okay um welcome everybody to this special planning board meeting on Wednesday June 7th 2023 [Music] um what do we do first can we call the role Please Mr Bernardo here Mr katf he's on his way he's rning way yeah U Mr Lily here Mr Hindman here Mr coody here Mr D here councilman mcoy present Mr Neil mayor Roman here Vice chairman presy here chairperson Pearson here Alro Gonzalez our board engineer Phil X our zoning officer here and Greg m our board attorney here okay can everybody please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance [Music] States okay uh the notice and requirements of the open public meeting act have been satisfied with respect to the meeting of the Verona planning board being held in person in the ballroom of the Verona Community Center the time and date of this meeting were included in um not the annual meeting notice in a special meeting notice um sent to the official newspapers of the township the ver Grove times and the Star Ledger at least 48 Hours preceding the start time of this special meeting a public comment period will be held in the order is listed on the meeting agenda and instructions on how to comment will be provided at the appropriate time all meetings are recorded those wishing to speak during any public comment period should only provide their name and municipality street addresses are not required and please be advised that should a member of the public choose to State their street address it will not be redacted from the meetings recording uh with that I will now read the public meeting uh statement statement anyone from the public wishing to speak on any matter that is not on tonight's agenda please approach the microphone and clearly state only your name and Township of residence for the record you are not required to provide your street address again if you do note that the meetings will be posted on the town's YouTube channel and addresses will not be redacted for any purpose you will have four minutes to address the board there will be no cross dialogue during the public portion after everyone wishing to speak has been heard the board May address your comments and our questions so if anybody has a comment or question about anything that's not on this evening's agenda please okay um seeing none um we do not have our meeting minutes for the meeting a couple of weeks ago not even so we are we do not have a consistency determination so we are just going to move on with a continuation from our regular May 25th 2023 meeting with application 2022 04 preliminary and final site plans for one Sunset Avenue block 303 lot one thank you madam chair uh John Andino here representing the applicant good to see all of you again I think where we are uh Madam chair is we have Mr Savage the project engineer back tonight to provide some testimony with regards regards to the revised storm water report that was submitted back on May 11th uh to the board and the board professionals um and then we would like to address uh questions and issues uh that appear in in Boswell's uh two most recent letters one on June 1st and one on June 6th um way we think we you would like us to proceed but we'll proceed however you want would be to have Mr Savage testify as to each of the sheets um or we can proceed another way you want to just proceed in the way that you would like us to to proceed if you're going to start with the site plan updates and changes yeah then I would go by the updates and changes that were listed for us in that memo sheet that uh was sent to us along with the plans if in doing so we come across an issue that was brought up with the Boswell in the Boswell memo for instance uh the height of a retaining wall then I think that we should stop right there and start and address that at that time okay perfect we we'll proceed in that way um so I'd like to call Mr Savage uh Mr Savage you understand you're still under oath is that correct correct and can you affirm for the board that the credentials all of the credentials including your license as a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey uh are exactly as you represented to the board when you were accepted as an expert there okay thank you Mr Savage for the record Mr is in attendance great welcome thank you all righty Mr Savage uh I think you know the way in which would like you to proceed going to start going through I'm going to be referring to that's up on the screen here the submitted site plans um most recent revision uh first sheet uh and I'm going to be referring to uh a memo that we had provided which um went went through and listed the various plan changes on the plans that were submitted on the 10th of May um so on the title sheet sheet one um the plan uh the listing of each individual plan sheet on the left of the plan was uh updated to reflect the revision block that's these values down here uh we also added uh lot coverage calculations for the building coverage and overall lot coverage uh those are calculations that are down in the down this right area here so these are building coverage CS lock coverage Cals we also added uh average grade elevations utilized that were utilized for the building height calculations have been added um those are up here a little bit you can see average grade utilized for Building height calculations right added to the sheet um sheet two there were no changes this is the uh existing condition uh overall existing condition plan sheet three is a demolition plan again there was no revisions from the last submitted set sheet four was the is the uh Tree location removal sheet on this plan the limit of the proposed work was adjusted to reflect the addition of the 20x20 uh emergency pulloff off of afterglow which is this area sort of in the middle here The Wider area there that is the area in which that uh emergency or that that pull off is located in um and then it was also adjusted we we had added a sidewalk which we'll get to on the later sheet but we added a sidewalk along this portion of sunset up here to the to the uh west of the entrance site entrance um so the limit of disturbance was adjusted for that as well um that's it for that sheet next sheet is the geometry sheet on this one we um we've added the the w sidewalk from our site entrance West up to the intersection of Sunset and Afterglow um the walk and this will sort of ties into something on the graving plant but as we reduced the height of this wall here on the South Side uh we incorporated um steps on this sidewalk that was in the rear of this uh on the south side of the building um work that out I'm sorry I'm a little lost when you're talking you're not really pointing so on the South Side here there's a sidewalk that's between the garage the building and a retaining wall so in this area if you can see my mouse kind of moving there um those darker lines that are shown here those are steps so the addition of those steps um was is required for us to reduce the height of that wall which we'll get to on the next gr blow that up a little bit and just be a little more all right see I was looking on the other side because I couldn't see your cursor all right thank you uh and then the emergency access um was added up here that's this grassp area here that's right underneath the word Afterglow uh and and we also indicate um you know just the various notes associated with that um all right next sheet is the grading sheet so so on this side the the sidewalk is now shown here between the ENT side entrance and Afterglow it's right in here so there's now you can see these these darker elevation shots those are just shots for that sidewalk that's now proposed along here um grading uh so [Music] on back to the South side where we were before where we talked about the steps um this wall previously had sections of it which were you know in the I think 17 18t range in certain parts so there was um some comments previously about reducing the height of that wall um so this wall on this side here is now um has a max of a 6 foot retaining wall on that side so incorporating the steps Etc in here allowed that to be changed so that's the change on that side and then we also lowered there's comments about this retaining wall that's on the on the north side of the dro off this sort of this dash line here uh that wall was uh previously taller we now have reduced that it's a 4ot maximum uh Wall height there uh and then I mentioned the notes and elevation shots along the new sidewalk so uh utility [Music] sheet so on the utility sheet um first thing is we added uh water quality structures the um first one is this moves the first one here water quality one it's located just outside of the garage entrance of the building the second one is located down here just adjacent sort of northwest of the uh underground Basin that's in this location [Music] um these where is it we added uh there was a comment concerning under drains for the um pervious pavement perable pavement so we added uh this line here and here they're just under drained for that those parking spaces um [Music] there was a comment concerning um the uh slope of uh out Outlet uh structure down to uh manhole 6 um give me a second [Music] so that that is from from um the outlet structure Outlet structure five of the Bas Nets within the garage uh there was a comment to reduce the slope out to the next manhole um to decre decrease the drop that was occurring at manhole 6 which is this manhole here so that was done you don't really see it here other than some invert notes uh sanitary cleanouts um there was two sanitary cleanouts that were converted to manholes uh instead just for ease of maintaining them so this structure up here at the corner is now a manhole that was a cleanout uh and same thing over here on the far the South West corner of the building does that just give better access yeah it's just bigger it's a bigger opening okay yeah mhs2 and MHS 3 uh sorry and seven and 7 and3 um Rim uh Rim elevations of proposed drainage and sanitary nearest to Southern retaining wall would have been have been adjusted for the revised grading so when we when we revised a grading uh and adjusted the Wall height here on the South Side you know these structures that are close by that wall there was some slight adjustments to the rim elevations um doesn't change the inverts or the the function of pipes just adjusting the the rims all right uh next sheet is eight it's the profile [Music] sheet so on this one um uh the Tren strain to uh Basin B profile had been revised to add the water quality uh unit so [Music] um so that that's this trench drain to Basin B detail basically we just added in that water quality structure that that uh that we added on the uh Utility Fund uh Basin a to existing manhole uh same thing we added in that profile [Music] um oops second back [Music] [Music] to what am I supposed to regard as water quality control in this picture it's just a that a a this here it is this one so this on the Tren strain to Basin B it's that long uh shaded gray structure it's just showing a water quality structure so that here it's not is it listed as such it's not really yeah what does it say water quality water quality so you'll see no it's hold on a second is this the one that says 8 LF 15 in hdp yes no uh one second 7 LF 15 HP if you're talking about the the vertical structure that goes that that's the pipe if you look at this note up here wq2 oh okay the very top of the drawer yeah that that's that other one there is just referring to the pipe connecting the structures okay and then uh you know same thing on same thing on this other one it's just Bo quality one um and the sanitary sewer um drop manhole 5 dropped to uh to drop manhole 9 profile was revised to reflect the revised so there's a minor change to manhole 7 if I can get to that [Music] so that basically you know this is um you know in that area of the um of the retaining wall that we adjust the height so it's really just some Rim uh changes on the structures in in those areas um sanitary manhole so cleanout one to Dog House 11 profile been revised to reflect the revised manhole 3 so that's just um the profile now reflects it instead of a cleanout we have a manhole number three on it um so that is right here that's manhole three so basically just shows a manhole instead of a cleanout all right uh next is lighting plan um so we had updated there was comments about the um about the temperature of the lights so these are now uh specified as um 3 3,000 Kelvin and that is referenced in here where you can see so those each each of the structures now has the call out of the that's an existing one but these all have 3,000 3,000 3,000 Kelvin um there was I think a com there well we added in um when we added the sidewalk there was a couple there was another existing uh Cobra head on the street um that we now show that partially helps light that that new section of sidewalk let me get to it second so that is up in this [Music] so this this bigger um isolux patterns this basically reflects an existing Cobra headlight we also added a couple of additional lights that are helped lighting that section of sidewalk that we added um just a comment it looks like it's spilling over across the street onto lot 30 Lot 29 yeah that's an existing uh light that's an existing public light on the pole that's one of your not yours but that's one of those EX existing Cobra head lights big lights that are on util I understand what right yeah we're not it's not nothing we're proposing so it's did you just add that a that's kind of spilling into the middle of the street the the A's were added to to help there there's actually two a there to help light that part of the sidewalk yeah okay um and then we just mentioned that that was the the rest of what was done on lighting plan no changes on light detail sheet which is 10 uh soil erosion uh this one The Limited disturbance was uh was revised to reflect one the the addition of the uh emergency pulloff area here and was also adjusted to reflect the new section of sidewalk um and then this plan also shows uh drainage and sanitary pipes Etc so like you know when these cleanouts were change the manholes that shows on this plan it doesn't impact soil erion plan but it shows on it um and then this this plan also because it shows grading you know I'm just mentioning it doesn't impact Sol erosion plan but it reflects the change to the wall and the and the change of the grading adjacent to the wall uh those changes are just reflected here and then um and that's pretty much the layout was updated again all well the layout the background really just changed with whatever changed with the retaining walls up here uh in the south side and along the north side of the driveway again doesn't impact the so erosion plan she can you just tell us the the property size in Verona is 5.06 acres and the limit of disturbance listed on the soil erosion page it's what 5.18 so greater than the size of the property itself um well yeah of course I mean there's there's that that limited disturbance would include you know areas that go out for the utility installations out in the street you know there's a little bit beyond the property line here for that additional emergency access pull off again there's some here for utility sanitary tie in and then this addition of the sidewalk that was requested also is not on our property so those things add up to to be over the property line over the property Acres um and then and then just to also you know there there is which we discussed in pre previous meetings there is grading occurring within Montclair so you know you're not looking at just the Verona property I I'm just trying to form a connection between your stormw plan where you say that you limit Ed the disturbance on the site and then looking at this plan you list that you basically disturb 100% of the site so again the the storm water report is is based upon the entirety of the tract which is all those with both of these properties it's not just Verona right but we're not really building on Monclair we we understand that to be the case and none of your storm water facilities are going on the Monclair site all going in the Verona correct portion yeah so I'm just pointing out a bit of contradiction that's all okay uh no changes so next sheet uh sheet 12 is the Sol Roan detail sheet no changes uh sheet 13 it's a construction detail sheet we added a um well we revised the permeable pavement detail to reflect that there is um that there is the underd drains so here in this uh detail down here basically this is the perable pavement detail so uh we added the uh 3in perforated pipes here the underd drain so that's not reflected in the detail that's it for that sheet um sheet 14 another construction detail sheet uh we added um emergency gate detail with um no parking emergency access only was added this is related to that emergency po off off the afterlove that's down here on the bottom left emergency access gate all right almost there sheet 15 um and then sheet 15 was um no changes this can get to there those were the actually that's the extent of the changes so that's that's the extent of the changes so um I would invite any planning board member to go ahead and ask any questions about anything on the plans that were that you had questions about or um or the testimony any of the changes updates or any questions you might have had otherwise anyone and the public will have their time in in a few minutes I just I think that what if there are no questions for members of the planning board that we should refer to the Boswell memo that was sent to you um and I think before we move into storm water on any that we should go through these this list of variances and waivers and some of the other comments that weren't necessarily addressed in in your testimony this evening um so apparently the folks at Boswell um see measurements differently than how you explained them this evening um but I think we need to address these these issues first and foremost on page it's not really starting with page six is probably the first page of sub variances in waivers number starting with number 11 yeah so um 11 indicates that variances were not requested there was a waiver requested with regard to the site plan sheet size um I think you we're requesting a waiver for that okay let's let's get to I I understand so U just going going through the uh the order here um there were other non-conformities that were referenced um I think they've been testified to previously but certainly understand that they that we're going to provide some additional uh testimony so that we can look at them one at a time as reflected here if you might just so that the board has a better understanding of exactly what's getting pointed out and where the conf sure we we understand so uh Sean if you can address the uh parking in the front yard so the first one is uh parking in the front yard that's um concerning this these uh one and a half or couple and and can you show where the the front yard is and I know this is the surface parking that's kind of down below closer to Sunset uh some of those spots are really not in the front yard there's just a couple that are in the front yard if you can sort of walk the board through that all right so long uh so the site has sort of two lines that we're showing here with respect to sort of setbacks one is the 30 foot landscape buffer that's the line that's closest to uh Sunset and then there's the uh the the the setback um the front yard setback line that's running up all all along here so that's your you know that's your 50ft setback which related to buildings and and parking Etc so this parking in the in the uh northeast side of the site um there's a couple spaces here that cross into uh the front yard setback that's these couple spaces right here where can you tell me what sheet you're looking at this is the geometry sheet it's sheet five um so so that that's the front parking in the front yard it's um those couple stalls I mean obviously the access to those parking stalls goes through the front yard but um and you know it's worth noting at one point we we had had these spaces where they're actually uh encroaching a little bit into the 30 foot uh landscape buffer which the existing parking that area does we uh pulled that back to avoid the 30-ft landscape buffer but um we do have have those still within the front yard uh second uh noted well and I think just take this one yeah let's just take it one at a time I I I I agree so the reason for the two spaces is uh is what just to give two additional surface parking spaces and also can you describe for the board how that may also improve uh circulation with regard to the uh surface parking in that area well yeah I mean these spaces here are just it's just an additional uh number of spaces that are located outside the building closest to what would be your move IND door of the building here um so it's it's really just providing some additional um surface parking uh these could be potentially visitors or or just could be people moving in temporarily parking there um this driveway entrance in this you know this parking Drive aisle here helps provide access for I think it was discussed at previous meetings uh trucks that are are are you know helping you know people move in things like that could be could utilize this drive a but um yeah that's the extent of I mean if we needed to we could lose the two parking spaces correct yeah I mean consider we could lose them it it's um we we we um you know right now we are we are actually it would create a um we are right on parking on this one I believe so you know we we need the number of parking stalls but um what do you mean we need them we need them for a minimum required number of parking or or we we we need them just because we I'm not understand I understand the point well for the amount of parking let me go back to you have three 381 spots correct yeah and what is requir so I want back totle [Music] 36 so yeah that's thought yeah so 381 so we need those to meet our parking uh requirement okay Madam chair can I say sure go ahead more so of our attorney uh is a proposed loading area is that considered could that be in the setback and the reason I ask is could we could you change the three parking spaces there to where the loading area is and put the loading area in that area staying within the you know inside the buffer area but within that 20 ft between the buffer and the uh setac it um from a definitional standpoint I I'd have to look at the agreement so I don't know off the top of my head I can look you know through it now um I mean because they could always move the handicap spot right in front of the building what you're saying I'll have to you I will go through it the other question I have is um Mr Savage have you taken into account the and again I guess I have to refresh myself with the plan the electric vehicles SP yeah we we're not we we were being ESS conservative of that nature yeah you're right I mean for each eeve space you could count that as two standard spaces um but I I I think that is utilized as a argument for the variants but I think that that would still require variant but I think it's justification for the variance but I'm not a plan well again I have to look at the plan but there's in the rsis there's a discount there's a um uh an offset right for if you have EV there's an offset less spaces are required right was that do you remember John whether that was considered in in the uh in this plan it's it's not yeah it's not it's it's not so so when you consider the credits that you get for the EV spaces then the spaces are not required to meet the minimum parking requirement correct correct but in your opinion it just makes sense makes for better better uation space in that area provide additional yeah I I I think having that additional surface parking in that location is is beneficial and I think it you know was a minor uh you know you know encroachment into that setback relative to what we're gaining we we again are still um protecting that 30 foot landscape easement buffer that is along the road so we to the board yeah I mean I am actually just looking at the board does anybody have first of all an opin yes go ahead please Alex and first off I'll respond to uh councilman mcavoy's comment on the loading the truck loading space that does look like it's designed so that they probably there's concrete that goes right up to that movein ramp so it looks like the intent is for a truck to be able to back into that space potentially and and Offroad off of a lift gate up on the concrete it would pull in not really back I kind of swing in there might have the back in but yes right but the but the intent is for that basically to have a direct shot into the move in door corre um which is you know I would say that probably pushing that away from that door might be less desirable or certainly make that less functional especially if you put cars in the way um just sort of my opinion on the um the the parking and the setback I understand that it probably makes the property a little bit more functional but it's intended you know these rules are intended to protect the neighborhood and to provide buffer zone so I would be if I were if I had a choice I'd rather maintain the Integrity of the buffer and have two less parking spots on the property um or try and find some other place to put them you know that's kind of I this is you know I just to keep going back this is a this is a big building in a residential area and I'm looking at this and going everything that we can do to minimize impact on the neighborhood is the direction I would go first uh but again happy to hear other opinions that's just kind of my thought process so what are our options here can we just straight up Grant a variance so we say no what are the options before I think we been there there is an option to Grant a variance the the application itself came before us with the caveat that there would be no variances asked for um that's how it came to us and they said we will not be needing them obviously design redesign moving this moving that adding this adding that these things happen but Madam chair one more piece of information that just respectfully think the board should have but we're having a discussion I understand but would like to provide you with the relevant information before you consider whether you want what you want to do with theart bases he you want to you want to decide what you want to do with no I I understand what we're asking I want to provide the board with some additional information that it does not have before it considers whether I was not done with my thought but please continue what that I was not done with my thought but please continue just want to get you the information with private information you decide please discuss whether or not these two spaces are existing on the property today or whether we're proposing new spaces yes so so in the existing condition here I'm now back to sheet two of the site line set this is uh that lower parking area that's existing now um we're we're maintaining this same entrance um and so as you can see as you're pulling in here the the existing parking stalls are you know actually that one corner there touches the property line so there's you know if you went back the the 50 ft into the site there's you know there's more there's probably you know four or five parking stalls if not a little bit more that are actually already located within that setback so we're actually pulling back um and again maintaining exceeding that 30 foot landscape buffer that that currently isn't there and I know as was previously testified too with the landscape architect we are you know providing a lot of landscaping throughout the site in particular in these areas along um you my my thought is that it's just two spaces I mean I understand the interg of neighborhood but we're putting a 200 unit building on there it's it's a DI Minimus amount of of overage I'm not sure that it's worth really holding up the site plan over it because if if they delete the spaces and they're out of compliance of the minimum required number of spaces anyway well they may or may not be but you do have a point in saying what I think you're saying is it'll not just keep them compliant without the additional credits that you get for the electric spots but it'll also um give them better functionality yeah it's it's a DI Minimus change I mean it's not like they're trying to add 15 spaces in there barely goes over it I get it I get it I understand the argument of they came without variances we have had some replans oversights happen I'm not really I don't really think it's worth thank you m Mr Savage across Ross the street from where those two or three spaces are uh what's there is that the commercial property yeah this is the commercial property and the these are you know this is the the parking spaces or parking lots of those sites which are Mr Savage do you know if the school had a variance Mr engino do you know if the school had a variance in order to have that parking there in the front yard I mean because you could compare apples to oranges all you want but the truth is they may have had variant in order to get that parking it's a different standard anyway right it's a commercial or institutional on what's pered under Z and it would and it wouldn't have been the school it would have been it would have been the office building that was there before the school didn't we have a conversation about this several meetings back because it was in the front yard wasn't setback issue was in the landscap who was in the landscape buffer right and then that right because what happened was when they redesigned the driveway and then they they I think came back with a with a new design that pulled it back right this uh planning memo or zoning memo really on this particular issue says that it's no parking is permitted in the required minimum front yard which would be the 50ft setback can can I get comments from anyone else with your feeling on this or yeah I I tend to agree with Jeremy it makes it more functional it's across the street from a commercial property they got Landscaping that can mitigate so um again it's I think either way it doesn't matter it's not going to make or break the project but to the extent that this is going to help the circulation i' probably I'd rather have it yeah I agree with Jeremy as well Mr Bernardo how do you feel Tim uh it's fine with me I'm just saying this was I'm looking at October last year's plans like this is a long-going oversight whatever I don't know who missed it but shame to be going over VAR this deep in I know so that that's my only concern on this is like you know what else are we missing yeah yeah so but the the the spots don't bother me I even think like do they even really count if you're not going to be able to keep your car there overnight like as you know meeting requirements but if they're parking spots and they hit your numbers they're and it's already paved there now and it's outside of the landscape you got like I can live with it it's okay though you know I think the um the fact that that we that they don't we don't have to have them there so which way are you leaning understand that comment I'm sorry start over it's it's one of those things where you you if you put the if you if you have the spots that that that counts towards the number and if if you don't have the spots but I it doesn't it's really not going to make that much difference I don't think one way or the other so would you be okay with them having those one and a half extra spots or are you against it I I'm just asking very simple if if it if it doesn't Jam anything and you can put the spots there great if it's if it creates a problem and it needs a variance because your your numbers are too low it it is a variance matter how you it's be to have spots there ask goad M chair I'll just say like you know just think of operating this place that that two extra spaces there the door Dashers or or Uber Eats can drop drop off easy if the if the C you know otherwise they'll have to go to the circle if all of those are filled you got 200 places you got 200 dinners a night I could see that helping smooth out and easing the traffic on the entrance there so I think it is a it's a benefit to this community and to the traffic in I tend to agree I think it benefits the community because what we were all worried about during the traffic was the que of traffic only back up if those spots aren't there and people have to pull into the main Circle it could back things up considerably getting out of the circle stopping and and standing in the circle um I I'm not saying that one and a half spots is going to save the day here because there's still going to be a lot of traffic but I don't see it as a detriment is is the point and I think that's really what we have to consider when we're considering the potential for a variance I I'm convinced I'm okay with leaving the spots Mr McAvoy you guys have me sold councilman sorry I I actually have a question is on this plan you see on the building where uh Mr Savage where it has domestic sprinklers obviously the sprinkler room I guess yes okay there's an entrance Door there yes I mean is it difficult to move the domestic sprinkler over because my thought is could that that west or east side where that loading area is if you took out the last parking spot there shifted the loading area closer to the building and added spots at the front of that are you steing from the dog shifting them no you're you're shifting that loading area down down meaning uh towards the building towards the south towards the building yes you take the last parking spot you have there that is now your loading area you you you run that loading area parallel into the building there and then add some spots at the end where it says proposed loading area but inside that 50 the one issue I mean you know moving if we kept this loading area let's call same size as 48 by10 Shi that this way you know I still think we'd be you know in terms of the we'd have to move it you know 18 ft at least to get you know two stalls over to here um and and I think this configuration of having the loading space is a little after this turn it really kind of helps with that maneuver in terms of a vehicle you know making that turn and then being able to swing into that area versus that area being right here I think I think it just functions better this way um and you know as previously mentioned you know we had a different configuration of this lower area which we had reconfigured back at whatever Point um when we pulled it out of the 30 foot landscape up and I think you know we went through a couple little options there I think this one just kind of functions the best for us I mean I certainly I certainly don't want to take away parking uh on a development like this I want to I want to keep as much parking as possible because I certainly don't want anything spilling over into the into the neighborhood on the street so I mean I'm okay with it but if it can be reconfigured that would be great but obviously uh you feel it canot not so be okay I mean I think all of us would be okay if it were somehow reconfigured to comply uh if it means digging and blowing up another tree I think everybody on the board would probably be like all right enough you know enough of taking trees down or whatever so um given that it's existing existing pavement I think that it probably the least disturbance is actually to leave the spots rather than and work rework the area um also you know if if you were talking about reconfiguring some of these service areas there that that domestic sprinker is probably the domestic water meter room as well so they've got all of their service entrances clustered there you know so you really don't want to try and like yeah so I think it's again for one and a half parking spaces I think that we can go with the just for the board edification the um the Redevelopment plan does contemplate that they that the um redeveloper might need a slight deviation as it's referred to and as I was going to ask from the parking it's on page 15 of the um which what's the date of the agreement um the latest agreement and it's page April I'm I'm I'm referring to the um the actual the Redevelopment plan the um um Exhibit C to the original plan which right feary 10th right which on page 15 speaks of deviations I'm sorry I'm going to go further back 199 which speaks of which speaks of deviations and saying that the board should um consider that um the off street parking Provisions um that deviation should be considered so the board so we're not uh um creating um any any new issues and then resolving those issues simultaneously what we're doing is addressing what the what the plan already contemplates and that's consistent with section 14 of the settlement agreement as well that has Cooperative language with the planning board and the applicant to secure the approvals and there's boilerplate language in there because at the time whether it's the Redevelopment plan the Redevelopment agreement or the settlement agreement at the time that those documents are uh adopted approved Etc there's not fully engineered site plant so it's it's inevitable that there are going to be some variances uh candidly um I can say that in recent memory this project has the fewest uh deviations or variances that um have come about which I think is a testament to the work that went into the uh the concept plans which candidly as the mayor and councilman McAvoy may recall uh the council really requested some detailed work on the concept plans just to minimize uh the uh the likelihood of variances coming up so I think the the couple that are here in our view were very di Minimus uh and candidly much less than what would otherwise be expected on a property of this type without fully engineered plans at the time of uh of the settlement agreement okay um I think that there's pretty unanimous agreement on on this particular issue okay apprciate some has a further comment do we need to take a formal vote on the resolution that we're going to provide a variance or we wait till the end no that wait wait till the end I think it's a it'll be condition of approval that that's allowed was just a point of order one yeah thank you um why don't we move on so so B is the uh is the retaining wall in the front yard Sean you want to discuss that this uh the reference there was um blow it up please so we really understand I want to see T and B top of wall bottom of wall let's do the map all right so are you on number five again I'm on number six this is is number six grading CL so this the comment here was regarding a retaining wall I believe Pro that ordinance section um no retaining wall over 4 foot permitted in the front yard so uh we had went back after the last um site plan set and revised this wall to to be maximum 4 feet so where where is it right here this Dash the black and white I don't even see your cursor uh do you this this the thick black line here that has the white dash line pointer no I don't have a pointer no I'm not on the long page he said he was on page six right yeah I am this is up near the garage entrance in front of the garage we'll get to the other wall but that's later side of that of the correct page landsape so so this wall here you know here we reduce this wall to to be 4 foot maximum um so what is um Mr K Kate then referring to well we'll get that that's we'll get to that because that's that's um C that's what we're talking about no we're not no his comment that you're talking about is C no no well hold on just let's stick with B for a moment so so just stick with B so so his comment on B is that no retaining wall exceeding 4 feet in height is permitted in the front yard correct and your testimony is that the wall does not exceed 4 feet that's correct we have adjusted the Wall height to be a maximum 4 feet right so we're not seeking any relief uh with respect to B we comply that's the testimony so you've altered the plan to comply that's correct Mr Ten wrote this like last week based on the plans that you have he he you know he he you can see here with these top of wall bottom of Wall shots um that they are not more than 4 feet are we sure that that's the exact wall that he was referring to there's two walls and we'll get to the other one but on for this wall in particular with the 4ot height this is the only wall that is in the front yard so this is the only wall that would be subject to that requirement the other wall has another issue we'll get to forget the other wall but this one is the only one in the front yard all right so so we're not seeking relief there we we comply okay all right so all right now let's go to C which is the other wall so C see the um C is the maximum height and no wall can be greater than six feet so um there's another comment later on within the review letter that gets into more detail and um I think what happened between uh the last review letter and the most recent one was um I think you know it was thought that the wall they were referring to was this this wall here at the south of the building that's the one that we discussed earlier where um if you can see from all these top of wall bottom of Wall shots this wall here on the south side of the building we reduced it to be a maximum of 6 ft um what the entire length of it of this wall on the south side correct you'll see these shots here it's 539 to 530 um um 5335 so 6 feet so the wall is a Max of 6 feet on that side the wall that um you know I I we actually had a a conversation with basel's office just to clarify some of the comments and and we was determined that the wall that uh they were referring to in the most recent comments actually is this wall located over here next to the Transformers this one runs from the corner of the building near the bike storage room it runs up behind the dog run and ends a little north of the dog run there there is a section of that wall right here you can see top of wall 541 bottom wall 5253 that is the dimension that he referenced in one of the most recent review letters of a 165 or I for and how tall is that wall that wall I believe is like around 165 I think what that one was and so so so let me let me just back up for a moment because I I just want to not be confusing so in C maximum retaining wall height and maximum retaining wall height is 6 feet we're saying we comply with that so we're not seeking relief with regard to that particular comment you're saying that we are only seeking relief with regard to the wall next to the Transformer the the this uh comment C or see is related to any wall on the property so we we had um I I understand but the long wall that you you address the long wall do not comply so we comply with that we're not seeking relief all right let's let's then move to this so we're only hold on one second did I just hear that's the only wall in question is the 16 approximate 16t wall by the Transformers so why don't you describe where that is on the proper where it would be visible from and what the function of the wall is so Mr T before you go when you're saying 16 you're talking about the length of the wall correct no the height ofall Savage sorry the height of the wall 16 foot face face of the wall okay so in in this area you know so explain where on the property it is who's who's able to see it and what the function of the wall I I real quick I don't see the 541 right here it's right underneath the word maintenance ah okay thank you um so at that corner there the the northeast corner of that bike room that's where that wall uh you know basically meets the building so obviously you know the architect gone through previous meetings that you know there's a lot of gray change on the site as we're coming down that that Eastern side of the building there's a there's a lot of gray change there as you can see and so you know with this building being set into the slope a little bit those these rooms down here the moving doors Etc this lower parking area you know has to be down at that 525 range in terms of the design of the building and meeting the site and meeting the the roadway here and so basically those Transformers here also need to be in that range um and again with the steep slope you know or the slopes coming along this Eastern side um it just creates a situation there where the wall from you know again if you're in the parking area here or if you're standing at the at the parking area of the site and you're looking towards that wall looking towards the Transformers that's the face of the wall you're going to see that a 16 ft so it's going to be from this parking area you're going to see the face of that wall behind these Transformers Etc and the dog run um from the from the view of which I know isn't a concern but from the view of the side that's down here further east from Monclair you're not seeing that that wall is at that grade level um you know and and from the you know the distance that this is located away from um Sunset you know it's at a pretty far distance and and another thing to point out is that wall that maximum height here is is rather limited as as I mentioned a grade along this Eastern side is is pretty steep so you can see that that grade here is dropping considerably along that wall so by the time you're you know halfway along that wall you're down to you know at this point you're an 8ft wall a couple couple a little bit further you're down to a 6ot wall so it's you know it's it's a limited section there that that does have that height to it um and it is tucked away into the site and I think in an area that is you know would not be something that' be obtrusive to to to you know people on the street or or or neighbors that are looking towards this property how many linear feet of that wall height are we talking about um I mean it's you don't have your little triangular rer with you I'm not sure if the image is to scale but th this this parking stall here that's 18 ft to give give a sense of perspective so you know you're 18 let's say to here 18 you're probably you know you're probably 50 ft let's say plus or minus of varying like that's above 6 feet that 16 the 16 height is that is this initial part you're probably let's call it you know 20 ft is at the high part you're then stepping down because we have a you know these grade changes here you know three-on-one slope so it's dropping quick as this GR here is dropping we're getting closer the wall Height's reducing 50 linear 50 ft 50 ft not that that potentially yeah plus or minus that exceeds 6 feet so I mean like that's the width of an average Verona property but I would say also add that probably a third of that is the Transformer area and the the rest of it's in the corner of the dog run area right I mean where you see the X on the print that's where run that's where it hits the 6t mark So when you say the Transformer area that's an enclosed area is that an enclosed electric it it appears like the transformer pad is at 524 elevation is that correct no they're they're they're right at I mean they're going to be set a little above they're right around that 525 range I mean that Contour cuts through there but those those Transformer pads will be elevated a little bit from like the grade com through but it's in 525 right but then the top top of top of wall you've got at 541 so you're actually 16 ft above the Transformer Pad approximately it might be a little bit you know it might be that that might be 6 Ines above or something the Transformer Pad but yeah you're with but basically if you're if you're standing next to the move IND door and you're looking towards the Transformers you're going to say a 16t tall concrete block wall through through those Transformers and yes why does it need to go up that high why can't it that's what I'm trying to the grade on the GR on the east side of the wall this is what controls here so the soil on the other side is high and the and the Pat is cut in cor correct because of the way the building is cut into into the slope those multiple layers that were discussed at this point you just get that that difference where the building floor the finished floor elevation in that area is 525 range um and the grade on that Eastern side you know is is back at a higher slope it's just you know because the way the building is inset into the into the slope there so it's at Rel you're really only 15 feet the top of that the top of that wall where the Transformer is is 540 and you're 525 for the Transformer by the by the end of the transformer pad or at the edge of yeah I mean you're you're 14 at the edge of the Transformer Pad drops very quickly it's it's dropping very quickly so it's it's a relatively you know in the length of the retaining wall on the site it's a relatively short uh percentage of the walls that that are above we we had made that entire South Wall in the previous revisions was was 90% above 6 ft that that retain which we changed all that how big that Transformer area is do you have that Dimension I I don't I don't have it you know we we didn't didn't Dimension that off again you know if I kind of go off of this stall being 18 ft that's that's probably in the you know 12 to 15ot range wide and you're probably double that deep I mean normally doesn't doesn't our code typically encourage them to do set back ter rest walls in a situation like this or I mean that rather than a single building in and then they're putting a 6ot with a 3ot 6ot 3ot can is there room can we plant some trees or something in front of the wall I I would I don't think you can plant any trees here just based upon clearances from a Transformer um you could possibly get some soften the wall with maybe some Ivy or something that May grow on it but you're not going to put a I'm going to I'm going to some green stuff that might grow on the on the wall whatever maybe some bamboo there now the engineer making jokes we just pass inovation we in the process and you just listed a bunch of them no I know I know I'm joking the so I I you know there could probably be some way to sort of soften it you know but but I plantings I don't think I think is the way to go right at that Transformer in between the fence of the dog run yes so again what let's assume that we simply say no you can't have a 16t wall um and yes you might have to build something in Monclair where does that put you if we just simply said you can't have a 16 you have to comply with Veron a code you can't have a 16 that that would that would not be that would violate the settlement agreement so you're forcing us to say yes to Varian could you you no no well listen as we said before and I think this is important uh board attorney reference some language which is uh important the settlement agreement I reference some language and that's important it is not unforeseen at all it's contemplated that there will be some deviations from what the standards are for the project because the site was not fully engineered um but the settlement but the settlement agreement I'll find the language I know it's in here specifically says we're not going to Monclair that this project would be in Verona 10 times you know we are not asking for any variances we don't need any and you were very you know very sure about that so but you're you're your grading in Monclair is that not site work we don't have to go to Montclair for any approval for that would you have to go to Montclair it be to build a retaining wall probably of course okay could you raise the Transformer platform do they have to be at grade with the dog run or at grade with the the entrance I mean you'd still have the wall near the dog run I just think that wall what if they just altered the dog run and put the Transformers along the wall we put the Transformers along the wall and the dog run does that do anything for them they could probably they could probably do a little bit less cut there I think you both just said the same thing it's just I think that is a good idea was like Transformers together so one one thing to just kind of point out I mean and again I know this is a retaining wall and a building's a building but you know in that specific corner there you know you're going to be looking at yes a 16t wall but you know at the same point you're looking at the facade that that side of that building which exceeds you know I think it's probably 27 ft or 30 ft higher than than the top of that wall so you know again I know it's a wall in a building but but you know it's not like um that wall is blocking a view of landscaping or something it's just again it's it's intent of code that we specifically regulate retaining walls to prevent exactly this kind of construction and there's got to be a really good reason to you know normally what we tell people is no you cannot build a 16t tall wall you have to Terrace it MH um you know I we could simply say well you have to tear us going forward instead I mean okay so if you don't want to build in Montclair well then you've got to rework this area a little bit so that you can tear us going you know towards you know going forward instead of backwards basically it's I I just I just don't want to leave it at there's got to be a 16ft wall here and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it other than plant something on it I mean that's we got we've got we've got to come up with something we I mean I guess we can lose the dog R but I just want to point out I'm reciting from the settlement agreement uh in section five on page six where it discusses uh first the project and as you recall there were two projects in the settlement agreement one is this 200 unit project and uh the alternative project was the six stories and 300 units um and the part that here it says specifically that the project shall not require site plan approval from the township of Monclair um and that's on page seven I I just wanted to make that clear um look we we want to work with you to uh you know figure out a way to you know two things with that I was not a party to that agreement so I don't know the context but that can be interpreted that that can be interpreted that Mo that it can be interpreted other than that you shall not have to apply for site plan approval in Montclair I can go through the whole agreement I can I can represent to the board and I know councilman makoy the mayor part of this that there was a a great concern that there would be variances or requirements for this size of project that we would be osed with things that would require us to go to Montclair and there was a lot of sensitivity to no that's not where we want to go and that's why this this that's why this concept was in here that was the deal that was made again I I mean we want to work with the board in terms of alternatives to amarate uh the need for this wall uh that's an engineering and turn that over to Sean and we're happy to work with the board in that regard but you know if we if we need the variance we're going to request it we think we we or we we should be granted it but again I I'm not we're just not coming here saying You must do this we want to work with you to see how we could ameliorate it so Sean let me uh the other point I did want to make I wanted to just clarify something first with regard to um what council had said that that I had um cited the agreement for the purpose of that this board should should be flexible and have the flexibility what I cited was specific to parking just for the record yeah okay just so it's not misconstrued um councilman yeah go back to I mean Mr Savage was talking to the other gentleman when I brought this up before but what if we raised the area where the Transformers are and you could shift the dog park the dog run forward and tear a wall going into the dog run to at least bring the height of those walls down to 8 foot 10 foot I know it's above the six but I I think um I think raising the Transformers may be uh you know access issues but one one thing we we're we were discussing which were you know can can potentially relocate the Transformers over to this area adjacent to the Loading space that's this area right right over here um and then and then potentially you know shorten the dog run a little bit to get a tiered wall in there certainly removing these trans forers allows us to bring the grade up so the most critical section the highest portion would be would be reduced and so you know we would then be you know um maybe cut into this dog r a little bit to be able to get a tiered wall again we need you know three foot in between the tier wall and and then the dog run that you know the back side of the dog run could possibly be the wall or I guess you still need a fence if they climb but I I think that's I think that's an option that that would work I mean what what about the I don't know if this was ever addressed but I heard it down here to my left flipping the Transformers against the wall and building that piece of property no I'm seeing somebody in the audience shaking his head no okay but I guess it's an impossible I think it would lay out that you know if these trans if these Transformers get relocated to run parallel to the edge of this curb here for that loading space that keeps them away by the time we're down here we're we're not having the the need for that wall Etc in that area we we then be able to fill this area back here higher and and we may have to cut into a little bit of the dog run at least for a portion of it I think I think we could are are you what so on that ledge right now if you look at the I guess current site plan what's behind it is there there's foliage behind that are you going to keep that foliage or are you clearing that um well I mean this area we're regrading it so you know so now the there I believe that area is more is more long than it is you know trees or whatever but this area here that's graded that obviously would be disturbed and whatever would be there torn up um the the area would be replaced with grass and and then I I don't have the landscape plant in front of me but I believe um she might be uh planting some plantings in there but I mean there's also a lot how much of the wall how much of the exposed higher end of the wall is on this side none foliage on on this side of the wall on the east side the Montclair side that there is no you're not seeing the wall it's the grade is high on the Montclair side so you're just it's the top that's I guess what I'm saying is if you're coming from hold on if you're coming from the street driving along Bloomfield or you're just a casual Observer how much you really going to see the back of that if you're if you're driving down uh Bloomfield you're I don't think you're going to see anything one is there's a lot of landscape existing Evergreens here this this area has trees and and and shrubs and things like that up into this corner area and then not to mention that the Wall's buried on that so again I get the whole point of we have you know rules against big walls to prevent that industrial look but like no one's going to see it that was going to be my I'm concerned about the sight line going the other direction looking from Sunset into the property but isn't that only going to be like a four or five foot section so someone doesn't actually fall over the wall or how how high is it going to be from looking from the D if you're if you're in this parking lot here and you're looking towards the dog run and that wall that face the most extreme part of that wall near the Transformers does have a face in the in the range of 16t um now that is behind the Transformers behind the dog run if you're down on Sunset right you know you're you know you know 10 ft or more lower in elevation from that wall there's there's plantings that are that are planted in that in that landscape buer that we showing on the landscape line so your view of this you know it's not it's it's tucked away into the site it's not like this is front and center on Sunset so it's behind the loading area right it's behind well it's it's more so behind the dog running Transformers I mean the load it's you can sort of behind that depending on your angle of view so there's a lot of things that are sort of in the way of a view Shed from from Sunset but it's still 16 ft tall yeah I don't know that it's the view so much by spoiling someone's view is isn't that isn't it the view though what else talking to that actually makes it that that adds to the height of the wall so if it's a 4 foot or 5 foot fence 20 foot that's a much taller wall I'm just letting you know but what are we what's the argument against the wall then if it's not about the view then what is it about it it is it's about it's it's about a monolithic structure of of that height and the intent of our zoning ordin is to prevent again that that becomes a very industrial look but it's tucked away in the middle of nowhere what's really the point you're going to see it but you don't have to live there I mean what does it matter it's it's all shrouded that's very that's but it's all it's all shrouded the people who are who are coming you know buy it outside the property right but you know it obviously it seems that there is a little reconfig if we don't have to permit if there if it sounds like there's a way around this by moving the Transformers around or at least making this a little bit less bad and that's the the point of going through deviations and variances and so on is first off is try and mitigate the condition and then you only Grant the waiver of the variant variance if there's a positive reason why it makes the project better or if there's no other way around it and it just kind of sounds like if they move those Transformers they might be able to take some of the height down off of this wall which again just minimizes the the magnitude of a variance that we would be giving they may they may not be able to escape a variance entirely but if they're able to do a you know a wall That's significantly lower in height and now we know now we're hearing there's a fence on top of the wall so you fence the right way right the Transformers would be closer to I mean yes I mean reload Transformers right to the road to Sunset I mean you know moving the Transformers why can't they be flipped against the wall why do they have to be against the building or in the middle of your parking lot why can't they be flipped against the wall that were I the you could flip them but then you're still having you're still needing the gr ground up excuse me build the ground up I'm just concerned with access to you know if you have those elevat couple steps in you're good at that you could do it P cngg might not allow yeah that that that's my concern with that about about rotating we could rotate them and leave the wall the height it is but what does that get you it doesn't get you anything and the reason for the fence is to protect I mean we need you need from from a from a safy code perspective and it's a 4ot fence it's a nice black right so it's a 20ft but it wouldn't matter if it was 5T or 20 ft from no from a 4ot wall you don't need a a 4ot wall does not require a 4ot fence over it does it does anything over 30 in you need a fence and yeah so that fence is different from it because a big been through this before on the board I want to I want to add something here might help you guys front yard and on the side yard there's no fence on your there are there are there's all any there's not any wall that's over 30 in has a fence on it it's a Cod so they're actually there's notes on the pl so say any any of the retaining walls which are over 30 in are required so your 6ot wall has a 4ft fence which makes it a 10t structure overall I mean you you need to have a fence on top of the wall for safety Madam chair there's been there's lot retaining walls with fences on them that's how it is um according to according to our zoning ordinance the if a fence is on top of a retaining wall it's included in the height of that retaining wall unless you step it backet 3T that's our zoning order right six wall is actually a 10 foot wall no it's it's not it it it it it's not okay there's a testimony no testimony was and I asked this to Mr Savage it's the building code right the State Building Code that hold on it's the State Building Code that requires the fense correct correct okay State Building Code Trump's everything and so so does our ordinance but our ordinance no no the State Building Code trumps your ordinance it the State Building Code agrees with the state how's that but you can't but a Sixt wall a 3ft wall a twft wall and then fence of 3T doesn't make it a 6ot it again the the intent of the ordinance is to have the fence placed not immediately on top of the wall but behind the wall um if you the the Verona zoning ordinance the way that it regulates and calculates what the height is on a zoning on a on a retaining wall in order to whether or not we permit it in the township if the fence is right on top of the retaining wall the fence counts in the height calculation we're trying to avoid tall monolithic structures if the fence is offset from the retaining wall then you measure only the wall itself and and that offset would umt excuse me has to be offset 3 ft horizontal offset 3 ft are the F off did you have a comment uh in in um on the south side we could offset it 3 feet on on this side it would be a fence in Monclair at this stage we would have to ship that wall we could look to shift the wall 3 ft and and put the fence there is there would you have to go for site plan approval simply to put a fence up any per structure would require a fence on its own yeah just yeah uh I don't know how many people are dog owners here but you're going be playing with your dog in this dog run um you going be throwing balls I can see this wall as a potential benefit of the dog run because you can bounce balls off it and certainly not lose them to the other side what actually worries me is the Transformers there you're going to have a lot of little tennis balls and things that are stuck on the fence on the other side I also don't see a I just see a gate with the dog run you're probably going to need a a vestibule system I don't know if you've got that built in but to me in this area the the wall is a beneficial part of the dog run and I hate to see the dog run go um or get minimized so let me just say this I mean whether it's a wall or a fence I mean that's really what you're talking about the wall right a 16t wall wall a 16t wall I don't see if it's beneficial for any other reason than saving a ball from going over not saving a ball for bouncing the ball off of for using it as part of integrating it into what's good about the dog l so Hey listen this my point of view um it's a b yes it is and it is um I don't see a problem with it because it's it's not killing any landscape or anything like that no I have a total different opinion yes in this case Madam chairs pleas I mean I think they've already proposed that it is possible to move the Transformers it is and then a wall down you could also I mean I'm looking at the other marked corner of the building it's 4 foot6 off the property line so if the retaining wall came in 3 feet it's Le less excavation you're going to have to do in the Monclair area I don't think 3ot less in the dog run area is detrimental to the dog run so I don't know you know why we can't just move forward with this make some changes I mean I'd be a minimal to an 8ft wall but a 16t wall is just excessive and now we're calculating according to our ordinance it's going to be even higher uh and and the the other reason is kids do climb fences so if they get to the top of that fence it's a 20 foot drop and not just a 4 foot drop so I mean I think we could as you've stated you can move the Transformers and see if we can grade this area so that we have not a 16t wall something less and and regarding moving the Transformers how how tall are those I don't think I have that you know they haven't been sort of speed I think they're they're probably you know 5 foot range some so so to move those to the other side of the dog park you just kind of put a fence around those uh you could put a fence around you got to keep it off three feet or whatever for for Access but it could be a six foot fence would generally Shield those like you know what's what would work look worse you know than behind the dog par or in the front you know with the without the wall but PS and I mean pad mounted Transformers for buildings like this are typical and they're not even always fenced um they are present on some of the other apartment developments I believe in the community uh I don't recall off the top of my head whether or not they have fences around them but you know you I've seen landscaping around them again you have to maintain an access buffer for psng uh usually these are like a dark green color they're not they're not beautiful but they're not you know the worst thing in the world either they have to be somewhere there's a brand new like 72 KV Transformer on the forest avue property this schol property it's not fenc it's not even landscaped yeah so I I do think that they have some flexibility to move the Transformers around to work this to rework this area a little bit um would the fencing be solid fencing no that that typically on those it's uh even if it's 3 ft away I mean we we're open but the typical fence I would put up there would be a 4 foot like a a black chain link type fence it's a typical one it could be something different if you prefer it could be a a split rail with a wire match it could be whatever well the only reason I'm asking is because it looks like it would be adjacent to that loading parking spot it's sort of where you suggested that it might we're talking about the fence around the Transformers or the fence onp we're talking about the Transformers moving to that area right adjacent yeah it that fence again would be open to I mean you could do a chain link there or you could do a solid fence it probably be if you want to hide them it's a solid fence okay so it could be whatever which you whatever you prefer okay if we have to fence it again we might be able to you know Shield it with partially Landscaping you options maybe Shield it in the back we move it or not well I I just want to make sure the room is there for it to potentially be moved so that there's there's room to to move those Transformers and then and then again we might have to cut into the dog run a little bit to to step a wall there if we needed double walls um you know with the the fence into the wall might be a triple wall but the way you calculate the fence height the Wall height but um we can certainly reduce it I don't know if it's possible to sort of make a statement that you know a the wall should be reduced to X you know maybe maybe some some height above 6 feet just given that the fence that we're going to have a 4ot fence so that gives us a twoot wall you know so that's a I guess it's ordinance I mean I guess what we would propose is um if the board is okay with what is being presented obviously you know that's that's one thing there's no no need to discuss further um I guess otherwise as a condition of approval if the board wanted to uh us to work with the engineer to uh relocate the Transformers for the purpose of reducing the Wall height understanding that the dog park uh might be reduced we'd be willing to do that as a condition of approval to work with your engineers to see what the engineers with that policy direction of the board would view as kind of maximizing uh what the board is trying to accomplish that that's what we would propose in order to move this issue forward Madam chair if I could I I would suggest that you pull the board I think that's what Mr Lily was suggesting just to see whether the board in fact you know is okay with this as designed or would like to see a revision to the design and and start with that right so absolutely what our Council just asked would you prefer to alternate um to see if we could reduce the height of the wall or do you just want to say forget about it just leave it I think it's fine as is I feel it's fine as is I would like to see the wall reduced you want to see a revision revision okay I think I'm fine as it is because I think either way we're going to need the variance whether it's 8T or 16 ft right but it's a safety issue it really does become a safety issue I would like to see a revision okay as is is fine with me as is is fine with me really I don't even know where we're at now um I I would like to see a revision I'd like to see a revision I would also like to see your reion do you know how many we have I didn't count well first of all it's it's not a formal V know board because we because there's only ninees five I think you know there's five for revisions and five again it's not so Madam chair I think it's you know my advice to the board at this point is because there is there is I want say there's a question that then I would suggest that you seek the revision um and and do it as a condition as I think Mr noino gave a uh a good suggestion otherwise we'll be here for years well no I say we dispense with it but where you want well that dispense I think leave it tonight that it would be a condition of approval subject to the engineer and the applicant coming up with a revised plan to try to mitigate the severity of the deviation thank you let's move on please um we uh M do we want to provide any direction or guidance regarding the the other retaining walls now that we know that there's a plan for fences directly on top of other retaining walls you certainly can I mean I we we do know that there are fences on top of those retaining walls which again extends to height um what would you like what would you prefer to see I mean why don't we address go back to the retaining wall where the stairs are I'd prefer to see where they could if they can do horizontal offsets on the fencing I think that that again go comports with the spirit of the of the ordinance if they if there is a reason why they can't do a offset in the fence uh um then I would consider granting some relief but there needs to be some statement from the applicant as to or again we leave this you know we could leave this as a condition of approval as well but I think that they should show in good faith you know an attempt to Mo do the offset it um if we go over to the stairs you can't have you would need a 30 foot fence to would that be go over to the stairs near the uh I just want to understand the implications of the offset so then when you're offsetting the fence right back from the wall you're losing usable land right yes so for all of that all of that distance you're losing that land that land becomes worthless you can't you can't landscape it you can't walk on it you can't use it is that correct that well I I do fear that there could be trees in some of the areas where the offsets would occur that's what he said we're I mean I think yes you're correct and but I think if you leave it up to the engineer as um mayor Roman had said horizontal offsets were possible um and leave it to the discretion of the engineers as as a condition of approval and the engineers will obviously wherever possible uh Implement them Implement right right okay does that satisfy you for now or I would I would actually lean towards saying that we should have a preference of you know no additional loss of vegetation as a result I mean if it's if it's clear space and they can move the fence they should move the fence if they' got to take out trees uh I'd rather have you know I'd rather have the trees than the offset just again comply comply with the ordinance to the greatest extent possible understood we we we will do that and I believe in the past it was discussed that it was three foot and not one foot for the reason of people can get in there and Landscape it you landscape it appropriately I always remember that one and and by the way that that would would then trigger a variance on B but the variance would be conditional based upon the outcome of the discussion with the engineer I I would believe that our engineer and the applicant would work together to resolve this issue without adversely affecting the project we [Music] will um okay why don't we move on to if we could kind of go through this a little bit more with more brevity uh uh site plan number where are we where are we now uh I I think we're on page seven yeah site plan number one I mean because I think that we've just dispensed with all of the potential variances and yeah I think we're on page seven site plan number one Mr Savage if you can just kind of briefly yeah run through uh the here and the uh we take a quick break and we'll come back after this for the storm water if if that's okay with everybody sure sure okay okay so um this one just request testimony regarding the approximate number of truck trips So based on the numbers above for the export and import you know you you would probably anticipate in the range of say 2400 trucks loads which would take care of the export number and maybe another 500 that would take care of the import and again those trucks will be coming in Bloomfield Avenue not going to be extended over long it's going to be you know over an extended period of time the trucks also would obviously there's restrictions on left turns out of the driveway these will all be going coming in from and leaving towards Moab um so the these trucks would not be traveling across the the residential streets okay number two uh I mean really I mean we just we have to get into it number three I don't think you know we're going to have to comply nothing be there retaining walls number four I think we've beaten this one to depth a little bit that those are again with those poured concrete walls we went over where the height exceed the 6 F feet and 4T uh five um you agree yes that's the design CS yep six again that's we'll agree it's about certification of the wall sorry CER certification wall uh parking number seven uh hold on five the first state Port okay I'm sorry go ahead they didn't match in your first report they match in this report which the parking yeah you had 380 and 381 in your last uh submission so this shows that apparently you you nailed it 381 and 381 awesome okay uh so seven and eight just deals with parking no no comments there nine the Rev revised architectural plans uh indicates EV EV spaces and then we go from 9 to 12 so we're storm water it's oh well you want to hear about the EV spaces why don't you just give us a quick a quick so the AR it was noted the architecture plan shows 34 of them is noted that you know based on this number of uh of units ET we need 58 spaces the plan there is that the the remaining third we're going to provide the 58 the remaining spaces between 58 and 34 just going to be based upon tenants as they come in but but they all we're going to provide the required will be converted regardless of whether Tenants come in and need them the plan is to leave those sort of open to be installed where someone needs them but at the end of the day the required number are going to be provided the plan this plan speaks of permits per permits yes I think the state plan no no I'm talking about the Redevelopment plan speaks of permits so John if you could just look into that I mean you're obviously going to provide the number of spaces but speaks of forits they're providing 15% that's our ordinance but it's also the state ordinance that they just changed requ that you that whether there are residents that have an EV or not that the spots are made ready five six years from now or six years from the and just to to clarify too the the the applicant here they they generally run or they they they run the conduit to to basically 100% of the Stalls and what I was just referring to is they just don't show some of the Stalls now because they want to have the flexibility but they have committed to providing the number they need in in accordance with the the breakdown that the multiple years that they have to provide them so your tenants are going to have assigned spaces and as tenant requires an e space then it could be why if the conduit is going to be there so the space can then be you know it's not like they're going to have to rip up the garage to or however they would install it's going to be there mismatch mismatching right correct correct and and we're going above the what the plan requires in terms of putting into conduit so that the infrastructure is in place to accommodate more electric vehicles um why don't we come back to storm water when we get into that in the next discussion um why don't we just hit on the utilities sure well the utilities we we know right now that there's a the township I guess is uh putting on another well or doing some work on a well and is down two two Wells two Wells are currently offline so yeah so says the Township's water system capacity to supply the demand shall be assessed and determined yeah so we know they have a little shortage of water if they need to buy more water from pvsc then that will we do that but we'll approach the township on that but that's a Township issue and then it clearly says under that applicant must apply comply yeah I mean it's really a Township requirement yeah must um number 16 so you know that that just again there talk about the hydr test we were're not planning to do that until the whales are back online because it would make sense to wait for so we will agree to do that as a condition once the wells are back online um mayor when that's they're going to come back online on a staggered schedule and it's probably still at least a year out that's you know based on the time we have to construct mitigation systems so I guess the question is I mean are we certain that we are able to supply less flow without the I we're buying an equivalent amount of water from uh our other water supplier Supply so has the township actually said that this isn't an appropriate time to conduct a or is this an assumption on the applicant's behalf um I is an assumption on our part not to not to run yet we did have some preliminary discussions with the township regarding regarding the testing but um I mean if if if the township or the board feels that it should be done now we can do it now I I think it'd be better to wait um I think that we need what I would say is that the Township's engineering Consultants should answer the question as to whether or not uh the test would be accurate if conducted now or not we'll we'll agree as the condition of approval to do it and we'll be directed by the township as to when we should do it okay good because I I'm not so sure I mean we keep talking about the wells you're referring to a volume of order I think what what this is asking or Matrix was asking was more of a pressure issue yeah I mean they're interrelated well no because our well our wells do not supply pressure our well our tanks supply pressure yeah our wells Supply water supply and they have pumps on them again yeah I'm not sure how the system works but again if if uh you know the the engineer wants us to do the test now or the township wants to do the test now we'll do the test now yeah I think that's something that the well right the wells feed the tanks and none of the tanks are offline just the wells corre we that his his his proposed condition of approval of the you know of the timing is should be satisfactory yeah Township will determine the timing okay okay um 17 this is regarding uh um sanitary sewer and the previous request for Capacity Analysis as mentioned at one of the previous hearings um there were discussions with um the the township engineer regarding uh testing uh certain R actually inspecting I should say cleaning and inspecting certain runs of pipe that work was completed and that report had the video inspection of those pipes had been submitted I know um the board engineer hasn't yet had the time to to review that report but but um you know that video was was submitted you know quickly reviewing that I didn't notice any sort of you know red flags within that um within that video but I'll certain you know subject to to the board's review really the comment that follows I'm getting to that getting to that so the client also understands the request again for the uh the meter testing um and so they they're agreed to they'll complete that 4-we monitoring um in coordination with the board engineer and um so that that's agreed to okay this will require be required prior to our recommendation that the understood number 18 18 uh we just had previously stated we comply um I don't think we need to get into that 19 19 same thing we had stated that we would comply this is about will serve letters 20 well we'll we'll request the will serve letters and we'll provide them as we get them you don't always get them even if you request them youve previously uh advised that those are challenging to obtain yeah and and we we can submit the our letters requesting the same but yeah um number 20 is is you know uh I think we' say that we'll comply I don't know John these are related to expensive developers you may want to jump in again or something but I I agree you'll comply um well I mean to the extent there's infrastructure improvements that are needed in regards to the project we'll do those that's what's in the agreement um to the extent that uh there are infrastructure improvements that are identified that would be nice to have that are not necessary for our project uh obviously that's not something that uh the applicant would agree to and are are you covering be also that's a that's that's it a That's A and B thank you m chair I think what uh Mr is alluding to is let's see what the issues are right and then we'll decide okay um traffic Park uh this opposite okay they're still reviewing some of the yeah and and there was a subsequent letter the the the June 6 that we'll get to next that that I think addresses basically I think I believe when we get to it states that these traffic uh comments have been addressed but we'll get to that next I I agree with you um why we skip this particular section well actually it it gets addressed in the in the June 6th uh Bosell letter yeah so we can we'll get to it Landscaping uh sort of the same thing I mean those uh you know uh the the comments that are here uh we agree that we will make whatever revisions that we need to make and and on the next submission that be these are conditions of approval we'll agree to nothing I I did uh let Mr Nino know that there were some erroneous markings on Miss tier's resubmission um you have the things and they're listed here too I yeah that those will be clean they were they'll clean and different plan things that she had written in her planning memo her Update Memo um and and we're going to provide another Point BYO response letter we'll go through and we explain all that U landscape performance bond is recommended for this project with the applicant Supply with that yeah yes okay so the landscape Bond um and a two-year guarantee for the plan is I think they would want that you know they want somebody to say whoever's planting they're going to guar whoever you pick the plant I hope they guarantee your planting absolutely M chair the lighting plan number 26 y so uh 26 um first a there requ it talks about applicant should by testimony at the light levels uh will produce glow in the sky with the proposed lights I just want to note that the the proposed lights are Dark Star dark sky compliant meaning that that that would is meant to to reduce that glow um west side of the parking area I think and and I believe on this letter and um that these these comments that are not bolded are not new comments just to clarify so you know I think we addressed B already correct okay um so C is the Bold one here and that just says that um we had the applicant state that propos lighting fixtures out outfitted with house Shields direct the light uh into the garage are and help prevent overflow light above the behind the picture it's really just a statement yes that's the case we are doing that okay um 27 before you before you go on real quick uh on B I know we talked I don't know if were here at the last meeting but we did discuss uh we went through the elevation how there was it was off a little bit and you were compliant with the lights we didn't have to worry about but they did make a point to say that you would try to make put the lighting in as low as possible so as to not uh if possible get spillage over that west side because they're the the closest residential dwelling is on that side okay yes we we did say that and Mr M he is writing that down that would be a condition of just reiterate just to keep it in mind thank you good okay uh 27 you made the changes we we talked about that already 28 it looks I think that um we agreed to that it's a we'll review it in six months did uh fire prevention 29 here uh the the comment here regarding the uh truck turning plan we submitted for the 48t fire truck um that truck as it comes in that driveway you know it comes up to that L to that turn and it does have to do a k turn or more than a k whatever that letter would be um now again I just want one thing point out one one is that the the um you know that driveway in in a a design we could have just had a driveway directly into the garage there so that that drop off area is is something we're adding to to help the site function um that wouldn't have been a requirement to have a firetruck be able to come up that and turn around um however we did we did uh you know shape it as best we could for the fire truck and that island in the middle there is also a mountable curve so you know the fire truck would have the ability to run over that curve as well um I don't show that in my truck turning but it can yeah and I think we it was extensive discussion about that at the board meeting we indicated that you know if we had a Vari poers yeah if we had a variance to go out into the setback and they could make the swing around so we've we've provided what we think is what the board requested it was a reasonable balance between uh keeping the driveway out of the landscape buff area and accomplishing as much as close to the fire depart request as we could yes yep uh 30 has been addressed you address that uh 31 I think we address I mean that's basically just well I guess we should get we added that uh you know based on conversation with the Fire official we had added that 20 X20 drop off area there's a comment here that it it doesn't address the fire comments about an 8ft stabilized path for pick up a specialized emergency vehicle to access a r of property I think it uh you know certainly Jack uh the architect previously testified to um the building and and they're not being a a code that specifically requires a building to be able to beer you know 36 degrees with a vehicle um and there are um well hold on that's not what he said uh on October 27th 2022 uh Mr raker said he can speak to that and that was the issue of the access around the building he said access around the building is reg ated by the building code and the building code if access is limited around the building are required to create create a greater level of fire protection and safety within the building so you know there are many buildings especially in town that don't have they only have a very small amount of Frontage if there's design is a very small am amount of Frontage on the street they don't have further because they're adjacent to two other buildings on the side I'm sorry mrena you're mumbling I can't all right I the the issue was addressed by Mr Riker on 1027 I'll summarize a testimony which is that there is nothing either in the ordinance the Redevelopment plan or the code that requires vehicular access around the building and he pointed out numerous instances in which that does not exist what he did say was as was shown tonight by Mr Savage is that there's an emergency access path off of afterglow where uh emergency rescue folks could come in to a point with the truck and then they would be able to access the building through the various stairwells that are set forth on the building and that that was the uh the plan to maximize even over and above code and even over and above what the Redevelopment plans provides that was the the plan to maximize access to the building in the event of an emergency and that's what we've done I can just uh I can summarize I did have a conversation with the fire chief um his asks regarding this building was the ability to put the ladder truck on three sides of the building if required through the use of a mountable curb or other means of driving on some sort of surface and then the ability the ability to safely use ground ladders on the rear of the building without being so close to a drop off that it would be unsuitable um and then sprink gring the Garage those were the items from my conversation from with the fire chief sprinkling the garage is on your plan set um so those are the only two other items that I wanted to ask about whether or not there is you know whether you're meeting the fire Department's requests you know code being a separate item I I just would like to be able to answer to the fire chief he asked me about these things I'd like to tell him one way yeah I'm not sure I mean Mr Savage I'll ask you about the other two uh you know uh the first one regarding um uh you know a personal a person accessing with a ladder someone carrying you know a ladder along the side of building you know the grades here the the max grade and along this perimeter of the building is is a 3on one which is a typical sort of Max slope you would do that's still mowable and and walkable and then and then there's sections of that that are that are a fair amount less than that the these slopes here where you see that are tight down near the dog run you know that's the three-on-one type slopes these are a flatter slope so um you know as we go around the building you know you have areas along the building where where you know a person carrying a ladder could get to those areas around this building um you know down here on this Southside next to garage they they would you know probably more efficiently obviously would come up onto this sidewalk area that's here between the wall and in the building so you know I think in terms of a a person accessing around the building that they have that uh in terms of a a truck access you know clearly you know they can front on Afterglow right um and and they can front on they can pull up on Sunset um you know just given this site you know in terms of getting a truck to this East Side um you do have on you do have the parking area there which is you know you can get close to assuming that it's not clogged up with vehicles you conceivably could you know bring the ladder you can pull a truck in there and and you're at that point you are two sides right yeah I mean but you're right next to you know that ladder truck is obviously the ladder is on the two sides but you know this site has has pretty substantial you know constraints in terms of the slopes and right yeah now on the other side I'm sorry I don't have my cardinal directions correct but if you go to the left um on that side uh go up basically uh uh sorry go back go go upwards towards it's frozen a little bit um if someone if they were bringing a piece of fire appar apparatus in through the main driveway um are they there's trees in the way or there's probably not a way if they they wouldn't be able to get a vehicle around to that left side as we're looking at the plan uh this side up here um to the to the far left of the screen of the screen here yeah yeah I mean that I you know you know that that is an area that is that is you know starting to hit 3on one some of the existing slopes in there you know probably exceed that you you also have this is Sol retaining wall so in order to bring a truck up here right weing taking some trees out right okay so basically it is ground ladder access only but it is someone could reasonably walk around the building with a ground ladder uh correct okay that's that's the answer I need to be able to get them we can't you know I'm not going to make you redesign the project but I need to tell him that that this has been considered um just a quick question I don't know it's been addressed did you guys figure out where the the uh pumps were going on the I'm sorry the access to the water we're going on the outside of the building where the fire department plug your yeah talking about yeah we we the the the con the uh the fire department connections yeah we we don't show those yet I mean those usually be in coordination with the fire department where those would be and uh I don't have that yet we we we get them on to the plan that'll be a condition of approval we'll coordinate that with the fire department so for number 33 Boswell actually does respond to this one saying that the existing grading um does not permit the walk around access with a ladder so I'll ask our engineer for his I don't know I did know FDC you knew what I meant too many too many people at once could you please go ahead he he provided the testimony we wanted to hear regarding that that that item okay and do you consider that a do you consider them to have complied with the request that it's yes okay that there is sufficient fesan access yes they do okay um and you know just to point out we we um you know as mentioned a condition about the the fire department connections we did also at a discussion with the fire officials we did add another fire hyen on the property I know that's a different thing than a fire department connection but just to want to state that uh at the time he didn't the Fire official didn't know yet also where he wanted the the fire department connections out of the building so we'll we'll get them on looks like address 34 as well hold on 34 is uh yes that's the garage I believe sprinkler and also the building the the 13 system 13 so yep uh and then Sonage I think um it's all good I mean we just had stated that the signs will will uh have back lit illumination it's just a statement so we're good there okay why don't we take a quick 5 minute break and we'll come back for a SL moment but okay yes all right um Mr engino would you please oh really quickly if anybody from the public have any questions for the applicant on the site plan portion please come to the mic state your name and your municipality and ask your questions seeing none okay um you my name is Chris Riley and I live in Verona r e i l l y thank and um I I wanted to ask a question about the the retaining wall the one that was by the Transformers and the dog park y um what are the um what are the implications of having that wall next to the Transformers and the dog park relative to the sounds that those Transformers in the dog park will produce and whether that sound would then bounce back towards where the people live I guess we just I think that we didn't provide testimony with regard to sound uh this witness was not testified it's true but he's asking a relevant question how loud are the Transformers sound expert I wouldn't be able to I can't answer that you can answer then hopefully then there will be an answer at some point in time or hopefully the issue will be mitigated by not being surrounded by walls and maybe being surrounded instead by Landscaping um so that the echo um is there anybody on the board that feels that they know anything about sound of Transformers mayor Roman I know thing I am not an expert but I have a a a reasonable understanding of Acoustics um Transformers uh when they're new are quieter than when they get old because the windings in them eventually loosen up so they do hum a little bit um and solid materials are reflective to sound um with different properties depending on what the sound is how loud it is what fre frequency it's at so conceivably there could be some reflective effect from a wall um being able to predict that would require an acoustician with knowledge in the in the matter specifically so um obviously I think it would be it would no I don't know I I just I'm just offering an an opinion that yes if you put something loud right in front of a wall yes it could Echo how far away how loud how annoying we don't know someone someone could figure that out but I can't short answer and um the the other question I wanted to ask was relative to the first um point that you brought up about the two parking spaces that were within the buffer area no not in the buffer area oh in the setback setback the setback area further away from the buffer yes um and you had mentioned that those are current used right now which I believe they're used by teachers cars or um administrator cars who who park in that lot um are they going to be used by trucks um two things one to clarify um what I was referring to is the fact that there is an existing parking lot in that area um that is actually closer to property line so not th those particular stalls are not used I was just pointing out that there are currently parking spaces that are actually right up to the property line where we are um we are set back from that um and in terms of uh parking these are a typical you know 9 by8 car stall so no they're not envisioned to be trucks they couldn't f a truck if you um had a plumber that came by or you know an electrician or some worker that brought a truck and had tools coming in and out was making noise would they be parking in those I mean con like I I don't I mean conceivably a plumber could have a van and a van but I don't again I if if the testimony this is about operations um this witness is not testing fying to operations so you're asking an operation can be used by anybody parking spaces that are in question can be used by they're they're not limited to anyone in particular if as long as you can fit in that stall right thank you okay thank you Mr Riley if there are no further questions from anybody then we will thank you um close the public portion and move on to storm water management thank you okay um just address storm water management Mr Savage so um we planning to just go through the comments that we have on review letter you know previously a testimony Tes to testify to the storm water and we were going to the plan was to go through the comments that we received uh yesterday I understand I can you just give us a brief overview of what uh specific changes you made I I did read the report of course um and I have an idea of some of the changes that you made but why don't you please share that with everybody summarize some of the Chang you really the the change of of um the the change that was in the new drainage report was basically the the change from the Del Marva to the to the unit hydrograph so um standard standard yeah so all of the all of the um all of the routings and Analysis were updated for that new thing so so basically the report that we had submitted that Boswell reviewed and gave comments on includes those those new calculations so so basically um those calculations uh increase the the peak um runoff rate however the volume is still the same and and the increase in that rate you're do you're changing that that hydrograph in both the existing and proposed so basically the net result is um the system that we had designed previously functions the same as it does the same as it did before with this new analysis so there was no change to the proposed storm water systems than what was previously proposed um and so the the drainage analysis is is is basically the same it's just the numbers have changed so the the findings of that report the same as they were previously is that we have four drainage you know runoff from the site goes in four different directions um we're reducing um we're reducing the runoff rates by percentage which is one of the requirements of the DP for the Run can you just sum it up for the two 10 and 100 Year storm you're reducing by how much so respectively so in in the one drainage area um we we we have to um for the flow that's running toward Sunset we're reducing the the runoff rates uh by the percentage so we have to we cannot exceed 50 75 and 80% of the existing we have to reduce it um and so we are meeting those requirements from the D so we're you know each of the different the the storm so the two the the 210 and 100 so all those storms we're reducing by the certain percentages we're meeting that the other three drainage areas um we are meeting the DP uh requirement uh a quantity requirement by reducing the volume and not increasing the the the runoff rate at any point uh during that storm event so for those other three drainage areas basically what happened is more of the site now ultimately drains to the large Basin that's in the garage and then is is is flowing going out towards Sunset but still meeting the reductions to Sunset so those other three drainage areas have less volume of runoff that is directed to it basically the area to those other sites off towards after Globe towards Parkhurst Etc the area is less the volume's less and and there in in that same point the the actual runoff rates are less um less than existing so both of those analysis meet the DP requirements um what is that requirement So You The One requirement would be to meet uh based on it's a rate reduction of of in the 210 in 100e storms you got to reduce by 50 7580 or you're you're allowed to discharge 50 to 75 and 80% we're doing that analysis towards Sunset we meet that uh the other the other allowable um way to meet quantity reductions for the DP regs is is basically by volume and so in that case you're showing that the that you're decreasing the volume of runoff and you're not not increasing the rate of runoff um and so for the other three drainage areas we meet that uh that analysis are there any areas in which your analysis shows that you don't meet all of the requirements nope okay so all four drainage areas we meet the DP requirements um why don't we start to go through Al's review unless anybody has any particular questions on the overall storm water management report I do you want I mean one other thing if we if I can jump in that's not within the review comments but I think kind of important is is one of the other changes that is that um you know we had mentioned at previous hearings that you know it's it's our opinion that the rsis controls here and the storm water rules D rules and based on those rules we would not require water quality to address water quality uh based upon this this Improvement these improvements um you know based on discussions at the board and discussions with the board professionals we we have uh you know added in to water quality structure so it's important to note that you know although we didn't have to provide that based upon the regulations I know there's difference between Township and and and our stance but so we have added those two water quality structures so the more so but in particular the pavement that has car surf car travel um on it all of that pavement is getting put through water quality structures and in addition there's much more of the site is actually going through these water quality structures that wouldn't even need to and just a question on that I see that the you you showed two one coming out of basin a the main Basin one out of B right and one out of B B um C is the we'll buy retention Bas I'm going to put air quotes around it a little bit but that one provides water quality through function because of the plantings in it and there's comments that we'll get to about about that we will um um 100% of the water that's coming from the the detention basins is being treated through that filter what is it uh the these are these are um water quality structures that are that actually provide you know 50% so these are no no no don't don't rush through it you're 50% you know I don't I don't know that's why I'm just trying to State make that statement so these are are done based there there's not these are not filter type water quality unit these are based upon the the water comes into this system and it Swirls and and that drops out the the the you know the the TSS is total spens sols so these don't have filters and and so there's not the maintenance of changing filters every x amount of months or year or whatever they where does the deposit it it it settles in the bottom and and you have a like a vacuum truck or you have a truck that comes in and cleans them out every x amount but but they're not a physical it's not a um a filter that needs to get replaced it's a accumulation of stuff and this will work in the heaviest of heavy storms with they're design we we get we provide the manufacturer the I'm asking a simple question well this this actually be effective in a heavy storm well again the the water quality structures are for the water quality storm the higher storms are are are a bypass you know so you don't you don't provide water quality is provided for the water quality storm it's the so the answer is no in a heavy storm it wouldn't necessarily be implemented at its full impact you don't that's just not how you design them you you're Design This for the frequent storms that's the small water quality storms those are your most frequent storms where that first flood where you're going to have the contaminants that's that's a normal standard practice yep you it's just that's the standard it was just a question and okay the answer was no okay um Alvaro would you like to go through your comments I think maybe we go through them and okay if you want I mean just because you know I some of these I think we can answer okay all right with that go over then then we discuss yeah so uh the first comment here number one was concerning uh Basin C that's the that's the bio retention Basin to the south of the building so uh the comment here was uh in the Hydra H hydrocad calculations Basin was input as detention Basin and and uh since the outfall discharge is located above ground without the you just slow down the uh however since the outfall discharge is located above ground without knowledge the percolation rates through the Basin layers is not possible to know if the detained storm water will remain in the Basin or discharg through the Overflow and thus not work as intended so um you know we did have some conversations um with with with the board engineer to kind of clarify some of these comments um the Basin that we have here has you know has an underd drain system and so the water that's that's directed to this Basin you know percolates through that soil profile gets to the underd drained system so so the out the outlet of this system is underground not not above ground um it goes to Basin a ultimately yes and so so that's after it being filtered uh regarding the the common concerning percolation you know what well um the way this Basin is currently designed and analyzed is is per the D's um best management practices where where you you have to look at the soils and and you input it into hydrocad based on paracity um we had some discussions about about looking at the perm rates and such and and so we'll we'll address that with the engineer um the these basins are designed with a specific soil profile which is that layer from the surface down to the under drains the D the BMP sets specific requirements for that material that you know ensures that that material allows the water to S to to to percolate through it and reach the under drains so we'll we'll have that discussion and and response with the board engineer to describe that but the the Basin it has itself you know functions as a bio retention Bas and regarding the the potential concern of overflow we we um right now even up to the 100 year the the the water elevation in that Basin doesn't reach the surface it it comes into that Basin and soaks in and goes out the under drain what we're going to do is we can install an orifice small orifice at the bottom of that out structure down at the bottom of the the surface level of the Basin I think that would help alleviate some of the comments from the board engineer but we'll go through that with them um and and you know um be able to comply with their comments on that may I ask uh our engineer what his concerns are with this and what would be what would be the right way to approach fixing this in your opinion Yeah so basically a um bio retention basing Works um through infiltration from top to bottom so um the way water is um manage or um mitigated is that you actually slow down the rate of flow through all these layers as they go down or trickle down but the the problem that we found with the the the way the model was set up is that um actually the layers it has um two or three layers of sand and the bottom one is gravel so um they set up the um the model with a bity with what paracity percentage so what happens is that uh the model has to be fixed because um there are two type of hydraulic structure one is the bio retention that works through infiltration from top to bottom and the other one is detention and you have a um a means that actually provides some extra boids that water can fill in and you have some storage so the way they set up the model was more um towards detention Basin rather than infiltration because the way they set it up is like water goes down I mean comes from top and then has to percolate down but um the model has to be set up instead of putting the paracity percentage you have to put infiltration so actually the model understands that there is a means here that is uh that all only permits water to infiltrate to a certain rate um so you need to switch velocity percentage and change that to and we can have the discussion I mean as as mentioned you know the the way it's set up currently is set up per the D's best management practices which they utilize paracity and the soil layers are specified specific you know specific makeup of those materials that ensures it to be permeable but we'll have the discussion if we have to do something different where we permability we've we've designed uh numerous bio retention basins this way that have been approved by the D um with the paracity as the design parameter at you know as bio detention basins but again if there's a way that we can talk and and we'll provide another calculation that uses permability we we're we we can we'll provide that okay sure yeah all right okay um so we're going to revisit this correct at some point well I I think the statement here is that we can comply with his comments I I think this could be made a condition of approval I mean I think there there there's not um I I I think it's really just more information he may want to see but um well maybe we want to I I kind of like hearing about this I just want to make sure look lar the the Basin as it's designed now is designed in accordance with the D regulation and we we can coordinate with the engineer providing more information I just want you to be aware that right now we are we're all here we're listening to the testimony and we're listening to our expert as well and a great deal of what this board does is review the mo the very important components of this plan which is the safety and Welfare of the entire neighborhood surrounding this site not just the site itself and so these are very important things for this board to consider and I I kind of don't like the fact that you consistently say I'll I'll I talk to your engineer offline and we'll work it out amongst ourselves this is for us to hear and it's for the public to hear and I just want to make that clear let can we move on to number two well um don't well that that is the truth we get to review well the the testimony is the uncontroverted testimony is that what the applicant is proposing meets the best management practices um that is the standard that we are okay well okay so what we're saying is that's what we're proposing and that's what we're offering okay and and offline we want to hear what we've indicated is that we're willing to work with the board engineer to provide you know more or different types of testing if that's what he wants where where we don't really intend to come back to the board with that yeah we're for purposes of our application the uncontroverted testimony is we are complying with d best management practices I hear what you're saying I Engineer thinks that you need to rerun the numbers and Mr Nino if there's another he to clean up the way that your engineer has not controverted the testimony of the witness in terms of what is being proposed comp with best management practices of the d That's uncontroverted testimony that doesn't mean that his model is correct yeah so the issue is you've testified that this uh bio retention Basin will comply with the D regulations right but there's an issue in terms of the the models and the calculations of whether that is actually verified so if let me finish please if you have this discussion with our engineer and it turns out that this design does not work you have to come back here right okay is that it because if if if if the design doesn't work and we approve this with the condition that you verify it works and it doesn't work you've got to redesign it and come back here that's I I totally agree and I just don't like the fact that every time you keep trying to kind of shift discussion with our professional engineer offline we get to hear the outcome of of these discussions and we get to see the success of those discussions in public and if there are further questions or there's still some conflict uh between our engineers and yours we we have to work them out and it can't be done behind closed doors you know once it's done Mr engino the board passes the plan and that includes the stormm Water Management plan and so we're not going to have closed door sessions somewhere offline once those things have uh been sused out and any corrective measures are taken we'll hear about it here in a public venue all right that is it so Mr hman is is what he said accurate or is what you testified to accurate because I was hearing two different things no I I think what he said is is the Basin that have designed was designed in accordance with the BMP the dmps D's BMP we have done that same design submitted to D and it's been approved if there's additional information that we need to to provide that that proves that the the soil has permability for the water to get from the top to the bottom will provide that but as I stated a buo retention Bas in accordance with the BMP has very specific requirements for that soil bed those specific requirements ensure that the soil is perable enough to reach the the underd drain so why why would we posing this question to my witness um I'm was just going to refer I'm not allowed to ask the question I I'm sorry if I'm not allowed to ask ask my witness the question I won't no of course you are allowed to ask your witness the question okay why would or is it appropriate to require more or something different than what D best management practices are with regard to the design of the biot tension Basin yeah again the Basin is designed in accordance with the BMP rules the the board engineer had requested some additional information and I felt that that it would make sense to to uh to provide what we could okay but I don't think it's I don't think it's depend it changes the design it doesn't change the design talking to a [Music] talking to a layment does the have you made assumptions that you have used that have not necessarily been qualified or proven not sure I'm not EXA sure well you made certain assumptions in order to submit you talked about the per permeability of the soil correct different types of soil have different have different type of permeability correct corre okay is there a is there a has there been a discussion about whether the makeup of this soil is it relates to per permeability so so the bio retention Basin built in accordance to the BMP in in the BMP it states specific permability ranges for the sand it talks about certain organic comp organic components within the soil bed it talks about the gravel so it lays out what you need to install in that bed it's it's that's a that soil bed isn't the soil on the site it's a specific I said I'm a Layman that's you just explained that to me it's a specific mix created for a bio retention basis in accordance with the DP regulations that that ensures that it has the permability for the water to get down to the okay it's not the so it's not the existing soil soil is it the calculations are the calculations different based on on infiltration versus detention yes they are yes they are so I think that that's what he's talking about that you're utilizing your system more as a detention Basin rather than an infiltration Basin but you ran your numbers based as an infiltration Basin not a detention is that what you're saying that's correct okay the the Basin is we'll have a you don't want to hear but we'll have but the Bas is designed in accordance with the D the DM's small buo ret ition Bas and design and in their in that design manual they utilize the paracity for it the the question I believe is that you're concerned that the soil that gets to the top of the the Bas and top let's call it can get to the underd drain pipes and filter through that soil what I'm telling you is that that's ensured by utilizing the soil the soil media that is specified by the D so I guess the question would be why would we be required to do more than the D's best management practices in in designing this biod detention base and that seems to be I don't know that there's be there's a question or a case being made that you need to do more I think that what I I would like Al Al respond to that so the the the point is that um actually I mean infiltration basins and detention Bas and they work differently so when you're the way is set up in the design it works as a detention basing so it provides storage through the these void spaces that these different lers have but that's not the way the B retention works the B retention works is that water is coming from top to bottom so he needs to demonstrate that the the infiltration rate of all the layers that he's proposing are going to allow water to percolate all the way down through the drain uh uh uh pipe that he has at the bottom so that uh water can cannot get a stack on top and then and that's and that's what we do so you know as reiterated a couple times the the the soil that's in that bio retention Basin is a specific soil media mix that is specified in the BMP by the DMP that specifies uh permeability ranges for the sand it specifies the percentage of Organics that could be in the in the soil that would impact your permeability utilizing that D's soil media we're ensuring that you're having the permability I I we can no really I I disagree but so I guess the question for your engineer is whether or not he agrees that we are no because again testimony is uncontroverted at this moment that we are not using D best management practice with respect to the bior retention basis I disagree Mr engino you are using the management practices but you're not running your calculations based on the the that's not way that your Basin works and that that is I think what our engineer is stating that for the bio retention Basin that is being proposed the testimony from we're like doing this no we're not let me keep it very simple we are proposing a specific bior retention Basin correct correct and your testimony is that we are using best manager or you're using the best management practices of the D with respect to the bio retention being proposed is that correct correct and my question is why shouldn't that suffice because why is the D best man but but state it differently why are the D best management practices not good enough no no that's I no no no I can answer I can answer that I can answer that then let him say we're not using the best management practices of the DP he hasn't said that so I mean that's the first question yeah let me answer so the thing is that he's designing one structure with the guidelines of another so the bio ret he's not designing the bio retention Basin per the BMP manual he's designing a detention Basin per the BMP manual so it's that's it's is kind of the way you're designing this is like kind of a hybrid between bio retention and detention or it has to be either one you you design this as a bio retention only um the the means to evacuate water is going to be entirely through infiltration from top to bottom or you're going to design this as a detention basing where you main mechanism is to fill some available storage to to action the pig flow and then let it go to the AL so the answer is he's designing a bio retention basing b as a detention basing basically he's mixing the guidelines the the the design we have is based on the small Bier engine Basin section of the the DMP the DP I disag and again all as I mentioned a couple times the the water that the water that gets into that area goes through that soil media to the underground pipe it's functioning as a bio retention Basin the soil media is specified by the D to have the permability I I disagree yeah ask again trying to sort of distill this down into more layman's terms um so you've designed you've designed or you've selected a Bas in Fr that is essentially a a prescribed device or assembly from a best management practice is that corre fair okay now I think where the question leads is that if you've then run calculations for the larger system of the entire property and the remainder of your system and you've set up your model with a different mode then how does that affect the calculations for the overall property as a whole you may have properly designed this Basin according to best management practice but if you've created a model that's showing the property as a whole and it's been set up as a detention Basin rather than or as an infiltration versus detention is that going to affect the rest of the calculations on the property is where I'm yeah I mean all the all the water that outf falls from this Basin which goes through the Basin into the underdrain flows into Basin a which is the Basin in the garage and is and is all the flow out of that Basin is meeting the percentage reductions from the DP so this Basin was added to provide some green infrastructure and water quality so all the water that goes into this base B goes to the other storm water basin B and is reduced quantity reductions are provided through that Basin so it it wouldn't the water that goes in that Basin gets to another Basin and then is reduced then I'm going to ask our engineer um what is if in fact they've made an error uh in setting up their model what is the Practical effect what does that error actually misrepresent in the model because we we don't know whether the layers that he's pered in by retention Basin actually have the the permeability that will allow water to infr at the velocity that we want to evacuate the outlow okay so if they don't let's assume that they put a soil that does not percolate at the appropriate rate what happens it's going to overflow the Basin itself will then overflow back onto the surface yes okay didn't didn't he testify that you would put an orifice to prevent that from happening if and if I can jump in so what we had what I had mentioned earlier might have just kind of go through Is So currently now and again I I'll reiterate once again in terms of the permability of that soil that soil media in that Basin is specified in ranges by the D that ensures that it has the permability R so that water gets to that under drain second part is that we we discussed adding an orifice at the bottom of that Basin which would act as an emergency Outlet So currently in in even through the 100 Year all the water in that gets that Basin and it's a small drainage area that gets that the majority of the site doesn't even go here that water soaks down and and and when it backs up into that into that soil it never reaches the surface of the Basin meaning the water in that gets that Basin is is within the soil um so can we take so what we're going to do is if it fails if it were to fail we'll have an orifice now at the bottom of the Basin meaning at the surface of the bottom of the Basin so any water that did back up in into the Basin would go out that orifice and go where it would go the other way which is the Basin a and get red get reduced so in a failure it functions the same way one one moment please just to follow up are you familiar with this concept of a prescribed soils mix or predesigned assembly for the type of basin that they're discussing yeah but the thing is that he he is again the the the Basin is designed as a detention because the he's using in the model the paracity not the infiltration rates that's that's the whole point okay um so I I disagree with you it's it's it's you're you're you're you're mixing Concepts detention I would I disagree so the and again what we agreed to do if we added in an orifice at the bottom of that Basin if that Basin doesn't if that Basin failed the water would go out of that Basin into the other Basin which it does in the current design so even if the Basin failed it it functions the same way it just doesn't provide water quality during that type of event yes which again the the areas that get to that Basin quantity is not being served either we don't yes it is quantity would be quti be dealt in Bas a which is how it's done now that that Basin we have now functions only for water quality and what it and and and that's added to add some green infrastructure the areas that get to that Basin are grass areas and the patio area in that that one open patio area all clean impervious doesn't even need to be water quality so that it's even if so I'm trying to get to the Practical what do we do here because I've got dueling Engineers right now um let's assume that you that that he's that the board engineer is correct and that the model is that the model was incorrectly input and you have to go back and make a change what is the the let's assume you have to that the soil mix is is has to change impervious and the water can't get into it what we're going to do instead of allowing it to imp to to to Pond up we're going to put an orifice down at the bottom of that at the surface of the Basin right is this a new suggestion that you're making or you already did put this I got the comment yesterday so we couldn't have done it that quick okay we we ran it in model if I could finish we so what we would add is an orifice at the bottom of the Basin so if that system were to fail if that surface didn't infiltrate didn't allow water to go into the ground water would go out of that orifice and go to where it goes now which is Basin a and Basin a already you know as we discussed provides the required quantity reductions this Basin isn't needed for quantity reductions it isn't even needed for water quality okay one second now let me get the contravening view uh so let's assume that they've MISD designed this and that in the in a revised model run it fails uh what is the effect on their design what would they have to do to fix it I mean the thing is that um if uh they have not demonstrated that actually the Basin is able to in to percolate down water how you say that it's it's you can't so but let's let's assume that that happens how do they fix it in the design what what do they actually have to do actually they yeah they they need to actually set up the model put in the infiltration actually we discussed that actually uh the first uh right hearing that I that I was here that I asked how the model will set up um um the infiltration rate that you set up in the model I think that we we discussed that um I I completely disagree with you I mean I I do remember this there was discussion yeah infil infiltration rates and and challenges in the modeling yeah yeah but again if if we added the orist at the bottom of the Basin and that Basin if that soil media didn't allow the water to perk through it the water would go out the orifice and go to Basin a which provides quantity reduction and the discharge from Basin a actually goes through a water poish structure again this Basin doesn't is there to provide some green infrastructure it's but it doesn't it's not needed it's it's can I just ask a question doesn't the Orphus doesn't the orus solve the problem the orice is I'm asking the engineer undermines the whole con I'm asking the engineer I understand what you're doing I'm asking the engineer doesn't the or solve the problem I don't know he needs to show I mean he needs to run the model I don't know can't tell yeah I mean Hydraulics doesn't work that way I I would I would agree that he does not have sufficient information to answer that question right now if he disagrees with the botle he can't make an assumption as to whether or not I don't I'm trying to figure out whether this is a show stop or whether this is negotiated between Engineers I don't understand the push back of of looking at running the numbers differently if we have to add an orifice you're almost basically saying it's going to fail it's going to fail and I need an or actually what I agree with you so it's that if you need to redo the design you need to show up again and and testify that that's I agree with well let's let's let's take a a step back because we're doing more are we not than what the rsis requires again you know the infrastructure is mandatory and we have and that's barely green infrastructure you know that because you you testified that it's not really green infrastructure and now you're adding another pipe to go into a detention a concrete detention Basin which is fine the Bas it's not green infrastructure yeah it is it's Absol abolutely the Basin F Well I I think we'll have to have another discussion but the Basin is designed in accordance to DMP the D being paid but but we haven't established that that's the proper design for this project I think that's no I I well I mean what properly designed but we don't know whether it's the right design yeah I mean clearly we're going to have to have a conversation but but the the the basing we have here is designed in accordance with the small bu retention Bas but you have to get D permits right is Savage no okay so DP is not going to review this not we have no we have a TW but no uh no Wetlands or can I ask a question to try to bring the practicality back to this so hurricane Ida happens can you testify currently based on your design how it would handle that amount of rainfall if in the current design if the if the Basin if it failed in terms of the permeability of that soil the water currently would fill up and reach a point where we go out of of you know either our overflow rate or go over the retaining wall there and then flow down let me ask let me ask the question a little bit differently have you run the model with a rain event like hurricane heida can you testify the eff run to what we what we're designed to what we're required to which is 100 year and so in 100 years again there's this drainage area to this can you attenuate the models to do it that way I I don't even know what that storm was about what what that level storm was about but a 100-year storm event again doesn't even reach the surface of the ground I understand I'm trying to get the board comfortable with your testimony here because there's a huge disagreement so I'm trying to see if there's a practical way to say okay if we get 14 inches of rain in an hour how is that how does that work we're talking about hypothetical models so I'd like to see if there's a practical way to say if we got 14 in in 1 hour is it going to go over is it not going to again the a pipe is designed for 25 years so you know if you did get 100e storm even or plus 100e storm it's it's it's all failed you know the the the systems in the streets are you're having flooding I mean you can't a pipe designed is 25e Storm event okay basins are designed at 100 years it's you know why but but but that's you know the pipes fail the pipes are designed at 25 Year events so you know anything you know the system would fail in those higher storms you have a hurricane you're having flooded I mean it's I understand that but that that's the concern of the board and the town given our topography and geography we have flooding issues so we're trying to understand how this project affects the surrounding area in that regard um it it it appears to me I I don't know Mr Mayor you you tried very hard can you figure out any other way to sort of get to yes on this issue here Mr we're we're deadlocked and I believe that the mayor I asked the mayor a question am not allow ask may can you not answer I'd like to answer Mr Eng thank you Mr may my concern is that I do recall the board's engineer bringing up an issue with your modeling in the past um I sympathize here um I know that we want to get D yes but I do feel that the applicant has been offered an opportunity to correct this issue in the past um and it hasn't been done to this point and that's the challenge that I'm facing right now is that this has been brought up so we're going to have to go back and and get the engineers on the same page uh I don't see that's my individual opinion I don't know where the rest of the board stands I'm I do not Pride over this board I a question for the engineer um does this design does this satisfy the D EP requirements for green infrastructure assuming it works it's been designed as a detention Basin not as a bio retention Basin so the answer is is is no that's okay so that's not an issue with the modeling it's an issue with the design that needs to get correct that's exactly I mean and then the numbers that are plugged in are for a different model Al together yeah um so it skews everything is is it possible for the two Engineers to work with each other and then to board the findings um so but I do think that there's going to have to be some give here and I think that you're going to have to try to accommodate the comments of our professionals you know um at any rate we had agreed to to have that coordination with them I guess our stance was that that that that could be a condition of approval versus I think where we went off track I I don't agree with that I'm sorry I'm just St I'm just stating why why I think this all went off track we had stated right up front I had stated that we're willing to then why are you why have you pushed back for the past half hour well because we got the comments yesterday we got the comments yesterday but okay I'm glad but the point I well you asked the question I answered the question got the comments yesterday it's really just great because it's it's now 10:30 I understand so you are going to redo some of the calculations here and work with our Engineers I think what we I think what we need to do look we we made we we made a submission and I I appreciate where everybody is coming from and I appreciate the hour from our perspective and apologize if we a little testy we're now almost a year into this um and uh we made a submission to address these issues on May 10th or 11th and we received a comment letter yesterday and we have a hearing tonight we were hoping to finish and I understand you know we're down to this issue we we were hoping to to Res there's a few more on the same sheet but on this issue of in to well we were hoping to finish tonight my understanding is the only outstanding issues are the issues in yesterday's letter from Boswell if there are other issues outstanding I guess we would like to know that as well um so that we could finish up at the next meeting between now and then obviously we will need to arrange for some dialogue between the engineers so that they can get on the same page in terms of what is green infrastructure um and how do you satisfy green infrastructure um so that we can have a meeting of the minds uh on that in a way that makes sense uh I will note again that everyone's view of these issues should be guided by the settlement agreement should be settled by the fact that Verona has already found that this property is suitable and developable for this project so when we're looking at practical Solutions we have to do that within the context of what the settlement agreement provides um we're willing to sit down and do that again if we have if we had received Theo can we move on to number two here it's not a knock well we're we're you're we are where we are we are where we are tonight we can move on to number two but obviously there's going to have to be dialogue between the engineers well in advance of the next meeting Mr there are other outstanding issues the retaining wall and the Transformer is one and obviously you know that and this board was amenable to the one and a half parking spots to be moved into an acceptable uh issue for passage um so you know that that occurred tonight there was some progress made but you know it's not as if your engineer doesn't already contact the Township's Engineers that it it happens regularly there's nobody barring or standing in the way of the two Engineers speaking offline the bottom line is once the redo is done the board has the right exclusively to hear it in a public forum to make sure that it meets everyone's mustard and that is just what a planning board site plan review is and that has nothing to do with an agreement stormwater management is Storm waterer management the developers agreement and and the settlement agreement with the state would never override the safety the public safety provided by storm water management so why don't we just move on to number two appendix B storm water management report Okay so this one was regarding the Geotech uh testing and the and the uh seasonal high order tables or or modeling indication so in this um analysis that you know he went through the some of the test pit summaries and and the one that's sort of most uh important would be the one tp4 which is the test that's located where Bas C is uh he's indicating modeling at 3 ft we we had to utilize a little deeper a value but if we utilize his threefoot of modeling we would have to just adjust the bottom of our Basin a couple inches and we would comply so what we had prary discussion we'll we'll just revise the Basin to comply with that one foot separation um am I mistaken in reading something very different from your report here yeah regarding Bas and z i mean they are right there so they can raise it a little bit and still comply with the regulation basy for so for the other two basins uh in those locations the seasonal high is is relatively shallow and again you know based on the the building of the building and and and the locations of these um basins they're both would be well below what the elevation seasonal high would be now in this case you got to remember that there's building now in those locations not the water table and both of those basins are sealed they're both wrapped in an imperal lineer there's no water able to get into them the only the concern I would have which would be flotation potential which we're going to talk with the manufacturer in terms of just getting it strapped in concrete to hold them down if need um so is this compliant with the BMP manual uh in what way in there the the the basins are designed in accordance with the D no no no no no that the bottom of your Basin shall be one foot above the seasonal high water tape and those that requirement is related to surface Bas and and or an infiltration Bas the ground these are sealed basins the the the concern with the D in terms of the groundwater separation has to do with the potential for groundwater to get into your drainage system and take up volume this couldn't happen in this scenario these are sealed systems that that can happen so the concern would be flotation potential I def basically it's it's it's also I mean also applies for for underground like you can I can pure this no I know I know what that but I'm saying is underground what type of so the um the concern is not only um water going into the the detention basing is also um probably affecting the the groundw pattern or flow so that's something that probably we can discuss and and and and have an agreement or probably you reduce the depth of your basing that's something that we can further discuss so we'll have that discussion the the um yeah we can have that discussion okay um does anyone have any questions about this this I just a little like almost 20 feet below the seasonal high water table so it's a little concerning what about the displacement of the water and what about this is a seon and and a lot this site you know is based on all these Geotech tests I mean there is shallow bedrock and all these things so a lot of this these aren't these these indications aren't are you know we're not finding groundwater at these elevations you're you're finding some in some of case is modeling and so you know that could be created from a perched water situation so I do think you know we can have our Geotech you know look at the testing that we've done further but you could have that same model in which is staining of the soil based upon a perch water meaning some water gets trapped above the Bedrock but it says in the BMP manual that where modeling is seen that is where if you are not doing your test pits between July and August I'm sorry July and April that modeling would be construed as the only other indication of the seasonal high water table at another time of year there's also times when you know you but we have to rely on the BMP manual right please the so there's other times when you can look at the conditions for Geotech in terms of what that water condition is but regardless in in in certain tests in certain locations here even with the building the building you're Excavating in some areas 20 ft down in the Rock so you know as brought up is you know we may have to have the conversation about the hydrology of the site is when you take away that r that rock that conceivably could have had water in it um then we have to look at that surrounding hydrology alvor what do you think has to happen here yeah I mean we I I would like to further discuss that in in terms of how the the possible impact with the the groundwater pattern flow might be affected so that we're going to have to have that conversation that we we heard that that that that specific comments not in the letter we heard that uh today uh concerned about that that the impact on that um you might also discuss how you pinned excuse me you might also discuss how you might be pinning down and how you're going to pinned down to to Stave off flotation we've already manufacturers to get to find out if we need a design that's a that's a tech I mean that's a you know it's a constructibility thing it's not a design issue in sense designs and such do you want to move on to three we we can I just respectfully ask the board engineer I I just want to confirm do we have all of your comments I'm serious I I just I want to make sure that we so so far well so far we we've been having certain agreements onto discussing further and forther analyzing um the model and in terms of the seasonal high water table going to further discuss the possible impact with the ground water flow pattern having this Basin Underground hearing that came up on the call today but was not in the comment letter I think at this stage of the proceedings it's fair for us to know that we have all of your comments or if we don't when we will have all of your comments because it's it's frankly prejudicial to the applicant to continue to learn of new issues or new comments as we go along so I just if if would' like a representation as to whether or not we have all your comments to what has been submitted um and if we don't I'd like to have a representation as to when we will have your comments no these are the comments that you're having so U what we're discussing actually is a consequence of having the seasonal high water table I mean your basing within the seasonal water table but I mean you do have all the comments okay thank you I appreciate that I mean we can continue to discuss if you'd like Mam shair and number three I mean you may as well touch on three and four sure um and then we'll adjourn and reconvene on all of this uh you know with maybe an update of some sort uh on the 22nd so number three had to do with um the storm water quantity analysis so um the analysis that we had prepared and these tables kind of take out only the CFS but as mentioned earlier we have four analysis points uh that that we were looking at and and um in three of those we are we are meeting the D requirement for quantity reductions based on volume uh the other one we're meeting based on on runoff rate reductions um and so um you know you know in in a conversation earlier today we were talking about adding some addition language to the storm water report to sort of spell that out more clearly but basically three of the four drainage areas we meeting utilizing the the uh requirement about volume reduction and the other one we're meeting based upon the percentage reductions of um of the runoff rate so um the design complies with the DP requirements maybe we've got to add some language to sort of spell that out a little clearer but um numbers numbers just got to tell tell the story I mean if the numbers aren't showing the proper reduction no the numbers show the as I mentioned the report shows the the reductions again they the reports [Music] do yeah I mean it's basically what you say is correct you need to add some language into report say for example drainage area one we comply with the requirements based on on say n j a c 7 a you know that there are three three conditions a b or c or one two or three yeah that's it and number four if if that's aable that's that's an easy yeah number four um this I think um in this comment it says the that they display the tables display the exact to post-development flow rates despite the peak flow increase um I I clarified that earlier that they the tables don't they what they do show is being uh the same as the volume and again the volume would stay the same in this case I I really want you to take a a better look at that because one of your tables shows a massive increase in the pre and then in the post and then a change upward in your final column and the other three tables nope exact same numbers as we had in January something's not right I went through them again today that and and I I sent a me a memo to to the board engineer earlier showing the two tables from from the report in January in the report now what I think someone might what I think someone might have been looking at is we had sent out a draft in March of its storm water report that March report the numbers would be the same because that had already reflected the change but maybe what you want to look at is whether since you change from the marba to standard what happens is that theba has a a longer base hydrograph and the standard has a shorter so probably what may be happen is that you you probably May having the same volume is because um despite the fact that you have a larger larger Peak flow your your hydrog base is shorter so it's something that probably you may want to take a look at and then double check and confirm I think what what it would be is just we can add some language to the storm water report mentioned that but basically that's you know what's occurring here is is exactly that the area under that curve which is the volume is staying the same the the shape of that curve Peaks up higher but comes in skinnier but the volume is the same I think but I think that um Table Six had your total post-development flow rate was vastly increased from your January 11th whereas table five seven and eight had the exact same result as I'll go go through I went through it I sent him a memo I mean I don't see that in looking at those two reports I'm not seeing the happened we every number in every number I'm not sure I understand we're not seeing what happened the duplication of the same numbers I I don't see that when I look at the tables in the old report and the table in the new report those all those flow rates increas they that end result table in your new May 5th report or May 10th report I think it was May 10th from your January 11 they have the same except for in table in one of the the comment here was about tables 5 seven and8 when I look at those tables from the January 11th to the current report I I I see all those values have increased that St including the last column well the last column was volume and that shouldn't increased so I I I don't I how come they increased in Table Six I I I don't know I have to look at table six but the table oh I think what you're seeing is Table Six was was analysis based on I think that's the drain area that is based on percent reductions the other three are based on volume so you know you're but those charts are all again you might want to see um um your hydrographs because I don't know if you can see from from there everybody so what happened what H what's happening in your case is that at the beginning you were using this hydrograph which which is the Marva which is flatter so the volume is the area under this graph so now you you utilizing a pig flow that actually is higher but is shorter in the base so probably that's why you're having the same volume so take a look at that just just take a look at that well no saying that that is that is what's occurring the volume is not it's not changed so I think in our in the reporter we have to add some some some additional clarification or point that out in a response letter we can that that is what's occurring and so the yeah just take a look at that and double check that that's the case that would be an easy fix yeah okay okay well that um brings us to the end of that does anybody have any questions on any further questions on storm water or any suggestions um does anybody from the public have any questions that they would like to ask about the storm water testimony tonight all right I'm seeing none uh car yeah consent to carry yes when is the next consent carry to win the 22nd regular planning board meeting Thursday the 22nd right here at 7:30 June of of June 22 of June and there be no further notice the uh this application will be carried to June 22nd 2023 at 7:30 in this room there will be no further notice required Mr Ino has consented um to the adjournment uh is there anything else on the agenda that evening or there will be sorry um we have we will probably be sent a consistency review for a singular property to be considered in the uh Historic Landmark which I'm sure will be a very short discussion um as we nothing else on the agend nothing else on the agenda so say say by 8:00 we should be on oh absolutely okay yeah and now you have to before there's not before the motion to adour there will be a special meeting of this board on Tuesday July sorry June 13th next Tuesday June 13th right here at 7:30 p.m. um and just for for public to know one this this application will not be considered um it will be to consider uh the board intends to go into executive session to uh discuss some litigation um with regard to the uh Bluefield Avenue property across from the firehouse so there's no other um Regular agenda the public is welcome to come to watch the board go into executive session right he'll be here for four minutes before that happens um can I get a motion to adjourn I need I'll make a motion to adjourn can I get a second second second by Mr katsov all members hi all hi thank you yeah I don't