr. >> All right, >> Mr. Chairman, will I have a chance to address this witness? >> Yes, go ahead.
>> Certainly. Thank you, sir. Um, you mentioned before that you um have represented towns and planning boards. Is that correct? >> I have represented towns. I have not represented planning boards. >> You've sat on planning boards. >> I've sat on a planning board for eight years. >> And you recognize we're here before planning board, not the township committee.
>> Correct. >> Okay. And you had mentioned you reviewed a lot of documents and things of that nature. listen to the transcripts of the the video rather. Um, did you review the redevelopment plan? >> Not I skimmed through it. I can't say I studied it in great detail. >> Okay. Did you review the redevelopment
agreement that was signed between the town and the developer? >> I did. >> And are you aware both of those documents permit if not require this wastewater treatment plant to remain in effect to service this site? >> I don't believe they require them to. I know they they allow it to. It permits it. Correct. I think the council the
town the township entered into that in in error. It's not consistent with their own wastewater management plan and I would think >> but again you you've testified before that the township's wastewater management plan >> retains the request that the witness be
>> my apology. You're correct. My apology. Please continue with your answer. I I I I am asking the planning board if to find out if they have the authority to impose this condition to protect the county and the township's drinking water
because I don't think this plant can be brought into compliance. I think it's in a terrible location. It would it was >> you're repeating testimony. We've heard that. >> Okay. So, but I believe that that agreement included that provision in error and I'm asking the planning board
to correct that error. The so you understand again this is a planning board not the township council right >> I believe they can impose a condition on the >> that where the question was this is the planning board not the township council correct >> I'm aware of that yes >> okay and the township council prepared and adopted the redevelopment plan
correct >> correct >> and the township council reviewed and approved the redevelopment agreement correct >> correct >> and the township council prepared and approved the wastewater treatment management plan is that correct >> yeah and they didn't >> and they reserved the right to continue
jurisdiction over that. Correct. That was your testimony. Yes. Yes or no? Yes or no, sir? Was that the your testimony? >> Answer the question. Yes, they have the they have the authority to enforce the wastewater management >> and they and they've allowed this treatment plan to continue both under the redevelopment plan and the redevelopment agreement.
>> I believe that they they approved that provision in the agreement without full awareness of the waste their wastewater management plan. Well, I I am asking the count the planning board if they have the authority to impose a condition that
this development comply with best management practices and the township's own wastewater management plan. The proposed treatment plant and discharge to the direct partially treated sewage directly to a drinking water stream is not consistent with all of the D's
regulations and your own wastewater management plan. So, but you you are aware that this facility is under D jurisdiction, correct? It can't operate without the appropriate D permits, >> right? And >> Okay. And and you and you've testified
that we've applied for those permits and the renewals of those permits. Correct. >> We're I'm aware of of of uh an application to renew one of the permits. We haven't been able to ascertain ascertain the status of the second permit. >> Okay. And have you personally viewed the site or
toured the site or taken samples or anything of that nature? >> I have not. >> Everyone be quiet. Please let them speak. >> I have no further questions. Thank you. >> OKAY. >> NO.
>> Any other questions from >> Yes. Um, in previous meeting the uh the wastewater engineer for the applicant was asked by the public would the lagoon be stagnant? Um, and it was
answered no because it would be percolating and evaporating the 40,000 gallons per day or orinently 25,000 gallons per day coupled with
spraying 15,000 gallons a day onto a field. From what I saw, the last flow into the lagoon was approximately October 2023. I did document and visit visit and
document the lagoon on December 2024 and there was substantial remaining water in the lagoon. Wouldn't it be expected to be empty over a year later after no more water was entering into it? >> Right. I mean it it the water is
stagnant as it's sitting there as it slowly percolates into the lagoon. It's not flowing. So it is stagnant if that was your question. But uh the fact that it hasn't percolated in all that time is an indication of the poor permeability of the soils
underneath it and probably the buildup of sludges and sediment over the years of operation of the lagoon. I know the applicant proposed to to scrape the bottom and and get rid of whatever grunge has built up on the bottom of the lagoon, but the fact that it percolates
so slowly is an indication probably that the soils underneath it don't have the capacity to to take that percolation. We don't know because again the the per the original permit was almost 50 years ago and we don't have that original application. So we don't know if soil
borings were ever drilled or any of the percolation tests that would be required for a new plan today. >> Let me correct you on one thing. The document you referred to was a three or four page document from Azour. It was not unsigned
and when we brought it up in terms of are you going to live by what you're saying what you just said scrape it. They said no, they're not going to >> they they are not abiding by that. >> Can we Jay, please? That's the last
thing I'm going to tell you. >> That's all I have. >> Any other questions? >> Just gonna get this. >> No, no, they're further questions. >> I have some questions. >> Okay. Uh >> okay. Uh you have in fact reviewed the
application in question, have you not? >> Yeah, I've I've reviewed various documents submitted by the applicant. Yes. >> Have you also aware of the fact that with regard to this particular application >> talk to the mic? Okay. With regard to this particular application, are you
aware of the fact that there is in fact an existing building on the site? >> Yes. >> And uh do you know how that building was previously used prior to this application? >> It was an office building. >> You know when that of that office building ceased?
>> I'm not I don't know accurately. >> Now, have you also reviewed the plot plans that were submitted with regard to this application? Yes. >> Now, with regard to this application, the office building is located in what is known as phase one, >> correct?
>> That's an existing building. Are you aware of the fact that the office building as proposed will be slightly reduced in square footage? >> I I didn't focus on that, but I'll take your word for it. >> Okay. Now with regard to the property,
regard to the site, there are in fact uh three other phases to the project are there not >> correct? And my understanding is in listening to the reading the reports uh there's a representation that with regard to phase one which simply
contains the uh remodeled or uh office building that that will allow 40,000 per gallons per day to be treated >> there they're I think the engineer testified that they will not exceed
40,000 that it's phases one two and three that by DP's using DP's calc assumptions they calculate that they would exceed the 40,000. I believe the engineers said that after phases one and two are in in in place they'll look at
the actual flows and recalculate and see if they'll have enough capacity to build phase 4. Well, with regard with regard to phases 2, three, and four, there is no definitive studies which shows that it will be satisfied, but is the
proposed gallonage. Right now, the calculations using D's numbers would say that uh they will exceed the 40,000 gallons a day. I believe that was the engineer's testimony last week or the week or last month or the month before that that
would put them at about 41,000 gallons if I remember correctly. But again they were going to recalculate based on actual flows after phases one >> and the word to be is the operative word is recalculate. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Now with regard to the
three the four phases phase one is an existing facility. Is that not correct? >> I believe so. >> Right. And with regard to phases two three and four these are buildings which are proposed. >> Correct. >> Okay. Now the applicant uh is seeking
both final approval for phase number one. Is that not so? >> I believe so. >> And with regard to phases 2, three, and four, he is seeking uh preliminary approval. >> That's my understanding. >> But that preliminary approval, if
granted, will lock in the proposed or accepted use of the property. I'm I'm not a planning expert, so I would ask you. >> I just have a several more questions. Now when you you've examined
uh the plans andor the uh specifications of what is presently on the site as far as uh the location of one building on the entire site which I think is in excess of 80 acres. Correct. I >> I believe that's right.
>> Okay. Now the applicant is not seeking approval with regard to phases two, three and four, but he is merely seeking uh a preliminary approval. So with regard to phase one, if he receives a preliminary and final approval, he
will be able to begin construction of the facility. I >> I guess so. Again, I think that's more a question for Mr. But with regard to phases 2, three, and four, while he may not begin construction right away, he is
attempting to lock in for the future how he can utilize this property. >> Again, I think that's a that that's outside my realm of expertise. >> You made reference to the uh plans being submitted to the DP.
uh in comparing the existing site to what is proposed to be modified and what is to be constructed. Uh would you agree with me that this in fact is a new use on the property? >> Absolutely. >> Why do you say that?
>> Because it was an office building with people there eight or 10 or 12 hours a day. Uh now it's going to be uh ultimately 300 residential units with people there 247 making three meals a day using the toilets 24 hours a day. Um
so the the the nature of the wastewater will be very different. >> Okay. Now with regard to the D is there a difference between the renewal of a permit as compared to securing a new permit?
>> There's a big difference. Well, explain to the board anos used the word big and I didn't solicit that from you. It came out spontaneously. What is the big difference between a renewal as compared to a new permit being applied for in
>> a new permit for a percolation lagoon would require soil borings, mounding calculations, percolation tests in addition to projections of the quality of the waste water that would be treated and the quality of the effluent, the partially treated sewage that would come
out of that plant and be put into the lagoon or directly into the surface water. Because this is a renewal, they're not required to submit any of that testing information. They're submitting uh tables that show what they think the the parameters will be in the wastewater and the effluent, but a lot
of the information that will be required in new application is not required in this renewal. >> Is it what is your opinion as to whether or not uh the existing plan can be modified or should there be a new application? there. It should be a new application, but that's not apparently
how the D is viewing this from from again what I've heard secondhand. >> Now, with regard to uh this application before this board, and you say you've also served on pling boards uh in other communities, correct?
>> I I served on one planning board for eight years in Essex County. Yes. >> Right. Would it not make sense, since this is a new approval, for the board to require and demand that the applicant secure a permit for a new
uh construction plan before they vote on this application? >> I I don't know if the town has the authority to insist that the D view this as a new application. I do believe the town has the authority to determine where that discharge occurs. The D
doesn't dictate the location of the discharge. And to me, that is the crux of the issue. They they should the township doesn't have to approve this development with a 50-year-old grandfathered scheme that it would be not be uh consistent with any of today's
practices to protect streams and to protect groundwater and to protect your drinking water. Now I I I I greatly I greatly respect my adversary in this matter and I believe I understand why he has frame this application as he has. But in the words
of common sense, aren't they really looking for a shortcut? >> Clearly, I mean, they're they're you they're trying to grandfather a 50-year-old system that doesn't comply with today's standards and would never be approved today. Now,
you you've you've you've said repeatedly would never be approved today. Can you tell us why you believe it would not be approved? >> Because I don't think the D allows discharges of partially treated sewage directly to tributaries of drinking water reservoirs. I don't believe they would allow the construction of a lagoon
within a 100 ft of a stream corridor. and and I it's and and the wastewater management plan, your own best the township's own best management practices say the only acceptable method for discharge of of wastewater in this
area of the township in the southern slope is subsurface discharge and that's that's what it should be. >> Okay. Now ha ha having said that and uh I have to I confess to having read the various reports but can can you trace
for us with regard to the location of the buildings with regard to the soil conditions with regard to the lagoon take us step by step as to how this effluent leaves the building and gets to
its ultimate resting place. And having said that, when I read the reports, it said that the lagoon would function uh on a period of 6 months and then for the second six months, it would go through another process. Can you explain to us
why that's necessary and and how it works? >> Well, the the wastewater for the office building came out of the toilets and kitchens and everything, went into sewer pipes, went to the wastewater treatment plant. Um Barry can can testify much
more. uh knowledgeably about how that treatment plant works. But basically there was uh elements for solids to settle out clarifiers um equipment to filter out solids and uh a
system to kill bacteria. There's nothing in that old plant and from what I could read with a little bit of information provided nothing in the proposed upgrades that treats dissolved constituents. >> Excuse me. What what is a dissolved constituent? So salts like sodium and
chloride, uh chemicals like phosphorus, which are in our dishwashing detergent and laundry detergent and a lot of our other household products, ammonia, which is in the waste waters, the the urine and and our and all the things that we excrete. Um there's lots of nitrogen in
in those compounds. And that stuff was going through the treatment plant and going six months to a percolation lagoon. and the other six months I presume because the lagoon freezes over being discharged directly to the >> sorry and I apologize for interrupting
you. Why would you go from the lagoon to a different method of >> I I think because in the winter the lagoon freezes over and so they they don't want to put the water there to sit there and freeze and and so they discharged they were discharging
directly to the stream partially treated wastewater directly into a tributary of a drinking water reservoir. >> You know run that by me again because I'm having trouble comprehending it. So when it leaves the lagoon, is it treated
or untreated? >> It's partially treated sewage is what it is. It's >> sewage. Sewage meaning >> meaning what goes down toilets, what goes down sinks and kitchens and and in the new proposed in the new proposed development, what showers,
any any medical treatment >> that all goes into the lagoon. >> Well, it goes to the treatment plant. The treatment plant removes the solids, kills the bacteria, does not remove the dissolved constituents, doesn't treat the pharmaceutical chemicals, doesn't
treat a whole host of other chemicals for which there are no criteria. Um, and and six months would go into the lagoon and percolate into the ground. And if the lagoon backed up, then they had a backup of spraying some of it onto a
field, which from what I read was never actually implemented, but it was there as a backup. And I guess because in the winter months the lagoon freezes and the pipes freeze, they would discharge directly to the stream before it had a chance to freeze. So
>> let me ask you this question. What danger, if any, is there in discharging this into the directly into the stream? >> So, we've all seen reports in the newspaper of algaal blooms in lakes and rivers in New Jersey. What causes those
algolooms? The phosphorus and nitrogen in our lawn fertilizers and in our waste waters from septic tanks and what have you and direct discharges into those streams. And so by discharging those contaminants directly into the river instead of into the ground several
hundred feet away from the river, you don't have any treatment by the soils, no dilution, no no retardation by the soils. Those waste, those constituents, the phosphorus, the ammonia, the chlorides, the sodium are going directly
into the stream and raising the concentrations of those in the surface water. What what impact, if any, is there a possibility of this methodology that they've put forth would affect the drinking water? >> Well, I mean, all those things are going
directly into people's drinking water and then it becomes incumbent on New Jersey American to treat that before it distributes. It increases their treatment costs and again, if there's chemicals that they're not treating for, they're going directly into the people's drinking waters. So, steroids,
hormones, anti-depressants. I mean the we we it impacts the surface water ecology. Fish are being messed up by these by these contaminants, but it would affect people's drinking water. If if you were to comply with the wastewater management
plan and discharge to septic systems several hundred feet from the stream, it would have the benefit of the groundwater traveling through that those soils and filtering out a lot of those contaminants. What did what didn't you opine that an conscientious applicant
would look to construct the best possible methodology of disposing of this waste? that the best practices consistent with the township's wastewater management plan would be to investigate the site, determine where the best locations are to construct
septic tanks and design a septic a subsurface disposal system to get rid of the 40,000 gallons or however many gallons they think they're going to generate. Would you not say that with regard to the well-being of this
community that all of that would be done with the DP prior prior to this board voting on this application? >> I I again that's a question more for a planner what what the procedural steps about permits when to get the permits
when to get approvals. I I would I would defer to others. >> Okay. Based upon what you've heard, you spoke in terms of uh in instances when the uh lagoon uh would not be able to handle or
dispose of and then it would be uh it' be pumped out and airrated. What What does that mean? >> That means that they would pump the partially treated sewage to you know basically sprinklers and and spray it onto a field. The past system was over I
I think it was somewhere in the northern part of the property. Wasn't shown on the site plan. I'm not sure where the applicant's proposing to replace that system. >> Is it not possible that some of that effluent being airrated would be landing on adjacent properties owned by the residents?
>> It has the potential to to aerosolize contaminants and and make them airborne. Yes. And how far they'll travel depends on prevailing winds. Um, but there have been many odor complaints at wastewater treatment plants. So, yes, that's a possibility.
>> Based upon all of the plans that you've reviewed and based upon your testimony, uh, would it be your opinion that the safest course for this board to take with regard to its responsibilities to the residents of Homedale is that all of
that testing be done before this board votes on this application? I I yes I think it should be treated as a new application. Yes. But but be but beyond that I would I would s I would suggest that they require the applicant
to comply with their wastewater management plan and discharge to subsurface disposal systems. >> Now you speak in terms of a new application. Now you've looked at the proposed uh four-phase plan have you not? >> Yes. uh and you've looked at what is the
existing phase one which is being reduced in size. >> Yes. >> Is there any doubt in your mind but that this is a new application? >> No. >> I have no further questions.
>> I I've got one more. my friend. Sir, >> your testimony is a little bit um in conflict with something that the um applicant has um testified to and we discussed the quality of the
water coming into the plant and the change from an office building to a medical and residential use. It was their testimony. They testified that the quality of the water would be improved,
>> not degraded, and that the addition of clothes washers, dishwashers, and bathtubs would uh again improve what's going to the plant. Do you disagree with that? >> I you know, I heard I heard that statement by the by the uh applicants engineer and I thought it was somewhat
speculative. He didn't provide any calculations or analyses to back that up. I know he's thinking that showers may dilute what comes out of the toilets, but the office building had people using those toilets eight or 10 hours a day. In the new project, you're
going to have people using those toilets around the clock. You're also going to have medical facilities by the time you get to phase four with whatever solvents uh and other pharmaceutical chemicals that are being used. So I I that
statement about the water quality being improved I find speculative and I would need to see some calculations and data to back that up. I can't say I agree with it. >> The process of sprinklers spreading
effluent onto a field. Are you familiar with any thing like that? >> Yes. >> Okay. I have a client who did that for treated uh for groundwater that was contaminated. It was treated, met standards, and was spray irrigated uh for part of the year. Yes.
>> Okay. This is a four-phase project. Um I guess my question is before the sprinkler at some point somebody's going to decide when the sprinklers start right before that happens. Who is there a siren that goes off? A
red light? >> You you would have to >> warning warning warning. >> You'd have to ask the applicant. My understanding is is that it's a backup in the in the event that the lagoon gets too full and it's not percolating at sufficient a rate to handle the 20 30 40,000 gallons a day coming into the
lagoon. Um again it had never from what I read it had apparently not been implemented. It was there as a backup. But what warnings and you'd have to ask the applicant that question. >> Last one. So they're permitted going to
perhaps permitted to spray 15,000 gallons per day. Is there potentially a formula that says how big of an area you would need to discharge 15,000 gallons a day for 6 months? Like how much area
would you need? I don't necessarily need you to answer that, but would should they can they answer that? Yeah, I think you would do percolation tests to make sure that the soils wouldn't become water logged and you'd have water ponding on the surface that the soils could accept that water being applied to
the surface and infiltrate. So, you would I mean, if I were designing something like that for a client, I would want to do so borings and calculate the rate of infiltration that that those soils could handle. >> Sure. >> I I have a question. Uh I'm sorry. And
anyone else on the board have a question? No good to me. >> With regard to the property, you've looked at the plans, have you not? >> Yes. >> What what is the area surrounding uh this proposed project? How is it being utilized? >> I I didn't study that in detail. I saw
that there's some commercial uh entities and I think it's mostly residential. >> Mostly residential. >> Yeah. So what we're talking about doing is taking this potentially and may not even use the word speculative but potentially harmful use
and putting it in amongst residential properties. >> I I can't speak to whether putting 330 or however many residential units there is harmful. Um, I I certainly the spray irrigation could be harmful to nearby
residents. Um, if some of those contaminants become airborne and their odors associated with >> If you own one of those residential homes, would you be concerned? >> I would be concerned. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Uh, Ed, do you guys want to respond to any of that? You may need a
different mic. Right. So, I think the the overall context here is I think we have to draw this back to this is a planning board application uh that's fully compliant. Right? So, a lot of this is window dressing on the
prior conversations. Ultimately speaking, uh there's an approved redevelopment plan. The committee approved that plan. The committee executed a redevelopers agreement with this application with these standards in mind. >> Now at the end,
>> can you please we can't have any outbursts. I explained this last time. >> So this this site is not unique into the area. There are several other uh facilities that are similar. Uh yes, there are some thoughts that the older system maybe we would do something
differently. However, th this is the basis of which this application has been submitted to this board. Uh outside any further inputs from the committee, I think you're obligated to review what you have as it is situated here tonight based on the testimony that you've
heard. Nothing has really gone over and above. This is really difficult to speak when everybody's Yeah. chirping. >> Um so I think that's the the crux ultimately. I think this is a legal matter as much as anything else that the these are the ground rules. Mr. Fleger
uh read into the record at the beginning of the last hearing what we're facing and what the obligation and what the points uh what the basis of this uh application has been provided to date. Right? So that's you have a fully conforming application. The committee
previously approved both the uh the plan and the agreement. There will ultimately be as they're submitting through the process, the township will have to sign off on treatment works approval applications. I think the testimony that you've heard is they are mindful of a
lot of these things that they're talking about. So the renewal permit they could operate under today. That's you know at the end of the day that's that's what we're talking about here. They have the ability to operate under that permit statutoily. >> Yeah.
Um, anything else from our professionals to address what was just said, testified to or council for the other side? Yeah, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, excuse me. I agree with what Ed said. It's it's a planning board application that's compliant with the redevelopment plan
and um in the process of the preparation of the redevelopment plan that all should have been that would have been reviewed by the tension committee and their professionals. So I think that's what is in front of the board today. >> Yes council I have a question and I
apologize my question is post Right. That like that. >> I I know there's a reason why you were here tonight. >> Okay. And I I the gentleman who spoke first, I didn't catch your name, but you
use the word and I quote you, you use the word maybe. What what is your definition or understanding of the word maybe? I mean, does this board have the ability to approve something? Because maybe it
will work. Maybe >> I don't appreciate the the tone of that question, Mr. Gazerowski. Um, I think maybe is a word of record. You can look it up in the dictionary. >> That may and I would apologize. >> Everyone, I need you to be quiet or
we're going to call the meeting. Let let me make a comment with regard to the ordinance and I would request that you respect the chair who is conducting a meeting and I would further suggest and I've done this for the last 50
years. We're not accomplishing anything uh by these outbursts. I know what your thoughts are. I know the opinions you have. I respect them. I've been retained uh to present them to the board. I like to do it in an orderly fashion. I like
to receive respect and I would request that you address it also to the chairman and the board. >> It's as simple as that. >> Uh let let me say this and I don't I don't I'm not bothered by your sarcastic
comment uh about me or to me, but what is your definition of maybe? Is this board going to approve something because maybe the plan will work? >> Look, I don't want to fight because, you know, look, you let me make something clear to everyone here that I want clean
drinking water as much as anyone here. This this this is a procedural thing which no one seems to really understand that we're at this point because it was a series of steps. We we're we're at step whatever number it is. A lot of
these concerns, you know, are valid concerns and I'm not here for despite what people may think to to poo poo on anything. But yeah, really forever just said that. U we just here, this is an administrative uh sort of type of hearing which is one step in the final
process. There were discussions with the town council and you know I could go back to you counselor with all due respect with your expert saying that he thinks this and he thinks that and the township may or may not. I mean the I don't know what his background is the in the legality of the planning boards or
the legality of this system. He's certainly a very qualified geologist or hydraologist wherever he is but he should know on a planning board what the role of a planning board is. Right. Right. Councelor would you would agree? >> I I I would say this. I I've read all of the documents and it could be my
position that those documents reflect the fact that this board has the ability to say to the applicant that before we vote on this, we want uh an answer from the D. >> Well, I'll respectfully ask you for what specific document are you talking about
and what specific regulation are you talking about that? >> It's in my notes. I'll get to it. I promise you that I will. >> Okay. If I don't by the end of the day, you could call me out on it. Uh, having said that, and I would address my comments once again to uh the last
witness, my understanding is is that basically this witness can testify uh empirically as to what he has before him. And I guess the question he has to answer is whether or not the applicant who has put
his case on has demonstrated that this plan will work. I mean, the applicant has chosen to go for a renewal rather than a new plan. Doesn't that tell you something? Do you understand why he's going for a renewal rather than
a new plan? I would ask you that question. >> The answer is yes. I'm aware why he's doing it. I think >> why is he doing it? >> Because he's entitled to do that under the permit that he has. >> Does that make it right? >> I'm not here to arbit to this questioning whether it's right or wrong
or morally good or whether you know the priest says it's okay. There's laws here. You're well aware of been doing it for 50 years. You should be well aware, as every professional for the board and on my client's application has testified to, including the board attorney, that
this is under D jurisdiction. Unless you can point to a case or a regulation, which nobody to date, we're on hearing number four. Not one person has pointed to a case, a statute, or a regulation that says this board has any
jurisdiction over this. Nobody. You say you do. I'd love to see it because there's about 10 people here who have been doing this for years and are not aware of it. So the question with all due respect to Mr. Herman is not to him. He's an engineer and a very good one.
He's not a lawyer. The legal issue has been addressed and unless you have some binding precedent. This ca this testimony you've put on and your next witness I'm sure is going to be similar to that has no bearing to what this board has jurisdiction over. that's been well established
>> and I'm going to just look if if to to to pile on that a little. If you or any of your witnesses or anyone here could and I've been saying this from the beginning if you could show how what they're doing is wrong or shouldn't be done because of what the rules and regulations that are in place whether
you like them or not. It's this isn't a thing for opinion. I'm asking you legally what are they complying with the rules and if you could show us where we as a board of a planning department you could sit down please you know >> I'm not talking to you he could bring he
your your counselor could >> listen we're not going to do it this way >> you'll always the public will always have a right to to comment later >> okay so if you have it then just produce it and then we could take it from there
>> well then give it to your attorney Hey, >> I I would say if I may respond to that, >> yeah, >> I'm not attempting to take away any jurisdiction or authority that this board has. What I am saying is that this
matter should be let's assume for the shake of argument and listening to your comments that uh the board votes to approve this project subject to it going to the D with regard to the wastewater. All I am saying is >> subject to everything they have to do.
>> All I'm saying is you do have the authority and the jurisdiction to say to the applicant look go to the D first. go to them first, let them rule with regard to this and then come back to us. >> That's all I'm asking.
>> Well, that's part of the stip that's part of the agreement. They can't proceed until they get the D approval. >> Uh well, they can't Well, >> I mean, look, I looked at your experts resume. He's been dealing with the D for 50 years, right? So, you know, for 50 years, he's been dealing with the D and
dealing with the people there. And I'm sure everything he's done in his entire career has been compliant with the D. I'm sure every developer and homeowner and everyone in this in this in this whole state has to follow the NJ regulations, right? >> The question >> whether they're understaffed or not, they have to follow them, right?
>> The question here is whether or not this is a new application or a renewal of an old application. And my statement to you is you have the jurisdiction to say to the D, tell us what it is. >> Okay.
Again, there's there is a history of case law that makes very clear the board does not have that ability to not rule an application because an outside agency needs to approve something. Just as we've discussed a dozen times before, we have to get approval from the county
planning board, from so conservation district. If we were on route 34, we need to get approval from DOT. D for this and storm water and anything else we need is an outside agency approval we have to get before we can get permits. There's no law that I'm aware of and
again if there's a case I would love to see it that says this board cannot rule because they want to see what an outside agency has to say. So again unless there's a case going to be produced for me and Mr. Flegler to look at I think we're beating this horse to death.
>> Look we I I haven't completed my case yet. I have two additional witnesses. Uh I reviewed uh and I'll get to it. I do believe that the municipal law use municipal land use law
says in certain in certain circumstances the board is able to call for that approval from an outside agency first. We we'll get to that. >> Well, can you just produce it now? Show it to me right now. >> I I'm going to call my next witness. >> But it's a document, right,
>> Mr. Chair? Mr. Chairman, >> I'm asking you to produce it. >> Respectfully. Respectfully. I'm here to present my case. You're here to listen and vote on it. When I finish my case, you don't agree with me. You can do that. >> The board chair and any board member can ask you a question. You can't cut them
off. >> It's he asked a You can say no, you can't produce it. No, you'll do it later. No, it's inappropriate. But tell don't tell him he's wrong to ask you a question. That's not appropriate either. >> We can we can all agree you can move on to your next witness. I would suggest, Mr. chair, member of the board, if you have anything to submit. We we're going
to have one more hearing as we said at the last meeting on the 27th, I'd be sixth, seventh, whatever the next two >> 27th, >> submit something and write into me before that meeting, >> please. And and to Mr. >> and I thank you for I'm willing to take anything you say under advisement and we
will be discuss when the board motion comes up. I will give that advice at that time. and and I think you'll agree that I have attempted in sitting here to encourage the uh the the residents who are here to to treat the board
respectfully as I am doing and I expect the same respect coming toward me. >> Yeah, I don't I don't think I and I agree with that first statement. I don't think the chair was treating you with disrespect or Mr. Herman or anybody else in all honesty. But again, let's move forward. I suggest >> I'm ready to move forward.
>> Let's go to your next witness or we're not going to finish. call my next witness. Thank you. >> I'm sorry. Just have to put it closer. Everybody hears me? >> That's it. >> Okay, let me call my next uh witness. My
next my next witness is Barry Sutherland. >> I'm sorry. Thank you. You all say >> thank you. >> You want to sit here? That's good. >> She says >> swear in first. You swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I
help you out. And again, just spell your name for the record, please. Barryland. >> My name is Barry Sutherland. S U T H E R L A N D. >> Okay, Mr. Sutherland, you've been retained by me this evening to present
testimony, have you not? >> That is correct. >> Now, before you do that, can you just give us uh your professional background and what expertise you have? I've been a licensed professional engineer in state of New Jersey since 1983.
I have a bachelor's of science and civil engineering from Lehigh University. I have a master's environmental engineering from Manhattan College. I am a professional planner which I don't don't plan on using at this time. I'm a
certified municipal engineer. I uh started my career working in the NJD wastewater treatment system in the late 70s. Uh I then moved on I was a municipal engineer
uh for a firm of negler engineering associates up in Lynhurst for 20 years to uh over a dozen um municipalities in Bergen Hessics uh and Hudson County. Since two since 2000 I've been uh
working for TRC engineers, TRC uh companies uh doing rem mostly design and remediation of groundwater systems obtaining discharge to surface water discharge to
groundwater and treatment approval for uh I don't know countless number of groundwater systems. Now, uh, I would request the board, uh, take cognizance of my witness's expertise in this.
>> No objection. >> Thank you. Now, uh, you were retained prior to my being retained as an attorney in this matter, were you not? >> That is correct. >> Did you have occasion to visit the site? >> No, I didn't. >> Okay. that you have occasion to to
review all of the plans that have been submitted and presented uh to this board. >> Yes, I re uh I was provided with the um the board secretary uh entire file.
Uh I've spent numerous times reviewing what I feel was appropriate uh for my testimony. Were you present uh during the uh hearings when the applicant presented his case?
>> I was present at the last hearing. >> Did you review the other hearings? >> Uh no, I didn't. >> Okay. Now, with regard to your testimony this evening, uh would you please opine to us what you found by examining all of
the plans and listening to the testimony? Well, I mean mean my first thing I looked at the uh entire site plan. Um you know I reviewed the the development agreement. Um I as Mr.
Nackm explained I reviewed the township's wastewater management plan from 2002. I reviewed the uh plan board engineers uh review letter. I mean I reviewed
countless documents. Uh I I reviewed what was available for the discharge to service order discharge to uh groundwater and what was available for the existing treatment works approvals. Can you tell
me when the original wastewater treatment system was issued a a treatment works approval by the NJT? >> It appears that it was somewhere around 1977. Uh it was issued approval. Um
like I said, it's as Mr. enactment explained it's it's sedimentation it's uh some fauculation it's disinfection and then that treated uh waste water is discharged either to the lagoon
or to the uh the stream >> this so this was approved approximately uh 50 years ago >> that is correct >> right and uh the proposal which is before because today uh does not only include that
facility which is located on phase one but it includes phases 2, three and four. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Is has there been any documentation or any testing done to show that if in fact all of that square footage were
constructed whether this plant would be sufficient uh to service that? No, I I did not see any documentation to that effect. >> Okay. Now, isn't it true that an NJDW a which stands for treatment works
approval must be renewed every two years up to five years. >> It you can it has to be reviewed every two years for a maximum term of five years if DP so desires. Now, >> was there once a permit issued with
regard to this site? Excuse me. >> Was there once a permit issued with regard to this site? >> Well, if you're talking about Well, there's three different permits for this site. There's the surface water, there's
the groundwater, and there's a TWWA. >> Okay. Isn't it true that the permit for the development in this site expired in May of 2013? >> That's what I've uh seen from the documents. Correct. The treatment works
approval I believe expired 2013. The discharge to groundwater surface water I believe expired somewhere around 2020. >> Is it not true that all of the necessary
permits for the operation of this site as of this date have expired? >> That is correct. Now uh with regard to the use of the property uh what is your understanding as to how
phase one will be treated with regard to the GDP? >> Phase one will be treated um with the existing wastewater treatment plant with some minor um minor upgrades. I I
reviewed a letter. I forget the consultant engineer that prepared it. Uh he he documented uh some of the uh the upgrades that uh would be proposed to uh upgrade the system
uh for the new use. Now, when you were present at the prior hearings, uh was there any testimony to the effect that the applicant has in fact uh applied for a new permit?
>> I didn't hear any. >> Okay. How about with regard to the concept plan which was prepared for the on-site wastewater treatment plan prepared by Collars which is dated uh July of 20125.
>> Yeah, that that was the concept plan that I I just talked about that provided some uh some upgrades to the system. Uh >> now this is a concept design, isn't it? >> It's a concept plan. There's no calculations. It was
>> all right. Does it provide for any wastewater discharge calculations or treatment removal rates? >> No. >> So we know we know that the applicant at one point in time will have to go to the D for approvals. Do you know whether
they've done that as of this date? >> I personally don't know but I have heard as Mr. Aman said that they have applied for the discharge to I believe the groundwater permit. >> Okay. Now with regard to the existing
uh treatment facility uh is it your opinion that that facility as it presently exists is outdated? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Now, have you had the opportunity to see or review any or all of the
engineering dealing with the whether we call it a renewal or an upgrading of the existing system? >> The only thing that I've seen is the uh the concept plan and and a memo. Now with regard to the plan uh you've
reviewed the plan which consists of uh four phases phases have you not? >> Yes I have. >> Now phase one as I read it consists of
the existing facility building uh as it's modified I believe it's reduced somewhat in size. Uh that is correct from my review of the plans >> with regard to the balance of the site balance of the 87 acres. Is there any
other structures or buildings located on that property? >> No, they're all new. So whatever we're talking about and before this board is to add in addition to the existing building an additional perhaps hundreds of
thousands of additional square feet to be utilized by the uh treatment facility. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Uh are you aware of uh any other approvals or comments by the Homedale
Environmental Commission or anybody else with regard to this application? >> Uh yes, I did I I did review a letter from the uh the Township Environmental Commission. I wish I had a copy right here, but I uh
they had some concerns again about the discharge to this woman book. uh river and the discharge to the uh influence to the uh New Jersey American Water uh uh
drinking water plant. >> Now you you appeared before uh boards before, have you not? >> Yes, I have. And you're familiar with applications as well as uh resolutions which call for
an approval uh condition upon other outside approvals being secured. >> Yes, I am. >> Are you aware of anything? And how many years have you been doing this? >> I think I was from college in 1978, so
I'm going on 50 years. >> I'm almost that old. Having said that, uh, have you formed an opinion as to whether or not a resolution can be prepared
prior to the applicant securing all of the necessary approvals from the DP so that the board will know, the community will know that if in fact this matter is voted upon, it'll be compliant with the well-being of the community.
I mean I mean most boards condition their approvals upon all all and every regulatory approval uh being being secured. Well, this applicant,
as I read his documents, does not intend to go to an outside agency with a new application for approval, but rather he is seeking a renewal of an existing permit. >> That's what I've heard u about the
discharge to groundwater and discharge to surface water. I I believe I I haven't heard testimony that they're said they're they're going to submit the uh new
treats approval to D. >> I I have no further questions. You any further comments to make? >> Uh I do have a few further comments. I mean, I I I've I've heard the board say they don't have
uh jurisdiction, but the treatment facility is a building on the property. Um I'll let the planner further that, but they have authority to um approve or
reject buildings on the property to my understanding of planning board, but I'm not an attorney. But >> you're not an attorney, right? So attorney, >> let's stick with his expertise. The other thing that I will note that I
find it hard to believe that u and D should not accept a discharge surface water or discharge of plantable renewal without seeing all four phases because the calculations that are required to discharge to the
groundwater and the amount of flow to discharge to the surface water are based on volume and contaminant constituents. Uh I would hope that the DP would do their job and look at all four phases.
Hopefully all four phases have been will be submitted to the township. Uh I mean to the T. Uh same thing for the TWWA. This is not a this is this is a change in use. Okay. As Mr. And that can explain. You're
going from an office building that was maybe 5 days a week, 8 to 10 hours a day, maybe sometimes on weekends. Now you're going to facilities that are 24 hours a day. Uh and you know, it's a
it's a definite change in use. And I I find it hard to believe that D would just renew uh any of the permits based on uh you know based based on the know if
they have knowledge that this is the use the new use of the building. Now, as an expert, are you of any are you aware of any statutory regulation or any relation to
the municipal land use law that says that a board cannot demand that the uh applicant receive his approvals from the D before they vote on a project such as this? >> No, I'm not.
>> Okay. >> I have no further. There's one other thing is if this treatment works approval is uh is not deemed a renewal by the NJP
and we do it as modification. The township committee will have to prepare a resolution approving the TWWA application before the D even accepts it.
So that that is you know because they are you know they are the jurisdictional area of of this treatment facility based on a wastewater management plan. >> Okay. So to follow up and thank you for
your testimony because I just want to touch on a few things. Uh, one, you are aware that they're the reason they're doing four phases is they're going to be doing volume monitoring and if depending on the volume, they will do less work if need be to comply, right? >> Okay. Okay. Make sure. But you did say,
I want to make sure I heard it right, that we can vote, the board could approve contingent upon them receiving all regulatory approvals. That was the words you said. I wrote it down. >> I've seen I've seen boards do that. Yes. >> Have you ever seen a board not do that?
>> Thank you. So, um, you also said that, um, what was the last thing you just said? You you talked about the township committee, right? Their rule, their obligations, right? Is this the township committee? >> Yes or no? No, it isn't. We know it's not. You don't have to think about the
right answer, right? So, the the planning board is their role here, you know, unless someone could once again produce some sort of document that shows that we have the authority to reject an application pending. And you just said yourself, have you ever seen a situation he your attorney asked you where the
planning board demanded the D approval before voting on an application? You said no. >> Right. But you can request that they move buildings. That's a land use. >> What's that? >> You can request that they move treatment buildings out of the area that's
currently out. That's a land use issue, >> right? Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions? >> Mr. Chairman, just a quick question. You you mentioned at the end of your statement about if the Determines it to be a modification. C can you elaborate on that a little bit? >> We didn't quite understand it.
>> Well, I understand that from what I've heard is the D is the applicant wants to just do a renewal even though the permit's been expired for I don't know how many years. This would require in my opinion this
would require a modification of the existing permit. They're changing the use of the the type of waste water being discharged. They are doing mod they're proposing modifications to the treatment system.
So this in every case will be a modification which is a full treatment works approval application. Would D provide that comment back saying it's a needs to be a formal appro a a renewal
versus a new new approval >> if they're given the proper if they're given the proper documents. Yes. >> All right. Well, >> something. Basically what you're saying is that the DP would not consider anything from the applicant without our
approval unless we make the request. The as far as the discharge permits the surface water and groundwater um as Mr. Aman said if they just do a
renewal there there doesn't have to be a public notification. They can do a p they can require a public notification which the board and the township and the the local uh environmental commissions
and the county will get notice of. Uh that's just that's just a discharge. the TWWA, if they again just do a rubber stamp
renewal, you won't see it. But if they require they if they rightfully call this a modification, the township will have to approve it. The committee will have to approve by resolution that they approve this plan.
And that's where I feel they have the right to say it doesn't meet their wastewater management plan. >> When you say they, who are you talking about? >> The the district committee. >> The committee, not the planning committee, not the planning board, right? >> They would they would be the one to >> Okay. Just >> just please make that distinction so
they don't misunderstand what our role is versus the township committee. Okay. >> You have something to ask council. >> I just have one clarification. You you've talked about a renewing a permit versus a new permit versus a modification. All of those, no matter
which three category it falls under, would fall under D's requirements, right? D we'd have to apply to D for one of those three. >> Yes. Thank you. Nothing further. >> And and just so do you agree with your predecessor that says that if the D pre
D goes about and approves something that the groundwater could still be contaminated if they approve something. So any application that they review now could possibly contaminate groundwater because they're >> if they're not given the proper documents uh >> if but if they're given the proper
documents and they follow all the rules >> documents and they ask for the proper uh testing and they do their rightful review of it these documents >> and that's their job right to do that
right yes or no right that's you work for job. >> That's their job. Thank you. Right. Okay. You could say it. >> Okay. >> Anyone else have a question of this witness? You guys >> uh miss
>> I I have a further question. >> What's you want to >> Would you agree? I'm sorry. Am I interrupting? >> Board member >> ready. Um the question came up uh earlier in earlier meetings about
uh what oversight the D has over this type of site once it gets going. Previous testimony said that this site had over $100,000 in fines associated with it. I understand that after three
years this sewer plant, we'll call it sewer package treatment plant can be um assigned to the owners. In other words, the people living in the facility are then responsible for it. So my question is if it if something doesn't
work, I I suppose that the D has two options. One is like a notice of violation. In other words, notifying them that something is wrong. And then the second thing would be a fine. Is there any case
where the D steps in and takes over the operation of the facility when um when it gets so out of hand or um or the uh assignment to the homeowners association simply can't manage it? Well, just just
to clarify, the way once the treatment system is approved, one of the requirements is that the owner hire a New Jersey state licensed operator to operate the plant.
They every month the operator has to sign off on the testing requirements, the testing that was done at the facility and how they relate to his discharge requirements.
That's probably what happened when they got the violations because he he reported the uh reported the testing results. D looked at them versus the permitted and they saw a
violation and I've only seen fines. I I have never uh seen D take take over a treatment plant. >> So the protection that D sort of provides is monetary >> is monetary. Correct.
>> Okay. A resident had asked if the lagoon was going to smell and it was answered, "If it didn't smell before, it shouldn't smell in the future. I had seen D documentation that said the nearby bank facility complained about
odors. Um, would it be appropriate for this client to supply actual water samples from a similar plant to witness and see the smell and the clarity of the water? I've never seen a similar plant like
this in all my years of uh of working. Okay. I I mean I've I I've only seen lagoons treat storm water. Uh I I've you know I've I've never I've never been aware of
a a wastewater lagoon. And I've been doing this since 1978. This started in 1977. Uh what they what they required to do during the application process is to
provide calculations as Mr. Aman said percolation results if they wanted to do this to see how when uh how long would it take for the water to x amount of gallons of water to percolate into the
system. Uh I'm sure there's an on andm manual tells how often you have to clean out the fac clean out the uh facility. Uh but uh yeah I've never seen a facility like this.
>> Thank you. the uh Collier's report the Collier's report had several um like target estimations. So like uh total suspended solids had a number and then it had another number for what they wanted to be across the
board. It was 90% reduction. Correct. Right. Um, so I'm not sure what those numbers mean, but um, in this open air lake or lagoon, is this appropriate in any way for recreation
purposes? >> No, >> I mean, no. Um, no rowboats here on this? >> No, there's no, it would not meet any. >> Can this type of water support any aquatic? Um, like they have fish that
eat mosquitoes. Can the fish live in there and eat mosquitoes? >> It can. Mosquitoes can breed in there and as Mr. Nackma said, it can be algae based on the nutrient loading of the
plant. U I mean I don't think there'll be any aquatic uh >> Okay. >> Uh in there besides mosquitoes or some other things like that. >> Thank you. Last one. Um the attorney testified that the composition of the
effluent is referred to as gray water. It was stated that this water is commonly used in the arid west to irrigate landscapes. Uh my experience in uh Florida and St. Thomas is that and in the Google definition of gray water in
no case did it include toilet water and it specifically included uh excluded kitchen sinks. Should this effluent here be categorized as gray water? The the influent into the treatment plant should be classified as gray
water. Um depending on the level of treatment uh it can be cursed clay water or grass water is treated waste water. It's it
depends on you know I mean the D should classify it as treated wastewater >> to their standards which is 90% BOD biological auction band total suspended solids that's what they look at um
>> uh anyone of our professionals have something to Ed. Ed. No. >> Oh, the mic, please. >> Oh, >> yeah. I I think what we've heard is a lot of sort of the same things that we've been hearing. Uh there's really no
novel information. Uh at the end of the day here, this is an outside agency that has the authority and approval jurisdiction over this matter. My opinion as a professional engineer familiar with the land use process is my recommendation to this board is you have
to follow the process under the statute and outside agency approvals are just that the authority having jurisdiction over these matters is the NJD not this board. >> I I have a question based upon the comments being made by the engineer. Uh,
I've been present at the initial hearings. I've listened to all of this testimony. Have you heard anything where the >> a little bit closer, please? >> I'm sorry. Have you heard anything? >> Have you heard anything from the objector's attorney or from my witnesses
that says that any agency, particularly this board, I think, has any jurisdiction to decide this issue other than the NJ. That's I mean I don't understand your comment. We're not saying that the NJ DP
doesn't is the is is really only the only agency that can decide this, but we're saying they should decide it before the board votes on whether to approve the project or not. >> That goes back to the legal matter that's been asked and answered several
times here that outside agency approvals cannot be a condition. You you can't deny an applicant based on an outside agency approval. You know that, Mr. Kazarowski, >> where where does it say that in the law? >> I I'll defer to the legal counsel on this matter. I
>> can't answer. That's a good answer. >> Yeah. >> If you're not qualified, don't answer that question. We'll answer that later. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> I have no further questions of this. Oh, I have uh just several more quick
questions. Uh the overall plan for this project uh being sections or phases one, two, three and four is basically three to four times greater than what is presently there. Is it not?
>> That's correct. >> Okay. And would you agree with me that this is in fact a new application that should be held to the standards of a new application rather than some makeshift attempt to renovate, renew, or
amend an earlier permit that was issued 50 years ago? >> There should be a new application for all three permits. discharge the surface water, discharge the groundwater and the treatment marks approval for the entire
four phases. >> Can you think of any reason why the applicant would be doing it this way rather than treating the application as a new application? >> Well, I think I someone said it before. It's a quicker way to do it and an
easier way. You say it's quicker and easier. Is it as demanding uh by way of quality testimony and drawings than if it were being done from scratch? >> Yes, they would have to provide
>> they would have to provide Mike >> an entire engineering report showing levels of removal with detailed calculations. They would have to provide load in on the stream, load in on the groundwater,
uh, and a very detailed engineer and a hydraulic study for all three permits. >> They would have to do that on a new application, but not for a renewal. >> That's correct. >> Yeah, that is correct. Thank you.
>> Would it be fair to say or there surmise that they're doing it this way for the shortcut? >> I would agree with that. >> Thank you. I have no further. >> All right. So, let me ask because you work for the DP and I'm not doing this to be argumentative. It's surely I'm trying to understand this a little bit.
If this was something that's so inherently bad, okay, which it may be, it may not be. I'm not sitting here. I'm not jud I'm not judging any of you guys, right? I got consultants. You have consultants and they have consultants. If it's so inherently bad and you worked for the D. I see it on your resume. Why would the
DP allow something to be done in this manner if it was going to jeopardize the whole water supply of this town and the neighboring towns? I'm just asking. >> If they're not given the proper information. >> All right. If they're not right. So you're basically saying that let's assume they're g you're basically saying
that if they give the proper information there do we have no issue or you're saying only if they give misleading information. >> Right now what I've heard is they want to just continue on the existing permits from 1977.
Okay. So >> I would hope that D would not accept that and would call them to the current standards. >> And if the uh people here who have their concerns contacted the D, they would they could contact them with these
concerns and they could make a decision as an agency as a regulatory body to deny that if they wanted to, right? >> They can they can submit comments to the D on any application. >> Right. So once again, I'm not trying to kick the can. Just trying to explain to
everyone here that it's really for the DP to understand those issues and then for them to decide with the applicant if it's what they're proposing is acceptable or not. And if it's not acceptable to the DP, then they're going to have to do everything else that you guys are suggesting to bring it up to the current standard. Right.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. And as an engineer, you know that in the codes there's grandfathering provisions on buildings for any systems, right? >> Correct. And there's retroactive requirements in the building codes when things are deemed to be no longer acceptable even though they were acceptable in the past. Right? So
certain things weren't deemed to be acceptable anymore, there would be certain situations where people would not be permitted to simply just renew something or take over the permit. >> Yes. If things remain the same, the permits would remain the same.
>> Right. Okay. >> All right. I I have a further question. I've listened to the comments of the chairman >> and I would say that it seems to me that he is attempting to steer this in a certain way.
>> Counselor, don't don't mischaracterize my thing. I'm trying to clarify things because I've listen everyone. I've been here for four meetings for 16 hours listening to everyone say the same thing in a different shape or form. And all I've simply asked every time, okay, is
if there's something we could do, stop telling me you think you know, or maybe show me the document that gives us I'm I'm just making a general statement. >> If there's if there's paperwork that says that we have the ability to to deny an a fully compliant plan as a planning
board, just present those documents and I'll be more than happy to look at them. And I have my the attorney here, but I have we have an attorney for the planning board. We have several professionals for the planning board here that are all saying that what our roles are here in this application.
>> I I would like to you you've been pontificating about this, but I would like you if you would respectfully respond to one question. Isn't the municipality better served and protected if this
matter were treated by the board as a new plan, a new application, but withhold judgment of the application until the D gets back to you. Can't is it's not rocket scientist to figure out why they want to go for a renewal or a
grandfathering rather than a new. >> Well, first of all, councelor, you know better. You you you don't have the right to ask me a specific question. Secondly, um secondly, uh I forgot what he just said there. You just jumped into it. I was about to
respond. >> Yeah. I mean, once again, council, you've been doing this for how many years? >> I've been doing it for over 50 years. >> 50 years. Okay. >> And I'll say one thing. I've been doing it for over 50 years. And I've never
seen a chairman interject himself into an application as you are doing. Yeah. >> Well, you've never seen a chairman had to endure what I've had to endure for for four months. >> I didn't hear I didn't hear what you said. >> If you're going to attack the chair, >> that's probably we should stick to your
witnesses. The chair the chair has every right >> to interject at any time during the hearing as any board member does with due respect to try not to cut you off. >> So, I don't think he's been doing that. He's been asking your witnesses and then you ask him questions which is really inappropriate, >> Mr.
>> So, I think we should move to your next witness if you're finished. Mr. Fleger, >> because it's going to go nowhere. >> Mr. Fleger, look, I've been asked how long I've been doing this, >> doing it for over 50 years. Hundreds of applications. >> Herman's objections. You know what? There may come a point in time in this
case when the court determines whether what's being done is proper or not. >> That's fine. >> THAT'S >> and then there'll be case law. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'll call you next week. >> Thank you. Can we take a uh five minute comfort break? >> No. You want me to take a break?
>> Give him five minutes. >> All right. You want five minutes? You can have five minutes. >> Yes. For the record, 9:00 p.m. Board will be taking five minute break. Thank you. All right, let's everyone take their seats. >> How are you?
>> For the record, 9:10 p.m. uh planning board is back to session. Thank you. >> Was that for me? >> Yeah. Don't don't like it. But you got you got to go. >> Sure.
anticipate. Well, no, not no more witnesses. We have public comment. We have comment. We're not going to get through that tonight. So, we we knew we were going to come back for one more hearing. Plus, we have a site visit between now and the next meeting if they have. >> Thank you.
>> But, but Ron, it's only going to be public comment. So, >> only for public comment if the next meeting. We're finishing with you tonight. >> Okay. >> Thank you. If you have anything to submit before the next hearing, >> but don't do it the day before.
>> No, I don't. Ron, you okay if I swear on your witness now? >> Ron, >> can we swear in your witness? >> Yes. >> Okay. You swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you God. >> I do. >> And just spell your name for the record,
please. Uh, Peter Steck K. >> Okay, Mr. Ste, uh, you want to sit and speak into that? >> Uh, I'd like to sit. >> Okay. Uh, would you just give us your background and your professional credentials, please?
>> Uh, yes. By way of education, I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's in city and regional planning. Uh, I've worked with two consulting firms in New Jersey. I was licensed in 1976. Uh, that license is still in effect this
evening. I've worked for two consulting firms in New Jersey, Malcolm Castler Associates and Alvin Gersian Associates. Uh, I was the planning director for the township of Montlair for just short of 10 years. And for the last 20 some odd
years, I've uh practiced as a uh uh planning consultant for various uh municipalities, developers, neighborhood groups. And a long time ago, I did appear several times here in Homeell uh when uh Chase Manhattan had a big
project support development. >> Okay, Mr. Sheek, uh you were retained by me. Oh, first of all, would the board accept Mr. Sheck's credentials? Was he testifying as an expert in planning? >> Yes. >> Okay. If it's in that context, sure.
>> Mr. Chairman, I would object to the testimony. In general, this application is 100% fully conforming. Needs no variances, no design exceptions, no waiverss. Um there's no planning testimony need of the applicant and we've provided none because we're 100%
conforming. So, I'm not sure what planning testimony we're going to hear regarding an application that's 100% conforming. Okay, that's that's noted, counselor, but we're going to just allow for the testimony right now. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Thank Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Uh Mr. Sack, you were present uh throughout the hearing this evening, were you not? >> I was. >> Listen to the testimony of both of my expert witnesses. >> Yes. >> And you also had occasion to discuss it with me? >> Yes. >> And you're aware of the plans concerning
this particular application? >> I am. And you're familiar also with the issue of uh when in fact or can in fact a board not not not render a decision
until uh there's first a determination by the D with regard to the issues in question. >> Uh yes, I'm aware of provision in the municipal land use law that accommodates that. >> All right. Would you go into that? So make this very short. Uh I have about
four simple points to make. Uh first uh in the municipal land use law NJSA455D-22 subp paragraph B it reads as follows and I'm going to underscore the words in appropriate instances that says in the
event that development proposed by an applicant application for development requires an approval by a government agency other than the municipal agency. The municipal agency shall in appropriate instances condition its
approval upon the subsequent approval of such governmental agency and then continues further. What I want to say is typically when you see an application that has wetlands on it, you know, you
say subject to D letter of interpretation. If it's on a state highway, you say subject to state permits. That's what typically happens. But the municipal land use law does not say you have to do it that way. The municipal the language of the municipal
land use law says that there are some circumstances where you don't necessarily approve something subject to outside agencies. So there must be that language is in the
law. There must be instances where it is so important or so fundamental to the application that you need approval of outside agencies in advance. The issue of the quality of water
uh from a reservoir that serves some 300,000 uh people is an important public health issue. This is a ma a major major issue and uh as you know uh it's already been
indicated on the record. Uh this treatment plant that phase one is relying upon is an old plant. Uh typically they're called package plants, but I'll call this an exotic plant because it re it potentially relies on
spray irrigation. Um this is in an isolated island which is in a sewer service area. It doesn't connect to any larger treatment facility. So whatever is
developed in this island this uh isolated uh sewer service area it has to treat its services there. It can't pump across uh like the hinterlands to another municipal service. This is this
is it. And this is an application for four phases. And I want to caution you, the applicant is asking for final preliminary and final on phase one, which is using the
existing building, transferring it to a different use. the other phases which will greatly expand the uses by whatever 200 additional units.
The applicant is asking for preliminary approval. Now what I want to emphasize to you if you grant preliminary approval to those other phases that conveys rights to the applicant. What that means, if the
applicant comes back with plans that are identical to what you approve preliminary preliminarily, you have to approve it. So, what I'm saying is don't let your guard down because the applicant is saying, "Oh, preliminary approval on the other
phases." You know already from some of the testimony that at least when you get to phases three and four, it's likely that you're going to outstrip the 40,000gallon per day rating of the system and it has to be reviewed again.
This this applicant is applying under the redevelopment plan November 2024. And one of the responsibilities of a redevelopment plan, one of the requirements is a plan is to say its
relationship to outside agencies. And your plan, it used a little bit of I'll call it wiggle room. It says that the redevelopment plan is consistent with the intent of the state plan. Now, that's not the
requirement. The question is, is it consistent with the state plan or not? Not with the intent. So, there's a little wiggle room. It appears in the plan the way it was written. when you adopted the plan, there was a
2001 state plan and at that time this this property was in what they call a PA5 environmentally sensitive area and it was an area that
discouraged growth. Now, in on December 16th, I believe of dis of this past year, the state adopted a new state plan. And what's the purpose of the state plan? It's to guide state
agencies such as NJD in granting permits. It's supposed to be a guide for their issuance of the permits. That state plan that's in effect now did not change the designation
of this property is in a PA5 area. And I'll read you a couple quotes from the plan. Although this is going to produce some low and moderate income housing. The state plan says the state and municipalities should enact zoning and
land use strategies that incentivize private development and expand all forms of housing opportunities while minimizing development in environmentally sensitive and vulnerable areas.
It also says in environmentally sensitive planning areas. That was where this plant was located in 2001 and it's where it's the new plan says should be limited and occur development should be
limited and occur only when environmental factors or resources are not compromised. So what are the goals? What's the intent of the state plan for this PA5 area?
bullet points. Protect environmental resources. Protect both large and small contiguous areas of land. Promote restoring habitats and biodiversities. Accommodate growth only in centers
excluding flood prone areas. And by the way, this is not a center. This is a PA5 environmentally sensitive area. confining program sewers and public water service to centers revitalize cities, towns and older
traditional settlements and protect, enhance and support the existing character of a stable communities. So when this eventual when this plan goes to the state for review, the current policy of
the state of New Jersey, the adopted plan says you shouldn't encourage substantial new development in the PA5 area. So from a policy point of view, if
the applicant needs to expand this plant or no longer can do spray irrigation or can no longer uh do inground uh injection, the state of New Jersey policy talking to D says
approval should not be granted. That's the state policy. Now, that tells me that there's a reasonable likelihood that at some point in time, the state may well say, "Forget the amount of
money the applicant is going to pay to upgrade this. The state policy is not to encourage development in a PA5 area." Well, let's say the applicant gets the 104 units in the existing building and
ignores the fact that there's a change in occupancy. We're then talking about again preliminary approval, which means you're granting rights to the applicant to approve 65 + 90 plus 40 new either beds
or dwelling units. Uh, taking the amount of development that's there. Now, this is all new buildings, new housing units, reasonably intensive for this area of the state. Given the fact that the state
plan discourages development here, that tells me there's a likelihood that DP is going to say we're not going to allow any expansion here. This is against public policy. Forget how much money the applicant wants to buy or how
exotic it is. It's against state policy. Your redevelopment plan kind of dodged this issue. It used the word is, oh, we're consistent with the intent of the state plan. It never mentioned anything about these discouraging
new development or intensive new development. That that analysis was not in your redevelopment plan. Well, that horse left the barn. But the answer is in my opinion you have the right in appropriate
in appropriate circumstances to say wait a minute this is too fundamental to grant preliminary approval for example to phases 2 three and four without knowing what DP is
going to do with this. It's a lot it's a waste of time. It's a waste of money. you in my opinion just reading the state law have the ability to say first of all I think it applies as to phase one because again this plan has
plan has been vacant for a while we don't know what's really involved with the upgrading of it this is such a fundamental part of this application that the sewage effluent can be treated safely and again it it
doesn't affect home just it affects a larger area, it is within your power in my opinion and it makes planning sense to say go get your D approval ahead of time.
And once you get that, then you have reliable information to say whether you want to approve phases one, two, three, and four. But you don't know the answer right now. This is an ex this is a unique situation. It's an
exotic plant. And the answer is in my opinion it is so fundamental to this application that you should not be granting rights to the applicant through either preliminary
approval or preliminary and final approval. Now, we've gone back and forth with regard to this several times, and everybody acknowledges that you've got to go to the DP for approvals, do they not? The applicant as well as the objector.
>> Yes. Everyone is on the same page on that issue. >> Okay. Fine. Now, uh, is there a difference or is there a distinction when an applicant goes before the DP for a renewal a renewal of an existing
approval as compared to coming in with a for a new application? Well, well, the applicant is trying to rely on past conditions and again it depends upon the documentation sent to DP whether whether they can rely on past conditions. But
clearly the testimony is when you get to at least phases three and four and maybe two, three and four is it's going to outstrip in all likelihood the 40,000 gallon per day. Uh
it's always a sensitive subject. Uh but there's continual reference here to the use of the word sewage. What does sewage mean? Uh it what's goes down the drain. Okay.
Whether you have an office building or an assisted living facility. Um the answer is when you have a single family house uh there are certain limitations because it's all in ground uh septic systems but this is too big.
This requires special state permits because of the the scale of this operation. And again what's unusual here is you're not like in a large sewer service area where you could maybe you know pump up to another treatment system
even in another town. This is an island, this uh sewer service area. So what what is going to happen here in terms of growth and producing sewage effluent has to be treated within this area. You're
my opinion, you're not going to be able to pump it to another municipality. Let me ask you this. Uh what what prejudice is there to an applicant if the board says we're going to send it
to the D to determine whether or not uh they're entitled to a renewal or this calls for a new application? >> Well, the law allows it. Again, the language in the municipal land use law, it says in appropriate circumstances,
I can't think of a more appropriate circumstance if someone came to you and said, "I'm going to do um 600 dwelling units here and I don't know yet where I'm going to have a sewage treatment plant or or do spray irrigation, but
just approve it anyway." You would say, "That's too speculative. We want to know what's going on to protect the public health and safety. You don't know what the answer is, especially for phases 2, three, and four. >> Uh, I know that I'll be criticized for
saying this, but isn't the word speculative a little bit synonymous with the word maybe? >> I'm not going to answer that. >> Thank you. I have no >> Well, I will say I do have that section up of the municipal law and it says
exactly what I've been saying all along that we can approve any application contingent upon subsequent that in in those conditions subsequent to approvals from the uh regulating agencies which is what we've been saying since day one.
>> Well, that's why it started out with the three words in appropriate circumstances. >> Yeah. Well, it starts off in the event of a developmental proposed by an application for development requires an approval by a government agency other than the municipal agency. We could make
it a condition, which means the opposite would mean we don't have to make it a condition of our approval. We are making it a condition of their approval in accordance with the municipal land. >> You have the power to do it, but in my opinion, >> I'm just saying what does the forget opinions. What does the law say?
>> To your question, please. You have the power to do it, but in my opinion, the intent of the law by that phrase in appropriate circumstances, you have to make a judgment based on the facts presented in in front of you. And in my opinion, there is too much in the air.
And on top of that, what's not in the air is the new state plan. It says don't encourage development here. >> All right. Uh whatever. Okay. Anyone you have any questions? Go ahead. I think Kate >> Kate >> Kate you want to respond to any of that Kate?
>> Um um I don't really have much to say because again this is a variance application >> um just that the this this first of all this development on this site existing development precedes the original state plan. This this we've heard this has
been a developed site for many many years and I if you read the actual I did not prepare the redevelopment plan but having read it the intention of the comment that Mr. Stuck is is stating it says consistent with the state plan's intentions this plan promotes the revitalization of the existing building
providing limited new development and protecting existing environmentally sensitive resources and preserving large contiguous areas of open space. So I just want to say that I don't think that that was dodged. The second is that the state plan is advisory. Um, and Mr. Ste, this the state plan has no authority
over NJ's decisions. Correct. >> You're right. It's not the law, but it is an official statement of New Jersey state policy. And if you're telling me the D can ignore the plan, then why even have a state plan? >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. My my understanding is that the D this is not this is not typically it's it's not something they're required to consider and unaware of that. >> The whole intent was to limit development and to go from 104 units to add 299 additional developments is not
limiting development in my judgment. >> Okay. Fair enough. >> All right. Well, let me just ask. Is there anything in the municipal land use loose the land use law that says that we have the right to ask for approvals prior to approval of the application? >> Yes. >> Where is that? >> I just read it. >> No, it doesn't say that. I'm looking at
it right now. No, no, it says in appropriate circumstances, we have the right to base to make it contingent upon them receiving subsequent approval. >> I stand by the plain language of the law. >> As do I. Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Yeah, I I just I just have one more comment to that which is that
um Mr. Ste, does the board is part of the the the final part of that section 22 um you know that the board has um they have other regulations that they have to take place in, right? They have to they have to be in the context of the MLUL. Correct. >> Yes. >> So, okay.
So, it's it's not it doesn't stand on its own, >> right? Okay. Anyone else have questions? council, >> you um >> Oh, le >> referenced planning area five. How many plans how many planning areas
are there and what does that mean? >> There uh the state plan has a lot of text and it has a colored map and it has five planning areas. Uh and there's some sub areas. So one is
urbanized areas where the state likes to have growth and uh two is typically adjacent areas. Again it it these are growth areas. The state policy is to allow new development to occur in these
areas. Uh three is is suburbanizing areas. They're a little bit out further outside. Four is environment is environmentally sensitive. four and five are both I'll call them limited growth areas. So you
look at the map, this site is colored green and it's the same categories applies to barrier islands in New Jersey. And the policy is to limit new growth and to only have sewer service in centers,
areas that are designated to be clusters of development and to rely on existing infrastructure. This is again is an an unusual site and someone could under the plan say well
okay you can use the existing building it yes it it might require a new development because it's clearly a new use with different characteristics residential rather than offices but when it says you want to the state
wants the limited growth how do you accommodate the 299 additional units that are in new buildings. That's not limiting development. >> Planning area five then is the most environmentally sensitive
uh number. >> That's correct. It's it's the it's the most it's the area that state of New Jersey wants to protect the most most and discourage growth. >> Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Chairman, um I don't even where to
start. I'll just make a few brief comments. Um as as the board planner noted and and nobody disagreed with the state plan is advisory. It's something that municipalities and other entities, the county when they're planning, doing master plans, ordinances that that
should be considered. And it was it's in the redevelopment plan as indicated. The plan is in effect. It was adopted. It was prepared by the council. It was reviewed and approved by this board, including many members who are sitting up here today, and it's in effect. So,
the discussion about trying to endun the master plan because he doesn't like the way they use terminology referencing the state plan is completely without merit. Additionally, Mr. Strek's favorite word tonight was exotic. And in my opinion, the most exotic thing we've heard tonight is his interpretation of section
22B of the master of the redevelopment, sorry, of the municipal land use law. We all know what it says. We all know what it is. That is an exotic view of it. And this board um is well aware of its legal obligations. And again, this is a 100%
conforming plan and planning testimony is irrelevant in this matter. Thank you. >> Anyone else here? No one. No one else. All right. Well, thank you, sir. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Uh are you uh finished with your witnesses? >> Okay. >> All right. So, what do we do? >> So, you have two things. We have discussed a site visit and you have public comment to
>> Okay. Well, we're not going to get the public comment today. Um, so let's pick on uh let's pick a date. >> Well, we might be able to start and but we're going to have a hard stop at 10
o'clock, but we'll see. >> Um, when do we want to have this >> visit? you discuss the site visit. >> Yeah, let's >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um
when uh check your calendars when counselor >> someone knows we're discussing a motion was made at the last meeting of a site visit. So the board has to discuss a date for the site visit. That's what we're doing now to discuss a date. >> Okay. >> I'd like to do it. If you have a site
visit, I take it the respective attorneys can be present at that site visit. >> This attorney will not be there, nor do I believe the applicant's attorney, but uh there'll be conditions to site a waiver. You can show up if you want, but okay. No other obviously you can't ask questions.
>> That's okay. But I'll be advised of the date. >> You'll be advised tonight. >> We're going to tell you right now. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman, if I may. and and I spoke with the board attorney about this and I just respectfully want to put it on the record but again we will agree to the
site visit. Um it is my understanding it is this board's policy that when there is a site visit not only the board the board professionals attend but also the public is invited. Um, we object to the public being invited as I think the law is clear that
that it is it is for the board's edification if they need to see the site to make a decision as the board is the one who makes the decision, not the public. The public >> Everyone, please be quiet. >> The public should be excluded. However, I just wanted to put that on the record to preserve my objection. Since it's the
board's policy and the board's wish that the public be able to attend the site visit, we will allow it. As indicated, uh, we will prepare and we ask that it be posted on the website that there's a wait that there's a waiver form for board members, board professionals, and
any member of the public who wishes to attend that needs to be signed and completed prior to accessing the property, and they'll be collected at the property before the site inspection uh continues. Um, we're available. I understand the board and granted I know everyone is a volunteer and I appreciate
what you folks put yourself through as volunteers um that we would do this on a weekend. It's tough enough for you folks to get here on a week night let alone ask you to take a day off of work. So um I think Saturday is probably preferable to everyone than a Sunday, but either this Saturday or Sunday or next Saturday
or Sunday is as amanable to the applicant. Uh whatever is the board's pleasure. >> Well, I'd like to see it as soon as possible. So this Saturday, if the other board members have no problem with it, I'd like to expedite this. >> 17th.
>> Yes. >> 17th. >> Turn your mic on. >> I would like to expedite this as soon as possible. So this Saturday would be fine. The 17th. >> Check with members. >> Um they need time to prepare. So it
would be up to them. >> Um thank you. I appreciate that board member. Um, what time of day do you think it would be best to start the site visit that? I think we should go from there. We can be ready by Saturday, >> like 10, 11. >> I don't know if it's convenient for all
the board members. >> Joyce, first make sure all the board members is good for everybody. Yes, I see one. Yes, >> Mr. that time of day for you know that
Saturday >> I'd like to make a motion and professionals available just >> what time will that be >> professionals are they available do we know >> okay thank you >> Mr. Mr. Fleg, are you available as well? >> Uh, we I typically do not go because
there's no questions or is this just I want I'll be there. >> I would prefer because as as you're aware whether the case law provides that the board members should not be discussing the applicant or talking to anybody else, they can certainly ask questions and clarification. You know, is this a location or something like
that? Well, no. I just and I apologize for imposing your Saturday, Marty. >> I'm I think it's safest for all of us if if you do attend. I I certainly will be in attendance. >> Thank you very much, Marty. >> Okay, then my motion is Saturday the
17th at 11 a.m. >> Oh, January. >> I'll second that. >> I'll second that. >> Mr. Connelly, >> yes. >> Mr. Vunderham, >> yes. >> Mr. Fagan, >> yes. >> Mr. Mann,
>> yes. >> Mr. Antonucci, >> yes. >> Mr. Bell, >> yes. Miss Plaus, >> yes. >> Mr. Silverman, >> yes. >> And Mr. Dors. Motion passed. For the record, site visit for 23 Main Street will be conducted on January 17th at
11:00 a.m. Thank you. >> Can you let the board know the members of the audience know that at an on-site hearing only the board members are permitted to speak. There
will be no questions from the audience. There will be no comments from the audience. Only members of the planning board will be able to speak and address the professionals. >> And I want to make that perfectly clear. No,
>> no response from anybody. >> And Joyce further when we come back on the 27th, the board will put its findings on the record and that we will have public comment that night. So, anybody can make a public comment based on the testimony or the site visit, but there's going to
be no back and forth questioning of the professionals. Um, so Wes, it may be helpful to the applicant. You're the one who made the motion originally. Are there areas that you want to see that so we're not just walking aimlessly around? >> Yeah. And I also want to make sure
people know this isn't an opportunity to uh you know tour the whole site and go rumaging through the woods and all that other stuff. >> We go to the site, we look at what we're supposed to look at and we leave. If the board has questions, we ask them. Nobody
else. That's what an onsite is. >> That's right. >> U certainly the um lagoon. Uh, >> I just want to make sure the applicant's attorney's listening, so he need >> I'm trying to recall the things I outlined. >> Spray area.
>> Also, Marty, if we can, uh, let the audience know where people can park. >> Carl will have to tell us. >> Yeah. So, um, >> posted on the website. >> So, what we'll do is we'll provide you with the waiver and a map showing where to park. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Maybe Carl, on that map, if you can show those two areas that Wes just asked for.
>> Yeah. I'm sorry. I heard the spray area and what was the other area, Mr. Fagen? >> The lagoon. >> The lagoon. Yeah. we'll we'll make sure that we put bring you by there. Um and there was a revised plan submitted to aggregate all the issues um through the other sets of plans that you had raised
Mr. Fagan. So the um it is shown on the plan. It's fenced in, but we we'll make sure we tour that area, both of those areas, the the spray field and the existing plant. there's any other areas in particular that you know in advance but if you know comes up the existing facilities there we can certainly you
know look at that if you'd like but aside from those two areas if there's anything else let us know >> the um storm water uh discharge to stream >> yes actually we uh we put a flag up there to actually highlight that for you it's in the field already
>> my understanding is there's discharge to the stream now in other words there's some type of piping that goes from the plant directly to the stream. >> Yeah, like I said, we we anticipated that one and we were we put a flag already out in the field for you. >> Have you seen the four uh test wells?
>> Um they're noted on the plans. I think we'll be able to to flag those for you as well. >> I look for them on the plans. I didn't see them, but >> yeah, they're um Sorry, I didn't interrupt you, Mr. Fagan. They're uh it's on one of the toppo plans, and it's kind of hard to see with some of the topo, but we'll flag those as well.
Anything? And maybe um Carl, if you're a professional, it might be wise to do it like for lack of a better term in order the easiest order so everyone's not rumming around different areas at the same time. Let's keep everyone in the same areas together.
>> Yeah, I we'll figure that out. But just from the top of my head, where the parking areas, we'll probably do the spray field first and then walk counterclockwise to the other areas. Mr. Fagen just referenced be a tour. It won't be people just everyone in in order. So, right. >> Yeah. Yeah, we'll try to figure out the most efficient way to do that for
everybody. >> Rain or shine. >> Rain or shine. >> Check the weather. It's just shine. >> Shine. >> Okay. Um, >> there's a question anymore. >> There's no >> No, we're not. There's no questions and we're going to postpone.
>> Excuse me. >> It'll all be posted there. >> The public's not invited. >> No, that's not true. >> Public is invited. The public is invited. Will the press be allowed as well? >> Why not? >> They're part of the public. >> Yeah. I mean, are they part of the
public? >> Yes. >> So, they'd be invited. >> Sure. >> Excuse me. >> Okay. Yeah. If you want. >> Sure. >> Just letting you know we're we're done in 12 minutes. >> So, are we opening for public comments
then? >> No. Public comments will be next meeting. >> Question. I gotta get that microphone sir. Where uh I don't know where it ended up right there. >> Peter Franco 5 hotbrook. All right. I'd
just like to ask our PE uh if he can answer a question about the lagoon. >> I speak in the mic. I'm sorry. Um, I'd like to ask you a question about the lagoon and all the waste water from the
treatment plant is it was very very highly contaminated with fecal war form and everything else. All right, if that is piped directly into the lagoon during the summer months, all right, we have noticed that those
levels went up probably a couple million gallons of water in that lagoon. Now during the time of the summer it's allowed to stay there. It's stagnant. All right. There are many things that are going to grow in there including um uh stuff that cause leis disease and
color and stuff like that. All right. Um, I'm worried not only of uh the immersion of that, the evaporation, the droplets that are going to be uh scattered from that material right next door into number one the homes that are
being built right next to this place. All right. Uh, with the bofilm and everything else that's going to be produced by this, what can we do to prevent that? As far as you know, >> you got to get on a mic, sir. the system. >> You're saying that you want to know what
you can do to the existing system. >> The existence system has to be maintained, has to be dug out, has to be monitored. It has to allow the percolation. It has to be be properly uh maintained. >> They didn't give us a plan.
>> There should be a operation and maintenance plan for every wastewater treatment plant. I've never I haven't seen it. I you know I don't know if it was required in 1977, you know. >> All right. During the maintenance of that during the maintenance of the
Lakota, they're required to scarify it. All right. Which means to get all the sludge out and and loosen the bottom. so they can regain percolation, which by the way, there's almost no percolation right now. According to all the aerials I seen, when the plant wasn't even in
use, there was a high level of water. And my suspicion is that through the valving of that existing lagoon, they can open up a valve and drain the lagoon into the creek without anybody knowing about it. And uh I suspect it has been
done because we've seen the level drop recently in the past two months from where there was a level that was maintained and now all of a sudden there isn't. So I think during the site is it possible for us to take a look at the valving and make sure there's a way to
prevent that backflow from the lagoon into the system. >> The applicant will show us where it is and >> I could be part of site. I'll see it. >> Okay. Now, I'm worried that uh this can be another problem with that.
>> I'm worried that this is going to be another problem because either maliciously or just to avoid summones with the height of the lagoon or to avoid the >> Franco, please try and ask questions. >> All right. That this could be a problem and we'd have to look into it. The last question I'm going to ask you is with
the irrigation, it's going on the lawn areas. All right. the ground gets saturated. Okay. Number one, should there be an under drain design to get that water back into the lagoon so it doesn't run
over on the streets or from the way I see the grading, which I think everybody will see on on the inspection that the way it's graded right now by a heel pad and around the tennis courts, it's going to run right back into the stream without going into the lagoon.
I can only say the the one spray irrigation system that I designed uh did have an under drain. >> So So in other words, they would have well that would be the state again. They're going to put it off to the state. All right. But lastly, there is
not one plan that we seen as of yet. Um what their intention to do is to repair that existing plant. Are they going to use any reverse osmosis? Are they going to use the membrane that should be required to take filter out all the vax
and phosphorus? And by the way, did you see the report I gave you with the phosphorus going over 1100% over over? >> Yes. >> The fecal content going over 882% over the allowable amount.
>> But it's grandfather, so I guess it's all right. >> Okay, guys. I don't know what to tell you. I think you're making a big mistake. for a comment >> where the guys the way the guy is next door. It's not a comment. >> I'm asking you something. >> All right. Um the question is what's going to stop
>> all right the aerosols for the of the bacteria from blowing over. Hopefully there'll be some sort of screening system either natural, you know, plants or some fencing with
membrane on it or something to that effect. But you're not going to be able to uh stop everything depend on the wind blows. I mean the wind blows, you know, like we get down here the Jersey Shore, it'll blow. >> The other question I have for you is
during the initial digestion or the initial after it goes through the equalization process, irration is introduced to it. >> All right. Now there are pumps inside that main building. >> Would you say a th00and CFM?
The objectives >> is any anybody here qualified to tell me an engineer or something how many CFM is going in that building to to induce >> if it's 1,000 CFM which I suspect that means you're going to have >> sir we just need we just we just need
questions right now. It's it's >> you're going to have 60,000 CFM cubic foot per minute of agitated waste emission with all the emissions coming up out of it and getting blown. What's going to prevent that?
>> I'm sorry. >> Aren't all the new plants now covered? >> Yes. >> Okay. And that air fil cost a lot of money, doesn't it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Is that why they're not doing it? >> They reverse. >> I'm sorry, I can't say it. Osmosis. Why
is it the same reason that could cost him a couple million dollars? Okay. So, they have they have stuff that I'm what I'm saying. There is a way for them to get the water to comply where everybody will be happy in this room. >> Would you say guys
>> you can design a system to treat anything? >> Thank you. >> Thank I'm sorry. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> No questions, right? >> Absolutely. Questions only. >> Please. We got three minutes then. I'm shutting you down. >> I have four minutes until 10 o'clock. >> No, you have three minutes for your
question, sir. 10 o'clock. Correct. Thank you. Um I just have some questions uh for the applicants for the engineers. >> First of all, state first of all, calm down. State your name and your address. >> Respectfully, my name is Adam Heidi. I live in Jackson, New Jersey. Formally, um I am on the environmental commission
in town, but I'm here as a concerned resident because we all share the same. >> Okay. All I need is your name and your address. >> Thank you. Uh for the attorneys, uh or the engineers, um this this plan, is it complete? Is this a complete site plan that the board is reviewing?
>> It's questions of the witnesses tonight. >> Is this a complete site plan? >> My review? No, it's not. >> Why would the Can the board legally >> We've been through this, sir. >> Approve. >> They don't have to do the plan at this
point in time. >> Do you have a certified? You're asking the same question. >> Excuse me, I'm speaking. >> No, no, excuse me. I'm speaking. Do you have a certified plan from the Ocean County Soil from the from the Freehold County Soil District? >> Do you have a certified plan from the county?
>> Um, my testimony I heard is they have not submitted anything to >> Sir. Okay. State law. Hold on. No, sir. >> The meeting's run by the board, not by you. You may ask, you have three minutes to ask this witness or the other two witnesses >> any question that they testified to, but
you can't tell the board what to do. Please don't do that. It's dis >> My apologies. I don't mean to disrespect you. I believe state law supersedes state law supersedes local law. Correct. >> It usually does. >> Isn't it correct that state law mandates
for major site plans to have a certified plan from the county soil? >> Yes. >> Does the applicant currently have a certified plan from the county? >> No. >> Would you like me to read the statute that that states the board cannot
approve a plan without that certification? Did can you confirm or deny can you confirm can you confirm or deny that the chair said if somebody has any legislation or an ordinance that would provide ground to potentially halt an
application please bring it forward? >> Yes, I heard that. >> Okay. Do you think I have enough time to bring that forward? >> Two minutes. >> Yes. One minute. Chapter. Are you familiar with chapter 251 NJSA
424-39? >> Top my head I can't. >> Okay. Well, this is New Jersey soil erosion and sediment control law and it states that an applicant for major site plan needs to have a certified plan from the county soil district. Can you
confirm one more time? Does this applicant have a certified plan from the county soil district? >> Not at this time. >> Okay. So, would the board be granting an approval and or a denial for something for a prerequisite that has not been met by state law?
>> You've heard testimony that the applicant will apply for all these permits? That's that's all I can say. >> Can legally can the board grant approval or denial? >> Question. All right. >> I mean,
>> he can't answer it. He can't. That's his answer is he can't answer it. >> Okay. Are you familiar with You're not here. >> You're not allowed to ask us. You can't ask him questions either, sir. >> Sir, you're done. >> You're done. Sit down, please. >> Sit down. We got It's 10:00. With all due respect, look at the law. >> You're going to get in trouble legally.
You're voting something that you don't have. >> Thank you. No, please. You can sit down. >> You know the election's coming up, right? >> Yeah. You know I'm not elected, right? >> [ __ ] idiot. No. Uh you we it's 10:00.
>> You can't ask the questions of the board. You that has nothing to do with Vonnage. There's no question. >> If it's not about Listen, it's 10 o'clock at night. It has nothing to do with this application. It's not going to be heard. >> I will just I will explain to you after
the meeting. >> It's on the website. questions of the >> We're only doing questions of their >> Well, it's 10 o'clock, so if they have more questions of their witness, they're going to have to bring them back and and do it next time. So, we're we're going to make a motion.
>> Why don't you ask how many more questions? One. >> I How many people have questions here? >> Of the >> Is it just one >> of the of the applicants? >> Of the applicants. >> Objectors, witnesses >> only. You spoke already, sir. >> Okay. There's only one more. Why don't we finish? I would suggest >> Doesn't matter. It's three minutes.
>> I would suggest you finish with Mr. just finish. He's the last one, >> Mr. Jen. No, I think. All right, Mr. Jen, if you keep it quick, >> Mr. G. I'm right. It's Kim G, right? Yeah, Kim G. Sorry, Since the chairman is not familiar with
my name, I'll make sure I'll get for the record. It's Kim G and I reside at 8 Street here in Homedale. Um, Mr. Mr. Gazerowski, one of your earlier expert witness had testified that the um in the
wastewater management plan that there is um either provision or something or language there that says that the township committee has the authority on wastewater disposal. Is that correct?
>> Okay. I'm sorry. Do you want to >> So, you got to get on the record, sir. Do you have So I realized that earlier there's some back and forth. Um >> the township has that I'm sorry >> on the wastewater management plan.
>> Okay. So no um not to be technical government. The question is within the plan, isn't there some is there some language that you had testified that the township committee I believe I heard has the authority for waste water management
design or something to that effect. design. >> Well, you can't you can't say that authority for the plan would interpretation of that uh 2002 is the township can designate where they want the waste water facilities and how they
want the water discharged. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. So, I know that that's the um township committee. I believe you said >> correct. >> And I know that earlier there's a lot of back and forth that um this is not obviously not the township committee. Although one member here is on the
township committee that this is the planning board. But does that authority that is um stated in the wastewater um plan does that have any extension or implication for the planning board?
>> I can't answer that. It's >> okay. So let me let me um ask a different question then. So the planning board does have authority to say a particular application is consistent not uh not inconsistent or inconsistent with
um either the master plan or certain elements of a master plan. Is that correct? >> Yes. In my opinion that they can say it does not meet the waste master plan and can recommend uh facilities be removed and discharges
you know to be consistent with that plan. So let me just clarify that uh one last point then you're saying that because it is part of that wastewater master plan and that there's some language in there that he certainly give
the township committee certain authority and that's part of the master plan that the planning board in fact has authority to actually insist for application where the location or the site of a waste and water plant. Is that correct? That's
just that's my opinion. Yes, >> that's your opinion. Okay. So, um Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> So, there's no more questions. We're good. Is it about this application to
those witnesses? >> Not a question. >> That's not a question. You can ask Ireina afterwards. >> No, I want everyone to be able to know. >> Well, then well, we can you can announce it afterwards. Anyone else have a question? These witnesses that you spoke already. Anyone else
going to close public questions? >> Close. >> No. Make a motion to close. >> We just have to carry application till 27th. >> Yeah. Yeah, it's true. Okay. So, we're going to And that's when we'll have public comment. >> Yes. >> You have a question.
>> Come up. Make >> You have three minutes, sir. So, please >> get on the mic, please. And please make it a question. You get on the mic. >> My name is Paul Hman. I'm a resident of Homeell and uh I am a chief engine
address 183 Everett Road. >> Uh I'm a chief engineer steam diesel any horsepower ships graduate of Merch Marine Academy. >> Just please >> question based on my experience of sewer plants is have you seen the results in
testing of this sewer plant? Yes, >> Mr. Whatever your name is, >> sir. Ed, >> the questions are of the objector's witnesses that were presented tonight. >> Well, he interacted with us. >> No, that's not how it works. >> He didn't testify directly.
>> Uh, let's see. Where's the guy with the mustache? >> He seems to know some technical knowledge. Do you know if that sewer plant has been recently tested and accepted? How long ago? >> I don't know. You don't know. So my
opinion is because I've installed Sir, >> we're not asking for your opinion if it's a question otherwise. >> Yes. Okay. Uh Mr. Attorney, >> uh do you believe that >> sir? He's he's not a witness. He's not So if you please direct
>> Mr. Witness with the with the >> three options and you got one minute. >> Uh do you believe that a sewer plant has to be tested periodically to prove it's working? No, this this gentleman behind you. >> Yes, I agree. And I don't believe
because the place has been vacant and they're pumping raw sewage into a pond and they're piping it into a brook directly. From what I'm hearing from one of the witnesses here, that plant is certified and properly operated.
at this point and uh is that correct? >> I understand that the plant is not currently in operation but I have no firsthand knowledge. >> So what happens to the sewage when there's no plant in operation?
>> I don't know the plant at the moment. I don't know. >> Is there any watchmen or anybody in that plant? >> Sir, sir, if if I may, Chairman, the property is vacant. There's nobody on it. There's no sewage being generated.
>> Okay, thank you for the answer. You're not a witness, but thank you. >> You're looking You're welcome. >> And I'm really upset with this board by not cooperating because my family, my children, >> I don't need your comment, sir. >> Well, I do. My my family needs clean
water. >> Okay. >> And there's no question as far as building properties that there's a question on the quality of water. And I'm a resident. I'm going to make sure my friends all know what happened here. This is my first time at a meeting. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, what are we doing? So, uh >> if that was the final qu, uh we're going to close public questions now. >> Motion. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Mr. Connelly.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Venderham. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Man, >> yes. >> Mr. Antonucci, >> yes. Mr. Bell, >> yes. >> Miss Plauses, >> Mr. Silberman, >> yes. >> Mr. Dors, um, application 23 uh, Main
Street Vonnage will be carried without further notice for January 27th. >> I want to make a motion to close the meeting. >> I make a motion. >> All in favor? I >> Thank you. Have a good night.