##VIDEO ID:eqeUE2KsTkU## board meeting in accordance with Section Five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 be advised that a noce of this meeting was made by posting on the bulleon board town hall and mailing to officially designated newspapers a list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at Town Hall at 7:30 pm on February 5th 2025 roll call please forhead Master Petro yes Michael Zion here Alison Canfield here Frank Mii here Michael Cohen Here Deborah Nevis yes Cory biller yes Jonathan Baxter here Sergey sof here Ser BJ here guest on Halpert here all right thank you um we have a couple of housekeeping items to take care of tonight before we get to the application uh the first of which is the approval of several sets of minutes um Natalia do we have any comments come in for any of the minutes on 11132 24 no I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for November 13 2024 do I have a second second roll call please oh I thought it was just unanimous well no because some people it doesn't have it's Voice vote but uh there may be some exension so as long as you're keeping track of who was in attendance we could have a Voice vote and uh Natalie track the extensions for those who are absent so all in favor all in favor I all opposed um were there any comments uh that came in for December 4th 2024 no I'll make a motion to approve the comments for December 4th 2024 do I have a second all in favor I all opposed not opposed exensions noted uh were there any uh comments that came in for 1218 2024 nope nope I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for 128 2024 do I have a second I second all in favor all opposed says she not theion all right the final set of minutes from January 8th natal were there any comments that came in no all right so I'll make a motion to approve the comments for January 8th 2025 do I have a second Alison yesk thank you all in favor I all opposed minutes approved okay the second order of business that we need to take care of very quickly so we can move on to the application um we the planning board are responsible for updating the housing element of the master plan in order to do so Graham pardon me is forming a working committee to help with the effort um that effort needs to move fairly quickly I think we have to get something in by May and have everything set by June and in order to do so we needed to appoint several members of the planning board to the working committee I've talked with several people and I would like to appoint Miss Canfield Miss Neves and myself to the working committee and please note anytime we have a working uh or the committee meeting I would definitely like to come back to the board at at their next meeting and give a summary and have everybody comment because I do feel like we do have a lot of voices on the board and very valuable voices so we'll make sure that everybody's voice does count um could you say the language sure now the uh it's a chair appointment we do have a provision in our bylaws though uh that if a majority of the board disagrees uh that the majority of the board has a Authority so I think it's prudent to in essence sort of reverse it and uh consider even though it's an appointment that that was a a uh a nomination of those three individuals and the board can vote and if a majority approves of those three nominations we have our committee so calling for uh why don't we why don't we have the nomination count as the motion from the chair is there a second I'll second okay and then a uh a roll call vote for the uh to ensure we have at least a majority for the committee Jorge Master P yes Michael Z yes Alison Canfield yes FR sakami yes Michael Cohen yes Deborah Nevis yes Cory biller yes Serj yes Gaston hper yes y okay we have okay I guess the next order of business would be application number 24003 which has been carried from the January 8th 2025 although I think we're missing Council app Council okay do we uh does anyone from the applicants team know if he's will be here shortly may we be double check there I try to text guess that's not like a party kind of slipped in the back unnoticed apologize not probably about a minute so I think that's Grace oh I appreciate that thank you very much I'll take all the grace I can possibly get um good evening everyone thank you Michael LaVine with Fox Rothchild here this evening on behalf of the applicant um since the last time we were here before the board the applicant re submitted uh a number of materials that were consistent with our prior testimony and some of the conceptual drawings that we had shared with the board in advance um site plan submission was revised to reflect some of the conceptual uh plans that we' shared with the board and received some positive feedback on those resulted in other corresponding changes to our submission namely the storm water management report which was uh prepared uh revised and resubmitted storm water management and maintenance plan um there was a supplemental traffic study that was submitted there were two uh revised visual depictions prepared uh by our architect that were submitted all of which were submitted um in advance more than 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing uh the board's experts have had an opportunity to review those uh revised materials they've issued uh reports that are prepared to address this evening um that's kind of where we left things off what I would propose to do I think kind of the underlying document from which everything else kind of stems is the revised site plans um we submitted hard copies as well as electric Co electronic copies to the board secretary I think it would make sense um to start with John fante who's our project engineer who can review with you and highlight for you those changes to the plans that are reflected on on our updated submission and if I may Mr chairman just to get an idea of what your plans are uh is it to have uh the civil engineer uh then the uh the architect Andor traffic engineer also be addressing be addressing their updated submissions as well yes that's exactly right I think the order would be uh engineer followed by architect followed by traffic conso this enjoy that think anything El no all uh yeah apologize taking so long for looks better with a mess this feel like a mouse pad sorry guess not that it's Frozen no I moved it oh it needs a mouse pad now no it doesn't look like computer I'll use my fingers oh it's thinking about it yeah it's a it's a large file I apologize I br my drawings we do this the old fashioned way try the mouse like it thank you not the right file you're going to love it you tell us it's worth the wait that great no it's still still loading one for so what's a question on that was trying to enlarge it no I'm just trying to make it's larger okay we go go with this good evening John faran side engineer so John two things I'll remind you that you still remain under oath and can you confirm that your uh license as a licensed professional engineer is still in good standing it is thank so these um plans you're going to take the board through first I'd like you uh to identify them just by title and um revision date yes uh the the drawings are revision d uh D is in dog do it D is in dog and uh dated uh January 23rd 2025 now these uh drawings on the Whiteboard um that we're going to be discussing have they been altered or modified anyway to R make them different from what was uh the hard copies that were submitted to the board yes uh no obviously these drawings the only difference is the drawings that the board has have my electronic signature on these do not because it the electronic signature locks the drawing and it makes it easier to uh to project the drawing without the electronic they don't need to be marked as exhibits that was the reason he was asking that question they uh they did they're the same as what we submitted more than 10 days in advance we could just rely excuse me refer to them by what they are which page or sheet you on so please proceed thank you so John if you um two of the major changes that we had shared with the board conceptually kind of with interum drawings were uh relocating the driveways both The Parson chill Road uh driveway as well as the old Short Hills uh Road driveway so can you um compare and contrast the uh location under the previous revision revision C and how that's been changed and reflected in in revision D yes the uh the main changes in I looks like it's the still trying to load the the different we have to get to sheet three yes I'm going to refer to uh site plan s uh figure three iess I should close that one because it's it's trying to load uh too many drawings what you have on the screen is figure three and just to uh to to uh summarize how uh the uh the evolution of this revision D if you recall initially uh based on comments that we received uh we moved the the driver was originally in shown in this location and uh we were were able to relocate the driveway about 140 ft to the west and uh so so that relocated driveway is now approximately what 287 ft from from Ultra rid Road whereas before it was around 145 ft is that correct correct the uh the other b u uh change was that based on comments that we received from the board and the and also the the public was that we had to realign our exit driveway onto Short Hills Road to to be line with Park Avenue uh again Park Road Park Road originally our driveway was about 45 ft uh north of the intersection of a Park Park Road so that we're able to realign as you see they are on the bottom of of figure three uh other changes that uh we uh relocated the uh uh the the the play area the 900 ft play area from the up before when we first uh revised the drawings to show the the play The Playground play area was on the on the south of the southwest of the of the upper parking lot and now we're able to relocate it so that it's uh in line with the the lower level where the actual classrooms are for the for the uh for the children and the size Remains the Same 900 square F feet is are right that is correct and also more importantly the uh the revised revision d uh when uh looking at all the bulk tables uh requirements we are still uh not requiring any variants uh there was one one change that was pointed out by the the board planner in his report was that we had consider the playground as a with impervious surfice not to be part of the impervious area uh but because it's a an accessory use it has to be counted so that adds an additional 900 square feet to our calculation which puts us uh 330 fet over uh so but I'm here to stipulate to the board that we are will'll be able to reduce that uh overage of 330 one square feet so that will be combined and that will be accomplished by how by removing the retaining walls yes there was we added some uh small retaining walls along the exit driveway by deleting those retaining wall uh we will be under the 35% imperious area so we'll be uh compliant uh with with those requirements Now by I'm sorry before you leave that if I may with the chair's permission can you explain exactly how it is you and you be able to remove those retaining walls and assuming that they were there for a purpose such as correct grading or withholding holding back rating how is it that bear with me how is it that that's going to be effectuated without there being any safety concerns and the like good question uh by removing the retaining wall that you see there they're all compliant they have to be less than 2 feet in height in the front yard which they are by removing those retain walls those small retaining walls will will need will regrade this area south of the exit Drive slightly so there uh are uh the overall Disturbed area will uh will go up about 100 to 200 square feet but uh no other changes from that from that minor regrading on the uh south side of the uh exit driveway well that minor regrading re require the removal of any additional mature trees that otherwise weren't proposed to be removed no no absolutely will that regrading require uh a change to the Landscaping plan that we've uh submitted as part of the of the site plan uh not materially uh we were still able to plant tree the Trees of when I present the Landscaping plan you'll see uh where the uh the changes are that but not no changes to to the uh landcaping plan the the other major change that uh I'm zooming out now for the board recalls on the revision C we had two surface Basin to manage storm water we had a bi a bio a bio Swale and and a in a detention Basin surface M surface basins these basins were located on the south side of the of the lot in this area as my uh poin is showing uh we were able to uh uh the storm water got the redesign uh was a major redesign in storm water where but we were able to uh to to be be uh get creative and uh we are now uh proposing underground detention uh basins in the upper lot you see in this area and and a smaller one uh in the lower lower lot uh under the parking on the on the low on Lower Side and uh additionally uh we have to meet the green infrastructure so we were able to provide green infrastructure by uh having gra a grass Swale uh down in the west side of the parking of the upper lot with combined with a uh sand filter uh and that that complies with the D green infrastructure requirements as well more importantly we also zooming in we are proposing a perious Paving in the middle in the middle of the parking lot which is also a green infrastructure uh uh measure that d uh is very much in favor these days and that was not proposed as part of the prior revision C correct corre correct so so we have so green infrastructure with the revised plan has Forest payment for the upper lot in this uh Central uh parking area Forest Pavement in the lower lot in the uh in the parking space as you see there uh we have a green infrastructure as I indicated on the upper lot to the West we have a small manufactured device you see there to pick up uh drainage from this side of the of the lot uh where is it I'm sorry it's right here at the where at the end at the end where the driveway uh starts uh in this location uh noted with GI from Green infrastructure you can see there and and what this is is a in essence is a bio a bio a bio swell it's a allows storm water to come into the into the structured device get the storm water gets filtered it removes the suspended solids that is required and then obviously the storm water then is managed in the subsurface uh storm water drainage uh tank that's located underneath the porest pavement uh area on the on the lower lot real quick just to to uh introduce you maybe zoom out yes before you if I could ask a question Mr chairman the the porest pavement that's not count is that counted towards the lot coverage or is that not counted towards no it still has to be counted as imper thank you yes uh the uh the other on the lower lot what we've done is again uh porest pavement with uh for green infrastructure and then these the storm water storm water management tank is underneath we have for both systems uh even also for the for the sand uh the sand drain and the and the grass whale we have underd drain underd drain piping perforated piping that uh once the water uh uh uh percolates through the device it's then conveyed to the storm water management tank on the on the exit dryway you see there uh that water because of it's topographically lower than the uh the lot the lower lot in front of the uh of the classrooms we are proposing a a rain Garden that will follow the the Contour of the excess drive and again a rain Garden is also uh a uh green infrastructure device so that so the water so in essence we submitted pretty a lengthy report that U uh Miss Gahan the board engineer has reviewed and provided comments which we can we can go over uh John if you would ultimately this storm you explained you know the various features on site and how water's filtered and and where the features are located some uh above ground the majority underground ultimately when it's all flows through the system where does this water discharge to well eventually the water then gets a it's gets a charged via an outlet control structure that's there uh and uh it will be slowly uh let out and connected to the to to the municipal storm storm water via the catch Basin that's located there an existing one that catch Basin will be re re rehabilitated the uh the grading will be uh modified and and so the the outf flow from the site will be through that uh through that catch Basin uh the into the existing Municipal underwater storm water drain system correct so this is not like uh unlike to present conditions where this water just sheet flows off S in essence uh uh if the existing uh site if you see there there's a as everyone know uh roughly close to 16 to 18 ft difference in elevation and all the drainage from the site goes from the uh upper the north side part of the site on parsonage all the way down straight down towards the the the property line to directly to the South very little of of the drainage on the site uh uh let's say with is uh conveyed to the uh to the east it's all literally 90 9% straight South some of it gets uh uh uh connected to the existing uh storm water underground pipe that Daylights on the on the corn on the Southwest uh corner of the site you see there but uh you see the Contours that drain into that so in essence uh currently uh I would say over 90 95% of the of the water of the rain water that falls on this property flows uh towards the South and it uh being the fact that it uh that it's relatively uh steep slope let's say in the uh in the six to uh 8% range and the fact that the soil on this side is a booten soil which is a Hy as an hydraulic hydraulic uh category of C which does not facilitate infiltration uh in essence uh based on our calculation over 90 95% of the drainage in the pre-development condition uh flows of site in the post development condition with the new with the storm water management that we have we are able to reduce that uh offsite uh flow to over 75% so we in addition to uh capturing the uh the increase in storm which we have to designed for the uh DP revised the rules in 2023 where now we're designing for a 200100 storm so all the storm water has to be factored upwards 33% as a matter of fact we have to capture all that uh and reduce the uh outflow less than uh 5075 and 80% of the pre-development flow so and we're doing all that all of that is uh fully compliant so is it fair to say then that uh the postd development condition will be substantially improved with regard to stowing water runoff correct excuse me can I ask a question please um I'm I'm just if you could clarify because right now most of that lot is grass corre and perious so how is it that there's so much water flowing off of the property if it's grass and and is going directly correct that's it's a very good question is if I go back to the to the pre pre-development condition uh a great portion of the site is is wooded and and a lot of it will remain wooded the in fact if I may I will uh I'm in the figure figure one now which shows it's an aerial photograph of the uh so it's not the existing condition because the house has been demolished But to answer your questions you see a lot of the area is grass uh and there's a lot of the the perimeter of the site is wooded and you see by the way we've uh designed the site we a lot of the wooded areas are remaining intact and uh when I describe the number of trees that were are cut so in essence when water fall falls on the surface such as this with grass there is some degree of capturing and and the water wants to infiltrate the fact that that the and what limits the infiltration are two primary is two primary factors one is the type of soil that's underneath the grass and secondly if it's a very if it's a very relatively flat area water tends to stay there and have more time to infiltrate the fact that this uh site is is sloped considerably and the soil are not conducive to infiltration the amount of uh water that will INF trade is is a lot less than you would expect for a site such as this so a lot of the water will sheet flow due to Velocity and the the sort of water will follow the path of least resistance the the the Dow gradient gravity let's say is H towards the South the the vector for infiltration is a is more difficult to absorb and uh therefore that's why we a lot of the water does go off site as opposed to INF under the existing condition under so handling the storm water management as you're proposing here John in your professional opinion does this redesign comply with all applicable State and Milbourne storm waterer RS and requirements absolutely yes are there any variances or waivers that are required from by this proposal uh in terms of storm water management not at all do these features that you've described the the rain Garden uh the Swale the all of these features that you've described as as green and the ones that you've not described as green do those all comply with the D's best management practices correct um one thing I think you may have missed with regard to the site plan the trash enclosure correct the that was thank you for reminding me originally the trash enclosure was in the low on the lower lot uh if you the board recalls uh in the original refc we had two uh perpendicular parking areas we reduced that to a single one and uh which allowed now in our redesign to move the uh the waste uh area storage area to the top which uh in fact uh in the prior revision C uh the traffic consultant uh pointed out that its location was not optimal but the way now the fact that we were able to relocate it to the upper a lot uh this uh waste storage area can can can accommodate front front end lower frontend load loading waste trucks as well as rear ended so there there's plenty of maneuverability for the for the waste trucks to come in and uh pick up the waste now you describe a lot of uh advantages to this new storm water design is another one of the advantages that it enables us to REM remove uh upwards of 50 fewer mature trees than otherwise would have been the case with the old Above Grand Basin approach correct and so the other benefit in in the not having uh the the surface uh basins in this corner this area of the site as you can see is is being left undisturbed natural our line of uh disturbance you see it there whereas before that line was actually all right to the property line if you recall we were creating a bmed area for the for the for the Basin that's all gone so now the all the the trees that were located there are not being touched in fact if I go back to the existing condition plan where we actually show which trees are going to be removed and you can see in in this area now these trees were all when you say this area you're talking the Southside uh the former Basin area uh we're going we going to be removed now that they're not being touched so that that is provided additional benefit to Pro and that allowed us as shown uh in our on this figure two if I may so we uh we're now uh red we reduce the amount of trees that we're uh cutting which helps a lot and uh which reduces the amount so now we're we're uh basically cutting us 35 trees that whereas before we had uh if I remember correctly UH 60 so in essence uh just to uh because trees are it's sort of a a topic of interest to a lot of board members and the public there are 120 four trees that were surveyed were marked uh in the prior revision C we were removing 623 now 35 so that's directionally in the obviously in the right direction and based on the uh on the Milburn ordinance we would have had to replace 208 trees total uh whereas now with the reduction only 159 and uh in the revision C version we we were providing only 139 because we lacked the space to plant trees and we had a shortfall of 69 trees which we would would have had to contribute to the tree fund whereas now we uh we are required 159 threes we're providing 169 so it actually we're providing um 10 trees more than uh uh let's say we are required but uh with that if I may go to the Landscaping plan and just show that Mr fronte if I may ask have you seen the uh yeah the Foresters report that came out yes okay and that the totals you just gave us were the ones uh she said that there are some replacement trees that were we replacement tree deficiency we haven't updated it for her report but correct we we had had a chance to review it and she made some uh recommendations there's some trees that are uh not in in good shape to so to remove those so we'll redo the calculation and uh base on their size to see how many trees we would have to replace of uh hopefully our overage of 10 will will still be valid but we haven't done those calculations that we got the report literally an hour or two before coming here tonight M you may remember that on the record in Prior hearings we've expressed a great willingness to work with the Forester um with regard to not only her recommendations as to species and whether you know two spies should be separated or should be close to all those things we stand by that and remain very willing uh to do that so uh if if she has quibbles or or questions about the details of the calculations we're happy to work that out with her we had said before that will you know to the extent that um we can add trees to make us compliant with the ordinance requirements and those will Thrive and won't be choked off by the upper can canopy that we're happy to do that and if at the end of the day we can't fully comply with that requirement just because there's not enough physical space we also stand by uh our our statement before just consistent with the ordinance that if you find yourself in that situation there is a replacement you know fee that can be paid doesn't require variance relief or any sort of dispensation just contemplated in the ordinance and if it turns out uh previously we had to pay a significant amount for a significant amount of trees seems very clear that if that Still Remains to be the case it'll be a much much smaller amount much smaller number but we stand by all of those uh representations to uh to work with the Forester in that regard so uh before you go sorry can you just clarify something on the demolition plan the new demolition plan next to a number of trees it says removed excuse me it next to a certain number of trees it says removed does that mean that they've already been removed no they're uh our our calculation uh is she's referring to yeah I'm going back to figure two you're referring to this table at the bottom of correct so you see next to some of the trees it says in parentheses in bold removed so I just wondering if you could please clarify what that is yeah the what what this table does it uh provides the the uh not that table sorry oh oh this one yeah yes uh I I apologize as you can see there it shows it's removed when the the house was demolished there were some trees I think in the at the center of the site that were removed and that's reflects that okay because my understanding is that there hasn't been a permit issued to remove any trees from the site I not aware of that I can't comment on that so you're saying that every tree on this list that says removed has been actually removed as as indicated yes from the uh original tree survey that was done yes okay um I'm not sure that all of these trees were close to the existing building the original building so I'm just I think we need further clarification on that because um I don't know that the Foresters aware that these trees have been it seems pretty clear that she did a site visit based on her report correct yeah I I understand that but I'm okay I I think it needs to be yeah if I may clarify the we we can look at the actual three numbers I don't know if we should take up the board time to do that but we will clarify that that point thank you it's like a could follow up on that Mr chairman the the um all those that are marked removed are those part and parcel of what you are considering your tree removal and replacement obligation correct for purposes of coming up with the 169 trees you which you report to be 10 more than 159 tree obligation for replacement is that correct yes okay so whether they're removed already or not or whether they where they were located at least we understand correct me if I'm wrong that they're part of your obligation to replace corre absolutely and uh I also stipulate that uh in deference to the comment from the I will re re re relook at the calculation to make sure that the trees that uh we're are noting as removed we not uh not not counted in that calculation and on the February 5th 2025 report from the Forester recognizing that you've only had a certain amount of time to review it have you had enough time to review it to be able to tell us if you'll stipulate to any or all six of the comments that she's made in that report yes no if you if I may Let's uh we need to pull that out and take a close look at it before so if we could kind of we'll address that when we get to it that's okay I thought we were on the landscape plan well we are but I was going to go through the plan the reports in order that I just please continue so we did receive a number of of reports for as one we also uh received a revised review memorandum from Mark Callahan the Township's engineer dated ju uh January 31st 2025 correct correct and you have you had a chance to review that yes so on uh page two item four of her report and I think you may have alluded to this earlier John it says the revised driveway location intersects old Short Hills Road where there is a type B drainage Inlet that must be reconstructed to accept either a type A or type B Inlet gr both of which are flat in that's uh that something that the applicant will comply with yes and I think you actually showed the location of that on the drawing correct correct um I'm zooming in on figure three to that catch Bas and that Miss gallahan was referring to so uh you also described the storm waterer runoff treatment area the Swale the bio retention Swale west of the main parking lot corre um there's also some um uh proposed light poles shown in that general area is there any conflict in the operation of those two uh improvements yeah there are four uh uh light poles located within the grass sale and they locating the the light pole with their Foundation through the grass whale does not uh uh impact the operation or the functionality of the grass sale um she notes on page three item four that an inlet should be constructed in the Southeast corner of the seven parking space section of the south side of the upper lot to capture uh water that might be trapped there so could you uh identify that area on the plan it's it it's on the South side let me just zoom out a little bit it's in this uh with uh uh Martha uh correctly indicated that the bottom of curve elevation uh will let water pond in this corner all that is going to require is uh a change a minor change to the bottom of curve elevation raising that corner slightly like half a foot so water will then flow as it was intended to across uh towards the uh grass whale and the sand filter so that's a will comply correct correct um also on page three uh item eight uh with regard to the storm water maintenance plan and this was something as I recall that um she had uh noted uh and recommended even with the above ground Basin system she notes that an annual report must be submitted to the township engineering department every year by April 1st as the township is required to attest in its annual report to D that maintenance of such facilities has been accomplished correct and she's expected that the applicant will ensure performance of those inspections uh and the reporting um is that something that the applicant will comply with uh absolutely and and he's required to by by Statute and the storm water maintenance plan that you prepared and submitted includes uh inspection checklists in order to facilitate those annual inspections correct um on page four item one she states a specific planting schedule is provided for the proposed rain Garden which you describ along the southern edge of the driveway out old's Road it should be followed inspections must be done annually and plantings replac as necessary to ensure the efficacy of the runoff uh collection corre something the applicant will comply with yes yes and there were three kind of General um uh requirements if you I believe and please correct me if I'm wrong these are the the same ones that in your initial report rather just standard requirements like the ml requirement to post the performance bond escro fees and uh also wanted to make sure the applicant was aware and we had noted this and acknowledged this last time that a follow-up analysis will have to be performed to confirm that the existing sanitary sewer can accept the flow from this facility correct and so all applicant will comply as well yes um rather than turning to the next rep or perhaps we should give Miss Cowan an opportunity to weigh in on her report that report's pleasure we don't have to do it that way I can go on to Mr finger's report um only that I they have followed all the requirements of our ordinance which mimics exactly the and uh the D requirements so and the other thing that this new storm water management plan and does that the original one didn't do is that it captures the water and treats it close to the source which is another requirement of the DDP so I view this as an improved storm water management plan for this facility um they have provided the green infrastructure which is for uh treating the total suspended solids that tend to run off from paved areas and um I think everything proves to be adequate and follows the ordinance and the D regulations so I'm um I approve with the design and uh his calculation um Miss if I could just ask one follow-up question on page three of your report item seven you state that the requirements for water quantity standards call for post construction Peak runoff reductions of the 210 and 100e storms to 5075 and 80% respective of the current Peak I mean in Lay person standards is that another way of saying that the what I kind of alluded to earlier that the post construction conditions with regard to quantity of storm water runoff will actually be improved over existing conditions yes and he did demonstrate that he's using um we're currently now required to use um an increase we have to multiply our our storm water intensities when we do calculations um I think it's by factor of 6% but then on top of that we have to use what is estimated to be the storm water that will be falling on the state in this area in the year 2100 and Mr fanti referred to that as the 2100 storm it's it's 33% greater than what we're we experience right now and he's used those figures so he's really capturing a lot more water than we we even require currently with our dryw designs on residential structure so and he has demonstrated through all the hydrographs and the calculations that are in the storm water man management plan that he has made the proper reductions these these um 2 10 and 100e storms those were analyzed using current standards and the proposed um 33% increase in the storm water and he's demonstrated that he's reduced the outflow the runoff by 50% 75% and 80% which is the requirement and that was all based on the D's regulations that were in place at the time of the submission of the application yes the 2023 ordinance that we they changed the ordinance in 22 and we had to adopt by 2023 so it's in our ordinance now as well I have a question so the prior condition the runoff was not absorbed and went basically South didn't go into the Township's uh storm water system eventually it all ends up there what what doesn't get soaked up by grass but um well continue I I I guess I'm I'm asking for you to confirm that the township storm water system can actually handle now the increase of water that's going to be sent into that system but there isn't an increase in water it's it's actually decreased from the current condition so if I may is it based more on rate of flow than ultimate volume it is it it is it's the rate of flow so the the frequency the um number cubic feet per second have they conducted the peration test and what the results were yes is that a question I'm sorry is that a question for us or for yes we uh we initially had done uh when when the we had this two surface uh Basin we had done three soil uh soil boring tests in this area in the south side where the ba where the uh surface uh basins were uh and uh Miss Callahan had asked us to uh investigate the upper lot to uh to check the C conditions there and uh and we have done that so we have a total of five soil borings that were done the results of the soil boring that four out of the five borings shows a uh a type of soil that is uh not conducive to infiltration uh there is a lot a lot modeling that starts down at 24 inches below grade you you see a lot of modeling and uh modeling is an indication that there's uh water uh coming into the soil at that location in fact several several of the borings showed uh water seage So based on that we've concluded that infiltrating the storm water uh would not be appropriate for the site obviously if that we were have we like to to have uh not only provided the storm water management we did but on a normal design we would have tried to infiltrate uh as much of the uh the storm water infiltration is a a preferred uh uh me thep likes to infiltrate obviously for groundwater recharge and uh unfortunately because of the uh results of our soil borings uh we have we concluded that uh infiltrating in for this side is not feasible and we provided those uh boring uh the result the boring Logs with the stor order management report uh one of the borings uh in this location sorry uh showed that potentially uh infiltration would would be uh but uh overall we concluded that infiltration was not uh would not work for this site and are those findings consistent with the with the plan that you have devised and submitted correct um um Mr chairman if I may there's also some civil engineering questions that Mr fronte needs to answer from a couple of the other reports uh if I could turn to those before go on I have one more question for Miss Callahan all right sure so to my understanding Force pavement requires a lot more maintenance and I like the idea will you be getting the reports for the semi or multiple multiple uh generally if if we had course pavement and which is something I would like to do in our parking lots um it's generally required to do a sweep they have um special sweepers that vacuum up any of the silts and the fines that end up between uh the forest Pavements and the voids um it's generally done before winter and after winter so before you know once the leaves have all fallen and all that debris is gone then they sweep it up and they do it again in the spring to pick up any road Brit and stuff that's accumulated and that itself um twice a year at a minimum corre be great to do it you know a third time maybe in the middle of the summer but it's not I wouldn't require that is that part of the storm see on the maintenance report yeah is that part of the storm water maintenance plan correct already that's been submitted so they've agreed to that already it's it's something and it's something that I think should be written into the resolution as a condition of the resolution because it's something that the the rabbi is going to have to make sure that it's done we're happy to comply with it understood it'll it can be in the plan and the resolution assuming it's an approval of course yes Mr I have a question for you don't mind going back to uh page two uh number five the storm water runoff treatment area and the proposed lighting pools in that treatment area do you respect on what this lighting and the depth and how it's going to be secured in this uh run the foundations for the yes um it's shown on the plan we have a detail on the liting you've seen the proposed specs on the correct yeah there okay thank you yes they did a ling analysis okay thank you just on that that I don't know if you covered that question of hers number under the lighting section I know you're doing s now but that's wor actually I did that was a question I called yeah I called specific reference to the yes okay that's thank you um you're not quite done um I'm referring you now to the break view engineering review memo dated January 27th 2025 aired by Mr disinger and on page two of his report item one he said as previously noted on this office's review of the concept version of the latest plan where practical Cur lines that intersect at acute or right angle should be rounded uh to minimize the possibility of punctures in the event they are impacted by vehicle uh tires is that something the applicant will comply with yes um moving further down on page is page two item four it says appears minor revisions to the pie shape aped island in the southwestern corner of the parking lot are required to allow the tail swing of the fire truck to complete the turn can you just identify that yeah see I I believe it's this pie shaped yes that's the one I'm talking about which which sheet is that John this is figure figure three and uh I uh the the the the truck turn that we have done the uh the the rear edge of the uh of the truck uh brushes against this curb line so you you would like us to uh give it a little more sweep to to avoid that condition and again that's something we have to will compy with absolutely um now item five and also with reference to figure three if you could move to the um pathway from the building to the proposed uh play area yes there are uh were uh a couple of questions there you're showing fencing uh enclosing the play area so presumably if you're enclosing it with Ving there's a gate somewhere correct the gate got left out there's a a good Cal good catch we will provide a gate absolutely and where will that be right in this corner right here where the Ada ramp uh walkway uh leads the children to the playground so that's the northeast corner of the play area is that cor um so there's an open question in his report as to whether on an ADA accessible ramp to the playground area is proposed are you saying that that it is it is an and where is that exactly it's really it's actually this this walkway has to be Ada compant in case uh one of the children someone is in wheelchair and things of that nature it has to has to comply and it does um so you identified the location of the key is this dark line here is what is that is that the curve line that's the curve line of the of the the the drive a so is the uh playground area setb from that curve line far enough so that there won't be any conflict with an opening gate and any vehicle movements absolutely um so so that striping treat that striping treatment that you're showing is the Ada access area correct and that's just striping that'll be that's shown on the plan and that will appear in the field on the on the pavement correct yeah Mr chairman if I can just clarify it'll probably speed things up a little the question with that is the that path at the uh Ada spaces should be blue consistent with Ada parking but past that it actually is a crosswalk so it should be white not blue so you just it's a very minor issue you just need to specify where the striping changes from Blue to White I don't have a problem with the location in fact I like the idea that that pathway is serving multiple purposes I'm just asking you to denote the striping properly absolutely would there be well there would be a benefit but should there be a requirement that there be balled in by those parking spots before the play area just in case so that a car does not inadvertently encroach and hit the play area we can uh we can provide Ballers at a good comment in in this location where I'm point in I was thinking like across by the play area so that yeah right in this spot yes we could add yeah I don't and there is a curve there that presumably someone backing out of the space isn't going to be moving very quickly but I don't have an issue with putting in the ballards just for an additional safety measure neither neither do we good good comment um I think that's it in terms of civil engineering comments from Mr fingers report unless I miss something there was and this is again a very minor thing item number three John can you just confirm that signage and Landscaping isn't proposed within the site triangles correct yes that was the only site plan Rel other site plan related item left in my report Mr F did you have any concern with the relocated uh uh position of the um dumpster enclosure with regard to traffic circulation no I agree that's a good place to put it it's a fairly simple move in and out the fire the sorry garbage truck can come in pick up the trash back out what it needs to and pull out of the site without very much without any difficult maneuvering uh Mr Mr ped not to leave uh you out uh I looked at your memo please correct me if I'm wrong I'm not sure that I saw any engineering related comments or questions that we didn't already address uh can just tell you which uh I think I had uh agreed to in your first report in the first iteration of the plans you have uh Rec under Section e recommended conditions of approval if the the board were to approve this application uh there was a new one added item eight the applicant should replace any trees that do do not survive up to one year after planning uh certainly the applicant agrees to that I think that would be covered by the maintenance guarantee that were required to post under the ml in any event so yes certainly the other seven I think remain unchanged correct and we had said before that those were all acceptable and we reiterate that we'll take that if I may ask a question Mr chairman of Mr ped is our is our usual uh requirement one year as opposed to twoyear for uh any diseased or dying trees uh it's two the diseas and dying I'm sorry have to confirm but I think we can confirm would the applicant stipulate to a two years assume because it's covered by the maintenance guarantee in any event so yes thank you I did just have a follow question for I don't know now time for me to ask um I did just want to walk through the laot coverage calculation and also just to kind of um just clarify the nomenclature just for the benefit of the board and the app of public because I know the terms impervious and laot coverage have kind of been used interchangeably but I just want to clarify for the benefit of everyone that there is no impervious coverage zoning stand within the r R3 district there is only a lot coverage standard um and I've included for reference uh the definition of lot coverage in my report um and I just wanted to note that it is uh basically enumerates various features that are subject to the lock ofage standard so first is um paved and or impervious Services the second is accessory uses third buildings or fourth any other structure Express as a percentage of a lot area um so uh Mr frany I just wanted to review the lot coverage calculations just to confirm the numbers so on your plan within the zoning table you indicate that there is 503611 um and you also indicate on that sheet that based on the the square footage size of the lot at 35% maximum the maximum coverage is 50665 square feet is that correct correct um and you indicated that the um missing component for your calculation for the purpos of blot coverage was the the playground surface area which is 900 square feet correct indicated so that would bring it the total to 51261 square feet of 261 51261 261 right of total coverage um which would be an overage of almost 600 sare feet 596 square feet so I just wanted I believe you said perhaps 300 I just wanted to confirm those right so what what we did was uh in essence the the number that's shown on the on the uh on the table the the 50,000 hold on let me find it sorry yeah the 50, 361 so if we what's was missing is the 900 square F feet for the playground so that brought us above the so uh in the calculating what 35% of the lot area is uh and subtract that from the the new calculation with we we've uh my numbers are that we have 331 over overage oh from the okay so so to be to be under the 35% I have to remove 350 square feet or or more to get below the 35% so that we don't have those varing I'm hearing 596 from Graham I'm hearing three something from you maybe there's a Reconciliation that has to yeah so the maximum is 50665 that's permitted by ordinance correct and when you add so and you have 50, 361 at present correct if you add the 900 square feet on top of that number that brings you up to 51,2 61 and that value is 596 feet over the maximum permitted of 50665 correct so uh yes I think your calculations are correct and we'll make that revision and more importantly we will reduce the the required impervious to be under the 35% okay so you had indicated the the wall removal what was the estimated square feet of the the walls of it uh it was more than at 331 I think uh I don't have the exact number uh noted on my uh on my sheet here but it was more than sufficient to get to below 35% hang on a second you said it was more than the 331 but you didn't say it was more than the 596 it's in that range I can provide the exact number I don't have that exact number with me tonight suffice it to say we have to reduce that number correct in order to avoid a need variance for lot coverage correct in your opinion as an engineer uh license of the state of New Jersey uh Is it feasible for you to reduce the lot coverage by 596 square feet as currently correct yes and and you would do that by removing the walls and if the walls aren't sufficient to get to the 596 foot number where do you go next well then we could reduce the the the driveway slightly the width of the driveway we could uh there's uh many areas of the site that we could uh reduce to get under the number could the uh width that we are showing a sidewalk uh internal to the site from old Short Hills Road to uh the building could the width of that sidewalk be red it could but I I think uh I wouldn't want to reduce it uh much more than I think we had a 4 foot sidewalk we could I we could go down to 2 foot6 but I rather so we understand we have to demonstrate exactly how that will be accomplished um Mr fronte doesn't have the exact figures of what the retaining wall uh achieves it's more than this 331 number but may or may not be more than the five 96 number so we'll just confirm that that can be done and explain exactly how it will be done and I'll provide the calculate absolutely provide also calculation accept the vote to you Mr we'll see acceptable to you as C wait see I by my calculations you and you if you remove the two walls you'll be over by 33 square fet and and your representing you'll provide that conclude the proceedure yes won't be a mystery so it'll be demonstrated on the plans yes before leave this ask quick question about the the playground so the access to the playground is across where the cars are exiting from the car park that's great could you repeat the question the the access to the playground yes that walkway runs right across where cars are going to be exiting from the main car right so is there going to be any signage to indicate the drivers I understand that there's probably no plans to have a lot of people exiting at the same time as kids might be going to playground but if kids are used to running across that road to playground by being there then they're just going to do that a while time we can add that that's okay so what exactly are we adding in where for stipulation well warning signed that that uh traffic uh uh going eastbound uh that there's a uh a walkway but the crosswalk uh striping will will provide that as well we could we could add additional what would that look just like pedestrian Crossing is that what it says yes kids cross children cross children Crossing we could uh that won't that won't call into question any deviations for additional signage because it's the directional or safety it's a regulatory and warning sign it's not advertising it was a rhetorical question but I I'm not going to be the expert to opine on the record on that so so I got nod affirmative nods from the experts so something for the Traffic Engineers I guess that's enough thank you we want the children to be safe absolutely ask another question while we on topic um for this updated rendering over here is there going to be also stop signs here or just indicating those Crossing and the exit yes there'll be S I think we're proposing stop sign at the there's a Stop Bar and there's stop signs that shown on the plan John yes it's in our traffic uh plan okay so you are proposing a stop sign yes um it's figure uh figure eight sorry missed it see the stop sign there you mean the detail you're referring to the detail having trouble moving the drawing but there is a side sign yes um Mr Warner you had asked about and just to be complete with Mr front's testimony you had asked about the Foresters am I have that in front of me now um and there are six items noted that consistent with what I had indicated earlier question as to whether or not um the the circumference of the trees is being correctly measured I stand by everything we had said before with regard to working with her to make sure that that is um that we're on the same page in terms of the total number of trees that need to be uh replaced and then uh to the extent there's any deficiency we make the required uh monetary contribution item two just recommends that the junipers and the Hawthorn not be planted together we comply with that yes three she I mentions the standard twoyear maintenance guarantee under the ml we had already indicated would comply with that um it the replacement trees at time of planting should be uh installed with deer protection um to safeguard them from damage that fairly standard operating procedure John yes is that something the applicant will comply with yes um item five she indicates there are some trees that in her view should be removed due to P or Decay or significant decline um it's certainly there has no issue with that and item six tree 34 is a healthy Maple outside of the work area and does not require removal uh yes if if we're in agreement that that's outside of the work area and it won't be damaged by you know equipment on its root system or anything like that and it can be salvaged certainly we're interested in salvaging as many right and I believe as we can I believe threee number 34 that uh it's being referred to is is right here and we were not right here uh Southside uh south of the uh the driveway could you pull out just a little so we can see that yes oh actually you zoomed in that gray Target looking thing inle that's uh that's we have noted that is three number 34 on our figure two and we're not being eliminated or remaining it's we are not we are proposing to leave it to not to it I would wonder why she would ask you to not touch it if if you already she may have been referring to a different different tree that we can uh coordinate with her but uh if the board uh likes I can go back to uh our figure two which uh num which has all the the markings of trees says unknown I'm zooming in on figure oops sorry figure two and you see number 34 and it's not proposed to be to be cut so we'll make sure we're talking about the same tree 34 but if that can be uh saved she may have been referred to 35 which is right at the edge there but we'll we'll coordinate with her and check on that okay that was it for the for um can I go back just you're going speeding through this real Qui but I have a question on the playground it doesn't specify I certainly see the fence around but is there a retaining wall or is there a block wall around there correct there is a small retaining wall at the and we have a fence on top of the was that also in your culations I'm asking our plan coverage ball should be included for the the regulation so that's something so clarification it should be included okay um yeah I don't that's I don't know if that they included that in the matter that's that's a question you just need to confirm his conclusion we confirm and also just uh RAM certainly the the bike wreck and you know all of that has been an additional and that was all calculated in your calculations that's part of the walkways yeah thank you that was that was revised uh consistent with your recommendation your first report is that correct correct yeah but the surface beneath the is captured in the B and does that reflect what you had in mind in terms of the location and the style yes than you so I have a question for you you have your report here about the sidewalk and you said that is recommended to have at least along Ure Hill Road why atast number seven why can we have sidewalk all on both streets we were talking about safety pedan safety oh I don't number seven so number seven and the applicant can speak to this but there is an existing sidewalk it's going to be replaced so my question can we have a sidewalk also on the other street because pedestrian safety is is a very for us we're not currently proposing that what's that we're not currently proposing that no no I know can you propose that not right now why not because so we are talking about P safety and I drive there many times and I see people walking without sidewalks I know there are no sidewalks anywhere else but maybe we can start having some sidewalks in this corner which is many people walks there we can't we can't kind of pop off the top of our head and agree to that at this point without taking a deeper dive into it depends on whether Where the Sidewalk is located if it's located outside of the right way on our property it would create an impervious coverage issue there's a question as to whether there's you know safe room for it there may be utility uh conflicts so we can't just we couldn't responsibly say oh yeah no problem for your question and comment we'll have to we'll have to look at and also Parson chill road is a county road it's under County jurisdiction the county may have uh they may either require it they may they may prohibit it so I don't want to create the false impression that we can definitely promise you that no but can you promise that you going to yeah okay I just want to go back to the tree thing for a second because we were looking at trees around number 34 and 35 so according to the demolition plan trees um 28 through 33 have been removed if we're looking on the site map those are all trees that run along Old Short Hills Road they are not near the area that was demolished that's why I'm saying I'm confused about whether these trees have been removed or not because they would not have been affected by the demolition of the previously existing house what uh could you repeat the number that you're concerned with I'm just as a sample numbers 29 through 33 and then you also list 35 those are all numbers that are that run along Old Short Hills Road where the new near where the new driveway we are as you so are they are they there right now or have you already remov that according to the the survey as indicated we are proposing to remove those trees because that's where the new driveway I'm not asking whether you're proposing to according to what you have written it indicates they've already been removed because it's in the past text it doesn't say will be removed it says removed so what I'm asking you to clarify is do those trees currently stand or have they already been removed I would have to check on that be the with our landscape architect because he's the one that prepared this this drawing okay can you do that Mr for because by my count I have that you have stated that 35 trees have already been removed on this site and so I really would appreciate clarification on that we will provide okay should the Forester also have issued some sort of permits for removing that Tre would have to and I don't think permits have been right so we yet as well to see because think there's penties without those need to be check yeah I can say there were no trees removed need to come up and you know may it it's gonna have to be checked anyway so not I don't mean to tell you who should or shouldn't speak on it but if we're going to confirm whether or not they've been removed I guess part of what you're going to do is uh did the landscape architect mean by that that it's going to be removed as opposed to was already removed we'll we'll clarify this entire table also uh perhaps I don't know if anybody could get the clarification from our farer this anybody any of the professionals staff that can do that uh under their jurisdiction um but they could they could make that clear from from the applicant's perspective certainly am I correct in my understanding then if it's Mark removed and it hasn't already been removed it's the intention of the applicant to remove those trees correct not necessarily I would have to uh the trees that we are planning to remove are shown on the drawing with with an next through them and the Assumption on this drawing was that if if we have an X there that tree is there and we're going to remove it and uh if it was removed we it would have been indicated as such but uh we will clarify that at the end of the day you're gonna have a number of trees removed and that's your replace that's going to dictate your replacement obligation correct and you've already given us those numbers uh so my my question simply is is is is the only issue here that you're trying to resolve which ones have already been removed and which ones are going to be removed correct sounds that way to me Yes sounds way to me re ISS understood and I'm sure those permit requirements are based on a lot of things including uh you know caliper width at breast height and all those sorts of things whether it's assiduous as opposed to coniferous so the requirements say what they say okay a permit is either first of all the fees have either been removed or not right either a permit was required or not either a permit was issued or not ultimately those would be enforcement issues that would be up to the appropriate enforcement bodies in town not the planning board yeah I me it's factual information that may be relevant but this board doesn't enforce the township will do that the the uh our jurisdiction is to hear the application decide the application that's where our jurisdiction starts and stops yeah just just a by the way just a quick scan of the of the table for example 16 17 18 I'm just zooming in on that it says removed past tense but then in the table it says yes to be replaced why don't you get the answer and let the board know um I don't have any more questions Mr fron there was nothing on the environmental commission or any other report that was relevant for the engineer there were let me double check and I don't know I wasn't suggesting I just noticed that there's another report to I think one question from the environmental commission was whether why those areas were chosen for perious movement for why those specific areas were chosen and why for instance the whole driveway couldn't be yes say again sorry maybe it's best if we go to the report is that the February 3 2025 so let's uh let's identify as murn environmental commission report dated February 3rd 2025 um there's findings of fact that I don't believe had change from the initial report um she cites a property visit from September 19 19 um's another question here about um just coming to terms on the uh on the agreement of the trees uh and the total replacement number we've discussed that at length it remains an open item I recommendations of the environmental commission clear Graphics that the number and location of the trees to be renewed yes have prepared that graphic any plants used should not be on the do not plant or invasive species list yes we comply with that sustainable and manageable native plants for new plantings deer resistant diverse yes absolutely requir the placement trees that's just a reiteration of the replacement tree requirement uh we provided on our plan the percentage of existing mature trees that are slated to be removed those percentages were provided in uh updated plans that were reviewed with the board at prior hearings um where pervious pavment is newly noted we recommend that the proposed location of pervious payment be assessed to determine as indicated on the revised plan is the optimal location for maximal site drainage um whether or not it's maximal is what we're proposing comply with all the applicable requirements yes um so we're proposing what we're proposing we're not going to reevaluate the uh location of the perious pavement uh perious payment is required to be maintained as specified we' already stipulated that yes we would agree to that and it's noted in our maintenance manual that Miss cahan's reviewed uh where impervious asphalt is noted we recommend that perious material such as porous asphalt be used for sumall of the parking areas paths and our roads well we've already increased a substantial amount of the pervious payment in the parking areas as we've already testified to we're not proposing it in any other areas of the of the site I guess as as the representative of the environmental Commission on this board I'm asking why you couldn't use perious pavement everywhere that's just the that's just a question I'm on the environmental commission and on this board that's just a question that I have well I is the question whether we could have specified porest pavement for the entire parking lot that's a uh that's a decision that that we made to satisfy storm water management uh it's a I think it's a not required we meet all the storm water requirements so I I don't think we need to I I understand it's not required but given how much more impervious lot coverage this site is going to have I'm asking I'm just asking why there why there wasn't a decision to just do it all but the main reason as has already been explained per uh pervious and Forest pavement requires a lot more maintenance than non-pourous that's one it will cost more okay and we don't need it in order to fully comply with the very stringent storm water requirements so that's answer thank you very much um efforts be made where possible to reduce the square footage of the access roads and the circulation area in the parking um you know we provided uh the access roads and circulation area are subject to a lot of requirements that are minimum withd requirements under your ordinance there minimum turning radius requirements under your ordinance it's been reviewed by your traffic consultant and your civil engineer and they found it to be welld designed so we're not proposing to uh to significantly change those things that are shown on the plan um where the storm water management planning for the future is sufficient I think we provided substantial testimony as to that the lighting comments are really carryover comments from the first uh report all of which we've already agreed on the record to comply with turned on for the shortest possible period um dark sky compliant we provided extensive testimony as to that uh we already had agreed to do the tank sweep um with regard to any possible underground storage tanks that might remain from former dwelling uh we're already proposing uh as our architect has testified to materials uh and and appliances and equipment that are energy energy efficient energy star compliant um well materials but are there any more questions from the board about anything before I open it up to the public for question just were you done with your direct with this witness Mr yes I'm sorry go ahead are there any questions from the public hi good evening um Mr chairman members of the board my name is Nicole Dory from the law firm of Connell Foley and I'm here on behalf of sustainable development for mil Township the objector I have some uh questions for Mr Fant um I don't have too much room here would you mind if I put my things down I can move it sorry okay that's okay takeing over you want me to Mo the left no just I can put my stuff I sympathize with your situation Mr ftic there's also microphone for there space of table thank you Mr Fon um in preparing the the site plans that you've submitted to the board um I know you did you prepare a comprehensive uh review of the Township's zoning ordinances yes okay um and I just wanted to ask you about some of the conditional use standards for a house of worship um Mr chairman if I may we have our planning consultant here whose expertise is to discuss the conditional use standards and our compliance with them that will be part of our presentation but that's not really been part of the testimony of our civil engineer M Mr uh chairman if I may I suspect Mr Dory is asking with respect to his being an engineer and there might be foundational questions as an engineer that even the applicants planner would need to hear he may have heard it already uh but I think it's fair for Mr St to ask if he can answer M Mr F get get your question she hasn't answered ask yet but but but I think the area I would I would advise the area it may be relevant if I may proceed yes I would like to ask some questions of the engineer related to his expertise in engineering related to the pleas proceed thank you um um so one of the conditional use standards uh are you're familiar with the conditional use standards correct okay and one of them I got to answer verbally yes H section e of the conditional use standards uh say states that vehicular access shall be from other than a local Street if the lot has Frontage on more than one street um isn't this portion of old short Hills Road I believe you testified it's it's under Municipal jurisdiction wouldn't that be a local Street the old sh Hills Road is County Road as is uh but it I think that portion of old sh roads sorry that portion of Short Hills Road is uh under the jurisdiction of the Township from so wouldn't that portion of old short Hills Road where you currently have your exit driveway opposite uh Park Road that would now be considered a local Street Mr I that's a misleading question in that the ordinance is clear that the classifications of streets is as per the master plan it's not some estimation of what may be considered local as to who has jurisdiction the master plan sets forth all those categories of streets primary secondary local collector and by the master plan classification we comply that and my civil engineer is not familiar with the town's master plan I I I I take it that's an issue that's going to be addressed by your planner yes who's an upcoming witness correct and Mr you'll have an O full and fair opportunity to cross-examine your planner correct absolutely please proceed with the new question Mr St um with the chair's permission please proceed and did the applicant consider at all eliminating egress from old sh Road when it was develop uh designing this application did the applicant ever consider eliminating eass from old Short Hills Road and designing the application do uh it's a good question do I don't know the answer to that I'm sorry Mr Le I think you know what I'm going to say you've already spoken to your client everyone needs to exercise forbearance and restraint and civility thank you in the in designing this project we uh had always had an exit onto or's road and in fact uh originally that was a two-way two-way uh driveway and then when we we had the the TRC meeting apologize this is I think it's it's a battery but we had the TRC meeting to Township uh asked us that we convert that to one way out and which we did okay so that driveway on Old Short Hills Road has always been part part of your design plan correct um I also wanted to ask about uh subsection J of the conditional use standards it states a minimum buffer to a residential use shall be 25 feet are you familiar with that standard yes and and can you tell me where the buffer is indicated on the site plans where that 25t buffer is indicated yeah we uh we indicated we provide the we the setbacks as well as the buffers shown on our drawing and we meet it uh we're fully comping with it's a figure three and the it's indicated u i could zoom in on if it's on there it's on is the buffer labeled on the I'm interested in the buffer on the western edge correct and I don't see that depicted on the site plans can you point out where that is yes we show we show the buffer unfortunately it's a busy it's a busy drawing we have two setbacks one is uh indicated as such on the I'm I'm pointing to the figure three southw southwest corner as well as the the other buffer which is a set to setback the setback lines and what about the buffer uh along the western property line near the um what is the sand filter and the your uh BMP there what's the buffer in that area the distance it's indicated there as well fact the I can refer to my my drawing sto this is the one yes be me a second I'll get you that exact answer now um I'm referring to figure two on the west side we have a a 40t side side setback and then further in we have the residential buffer of uh 25 ft so they're both they're both indicated on the dra um and what about on the page three figure three where it indicates the uh the improvements um is the buffer indicated there and it's just based on my review of your site plan uh and the scale you have here um I'm looking at the southeast corner I of the site plan where you have the uh sand filter um how is that compliance or the I'm sorry the West the west west the West Side corre uh where you have your BMP there with the light fixtures um we indicate the 25 ft residential buffer and it's shown there which parallels the property line and the sand filter is it crosses the sand filter is shown on the drawing um but shouldn't the buffer area be outside of the the sand filter shouldn't it be calculated from the edge of the BMP we don't think so because the sand filter and grass wh are part of the let's said the natural setting of the site almost a it's a landscaping feature um but those are Disturbed areas aren't they correct so shouldn't the buffer area be calculated from the edge of the BMP to the residential not necessarily you you're allowed to disturb as long as you don't construct any any features there such as a building a wall things of that nature so your testimony that your construction of uh the filter with the light poles in it that that's not disturbance and and you can cross that the light P not encroach on that bu okay but the the sand filter does right the sand filter um and and in the area where the sand filter encroaches on the buffer um what is the distance between the edge of the BMP um and the property line there the the smallest distance ites it looks to be about 12 feet about about 12 feet of area when the buffer requirement is 25 ft right correct I just want to point out that it's only at that literally that one spot after that it opens up considerably um but you agree in that area it's less than 25 ft from the edge of the BMP to the residential property yes um did the uh the applicant ever consider to move the design further to the east to create more of a buffer between this non-residential use and the residences to the West we are limited by the 100 foot uh front yard buffer there you can see it uh shown on the drawing so being a coral lart we have two 100 yard 100 ft uh front yard setbacks and the building was located as much as you can see tucked right into the corner of that 100 foot setbacks we cannot move it any further east and what about the parking area is the parking area able to be moved further to the east to create more of a buffer between the Residential Properties to the West we uh the ordinance does not allow parking in the front yard so really the the where the parking is is shown is the only feasible uh area that's not correct okay I stand correctly well is the correction I was mistaken in saying that the parking the ordinance does not allow parking in the front yard because you do have some parking in the front yard along pars nville road is that right that is correct okay so is it possible for the applicant to move some of the parking so that there's more of a buffer between the residences to the West it is my opinion that the answer to that question is no because of uh it would require uh a lot more disruption to the site and uh with additional driveways to be able to access the parking so we believe that the what's shown here is the optimal location for parking but has the applicant actually evaluated that has your office evaluated that to determine whether it's possible to move any of the parking to the east East in order to create more of a buffer the residences to the West we have uh We've generated uh not exact exaggeration over 10 different concept plans uh and I don't recall all the concept plans that we looked at so um but uh I think we settled on this geometry of the parking lot early in the in the evolution of site okay but as you stand here today you don't know whether or not the applicant ever evaluated whether it could move parking or or site features to create more of a buffer for the residences to the West is that right I cannot answer that question without looking at all the concept plans to be able to answer that question and would the applicant be willing to evaluate that to see if they could create more of a buffer no okay is there a reason why the applicant wouldn't consider that because we believe that what we're showing not only complies with all the ordinance requirements but reflects uh a significant amount of input from the board its consultants and members of the public and we're not going to go back and re re-engineer it again and again and again when we're proposing a fully conforming plan um Mr fr are you familiar with uh the township ordinance section the DRZ section 69.3 which contains uh standards for buffers between residential and non-residential uses in the township we remember looking at that yes and you familiar with it no I've not memorized it sir M FR sure we're now at the point where obors council is questioning Mr fante so it should be as between obors Council Mr fante understood thank you Mr Warner and have you reviewed that section of the ordinance DRZ 69.3 I don't recall you don't recall that section of the ordinance I don't recall the section of the ordinance okay I'm just going to read from that section of the ordinance it states uh within certain zones of the township which are all business and non-residential zones uh it says uh if there is an application for development that abuts the residential Zone a buffer shall be provided no development is permitted in the buffer area the next section States when the property of a non-residential use a multif family housing development or any combination thereof a buts the R3 R4 R5 R six or r s zones or residential use on the side or rear yard a strip of land shall be designated as a buffer and so indicated on the plat measuring either 20% of the average width or depth of the property or 50 feet whichever is less buffer area shall be contiguous with the residential property lines and shall be of uni form with the applicant shall erect a six foot high Stockade or other wood fence and a dense Evergreen planting within the buffer area do you believe that your your site plan conforms with this standard yes we have a there is a wooden fence existing we are providing a a buffer so we believe fundamentally we are comping well I mean this section states that the buffer area should be 50 feet uh or 20% of the average width or depth the lot um whichever is less so would be at least 50 feet but leaving that aside it also indicates that um there should be uh Landscaping um and there should be a continuous buffer with the residential property do you believe you've provided a continuous buffer with the residential property yes and Mr J if I may we're not looking to duct this issue uh Miss Dory made it clear that she believes the section of the ordinance um we're fully prepared to and I'm glad that she cited the language at length because the language is important we're fully prepared to address this issue through our planner's testimony not trying to eliminate the issue shove it under the rug this just is not the appropriate witness to be delving into this is it an issue of interpretation in your opinion as as to what that provision means yes and and to the extent in which it applies to this application in this prop yes well I I understand that the planner will provide testimony as to whether this provision of the ordinance he believes is applicable or not um you know irrespective of that planning testimony um I do believe this is the only section of the townships ordinances that actually addresses buffers between residential and non-residential uses actually it's like the only standard for buffers in the whole Township ordinances there's nothing else what's your point with respect to questioning witness so in this case we have a a a a site plan application for a development major development as testified with this by this witness that uh this that hasn't considered you know this standard for buffers between residential and non-residential uses the issue here is is what is the purpose of questioning further the engineer as opposed to the planner or even in addition to the planner if he's already answered the question as best he can and the plan speaks for as to what the buffers are or aren't if there's an issue of interpretation it's for the planner to be questioned and then uh for arguments to be made as to whether it's applicable or not and if so what does it mean and has been satisfied correct correct um I guess the the part about has it been satisfied would come from the engineer I would think but I can wait to hear from theend on the interpretation of it but question no because I have I'm sorry you want to ask a question of the objectives attorney yes oh well the the wit I only the widness should be question okay okay so I can what's your question no because I see here I have here the soning code well the soning code here is with the ordinance maybe you want to ask our planner if it's yes somebody because this is very confusing because she said that the buffer is 50 ft which is a huge differ to 25 I have the code here and they said the 0.1 number uh I just lost that what code section are you referring to I referring to R3 conditional use and there was updated on the ordinance number 241 17-13 and then was amended again in 99 19 2023 by ordinance number 2646 d23 and they said here that the buffer is 25 so why we have this conflict of opinion here so it's an excellent question um so what you're referring to is the conditional use standards for houses of worship withinin the art Zone what the obor's attorney is referring to is a different section of the ordinance which is DRZ 6093 which is the buffer section um but what's important to note and this will be subject to the interpretation of the applicants planner when they provide their testimony is the opening statement underneath the buffer section it says when an application is within the cdb1 b2a B2B b2c B3 B4 o1 O2 O3 and CMO zones that these buffer standards apply this application is for a property within the R3 zone so this section as drafted in the opening statement would you know based on my interpretation of the orance would not be applicable these these buffer standards would not be applicable to this property as this is in the three Zone um not within one of these nonresidential commercial zones so so if I understand correctly Mr P you're saying 69.3 in your opinion is not applicable to this application that's right okay and that's 69.3 is what M Dory is questioning the engineer on and apparently intends to question the plan on as well as far as thank you're welcome so is it your your testimony that this section doesn't apply to this application section 69.3 concerning uh buffers which provides the only standards for buffers can't comment since I not familiar enough to that ordinance to to be able to go at this point um since this this ordinance standard does provide standards for buffers between residential and non-residential uses I just wanted to understand how the the plan plan that the applicant has proposed differs from what's in this ordinance standard okay um you're you're saying assuming argue into it's applicable you want to ask yes questions even if it's not applicable because it's the only section of the ordinance provide standards for buffers between residential and non-residential uses if I made Mr keeps reiterating that that's not correct the conditional use standards which are most directly applicable to this application do in fact impose a a offer requirement from residential and it's 25 ft and we've shown it on the plans and testified as at length as to whether or not we comply so keep insisting that this is the only section of the ordinance that talks about buers is incorrect and I don't know why it is productive to spend time hypothetically well just let's assume for the moment that this do did apply even though it doesn't what are your thoughts about it is not relevant well this board you don't need to argue anymore the the the uh the my my advice Mr chair first first of all putting aside the characterizations whether they're accurate or not as far as is is this the only buffer or not uh it hasn't been definitively determined yet the planner the applicant plan is going weigh in I don't know if M Dory is going to have a plan or not ultimately the board is going to determine whether or not 69.3 is applicable we've already heard from the board's planner uh and his opinion which theoretically could change but maybe it won't uh the the uh the uh so what I'm going to suggest Mr chairman is allow a few questions even though it may ultimately prove to be irrelevant because we haven't definitively determined yet uh whether 69.3 is applicable or not not definitively deter so that that that my advice that's a long way of say my advice is to let her ask a few more questions and it is a few on this just in case or yeah I I mean this planning board is entitled to interpret its own zoning code so I assume there'll be further testimony from the planner and I'll be able to question I just said it hasn't been definitively determined yet that's why my advice is to let you ask a few more of the engineer okay and um this section of the ordinance requires a six foot high Stockade or other wood fence to be and dense Evergreen planting to be within the buffer area is the applicant proposing a a six foot high Stockade Fence there's a one that's existing so we did not propose a new fence okay and are you aware that sections of the fencing are missing or in disrepair there was some commentary from the neighbor that it wasn't dis repair and I believe we said that we would repair the fence where the applicant will agree to repair the fence I don't think that's ever been stipulated to by the applicant so there's a cross is the applicant stipulated to it now or are you correcting Mr no I'm just correct that not I do not believe the aant is stipulated okay there's there's no stipulation please so the applicant will not agree to that we got it um the uh this section of the ordinance also provides that there shouldn't be any development within the buffer area um would you agree that the the um the BMP would be qualified as development within the buffer area we didn't consider it such to us it's a it's a landscaping feature it's literally it's a grass Swale so would you consider a lawn area a an infringement on that buffer well it's a disturbed area correct it's a disturbed area but I'm not aware of any uh requirement that you're not allowed to disturb that area and then re replanted or reconstruct it okay but it's a disturbed area it's some form of development right it's a matter of definition what development is to me it's not a development development is building parking lot um and this section uh states that the planting shall be provided in a zigzag pattern more than six feet apart at Center um or is otherwise authorized by the approving Authority does your Landscaping plan comply with that in the uh on the western side of the property we believe it does it's relatively zigzag in pattern it's not uh with not rows of trees for example our landscape architect I think did an excellent job you may not agree with it but uh the Landscaping plan speaks for itself and you didn't design the Landscaping plan I'm not a landscape AR and is the applicant planning on having a landscape architect testify no uh this Pro uh provision of the ordinance also states that the buffer area shall contain a continu solid and continuous landscape screen to conceal the parking area eliminate the glare of automobile lights throughout the year and Screen the building from Ab budding residential areas um how does your uh Landscaping plan um conceal the parking area eliminate glare of automobile lights throughout the year and Screen the parking from Ab budding residential areas by a very dense Landscaping as you see from our drawing and the solid wood fence that provides that screen I'm looking at your landscape plan that's that's figure six is that right you have to answer out loud yes um and it seems like uh the plantings that are proposed on the Western border of the property line are much smaller um and fewer than those proposed along the southern property line did you agree the answer to that is if you have refer to the aerial foot photography that our neighboring lot is heavily landscaped heavily wooded already so that allowed us to uh propose the Landscaping that we did so in combination there there's plenty of uh buffering between the existing trees on the neighbor property as well as the uh what we're proposing so the applicants relying on the uh the existing Landscaping on the adjoining Lots on it we're just pointing out that it's a fact it's there so without counting the exist Landscaping on the neighboring Lots because that might change right property owners could remove that Landscaping if they wanted to right he can right with following the there may be ordinances for pre- removal right but the applicant still has to meet the requirement to provide an adequate buffer which is acceptable to this SP we do provide and can you explain how the buffer on the western uh portion of the property line adequately screens the adjoining residential uses so they don't have to deal with um you know it conceals the parking area eliminates the glare of automobile lights and it screens the building the solid fence doeses a lot of that that's existing 6'5 fence the lights from the cars are shielded from the neighbors and the missing portions of the fencing wouldn't provide that Shield right possibly I'm not aware exactly where the the damage the fence is and could you uh uh Could you um describe the difference between the size of the landscaping and the number of trees that are proposed along the western property boundary and those along the southern property boundary because it does seem like there are a significant more number of trees along that southern bound boundary which join Lot 10 but when you get to the Western Property boundary it's a much smaller um buffer for that very reason the that area of the site doesn't have the same openness that the the balance of the site is if you know if you look at the North side front yard much wider uh opening East Side very wide over 100 feet Southside wide open the west side is a slightly uh it's less available uh planting area for us did the applicant ever consider to reduce parking or to bank parking to try to uh create more of a buffer area on the west side nope we were we would had to meet the required parking so that's generated the parking lot would the applicant be able to bank parking to comply with the parking requirement that has not been evaluated or studied but the like from a civil engineering perspective our site plan meets the parking requirement and uh that's what we uh have provided and submitted um does the applicant believe that the on a regular basis all 95 spots are going to be used on a daily basis I think the the property owner would have to testify to that we are providing the required parking spaces and he didn't back testimony so I was just asking if the applicant would uh consider banking parking to try to um reduce some of the create a larger I I didn't hear that stipulate to that but she's asking again my understanding is your ordinance some ordinances contemplate allowing banked parking uh as an approved method of of uh addressing this type of of concern I'm not aware that the mbour ordinance allows for that so in order to provide banked parking you would need some sort of variance Rel the applicant is striving mightily to comply with all the ordinance requirements um can you tell me which trees along the western edge of the property um were removed as the application I will go back to uh old technology drawing while we're doing that if I may Mr chairman this wor I I believe we're still operating without the identity of the individual or individuals comprising your client is it an entity yes formal entity LLC PA what is it yes an LLC yes l see okay um so are we to assume then or better yet are you continuing to represent that your individual client or clients who comprise the LLC are not asking or will not be asking questions of these Witnesses only through you consistent with the in spant use law yes and I'll continue to Res represent that for all of the hearings with this application okay and uh is it your intention at any point in time including at the conclusion of the application or during your objectives case to identify who your client is or clients are um no I wasn't intending on doing it but um I had also submitted a letter to you I don't know if this is the appropriate time to raise it but I I do want to present a witness I understand that the absolutely and and uh I'll ask applicants Council to stipulate but frankly he doesn't have to the ML and do process requires that you have that opportunity so you will have that opportunity but nevertheless it's just understanding Mr LaVine you could Cur yeah and I've acknowledged that on the record at prior hearings and at no at no time have we tried to take the position that the objector is not able to bring a case and chief present an obor's case with fact Andor expert Witnesses absolutely um I guess we can talk about the schedule for that um afterward that will say yeah until till later in the evening did you want me answer that question uh yes uh what about uh are there loading areas associated with the development sorry are there loading areas associated with the development no um now that you have relocated the uh the playground and the trash uh area did you consider how close those are to uh residences along the western boundary of the property the uh on the West Side yes on the west side we're over uh I would say just looking at the scale we're roughly 100 I'll just 150 ft from the Western property line is the waste storage area the playground to the West property line close to 3 to 400 and with respect to the trash area um what there was a question in one of the review reports by the board's professionals about what the um schedule would be and what types of vehicles um would be removing trash can you explain that we have a uh noted the type of the waste truck on our drawing as far as uh we we uh believe it's private carding and the amount and the the pickup will be dictated by the building uh building management as far as how many times during a week the waste will have to be picked up as far as the uh the times uh that uh that uh can be scheduled off hours and obviously will be scheduled when the uh the children are being dropped off and picked up will not be scheduled doing those sign and is the waste area have a dumpster it would have a container so we haven't uh investigated that because we uh uh we didn't get into the operation as far as does it need a dumpster does it need can cans those type of things that the the the operator of the site will will uh will make that decision what's what's required based on the amount of waste that's generated from the site so uh as you stand here today you don't know what what type of waste uh container will be used for the site or what kind of truck will be picking up that waste be we had sized and designed a parking lot to handle a a regulation waste truck and the type of truck that we've uh uh designed is shown on our sheet figure uh figure a you can see it's a it's a standard waste struck so we're not proposing any substandard was TR yeah and that's a the standard waste truck that takes a dumpster and kind of flips it over the top of it and beeps when it backs up is that right well the type of truck with the waist carrier what if they're using a front loader or rear loader we don't know that that that depends with the waste with the carting company but we sized the and designed a parking lot to be able to handle a front loader or rear loader but by law uh trucks when they back up have to provide the audible alarms uh and would the applicants schedule the uh waste hauling so it's not you know early in the morning late in the evening very loud to the joining residences well I can't stipulate until as to a noise level but it's very commonly done that the applicant would agree to you know scheduling uh any required garbage pickups you know not earlier than a certain hour of the morning so it's not to disturb the neighbors that's perfectly fine and Comm what would the step be not an issue be time frame not but there are certain hours that the applicant would agree I'm asking him he appears to be making a stipulation on behalf of the applicant I'm asking him what it is don't know okay with the applicant stipulate to use um containers instead of a dumpster so it doesn't make so much noise no the uh NJ NJ C7 clone 29 uh D standard for uh noise Statewide which all municipalities must comply with uh has a different uh has daytime and nighttime standards 50 DBA nighttime 65 DBA uh daytime and uh their hours if I recall correctly and I might not Graham and Martha recall correctly uh is it 7 to 10 10 to 7 in other words 7: a.m. to 10 p.m. is is daytime 8 what's that the noise ordinance at 8 a.m. the uh 78 am not earlier than or you know not earlier than 8 am not later than 6 or or some reasonable morning time well this application will be private waste huler correct private waste Haller I thought that's what you said yes that was testimony so because it's by private wasti huler the applicant could schedule when the pickups are is that right with the private Haller yeah you have some flexibility right and so the question is with the applicant agree to you want do you want to take time uh uh later to speak with your client to see what you can agree to with respect to that please that might make sense could I just conf is is there in fact publicly provided waste volume in in Melbourne or is it all priv wait wait wait please did any evidence has to come from I don't know if any of our professionals know we're well we have the township does do waste removal but I think this would be considered private they would be required to do private I think all right s so anyway assuming it's private you'll speak with your client as to the reasonable parameters for noise and the like recognizing it's a residential Zone residential neighbors uh for how early or not uh and how late or not a private Hall garbage pickup would be and then you could uh make the stipulation if you're authorized to do so by your client so thank you that was a TBD thank you I do believe that there was a change there was certain commercial entities that were grandfathered for a certain period of time that grand about three or four years um and Mr fr have you identified the rooftop mechanical equipment on the site plans no and will they be identified on the site plans they're shown on the architectural is there at some point where rooftop mechanical equipment will be shown on the site plans we can show it yes and do you know what type of rooftop mechanical equipment there will be no um can you uh do you know what type of mechanical equipment the building needs that may be located on the rooftop that was testified to at link by the architect last time okay the so you're not familiar with what the architect testified to as far as talk not that okay Mr chairman I would ask that the obor's attorney not ask our whole Litany of witnesses to reiterate testimony that was provided previously by another one of our other experts who's actually within his area of expertise to provide a fair objection Mar I I don't think I'm asking to re reiterate the AR the characterization of it I think the point is is you can move on and ask the engineered questions that are within his scope uh uh to the extent that it's new information that he's provided this evening as opposed to earlier okay I'm particularly interested in the mechanical equipment because there was uh testimony on where it would be located so I'm wondering if the engineer is going to locate the rooftop of mechanical equipment at any time on the site plan so the board will know where it's going to be located are the final plant going to have the rooftop equipment located commensurate where the architect is put them it would be redundant it's already shown on the architectural so okay we would we would not not objective showing it well I don't want to get into the architect's testimony but the architect testified that he wasn't sure what type of rooftop mechanical equipment was going to be used so seems like it's not defined well that might be an argument you might be making later on if this if that's the we're not g to that's for summation um do you know if there will be a lightning rod on the building again not not my area um I just ask you some questions about storm water um you uh stated your storm water design complies with the D and the township requirements right yes um and the Township's ordinances uh regarding storm one or runoff um state that it shall not uh the drainage of adjacent areas shall not be adversely affected so is it your your opinion that uh this storm water design won't adversely affect um but Jason areas correct um and if it's determined after construction and development of the property that the drainage does adversely affect adjacent areas would the applicant return to the board to revise its storm water design it's a uh it's a the question needs to be clarified because we testified uh several occasions that currently most of the storm water flows sheet flows from the prop from the northern part of the site to the south southern part of the site and uh we are reducing that over 75% and there is still in the area that we're not disturbing that water that falls on that area will will will continue to flow as it currently does so if that is a an impact to the neighbors we don't consider such because undisturbed areas uh we are leaving it natural so the the ra water if it flows to the neighbor currently it will continue to do that um and your your storm water uh testimony and calculations that you provided and that's based on a design that's based upon a drainage area being less than 50 acres is that right and have you cons I'm sorry was the answer yes yes sorry have you taken into consideration the impacts of any flood PL or flood Hazard area that the applicate the develop might is not in a flood Hazard area um have you taken into consideration any uh impacts of flood plane or flood areas Hazard areas um if the drainage area is more than 50 acres more than more than 50 acres I think you're referring to the the drainage area to the existing drainage feature that Daylights on our proper property yes because right so that 50 acre reference DP considers drainage areas less than 50 acres as not a studied uh as not a uh an impact is not a stream that to be uh considered for Flo Hazard we do have a drainage feature that's underground that Daylights on the southwest side of the property we're not touching that area at all and it will continue to float through our property as currently uh do is doing so we're not impacting that at all there is a 50 foot repairing buffer already established for that uh drainage uh I don't want to call it a stream but that drainage uh feature has the applicant applied to the DP for any permits or received any permits from the we are we are not required to other than soil erosion we don't uh have to apply for any the D programs is that to the D or the so Conservation District the so conservation but it's considered a d so the applicant is not submitting any applications to the D for this development no um and your analysis is based upon uh for the stream that there's a a drainage area of less than 50 acres right no we never said that we haven't calculated drainage area all we said was that that draining feature exists Daylights on our property someone at some point in time established a 50 foot repairing buffer and we're not impacting the repairing buffer So based on that we don't are not required to file DP for flood Hazard okay because appendix I of your report has some stream status reports um they have a a tributary area for that stream and the Southwest portion um stating that it's uh 0.12 square miles um is that correct if it that's what it says I and I can pull it out it's in your appendix eye um and and 0.12 square miles um that's 77 Acres right I I trust your calculation and that's more than 50 acres it's more than 50 so that wouldn't that mean that the drainage area for that stream would be more than 50 acres I would have to uh I have to look to see where the uh the drainage area was calculated from the point of the point of uh analysis to see what the Dage area would look like um in your your storm water report you also say that there's no off-site runoff coming onto this property from the north um so so have you considered whether any of the properties to the north and west currently drain towards this property we've absolutely that when we calculated the drainage area we've calculated that the the drainage area that uh and the drainage area from uh north of us does uh does not uh add to the drainage area to to for our property the drainage area to the to the West the site to the West does not add to our drainage area and the drainage area to the east does not add to our drainage area and obviously South that water doesn't flow up build so uh based on our drainage area calculation we've defined what Dage area for this property is in our in our report um are you aware that the curbing along the northern property line along Parson Hill Road is missing or depressed so there's not like a curb there and then so couldn't the water just flow from the north from that section onto the property the way the drainage is that it it continues it it doesn't come onto our property we've investigated that there's depressed curving there and you're saying that even though there's depressed curbing along that stretch the depressed curving that you're referring to was the where the old driveway was no along parsonage Hill Road the curbing along parsonage Hill Road there is Cur there is curbing showing on our survey right are you aware that curbing is depressed or lowered sometimes it's missing no we didn't uh we didn't see that condition so if that curbing is depressed or missing isn't it possible that uh water could be flowing from the north that drainage area could be biger potentially yes and then um the if the drainage area is more than 50 acres then wouldn't there be a flood Hazard area associated with that stream that 50 acre reference to the flood Hazard rule does not apply here based on your your determination based on my knowledge of the flood hazard so if you did determine there was a drainage area greater than 50 acres uh would you need to apply to the DP performance no because we're not dis disrupting doing any construction any work within that repairing Zone if we were to uh uh infringe on the on the repairing Zone then there would be a a Flo Hazard uh requirement most likely a GP a general permit but we're uh not impacting that so there is no submitt to DP required um you testified that uh Your Design will require the storm water for the development to discharge into the pipes on Old Short Hills Road is that right um there was a comment in one of the reports about analyzing the capacity of the storm sewers Downstream within within old Short Hills Road that reference was sanitary meico okay for sanitary then has the has the applicant done that we we said we would do that we have not done that yet and will the applicant be presenting the results of that uh evaluation to the board so the board can consider it no but is that post approve assuming there's an approval is that post approval compliance obligation typical post approval compliance obligation that we will comply with thank you clarifying that well I mean I think the Capacity Analysis is something that the planning board could consider argument there's a time for the argument to be made that you're questioning the witness so the if I made the board engineer asked for that calculation that evaluation and we said that we would do that would you agree that there would be a material impact on the design if there isn't sufficient Downstream capacity we the shore line on goldshore Hills cannot handle the flow we would have to m that yes and and that would be done by upgrading the piping or something like that potentially there's other Solutions okay so the applicant would need to determine whether or not it would need to upgrade that piping as part of approval stand design as we transition from planning board to the detail engineering that design will be done absolutely um you you gave an overview of the bmps associated with your sto new storm water design can you explain which of the bmps are providing water quality and which are providing quantity reductions I just in what is the relevance of that question the ones providing total suspended solid mitigation the other's providing velocity mitigation it was in the storm water report right which we just want to want to make sure that the questioning is new questions based on new testimony and is uh reasonable under the circumstances and within the time frames is reasonable in other words uh no one should misunderstand them to be an effort to protract the proceedings right I'm not trying to protract any proceedings but this is a new storm water management report and there's been uh you know new site plan submitted to the board I hadn't questioned this witnessed before so um but I'll move on um with respect to the porest pavement area um you have some EV charging stations in the porest pavement area do you know how those units are going to be protected if that's going to work well the EV stations are it's a post that the the cars get plugged into so it'll have no impact on the for okay and just going back to the um the the storm water report um have you provided for any groundwater recharge in the storm water report it's not required for this site um I'm looking at the uh the township um storm water regulation um and it doesn't the definition of an urban Redevelopment area state that it's the previously developed portion of the pa1 you said you were in the metropolitan planning area one pa1 right we are in that because of that we don't we are not required to do sto mot infiltration yes but the uh I'm looking at section 5253 of the Township's ordinance I'm sorry can you speak up a little bit into the mic um I'm looking at uh Section 5 25.3 of the Township's ordinance which is a storm water ordinance um it has a definition of urban Redevelopment area and it states that it is the previous it includes the previous developed port itions of pa1 are you aware of that we are within pa1 right but um the urban Redevelopment area would include uh the previously developed portions of pa1 right okay so aren't there wooded areas on the site correct and were they considered as not previous developed in natural areas the regulations are very clear if the the township is within that pa1 individual sites need not provide storm water in infiltration very clear in the regulation very I think also the ordinance says says the same thing which mirrors the DP regulation so it's your testimony that based on your opinion there's no groundwater recharge required for this application correct you um you testified to some additional test pits that were provided with this uh new submitt have you identified those on the site plan yes um I saw them in the storm water report are they on the site plan as well yes they're no noted on figure two tph2 tph1 tph three there is a total of five which are showing within the uh the water report and also on the uh on the on figure two but uh I'm looking at figure two looks like the new uh the new test bits T TP th4 and five are not shown but the St report does show them exactly where they're located and uh did the applicant perform uh test pits and soil logs in each of the bmps yes and we provided those with the St motor report how about in the area of the sand filter did you provide a test bit there no no we are not required to provide a test bit in every in every location we just need to get a uh have a sufficient am amount to be able to determine what the soil on the site is and uh we believe we've done that with the five test pits so you believe that those five test pits are in the vicinity of these bmps because I don't see anything why would we the BMP that the we're designing have a it's a sand filter with a Sub sub drainage system underneath that will collect the water once it it travels through the sand filter and it gets conveyed to the storm water management we're not infiltrating um have you evaluated the the depth of the seasonal high water table for the all five test bits that you performed if I may we've had a licensed professional engineer testify at length as to how the storm water design complies with all of PR requirements we've had concurrence from the board's licensed professional engineer rather than having a lay person and sort like myself try to determine whether or not in her view the the storm water management plan complies I would suggest we would all be better served in her case and chief if she wants to bring a civil engineer here to explain why this plan is deficient by all means but rather than spending hour after hour asking about minutia like how many test fits and where they were grasping a St it's pointless and it wasted the applicant's time and the board's time I think the objection is understood do you have many more questions on the storm water man M because it may be a fair objection in my opinion at least Mr well I do have more questions but um you know I do want the opportunity to bring a civil engineer to testify as to the storm man already made clear that if you have a relevant fact and or expert Witnesses you can present them okay um I'll just ask a couple more questions um can you explain the the purpose of the bio retention rain Garden yeah it's very simply as I testified it's the the driveway leading out of the site on Old sh road is topographically lower it slopes towards sh road so the the ability that to uh to to treat the water from that section of the driveway which is a uh requir that that area of the site of the we have to provide uh remove suspended solids from that storm water the the rain Garden does that so it's means to remove the 80% total suspend of solid that were required to remove is is that going to be impacted At All by your removal of the train retaining walls in that area no okay and you indicated uh that you would be revising your calculations with respect to um uh coverage of the site to make sure that there are no variances correct yes and will you be providing revised plans to the planning board 10 10 days before the next hearing so that the board's professionals can confirm that wait wait wait wait wait did you finish question no I didn't um will you be providing revised plans to the planning board and the board's professionals so they can evaluate whether there is a for the application we'll have to we'll have to wait and see what the results of that analysis are if it's something that requires a plan revision then we will if it doesn't we won't um well I think as we sit here today that the the plan doesn't comply so I'm asking if the applicant will provide compliant plans to the board 10 days before the next hearing so that the board can evaluate that I think the applicant indicated they're going to demonstrate compliance uh and we're going to wait and see if and how they do the other thing to bear in mind is I'm sure the board is well aware it's extremely common for there to be a laundry list of relatively minor items that have been discussed at length at the board and that as part as resolution compliance are shown on revised plans at that stage of the proceedings as opposed to requiring each and every little thing to be revised in advance submitted 10 days in advance of an ultimate decision uh that's not the only way to address these types of issues and and and if I may ultimately I would defer or I think the board should defer to our engineer and planner the extent to which they need confirmation be it on plan or or an exhibit or what have you to demonstrate compliance so that the board is assured of its jurisdiction that there are no deviations that might be beyond the jurisdiction of this board to rule on before the board rules uh and then what if anything needs to be done if there's an approval post or can be done post compliance excuse me post uh decision so in short I think it we should defer to Mr ped and Miss Callahan as to what they need and when they need it but certainly the'll in my opinion uh it should be established that the board has jurisdictional rule before the board rules so that minimum so it's Fourth comment I have no further questions anybody else from the public have questions and again it's on the new testimony from this sir I'm not done yet the uh it's on the new testimony by this Witness uh relevant to you can put that down it's a new testimony by the SP and his exhibit that that was part of his new testing all right um Jeffrey Feld 11 Alexander Lane Short Hills New Jersey if you go your you would like this maybe figure number one you go on the right side it says schedule revisions are you missing the original revision where you had the playground at a different location that was not a formal revision that was an exhibit that we presented to this board I think on my second uh hearing all right at that time did you tell the board that the 900 square foot playground would take you over the 30% coverage ratio at that time it didn't it didn't wait can you explain to me today why the 900 foot square foot playground was not included in your coverage chart that's on the left side of exhibit fg1 was that a mistake no it was our interpretation that we were providing a fenced in area with a perious surface so we were treating as if it was a grass area and not uh per impervious until the the board uh planner made it pointed out to us that uh we we did not consider it as an accessory use there thereby we had it includeed so that was a a not it was a misund misinterpretation of the ordinance I thought it was an issue of coverage it is all right so you basically M phel I think I think to the extent it's relevant and the board will decide if it's relevant or not you made your point I have another question right as to figure drawing on parsonage Hill Road you see there's a yellow line is that a double yellow line in front of the driveway entering the property no that's a Google Earth uh feature that indicates that the uh the road uh feature of Google Earth was turned on on both sides are you aware whether there is a double line in front of the the driveway entrance on parti of Hill Road there is a there is a a line I don't recall whether it was a double yellow or a double white or or not you're notw all right if you go to figure eight which is I guess the traffic circulation right if you look at the fire engines if you come around the curve about how many Park spaces would they take out if they had to turn based on that drawing did you repeat the question if you look at the drawing around the curve with a fire engine when they come around the curve which curve you look down to the left hand corner right you gotta come over you know I'm looking at figure eight we're not encroaching on the parking you're not you're not hitting any of the parking that your testimony that you're not approaching on any of the parking lots when you make the turn correct all right thank you that's what I have to say right now Charles bambar 37 bambar b m b a r a 37 keiths road uh Short Hills New Jersey uh first thing I wanted to call the boards attention the documents posted on your site this this set of documents this set of documents posted on your site I had a heck of a Time printing it that's because the electronic signature in the properties of the file uh has invalid signatures on some of the pages so I ask if you'd check with the Township Clerk and just I did call the township and she wasn't able to explain that and I did find out that the the notation I got was that there were invalid electronic signatures on the documents and I she said all she did was upload what she was given so please check that that's it's that's trivial question that's trivial but I think it's gerain okay um are you aware there's a $2,000 fine for removing uh trees without a permit in the shade tree ordinance of this town I don't think and that's not it's not within the bo all that's fine okay the questions I have now pertain to uh figure four if you would kindly look at that have a couple of questions on that it's uh please speak up loud in the mic I have a couple of questions on on figure four uh specifically um you're showing the rain garden and then the sand filter is that what you call the Swale is that all made up of the Swale the on the western side of the parking lot okay yes we have a a a a grass Swale we called it a vegetative filter strip okay and adjacent to it a a sand filter a sand filter and that has the submerged pipe under is that shown is that shown in sectional view on any of the sheets I had difficulty finding that yeah the uh the sections are shown it's probably at the very end on on figure 13 but I didn't find that particular section the the exact makeup of the sand filter right we do have a cross-section and we have a detail okay deta rain garden and sand vilter lower left hand corner but that looks like concrete comp that doesn't look like a swell that's what that's what confused detail we on sheet figure 13 we provide the details for the the sand filter the rain Garden the forest the the per pement M okay but I didn't see a section of unless I'm wrong I didn't see a section section three figure 13 provides section section is specific to the asent of section six all right I won't take up your time on that okay um uh and so that what you show is the rain Garden detail uh has has two options one with sand and the bottom of it and one without did did you uh want to Avail yourself of the option of either or will you either one uh is uh is valid for this for this site because of the soil conditions we will uh provide and S thank you very much that's what that's what I would like to say so thank you very much that's that's the correct uh yeah as you know you can't comment all right okay I'll try to I'm trying to because I've been questioned I've been I've been personally you know interrupted and questioned on on my motives for asking those questions just the the procedure it's not not everyone's used to it it's question and answer okay at this stage comment later under root from the Swale to the the first primary underground detention uh it seems to Define that as an 8 in high density polyethlene pipe I'm referring on back on figure four yes on the on the left hand side yes uh and yet the uh the underground catch Basin or collection unit for that underground storage Vault uh in the lower right hand corner of that underground storage says that it has a 6inch hity polye Outlet so if you look at what goes in must come out uh how how you justify no okay done on purpose because what we want is the storm water uh management unit underneath the porest pavement to retain water as long as possible and let it out slope all right thank you thank you for that okay um okay and I had a question on the hva C Unit on the roof I assume I asked that of the architect and out of you later on okay thank you um okay now when I go to njde uh the title seven the section for storm management rules uh uh I noticed a couple of stipulations uh one was that swell containment walls uh have a subsurface uh polymer Grid in my inter is my interpretation of that correct sorry uh is my interpretation of uh of the storm water management rules njde uh njac title 7 section 8 uh that uh swells should have uh subsurface polymer grid uh is that interpretation of mine correct did you plan on putting something polymer grids are usually it's usually a Filter Fabric that's installed typically okay you you upgrade from that from the uh Filter Fabric to the more substantial grids whenever you have uh more steep slopes to to to consider that which we don't have in this case okay so you have a change in grade from one end if I read this correctly of from 3 and uh 24 down to 3155 so it's approximately a 10 foot drop in grade and your uh your interpretation is that's not significant enough to be concerned about erosion and put please it's from let's say 323 down to three 38 318 about 5 foot okay all right okay uh so so you have no plan for erosion is that correct we don't think it's needed okay okay um uh in which case I also saw there were construction requirements for stop dams and that same answer I would apply that you don't have for stop dams in the Swale just to stop we we do have that we have the okay the curve at the end okay all right but not not the intermediate ones because your testimony was that you correct me if I'm asking you am I correct in in interpreting what you're saying that intermediate stop as shown on our drawing figure three okay on the southwest side of the of the sand filter and grass whale we have provided a curb to to to prevent to uh as a way to uh to hold the water okay and then obviously the water will be collected by the uh the catch Basin and conveyed into the stor water management but am I correct in in in seeing that there are no intermediate stop dams along the length of the swell and and that is probably for this site it's not needed because of the okay the velocity don't require okay thank you um and uh I also saw in uh in the storm M management rule same reference that I just gave am I interpreting it correctly when I see that the minimum length of of grass swell Downstream of the entry point minimum length Downstream of the entry point from paved surfaces is 50 ft uh that's for total total solid removal rating of the Swale so there I I am I correct in interpreting they want you to extend the Swale 50 feet beyond the entry point from the from the paving I think that reference is they they want you to have a minimum okay 50 ft so that to be to be assured that the the suspended solid is REM I understand that but then there a lower leftand corner whatever is entering does not have 50 feet to travel to be filtered so is is am I assuming that what you've done is compliant with that regulation perhaps because not only do we have the grass whale so by itself the grass whale is considered a green infrastructure for solid removal we added the the sand filter in parallel okay to uh to provide the additional uh uh polishing of the STW okay all right um I think I've got a question on on something else but I think the traffic engineer is going to testify as well yes okay so I'll ask him that I won't waste your time and uh um on uh on figure 10 in the very center of the page there's a detail for a b type inlet filter and it's showing uh uh welded wire uh grate is that load bearing sir I'm sorry is that what is that load bearing is that grading load bearing which grading uh uh the B type in the center of oh that's a that's a this figure a figure 10 is our soil erion C control yes and you're required to cover all the existing catch basins with Filter Fabric to prevent any sedimentation from going into the catch base okay so that what I'm seeing is on top of the cast iron grading that's already there it's concerned because that grade that mesh would not be low bear thank you all right um I have no further questions thank you for indulging my question thank you Mr I don't know is this somebody's plans here yeah oh I just I'm gonna shift them off because I'll get them confused Christine best 15 fairfi Terrace good evening um nice to see you again uh I had a qu quick question um well I had a number of questions I don't know why I did that um I wanted to ask you um have you inquired if there are any other like functioning Wells because I know there's a well in the property and any of the neighbors that would be affected by groundwater changes you know especially from putting in 100 car parking lot uh sorry to hi just to to remind the board there there is a a well on the property yeah and we indicated that the the property owner wanted to repurpose that well for irrigation right so we're not uh proposing to demolish that particular well we are not aware of any other monitoring well on this property and uh we're not infiltrating so we are not we will not be impacting uh any uh groundwater locally as well as regionally can I ask you a question about the infiltration because when you say characterize the word infiltration do you mean that you're not doing any dry Wells is that what you're saying because because of the the water table being at like 18 inches that well we're not proposing dry Wells right and and dry Wells are not uh can't be used for a size such as this for major storm water management uh drywells are considered more for residential homes smaller Lots if you will for this site uh DP does not allow us to design dry Wells for for for the 10 or 100e storm so usually dry Wells are designed for typically the twoe storm or specifi inches per hour standing so so a a building a residence like the Metropolitan doesn't use drywells which building did like a large building like the metop would use drw is your objection the relevancy of some other can you ask them questions relevant to his testimony and this subject property and this subject I was just trying to understand if that was exus then I'll move on to the next one I because I I understand your objection um are you the only engineer working on this property in terms of land I mean I know your Civic engineer correct um are there any other land use Engineers I was under the impression Cas Keller might be working on this project is that true or not no not not unless I'm not aware my was fired no I just was asking I was just we know no one's firing you you're doing a good job um okay so before before you started before you started this whole project um you know in doing all the designs after the architect design space um did you do any like in field like when there's big storm going on you know uh like water viewing like in capturing on video waterflow patterns on the property before you did demolition we have not done that okay second and then the same would hold true have you worked with the traffic experts to do any traffic flow patter s visually you know you know in a in a visual rendering that's you know moving an animated rendering to see how the flow would come in and out of the actual property you know flow is in storm water no no I'm saying I'm going I'm jumping over to traffic now so I know you're not a traffic expert but because you're designing the parking lot and that's part of the you know your your work are you working did you work with a traffic expert to actually look at an animated flow of the cars coming in and out of this space so people could really understand how the traffic's going to be impacted besides somebody just making an equation and making a statement about it the traffic consultant testified that he did videos of the the traffic patterns in the area right he uh we worked together in the sense that on once we finished our site plan he reviews it to make sure that what we're proposing uh fits within the traffic pattern of the of the area we've done that but we have not done any modeling the Interior Space okay thank you um so I going past the site I noticed that there were I don't know somewhere between 25 and 40 mini green probably about this high and this wide because it to be exact um trees they like and that this and that okay I say I say 16 to 18 Ines by 12 Ines at the girth okay the bottom of the little mini fur trees and I think that those are probably green Giants I don't think they're Arbor VY are those 40 trees included in what you're replanting because I was trying to understand why somebody be planting little trees like that across the frontage is that what the frontage is going to look like those are existing trees they no they were planted since since the demolition I actually followed it I I'm aware of those there are small plantings in uh my view of the site I was not aware when they were planting they were planted after after the demolition so okay I was just wondering maybe maybe the attorney would he might know that answer no thank you so um I know that you had talked with the and the attorney had made some comments so both of you talked about um the trees that you might not be able to accomplish putting that many trees which totally makes sense to me um and it's not my position to say whether you should or not but you know instead of you know contributing financially would you consider actually taking those funds and purchasing trees that have higher calber or the more mature so that the provides more um you know sort of buffer for the residents behind the uh property this was an this was a question that was asked at a prior hearing and the answer is no we're going to comply with what the ordinance requires in terms of replacement if I understood correctly it's your understanding that you're actually going to meet the requirement with trees on the site but to the extent you to the extent you don't you're proposing to uh comply with any the ordinance with respect to any difference by way of contribution pursuant to the ordinance is that correct that's exactly all right um did your client ever ask you um to you know design um in a manner that would you know be more neighbor friendly or inclusive to the people living in the neighborhood in terms of their experience did you ever had to have that request of you I I can remember specifically that our client indicated put put it put all the trees that you can huh on the site which I think uh the late the latest revision to the to the Landscaping plan does that yeah but my question wasn't specific to the trees I was asking that general statement if you ever had gotten a general statement that there was a focus on you know being neighborly and focusing on you know building out a site all the way from top to bottom that would be conducive to the neighborhood experience for the other people people living in the neighborhood did you ever get that request not specifically but when we design a site we always have things like of that nature in mind trying to minimize the impact of the of the development and we tried hard not to exacerbate uh those issues thank you I think she took this one so when you calculate all the drainage I'm not obviously drainage expert what is the percent reduction for every tree you take down like what does a tree that's you know 20 Ines in diameter it's actually a very relevant question I know you're you know doing your not relevant thing but um how much like how much water does a tree take up so if you take down 30 trees how much water do you have to accommodate for that when you're doing that I am going to do my relevance SP okay okay here we go I'll go to the next question we only have a few more so the rain Garden you talked about so is the rain Garden are you taking it to the level of a rain Garden or is it just a term for the sort of Bio Swale um thing that you have going on you know near the end of the road are you going to actually plant it plant it with rain Garden like plants that will make it more beautiful we have provided a list of plant we are proposing for the rainard thank you got that one okay I wanted to ask about the the mikah pool um was not with Tes it's an engineering issue actually you know why because it's going underground' you're argumentative right now with I'm I'm sorry I'm debating no I understand that's okay that's okay but it's not appropriate so for this forum so okay well I I I'm I'm apologizing appropriate for this so I can't ask the question of you can't ask the question I said you're debating right now so with with the attorney let's let's move forward the uh the the the objection was that he didn't testify regarding the mkah the testimony was provided by somebody else so when you're cross-examining you could only cross-examine based on the testimony provided so if it's not not within his scope then it's not within his scope if that if that's so whose scope was is it within because it's an engineering issue because you're actually digging underneath the foundation of a building so bement anyes other than I'm I'm helping you do do you you're welcome the uh the the Mr LaVine applicants council do you have any Witnesses other than the rabbi who are Who provided or will provide testimony with respect to the mikah no okay and the rabbi's not an engineer correct correct and he's he's not going to construct it correct correct okay or install it okay all right uh you have one question regarding the installation of this from an engineering perspective yes I do my advice to the chair is to allow her to ask the question thank you and see if know question so I just was trying to understand because you had talked about you know the um the you know the water table being higher on that property um at least that's what I thought I understood and I wanted to understand so you know when you're installing a pool a lot of people install it at ground level right so now you're really installing it sort of basement level I mean I know you have a walk out basement so I was trying to understand how that will impact you know even more of create more drainage issues and do you need to apply for a Vance or permit when you do like an underground pool I mean I guess I just don't know how many people is it it's gonna please I'm trying to you need to ask a question I'm trying to discern what that question was that so that he could answer uh the the the the uh do you understand the question I understand the question okay why don't you answer the question thank you as as you understand as I understand it in the context of my general engineering knowledge I can answer that it's not specific to this application okay I'm not aware you know I not evaluated the in ground pool in the basement or things of that nature so to back up a little from what you said we never really establish a the depth of groundw table what we said was that the the test bits that we did showed sign of modeling and and some mot seage that in itself may not be the indicative of where the water table is okay because based on the soil and the and the subsurface there could be some uh water that's trapped called uh that's trapped in the soil that once you dig a hole it comes into the hole you know that's lateen L water uh but to answer your other question question from a structural perspective I'm I'm also a structural engineer by the so whenever you design an inground pool obviously you have to evaluate where the water table is if you have a high water table does not prevent you from doing a pool but it has to be watertight and it has to be designed for buoyancy so so designing it properly structurally you can design it in ground pool in high water table areas thank you helpful than thank you very much I take it that would include a mikah what a mikah I'm using the word yeah it's a cleansing ritual bath so I'm almost done okay got that one um so I was looking at the lighting plans and um thank you so much for doing these are really really helpful and I was looking at your fixtures and I wanted to ask you are you familiar with the township ordinance um 253 919 the ordinance to amend and supplement the development regulations of zoning ordinance of town of Milburn chapter 5 Section subsection S12 entitled lighting and in regards to the R3 Zone if I may there was extensive testimony as to lighting that was provided by this witness at at prior hearings none in the lighting plan has changed he did not testify as lighting this evening that's already been delv into uh deeply before the board yeah one but one thing we do have to do Mr chairman as you and the board members are well aware is is that when people are repeatedly testifying and then being questioned each time it does need the question needs to relate to the new testimony not the old testimony I said testimony not new testament old testament has a new testimony not the old testimony uh the the the um hour is getting later for me the the uh but the jokes are getting worse the the the um but uh the uh so it may I didn't hear any of that testimony this evening but uh I'm going off the drawing so that's testimony dra I believe these are new drawings I don't but if the lighting didn't change do do you have more than one or two questions regarding the lighting I I just have I really just wanted to ask him if he included this ordinance and I just have one or two questions on the lighting I think it's very very important as it relates to we don't need the the commentary if why you ask some questions it'll take take longer to discern whether or not you have the right to ask a question to ask and answer the question thank you with the chair's permission what's your first lighting question is it okay thank you sir I appreciate it um so I'm trying to understand I see the foot candles are they going to be at two or less or is anything going to be higher in the 10 to 15 range no well if you uh I'm referring to S which provides the location of our proposed lighting right that's what I'm looking at myself and U and you can see that we provided uh spot spot uh I can't see numbers if you will as well as Contours so the the the standard that we designed this to is that we're we have to at the property line we cannot uh impact the neighbors across the property line so you see across the property line it's predominantly Z zero foot bandles we have uh I think we testified the last time we have in fact it might have been a comment from one of the professionals we have a 0.1.2 point 2.2.1 and what we I believe testified is that the solid fence will keep the the the foot candles from trespassing if you will if I use that word onto the neighbors's property so we concluded that our lighting is compliant because of that and it's a zero is pretty much everywhere else we just have p uh this one area here where we have a02 which we can easily Reduce by either lowering the the light pole and um if that's an issue we can easily comply but we believe the solid fence helps us to comply I I think um it had talked about having lower light poles in that um in that ordinance so that's what I was wondering um actually I think Christ Church has uh light poles that are approximately uh maybe three and a half 36 Ines four foot high would that be something you guys would consider to um offset the visual brightness you know somebody's looking at in the middle of the night I was just wondering if you consider it that's my question we've already agreed to conditions that the as per Mr ped's recommendation that the lights would be shielded would be focused downward and we've already have reached conclusions that have been supported by the board's Consultants that there will be no adverse uh offsite lighting impacts by our lighting propos and all those stipulations were noted and they'd be if there's an approval they'd be part of any approval so is The Shield a Bard I'm just asking because I I didn't see where the draw in the drawings where the shields were uh noted we are providing vol on the sidewalk these are those low the light poles around the site are we I think we stipulated no no higher than 12 feet with 12 feet high so they're above the fence line yes and I know that you have them at 3,000 Kelvin um I think that the lighting ordinance talks about warm light and so 3000 Kelvin is still a pretty blue light would you consider switching to 2200 Kelvin so it would be more palatable to somebody it it actually causes circadian rhythm disruption understood the environmental commission actually one of their comment was that they want wanted to make sure that we had 3,000 which we uh we do we have dark sky compliant to go to a lower to a lower uh let's say temperature we could look at that uh but we may have to add light poles to be able to C the parking lot so it would affect the foot candles for warmth versus cold light we would have to look at that yeah I we're going to go with the liting plan that's submitted before the board so can you just could I mean can you if I just show you a picture could you would you say that the lighting would look something like this wait it's not part of the record of it's phone well I was just trying to but I was trying to give a visual because I don't know how somebody describe that trying to do completely do I just I'm just letting you know it's not part of the record if it's on your phone we can't it's can't be part of the record so if it's something that you want to use as an exhibit for questioning this witness okay if you could duplicate it somehow and provide it to the board like send it in an email sir what whatever whatever format can be done so that the board can see it it could be part of the record and to the extent his answer to whatever question you're going to ask him is relevant what's the question does it look like I wanted to understand what it's if it's going to look like a Best Buy parking lot down by tar you know where where Target is or if it's GNA look like what Christ Church looks like I want maybe you don't need the exhibit if he knows what the best buying Christ Church Li I'm sorry I'm just trying to I'm a visual person so I'm just very literal do you understand the question can you answer the question yeah think the question is whether uh do we entertain using a the set the 3,000 a lower a lower temperature lighting there with LEDs you can you can modulate the uh the look of the of the lighting as we all know whether it's you know sort of a warmer light we would uh we would uh not object looking at that but the lighting plan is the lighting plan but changing the the from 3,000 to a lower temperature we would we could look at that yeah I it it does you know I'm not allowed to make comments sorry I'm just on um would you also consider and obviously the town would have to proove it increasing the fence height and rebuilding the fence with material that would be would you is that something you consider that's all I'm asking not at time and I think I just one more thing and I'm done the last thing I was just and I if I'm didn't pay attention well enough I was confused about why there wasn't more of a dispersion of the water runoff in different points you know I guess you're trying to just collect everything and put into the storm water so it probably get my question um sorry no no I just I just sort of was mumbling to myself my apologies um oh and then the other the last thing I want to ask you this is the last question I promise the the architect um had gone over all his plans and um and I was wondering tonight the revisions that were done here which impacts the architecture possibly um and also the architect discussed doing some design changes and presenting materials to the board do you know if those plans will be submitted since you talked to them all the time do you know I mean the ones that were submitted more than 10 days in advance of the hearing and that are on the municipal website uh you mean I only saw one drawing that's all I was just wondering I just I thought he was going I was thought he was providing additional information that's what he uh testified to last time well he'll be here to testify next time correct I just was wondering because he said he was going to revise is 10 of 11 I guess next time I'm sorry thank you so much everybody thank you Miss best there any other questions from the public no other questions for this witness then I think we're moving to the next witness but we might not NE necessarily be what we did almost if we can if you know I just need a clarification because my understanding is that uh rain guard is disturbance but I need the engineer to confirm that also that being disturbed it's also water catching so I would like to know uh utilities um you know how far they have to be back from a rain Garden just clarification I don't know if anyone agrees or disagrees um but what do you mean utility so yeah how the distance they have to be from the rain Garden so any utility like electricity any utilities is there any regulations because as far as I know there's there's not do you mean like an overhead Pole or underground trench I'm not no the distance between the rain Garden which is to catch the water and the utilities and when you put poles light poles so close to these rain Garden just I would like just clarification on are we talking about the vegetated s where the light are or the rain well it's used in I mean a swell in a rain Garden is the same so okay I'd like to know if as the attorney had mentioned if it's ground disturbance I believe that it is I'd like clarification on that but I'd also like clarification on my understanding that utilities have to be a distance from that so just don't believe they a vegetative Swale is just it's like a a lawn area that just is a little it's just a little gradual swell it's not it's like a a it's grass so they're going to have a foundation again I'm just asking for uh clarification so it it does not have to be separated in my opinion okay but can we clarify that I mean there's legal language or what I've never seen any regulation that prohibits it it's no not prohibits is it the question was is it considered land disturbance I just want clarification on that to put a foundation into the ground would be considered land disturbance yes you have to dig a hole to put concrete in to hold thank you okay else fin very quickly one question from Mr fron um the we have multiple green technologies used for storm water collection why so many Technologies good question is is really the way the the parking lot and the topography and the slope of the parking lot so we we wanted to go with a with a linear uh green infrastructure to intercept more water in that fashion as as opposed to uh collecting water more and then channeling that to a like a bios Swale or structured uh we could have used uh structured filter uh Technologies like like this one on this this little this small one is we felt that uh going with like that this type of green infrastructure such as the rain Garden is more in keeping with trying to create a natural landscaped area to you know to uh for the site okay it wasn't a d requirement we could we could have literally have gone with the structured devices which are these large manholes that filter the storm water and uh avoid this but we chose to do we felt that this would I think the board and the public would have appreciated these typ of green infrastructures more than these manholes that fil the groundwater and I just have one followup for you um it was just um a question about the foundations to the to the light poles correct that were those the foundations you were referring to they are the light poles um and and that uh Martha was referring to as well so those areas where the foundations of the light poles are proposed along the western edge of the property near the vegetated well are those outside of the 25t hopper yes I'm sorry was yes yes they are outside there you can see the the line is right here and the light poles are located along the edge of the driveway to the east of that and outside of the buer and one one last request before we discuss carrying the next meeting um the waist pickup time is to be care clarified in doing that can you also figure out the mechanism for the garbage storage I think that's pertinent because it there is a sizable Kitchen on site and any food waste that's going to be stored outside not only is it frequency of pickup going to come into play but also the means in which it's stored yes we'll confirm that thank you any other questions you discuss how we carry the meeting well it's easy to carry but before we get there the the the um my understanding is that the board has scheduled a special meeting for one week from tonight in light of the fact that we normally have two meetings a month but did not have one scheduled this February and it's my understanding that we anticipate having more than a quarm attendance for that meeting one month from tonight it's been noticed as I understand it open public meetings act Sunshine noticed uh uh and uh so we can carry without further notice uh so before we do uh our next meeting thereafter I think is March 5th if I recall correctly now and uh so one issue is extension of time to act uh since we have been going on a tight time I think it expires tomorrow the current one uh so would you uh would the applicant uh given that the board has put together a special meeting as I understand it uh extend the time to act at least through March 6 beyond the March 5th meeting date uh so that we're not going meeting to meeting I think it's fair to assume you have to finish your direct case we know there's going to be an objector case members of the public and it's reasonable to assume it's not going to end on February 12th I assum be on the ne the next was I right up even when I'm right I think the the the um but so extend the time to act at least Mar and first of all I I do want to thank the board and it's and its professionals I realize that you know you folks are are volunteers and spend a lot of your time um serving the uh serving the town by being on these boards and we thank you very much for um seeing your we clear to having a special meeting um so we do appreciate that we'll plan to take full advantage of that uh and yeah carrying your next regularly scheduled meeting which is might be the day after we've typically done to March 6 I think under the circumstances is perfectly reasonable and uh and I don't know if we're going to be continuing on March that or not it's I don't make the schedule that's well above my pay grade but uh and uh so it's your intention to continue I take it with the was it the architect and the traffic engineer and then the planner yes and then no further Witnesses therea correct okay and then of course obor's case um I think be heard M story wants to be heard I assume with respect to schedule yes um so I had reached out um to the board secretary because I learned that there was a special meeting uh scheduled for next week only recently um so my witness is not available on February 12th and I would like the opportunity to present my witness so I've asked I wrote a letter to the board and you to ask to present my witness at the March 5th meeting and I think the normal course if I may is as you is when the applicant finishes their direct case then we go to obor case uh as well as members of the public so if it's fair to assume that February 12th at most they'll finish their case uh presumably your Witnesses would put it this way would not be testifying until at least March 5th if not later but because time is time um but uh so I think you're covered there if that I just want to make sure I able to present my witness and he's not available on the 12th so as long as he can be available on the fth that's fine thank you so if there's nothing else Mr chairman uh I can make the announcement of car we're carrying this uh hearing without further notice to February 12 one week from this evening 7:30 p.m. same location we have an extension of time to act to at least March 6 thank you everybody for coming uh make a motion to adjourn do I have a second all in favor John