evening everybody and welcome to this regular planning board meeting July 27th 2023 uh can everybody oh no can we take uh the roll call please Mr Bernardo here Mr katsu Mr Jacobson Mr Lily here Mr Hindman here Mr coody here Mr D here councilman makoy here councilman Roman here Vice chairman fresy here chair person Pearson here um Bo engineer uh Gonzalez uh Mr merera attorney and Mr F zoning officer and Marcy can everybody please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance the United States of America the stands na indivisible okay notice I'm sorry the notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied with respect to this 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 the annual meeting notice posted in the community center and sent to the official newspapers of the township the verac times and the star ledge are at least 48 Hours preceding the start time of this meeting a public comment period will be held in the order it is listed in 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 please be advised that should a member of the public choose to State their street address it will not be redacting from the recording um that said if any members of the public would like to make a public comment you have three minutes to address the board I think it's three minutes it's it could be four it it might be four you could have four minutes um and uh on any any item in particular and you just state your name and municipality seeing no one um we're moving on to E approval of minutes has everybody received the meeting minutes from the regular meeting held on June 22nd any comments that you may have preemptively sent um we're hopefully incorporated or Corrections if not uh and everything looks okay can I get a motion to a approve the regular meeting minutes from June 22nd from I need to recuse because I okay as will I as will I motion to pres to approve the minutes as presented thank you Mr Bardo makes the motion Vice chair fresy seconds uh no roll call right GRE all members that vote to approve I I um anyone not approved and once again the recusals are councilmen makoy and Roman and Mr coody okay um moving on to F reorganization of the board the Oaths of office have already been administered by town uh the planning board attorney Mr massara um and we are now moving to nomination and election of chairperson um can I get a nomination for somebody to serve as chairperson from anybody on this board nomin Jess are there Mr fresy nominates me um I'll second it it seconded are there any further nominations for any other member of the board that has to be done okay um so Mr fresy uh makes a motion Mr coody seconds do we do a roll call yes roll call vote Please Mr Bernardo yes Mr Lily yes Mr Hindman yes Mr coody yes Mr D yes councilman maoy abstain councilman Roman yes vce chairman kesy yes and chair person Pearson sure um okay and now we could move on to nomination and election of Vice chairperson would anybody like to nominate anybody for chairperson Vice chairperson I'm sorry Vice chairperson I make a motion to nominate David CR cover Vice chair can I get a second second Mr Lily seconds are there any further nominations for vice chair for any other members of the board seeing none we have a nomination by Mr coody and a second by Mr Lily can we get a roll call vote Please Mr Bernardo yes Mr Lily yes Mr Hindman yes Mr coody yes Mr do yes councilman maoy yes councilman Roman yes Vice chairman fresy yes chair person Pearson yes um the next concerns resolution 20238 appointment of Marcy maell as acting board secretary um how do I approach this do I read the whole thing no no no that's no this is for that's for this is the resolution take your nominating nominating okay appointing um I will I will make a nomination to appoint Marcy macarelli as acting planning board secretary can I get a second Sor um councilman Roman Seconds come we go roll call yes roll call vote Please Mr Bernardo yes Mr Lily yes Mr Henman yes Mr coody yes Mr D yes councilman makoy yes councilman Roman yes Vice chairman fky yes and chair person PE yes now is that the vote reflected yeah that's abely all right so the resolution is the resolution passes as a result of that vote okay um next we have the appointment of planning board attorney Mr masara would anybody like to make a motion I would like to move that resolution thank you okay I will second it and so councilman Roman move moves councilman McAvoy seconds can we get a roll call vote Please Mr Bernardo yes Mr Lily yes Mr Henman yes and well deserved Mr coody yes absolutely Mr H yes councilman maoy yes Council Roman yes Vice chairman fry yes and chairperson Pearson absolutely yes um and that passes that resolution you have all the moves and the this and the that okay um next is just memorializing our meeting schedule that we already voted on back in May so can I get a motion to move a memorialization of our rooll call vote held on May 25th for the listed meeting dates motion motion by Mr Bernardo can I get a second please second Mr Hinman seconds can I get a roll call roll call vote for this meeting dates all love it any against okay and no abstentions and uh also um a resolution we need to move designating the official newspapers for all advertising of notices and to receive notices of meetings I think that's a little redundant but it's the veror grow times and the Star Ledger can I please get a motion to pass this resolution uh councilman Roman moves can I get a second second second by Mr Lily um do we need a roll call for this no um all members in favor I anyone against and no extensions the resolution passes okay um designation I'm sorry reorganization of subcommittees um you all should see a list of who was on what last year what what did I miss nothing yet we're going to come back to that next one in section H did you read this thing that I struggled to to draft okay all right um so who would like to serve on the Architectural Review Board committee I would like to vot on here again okay that would be cman Roman I'm happy to remain on that I think I another name is it Mr coody anyone else just know that architecture when it comes to our zoning ordinance some of what we drafted in our master plan was to have a more cohesive design in our downtown this is the kind of subcommittee meetings that you could be having to discuss these sorts of issues so we know right exactly so does anybody else want to throw their hat into that ring or not Mr gonzale U I'll I'll jump on that okay um site plan and subdivision committee uh Mr msar correct me if I'm wrong but written into our ordinance the site plan and subdivision committee have the right to determine whether an application is complete or not they can meet before it is scheduled on our agenda to make a determination it's written into our ordinance right well primarily it's the job of the zoning code for zoning official right with the input from the members of the sub and sub and the plan and subdivision committee since I've been serving on this board has never met so just to give the board sort of an idea of when it would be warranted for them to meet and what sort of issues they would be discussing in that potential meeting could you could you elucidate me yeah you well anytime I mean if if the if the zoning officer receives an application and as Zing officer can call upon the members of that committee to review the application but if he doesn't then it doesn't I mean it's not finding or or there is no uh right there's no remedy in the fact it doesn't happen and it doesn't impact the applicant whatsoever but the zoning official should really and maybe the board secretary melli can you know notify the his the uh his only officer please contact the members of the site uh site plan and subdivision committee so that they can uh meet review an application now that many times brings you into the question of and then what's the interaction with the applicant at that point um many times in many towns there are pre-application meetings where applicants try to get a sense of the feeling of the board yeah um now you have members you know lied members whether it be two members or three members on on this committee um you know there there's generally a back and forth and then people on the committee because they're on the committee are you know would have the ability to relay information to members of the board prior to the application or during the presentation of an application so there's a fine line between making promises and and rejecting an application um and doing your job as as kind of listening and then disseminating the information I see I didn't necessarily think it to be a meeting with the applicant themselves I I thought it more to be reviewing the documentation for the application and making a determination as to what more documentation should be supplied for it to be deemed complete and put on the agenda for the board certainly part of the role but but I didn't think that it would be I I kind of don't agree that sitting down and then having a a pre coffee with the applicant yeah speaking with the applicant I'm not sure that that's many towns encourage it and many town you know many towns want to get a sense of of what you're bringing in you know represent it's more good for the applicant but no yes and no I mean sometimes quite honestly you go in with with an idea um and the town says look you're going to have a very very difficult time getting this past okay and you're not wasting everybody's time and energy um you know going through the application and expense so there's benefits and obviously if it's not handled properly then you can go down a road that you don't want to go down I I feel like like it's we're underutilizing this process absolutely you know we regularly go till 10:30 a lot of times finding holes in plans that we could have found through this subcommittee and you know had excellent informal conversations through you know not you know face to face I agree but like with the applicants and hey you know there's we see some problems here come back with them till then you'll have an easier time um so Madam chair yes maybe we should decide who wants to be on it the group of us can if we have to do it in close session talk about the limitations of how this group group moves forward yeah I agree and I would like to continue to serve on this committee okay Mr Heyman would you like to continue yeah I'll continue if no one else wants to jump in okay if some who else would like to be on this I would like to be Mr yes thank you it's a good team I mean it J we like should we want does anyone else want to join this as a fourth before we have a quorum no okay we have three solid members so good um landscape and environmental committee which again we we should meet on especially major applications such as is before us this evening I would like to stay on that committee Mr fresy would like to continue on that committee uh we obviously lost a couple of people would anybody else like to smell the flowers join it I like the tree hug as you know and actually um that's a good place to anyone else sub trees and last but not least we have the master plan implementation committee um which would be relatively dormant moving into the next few years okay but um the members that were on it were myself and Mr kamudi as well as Mr masara um we lost Mr Lan we lost um Al old we have Al old do you want to stay on that yeah stay on that when it something comes up we'll deal with it so right now we have I'd like to I'd like to join that I'd like to can't yeah we I'm I'm putting Hindman on I mean I'll defer I'm not on subcommittee Chris I don't know if you you want to jump on you're um have you're on the uh I'm on the site well we really do need I'm happy to give someone else a slide I did my work I moved to the architecture so so Mr Mr Hinman I get my great ideas from others thank you Dr D and myself uh so Chris Bernardo okay so just to review really quickly the architectural committee is going to be councilman Roman Mr K coody and myself the site plan review committee is going to be councilman mckoy Mr hinesman and Mr Lily landscape myself Mr fresky and Tim and master plan Al de old myself uh Mr Hinman Mr Bernardo and Mr masara okay good all right moving on to the next item um and I think it's going to be brief um if you recall a couple of years ago in 2021 we adopted the open space and Recreation plan as part of as one of the elements of our master plan upon adopting our new master plan in 2022 we made a little snafu little mistake we did not re adopt it to the new master plan this is a corrective measure and a step that we're taking this evening to Simply um fill that fix that problem um uh Beyond which there are a couple of things coming up in Verona where the Green Acres thing is still kind of hanging out there we are still dealing with some of the open issues on the two properties that we two open space properties that we Acquired and there will be a referendum or proposition going out this fall on raising the open space money from 2 cents to three I not sure if you knew about that but it'll be on the November ballot for all residents of Verona for the for open for the open space trust fund any comments yeah I had a question and might be for um Greg in terms of the need need to reopt I mean it's not invalidated by us adopting the other land use elements no it was simply not incorporated into but it's still it's still valid it's still in place right so so this is in effect the public hearing we had a notice for the public hearing there's no changes in unless somebody has changes in what this board approved in 2021 it simply wasn't carried over into the new master plan just by omission but I mean it's still it's still in place it's still valid and I think technically it's still we could still rely on it we're simply incorporating it into the 2022 just an administra that's a question that has not been asked and we hope that it's not that it doesn't have to be resolved because no issue has come and that's what we're just trying to we're trying to do it you know NOK proton if you will as if we did it in the beginning and you know as it is now that's the purpose of this resolution just to say it it was incorporated it was intended to be incorporated but it was not just because you know there are those open issues with the Green Acres and when we first adopted it it was kind of a rush process we didn't get the input from some of the other committees on what we want to do and it would be nice to be able to amend it we could always we could go back and do that at some point right I'm just saying if the process is open right now would be a good time but we'd have to Ren notice anyway right to amen to amend it so I'm just I think it should be something that's on our radar we could go back and and look at once we get the funding squared away and we have a better idea of what projects are feasible I think we should take a look at opening this back up and kind of filling in some of those blanks that were left a couple years ago ABS I I fully agree but I'd like to just sew up the the void right now the master plan sub committee could meet on and discuss and bring to that's correct we they could um at any rate um right now we're looking to Simply tie it back to the 2022 master plan as it was tied to the 2009 so that is what this resolution States um and basically it states that the Verona 2022 master plan be amended to include the open space and Recreation plan as a adopted by us the Vera planning board in 2021 and as amended on July 27 2023 um and that this open space space plan open space plan become a permanent part of it thereof so can I please is can I get a motion to move this resolution forward to am amend the master plan by adding this as an amendment so mov second okay is that councilman maoy yes and second by doc second by alol can we get a roll call vote please I wasn't for the original you can vot yeah Mr Bernardo yes Mr Lily yes Mr Hinman yes Mr CI I'm going to abstain because I honestly don't remember the document I don't think my I want to vote one way or other I it to you but you know yeah I know it so I didn't so I'm not I'm not standing okay okay Mr deal yes councilman makoy yes councilman Roman yes Vice chairman fry yes and chairperson Pearson yes motion passes um and uh that's it okay um at this time we are going to hand the mic over to Mr engino to continue uh from our special meeting on June 7th the application 20224 preliminary and final site plan for one Sunset Avenue block 303 lot one [Music] good evening Madam chair board members uh it's great to be back with you here uh for the record John engino here on behalf of the applicant Verona Sunset urban renewal LLC uh first congratulations to new new board members uh on their uh appointments uh congratulations or maybe condol condolences to the volunteers who being reappointed congratulations to you madam chair on uh on your reappointment um this evening we're going to uh present some very limited testimony uh from Mr Savage our civil engineer uh and when that is done I think we've we have kind of wrapped up our case um Mr Savage's office has been working with your board engineer to address some concerns regarding geotechnical conditions um proposed by all detention reasin storm water flow volumes uh and the like uh you'll hear tonight that the applicant is proposing to address these concerns and a revised storm water management report which will be submitted uh as part of a resolution compliance and review uh and approval by the board engineer Ceno I I don't want to interrupt but I guess I'm going to we um we asked and Mr Savage at many times in the past couple of meetings had stated that he will revive numbers and show us those numbers so I would like to be sent a revised Vision as the entire board deserves and I believe that it was written into the Boswell memo that you received on the 25th that I sent to you that the board is supposed to receive a revised Final Storm Water Management plan that is what we discussed it was said that it would get done and we're still not in receipt of that document with the numbers from the many of the numbers that were cited in Boswell's memo that were supposed to be revised we have not received that is there a reason why we're not getting a copy of that so if I may continue Madam chair if I I was you're meeting if you if I'm not allowed to make my open just that we can't close your testimony until we're sure that the board who hasn't had a chance to review a new storm waterer management report have questions for your engineer on that particular report so I appreciate that you want to get done but this is something that the board has oversight on and we're not being given an ample review of a final document so I I I object to your statement that you're going to Simply send it in to Boswell and O and basically circumvent the board who gives the approval on that we would like the opportunity to be able to ask your your experts questions and rely on our expert to answer those questions in a public forum and and the the public may have questions right so um if I may continue sure thank you uh as I think you'll hear from Mr Savage the report notes that due to rainfall events when the geotechnical studies were performed the applicant encountered purched water condition in the areas where the underground detention basins are proposed um we're confident that this water condition is not true ground water uh but simply uh rainwater that was perched the top the ground which Carri characterizes the site um however to establish this uh the agreement the applicant will agree to perform new uh test pits at the locations proposed bases A and B in the January through April time period as recommended by the board engineer um and once those that analysis is complete the applicant will submit those test results to the board engineer as part of its revised storm water management report uh we believe that those test results will confirm that our proposed basins locations are appropriate and maintain the adequate twot separation from groundwater as recommended in the BMP manual if it does confirm that then we satisfied the condition if we C if we can't confirm that then we would have to come back to the board uh for an amended uh site plan approval um we propose that this be made a condition of approval uh and again if the test results confirm that the basins are appropriately legally located then we submit uh that Mr Alvaro should administ administratively approve this um again if we have to modify uh in a material way we're going to have to come back to the board we understand that that's the way it works uh we're also willing to revise our storm water management report to address Mr alvaro's comment regarding biod detention uh bi retention Basin C uh and to provide an explanation in that report in that report regarding postd development volume flows uh and I think that addresses or will address most of the comments um you know a couple of items here that are really not engineering they're more process and and legal with regard to Mr alvaro's report most recent report I think was June 25th or 6th um he's requested that the applicant assess the adequacy of Verona's existing sanatory SE capacity to handle the addition are you going sorry are you going simply going through Boswell's memo right now no as I said I I'm right now addressing in my opening statement if I may I think I have a right to do that um it sounds like you're doing it if that's a problem or if there's an objection i' appreciate it if you could make that clear on the record if Notting to it I just sort of was trying to figure out where you were and it it appears that you're going through this right now so I am addressing the portion of the memo that uh assesses the adequacy of or or has requested the applicant to assess the adequacy of Verona's existing sanitory sewer capacity to handle the additional Wastewater flow generated by this community Community uh of course this is really not within the purview of the board uh this request will necessarily and must be addressed in a future tww application where as a matter of law the board uh the town engineer must sign off and certify um uh for conveyance capacity and treatment capacity of of the system and that's for the town engineer to do it's not for this board to assess that standard operating procedure uh in land use uh the applicant has been working with the township engineer uh on this issue and if need be will uh install flow meters Downstream from the project so we will agree as a condition to of approval to work with the town engineer and abide by whatever uh reasonable request he has of the applicant or she has of the applicant uh in regards to uh that issue um the applicant has already camed some of the downstream lines and so we don't believe that any capacity issue exists but again that will be determined by the municipal engineer who must certify in the tww application with regard to capacity both with respect to conveyance and treatment um so that is technically an outside uh approval for uh and would be a condition of approval as it it is in all applications with regard to water which was also addressed in Mr alvaro's letter um he's inquired as to whether the Project's water demand and whether the township has adequate capacity to supply that demand now as the board I think is aware the Township's I guess has a well offline um and the township is temporarily purchasing water as I understand it from Pake Valley until the wells are back online and to address this temporary issue uh again this is a Township issue it's not a board issue but it was raised by the board engineer so we want to address it we sent a letter to the township about a month or so ago uh we sent a copy over to the board engineer today just so you have it for reference um essentially you know requesting a status of that and if Verona doesn't have order for the project then Verona is going to have to purchase water for the project especially since it represented in the settlement agreement that uh the project can handle the project so um Mr Nino that was before th those two Wells were taken offline if if if I may I'm almost done with my statement mam chair again that is not an issue for this board that is an issue between the applicant and the municipality it's not an issue that the board has any jurisdiction or control over whatsoever I only address it because it was raised um in the board Engineers letter if it wasn't raised in the letter I would not have raised it um with with the board um so I think that that U concludes Madam chair my opening statement again we have Mr Savage here who will address um the biod detention uh issues that are raised in Boswell's letter of July 25th and so that any further Ado I would like to call Mr Savage uh Mr Savage you have appeared in these hearings before is that correct correct and you understand that you're still under oath I do has there been any change uh at all to your professional status uh your licenses or any of the uh qualifications that you provided to the board uh when you first testified in this application yeah okay uh having said that Mr Savage would you kindly address uh the issues that are raised in the uh July 25 2023 review Memo by Boswell engineer okay so the uh the first comment uh here was regarding the uh geotechnical report and the uh bio retention base memo that uh we had submitted most recently on the uh believe was the early July I think it's the six um and so this statement here you know we had provided an argument that the uh site conditions you know based upon our geologist looking at this in a little more detail that that the seasonal High uh and groundwater indications in the original Geotech report were actually indications or were actually the result of a perched water table situation um and the comment here from Boswell um you know basically kind of stated you know some of this you know that that it makes sense but but please provide um basically additional uh tests to be done during uh what would be the high water period of the year January through April um in order to I guess verify that fact so um you know we're in agreement to uh conduct those additional tests um I'll have to you know discuss with Mr alaro the sort of uh just to confirm the number and that kind of situation just to make sure that when we go out there we're getting the the number and locations like you know obviously the locations would be in those two Basin areas but um just to make sure before we mobilize we would be um you know in agreement on the extent of that and and then you know as previously mentioned the results of that test um obviously that would be started in January so we're however money six months or whatever months away we are from that um you know it's our inting if those uh tests come back let's say they come back negative in terms of our uh submittal and they and they show that that was actually a true groundwater you know that would lead to a change within the storm water design so we'd be back for the town and the board at that situation if the results come back and and and verify our uh conclusions as that it's perched water table the design as it is now would be uh appropriate and and meet the regulations and in our mind would not need to come back for the board because it's it it' be compliant in that situation Mr Savage in your opinion if the results come back that the seasonal high water table is where it's visually been seen through the modeled soil in your past test pits would that also potentially entail redesigning of portions of the site in order to accommodate a higher placement for those I don't I mean it could be a relocation of the Basin so I I'm not sure if that would impact the building per se it could be something that we could relocate that outside of the footprint of the building the the the one that would be the biggest impact potential obviously is the one in the Gage yes and so but potentially that could be moved out or split up into multiple smaller basins outside the footprint so I this stage uh certainly if that were the result there could you know there would be a change to the drainage design but I I can't say that that would impact the building or the layout in the sense of that part of the site planine all right uh the next comment here in the letter was regarding the bio retention Basin uh we had provided a memo uh explaining our um drain time calculations of that basin and how it um you know complies with the D's BMP manual um and uh in that memo we mentioned that the current Bas and if again this wouldn't be required um based on the the perch water table but uh it's such a minor change we I think we just make the change anyway to the Bas and bottom raising it I think it's a couple inches that would get it to be compliant with even the worst case of the Season high so so do you have that redesigned B and C no we've we've run it preliminarily we were waiting to to incorporate these other changes in design it's it's a it was a 2in rise in the bottom it didn't doesn't impact um really the design of that Basin and in effect it really would not be required if the results of the uh new testing that's coming up shows that the groundwater and seasonal high are as deep as we feel it is that wouldn't even be required but again it's such a minor change we'll just we'll just make that change uh next one is under additional pending comments for storm water um this has to do with providing revi shall revise and provide a report explanation about the post-development flow volume values and the latest storm water report as they're equal to the flow volume values in the previous uh version of the report despite the fact that the Peak flow values have increased but I think I touched on this at the last hearing or the last hearing I was at um we did change from the the uh the hydrograph from this from the uh delmara to the standard uh that impacted existing and proposed and and we had I previously discussed that it uh that change didn't impact the design of the basins um what it does impact is that you know the peak the timing of that Peak runoff is changed the volume underneath the hydrograph curve uh or sorry the area underneath the hydrograph curve Remains the Same it's just distributed differently and that area underneath that graph is the volume the flow volume and so it would in in this situation it would be expected to remain the same so what we had previously discussed is We'll add into the report some explanation of that but um what's in the report that was previously submitted is correct and shows that result and so we we'll just provide some add additional explanation as requested the next one uh so when we'll get that in what six eight months no I mean it depends on what our our the the plan was initially to to revise these things once we get uh past the hearing to submit um and that was before I had re we had seen the comments about the testing in January February so conceivably we could do those changes you know much sooner again still be it's still going to be based upon the assumption that the groundwater in seasonal high is much lower uh that report could be revised much sooner and submitted and then you know then we do the results in January uh April so that that's doesn't have to wait that long um so just so I understand so what you're saying is that regardless of the model that you use on the on the volume of storm water the what you're proposing is is adequate yeah so so what happened was that the with that change from the Del Marva to the to the this unit the standard um hydrograph the the timing so it's like when it hits the peak and how much of the runoff is before or after the peak right so but the the curve the area under that curve stays the same it's just elongated or or Peaks and so that area underneath the volume and so our basins were designed really for the same volume volume and when we routed it with the existing conditions because when you change that hydrograph that from the Delmarva the existing also goes up so so in effect your your from a design perspective your allowable discharges are higher also um B based upon that storm event that hydrograph so it the way it all works out in all of that analysis is that the design the size of the basins uh you know the wears and orifices all remain the same um so there was no need to change the size of anything so really the the design intent let's call it didn't change um it was really just how it was distributed the how come it did change on sorry how come it did change on one of the tables but not the others cu the uh I hold on I know I'm waiting for you so I I explained this numerous times during the testimony I'm sorry but you're going to have to explain it no I'm just trying to explain we we've gone through this a number of times the there's the four drainage analysises three of those we're meeting the D requirement based upon reducing the volume because we those areas have less are producing rest less volume and we're also at no point does our Peak flow exceed the existing uh hydrograph that's a DP requirement that's three of the four the final one which is the one you're mentioning we we met on percent reductions of the runoff rate the 50 7580 so there would be a difference in those tables they're not they're not compar those tables are not comparable three of them are the same one's different they all meet the D requirements the calculations um and that change in the peak did it um did it squash the or or heighten the peak the the the new the new one is is a is a sharper it Peaks it's a higher Peak so a higher Peak and is it but it's skinnier it's a higher Peak skinnier is it is it skewed like early skewed the the peak is skewed off of it it's I think it's an earlier it's an earlier Peak versus a later Peak but it's also a flatter you know the the Del morva had a had a lower Peak and a flatter um shape got it no but the area underneath is the same in both does that have any uh is there any implications outside of you know meeting the laws and standards that for you know what will actually occur at the property I mean the design the the design the storm water you know collection and the basins are designed for that storm so it it's designed for that timing of the runoff reaching the the the systems and the outlet structures and such are designed for the same thing so it's it's cooked into the design um so whether a lot of water's coming in at once or or a little bit the calculations are accounting for the timing it's the how the timing is reaching uh the basins and then how long it's being detained and then how it's discharging so it's it's all it's um it's it's it's incorporated into that great okay all right number five um this one said the applicant shall provide in the report a section displaying the assessment of the existing storm water uh sewer capacity to the in the extent sorry in the context of the 210 100 flow coming out of the site a table with the values might be provided so this um and correct me if I'm wrong I believe is referring to that separate memo we had provided relative to the uh flow to the offsite in Sunset Boulevard uh uh Inlet and pipe we're going to just incorporate that previously submitted separate document into the report I'm Ashley and that's Sunset Avenue just in case I know that we get memos from you once a week Mr Savage and I'm Jessica and that's Marcy and it's Sunset Avenue I'm not sure what you referring to you said Sunset Boulevard and I felt like we were going to Broadway together but I really it's okay I okay you know who we arees make sense continue I'm sorry okay the next one um so are you going to give Alvaro a chart showing the two t I'm going to we had already provided that chart to them with the calculations we're going to incorporate that into the drainage report it was provided as a separate memo and attachments it'll just be incorporated into the report did I see that did the board see it or no uh I believe that was submitted to the full Township okay well so you're not providing any new information you're just repackaging I'm repackaging information provided all right and then um I don't recall getting okay so I the next one would be under sanitary and the drinking water there's really no comments other than what was already yeah that's not I don't think there's anything else to add to those two so that that would be it related to the U most recent review letter if I if I may um Mr engo did not discuss item number eight n of you uh regarding fireflow I'm sorry just uh uh regarding fire flow fire flow oh I think that you you stopped with the discussion of uh of drinking water Demand only well I guess that again the the well is is out um so we can't really measure that right now what we can tell you is that um uh if since there isn't water capacity at the moment we have to wait until there's water capacity for the capacity part of it if from a pressure perspective we need to install pumps we will do that has the township um said that with the wells out of service it's inappropriate to measure the capacity or to evaluate the capacity right now or is that from the applicant's opinion only yeah I mean there there was a flow test prior to the Wells being offline prior to my involvement project that from my understanding of those results showed that the volume was adequate but that there was a um that there would need to be a onsider in a building pump to supplement the pressure which the client is you know understands and agrees to so um once the wells are back online obviously the volume would be still there or more and at that point they would redo the test to see if the additional Wells online have brought up the here's what what I'm not understanding is we are with our wells offline we are replacing that water capacity um through additional surface water purchases from SE Valley Water Commission which is our other water source has the township issued an opinion to you that this is that that because the wells are offline we may not be able to meet this demand or is this only the applicants engineer here that has this opinion well I let me rephrase it to the extent we can't to the extent we can't do the test now because of the lack of water capacity then we will when there is capacity and if we need to install pumps for there to be appropriate pressure we will do that but pass the pressure are two separate issues yes if there's not pressure you've already stated that you will install pump but the capacity the Capacity Analysis is that a test done on the water system to determine if the if the capacity if the ability to supply water gallons per minute is and that's what I'm trying to what what I'm not understanding here from the the the if you're talking about you know the flow calculations for the for the sprinkler systems and such those are done by an me engineer and or sprinkler uh person so I wouldn't calculate those uh in terms of that but um you know at this point it's the opinion that that you know there's really no need to do it they understand that there isn't a capacity that there isn't capacity for the project at this time so there's really they're not looking to to speed that part of it up they understand they have to wait at this point who has rendered that opinion that there is not sufficient capacity at this time well we we are working under that assumption um ass I I don't know whether there there is or isn't capacity at the moment what I do know is Verona is obligated to provide the capacity uh and it's not that's not our obligation that's the Township's obligation to provide us with u sufficient capacity of water so that's that's not within our control um what is within our control is to uh you know take action in terms of installation of pumps to ensure adequacy of pressure if if there isn't adequacy of pressure this is up on a high you know piece of ground so uh as was testified to by the engineer I guess preliminary tests that were performed back when uh reveal that we may have to install pumps and if we do we will do that okay but is the determination of AD adequate capacity is this based on testing of a system or is this based on calculations based on HP sizing knowledge of our water supply Etc and uh if I can just jump my understanding from and again I wasn't involved in this aspect but my understanding is that the the D has I guess issued a a report or or a decision that the that the township has a has a doesn't have enough capacity so in effect like we we would not a new development would not be able to apply for a water main extension um until those Wells are back online so again we can't move forward let's say with submiss to the obviously you got to go before the town and stuff first but to the D for that water main extension because from that requirement the town is negative as far as my understanding is already purchasing water from other sources I believe yeah they're they're purchasing from Pake Valley we we we don't know I I don't know I don't think we know whether or not at the moment there is sufficient capacity I think we've raise the issue with the township it's not a board issue it's a municipal issue um again that letter was sent to the business administrator over a month ago we have not received a reply um you know my office did call there and we were told they're working on it but we haven't received any information U from the town in regards to what it's doing to provide water capacity for the project but that that's a municipal obligation it's not something that we control um I'm just still trying to figure out this phrase here the the the townships water system capacity to supply the demand shall be assessed SL determined what is that assessment or determination based upon how is that assessment or determination made is this someone looking at paperwork and design of the water supply system or is this someone going and running some sort of field testing to determine the adequacy of the asilt system what make what is involved in making that determination of adequate water capacity I I believe what what we were testifying to I think that responsibility would lie with the town no no but the mayor the mayor I'm sorry the you're still mayor because tag still says mayor you your name plate says mayor youy once a mayor always a mayor that's what I always say there whatever you like what what I I think the issue is that the mayor is asking is that from a municipal capacity how is that measured and there's there's a concept of firm capacity uh in which you know um it's D permitting maybe Mr Alo knows or can speak to that I I think that our engineer is certainly a civil engineer here testifying to our project if you feel that you're knowledgeable enough to testify as to Municipal Water Systems in generally and and how that works I think the mayor is just wanting some information in that regard I don't I don't know the the specifics of that analysis I mean I do know that when we're typically going through the the water extension permits we're submitting to the to the township or a water company and we're they're providing the firm capacity so they're providing us the calculations of the wells or other sources of water that they have and they're coming up with that flow and you know if you're talking about a a an analysis of the conveyance system let's call it of the water I mean that's a different thing that is not what this is okay so what I'm trying to figure out the question I'm trying to answer here is I am hearing this analysis cannot be performed now because the wells are offline okay so that to me would only hold true if this was a function of measurement if you were to go out and and run a field test go try and get the water you needed and it didn't run I'm wondering why there can't essentially be a proforma analysis assuming that the wells go back online yeah I would um I mean there there could be assumptions about what the what the flow what those Wells were were um delivering um delivering um but the um hold on a second sorry um we could we could look at that as as a as assumptions to uh to the flow but what we were specifically referring to holding off on was actually the F the hydrant flow test okay which which um was was the specific thing we were talking about waiting till the wells are back online Okay um and again you know you you not being our water system engineer but just asking if you if you know any of these answers here fire demand this is a function this is again we're going back to both pressure and volume okay pressure you've already said if you need a booster pump you're going to put a booster pump in volume has somebody rendered an opinion that right now with the wells offline the township cannot Supply sufficient volume to make your fire flow numbers not not to my knowledge right the the the only thing was that what I mentioned previously that the D mentioned that there is not available water for the development at this time mayor my former mayor hat for a minute and U Municipal attorney hat May the qu the question of whether or not there's enough water is a bit of a misnomer because the D has this concept called firm capacity right you may have plenty of water to service the needs but if you don't have enough water on paper and I think it's like onethird more than your act or no it's three times more than your actual need three times more than your actual need then you don't have enough water on paper um to get to deliver that water to your to your residents and so um my from what I understand and my sense is Verona has enough water but it doesn't have enough firm capacity or Reserve in order for D to to permit you to uh serve uh some of your properties and so uh and that is a result of your well being offline and so Verona has attempted to um mitigate that problem by entering into an agreement with Pake Valley to purchase additional water um which I guess it can through the existing conveyance system and so what we have asked the municipality to do is is to purchase if they need to up their amount of purchase in water to do that um but again we just haven't received a response but my fallback answer our fallback answer would be that it is the municipality's obligation and responsibility to provide sufficient water gallonage um that's not up to us we're we rely on the municipality like every other property owner does in in Verona I don't think there's any well water in Veron I think it's all not that I'm aware of yeah it's all Township water so so that's our view we don't control that okay that gets back that all right that comes closer to answering my question so this is a regulatory problem in that the people who would certify that there is adequate water demand will not do so with the wells offline or without additional that's correct okay the problem is you don't have enough firm capacity to meet your permitting requirements for additional water extension permits um and and to clarify I will not neither you know neither agree nor disagree with your statement regarding the township um providing atate water capacity that uh would be a separate matter selfix interpretation by Township legal councel um please with due respect our board engineer it's Alvaro Gonzalez it's not Mr Alvaro I think we're all guilty and it's Dr Gonzalez um apologies you know it's a degree and I know no one meant any disrespect but even members of the board of Mr Alvaro it's Mr Alvaro Alvaro or Alvaro I don't know how to pronounce your first Alvaro Gonzalez but it's it's the last name is Gonzalez and it's Dr Gonzalez so thank you thank that's easier apologies Dr Gonzalez if Dr gonzale if I butchered your name but I can assure you that my name's been butchered several timesing my too nobody calls you Mr John no that's been a lot worse than that I can tell you that our our board attor then um with respect to if the township has a different interpretation of the agreement um regarding its responsibilities there at what point in time does that weigh in or who ultimately says whose responsibility that is responsibility for for being able to supply adequate water capacity to that's that's it's not within the purview of this board it's not a condition of approval okay um there's an argument I think what what council has said I generally agree with that the town has the obligation to provide the the infrastructure um the elements of the infrastructure which would include providing you know sore capacity water Etc um there are some conditions on that depending on the site but you know I think it's a case-by case basis but primarily the town municipality has the obligation to provide what is necessary to complete these projects especially there's specific cases especially in the affordable housing in context because that's where a lot of these capacity issues have Arisen because the density has been so great the towns have taken a position that they don't have the ability to provide the necessary services and the courts generally have said well you better you better figure it out to the TS okay so again just for the just for the record I will state that that also may be subject to the particulars of the agreement between it's not the perview this Bo um certainly would be part of the permitting process and part of the part of the uh um completion process and um as Mr Savage said the D also has a say in it um you know so but one of the things that you said kind of stuck me wrong struck me wrong and that was providing the infrastructure I don't agree with that because they're building the pipes that will carry their own water go argue to the New Jersey Supreme Court um I mean that's I mean that's been decided so we build your sewer system we build your pipes even though the capacity may not be ample didn't we have this discussion not too long ago I can tell you like where you did not agree with Mr R some of the as that was with regard to the s specifically whether there is the seore capacity and there are situations where if it's if it's specifically related to that project but not the overall capacity of the town then they might be responsible but if the town I can tell you this now the burough of cwell is going through a lawsuit with Ells rosand North cwell Etc because their sort of plant does not have the capacity and there are Builders R these lawsuits in rosand significant number that are now in the superior court because Codwell doesn't have the ability to expand the plant but cordwell has to expand the plant because they must serve the people who they serve so unfor unfortunately we were conflicted out participating in I'm sorry you're in that well we were conflicted out unfortunately participating really yeah um but yeah no listen I I think that I I agree with uh with Mr M course you do um but there are situations as I said there are situations where if the specific project might impact a specific area of the public um accommodation not accommodation but the the public service then the app then you might be able to put it on the applicant for instance let's suppose like just on Sunset Avenue there wasn't the capacity but just on Sunset and then it tied into 8 in diameter lines instead of four then you might be able to say hey that's your guys's problem because in general terms we can serve what is there the single family homes Etc we we have no oblig agree with that I just don't think that Mr M does no no it so the municipal land use law and I believe it's 4055 d-42 outlines uh where uh boards can impose obligate look at up GR I think it's 4055 d-42 um which deals with uh this very issue and it's a it's it's very limited in its scope uh and that's you know that's been the law of New Jersey in a long for a long time he's looking it up back in the90s back in my day when I was a mayor there were impact fee legislation uh that that just didn't make it um there's been uh cases before the New Jersey state supreme court where boards attempted to impose impact fees for impacts on schools and all that's all been shot down well you're refering 42 refers to whether you can well correct whether you can impose a a fee on a developer for the cost of the improvements right um the general you know the litigations with that have to do kind of the opposite of whether the boards have imposed a quit pro quo like if you if you impose it then we will give you app if you pay we will give you approval there's got to be an ordinance and there has to be a reasonable estimation of the amount of cost but you can do that it has to be Project Specific and not having to do with the overall capacity of the town like the Caro example is a great example sewer is 100% capacity 991 so they can't they they cannot take on anything then so that's an easy one if you go if you go from zero to 100 that's at 100 okay this one might be somewhere on the time line on the line between zero and 100 might be at 50 like do we have to oppose well it depends on all of the um oh yeah yeah um regarding that yeah is I had access to access to the document that you're talking about and it's true that the firm capacity is not is not enough but what you can be doing is because I I got these numbers that I just pulled up from the document it's like that you tentatively estimated I don't know who did it but I mean probably your your consultant thought that the fir flow demand was uh 45,000 something which is something about 31.5 GPM gallons per minute so um what you can be doing we I mean regardless of that the you have the issue of the firm capacity to solve your uh the need you I mean you water demand but you can be doing I don't know probably you already run a hydrant test so so basically a hydron test what what it does is that um you run certain uh flow through the hydrant and then you measure the pressure so you got something that is called the static pressure and the other one is the residual pressure and then with the formula you calculate what would be the available flow at 20 psi why 20 psi because the the regulation mandates that you have to provide 20 psi at a minimum at any scenario including the five loow so I don't know if you already have your hyen test um me mentioned before there there was one done uh prior that was done before the wells offline and what we had mentioned earlier was that we're waiting to do the next one until those Wells are back online so you can probably have an idea as you just mentioned that probably you might need um probably pressure and then you you put just suppos to pump well and that that was already as we mentioned just a little bit ago uh the client is already aware that that they that they most likely unless the wells come back online and provide the pressure based on the current um hydrant test that they did before the wells were offline they already did that calculation um and they at that with those calculations would need the booster pump and they understand that and if that's what they need they're they're going to obviously have to provide that yeah that's something that you can be doing I mean in preparation for the next step I question for both Engineers really on the the pump and the uh not the capacity but the pressure the top of the hill it sounds like if your pressure is inadequate for your property you'll put in pumps those will take care of you know the the the the the buildings needs is there an effect on you know that pressure right before those pumps and and the area if those pumps are needed and that water is you know the capacity is given to them will that reduce capacity or pressure to the surrounding uh neighborhood I look we're going to do whatever the town engineer advises us to do in that regard um I I I mean I don't know how we can answer that um but that's a mayor I asked the engineers but yeah no no the the the municipal engineer will provide the guy you know do you have any you know what's your just just from a physics point of view does is that affected when you know the capacity and the pressure at the PIP dep on how you um you set up your your your new quote quote Network so you can just what it does is the booster pump is it works like a fan like you know just get air and just push it that faster and move on so actually it may improve the the water pressure he helped you out mayor understand and I assume to your point you'll work that out absolutely thank you so at this point I'll ask the two former mayors um I don't even know what to call anyone anymore um I think three of us uh just crazy right um when that well when will at least one of those Wells what is it expected to go back up online not for another year right at least a year off at least a year off from one of the two Wells being remediated and because there's a another well that has a Green Acres issue because it's located on Green Acres um so I just out of curiosity how do how do you build when you don't know what you need well Town's going to have to purchase more water if they don't have it I'm sorry they they can purchase more water I mean that's that's what they've done they've entered into an agreement with Pake Valley so they're going to have to really I was referring in a sense as well to the pressure how do you know how to build if you don't know you're not doing another test until the well comes back online which is well we we didn't at least a year from now I don't think we said that um I think we said that we'll we'll do the test when we can um and obviously we'll have to do the test uh if if we want to get our permitting what comes first chicken or egg do you build and then figure it out well we're not going to get a building permit they to have they have to prove that they have the adequate pressure okay in order to build what in you know as a precondition to build like that it's one of the one of the prerequisites yeah don't bother um chair can I ask another question actually going back to number one U uh on the soil samples I just want to understand in the simplest terms tell me if I'm right that you took samples on really a very very wet day so you feel like your samples are outliers is that correct no that that was just part of the of of the explanation for it to show you know what could be um a cause of that water at that time what what the analysis also talked about with geologist was just that surrounding area so the like the nearest like say where water is reaching the surface in this area is is is I forget the distance away from here and it's it's probably like 80 feet lower it was something dramatic and so that's what the geologist is looking at he's looking at okay you know that where the water is breaking out is is a is a good indication of what your general water table would be in that area then he also knows the the the um you know the rock formations of this area the fact that the site is is is is Rock after that initial overburden um would lead to that indication that you know you're you're various depths but it's relatively shallow overburden be Beyond The Rock once you're into the Rock You know you're not getting the water table so you're not getting the water coming up through that that those those you know feet on feet of rock and so and so what what what the conclusion on the with our geologists and looking at the rainfall events is basically that was just to show hey right before or or and during the testing that was done there was relatively a good amount of rainfall a shallow amount of overburden and so the fact that that could become perched would would be expected that you would potentially find that the fact that they found modeling which is soil staining would just be indicative that over the course of X number of years what you would expect is you're having water get perched above that rock and and dry out and it goes or level and it dries out and and so you're getting a staining but the source of that water is rain where the source of a true groundwater is coming up is is sort of the difference at that and so the retest is just to prove that what what the retest would would be looking at is is going uh we basically and in this situation we would have to do a boring through the rock right to get down um to you know the beneath the big basin's the harder one the Basin a in the garage um to get down underneath that and and look at the water of if there is water or not water during that the January to April which is a high water mark of the okay of a year and so that's what that purpose of that test would be um so you're not you're okay so now I understand a lot better and let me reconfirm your October samples you're not like oh these are kind of outliers cuz we had rain recently the what you described is the natural occurrence of say that rain and that recent rain just in that just area lay layers or whatever and for certainty you're going farther the new test would go a lot of the original tests were we hit refusal at various depths relatively shallow in most of them and so now we would have to go through the rock so it's going to have to be a drill through the rock to get down to those deps I'm no geologist but I assume it's B salt all the way down yeah and so so that's that's the the other test would be having to to get through that rock basically which is in a certain sense where you said the runoff that the that the geologist said is almost like I don't know if it's exactly a right angle but here's your top here's your Hill if the runoff we said was 80 ft down or away or something you're you're sort of looking to see if that well I mean well we're we not going to go we don't need to go that far we we need to go you know at at a minimum 2 feet below the bottom of the Basin so um of so we don't need to go we don't have to find groundw we just need to show that it is not within a certain distance of the basins which then allows you to so that's what you're looking for that's the information we just want to get to at least 2 feet below those basins and if we don't hit the groundwater at that point during those high water times then that's the indication we're looking for that and that you're you know you're you can count on your engineering passing yeah and then well not even that it's really just it's the the capacities are fine it's it's it's about whether or not the water potentially is within the area where the Basin is right so floated or and the regs have a have have a have a commment about the two foot Separation on Basin and Stu so that's what that would prove thank you for taking me through that I understand much better um but just as a a point our Engineers attached the average rainfall during the seasonal high water table period at which point you're going to have to reperform these tests and the average rainfall exceeds what happened a day or two before you did your testing in October so I'm just saying you know in general you get more rain during this the period that you're being asked to test uh so you know if you're going to blame it on a a rainstorm you're going to get more rain again I wasn't blaming I was just it was an explanation of what would cause a perched water table was why we presented the rainfall if it had been dry let's say you know you have three feet of overburden there and it had been dry for two months before we did those tests then we wouldn't have expected to find any ground W so that that that discussion report was just to any perched water any perched so that was just to sort of explain why there would be water why why we found water there is basically what that was for Madam chair uh Mr Savage in what you just described you said you went down your next tests are going to go deeper yeah so so why wouldn't they have just done that before they they hit refusal so the equipment they were using for those test pits was a was a you know an excavator uh they hit refusal meaning they could not get through the rock okay so they would have to with with aor the to get down to the depth of the of the large Basin you know with the cut to put the building in it it's it's um uh over 20 feet down I think it's prob maybe close 20 it's it's too deep for that type of equipment so it would be a boring in that situation the the small base out front is sort of getting to the limit of where we would use an excavator that's about 12 ft down to get to where we need to but again we hit on the previous test we were hitting refusal now where that garage is going and the Basin is going is that open right now or is it below the school no we we had test in the footprint of that Basin so it's I think it's in the parking lot I foret where it falls but it's not it's not in the building we had done previous tests in those locations we just did them with different equipment so the ACT we can get to it um it just seems like knowing that why wouldn't they have done the boring tests already to the bottom plus 2 ft of the Basin uh I mean this the the original design we were um we were utilizing we were not um in previous discussions with the the previous board uh engineer the design the basins that are underground there are sealed basins and so uh the intention was that the the the if there was a seasonal high that was coming up towards those basins it would not interfere with the design of those basins or the function I should say of the basins and that it was really more of a matter of whether or not we had to to compensate for buoyancy so uh the test that the equipment they had at the time they did those tests was was uh was equipment that was they were not there drilling they were doing test pits so they were Excavating tests so it was just a different equipment and then moving on from there um until I forget when if the the newer comments first came up uh those review letters um but but we didn't have those initial comments from you know a long time ago there I forget one your first letter that mentioned that was but you know but it hasn't been the whole process I should say Okay um just going back to your response to Boswell's June uh June 6th letter or whatever I I'm just regarding Matrix will revise the bio retention BAS Matrix will revise the storm waterer management report to include the bottom line is this right now you're you're floating no pun intended here the numbers that you're going to retrieve from new drilling tests as that's when we're going to redo our storm water management plan right now you got you you guys have to redo whatever changes based on the test pit numbers that you have currently and that has to be submitted for this board and our uh Engineers approval with the obvious condition that if those test pit numbers change the results then everything has to get redone on that I mean you Mr Ang you keep saying that we're going to hand in the storm water manager M report when we get the new numbers like in 68 months it's not going to happen that way we got to get that no to this board before this board makes any final determination you can't do thatly you can't do that I don't believe because they can't do the final numbers for six more months no they can do the final numbers B what no they have to do more testing so they don't know we're requiring so what are we approving Greg we we can't it would be conditioned on as we do in many instances it would be conditioned on the engineer approving the final numbers but the idea being they're going to submit something that that complies with our Engineers requirements and with all other well state regulations yeah I mean it's this two foot separation I think that's the key is that right Dr Gonzalez yeah it's a twoof foot separation that is the key it's a very objective standard uh we either comply or we don't if we comply with the requisite separation there's no need to come back to the board uh if we can't comply with that standard then obviously we need to come back to the board with with an amended site plan so what about Matrix will Revis the storm waterer management plan to include additional clarification language showing the current storm waterer management design does comply with the above reference and J section um in the final signed you you just keep saying we're going to you don't mad chair I just that that's fact it's been kicking the can for months no that that's just not accurate it's not accurate I'm I'm getting very frustrated well we're we're frustrated because you want approval without allowing us to we're very frustrated we're very frustrated because you've heard the testimony the testimony was that we were operating under prior engineer I understand there was a change of Engineers this is nothing against Dr Gonzalez but we were told were we not Mr Savage that because the Basin was sealed let you talk about that yeah I mean it's we have a different we have a different Guardian right now okay we we we have had a we we have had uh a completed application now for over a year no no you handed everything back in on January 11th you pulled everything we were at the first meeting we been and you didn't hand it back in until January 11th our first hearing on this application was August 25th of last year we've been nearly a year in hearings okay the municipal land use Law requires decision within 120 days and we understand that a lot of applications go more than 120 days this is an as of right application okay this is taken an extraordinarily long time we proceeded for well over half that time with guidance from a former engineer that we've complied with we did not receive these letters for all of this new information and tests and so forth I believe it was May or June of this year it was very recent and we are cooperating with and we are cooperating with this board by saying that we will provide the testing that Dr Gonzalez is requesting it's an objective standard there's no mystery here we either meet the D standard of separation or we don't if we do that's not something why is it so difficult to give us a a relatively more complete storm water management plan the test the testimony is that other than that Mr Savage will correct me if I'm wrong that all of the other information has been provided not to not to us the testimony is that it's been provided and that Dr Gonzalez has asked for it to be repackaged was the word that Mr Savage has said and he will do that am I correct Mr Savage correct okay when will that happen when will we be in receipt of this repackaged I it'll be a condition of of approval we we've provided the testimony is that we have provided the substantive information if that's not correct then we'd like to hear from Dr Gonzalez as to what substantive information we are missing and we will provide it we're going to take a five minute break that's your was an issue regarding the you're going to move into that I think we need to settle this first we need to settle the discussion on the storm water management before we move into the wall well Mr Salvage is is available for any other questions relative to the testimony that he provided absolutely um can we please so the the what is missing here is I mean you need to um redo the bio retention Basin which is BAS in C you're going to raise that a couple of inches we I mean you don't expect that to change yeah yeah the the part that I want to check is the the volume issue because um we had the same volume despite the fact that we have a different pick right so and and the difference in the pick flow was because we you as you correctly mentioned you were utilizing first the the marba is flatter and then now you're using the standard which is has a high pick so the only way that that holds true meaning that the two volumes are equal is if the time of concentration in the previous condition is short is is large I mean the time of concentration in the new condition is shorter than the previous one that you estimated with the the Mora so they can compensate the area below the graph so that's what I want to check so but I I suspect that probably the time of concentration didn't change probably I'm mistaken I just want to double check that and see if that holds true so um so you can um as I was discussing uh previously is that um you can be doing you can do two things either or so if you're certain of what is um that the test that you're going to be performing in January through April I don't know which month that you're going to pick for that if you're certain that these results are going to be positive on your side meaning that you you don't need to change your design you may made the adjustment run your your model again submit that version and we wait right I mean that's one option I'm not saying that that you need to do it's one option the other opt option is I don't know if you want to wait if you're certain about your hypothesis I don't know if you want to wait until January I mean bottom line is that I need to double check regardless of the soil test I need to double check that the volumes below the the graph are actually the same what else do you need to check that what was that you what else do you need to check that I need your help here I I'm asking a question of the engineer I'm asking what what what do you need from us to check that I I just told you that I mean it's it's it's not um logical that despite the fact that you have uh a different pick flow you're having the same volume it's because the in the reason is the only way that that holds true is that that the time of concentration that you estimated in the new condition is shorter than in the previous condition so the two areas I don't want to go that technical but probably Mr Savage know what I'm talking about and and just to um with with the report that was submitted when we revised the from from D Mara to the standard um in that is provided are provided um the hydrograph chart CHS that that show that you know per the D regulations one um that at no point on those curves does the existant does the proposed exceed the existing on that curve so per the D regs I mean we're complying with with the meeting the volume uh requirements of of the D rag so I mean the report as submitted I I think provides that data may maybe you want it pulled out in a certain way there when was that report provided um that I forget when we May 5th yeah back in May so that revised report uh you know is showing compliance for for three of the um drainage analysis areas with with what the D requires um so you you saying that you need additional information to what was yeah I need to I need to double check the the volume issue that's all I need to check because I mean you you need to pick the three conditions that the D establishes for the compliance in terms of the water quantity is is one of of three so at the beginning you selected the percentage quantity oh you selected one what what I explained earlier in previous meetings and is in the report three of we have four areas three analys you know we we analyze to four different areas or directions three of them are meeting by the volume by the volume requirement or allowance in DP re the one of them is meeting by percentages I never had all of them meeting by percentages they've always been the way they are yeah that's exactly because the tables that you provided actually it just caught our attention that the volume didn't change despite the fact that the pay flow increased MH yeah so which again again you know that volume is the you know with the change and what was submitted in that report is showing that the hydrograph you know per the DP regs the the the proposed hydrograph doesn't exceed that existing one at any point the rate the rate is lower and the volume Remains the Same but but from the point of view of the engineering I mean the hydrologic point of view it doesn't ring a bell the fact that you're having the same volume despite the fact that you're having a different pi I think if if I can try to express the question it raised in my mind I think Mr Savage is that you're saying that we meet the D regs so therefore the case is closed and I think what Dr Gonzalez is saying is I'm not really sure about the regs and whether you meet it that's fine but I have to see the numbers so that I can verify for myself that those charts are are accurate and we're saying that he's had the chart since May 5th but I mean okay so so so he's had the chart since May 5th we've received two review letters since then this issue is not raised in either one okay I so so we're concluding our application tonight no no I'm sorry but we Mr angino is it or is it not a state law that the planning board shall pass and approve of applications I'm not here I'm not here I'm not here to play witness with you and nor am I here St then you will please provide the board Prov what we've asked for you're not listen you're not deserving what not is not asking for additional information he's asking to go back and review the information that is already been provided okay he's had two review letters he's had this information since May 5th so it this is unreasonable this is punitive on the applicant no it is not um and you know if if he has a specific information that he's seeking he hasn't provided us what it is he's seeking he's saying he has to go back and review Mr engino yeah we yeah we we did raise that issue in the last meeting we had raise what issue this one that we discuss so the issue that you have to review no no no no no the volume being the same despite the fact that the pay flow increased so Mr Savage has said we don't have we don't have any additional information to respond to that and we haven't gotten a response Dr Gonzalez I appreciate that you need to rerun because there's a apparent discrepancy in terms of the calculations but what is it that you need to review is it underlying data that they haven't provided do they need to provide new calculations to you to check or is it something else um is are there assumptions that they have not provided to you that were used in their model and again this is getting a little bit more technical than I think anyone in this room except the two Engineers here can get into so I I just kind of want to reel it back so we can understand what exactly needs to be reviewed and what exactly needs to be provided yeah during the last meeting uh we brought up this issue and and I remember that we discussed that the only way that that might happen is that if the time of concentration in the two scenarios one was longer and the other one was shorter and I remember that um Mr Sav said that they were going to explain that in the report so that this is not a new issue that was discussed now um the point is that um the only way that that may happen is in the scenario that I just told you and I I I don't think that the time of concentration that Mr Savage estimated has changed so how come that could happen so um you are aware of that during the last meeting we brought this up and there's nothing in the in the report that explains that the report was done based on the D regulations it it shows that the rate does not increase it's showing it has the volume stays the same it's we're providing the hydrographs existing proposed that are showing that the existing that the proposed hydrograph does not exceed the that does not exceed the existing at any point I think that we're discussing two different issues I mean it's a one thing is that if you comply with the regulation or not and the other thing is that um possible that that probably for you is not concerning the fact that you're having the same volume for two hydrographs that probably are different and if you have the same time of concentration that's that's what I'm concerned about yeah I mean you're comparing the volumes from from the Del Marva hydrograph to the to the ones produced under the new report you know we were discussing that those those shapes of those hydrographs are different the Peaks are different the the expansion of the the how far those are are the time period over which those Ur is different but the area underneath is you know we're not exceeding that wait a minute you said before the area underneath is exactly the same now you're saying we're not exceeding is the area underneath exactly the same the the the area the areas underneath are the volume so what I was stating is that the the area the at no point in that in those if you overlay the two hydrographs at no point does the does the proposed exceed the existing but they're different shapes wait wait wait okay the areas are the same because the volume's the same are the areas exactly the same under the volumes are the same on those results which is that area underneath the areas are exactly the same the yeah because that's the volume okay that's what Dr Gonzalez is questioning because the the time of constraint has to be less so he has not seen proof that those areas are the same is that correct that's correct the report contains the well the report to go back before the report contains graphs that indicate you meet the EP approval okay but there's noing the storm water regulations but are there are there calculations that show the area is the same I think it's I think that's we've narrowed it down to by the graphs as I mentioned with those graphs being overlay that's showing that that that volume you know that that's showing what we're meeting the DVP requirements for that what's presented in that report show okay I know you're meeting the D requirements are there calculations that show show the area is the same the the report shows that in the results in that report I mean the charts the the hydrographs that are in there are showing that the data the the results are in there I'm not I understand okay he's and we're there are calculations that turn into a picture right the graph only depicts points those those points on two axes the reports are on graphs are points on two axes correct you connect the points and then you get these pictures the points are are reached by doing mathematical calculations okay do you have those mathematical calculations that support the graphs those are in in through the design software those those charts that are showing how those numbers are changing are in that report so your position is that that the calculus the algebra whatever trigonometry whatever it is is reflected on those graphs and there's no other and the table okay Dr Gonzalez is that accurate in your opinion in my opinion it's not because it actually is is it contradicts because if you have this is your I don't know if you can see from that this is your previous condition right so if you're matching the one of the regulations that states that you don't need to to you don't have to exceed the the post development condition shall not exceed the hydrograph of the pre-existing condition that's right that's correct and and the runoff rate cannot also yes so that means that in the new conditions under any circumstances the new condition being the dash should be something like that right but in addition to that in your table your pig flow for the preexisting condition is one value say 10 but in the same table you have that the big flow for the postd development condition is more it's 15 so how come the the high graph is a different shape between those two storm events so if if it is a different shape so it doesn't match that the hydrograph post which is the higher one has to be quote unquote embedded into the pre-existing condition that's why it contradicts that's why that for me it it makes no sense can you address so the only way that for that to to occur is that the time of concentration is then shortens so it compensates because the other one is wider wider but it's flatter and the other one is shorter but it's it's higher so it's a contradiction so I mean I I the the report that we submitted is maybe I'm just wording it not clearly but those you know the DP requirement is that the the area underneath those curves stays the same so I think I I was confused or confusing you by the statement that the the the hydrograph I'm referring to as being underneath one or the other is during the same um Del Marva or standard so in existing and proposed that's the comparison the the comparison between Del Marva to the standards has to do with has to do with the volume being the same which is what you're pointing out but that's that's a different I think that's a different thing I mean what in the current report they three of the four areas we we are we are reducing the the volume STS is sorry the the volume is is reduced and the um give me a second here I I think we're getting at least I was getting confused on the two things that you were asking but in between the Del Marva and the unit those two were the situations where the graphs would be different as as you were just kind of marking up um the report that's been submitt utilizing the standard hydrograph is in compliance with the DP regulations three of those are meeting based on um based on the volume reducing so in our tables here you know through that report if you go to the new report the volumes reduce the only time the volume stayed the same is from just switch from Del Marva to standard yeah I mean so I you know if if you like if get rid of that we we I switched the report from Del Marva to standard so if we're talking about the standard the new report that that was submitted in me in that we're meeting for three of the errors we're meeting because the volume is reduced and at no point in the in those curves in in that same utilizing the same hydrograph thing does the proposed exceed the the existing so in that the shape's the same the only time the shapes are different is D Mar but a standard in terms of peing time yeah it makes no sense no I I think you're you're confusing is is looking we we switched to the new hydrograph the new we switched the standard from D Mar right I submitted that report to you looking at that new report that was submitted to you in those tables the volume doesn't stay the same so that we had this discussion previously in if you look at the new report that was submitted to you in May and you go to our tables five seven and eight or whichever numbers they were the pre the pre and post volumes are different the only time they stayed the same was as I I as I told you uh previously on on a I think conversation I think you're referring to a draft drainage report that we had submitted that that had when we had changed from the maret standard but the table hadn't been no the table shows the same volume that it does I have these tables I submitted a memo uh that prepar a memo that walks through each of those tables the volumes are different the during the last meeting we we held here we discussed this issue and you were going to look into it I and and the discussion is here is based on the LA the latest version of the storm weather report that is dated May 5th so it's it's I mean I have those charts they in in every situation the the volume is less no it's is the same when you when you compare the old version of the of the report comparing the old version report the old version report was done with a different done on we should be comparing is the is the report done with the new standard what is possible in is that the volume that you had in your previous Report with the Del marba unit hydrograph has the exact same volume I mentioned that that that was in a I believe you were looking at it we had sent you a draft version of the re didn't I don't I don't think so I disagree I'm looking right now just for the record at your storm waterer management report dated because I didn't get a draft report sent to me but dated revised May 10th revised May 5th 2023 May 5th is the last revision date sorry so and the one prior to that I was looking at January 11th cuz that was the only one that this board the only other one that this board um received so those are the two reports that we have to to compare the up the change from Del Marva to standard so the the why do we need to compare the two reports that's what I'm trying to get at that that's that we changed because the end result of the tables from this massive change and an increase in water volume an increase in water volume predevelopment Peak flow rate an increase in there wasn't an increase in volume there's an increase in R okay and you always have to go and compare the rep what if that first report was wrong I mean we told them that it was no good they did a new one can we look get this new one that's what we're looking at what if there was no and he because when you comp comp you compare the old one with the new one it just happened that they have the same volume and they they shouldn't no I understand unless unless yeah so what yeah what do we need in this new report to double check the calculations in the new report um is it a matter of of underlying data is it we need the actual calculations of that model that are in the computer they need to they need to show their work they need to provide the calculations that work yeah the can those culations I mean wez program this is a widely accepted program used by every town D hold on a second I want to ask my witness a question soof you're saying that you used software that produced the calculations that Dr Gonzalez is looking at looking for uh correct for two Ares so the software that you used you're saying is readily accepted by municipalities and planning boards across the state of New Jersey yes or no yes do you dispute that Dr Gonzalez um no I I hold on hold hold on I I do I do I I do use it myself actually I build the models I mean every week I'm I'm either reviewing or designing myself I do it myself it's not what I ask no no so the other thing is that the models are fantastic tools but if you put garbage into it it just get it's garbage out so the fact that the a model the I mean there's no problem with the the software itself because the the software has been proved repeatedly million times the thing is that if you input the wrong numbers the software is not capable of what you put it's just the outcome is whatever you put it's it's no matter of the software we no question in this software I understand your point yeah so so does this report have the underly data that's that's what we need well my question is would reports typically have what the underlying assumptions that you put plugged into the into the software model I mean it list in in that report would list the TC it would list the ground cover it would list all those things in it you know if need be we could provide you the hydrocat file if that's something you want to look at well what else could you provide that hasn't been provided why don't we start there I I mean the the hydrocat file I mean if you if you want to I mean that's is that the only thing that you could provide is the hydr I mean we we had talked and discussed about potentially adding some I just asked whether is that the only thing you could provide yes that's it and Mr Gonzalez yeah I mean it's that would be great okay um Madam chair I want to request a two-minute recess the confir back on the record yeah thank you Dr Gonzalez can you please uh outline or state precisely what it is you need from Mr Savage if is willing to provide the original copy of the model um that would be great Mr Savage do you understand what Dr Gonzalez means by that yes yes is that all that you required Dr Gonzalez for now yes [Laughter] well Mr there were made Inc all right so that's all that you yeah for now I mean yeah I mean I can contact Mr Savage if I have any additional questions will you will you pledge to contact Mr Savage so that the two of you can work out the highly technical engineering issues before the next meeting yes okay um on that basis we we will provide that information to Dr Gonzalez uh you know immediately after this meeting uh well in advance of the next meeting are there other materials that you require or were there other submissions that we are still lacking that were had been promised Mr there was just those comments that he uh brought up in the review letter about uh adding the the analysis of the offsite runoff into the report there's couple reports but I think he should probably review the the um design files and then we make whatever changes that may come out of that to those reports okay but you can supplement those reports after he reviews the design it would make sense to do it at that point can you do that before the next meeting depends on when we talk and can you try to do that before the next meeting yeah yeah well we we have to do it before the next Mee so I I think yes Mr Savage are you clear as to what Dr Gonzalez is requesting at this point yes it's just a copy of our design files that's relative to the storm water design it's a FL extension. hi you know what I meant yeah okay let me because Mr Savage I I don't know who should take the lead but I I think we need to be precise about about this because um as much as we enjoy being here uh you know um would Mr Savage would you undertake to send an email to Dr Gonzalez tomorrow confirming exactly what it is he needs and Dr Gonzalez would you promptly respond to that either in either the affirmative or correct him in some way so that we're so that you two were on the same page in terms of what information is supposed to be providing yes I mean the the file that he needs to provise is a file with extension hce which is the original file for the hydrocap model and then when I review that I'm going to do as soon as I can I'm going to contact Mr Savage all right Mr S I think if you could send an email that states exactly what it is you'll be providing and if he can confirm it then hopefully we get you all the information that you're looking for okay well that then result in a final storm water report is that I mean how do we classify a final storm water report at that point we could finalize the report with the exception ofan on those tests in January can you can get that done right away as well yeah I mean that's yeah prior to the next meeting we'll have a final report subject to the to January right yes Mr okay with ample time for submission to the board well I mean we we'll talk uh I'm out next week but we'll have someone talk we'll figure that part out next week and then well I don't know when the next hearing is but next hearing is August thank yeah when you're passing this file just to be super precise there's a goal and rationale here to align on the calculations cuz right now you have a discrepancy on the views do you have a contingency for when there is alignment in you know in favor of the application or in favor of the discrepancy that uh I'm saying what are you going to do if if it turns out you know the calculations are off well let's let them okay but that's the idea is to make sure everyone knows the numbers of the same right idea is to have everything come together and this file will cure that this file going to Al to Alo alaro will be able to either agree with the numbers I submitted or disagree based on scientific numbers based on math the the game plan is for the engineers to have a meeting of the minds on the open issues that have been discussed I've never seen them agree in my digital field but let's see how this goes okay um is that agreed to as well yes they yes a final resubmission we offered it yeah yep Mr msar asked the question and our engineer answered in the affirmative it will be final but for the testing that needs to be done in January through April testimony or we getting a he said would submit a report we submit the report Mr Savage will be back and he will briefly testify and answer questions in regards to what was submitted okay um if there are no further questions on this topic for Mr Savage uh I guess I asked the question whether there are any other questions for Mr Savage in regards to the uh I'll call them storm water issues that have been discussed yeah I have a question um about the bio retention Basin and um the boso memo uh referenced a b BMP manual chapter 9.7 um that relates to small scale bio retention uh is that is that the system that you've designed your um bio reten rtion Basin small Bas the south side of the surface B so that okay that's that's theeten B all right and that's to satisfy the green infrastructure requirement correct but isn't that doesn't that Basin like an infiltrates through the dirt but then it goes to a pipe and then gets stored so so it provides through through that percolation which is part of what we submitted to to uh Dr was to show that that that water perks through there that's water quality provid quality that Basin because it has an under drain doesn't address it doesn't we doesn't need to address elsewhere it doesn't address um you know recharge yeah that was my issue so that Bas is is basically used for work quality then the discharge from that actually flows to Bas a which is under garage which provides reductions that part of [Music] it so my question is without the recharge does it satis if the green infrastructure requirements without a waiver I'm not sure without the recharge what do you well doesn't it have to uh address the quantity quality and recharge so with the we had gone through uh previous testimony of course with the recharge this and and with infiltration the the soil test that we did originally then we went back out into another round all show that that that the soil um the site effectively has no permeability no recharge the curring there's no there no net deficit I believe that that was was agreed to when I think it might have been under the previous board engineer but one of the review letters I believe had agreed with those that sub that resubmission where we addressed those comments to me we're beyond that I those um you previously addressed that yeah I know it was previously addressed and then um maybe a couple meetings ago you know asked about whether it satisfied green infrastructure and Dr Gonzalez uh indicated that it did not and I'm just trying to understand what the the disconnect is I'm not I'm not I don't remember in particular I know the discussion was about whether or not it was actually providing um you know that that the um permeability in that soil actually allowed the soils to flow through it and reach the under drain I believe is sort of what he was discussing and then we had submitted specifically related to the bio retention Basin which in this in his most recent response I believe the only thing uh um comment that he had remaining relative to that Basin was that we would bring it up a couple inches or whatever that was to to provide that twoot separation from the SE M but so aspects it addressed so it's your testimony that this satisfies your green infrastructure um requirement without the rear that that green infrastructure component of that that thing that value retention Bas and yes I mean there's you know there's um we had gone through in the drain report other aspects um you know in the report is is a section on green infrastructure Lo low impact development checklist and things like that that also weighed in on the green infrastructure I believe one of the previous comments and may have been the previous board engineer asked us to add in discussion to the report concerning green infrastructure which was done and then in conjunction with your other um storm water uh management control devices uh you'll satisfy all the water quality water quantity requirements of the D yeah we've got yeah I mean that that we ended up adding a couple water quality structures um you know this I think was numerous where we we feel you know based on the development we don't need to address it and then back and forth and we ended up providing some water quality structures plus the buyo retention Bas which provides water quality so so all those um surfaces that have cars on them you know the the entrance Drive the lower parking area those are going through award quality structures okay that's all I have do you want to open up to the public are you well U so we have Mr Savage who's also going to testify or and provide an option with regard to the wall uh where the Transformer is you may recall at the last meeting there was some discussion about perhaps stepping the wall and stepping the fence back um we've submitted plans in that regard and Mr Savage was going to testify to that I did not know Madam chair whether you wanted to open up the storm water portion of his testimony to the public now or whether you wanted him to proceed uh with the wall testimony and then open it up to the public for any question that that's okay yeah one if anybody if any member of the public has any questions regarding the testimony that you've heard this evening so far um from Mr Savage uh please approach the mic this is based on the storm water management portion of the discussion and the water um pressure that we discussed any of those issues are up for uh questions uh state your name and your municipality and seeing none okay please proceed okay thank you um Mr Savage um can you please describe your most recent submission with regard to the wall and compare that to what is currently shown on the plans so that the board can so um what I'm showing here is um this is a that was submitted um with our most recent submission on the I think July 6 might have been uh this is just an grading and drainage exhibit sheet 101 is that the actual sheet or iset that was okay and what's it dated this one is dated 62723 okay Mr I don't think we need to mark it since it's the actual sheet that was submitted if that's agreeable to you fine okay go ahead the purpose of this plan was to show on the um the current submitted site plans the full set um down in this uh corner of the building here um we we had a we have a wall that is extending off this corner of the building and running uh out towards the basically kind of towards the intersection of of um the sunset in Bloomfield um there was discussion that wall at a certain point uh did reach elevation of around 16t um from looking from the parking area looking back you would you would see um that wall that height in front of that wall were um the Transformers um and and part of the the dog park was also in front of that wall so there was discussion about the option of of of providing a step wall um which was the purpose of this exhibit so basically this has a a lower wall let's call it which is a Sixt wall um then there's a 3 foot Gap to the secondary wall which is a 5 foot and then uh a fence was offset three feet off of that so as not to count um relative to the Wall height so then this that that step wall gets us to to the gr we need on on this side of the site here so that's the option in order to do that there the dog park was a little smaller a little change in the configuration there and the in the uh sort of the bigger thing that you would notice would be the Transformers which were tucked up here um close to the building um now have to be shifted out here closer towards uh the street down here off of the U the parking area the drive these things with te um we did have and I believe this was previously submitted this is just one of the um exhibits that uh the architect had provided and this is just to show you you know looking um you know looking um onto the site from Sunset Avenue you're you're looking at the building here this is the lower parking area in this area and you can see behind the tree here and such that's that retaining wall and so from this view what you're looking at is you know you also in the same view would have you know this this uh the building wall with um of the the same materials on portions of it uh and then you would have this other wall on this other side which is you know compared the building obviously much shorter um and in this scenario the the Transformers would be tucked in back here sort of behind where that tree would be or where that tree is sh um so that that's that's the the sort of the two options at this point um the Transformers having been moved uh can you pull up that architectural picture again and give us a sort of a it would they be anywhere visible on that particular picture uh or do you think they'd be off to the left uh I would say they would be right back sort of behind where this tree is sort of where it's kind of obscured back here because they they were kind of tucked up closer to the building Line This is where the building comes and turns to the wall yep so that they were tucked in sort of right back there um would it be possible or would you be amenable to bless you again you don't get a third would you be amenable to uh providing screening with uh Shrubbery and or trees um I know that you probably want to put some sort of fencing so people don't I don't know if you're even interested in fencing but would it would screening with some sort of Shrubbery be possible on um on this location or you're just in general on that particular on this one yes I mean we just have to maintain I think it's three feet from the Transformers obviously on the the side facing uh the the drive aisle we would have that open for Access and things such as that but but uh on the other side Cly the street um yeah yeah I mean I think that's certainly feasible does anyone have questions about the reconfiguration of the wall does the um location of the Transformers does that change driveway configuration at all no that that tucks in there same same curve on um I just want to say since the last meeting I paid attention to Transformers on the ground and see funny to see them everywhere if you start looking most of them seem to be out in the open um you know I I think it's great to put them in a you know that doesn't mean they need to you know be a showcased but um it's putting at ease the board and and the applicant like that doesn't seem like anything uh out of the ordinary to have Transformers on a ground covered you know close by or Shrubbery or not I would prefer yeah screening at least Street side um just to look a little bit nicer it's your building but I think it would look nicer withs we'll we'll agree to appropriate screening as recommended by the uh the board engineer does anyone else have any thank you does anyone else um does anyone else have any questions about does generally speaking are people more do they prefer does the board prefer this stepped wall system over the other option I not going to say that those are the two options you've done uh what is comports with our ordinance in this particular option well that's a good question me ask the in the U we were seeking see the mic's go out on me I have to raise my voice for uh we we were seeking a deviation with regard to the uh the wall under the plans that we submitted uh with the revised plan are we still seeking a deviation or is the revised plan compliant with the ordinance we would still need that deviation deviation but less it's now from like you know where this wall previously we would have needed uh a deviation um one spot where you know the retaining wall uh up here along the the main access in that location we didn't have the room to shift the the fence off of that wall uh so in that situation you would have a I believe that fence that wall there would would still need that waiver I think the last year we talked about reducing the places where that so the last iteration there was what was the height of the the highest point of the wall this one down here was the past it so the first iteration was 16 in this location near near and what is the highest wall this one the wall here is 6 foot okay and the ordinance is four I think in this location six is permitted okay four okay what are we what are we asking for what are you I'm just for this wall you wouldn't need it for the wall that's in the front yard which is the one up here uh that one the 4 foot is the trigger on that one because it should be three and and with the fence on top of that one because we don't have the room to locate the fence off of it you had the conversation the fence was included it does that wall technically would would then trigger that that need for that so it'll be seven with I barries I mean yeah I think that the height of that wall the most is is 4T so the wall yeah just to reiterate where where in the front can you point it's uh in front of the driveway up here at the drop off can you blow that up a little I'm so sorry I just thank you I didn't even know where your cursor was that's how off I was so you know at certain points this wall is four the wall itself is 4T but given the proximity where that is we didn't room you know we obviously we didn't want to move the wall closer to the road and mess with the tree so that one technically would need that where the hell are you so this is up at the main entrance right before the garage entrance really yes I thought we were talking about the walls over by the Monclair side there we were and then you asked where you you asked where we still needed the deviation so I'm explaining where we still need the deviation so the wall over on the building side where you reduced the size of the dog park are there any deviations on that no no that whole area that area there that so now we're moving on to a second section that I hadn't I didn't even know that we discussed as yet okay so this is a retaining wall do we have a front view of this from the architectural standpoint at all I I don't have those let me see the other photo I just the other exhibit yeah so this kind of shows it's tucked in and that so in front of it see right there at the little looks like a little wall it's the wall itself is 4T what kind of kicks us over is the fencing the fencing screen by the plantings the the height of the wall any wall it's over 32 in um or sorry 30 in you you would need for fall protection and you know have a little guard there the cars don't go off of it it's not high you know no one's going to die from it but but yes we need something okay and what's the length of that wall at that at the excuse me um what is the length of the wall the length of the wall at that height that at it stays that height the entire length and what is that length uh I don't I don't have that length um let's see yeah I mean I don't have that one I mean we're probably in like the 100 foot range um I don't have that that's 100 foot wall I lengthwise yeah it it could be yeah I mean you're yeah I mean you're looking at a stall here of 18t I mean there's it could easily be around 100t and does it wrap it looks it turns here that that Dash the dash so you got this from here where are where is your cursor I don't even okay thank you so it wraps around the side there a little bit mhm so there's a section here this section that would be less so let's call Four the 4 foot thing maybe it's the 80ft range but you're in you're in that you're in that same range there it doesn't get to 4ot until it's halfway down across the front there would they require a fence if it's under 4 foot uh under three foot it's the 30 the um the 30 in thing so it's and and we were trying not to mess with the grain too much in the front because of that trick was sort of what was driving us that we had those two sort of competing things um so that's why this wall I mean we certainly have if the tree wasn't there we certainly have the room to grade this out and and probably not have a wall but well you want to save the tree where the goal was to save the tree at previous meetings I know that was a big concern um so that's why we ended up where we're at again I think this is an area where if you can after it's done maybe do add additional plantings to maybe hide a little more of the wall than yeah and and uh just to go back to that previous exhibit you can see in this there's already yeah uh all a lot of low plan things you know that wall is kind of hard to see just in this exhibit and this would grow in there's some even some lower stuff in here too but uh yeah so from the perspective of the board I didn't have a strong feeling either way okay raining wall par for this option yeah I I had a question in terms of the that Transformer area and the uh you said it doesn't require a design waiver or any type of variance because it's six feet and that complies is that a Terrace six feet so six on six yeah yeah so there's uh so this first dash line here would be a 6ot a 6ot wall yeah then there's a required space for the code yep then we have the second tiered wall and that's a 5ot wall okay and then we're keeping the fence off that as requ by Cod was not height and the other one when it was just a straight wall it was 16 and the floor was a little bit lower to fit the Transformers right that's we were we were holding that back exactly and then and now we have more room to kind of grade around the building because that the previous wall gocha or was that 16 ft calculated retaining wall plus the fence that was 16 uh that that was actually the the wall that was just the wall and then there was the fence on top right yeah so the you know combination of this changing wall and this just allows us to have the step wall that yeah but in terms of what I'm looking at if I'm standing in that uh parking area if I'm looking up at the fence or the top of the rate retaining wall it's in the same area I'm still looking up same say 20 ft from where one kind of cuts back towards you for a point where the other one just went straight yeah you know so I mean there's some Rel in the wall in that sense but but I mean ultimately you're still you're looking at a ultimate height is close you know this wall because of the step and where we l it the toal wall we have six and a five 11 ft so just given how we changed the grading overall wall Heights a little less yeah yeah I mean my my opinion is either way I think is fine but I you know in terms of the impacts um I mean I'd be fine with the straight 16t pertaining wall to add a bit more space to the dog park and Tuck the Transformers away but on balance I don't think it makes a difference I think that for the sort of neighborhood compatibility issue I like the um redesigned version um and I think we have that in our code for a reason and I do think that a 16 you know 15 16t High monolithic wall is a humongous structure uh no matter where you're looking at it from especially if you put a fence on top of it so I do think this at least in the dog park area I I think that this is a reasonable compromise to get closer to the intentive code I would chime in here I certainly agree I think the changes are uh at least to our zoning code and I think uh when you tear them I always go by down Grove Avenue by the high school when they tear those walls it just breaks it up and they do plantings in between so I think you can plant on that upper level if you want and I think it just Blends it into the Landscaping a little bit more so yes I agree with you I like your changes uh and I am okay with this point I'm I'm happy with the tear wall I I know that you're missing a little bit of dog park but hopefully they'll take a long walk down to the end of that block and go into the reservation there's a huge reservation if they have dogs they can go and enjoy there too yeah I also agree that tiered wall I think look better for the neighborhood and the residence so I like the redesign thank you TI wall TI wall it is I'm sorry tiered wall it is teed wall it is um there will I I guess the board has to acknowledge the fact that the will asking for a waiver on the wall in front as well as the the other waiver being the two one and a half parking spots that are in the front the front front your parking yeah so are those the only two yes I I'll ask Mr Savage those are the only two that I have went through everything yeah okay um does anyone else from the board have any other questions regarding um I have a question uh going back to the Boswell report from uh June 1st uh about the fire truck being a 48 foot and at the fire department uh requesting that uh they be able to make uh the turn without backing up is that does that any of this interfere with that no well go ahead Mr Savage it does not right the the the plan with that we last produced with the fire truck turning the truck does make you know it's making those uh backup Maneuvers so so we had Mr the old if you recall that um we we showed a redesign where the driveway coming up would bow out into the buffer and would permit the fir TR to make a continuous turn without having to make any backup Maneuvers whatsoever but in order to do that um it would have had to encroach into the uh buffer and the consensus of the board uh was that it it would prefer to keep the driveway as is so that the buffer would remain intact uh and so what that resulted in was that the fire truck if it wanted to come all the way up to the building would essentially have to make a k turn to get back down but the the testimony was that there was sufficient room for the truck to make a k turn and get back down to Sunset Avenue is that correct Mr Savage correct okay I just want you know with with these additional changes I just didn't know if any of this would interfere with that's what it basically okay so so the the uh the change with the wall um becoming uh you know a staggered wall as opposed to a monolithic wall I guess the question is does that impact the the driveway in any way or that in any way affect the ability of fire trucks to negotiate the driveway no again the the uh that wall is actually in a different parking lot than where we had the fire truck maneuvering uh so that wall isn't anywhere near that okay thank you yep any else you want to open it up to the public I'm just saying did you have oh no I have no further questions um thank you madam chair does anybody if anybody from the public has any questions regarding the testimony on the walls the Transformer movement Etc that you just heard about please come to the mic and name and municipality seeing none we will close public participation okay so thank you madam chair uh we had HED to conclude tonight but we're not going to um we will uh the engineers will confer in the manner that we discussed we will provide Dr Gonzalez um the information that he requested um and that's all that we will have for next time before you know we would at that point have included our uh case um and you know procedurally I guess I would ask the the board typically um you know there would be public uh comments as opposed to questions on the case followed by a closing statement and board deliberation just wanted to confirm that that's the process used by the board thank you and I look forward to that Mr some housekeeping um this uh the planning board has a special meeting um scheduled for August 14 14th um it'll be a public meeting we'll immediately go into Clos session there's a um uh pending litigation matter on the agenda um because that's a public meeting this will be carried to that meeting and then sub and then subsequently carried um I'm not sure that we're allowed to carry this for two meetings without notice at the next meeting so you can um I mean or you can just carry you can just carry carry it and carry it again just to to uh you want carry it to the regular meeting you can just carry it to the regular meeting gosh okay I'm I've never done it that way but I I'll defer to your knowledge on that I've always uh if there's a I always do um consecutive meetings but uh all right we'll carry this to the regular meeting on August 24th 24th Thursday night and uh this applicate you consent to uh yeah just make sure the mo so so for the benefit of the public then the meeting will be carried with no further notice to the public to August uh 24th at 7:30 p.m. right here in this room uh again no no further notice to the public this is the notice the applicant consents to uh an extension of time uh to that date thank you all right thank you thank you oh before we adjourn I just had a quick question for um mayor Roman and mayor M Bo um You Can't Screw Up if you just do it that way now that we've got the reorgs on our Bel what what is the plan for a board planner do we know you're interviewing okay what what is what's the timeline looking like okay a couple of planners and put bids in and go discuss with all of them okay great excellent does anyone else have any other new business can I ask you a question before you time for the time for public nobody nobody I did that in the beginning of the meeting but can we can we form a I'm going to open one last time to public comment please go ahead ask a question if this is to be just state your name in your municipality yes my name is Chris Riley I live in Verona okay my question is if this is is going to be carried over to the August meeting is that the meeting where the public should be prepared to yes speak I would assume yes okay thank you thank you very much can I get a motion motion to adjourn thank you wait who seconded it up thank you we're all adjourned Mr ran second