[00:00:01]
OK. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE BOARD MEMBERS. I AM GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER TONIGHT BECAUSE OUR CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR COULD NOT BE HERE THIS EVENING. UH, ONCE I'VE DONE THAT, AND WE TAKE ROLL, CALL AND SALUTE TO THE FLAG. I WILL THEN ASK FOR, UH, NOMINATION OR VOLUNTEER TO SERVE AS CHAIR TEMPORARILY FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING. SO I'M GONNA READ THE OPENING STATEMENT.
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AND SENT TO THE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEWSPAPERS. DON, WOULD YOU TAKE ROLL CALL? CAMPUS. MONEY. BATTLE. WATCH IT. HAMILTON. KEENAN. MATTHEWS. ROBERTS. YOU.
LER. HERE. STACY. DOROTHY. THE VALLEY. THANK YOU. IF EVERYBODY WOULD JOIN US IN A SALUTE TO THE FLAG. WHAT. RIGHT NOW. I'M GONNA OPEN THIS UP TO THE MEMBERS TO SEE IF WE HAVE A VOLUNTEER OR A MOTION IN A SECOND FOR SOMEONE TO SERVE AS CHAIR. SECOND ALRIGHTY. DON, IF YOU WOULD JUST TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THAT, PLEASE. WATCH IT. HAMILTON. YES, KEENAN. THING? YES. ER YES. K? YES, THANK YOU. GREAT. THANKS UM, I'M HAPPY TO STAND IN. UM ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL OPEN UP THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT. UH, THIS IS THE PART OF THE MEETING WHERE WE ASK FOR A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, BUT I'LL ASK THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IF YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING. IT'S FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA. UH AND WE'RE ASKING TO LIMIT COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES.
SO ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BE HEARD ON TODAY'S AGENDA? THOSE ITEMS THAT WILL BE A HEARD ON TODAY'S AGENDA. YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE AS WELL. LATER. ALRIGHT, LET ME SEE. NONE ALL RIGHT, UH, NEXT IS, UH PASSING
[IV. RESOLUTION]
OF THE RE RESOLUTION CASE. BAT 08 T 23. THE APPLICANT WAS H MH CARRIER CLINIC BLOCK, UH, 2001 AND TWO AND 1001 LOTS TWO AND UH, 14.02, A COMMONLY KNOWN AS 252 COUNTY ROUTE 601. THIS WAS A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN WITH BULK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT 45,000 SQUARE FEET OF ADOLESCENT . UH, PATIENT UNIT. UH, A 795 SQUARE FOOT FAMILY RESOURCE TRAINING CENTER AND THE RELOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING SPACE. UH, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO MEMORIALIZE THIS RESOLUTION? MHM. SECOND ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, MISS, UH, MAYOR AND, UM UH, MR UH, HAMILTON. UH, CAN I CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? BATTLE. YEAH. YES. YES. HAMILTON KEENAN? YES. YES. FLER YES. THANK YOU. RIGHT UH, THE NEXT IS A NEW BUSINESS. UM AND THIS IS,[V. NEW BUSINESS]
UH, JUST A LITTLE BIT A BIT OF AN EXPLANATION. UH THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE PASSED RESOLUTION 24 TAC TWO TAC 95, DIRECTING THE PLANNING BOARD TO UNDERTAKE AN INVESTIGATION WHETHER THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON UH SCARBOROUGH ROADBLOCK, UH, 4020 LOT ONE CONSTITUTES A REDEVELOPMENT AREA PURSUANT TO NEW JERSEY'S LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT, UH, AND HOUSING LAW. UM I'D LIKE TO OPEN THIS UP . UH, UH, FOR, UH, ANY BOARD DISCUSSION? UH AND THEN ALSO, UH, ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE PUBLIC? UM SO I THINK THE BEST THING IS TO HAVE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION FIRST. IF THERE IS ANY. GREAT. UM DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? WELL, I THINK WE'D LIKE TO HAVE I AT LEAST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AS TO WHY THIS IS TAKING PLACE. I HAVE LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY. IT'S JUST OPEN PROPERTY. UM UH, NOT SELF[00:05:08]
EVIDENT FROM LOOKING A T THE PROPERTY AS TO WHY THIS SHOULD BE DECLARED AS A PROPERTY NEED TO BE. WELL, ACTUALLY, TONY. AT THIS POINT, IT HASN'T BEEN DECLARED YET AND I THINK THE RESOLUTION IS INFORMATIONAL FOR THE BOARD. THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE GOVERNING BODY HAS NOW ASKED THEM. TO UNDERTAKE A STUDY OF THE AREA AND THEY HAVE A HEARING ONCE THE REPORT IS PREPARED BY THE BOARD'S CONSULTANT, SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND WELL, LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION, THEN. WHAT? WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATION OF THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO REQUEST US TO DO THIS EXAMINATION? I MEAN, I'M JUST GONNA SAY THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD COME IN FRONT OF US, AND WE WENT OVER IT WITH THE FIVE OF US TO SEE THAT LAND DOES BELONG TO THAT PARTICULAR BUILDER. SO THAT'S HOW THIS DISCUSSION CA ME TO BE, AND THAT THIS IS WHAT WAS SUGGESTED. SOMETHING COULD WE CALL UP OUR TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY TO FILL IN? IS THAT OK? CAN WE CALL UP THE BEFORE AN INSURED AND SHE'S HERE. EVERYONE FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW ME. I'M WENDY KOGA. I'M THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY. SO THIS CAME UP AT THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE LEVEL, AND THIS AREA HAS NOT DEVELOPED AFTER OVER A DECADE OF LITIGATED ZONING THAT WENT INTO EFFECT. AND SO THE ASK IS TO LOOK AT IT TO SEE WHETHER IT DOES QUALIFY FOR AN AREA NEED TO SEE WHAT KIND OF ZONING WOULD ACTUALLY EFFECTUATE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE. ANY QUESTIONS? IT IT'S A REQUEST. SO IF IT'S JUST ABOUT WHAT ZONING WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE DEVELOPED. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE UH, DECLARED SOMETHING POTENTIALLY SOMETHING IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT. WHY WOULDN'T THE TOWNSHIP JUST REZONE IT? WELL IT'S ALL PART OF THE STUDY REQUEST. SO THE PLANNER WOULD THEN DO A STUDY TO SEE WHETHER IT TRULY IS AN UNDERUTILIZED AREA OR NOT, WHETHER IT WOULD QUALIFY UNDER THE DEFINITION. UM IT'S A WHOLE PROCESS AT WHICH POINT THEN HE HAS YOUR ATTORNEY HAD MENTIONED THE STUDY WOULD THEN COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD. AND YOU ALL WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF EITHER. YES IT IS A PROPERTY THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS AN AREA NEED TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE AND WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU DESIGNATE IT OR YOU WOULD SAY WE DON'T THINK IT DOES. AND WE DON'T RECOMMEND THAT THAT YOU REDESIGN OR THAT YOU DESIGNATE.EXCUSE ME, NOT REDESIGNATED. IT. IT'S TRULY A PLANNING TOOL AND AT THE STARTING POINT AT THIS POINT IS THERE AN OVERALL DESIRE FROM THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE LIKE TO ACTUALLY TURN IT INTO SOMETHING BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING IF IT SHOULD BE MADE. AVAILABLE FOR REDEVELOPMENT. IS THERE AN ACTUAL DESIRE THAT WE'RE SEEKING? OR IS IT JUST JUST BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN TO EVERY EVERY PROPERTY RIGHT NOW? SO QUESTIONS AS TO THE VIABILITY OF THE SITE HAVE BEEN RAISED AT THE MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE LEVEL YEARS AGO, AND ALSO AT THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE LEVEL. AND SO THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE SEEKING ADVICE FROM THE PLANNERS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT WHAT IS BEING TOLD TO THEM IS VIABLE OR NOT. AND SO TONIGHT, A RE WE SUPPOSED TO JUST LIKE APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW WHAT? WHAT'S THE OH, OK. THERE'S NO ACTION YOU NEED TO TAKE TONIGHT. UH THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZES THE BOARD STAFF TO UH, UNDERTAKE A STUDY AND PREPARE A REPORT WHEN THAT'S READY. UH, IT WILL COME BACK TO YOU AT A PUBLIC HEARING, AND NOW YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. AND YOU WILL MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION ONCE YOU'VE SEEN THEM. THE PLANTER. DOES THE DOES THE INVESTIGATION CORRECT? DOESN'T THE PLANNER NEED UH, GO AHEAD FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
WELL. I THINK THAT SO FAR WE'VE BEEN WE'VE BEEN ASKED IF WE WOULD DO THIS, THAT'S IT'S EITHER WE SAY YES. OR WE SAY NO. WELL. ORDINA TO HAVE THE STUDY DONE? YEAH ORDINARILY, I'D SAY YES, BUT THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY. ACTUALLY AUTHORIZES IN AND OF ITSELF, IT SAYS. BOARD STAFF YOU ARE AUTHORIZED AND REALLY, I MEAN THE CONCERN ABOUT HAVING AN AUTHORIZATION IS SIMPLY STAFF NEEDS A BUDGET FOR THE WORK THEY'RE GOING TO DO SO, THE GOVERNING BODY IS SAYING YOU ARE AUTHORIZED. GO AHEAD, YOU MAY PROCEED. SO, I. I THINK I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY. AM I CORRECT IN THAT THAT THAT WAS THE INTENT? CORRECT. THE INTENT WAS MORE OF A DIRECTION RATHER THAN ASKING YOU TO PASS RESOLUTIONS. WHILE THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED THIS THROUGH THE BUDGETARY PROCESS THROUGH THAT RESOLUTION, BUT THE PROCESS UM AND I DON'T WANNA STEP ON, UH , THIS CASEY'S TOES, BUT YOU
[00:10:05]
KNOW THE PROCESS STATUTORILY IS THAT THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE WOULD DIRECT THE PLANNING BOARDS AND THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD DIRECT THEIR PLANNER BECAUSE THE PLANNER IS RETAINED THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD. WELL IF THIS REQUIRES NO ACTION ON OUR PART, WHY IS IT ON THE AGENDA? HE YOU CERTAINLY NEED TO BE AWARE OF IT. AND IT IT IT IS. YEAH NECESSARY FOR YOU FOR, UM, INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, AND THEN THE PLANNER IS AUTHORIZED THROUGH YOUR STAFF. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT THAT THAT THAT IS THE LINK THAT THE PLANNER CAN BE AUTHORIZED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE LINK. CORRECT. I DON'T MEAN DRIPS. UM IN ORDER FOR IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE CLARK KENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND TO DO THE AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT STUDY THAT THE RESOLUTION SHOULD INDICATE THAT CLARK SAID THAT OUR FIRM IS DIRECTED TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S WHAT IF YOU VOTE POSITIVELY FOR THE RESOLUTION, UM THAT WOULD BE WE DON'T HAVE A RESOLUTION ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT. UM WE ALL NEED TO PUT THAT ON OUR NEXT AGENDA. SO THAT THE BOARD HAS A RESOLUTION TO VOTE ON. YEP. PARDON? THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FINE.I APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T LOOK AT YOUR, UH, TO SEE WHETHER RESIDENT WAS ON OR NOT ABOUT IT.
SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THIS NEW VISION? IS THIS JUST DISCUSSION OR WHAT DO WE DO NOW? WE JUST RESOLUTION. MM. OKAY. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR CONTEXT. AND THANK YOU, MR GLOCK FOR ASKING THESE QUESTIONS. LIKE WHAT? WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF THE APPLICATIONS ON THE SITE AND WHETHER THEY'RE PRESENT AND OPEN OR NOT? DON DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION AT HAND NOW OR I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I BELIEVE, KAREN. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. OK JAMES, DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION HANDY, HOWEVER, AS PART OF THE AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT INVESTIGATION. UM YOU HAVE SEVEN CRITERIA IN THE LRH L THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO ALIGN WITH ANY POTENTIAL DESIGNATION OF AN AREA IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE DESIGNATION. OR EXCUSE ME AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION. WE WOULD GO THROUGH ANY APPLICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST DECADE OR MORE. IF THOSE WERE LINKED. UM WE WOULD ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT THE ZONING, WHICH IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IS VERY SPECIFIC ZONING FOR A VERY SPECIFIC PART OF THE B MP UD, WHICH HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2014 AND HASN'T RESULTED IN ANY DEVELOPMENT. AND SO IT WAS PART OF OUR INVESTIGATION. WE LOOK AT ALL THE CRITERIA THAT THE LRH ALLOWS US TO STUDY WHICH IS TO SAY, WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF THE PROPERTY DOES THAT HEAD TOWARDS ANY OF THE CRITERIA. UM IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC REASON WHY IT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED BY THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF PRIVATE CAPITAL? IS THAT A QUESTION AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE DO SO THAT'S ALL PART OF THAT INVESTIGATION. YEAH I THINK THE JUST TO CLARIFY WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION FOR THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES I. I THINK IT IS PROBABLY PRUDENT THAT WE UNDERGO SOME KIND OF PROCESS THAT WE DESIGNATE CLARK CLINTON AND HENCE TO PROCEED FORWARD. I WOULD HATE FOR THE TOWN TO GET ANY HOT WATER THAT WE WOULD STEP ON ANY CURRENT APPLICATION OR ANYTHING IN IN CAUSE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN AT ALL. BUT UM, YOU KNOW A AS THE FACT THAT THE TOWNSHIP COMMUNITIES AREN'T UH, IS NOT PLANNING EXPERTS. IT'S PROBABLY BEST TO HAVE PLENTY EXPERTS TO MAKE SENSE TO DO THAT. SO, YEAH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR GLARE FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION, MR CAVE. SO I GUESS IT WILL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETING. ALRIGHT, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY MOTION IN THIS CASE, UH TO PROCEED FORWARD. ALRIGHT GREAT. THANK YOU. UM THANK YOU, UH, FOR THAT,
[VI. APPLICATION]
UM, THE NEXT IS, UH, THE APPLICATION BEFORE US, UH, CASE BAT 01 TAC 24. THE APPLICANT IS R PM DEVELOPMENT LLC, UH, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT. UH BLOCK. UH 20001 LOT. UH, 10. 0.05 COMMUNITY DRIVE. THIS IS AN AMENDED SITE PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT TO CONVERT THE EXISTING BASIN INTO A BIO RETENTION BASIN. THE EXPIRATION DATE FOR THIS APPLICATION, UH, IS APRIL 6 2024 AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION AND PUBLICATION. UH, WHAT WAS REQUIRED, UM. YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT THE NOTICING IS IN ORDER. THANKS. THANKS. DON UM SIR. GO AHEAD. IMPORTANT. YOU HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE CAUSE THE CA MERAS AND EVERYTHING DOESN'T PICK IT UP EITHER. EASIER TO SIT DOWN. YEAH, YOU COULD YOU MAKE SURE IT'S ON YEAH, PLEASE. THANK[00:15:01]
THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES. YEAH, IT'S ON. THE LAW FIRM. THEY HIT ME HERE THIS EVENING ON BEHALF OF THE RIGHT NEXT DOOR. FOR THAT WE 001. I THINK. JUST TO REMIND THE BOARD AND TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND. THIS. SUBDIVISION. ON AUGUST.THE SUBSIDE. EXACTLY. WITH ONE MARK THE DESIGN 10 POINT. MAJOR ROCK WOULD BE APPROXIMATE. SITE PLAN APPROVAL. GREAT. THERE WAS A. PROJECT. I THINK. THE APPROVALS CONTEMPLATE THAT THE EXISTING NOT. AFTER WE RECEIVED OUR APPRO IT TURNS OUT THAT. SO.
SO WE ARE HERE TONIGHT. FROM OUR . NO OTHER MODIFICATIONS. PART OF.
SECOND. STATED AT THE OUTSET. UH, INCENTIVE PROPERTY OWNERS BACK ON FEBRUARY 29TH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS PROVIDED TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO THIS EVEN UNLESS THERE ARE ANY PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS. I'LL CALL UP OUR WITNESS. UH, GO AHEAD AND CALL UP THE WITNESS. YOU WOULDN'T MIND PROVIDING CREDENTIALS AND UH, KEVIN SHELLEY. I AM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN NEW JERSEY SINCE 2012 SHELLY BEFORE YOU CONTINUE. I JUST NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. YES, THANK YOU. AGAIN I AM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN NEW JERSEY SINCE 2012. MY LICENSE IS CURRENT AND IN GOOD STANDING I TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF VARIOUS PLANNING BOARDS PREVIOUSLY IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AS WELL. TO QUALIFY HIM AS AN EXPERT IN CIVIL ENGINEERING. I WILL ACCEPT YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT, MR SHELL. YOU'VE BEEN ENGAGED BY THE APPLICANT. CORRECT. BEEN SUBMITTED. CORRECT. CAN YOU PLEASE REORIENT THE BOARD TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEN WALK THROUGH A LOCAL SURE. UM I'M GONNA SWITCH TO COPY OF THE SURVEY ON THE SCREEN. AGAIN, THE PROPERTY LOCATED UH, JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX HERE. UM, IS I PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE. THE PROJECT WILL UTILIZE EXISTING PAVEMENT AREA THAT EXISTS IN THE AREA RIGHT NOW. UM THAT FORMER BUILDING IN THE PAVEMENT AREA ALL DRAINED TO AN EXISTING GRASS. DETENTION BASE AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. UM, THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED. UH, TO BE RED, OR TO
[00:20:07]
BE RETROFITTED AS A BUYER RETENTION BASIN. UM ORIGINALLY THE IDEA WAS CONTEMPLATED AT THIS BASIN WOULD HANDLE THE RUNOFF FROM OUR SITE. WE WOULD UTILIZE IT TO MEET THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RULES FOR THE PROPERTY. UH, BUT FROM THE TIME THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY CONCEPTUALIZE AND STARTED PROGRESSING. NEW STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RULES CAME OUT THAT DIDN'T ALLOW US TO ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THE PRIOR STORMWATER RUNOFF THAT WAS GENERATED BY THE FORMER DEVELOPMENT. UM SO WE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS EASIEST AND MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD WAS TO HANDLE ALL OF THE STORM WATER RUNOFF GENERATED BY THE NEW BUILDING.THE NEW PAVEMENT AREA WITHIN NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. UM AS PART OF OUR APPROVAL THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. 2021 AND AGAIN LAST YEAR. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SMALL FIRE RETENTION BASIN. WITHIN THE PARKING AREA IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. AS WELL AS AN UNDERGROUND BASIN.
BEHIND THE BUILDING TO HANDLE THE RUNOFF GENERATED BY THESE NEW IMPROVEMENTS. BOTH OF THESE BASINS MEET ALL OF THE SE AND WATER MANAGEMENT RULES FOR THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING BASIN IS NOT NEEDED IN ORDER TO MEET ANY OF THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RULES AS WE WERE ABLE TO DESIGN THE FEATURES ON SITE. IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THIS BASIN IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT NEEDED AND THEN AGAIN, AS MISTER SAID. THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONVERTING A LARGE EXISTING BASIN TO BUY RETENTION. UM ARE SIGNIFICANT FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER. UH, SO AGAIN. WE'VE UH WE'RE SUBMITTING A REVISED PLANS IN. OUR APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE CONDITION THAT THE EXISTING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BASIN. BE CONVERTED INTO A BIO RETENTION BASIN. AND AGAIN THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED PREVIOUSLY ARE ALL STILL THE SAME. NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE PLANS ARE BEING MADE. AND AGAIN, THE DESIGN THAT'S IN FRONT OF THE WORLD THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD. IS FULLY COMPLIANT WITH ALL THE STORM WARS. YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE DE WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE BOARD. YES. ISSUES. NO. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS ON DIRECT THAT. ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THE BOARD MEMBER IS A PROFESSIONALS. UM, CHAIRMAN, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. UM, IS THIS EXISTING BASIN? IS IT ON THE PROPERTY? OR IS IT ON THE IS IT ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED, OR IS IT ADJACENT TO IT? IT IS ADJACENT TO THE TO THE 4.2 ACRES THAT IS BEING CARVED OUT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE BASIN ITSELF IS NOT ON THE PROPERTY. UH, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT AGAIN, IT'S ESSENTIALLY FUNCTIONS AS A BUDDING TO IT. IT'S ADJACENT TO IT. THE APPLICANT WOULD AGREE TO MAINTAIN THE BASE. UM AS PART OF THEIR OPERATIONS. FOR THE DEVELOP MENT, BUT, UH, NO, IT'S NOT PHYSICALLY ON THE PROPERTY. OF THEM THAT WOULD REVERT TO THE TOWNSHIP OR THE COUNTY BECAUSE IT SOMERSET IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY SO RIGHT, SO IT IT'S STILL ON THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE OWNED BY THE COUNTY. AND THEN THERE WOULD BE AMUSEMENT PUT IN PLACE. TO GRANT R PM THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN SO YOU WOULD STILL YOU'D MAINTAIN IT, BUT NOT AS A BIO RETENTION BASIN. OK, I GOT IT. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THANK YOU. WILL STAY THERE IN THE APPLICANT WILL MAINTAIN. OKAY? SO I. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. SO IN YOUR TESTIMONY WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS APPROVED. YOU, UH, HIGHLIGHTED HOW CONVERTING THIS TO A BIO RETENTION BASIN. WOULD REDUCE THE FLOW OUT OF THE BASIN. UM THE PEAK FLOWS OUT OF THE BASIN, WHICH IT PROVIDED BENEFIT TO THE TOWNSHIP AND RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S WITH INCREASING STORMS. THAT'S AN ISSUE AND ALSO UH, BY HER ATTENTION BASED ON WHAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY PROVIDE UM, FILTERING THAT WOULD REDUCE SO IT ALL SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND POLLUTANTS.
WHICH, UM NO WON'T WON'T HAPPEN. AND YOU HIGHLIGHTED THOSE DURING YOUR TESTIMONY BACK THEN. UM SO YOUR MEMO HIGHLIGHTS ONE THING, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY SAYING, WELL, HYDRAULICS ARE THE SAME FOR THIS RIGHT? BECAUSE THE ELEVATION OF THE WATER. DOESN'T CHANGE. HOWEVER. UM YOU LOOK AT THE OUTFLOWS. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IF WE REVERT BACK TO A DETENTION BASIN. IT'S 49.7 FOR A TWOYEAR STORM OF 49.7 NOW GOES TO 67.7. UH, INCREASE OF UH, 20 K. THAT'S THE SAME FOR THE 10 AND THE 100. SO WE HAVE A LOT MORE FLOW COMING OUT OF THAT, AND WE'RE LOSING THE
[00:25:04]
BENEFITS OF HAVING A BUYER RETENTION BASIN FROM BOTH THE FLOW PERSPECTIVE AND, UH, REDUCING POLLUTANTS. SO WHY? WHY SHOULD WE DO THAT? THE FLOW IS LEAVING THE BASE AND ARE NOT INCREASING FROM WHAT THEY ARE TODAY. THE RUNOFF GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED BUILDING THE NEW AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. ARE ALL BEING HANDLED. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STORM WARRE RULES WITHIN OUR SITE. THE AREA THAT DRAINS INTO THIS BASIN IS INCLUDES THE PARKING AREA THAT EXISTS NOW, PLUS 20 SOMETHING OTHER ACRES. TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. UH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH AS WELL AS SOME OTHER PROPERTY AGAIN REMAINDER OF THE COUNTY PROPERTY. THE OVERALL PARCEL ALL ULTIMATELY DRAINS INTO THIS BASIN. UM AGAIN. THE OR THE CONVERSION OF THE BASIN TO BIO RETENTION. WAS A REQUEST. THAT WAS MADE BY THE TOWNSHIP BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY FOR THIS PROJECT BE COST ASSOCIATED WITH CONVERTING AN EXISTING BASIN OF THIS SIZE INTO BIO RETENTION. ARE NOT PRACTICAL FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. UM AT THIS TIME AND AGAIN THE FLOWS THAT ARE LEAVING THAT BASIN AFTER THIS PROJECT IS COMPLETED. AGAIN OUR REVISED STORM WATER REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENT THAT THERE IS NO INCREASES TO THAT BASIN. THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WITH THE WAY THAT BASING CURRENTLY FUNCTIONS TODAY IT WILL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION IN THE SAME MANNER IT DOES NOW. I MEAN, IT MAY BE OVER ALL THE SAME THAT IS FLOWING OUT OF IT, BUT IT'S NOT AT THE SAME RATE. RIGHT. SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE PEAKS THAT ARE THAT ARE GOING TO BE FLOWING OUT AND GENTLY CAUSING FLOODING AT SOME AT SOME POINT, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ATTENUATING THE FLOW AND SPREADING IT OFF OVER TIME.NO, THE FLOWS. FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR ATTENUATED ON SITE, THE TWO BASINS THAT ARE PROPOSED THAT ARE STILL PROPOSED ON THE SITE, THE SMALL BUYER RETENTION BASIN THAT IS STILL PROPOSED. ON THE SCREEN. WHICH IS IN BETWEEN THE EXISTING PARKING AREA. AND THE PROPOSED AREA AGAIN THAT IS A BIO RETENTION BASIN THAT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED. AND THEN BEHIND THE BUILDING. IS AN UNDERGROUND STORM WATER BASIN THAT HANDLES THE RUNOFF FROM THE NEW BUILDING AND ATTENUATES THE FLOWS SO THAT THE FLOW IS LEAVING ARE 4.2 ACRE PARCEL. OR LOWER ONCE WE DEVELOP IT THAN THEY ARE TODAY. SO AGAIN. WE ARE ATTENUATING ALL OF OUR FLOWS. WE'RE MEETING ALL OF THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RULES. THE REQUIREMENTS THROUGH THE TWO BASINS THAT ARE STILL PROPOSED AND WILL STILL OPERATE. WE'RE ASKING TO REMOVE THE CONDITION OF CONVERTING THE LARGE BASIN THAT IS OFF OUR PROPERTY THAT WE ARE NOT UTILIZING. TO ADDRESS THE STORMWATER RULES THAT APPLY TO OUR PROJECT. FROM THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IF THIS WERE A SITE THAT DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE THE PARKING LOT THERE. WHEN YOU BUILT THIS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT THAT YOU YOU WERE ADDING RIGHT, SO ANY OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT COMES BEFORE US. AND GENERALLY, WE HAVE SOIL TYPE B HERE. SO THE RUNOFF FROM A PARKING LOT VERSUS A SOIL ISN'T ISN'T THAT MUCH DIFFERENT WITH THAT KIND OF SOIL? SO IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE GETTING A LOT OF EXTRA RELIEF BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO DO ANYTHING WITH ANY OF THAT WATER THAT'S RUNNING OFF OF THESE. THESE PARKING LOTS. AND ROADS IN THE AREA. WAS THAT A QUESTION? YEAH I MEAN, IT'S A COMMENT. I MEAN, SHOULDN'T SHOULDN'T YOU AT A MINIMUM HAVE TO ADDRESS THE RUNOFF FROM THE PARKING LOT? I MEAN, THERE'S SEDIMENT AND POLLUTANTS THAT ARE GONNA COME FROM THOSE PARKING LOTS THAT THAT WE SHOULD DEAL WITH. I MEAN , THIS IS THE TIME WHEN IT'S BEING REDEVELOPED, BUT WE SHOULD DEAL WITH IT. NOT JUST LEAVE IT, AS IS AND SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES LATER. MAY MAY STRONG WATER MANAGEMENT RULES FOR TOWNSHIP AS WELL AS THE STATE OR CLEAR THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT NEED TO GET RETROFITTED. AN EXISTING PARKING LOT DOES NOT NEED TO GET CHANGE AND CONVERTED AND BROUGHT INTO CERTAIN STANDARDS. IT'S AN EXISTING PARKING AREA THAT IS GOING TO BE RE UTILIZED. THERE'S NO NEW STORM WERE BEING GENERATED FROM THAT EXISTING PARKING AREA. THE PARKING AREA RIGHT NOW IS COMPLIANT WITH THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RULES FROM WHEN THE TIME IT WAS BUILT, AND HE KNEW CHANGES ON THE SITE THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED AGAIN ARE ALL FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE STORMWATER RULES. DON'T DON'T THE RULES ACTUALLY SAY THAT IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLIANT IF YOU'RE JUST RESURFACING, BUT IF YOU ARE MAKING CHANGES TO THE UM YOU KNOW, DISTURBING, DISTURBING THAT PARKING LOT OR CHANGING THE, UH THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T
[00:30:01]
APPLY ANYMORE. THAT'S WHAT THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL SENSOR STORM WATER. IF WE WERE TO COME IN AND RIP UP THAT ENTIRE PARKING LOT AND TRY TO REDO IT, THEN YES, THAT THAT WOULD TRIGGER NEW RULES, BUT WE'RE NOT. IT'S NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION. THAT EXISTING PARKING AREA IS GONNA BE REMAINING. IT'S NOT BEING RIPPED UP AND IT'S BOTH THE UH, YOU KNOW, RECON OR, YOU KNOW, RIPPING UP THE PARKING LOT, BUT ALSO CHANGING THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT THAT THE RULES ALSO SAY IF YOU CHANGE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT RELIEF DOESN'T APPLY. IT'S REALLY JUST IF YOU'RE RESURFACING, BUT YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND THE EXISTING PARKING LOT THAT THAT'S ALL. OPERATING AND MAINTAINING, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN YOU ARE I MEAN, YOU'RE YOU'RE HAVING YOUR UH, YOUR BIO OR BIO BASIN IN YOUR UNDERGROUND RETENTION BASIN ARE NOW GOING TO BE ADDING TO IT AND THERE WILL BE CHANGES TO THAT. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT MAKING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, BUT YOU'RE MAKING CHANGES. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU KNOW YOU YOU'RE TRYING TO GET OFF THE HOOK FOR LIKE ADDRESSING LIKE A PARKING LOT THAT JUST HAPPENED. YOU'RE LUCKY THAT IT'S YOU KNOW YOU'RE TREATING AS A FORTUNATE THING THAT IT'S THERE, AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BUT ANY OTHER ONE. ANY OTHER DEVELOPER COMING BEFORE US WOULD HAVE TO TREAT THAT WATER COMING OFF A PARKING LOT. MM.STORMWATER RULES ARE NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIFIC RULES. ANYBODY WHO WOULD DEVELOP THE SITE WHETHER THIS BUILDING WAS A MARKET RATE BUILDING OR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILDING.
IT'S THE SAME THEY THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED BY THE STATE RULES. OR THE TOWNSHIP RULES TO ADD ANY TYPE OF WATER QUALITY FEATURE TO THAT BASIN. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASPECT COMES IN BECAUSE IT IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT. THE LAW STATES THAT THAT DEVELOPER OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHOULD NOT BE DID NOT HAVE ANY COST GENERATIVE ITEMS IMPOSED ON TO THE AND GIVEN THAT THE EXISTING BASIN YOU KNOW, AND THE TWO BIO RETENTION BASINS THAT ARE PROPOSED ON SITE MEET THE STORMWATER REGULATIONS AND HANDLE THE PROJECT AS REQUIRED.
REQUIRING THE APPLICANTS TO ALSO CONVERT THIS INTO A BIO RETENTION BASIN. GENERATED. BUT BUT OF COURSE I MEAN, THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR IT AND COMMITTED TO THAT WAS APPROVED THIS WAY. SO I MEAN, THAT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE? WE'RE REQUIRING A T. THIS POINT IS ALREADY APPROVED THAT WAY. BUT I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION UH, WOULD BE UH, YOU SAY YOU YOU'VE SHOWN THAT YOU MET THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT DON'T DON'T THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS NEED, UM UH, INDICATE THAT YOU SHOULD UM SO THAT YOU MEET THESE CRITERIA FOR BOTH THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED OR CURRENT AND PROJECTED TO 10 AND 100. UH, GEAR STORMS AND FROM THE REPORTS THAT I SAW YOU'VE ONLY DONE IT FOR THE CURRENT UH, BUT, YOU KNOW IF YOU LOOK A T, UH, THE PROJECTED UH, FACTORS IN THE STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MANUALS, UH, USED TO BE MULTIPLYING THOSE UH, TOTAL THOSE THAT TOTAL GROWTH ROAD. UH RAINFALL BY 1.19 FOR A TWO YEAR 1.24 FOR A 10 YEAR. 1.48 FOR 100 YEAR STORM, BUT YOUR CALCULATIONS DON'T DO THAT FOR THE PROJECTED UH, SHOWING THAT THIS ACTUALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTED RAINFALL. CORRECT SO THIS PROJECT WE INDICATED BEFORE WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2021, WHICH IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED. THE NEW RULES THAT WERE ADOPTED, UH, THIS PAST SUMMER IN 2023 THAT APPLY THOSE FACTORS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE FOR THE FUTURE RAINFALL DATA. AGAIN THEY ARE NOT THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RULES THAT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED BEFORE THOSE RULES CAME INTO PLACE. WHERE THOSE RULES SOFTER AT THAT POINT. I'M SORRY. CAN YOU GIVE MORE CONTEXT? UH THE RULES GET HARDER AND HARDER EACH TIME ONE WOULD THINK NEW ONES OUT SO WELL, THIS CIRCLES BACK TO I GUESS WHAT I SAID IN THE INTRODUCTION WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS PROJECT. 2019 WAS WHEN I FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT IT.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RULES OR DIFFERENT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE. FIRE RETENTION BASINS WEREN'T PART OF THE RULES. WE SAID OH, YOU KNOW, WE WERE ENVISIONING THAT WE COULD TAKE THIS EXISTING BASIN TAKE AT THE BOTTOM, CONVERT IT TO BIO RETENTION. AND THAT WOULD ADDRESS EVERYTHING.
YOU WOULDN'T NEED THE UNDERGROUND BASIN BEHIND THE BUILDING. WE WOULDN'T NEED THE NEW FIRE RETENTION BASIN. AND THEN OUR WONDERFUL RULES CAME OUT IN 2021 THAT SOME THINGS OUT THAT WE WEREN'T AWARE OF, AND IT CHANGED HOW WE COULD ANALYZE IT. WE THOUGHT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PRIOR BUILDING. THAT WAS THERE THAT WAS DEMOLISHED. BUT NOW IT WAS DEMOLISHED TOO LONG AGO WHERE WE NOW COULD NOT ACCOUNT FOR IT. AND HOW THIS BASIN WAS REALLY DESIGN WAS TO HANDLE A BUILDING IN A PARKING LOT NOW WE COULDN'T ACCOUNT FOR IT. AND THAT STARTED
[00:35:01]
THIS KIND OF SNOWBALL EFFECT OF WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT WE COULD JUST CONVERT IT AND BE DONE. NOW WE'RE CONVERTING IT PLUS ADDING AND IT TURNS INTO AN YEAR OF MILLION DOLLAR. WORTH OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS BETWEEN THESE THREE BASES, WHICH AGAIN AT THE END OF THE DAY FOR 4 TO 4, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER WAS AGAIN VERY COST. PROHIBITIVE. SO, I. I MEAN, I'LL JUST NOTE THAT YOU KNOW, WITH THE UH, BY OUR INTENTION BASED AND UM, THAT YOU'VE PROPOSED IN THE IN THE ISLAND IN THE PARKING LOT, PLUS THE UNDERGROUND, UM PENSION SYSTEM. UM I THINK YOU'RE TREATING ABOUT. WELL I GUESS WE SHOULD JUST SAY THE BUY OUR ATTENTION. UH, YOU'RE TREATING ABOUT 13,000 SQUARE FEET, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU'RE ADDING WHAT YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR. THE EXISTING PAVEMENT. 262 160,000 SQUARE FEET. SO MORE THAN 10 TIMES WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY TREATING TO ME. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE DOING CONSTRUCTION HERE? THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME TO ADDRESS THIS. I THINK THAT PROVIDING RELIEF HERE JUST IS NOT THE SOUND THING FOR THE TOWNSHIP OR FOR US TO DO AS A BOARD RIGHT LIKE IT. IT WAS APPROVED THIS WAY. WE NEED TO TAKE TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE UM, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST MEETING WHAT YOU THINK. IS THE LETTER OF THE RULES HERE. BUT YOU KNOW, DOING WHATEVER WE CAN. I MEAN, WE'VE HAD PEOPLE ALONG BENS, WHOSE HOUSE IS FLOODED IN IN IDA, RIGHT? SO I. I DON'T WANT TO. UM RELAX THIS REQUIREMENT. UM FOR THE FOR THE BIER RETENTION BASIN FROM BOTH THE STORMWATER RUNOFF, AS WELL AS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF, UH REDUCING THE POLLUTANT SEDIMENT AND SUCH THAT THAT A RE GONNA FLOW OUT OF THIS DETENTION BASIN COMPARED TO WHAT WE THOUGHT OF A BIO ATTENTION, BASIN, SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS AT ALL. THIS IS SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, TOO, SO THAT THIS PROJECT IS BEING DEVELOPED LARGELY AS KIND OF A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE TOWNSHIP. SO AS AS IT PROGRESSES, THE TOWNSHIP HAS BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WEEKLY STATUS MEETINGS TO OVER EVERYTHING. UM AND PART OF WHERE THIS A ROSE WAS YOU KNOW THE TOWNSHIP HAS AGREED TO CONTRIBUTE. FUNDS TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF. IN DETERMINING CURRENT. HOW THE TOWNSHIP IS GOING TO PROVIDE THE FUNDS AND WORKING THROUGH. A MORE DETAILED LEVEL AFTER THE APPLICANT HAD GOTTEN ITS APPROVALS. UM THE BUY OUR RETENTION BASIN CAME UP AS AS ONE OF THE DISCUSSION POINTS. AND SO THIS WAS AN AREA WHERE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT'S ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE STORM WATER REGS THAT THE BIO RETENTION.DECIDED THAT THIS WAS ONE AREA THAT WAS AN EXTRA COST THAT THE PROJECT REALLY DID NOT. UM, AND SO YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S ALSO PART OF WHY WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU. AFTER SPEAKING HERE WITH THE TOWNSHIP. ANOTHER TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY IS HERE AS WELL. UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT.
I. I STILL I MEAN, IN MY READING OF THE BEST PRACTICES MANUAL I DON'T KNOW THAT I NECESSARILY AGREE THAT THIS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, LIKE, IF YOU ARE MAKING CHANGES TO THE UM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, WHICH YOU ARE IN THIS CASE.
THESE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE EXISTING PAYMENT. DON'T APPLY. SO I MEAN, I'M NOT A LAWYER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST. BUT AS I READ IT, I THINK THIS IS A GRAY AREA. THAT THAT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO APPLY THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS TO THE EXISTING PAID DAIRY. AND YOU THIS AMENDMENT. TO BE IN OUR CANAL AND ANOTHER OUTSIDE. RIGHT? YEAH THE AMENDED PLANS AND REPORTS WERE SUBMITTED BACK TO THE DNR CANAL COMMISSION. THEY HAVE REVIEWED THEM AND AGREED THAT OUR PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF YOU IS COMPLIANT WITH THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RULES. THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT WE CONVERT THIS BASIN AND THAT'S A LEVEL OF THE STATE. UH DEP BRANCH OF THE CANAL COMMISSION THAT REVIEWED IT, AND THEY AGREE WITH OUR FINDINGS. UM AS WELL. IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY FOR UM SO YOU
[00:40:13]
ARE. YOU ARE GOING TO CREATE BASINS. THE IT WAS A CONCERN. IS THAT YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL THAT PAVEMENT THAT EXISTS. IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY TO INCREASE WHAT YOU YOU'RE PUTTING IN THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY GIVE YOU THE FULL COST SAVINGS. BUT REDUCED. THE COST. TO THE, UH TO THE APPLICANT. JUST AS A FOR EXA MLE LIKE TREATING A T LEAST THE EXISTING PAVED SURFACE . MAYBE NOT ALL THE RUNOFF, BUT, UH, FROM FROM LONG BEACH SURFACES BUT AT LEAST TREATING THE PAVED SURFACES. THE CONVERSION OF THE BASIN FROM GRASS TO BIO RETENTION IS HOW YOU TREAT IT THE YOU REMOVE THE SOIL FROM THE BOTTOM OF IT AND REPLACE IT WITH AN ENGINEERED MEDIA SOIL. THAT FILTERS RUN OFF FROM THE PARKING AREA AND THEN YOU PLANT IT WITH VEGETATION.THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE BUYER RETENTION BASIN IS. THE MEDIA ON THE BOTTOM IS WHAT GIVES YOU THAT TREATMENT FOR THE PAVEMENT. UM SO AND AGAIN THE REMOVAL OF 3 FT OF SOIL FROM THE BOTTOM OF THIS BASIN, GETTING RID OF IT AND THEN BRINGING IN 3 FT. OF THIS BIOMED. CLAIMING IT IS THE IS THE COST THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WITH THE CONVERSION. UM THERE'S NO AGAIN OTHER TREATMENT OPTIONS WOULD BE MANUFACTURED DEVICES, WHICH ARE NOT GREAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND APPROVED ANYMORE. UM, THE CONVERSION OF THE BASIN INTO THE HIGHER RETENTION IS HOW YOU CREATE THAT TREATMENT. BUT AGAIN, IT'S CONVERTING IT TO THAT BIO RETENTION. UM AGAIN. IT'S NOT.
IT'S A IT'S A COST PROHIBITIVE FACTOR FOR THIS PROJECT. RIGHT NOW, I, I DON'T MEAN CONVERTING, CAN YOU? CAN YOU COULD JUST PULL THAT IN FRONT OF YOU. I DON'T MEAN CONVERTING THE EXISTING I WAS ASKING IF YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO INCREASE WHAT YOU WERE PLANNING. CREATE TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE, UM THE ADDITIONAL AND OFF THE RIGHT, SO NOT EVEN CONSIDERING THE EXISTING BUT WHAT YOU'RE CREATING. LET'S SAY, UM OR IS THERE ANY WAY TO INCREASE THAT? UM OR DOES IT DOES THAT? YOU KNOW, FACTOR INTO THE CAN SEE WHERE FILLING IN THE BA AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THIS ALL THE PARKING AREA ON THE RIGHT IS ALL EXISTING FROM THIS AREA AND BEYOND IS ALL NEW PAVEMENT THAT IS BEING ADDED, THAT'S WHAT'S BEING COLLECTED AND SENT TO THIS NEW BUYER RETENTION BASE. YOU TWO PARKING AREAS. THERE IS NO ROOM TO EXPAND THAT. YOU KNOW FURTHER AGAIN IF WE COULD MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT BIGGER FOR A COUPLE UH, NOT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL FEATURES. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE BUT IT JUST DOESN'T IT'S NOT CONDUCIVE WITH THE LAYOUT AND THE AREA OF THE PROJECT TO EXPAND THAT ANY FURTHER. WE THINK, FOR EXAMPLE OF OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT? ALL OF THE PARKING LOT AREA WOULD WOULD BE TREATED RIGHT. AND SO YOU'RE NOT TREATING THIS PARKING LOT. AT ALL. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY. SHOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE FOR YOU TO TREAT MAYBE NOT EVEN NECESSARILY ALL THE PAID SERVICES, BUT A T LEAST WHAT'S ON YOUR PROPERTY? WHAT YOU'RE USING FOR YOUR YOUR BUILDING IF OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IT WHEN THEY COME BEFORE THIS BOARD FOR BOTH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UM NON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. I. I JUST DON'T SEE WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BE TREATING. YOUR PAID SERVICES, TOO. JUST BECAUSE IT HAPPENS TO HAVE ALREADY BEEN THERE. THO THOSE A RE THE STORM WATER RULES THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS ADOPTED AS WELL AS THE STATE. THIS IS EXISTING PAVEMENT AREA. WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO TREAT IT. ANY DEVELOPER WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO TREAT IT. WELL YEAH, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY YOU ALREADY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION WHERE YOU'RE TREATING EVERYTHING. I. I THINK WHAT I WAS SAYING. YOU KNOW, AS A AS A COMPROMISE, COULD YOU AT LEAST CHANGE THINGS? SO YOU'RE TREATING THAT PORTION THAT'S ATTRIBUTABLE TO YOUR PROPERTY. RATHER THAN JUST SAYING NO, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IT'S APPROVED THAT YOU HAVE TO TREAT EVERYTHING. THERE'S NO WAY TO TREAT SOME OF IT AND NOT THE REST OF IT. IT ALL GOES INTO ONE BASIN. SO YOU I GUESS COMMON. THERE'S NO WAY WE COULD TREAT SOME OF THE R RUN OFF AND NOT SOME OF THE OTHERS CONVERTING THE WHOLE BASIN INTO BIO RETENTION. I CAN'T CONVERT.
QUARTER OF IT OR HALF OF IT. IT'S CONVERTING THAT BASIN IS WHAT PROVIDES THE TREATMENT, RIGHT? I THINK WHAT? NOT NECESSARILY THAT LARGE DETENTION BASIN. BUT IF YOU INCREASE THE SIZE OF YOUR PROPOSED VIO RETENTION BASIN TO TREAT MORE OF YOUR RUNOFF. THE SHORT ANSWER IS
[00:45:06]
NO. THERE'S NO THERE'S NO, WE'RE NOT SENDING THE EXISTING PARKING AREA INTO THE NEW BASE. THE NEW BASIN IS CREATED TO HANDLE THE RUNOFF CREATED BY THE NEW PAVEMENT. THAT IS PROPOSED, THE EXISTING PAVEMENT WILL CONTINUE TO FLOW. INTO THAT EXISTING BASIN AS IT DOES RIGHT NOW.WE'RE NOT REROUTING ANYTHING FROM THAT EXISTING PARKING LOT. INTO OUR PROPOSED BASIS. I ON THE EXISTING, UM PARKING LOT. I SEE. THERE'S SOME UM AREAS THAT ARE KIND OF BLANK. THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE. UM THERE'S ONE THAT SAYS WWW AND THERE WHAT IS THERE NOW? IS IT GRAPHS? WHAT IS IT? YEAH WE YEAH, THOSE TWO THINGS WERE THOSE ARE THOSE ARE WATER MAINS, YOU KNOW, BUT NEXT TO IT, WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THAT RIGHT THERE, AND THESE ARE LANDSCAPED ISLANDS. THEY'RE LANDSCAPED ISLANDS. IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO UM, CHANGE SOME OF THAT LANDSCAPE AND PUT IN SOME TREES OR SOMETHING. IS THERE OPPORTUNITIES LANDSCAPING IN THERE? THERE'S TREES AND THERE'S ISLANDS. THERE'S ANYTHING EXISTING NOW. THERE ARE SOME ON THE PLANE TREES IN THE IN THE ISLANDS. NOW, SOME OF THEM AREN'T THE LANDSCAPE. WE'RE IMPOSING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE ISLANDS. OTHER AREAS AROUND UH, WORKING AREAS. AND WE'RE GOING TO BE KEEPING SOME OF THESE LARGE SHADE TREES THAT ARE EXISTING JUST BEYOND THE EXISTING PAYMENT. WHICH IS THANK YOU FOR DOING IT. WHICH MORE PEOPLE WOULD SAVE THOSE TREES. HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE FOR THIS WITNESS, BECAUSE I'D I'D LIKE TO OPEN, UM UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS BEFORE WE DO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN YOU YOU CAN CONTINUE TO ASK QUESTIONS TO THE WAY THIS AFTER IN PUBLIC, RIGHT? OK, IF YOU IF YOU'RE NOT WAIT. IF YOU IF YOU I MEAN, YOU KNOW THERE'S CROSS EXAMINATION. THEN THERE'S A BOARD QUESTION. WE JUST WANTED TO ASK THE DEVELOPER WHETHER HE HAS A COPY OF LORD WOLSKI'S MOST RECENT MEMO. DEALING WITH SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH UM WHETHER LIGHTING DETAILS SHOULD BE REVISED TO SHOW UPWARD. AS OPPOSED TO DOWN WHO ME? UH, LAUREN WAS LSKI. I DON'T KNOW. BECAUSE SHE DID IT TODAY. SHE WAS OUT, CAN YOU OPEN SPACE AND STEWARDSHIP DIRECTOR IT'S POSTED ONLINE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CHECKED I GAVE YOU IT'S TWO SIDED, SO YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BACK. THE LIGHTING THE UH, I MEAN, FROM A LIGHTING PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. I MEAN, IT'S JUST THE SAME LIGHTING FOR THE SIGNAGE. AND I DON'T RECALL IT WAS THAT LIGHTING FACING DOWNWARD OR UPWARD? ACCORDING TO SHEET 14. IT'S UPWARD. UPLOADED.
IT WOULD BE UPLOADING ONTO THE SITE SIGN. ON SHEET 14. NONE OF IT'S CHANGED. IT'S THE SAME LIGHTING. IT'S UP LIGHTING ACCENT LIGHTING UP ONTO THE SITE. WHICH IS WHAT WAS PROPOSE AND APPROVED. PREVIOUSLY. ACCENT LIGHTING IS NOT A YOU KNOW, BIG SPOTLIGHT OR ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE SEEN FROM ORCHARD ROAD OR ANYTHING. IT'S SMALL ACCENT LIGHTS. YOU CAN SEE THE SIGN. WOULD YOU CONSIDER AMENDING IT JUST TO, UM LOWER IT EITHER DIRECTION OF IT OR JUST THE WHAT OR WHATEVER IT IS, ACCORDING TO A MEMO. YEAH, WE'RE WE'RE HAPPY TO LOOK INTO THAT, UM SO PREFERABLY NO GREATER THAN UM. 3000 K, FOR THE LIGHTING IS FINE. WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S COMPLIANT. SEND THEM 3000 K WOULD AFFECT THE BLUE BLUE LIGHTS AS WELL. SO I DON'T I DON'T. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH EITHER OF THOSE TWO COMMENTS IN THE BACK. THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN THIS UP TO FOR PUBLIC QUESTIONS, NOT COMMENTS, BUT QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS.
UH, THIS IS DIRECTED QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY THE TESTIMONY THAT HE'S GIVEN NOT YOUR OPINION, SO THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION AT A LATER TIME. PAUL, DO YOU WANNA
[00:50:04]
HEAR FROM ARKANSAS FIRST? IF WE IF WE WANNA DO IT THAT WAY, THAT'S FINE. I GENERALLY ALLOWED THE PUBLIC TO ASK QUESTIONS ONCE , AND SO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF REDIRECT THOSE QUESTIONS AND GET CLARIFICATION FROM OUR PROFESSIONALS. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC, I I'D LIKE TO HEAR THEM NOW, PLEASE. UH, CAN YOU COME UP AND STATE YOUR NA ME? UH PLEASE, UM UH AND I GOT SKA. I SPELL THAT. PLEASE GO SI EWSK A AND FIRST NAME ANNA. A NN A. AND ARE YOU A RESIDENT OF MONTGOMERY? YES I LIVE AT 39 0. OK AND MA'AM , I'M JUST GONNA SWEAR YOU. WHEN DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM? ANY TESTIMONY YOU GIVE THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. YES, I DO.THANK YOU. YES I DO HAVE A QUESTION. HAVE YOU DONE DETAIL, ANALYSIS AND ALSO MODELING HOW THE CURRENT BASIN WILL HANDLE THE STORM WATER CURRENTLY AND AS COMPARED TO IF YOU WERE CONVERTED IT TO A BIO RETENTION BASIS. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THIS DETAILED ANALYSIS AND MODELING BECAUSE HOW HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT WITHOUT HAVING THAT BIO TENTION VERSUS YOU KNOW, LIVING AS IT IS? THE UPDATED REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BASIN RIGHT NOW. AS WELL AS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HOW THE BASIN WILL FUNCTION AFTER THE SITE IS DEVELOPED. UH THE REPORT DOCUMENTS THAT THERE IS NO CHANGES, UH, THE WORST SERVICE ELEVATIONS OR THE OUTFLOWS THERE CONSISTENT. UM THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WITH THE HYDRAULICS OF THAT BASIN AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. BUT THE BASE ON THE OUTFLOWS DO CHANGE. I MEAN, NOT THE CUMULATIVE BUT LIKE THE IT SAYS RIGHT HERE FACING OUTFLOWS ARE ARE CHANGING, LIKE, UH, 5.64 FOR A TWO YEAR STORM VERSUS 6.81. SO, SO IT'S INCREASED. UM OUTFLOW. IF YOU HAVE A DETENTION BASED COMPARED TO THE. I'M I'M LOOKING A T, THE AM AME ADDENDUM. YEAH. CAN YOU PULL THE MIC CLOSER? YEAH, I'M SORRY. THE ADDENDUM. IT'S ONLY THE TWO PAGES SO I'M LOOKING AT TABLE WITH LABELED AS TABLE SEVEN. AND TABLE TABLE EIGHT. YEAH. SO IN TABLE SEVEN WHICH SHOWS THE BIO ATTENDANT BASIN FOR A TWO YEAR FLOW. IT'S UH, 5.64. TO RETREAT FOR A SECOND AND TO YOUR STORM. UM IF YOU KEEP IT AS A DETENTION BASE AND THE 6.81 YOU KNOW WHAT? AT THIS POINT, I MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA. I'LL JUST QUICKLY SWEAR, MR CLAVELL AND MR DARG, YOU SWEAR, AFFIRM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. I DO. THANK YOU. I PROMISE WHAT I SAID WAS NOT A LIE. MM. LIKE A RE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE WE YES.
GO AHEAD. C, COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE. THE LECTERN. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS GARY STEFANSKI. I'M A RESIDENT OF MONT SIR, COULD YOU JUST SPELL YOUR NA ME, PLEASE? IT'S UH GARY LAST NAME STANSKY STE. FA NSK I I'M A RESIDENT OF MONTGOMERY. AND DO YOU SWEAR FIRM? ANY TESTIMONY YOU GIVE THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. YES, THANK YOU. UM, I'M A RESIDENT ON REDD FOXX COURT. MR SHELLEY. AND WHAT I'M GATHERING. UH THE TOWNSHIP DID SOME WORK.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ON A DETENTION BASE ON OUR BLOCK. WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET AND PROBABLY 60 YARDS TO MY SOUTH. WITH THAT CHANGE THAT THEY'VE MADE. WE'RE HOLDING WATER. CONSTANTLY. I MEAN, WHAT USED TO CLEAR AND 23 DAYS OF SITTING FOR WEEKS. MY CONCERN IS II I THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS NOT TO EXPRESS CONCERNS ATTACHED TO THIS. THANK YOU. UM WITH YOUR CHANGING OF THE WATER FLOW UP THERE. UM WHAT IS THAT GONNA DO TO THE WATER TABLE AS IT AFFECTS THE RESONANCE ON OUR ON MY BLOCK AS FAR AS BASEMENTS, FLOODING UH, OUR DETENTION BASIN FLOODING FURTHER. HOLDING WATER. THE EFFECT ON THE WILDLIFE. UM I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER BLOCKED THAT PROPERTY RECENTLY. SAY THE LAST 67 MONTHS. IF THE EPA CAME OUT, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED CAN YOU CAN JUST NOT EXPRESS AN OPINION. A T THIS
[00:55:05]
POINT. I'M I'M GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO ASK A QUESTION NOT TO GIVE A SPEECH.YEAH THANK YOU. FOUNDATION. THANK YOU. WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S WITH ALL THE WATER THAT'S BEING CHANGED. WHAT ASSURANCES DO WE HAVE ON MY BLOCK THAT THIS PROJECT ISN'T GOING TO AFFECT MY PROPERTY VALUE THAT I'VE HAD FOR 30 YEARS. AND THE VALUE AND THE CONDITION OF THE BLOCK. HOMES IMMEDIATELY ATTACHED. TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SO I CAN'T. PROVIDE ANY ANALYSIS OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE BASE WOOD ON YOUR BLOCK. THIS BIO DETENTION OF PREVENT SOME OF THE EXTRA FLOODING THAT WE'RE SEEING OR GOOD PROPOSAL, C. NO SO WHAT WE FOUND THROUGH THE SOIL ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE DONE ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH WE'VE CONDUCTED A AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS. AND THE AREAS THAT WE ARE DEVELOPING. THERE IS NO NATURAL INFILTRATION AND DESIRE. CALLED THESE SOILS. THERE'S NO NATURAL INFILTRATION, THE WATER TABLES. UH, WILL NOT SUPPORT IT. SO THE FIRE RETENTION BASIN THAT IS PROPOSED FOR OUR SITE. AS THAT ENGINEERED MEDIA TO TREAT THE RUNOFF, AND THEN WE HAVE UNDER DRAINS BELOW THE PIPED. PERFORATED PIPES THAT THEN TAKE THAT WATER. AFTER IT'S RETAINED, AND IT TAKES IT OUT TO THE TO THE EXISTING BASIN IN THE BACK OF THE SITE. SAME THING BACK BEHIND THE BUILDING THE UNDERGROUND TENSION BASIN.
CANNOT INFILTRATE. THERE'S NO INFILTRATING SOILS DOWN THERE, SO WE'RE NOT INTRODUCING ANY WATER DOWN INTO THE WATER TABLE. YOU. YOU CONCERNS OR COMMENTS ABOUT IMPACTS THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ON THE WATER TABLE BASEMENTS, FLOODING THAT CONCERNS. WE ARE NOT SENDING ANY OF THE RUNOFF GENERATED FROM THIS SITE DOWN INTO THE GROUND IN THE RECHARGE OR INFILTRATION SCENARIO. THE RUNOFF FROM THIS SITE MAKES ITS WAY EVENTUALLY. SWITCH IT TO A S A SHEET THAT YOU CAN THE YEAH. AND ALL ULTIMATELY FLOWS INTO THE EXISTING BASIN. OUT THROUGH THE OUTFALL STRUCTURE AND DOWN INTO THE STREAM BACK BEHIND IT. SO THE PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT HAS NO IMPACT ON THE WATER TABLE. UM OR ANY OF THOSE CONCERNS. UM AND AGAIN THE AMOUNT OF WATER AND THE RATES THAT THE BASED IN THE EXISTING BASIN DISCHARGES. THE WATER ARE NOT CHANGING. WHAT THEY ARE TODAY. OKAY? NOW IN THE EVENT, SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE. IN THE DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE. UH, STARTS TO AFFECT THE WATER TABLE BECAUSE BASIN IS NOT COMPLETED YET. WE? WE, THE DEVELOPER HAS FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR REMEDIATION COMPENSATION TO THE HOMEOWNERS. WILL YOU POST SOME SORT OF A SURETY BOND OF ANY SORT OR WE LEFT ON OUR OWN. BASICALLY. THAT'S NOT A QUESTION I CAN ANSWER ABOUT THAT. BUT I MEAN FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT. WORKING YOU YOU HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THAT QUESTION IN PUBLIC COMMENT, SO THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE FOR THIS PARTICULAR ENGINEER. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. NO, THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEAH. LIKE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE ENGINEER. FOR THE ENGINEER. YES. KATRINA KITR. I MLS AND MA'AM, DO YOU LIVE IN MONTGOMERY? I DO THE HOME RIGHT BEHIND HERE. OK VERY CONCERNED ALREADY. AND DO YOU SWEAR FOR MANY TESTIMONY YOU GIVE THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. THANK YOU. SO I LIVE IN THE HOME. AND AS OF NOW, I STILL HAVE ISSUES. UM, WITH THE WORK. ARE BASEMENTS ARE FLOODING WE HAD TO PUT IN THESE BUMPS ONCE IN WHERE IS ALL THIS WORKFLOW GOING TO COME FROM? 71 UNITS WILL BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY. ALL THIS EXTRA WATER. WHERE IS IT GOING TO GO? AGAIN. WE'VE SO THAT THEY ARE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BASINS THAT ARE PROPOSED ON THE SITE. THE RUNOFF. GENERATED FROM THE BUILDING ITSELF. IS BEING DISCHARGED AND ATTENUATED IN A UNDERGROUND BASIN BEHIND THE BUILDING. NEW PAVEMENT. AREAS THAT ARE BEING ADDED, ARE BEING CONVEYED INTO A PROPOSED FIRE RETENTION BASIN ON THE SITE. SO AGAIN, THE RUNOFF THAT IS BEING GENERATED BY THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS IS BEING ADDRESSED THROUGH NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. AND ULTIMATELY ENDS UP DISCHARGING
[01:00:03]
INTO THAT EXISTING BASIN AND THEN OUT INTO THE STREAM BEYOND UM AND AGAIN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT EXISTING BASIN ARE NOT CHANGING, SO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT GONNA HAVE IMPACTS ON WATER TABLE FOR THE G. AND WELL BECAUSE AS OF NOW IT'S FLOODED ALL AT ALL TIMES.THIS THIS IS IT. YOU GONNA YOU'RE GONNA SPREAD YOUR OPINION LATER. AND I? I HA! HAPPY TO HEAR THAT WHICH IS THIS IS QUESTION TIME FOR THE APPLICANT. OK, AND I WANT TO KNOW THAT THAT THAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO BUILD ARE NOT GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH. 471 THAT THAT WHOLE I BELIEVE HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION THAT HE BELIEVES, BUT HE BELIEVES THAT THAT IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT SO YOU'VE ASKING HIM A QUESTION. HE DOESN'T SEE IT. HE'S HE'S A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, AND HE'S GIVING TESTIMONY. AND HE'S ALREADY GIVEN THAT TESTIMONY. YOU CAN'T ASK HIM THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN AGAIN AND AGAIN. YOU CAN EXPRESS YOUR OPINION. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CAN WE? I THINK WE NEED TO. I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE ON AND YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE QUESTIONS CAN WE HEAR FROM OUR AND OUR PROFESSIONALS? YES. YOU YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, SIR. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE PREPARED A REVIEW MEMO FOR THE PROJECT. THE, UM THE MEMO IS REALLY MORE MORE OF A CONFORMANCE REVIEW THAN ANYTHING ELSE. SO MOST OF THE ITEMS IN OUR MEMO ARE ITEMS THAT THE APPLICANT UH WELL ADDRESS AND REVISE IN THE PLANS AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, WHICH THEY THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO BASED OFF THEIR ALREADY, YOU KNOW, EXISTING APPROVAL. THE ONLY ITEM REALLY HERE FOR DISCUSSION IS WHAT WHAT YOU FOLKS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. AND THE, UM I. I GUESS THE SORT OF FALLS INTO ALL THE ADAGE OF YOU KNOW, NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED. I MEAN, IS THE THIS WAS SOMETHING I MENTIONED THAT AT THE TIME THAT CAME IN FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND FINAL APPROVAL THAT THE CONVERSION OF THE BIO RETENTION BASIN WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS ACTUALLY MANDATED OR REQUIRED BY ANY ANY FROM WHAT I IMAGINE REGULATIONS BY THE DP OR THE TOWNSHIP HAD IT WAS REALLY SOMETHING THAT WAS PROPOSING TO DO OUT OF IT'S LIKE, SAY, THE GOODNESS OF THE HARDWARE JUST TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND, OR THE NEIGHBOR. WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS NECESSARILY REQUIRED BY THE BY THE REGULATIONS THAT WERE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OR EVEN THE CURRENT REGULATIONS. SO THE UM STORM MANAGEMENT RULES BASICALLY SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY. FOR IN THAT INCREASE IN MOTOR VEHICLE SURFACE. UM AND YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THE WATER QUANTITY. THE EXISTING THE STORM MANAGEMENT MEASURES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED. ON THEIR SITE WITHIN THEIR THE PROPER THEY ARE CARVING OUT FOR THE HORRIBLE HOUSING. ACTUALLY DOES MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. BUY A RETENTION WAS AGAIN ADDED. ADD ON YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME. THAT'S WHAT AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ACTUALLY ASKED FOR. THIS ADDENDUM THE BRIAN WAS REFERRING TO IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE. JUST TO SHOW WHAT THE WHAT THE ROUTING WAS BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL DIDN'T EVEN INCLUDE A ROUTING. UH, FOR THAT EXISTING BASIN BECAUSE THEY BASICALLY SHOWED THROUGH THEIR CALCULATIONS. THAT THE MEASURES THEY WERE PROPOSING ON THEIR SITE, WHICH THEY DID ROUTE. AND PROVIDED CALCULATIONS FOR DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY MET THE QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS. AND THE QUALITY WE ASKED THEM TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE SINCE THEY WERE MODIFYING THAT BASIN. EXCAVATING OUT SOME PORT ON THE BASE AND PUTTING IN A FILTER MEDIA MAKING IT B RETENTION BASIN. WE THEN ASKED THEM. AS PART OF THAT, BECAUSE THEY WERE MAKING THAT CHANGE. YOU KNOW, PROVIDE US THE CALCULATIONS TO SHOW HOW THAT'S FUNCTIONING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT ADVERSELY IMPACTING DOWNSTREAM. SO THAT'S WHAT THESE TABLES ARE ACTUALLY COMPARING SO THE NUMBERS. UM IN MY OPINION, AREN'T SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE EXISTING CONDITION OR EVEN THE PROPOSED CONDITION WERE WAS, I SHOULD SAY. UM, IN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S WHAT THE FIRST CABLE IN ON THIS ADDENDUM THAT THAT MR HAMILTON WAS REFERRING TO UH, IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN PUT UP ON THE SCREEN SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IT. I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY. BUT MAYBE. SO IS THIS THE IS THIS IN YOUR MEMO? THIS IS THE PART. IT'S ACTUALLY NOT IN MY MEMO.
IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE ADDENDUM THAT MR MR SHELLEY'S OFFICE PREPARED. MAYBE YOU CAN PUT THAT UP HERE. UH I DON'T KNOW IS THIS ON? I DON'T THINK IT'S ON THE DISK. THAT'S OK, UM. I CAN JUST
[01:05:06]
READ YOU THE NUMBERS. IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT'S VISUAL. IT'S MORE SOMETHING. SO THE TABLE SAYS. UH, SUMMARIZES THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING BASIN IN THE PRE DEVELOPPED CONDITION. THAT'S BASICALLY THE EXISTING BASE AND THE WAY IT FUNCTIONS CURRENTLY. WITHOUT ANYTHING BEING OUT THERE. AND THE OUTFLOW, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH. FROM THE BASIN FOR THE 22 YEAR STORM, THE 6.78 CFS FROM THE BASIN FOR THE 10 YEAR STORM TO 17.39. CFS COULD BE KEY PER SECOND. FOR THE 100 YEARS, SO IT'S 38.63. THE SAME ROUTINGS IN THE DEVELOPED CONDITION WITH THE BIO RETENTION BASIN. TWO YEAR STORM IS 5.64 CF. 10 YEARS IS 16.07 CFS. IN THE 100 YEARS. 38.01 CFS THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAD ASKED FOR BEFORE, LIKE JUST TO VERIFY AND IT DOES SHOW THAT AAA REDUCTION OF A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN ONE CFS. IN THE IN THE RUNOFF FROM THE SITE FROM THE EXISTING TO THE PROPOSED CONDITION. THE THIRD. UH, TABLE PRESENTED IN THE ADDENDUM. IS ACTUALLY WHAT'S GONNA WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE BASIN.DEVELOPMENT LEADING THE EXISTING BASIN IN PLACE BASICALLY WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING RIGHT NOW. IT'S UH, FOR THE TWO YEAR STORM. IT'S 6.81 CFS. THE 10 YEAR STORM IS 17.3 CFS. AND THE 100 YEAR STORM IS 38.28 CFS. SO REALLY, WHAT YOU'RE COMPARING IS , YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS ARE ARE ARE GERMANE TO THIS CONVERSATION. BUT IF YOU WANNA COMPARE, COMPARE IT WHAT'S EXISTING TO WHAT'S PROPOSED? IN THE EXISTING CONDITION. THE TWO YEARS 6.78 CFS CURRENTLY AND THE PROPOSED CONDITION IT'S GOING TO BE 6.81 CFS. AGAIN. 300 OF THE CFS IS WITH THERE. AND THAT'S MORE OF A CALCULATION ERROR. I THINK THAN ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE. MUCH DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE SITE IS ACTUALLY REDUCED. IT'S REALLY A TIMING.
ISSUE MORE ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE EXISTING THAT'S WHAT THE PROPOSED, UH MEASURES ON THE SITE THAT REDUCE RUNOFF AT A CERTAIN RATE. LET IT OUT. WHILE THE REST OF US SAY IS FLOWING THROUGH, SO THERE'S WHEN YOU HAVE THE OVERLAPPING RINGS. SOMETIMES YOU GET AAA. SORT OF A ADDED EFFECT THAT THAT NUMBER THE 10 YEAR STORM FROM THE EXISTING CONDITION. IS 17.39 CFS AND PROPOSED CONDITION 17.30 CFS. AGAIN. THE REDUCTION FROM WHAT'S OUT THERE CURRENTLY AND THEN THE 100 YEAR 38.63 VERSUS 38.20. SO THERE'S REALLY FROM A PEAK FULL STANDPOINT, THERE'S REALLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE F IS PROPOSING. THAT AS FAR AS WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ADVERSE IMPACT. WOULD BE AN ADVERSE IMPACT. I DO AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE A BETTER TO OBVIOUSLY RETROFIT THE BASIN. FROM A WATER QUALITY PERSPECTIVE , REALLY MORE SO THAN THE QUANTITY PERSPECTIVE, QUANTITY WHETHER YOU RETROFITTED OR NOT, IT'S NOT MAKING A HUGE DIFFERENCE. IT'S A WATER QUALITY PERSPECTIVE. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH WITH MR HAMILTON. IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD GET. UH, THAT, UH, CONVERTED TO A BIO RETENTION TO GET WATER QUALITY.
ORDINANCE DOESN'T FOLLOW. DOESN'T REALLY REQUIRE IT THE DP REQUIREMENTS. DON'T REQUIRE IT TO DO. BECAUSE, UM COMMISSION. OK, I. I THINK THAT WAS A GREAT SUMMARY. UM IT. SECTIONS FOR UH, I. I HAVE I. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION WHERE YOU WEREN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. I WAS YOU WERE YOU WERE I REVIEWED THE PRELIMINARY FINAL. AND NOW THIS IN THIS, UM II. I WAS IT.
WAS IT EVER CONTEMPLATED THAT THAT THERE WAS THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT PARCELS AROUND THIS AREA NEEDED THIS BY OUR RETENTION BASE, AND, UH OR ANTICIPATED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A BIO RETENTION BASIN. I MEAN, WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE ONLY FOCUSED ON THIS ONE. COMPONENT OF THE LARGER KIND OF PICTURE HERE AND I'M WONDERING IF ANY TIME ANYBODY EVER MADE AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING, RIGHT OR OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD BE FUTURE, A FUTURE DEVELOPED ON ON THIS SITE. SO, I. I CAN'T SPEAK TO ALL THOSE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE I WAS NOT INVOLVED WHEN THE PROJECT WAS CONTEMPLATED, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THE WHOLE FOR THE HOUSING AND ALL THAT STUFF. I WAS INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING BOARD LEVEL. UM, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEN YEAH, THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING HAS ITS OWN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH THE DRAINAGE BASE AND THAT THAT HANDLES THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, WHICH I'M SORRY.
WHAT DID YOU JUST THIS BUILDING HAS A STORM SYSTEM THAT HANDLES IT. UM, THE DETENTION BASED AND THAT'S OUT THERE. CURRENTLY THE SUBJECT OF OUR CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW WAS DESIGNED REALLY TO
[01:10:04]
ACCOMMODATE THE OFFICE PARK. THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED THERE WITH THAT LARGE PARKING LOT AND THE 22 BUILDINGS. UM, I DON'T. I DON'T. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WITH THE WHOLE GENESIS OF CONVERTING THIS TO A BAD RETENTION BASIN WAS TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH. I I'M VERY I WAS VERY SURPRISED TO SEE IT BECAUSE MR SHATMAN LEFT, BUT I WAS GOING TO USE HIS FAVORITE LINE ABOUT THE PLUS GENERATIVE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BECAUSE THAT WAS THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS VERY SURPRISED AT BECAUSE IT'S FOR THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THAT CONTEXT. SO JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. SO THE PORTION OF THEIR PROJECT, WHICH THEY ARE TREATING, PROPOSING NOW TO TREAT VIRAL RETENTION BASIN. IS A 36,000 SQUARE FEET FROM WHERE THE REPORT. IF THIS WERE. YOU KNOW, JUST AN AN UNDEVELOPED SITE DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE THE PARKING LOT THERE. WHAT WOULD THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO TREAT INCLUDING YOU KNOW THE EXTRA PARKING LOT. I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING. LIKE I KNOW THE WATER POLO REPORT HAS LIKE 200,000 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH IS THE ROAD AND EXISTING PARKING AREA. HOW MUCH OF THAT IS ACTUALLY PART OF THEIR PARCEL. AND IF THIS WERE LIKE A GREEN FIELD LIKE YOU KNOW THEY THEY'D BE TREATING MUCH MORE THAN THAT. 16,000 I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU. IF THIS WERE IF THIS WERE NOT AN EXISTING PARKING LOT THEY WOULD HAVE TO THE ENTIRE PARKING LOT THEY WERE PROPOSING. UH, FOR WATER QUALITY AND THE WHOLE SITE FOR WATER. QUANTITY? YES. UM THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED RIGHT NOW, THEY THEY HAVE TO TREAT THEIR NET INCREASE. UH, FOR QUALITY.AND THEY ALL THE ALL THOSE SITES THAT THEY'RE DISTURBING FOR WATER QUANTITY. BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE ROOT OF MY QUESTION. BECAUSE IF IT GETS A LITTLE BIT MESSY, IF WE IF WE CONTEMPLATED THE OTHER SITES AROUND LIKE, ASSUMING THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A BIO RETENTION BASE AND I DON'T I DON'T. I'M SORRY IF THAT'S IF THAT'S INCORRECT. YEAH WHAT OTHER SITES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I THINK YOU WOULD JUST BE TALKING ABOUT THE AREA TO THE NORTH OF THIS OF THIS COUNTRY, RIGHT? I MEAN AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THERE TO THAT THERE AREAS OF THE NORTH? I MEAN, THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY'RE THEY. WE, UH THE AUTHORITY.
WHOMEVER WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS LEAVING THAT EXISTING PARKING LOT RIGHT BECAUSE YOU GET CREDIT FOR THAT EXISTING PARKING LOT. IT JUST THE RULE OF IT ANY TIME YOU SEE A PROPERTY WHERE YOU KNOW, THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IS LEFT THERE. IT'S SO THAT FOLKS CAN TAKE CREDIT FOR IT WHEN THEY UNDERSTAND IT. THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON WHY THAT THAT GETS DONE. THAT'S WHAT DEVELOPERS DO. AND I MEAN THIS IS A LAUDABLE PROJECT. IT'S 100, YOU KNOW, 100% AFFORDABLE PROJECT. I GUESS I GET THAT THAT'S AND THEY'RE THEY'RE DOING NOTHING. NO, NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER DEVELOPER WOULD DO, WHICH IS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AND THE WAY THAT THE RULES ARE WRITTEN. GET CREDIT FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND THE FULL THE PARKING LOT THAT EXISTS IS LARGER THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED. FOR THIS. I THINK THERE'S LIKE HALF OF IT'S NOT NOT EVEN TO THE PARKING LOT. YEAH, IF YOU LOOK ON THE SITE PLAN, I THINK IF KEVIN GO SCROLLS DOWN TO THE SAFE LAND, YOU'LL SEE UM THERE THAT SHOWS YOU THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THEIR SITE VERSUS WHAT THEY'RE LEAVING. SO THEY'RE LEADING THAT ENTIRE PARKING AREA THAT TO THE NORTH. AND IS THAT IN THIS PARCEL? NO, NO. NO, THAT'S THAT WOULD BE AGAIN. THAT'S THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THIS PARCEL. IT REMAINS ON THE IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY PROPERTY IF THERE'S A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND, WHETHER IT'S AFFORDABLE OR WHAT HAVE YOU THEY WOULD, THEN YOU KNOW, PROBABLY COME BACK IN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND SAY THIS IS EXISTING IMPERVIOUS. AND THEY'LL BE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER RULES ARE IN PLACE AT THAT TIME. WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE A DEVELOPER THAT SAYS THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOU BRAIN. WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. NO, I JUST HEAR IT ALL DRAINS INTO THE SAME BASIN DEVELOPER AT THAT TIME. WOULD SAY THE SAME THING, AND I BELIEVE THAT WHAT I'M SAYING, AND I'M NOT. I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS, BUT FROM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANT, MON, UM THIS IS PART OF PART OF IT AND NOT DOING ANYTHING. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT WAS PERHAPS KEEPING IT OPEN THE FUTURE FOR THE NEXT ROUND. THAT WAS THE INTENTION BEHIND ANY FUTURE DEVELOP MENT? YEAH, I. I DIDN'T WANNA SPEAK TO THAT. BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. YEAH. BUT WE HAVEN'T. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT ROUND YET. THAT'S WHY I KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT. AND WE MAY RECONSIDER IT AT THAT POINT RIGHT OR LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO PULL UP SOME OF THAT STUFF, BUT WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED THAT YET. AND THIS LATEST ROUND 11. MINOR COMMENT ON YOUR YOUR REVIEW MEMO. I THINK YOU YOU LEFT IN THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY WERE STILL CONVERTING. THEY WERE STILL PROPOSING TO CONVERT THAT IN MY MEMO, BUT THERE WERE THEY ARE NOT CONVERTING METHODS THAT BECAUSE IT WAS YEAH, IT WAS. IT
[01:15:01]
WAS PROBABLY A CARRY OVER FROM FROM A PRIOR MEMO. I APOLOGIZE. IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR MEMO THAT ISN'T ABOUT THE STORM WATER THAT YOU WANT TO POINT OUT EVERYTHING ELSE. LIKE I SAID, I'M I'M I'M GETTING USED TO NOT CALLING YOU MAYOR. LIKE I SAID, MISS KEENAN, THE, UM EVERYTHING ELSE IN OUR MEMO IS REALLY, UH, COMMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS AS PART OF, UH, THE COMPLIANCE REVIEW, WHICH THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO. YOU KNOW, THE SO WOULD YOU REITERATE AS TO THE RETENTION BASIN THAT WHEN YOU LOOKED AT IT AT THIS POINT, THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THEY NEEDED TO DO, OR THEY HAD TO DO. COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE I THINK IN HEARING OF THE DS IS PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT FACTOR. AND IF THAT WAS ALREADY SOMETHING THAT WAS THERE OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED. THAT'S YEAH, I'M I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT. IT'S BASICALLY WHAT YOU KNOW THE EXISTING. WHAT WAS HERE BEFORE WAS THAT WAS THE OFFICE PARK AND THIS LARGE PARKING LOT THAT YOU SEE ON ON AND THE EXISTING DETENTION BASIN WAS DESIGNED ACCOMMODATE THAT OFFICE PARK AND THE PARKING LOT. UM WHEN THE AFRICAN AND OBVIOUSLY THE BUILDINGS WERE TORN DOWN A WHILE AGO. THAT YOU CAME IN. IN A PRELIMINARY AND INDICATED THEY WERE GONNA CONSTRUCT THIS BUILDING TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXISTING PARKING LOT. AND THEY WERE PROPOSING THIS BY RETENTION BASIN AND THE SUBSURFACE INFILTRATION BASIN THAT'S ON THEIR ON THEIR PROJECT TO ADDRESS STORM WATER FROM THEIR SITE. THEY WERE ALSO PROPOSING TO RETROFIT THE EXISTING BASIN. WHICH WAS NOT REQUIRED AT THAT TIME. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY STATED. AT THE MEETING. UM I SORT OF THANK THEM FOR DOING IT AND BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, BUT THEY DIDN'T YOU KNOW IT WASN'T REQUIRED, BUT THEY WERE. THAT WAS A PREVIOUS MEETING AT THE PREVIOUS PRELIMINARY MEETING AND FINAL THAT WAS REITERATED THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WAS REQUIRED THAT WAS DOING IT. ABOVE AND BEYOND MEASURE, AND I THINK I SAID NO DEED GOES UNPUNISHED. HERE WE ARE. A FEW YEARS LATER, THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY HAS REALLY GONE. HAYWIRE AS FAR AS THE COST OF THINGS. I DON'T I KNOW THE APP DIDN'T REALLY GET TOO TOO MUCH INTO THAT. BUT COSTS ON PROJECTS HAVE GONE REALLY THROUGH THE ROOF PROJECTS THAT I WAS PRICING OUT TWO YEARS AGO THREE YEARS AGO THAT ARE MAY HAVE BEEN A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ARE NOW WELL OVER A MILLION DOLLARS. JUST BY RETENTION BASIN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COSTS ARE ON IT, BUT I IMAGINE THAT THE RETENTION BASIN PROBABLY COST AT LEAST DOUBLE WHAT THEY IMAGINED IT WOULD COST THREE YEARS AGO, WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED FOUR YEARS AGO, WHENEVER IT WAS BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD TREAT SOME PORTION OF THEIR PAY SERVICE ON THEIR PROPERTY IN A EXPANDED BY A RETENTION BASIN OR A SECOND FIRE EDITION BASIN IN IN THERE. UH, PARKING LOT. YEAH II. I WAS I WAS I WAS FOLLOWING ALONG WITH WITH THE CONVERSATION THAT THAT, UM WE HAD EARLIER WITH WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT. SO THEY ARE TREATING WITH THEIR BIO RETENTION BASE, AND THEY'RE TREATING THEIR ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS THAT THAT THEY HAVE THE AND THEY'RE DIRECTING THAT SO INTO IT. NOW, THE EXISTING PARKING LOT HAS AN EXISTING DRAIN SYSTEM. WHICH IS BASICALLY ALREADY PIPED. TO THIS DETENTION BASIN. SO THERE'S REALLY NO WAY FOR THEM TO TREAT A PORTION OF IT. THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD TREAT IT IS BY BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, RETROFITTING THAT EXISTING BASIN FOR THEM TO TREAT A PORTION THEY WOULD NEED TO REDESIGN THE ENTIRE SITE. I THINK AND MAYBE DISCONNECT SOME OF THAT EXISTING PARKING LOT, ROUTED INTO A NEW BASIN OF SOME KIND, WHICH I DON'T SEE ANY ROOM WHERE THEY HAVE ON THE SITE TO DO THAT, IN THE WAY THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO IT WOULD BE KEVIN ON THE FLY BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THEM. I LIKE DOING IT, BUT THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT IS BY ELIMINATING SOME OF THE PARKING EXPANDING THAT BASIN AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE EXTENDING THE PROPERTY FURTHER UP AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. THAT THAT'S IT WOULD BE A REALLY, UH WHOLESALE REDESIGN, AND EVEN AT THAT YOU NEED TO DO A VERY DETAILED REVIEW OF HOW YOU CAN GET SOME OF THAT PARKING LOT INTO THIS EXPANDED BASIN. I'M NOT SURE I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY'D BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU DO IT IS GO FURTHER UP. OH, CAUSE THE ENTIRE THIS ENTIRE SITE FLOWS DOWN ON TOP OF THE PAGE DOWN. SO THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN REALLY DO THAT IS LIKE CRE, CREATING A BASE AND MAYBE FURTHER OFF IN THE WATERSHED AND CAPTURING PARKING LOT FOR THE WATERSHED, WHICH MAY BE ABLE TO BE DONE AS A FEATURE PHASE OF SOME KIND. BUT TO DO IT AS PART OF THIS PROJECT WOULD BE WOULD BE REALLY DIFFICULT. AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE NEW UM, STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS FROM LAST YEAR THAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT BEFORE. UM AND SHOWING THAT YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH CURRENT AND PROJECTED STORM WATER RUNOFF. THEY'RE UH, MOST RECENT MENU. UH, MEMO. YOU KNOW, THEY'VE THEY'VE DONE THESE CALCULATIONS, YOU KNOW? I'M JUST WONDERING LIKE, EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO MEET THEM. WHY D? WHY DON'T WE JUST DO THE CALCULATIONS AND YOU CAN, CERTAINLY AND I. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I MEAN, WE CAN PROBABLY I[01:20:03]
CAN WORK WITH. AND THAT ENGINEERING AND GET CALCULATIONS FOR THE FOR THE FOR THE FUTURE RAINFALL EVENTS, UM IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT. IT'S GOING TO GIVE YOU HIGHER NUMBERS. BUT IN THE IN THE INTO THE BASIN IN THE IN THE PRE DEVELOPPED CONDITION ALSO GIVE YOU YOU KNOW, IT'LL GIVE YOU A HIGHER NUMBERS, TOO. SO IT'S GONNA SORT OF COME OUT IN THE WASH, BUT CERTAINLY FOR I'M GUESSING MORE ANALYTICAL PURPOSES. MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. WE CAN CERTAINLY GET THAT. I HAVE A PROBLEM. SO ONE OF THE A LITTLE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT BECAUSE I'M IN TOTAL AGREEMENT. IF THIS WAS A REGULAR DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS ONE THAT THE TOWNSHIP IS PARTNERING WITH IT. AND THE WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS FOUR YEARS AGO OR SOMETHING, I THINK, UM IT'S ALWAYS MUCH IT'S FAR LESS EXPENSIVE TO HAVE A DEVELOPER. DO SOMETHING THAT HAVE THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE TOWNSHIP BUILD SOMETHING SO PART OF THAT DISCUSSION AT THE TIME WHEN UNDER THOSE EXISTING STORMWATER THINGS WHEN RETROFITTING WASN'T AS UM AS COST PROHIBITED AS IT IS NOW, RIGHT IF IT HAD BEEN BUILT FOUR YEARS AGO TO THOSE STANDARDS, UM YOU KNOW, WE WERE LIKE, OH, THIS WOULD BE GOOD TO JUST GET IT DEALT WITH AS A YOU KNOW, CAUSE IT'S OUR OUR BASIN THAT WE ALL OWN. SO THE THINKING WAS IF THE DEVELOPER WOULD DO IT BECAUSE IT'S LESS EXPENSIVE. IF THEY DO IT, THEN UM, THAT WE TEND TO DO IT. THAT WAS THE THINKING AT THE TIME AND, UM, AND THEY HAD SAID SURE, IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE A BIG DEAL AT THE TIME. AND NOW, FOUR YEARS LATER, IT'S MUCH MORE, UM, HIGHER STANDARDS THAT THEY HAVE FROM EACH AND COST ARE BIGGER. THAT'S HONESTLY IT SO JUST A LITTLE CONTEXT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE THINKING WAS FROM A FROM THE TOWNSHIP A T THE TIME AND THE FACT THAT WE'RE ALSO PARTNERING WITH THIS AS PART OF OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE'RE CONTRIBUTING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS. THAT DOES EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS BEING DONE. IT WASN'T REQUIRED, BUT THE TOWNSHIP ASKED DEVELOPER TO DO IT BECAUSE I KNOW IT WAS A CATCH UP INITIATIVE TO DO THIS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN GAIL WAS HERE, AND ALSO NOW WITH MARK, WE DO DISCUSS THESE KIND OF PROJECTS OFTEN WHERE CAN WE RETROFIT SOME OF THESE EXISTING DRAINAGE BASINS TO MAYBE GET SOME MORE WATER QUALITY, GET SOME MORE DETENTION TO REDUCE RATES DOWNSTREAM. SO THERE THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE DO TALK ABOUT AND STUFF THAT WE'RE WE'RE DISCUSSING AS PART OF THE STORM WATER MASTER PLAN. UM SO THAT THAT DEFINITELY DOES EXPLAIN WHY THE AFRICAN PROPOSED THAT AT THAT TIME IF THE TOWNSHIP DID ASK BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CONSCIOUS HAS BEEN LOOKING AT DOING WITH THE EXISTING BASINS ALREADY. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. IT BECOMES A COST GENERATIVE ITEM, WHICH PROJECT CAN BE DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T YOU PROPOSE? IN THE FUTURE. I DON'T KNOW IT'S EVER GONNA GET CHEAPER. UH, BUT A IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THAT PRESENTS ITSELF, WHETHER IT'S A GRANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO RETROFIT NASON WOULD CERTAINLY I IMAGINE THE TOWNSHIP WILL PURSUE THAT. YEAH, WE HAVE A GRANT SO FAR FOR TWO, BUT THEY'RE VERY EXPENSIVE TO DO. JUST TO BE CLEAR. IT WAS NOT COST PROHIBITED BEFORE, BUT IT IS COST PROHIBITIVE NOW. I. I BELIEVE IT WAS COST BEFORE, TOO, BECAUSE I'VE NEVER SEEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT THAT GOES OUT OF ITS WAY TO SPEND BACK THEN I WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED $350,000. AND NOW IT'S PROBABLY I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS PROBABLY 7 $800,000 TO DO WHAT? WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING TO DO. I. I MEAN, I, I YOU KNOW, I GOT ON A 71 UNIT. I JUST IT DOES A LITTLE BIT UNSETTLING THAT THE TOWNSHIP ASKED FOR THAT THEY AGREED TO IT , AND THEN NOW THEY'RE COMING BACK TO DISAGREE WITH THAT. THAT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A OF A HOODWINKED NEGOTIATION. HIGHLIGHTED AS PART OF THE APP. CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE AND IT WAS MR TULLY HIGHLIGHTED THIS AS PART OF THE APPROVAL. I REMEMBER IN THIS MEETING, YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT THIS AS A BENEFIT AND THINGS TOWNSHIP THE TOWNSHIP WANT SO IT WAS A VERY IT WAS A SELLING POINT AT THE TIME THAT WE APPROVED THIS AND IF I MAY JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON A POINT I MADE BEFORE AND THE FOLLOW UP ON MS KEAN'S COMMENTS. YOU KNOW THE TOWNSHIP HAD MADE THE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT HAD AGREED TO DO IT. AS TIME HAS PROGRESSED, IT HAS BECOME COST PROHIBITIVE AND COST GENERATIVE AND THAT IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE TOWNSHIP, THE TOWNSHIP HAS AGREED THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE APPLICATION TO MAKE AND THAT'S WHY WE LOOK FOR YOU TONIGHT. UM SO NOT THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK ON AN OBLIGATION TO THE TOWNSHIP. THE TOWNSHIP IS AWARE OF, YOU KNOW OUR PRESENCE HERE THIS EVENING. AND DID NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION. BUT BUT IT WAS ONLY APPROVED LAST APRIL. RIGHT, SO WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING A YEAR. RIGHT SO WHEN, WHEN MISTER SHELLEY TESTIFIED ABOUT THIS CONVERSION AND HOW WE BE IT WAS LAST APRIL. NOT EVEN A YEAR. NO I. I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR YEARS, BUT I'M SAYING AS IT SOLD FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL. IT WAS LAST APRIL, RIGHT? SO YOU DIDN'T COME TO US LAST APRIL, WHEN THIS APPROVED THE OTHER. I I'M SORRY. I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BRIAN. I KNOW THAT, UM I GUESS THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE THEY'VE BEEN PARTNERING WITH THE TOWNSHIP ON RIGHT. THE OTHER[01:25:04]
OTHER OPTION THAT WE MAY HAVE IS UM IF THE EXISTING ASPHALT THAT'S THAT THE AP DOESN'T REQUIRE IF WE COULD CONVERT THAT REMOVE THAT CONVERT THAT TO SOME SORT OF YOU KNOW? PERFECT SURFACE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT'S AGAIN THAT'S NOT WITHIN THIS APPLICANT'S PURVIEW. BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I DON'T KNOW IF NATASHA WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER THAT. CUZ THAT EXISTING PARKING LOT IS NOT SERVING ANY PURPOSE. YEAH.THAT'S A AT A COST TO. SO CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE SAID NO RIGHT AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WITH HAVING OUR, UH, THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY HERE TO KIND OF HELP WITH AN AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THIS IS ALL WRAPPED UP INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE TOWN AND OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. IT'S NOT A SIMPLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT WE HAVE . SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT IF IT'D BE APPROPRIATE IF OUR TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY COULD WEIGH IN ON THIS JUST FROM THE TOWNSHIPS. LIKE WHAT? WHAT ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR? WHAT ARE WE PARTNERING WITH AND, UM WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF IT DIDN'T GO? I THINK THAT'S A GREAT I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT. SO THANK YOU. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY TO COME IN AND GIVE TESTIMONY? JUST ASK YOU I DON'T HAVE. I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TELL YOU TO DO IT. I WILL DEFER TO YOUR BOARD ATTORNEY. I. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM AT ALL.
UM I THINK HAVING THIS KOGI HERE WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE SHE HAS A PERSPECTIVE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE TOWNSHIPS. UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN. OK UM JUST TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN HEARING, AND SOME HAS BEEN STATED, AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT I'M GONNA RESTATE IT. THIS IS A REQUEST THAT CAME OUT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE TOWNSHIP STAFF. AND, UM MYSELF INCLUDED WITH THE PROFESSIONALS IN LOOKING AT FINANCING AND COSTS, AND THIS IS A MUNICIPALLY . IT'S CALLED A MUNICIPALLY SPONSORED PROJECT. IT IS WE'RE GRANTING THE LAND OR IN A PARTNERSHIP WITH R PM TO GET THESE 71 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED FOR THE TOWNSHIP TO DO. UM, SO WE ARE IN A PARTNERSHIP HERE, AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS AS A AND LET ME EXPLAIN BACK UP A LITTLE BIT MORE WHEN THESE 400% AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS COME TOGETHER. THERE ARE CERTAIN STEPS THAT ARE TAKEN AHEAD OF EVEN KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT FINANCING AND HOW MUCH MONEY THE DEVELOPER IS GONNA BE ABLE TO GET SO AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THE SITE, WHAT SHOULD YOU KNOW? WHAT ACREAGE IS GONNA GO TO OUR PM THIS THAT WHATEVER PASSING ORDINANCES, ZONING, ETC. WHAT IS WHAT IS A PM? I'M SORRY. YOU KEEP ME WHAT IS A PM? RR PM IS A DEVELOPER. R PM, RIGHT? I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU SAID R PM.
NO, NO! THE LETTER R 00, YOU ARE YES. SO SOME OF THE DELAY IN COMING BACK COMES AS WE KNOW WHAT MONEY IS AND WHAT POTS OF MONEY THERE ARE AVAILABLE TO GET THIS DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY BUILT, CONSTRUCTED AND IN SERVICE. UM THEY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB. THEY'VE WENT OUT AND SECURED EVEN GAP FUNDING, WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE STATE BECAUSE OF COVIDED COST OF CONSTRUCTION, CERTAIN PROJECTS WERE ABLE TO GET ADDITIONAL FUNDING BECAUSE OF THAT INCREASE, BUT AS WE WERE GETTING DOWN TO THE NITTY GRITTY OF THE NUMBERS THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE. YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS REALLY BECOMING, UM, COST PROHIBITIVE. TO GET THIS DEVELOPMENT DONE. SO. PRESUMABLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS IF THEY CAN'T GET ENOUGH MONEY TOGETHER AND THE TOWNSHIP CAN'T FIND ENOUGH MONEY TO HELP THEM BECAUSE THE TOWNSHIP DOES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FILL THE GAP. UM THE PROJECT DOESN'T HAPPEN. WE'RE SHORT 71 UNITS ON OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND WE'RE NO LONGER NOW IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR COURT ORDER.
SO THERE A RE SEVERAL OTHER PIECES OF THE PUZZLE, BUT JUST TO BACK UP ALSO AS TO WHY THE TOWNSHIP ALSO HAD ASKED FOR THIS. UH, BIO RETENTION BASIN AND WHY THE DEVELOPER WAS WILLING TO GRANT IT IS ORIGINALLY IT WAS CONTEMPLATED AS A TWO PHASE PROJECT. AND THIS DEVELOPER WOULD ALSO THEN DEVELOP TO THE NORTH AND THAT RETENTION BASIN. PART OF THE CONVERSION TO THE BIO RETENTION BASIN IS TO ALSO SERVICE. THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S COMING WOULD COME AT THE NORTH END OF IT. PHASE TWO HAS NOT MOVED FORWARD. THE TOWNSHIP HAS DECIDED TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT ROUND FOUR IS GOING TO BRING SINCE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, WITH THOSE 771 UNITS CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPLIANT. AND SO THAT'S ALSO PART OF WHY THIS IS ALL GENERATING MORE COST. IF THERE WAS A TWO PHASE DEVELOPMENT, THERE'D BE POTENTIALLY MORE POTS OF MONEY TO GO TO, THERE WOULD BE POTENTIALLY MORE UNITS. AS A 71 UNIT PROJECT, IT BECAME
[01:30:02]
DIFFICULT. I THINK THAT'S II. I THINK IT THE FROM THAT I HAVE AN ENGINEERING QUESTION. BUT IF ANYBODY HAS A QUESTION FOR THIS CLARIFICATION WAS VERY HELPFUL. QUESTION TO YOU. YEAH, III. I MEAN, THAT GOES BACK TO WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION THAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE OTHER OTHER PROPERTIES. I. I DIDN'T KNOW. WE WERE. WE HADN'T REFERRED TO IT AS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. SO BASED ON THAT TESTIMONY, IT DOES . IT WOULD SEEM TO ME AND I'M JUST CLARIFYING IT WITH YOU THAT IF THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH THAT A BIO RETENTION BASIN WOULD THEN BE REQUIRED IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT NOT CORRECT? WELL. LET ME LET ME CLARIFY THAT NOW, IF THAT EXISTING PARKING LOT REMAINS IT WOULD BASICALLY THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THAT NORTHERN PART PARCEL OF THE REMAINDER PORTION. WOULD GET CREDIT IN THAT EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER, SO BECAUSE THE WAY THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN, IT'S ANY NET INCREASE IN MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES. WHAT YOU HAVE TO TREAT FOR QUALITY. UH, SO THEY WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY A DEVELOPMENT OF THAT THAT THAT PARCEL TO THE NORTH WOULD PROBABLY HAPPEN THIS ALMOST VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THIS CURRENT APPLICATION IS WHICH THEY WOULD PROPOSE. UH OF SMALL SCALE BIO RETENTION BASIN. UM ON THEIR PROPERTY OR INFILTRATION BASED AND WHAT HAVE YOU SOMETHING THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS TO TREAT THE NET INCREASE? UM, ON THEIR SITE. AND THEN WE WOULD PROBABLY WE WOULD REQUIRE AN ANALYSIS SHOWING THAT THAT THEY RUNOFF IS REDUCED FROM THEIR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.UH, BEING DISCHARGED INTO THE THAT IN THE SYSTEM THAT GOES DOWN TO THAT DETENTION BASIN.
ALRIGHT, SOMEBODY COMING IN. NEW FROM THE DEVELOP MENT STANDPOINT WOULD ALSO GET CREDIT FOR THAT EXISTING PARKING LOT. YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. ITS EXISTING AND PURPOSE. YEAH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NOT NOT THE PARKING LOT THAT THAT THE APPLICANT IS OCCUPYING. THEY'RE NOT OCCUPYING THE SAME PARKING LOT. BUT IF YOU LOOK ON THE ON THE ON THE THAT AREA TO THE NORTH. THAT'S BEING HIGHLIGHTED RIGHT NOW. THAT'S AN EXISTING PARKING LOT. THAT'S THEY ARE CURRENTLY THAT THE APPLICANT THAT THIS APPLICANT DOES NOT NEED FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT. MAYBE A FUTURE APPLICANT THAT WOULD DEVELOP THAT AREA WOULD WOULD BE USING OR RECONSTRUCTING OR WHAT HAVE YOU AND RESURFACING. UH AND THEN. WE GET CRITICAL EXISTING PURPOSE. AND THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR. COULD YOU PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? I'M SORRY TO BE HARPING ON THIS, BUT IN HERE. AND THE NEW DEVELOPER WOULD ONLY HAVE TO DO THE SA ME AS THIS DEVELOPER DID WITH THE NEW, UH, BIO RETENTION BASIN FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. YES UNLESS THE REGULATIONS CHANGE, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER THE REGULATIONS ARE AT THAT TIME. SO BASED OFF A CURRENT REGULATIONS. THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THEY'D HAVE TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE MET THE RATE REDUCTIONS AND THE WATER QUALITY, AND AT THAT TIME, THEY'LL ALSO HAVE TO PROVIDE ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS, THE FUTURE BUILD OUT OUR FUTURE. UH, RAIN EVENT, SO, YOU KNOW, 100 YEARS UH, R THEM FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. SURE THAT THE THAT THEIR SYSTEM CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT AS WELL. THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WELL THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS BEING HELD TO THE MOST RECENT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH CAME OUT IN 2020. THERE WERE REQUIRED THAT, UH, THE ANALYSIS. SO THIS IS KIND OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF DECIDING NOT TO BREAK IT UP INTO PHASES TO NOT DO THE PHASES AND WE WERE QUITE INTENTIONAL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE ROUNDS AND ALL OF THIS STUFF, IT'S QUITE A BIG LIFT, AND A LOT OF UM, DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT. SO A T THE TIME WE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? LET'S JUST DO THE PHASE ONE NOT, I THINK KIND OF REALLY THINKING THE WHOLE THING THROUGH IT. IN TERMS OF FUNDING AND SO FORTH. SO UM, SO THAT'S WHAT THE DECISION FOR THAT THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE WAS AGAIN. LOOKING A T IT FROM AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERSPECTIVE AND THE ROUNDS AND STATE BEING COMPLIANT CURRENTLY, AND THEN KIND OF HAVING MORE OPTIONS IN THE FUTURE. WE'RE NOT BEING TIED TO SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, SO THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE FOR THE TOWNSHIP TO SAY , KEEP IT IN THE PROJECT, AND WE'LL PAY FOR THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY THAT'S ALWAYS AN OPTION. THAT'S RIGHT? BUT I, BUT I STILL FEEL LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST THE PORTION OF THEIR PARKING LOT THAT THEY'RE TAKING OVER HERE LIKE AND I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY, BUT BUT THERE'S GOTTA BE SOME WAY TO JUST TREAT THEIR OWN PARKING LOT. IF THERE WERE A NEW DEVELOPMENT, THEY'D HAVE TO DO IT, RIGHT? YEAH, BUT IT'S I MEAN, I TOTALLY SEE WHAT YOU'RE
[01:35:05]
SAYING. RIGHT? AND I AM, UH, HUGE, YOU KNOW? I MEAN, THAT EVERYONE CAN SAY THEY LIKE STORM WATER AND FLOODING. AND THIS DEFINITELY, UH, SOMETHING I'M PRETTY PASSIONATE ABOUT THE ISSUE, I THINK IS THE EXISTING PARKING LOT IS HUGE AND NO EXISTS, AND SO CARVING IT OFF IS AND IT'S THERE. IT CAN'T BE GRADED. IT CAN'T BE. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO IT? YES THEORETICALLY, IF IT WASN'T THERE, AND THEY WERE TO PUT IT IN THAT IT WOULD BE PART OF IT, BUT IT IS THERE AND SO UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S YOU KNOW, JUST CARVING OFF THE NUMBERS THAT THEY NEED. UM, AND THE FACT THAT THE I MEAN, JUST TO WE'VE ASKED SOME OF THE CHANGES TO KEEP SOME OF THE TREES AND SO FORTH, SO THEY MIGHT NOT EVEN WANT TO PUT THE PARKING LOT THAT RIGHT IF IT DIDN'T EXIST THERE ALREADY, SO IT'S JUST I THINK A DECISION THAT THE TOWNSHIP MADE, UM MANY, MANY YEARS AGO TOO, TO KIND OF CONSIDER IT SO, YES, YOU WE COULD SAY HOW MANY? HOW MANY SPACES ARE THERE AND WHAT WHAT IT WOULD BE, BUT I'M NOT SURE IT WOULD GET US ANYWHERE. YOU KNOW, BUT I DO I UNDERSTAND THE SENTIMENT TOTALLY. JUST TO BE CLEAR. AND MAYBE THIS QUESTION IS FOR THE TOWNSHIP FRATERNITY. UH, ATTORNEY IS IF WE DECIDED NOT TO AMEND THIS APPLICATION THAT IMPLY THAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY FORCING THE TOWNSHIP TO FIRE BY RETENTION BASIN.BECAUSE YEAH. IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THE AND I'M NOT A DIRECTLY, UM BUT IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THE MUNICIPALITY HAS AN OBLIGATION. BY COURT ORDER TO SEE THIS PROJECT TO FRUITION IF FUNDING IS THE CONCERN. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. NO, I JUST I FROM THE BEGINNING, THOUGH, THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING B RETENTION BASIN WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT.
OR WHATEVER, BY OUR OR WHATEVER. DETENTIONS DETENTION EXISTING EXISTING DETENTION BASIN BUT NOT POSSIBLE FUTURE EVEN THOUGH YOU WOULD YOU DID AGREE TO BUILD IT. THE EXISTING BASIN. THIS APPLICATION BE APPROVED, AS AMENDED WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE APPLICANTS. IF THERE IS A FUTURE PROJECT THAT REQUIRES IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT BASIN. THAT WOULD BE FOR A LATER DATE. BUT UM, THE EXISTING BASIN, AS IT STANDS TODAY, WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE AND THE BIO RETENTION BASIN THAT YOU'VE PROPOSED YOU WERE ALSO WILLING TO MAINTAIN. YES THE TWO THAT ARE THAT ARE ON OUR SITE. YES NO, NO. I MEAN, IF YOU WERE CONVERTED THE DETENTION BASIN TO THE BUYER INTENTION BASE, AND AS YOU PROPOSE, YOU ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO MAINTAIN THAT BY A RICH INTER BASIN. YEAH, OKAY. THANKS. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT AS WELL. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS POINT. UM ALL RIGHT NOW, I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE, UH, THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND NOW YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS YOURSELF AND, UH, COMMENT ON ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE, UM FROM YOUR OPINIONS OR WHATEVER. SO THE LECTERN IS YOUR. YES, PLEASE. YEAH, II. I SHOULD STATE THAT, UM YOU CAN KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MISTER. UH, GARY STANSKY AND I SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH. UM YOU WERE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AGAIN. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE BOARD NOW? I'M SORRY. UH, THEY'RE HERE. COM UH, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO AMEND THEIR APPLICATION. WHICH WAS VERY SUCCINCT. THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO THIS BI DETENTION AS ONE OF THE SELLING POINTS. AND NOW THEY'RE LOOKING TO LOOK AT THE COST OF IT AND WALK AWAY FROM THE PROJECT AND GO WITH THE CHEAPEST ROUTE POSSIBLE. AND MY CONCERN IS WHAT IS THAT GOING TO DO TO THE EXISTING WATER TABLE, WHICH THEY SAY WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM. I KNOW WATER, THE BEACH. I'VE HAD HOMES DOWN AT THE SHORE. MY SON HAS A HOME IN WESTCHESTER, WHICH IS VERY HILLY AND ROCKY, AND WE'RE DEALING WITH SOME TREM TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF WATER ISSUES WITH TOPOGRAPHY. UM. MY MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS BEING REVIEWED NOW BY THE BOARD WITH OUR SIGNS IN THE WITHIN IN IN THEIR MIND. I'M NOT SURE IF DOLLARS AND CENTS IS THE DISCUSSION FOR THIS PARTICULAR ROOM AT THIS TIME. I THINK THAT'S MORE FOR THE MAYOR'S OFFICE IN THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE. SO I WOULD LIKE FOR
[01:40:01]
THE BOARD TO LOOK AT THIS FROM A SCIENTIFIC WAY USING THE NUMBERS. THAT WAS PRESENTED AND DOING THE RIGHT THING. REALLY UH, FOR THE RESIDENTS OVER ON RED FOX COURT. NOW, MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE THAT I COULDN'T ASK BEFORE WAS MR SHELLEY MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A DETENTION BASE IN BEHIND THE BUILDING. WHAT IS BEHIND THE BUILDING NEED IS THAT ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE KRINOS AND TO REDD FOXX COURT OR IS BEHIND THE BUILDING? OVER IN NASSAU PALMER SQUARE II. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT IS. YEAH, I YEAH , I THINK IF YOU IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND YOU DON'T HAVE TO. BUT IF YOU DON'T MIND, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM AGAIN. THE BUILDING.AGAIN LOOK AT ON THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN. HERE THERE IS AN UNDERGROUND BASIN. I'LL CALL IT BEHIND THE BUILDING. UH THIS WOULD BE RED FOX COURT GOT YOU BACK BEHIND THERE. HOW FAR DO WE KNOW? ON THE ON THE SUBMISSIONS? UNDERGROUND. HOW DEEP DOES THAT GO? AND IS IT? PARALLEL THE BASE TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINES BEHIND THE, UH, PARALLEL TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS BLACK LINE IS THE NEW PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S 100 FT. AWAY FROM THE UH, THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS THAT BUT THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD HERE SO THE BASIN ITSELF IS 115 120 FT. FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE.
UH, BASING HIS UNDERGROUND PIPES. AGAIN. THEY A RE NOT INFILTRATION. BASING THIS? THESE ARE SOLID, WATERTIGHT FACING. ALL IT DOES IS IT HOLDS THE RUNOFF FROM THE ROOF, AND IT VERY SLOWLY LETS IT OUT INTO THAT INTO THE DETENTION BASIN. UM, THAT'S THERE NOW. SO THE DETENTION BASIN IS A CONCRETE BOTTOM. IT'S A IT'S A HARD BOTTOM, OR IS IT MORE LIKE A SEPTIC SYSTEMS? IT'S A HARD BOTTOM THERE. UH, LARGE PLASTIC PIPES THAT ARE ALL CONNECTED.
ALREADY. UM SO IF I WAS A VOTING MEMBER, I WOULD SAY HOLD THEM TO THE APPLICATION THAT THEY SUBMITTED THAT WAS APPROVED ON APRIL 10TH OF LAST YEAR. UM SKEPTICAL THAT YOU KNOW THERE'S OTHER APPLICATION THAT THEY NEED TO GO TO HAVE. AMEND IT. AND THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS NOT QUITE KOSHER, AS THEY SAY. SO I DO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANKS FOR YOUR OPINION. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE ORIGINAL NOT BEING KOSH. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO A T ALL TO OFFER THEIR OPINION? RIGHT NOW. LEVANA KATRINA'S AS I SAID, BEFORE I DO LIVE IN THAT HOME IN THE BACK. UH, THERE'S A RIVER THERE NOW. WHEN IT RAINS. I HAVE A RIVER IN MY BACKYARD THAT WATER IS NOT GOING ALL OF IT INTO THE DETENTION. BASIN IT'S FLOODING AT MY PROPERTY AND OR MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTIES. YOU ALL I'VE BEEN HEARING NOW IS ABOUT COST, AND FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN THEY STARTED THIS PROJECT, AND THEY DECIDED THAT THIS PROJECT WAS GONNA HAPPEN. WELL. THERE'S A PRICE. YOU KNOW, PRICE AND BUSINESS. THAT'S HOW BUSINESS IS. FOUR YEARS AGO, THINGS WERE DIFFERENT NOW. HERE WE ARE. IF THERE'S A HIGHER COST. WELL, YOU'RE GONNA PAY IT. THAT'S THAT'S BUSINESS. SO THEREFORE THAT'S IF YOU WANNA BUILD IT. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO. WE APPROVED IT WITH THAT BASIN. AND WE DID NOT COME. WE SAID OK, FINE. BUT NOW THAT THEY ARE RENEGING ON IT, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE HAPPENING. II. I JUST IT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S NOT FAIR TO US THAT WE LIVE IN MONTGOMERY FOR 30 YEARS. WE HAVE HOMES. YOU DON'T LIVE HERE. I DO. OK, AND I'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THAT BUILDING.
AND YOU'RE WORRYING ABOUT THE LIGHTS. THE FIRST OF ALL THIS UH, MUNICIPAL BUILDING WAS NOT HERE. IT'S MASSIVE. OK WHERE'S ALL THIS WATER GOING NOW? WE'RE GOING TO BUILD OTHER BUILDINGS.
WHERE'S THAT WATER GONNA GO? IT'S GONNA BE AN ISSUE AND THEN LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD. YOU WANNA BUILD ANOTHER PROPERTIES? WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN? I MEAN, WE KEEP ON GIVING PERMITS PERMITS PERMITS, AND HERE WE ARE. SO YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO PUT THAT BASIN WE ACCEPTED THAT. FINE WELL, NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO RENEGE. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA SAY LATER ON DOWN THE LINE. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA ASK FOR NEXT? THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND AKA
[01:45:04]
I TELL THE TRUTH. YES SO I AM THE NEIGHBOR ALSO OF LEVANTE. I LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AND DEFINITELY THE WATER IS ACTUALLY BEING RETAINED. ON THE LONG PRETTY MUCH EVERY TIME IT RAINS.AND WHAT WE HERE TODAY? HE JUST BASICALLY THAT IN 2021. THEN THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED. FOR A CONSENSUS THAT THE BIO BASIN WILL BE PART OF THE APPROVAL AND IT WAS RIGHT. SO THERE WERE THE BASIS OF THAT APPROVAL. AND NOW OF COURSE, YOU KNOW FOUR YEARS LATER. WE'RE COMING TO THE RECOGNITION THAT THE COSTS ARE PROHIBITIVE. AND NOW WE'RE TRYING TO WALK AWAY FROM THE YOU KNOW WHAT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE TOWNSHIP, AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY VERY GOOD TO HEAR, AT LEAST FOR ME WAS THE TOWNSHIP ACTUALLY HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THIS BY YOUR, UH, YOU KNOW, THE RETENTION BASED IN IS THE MA . IT'S NOT JUST NICE TO HAVE, BUT IT'S A MUST AND THEN WHETHER IT'S PART OF THIS PROJECT CURRENT PROJECT OR IN THE BUT IT'S A MUST. SO I THINK AT LEAST I FELT YOU KNOW VERY GOOD THAT THAT YOU REPRESENT US. YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT US THAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY PLANNING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS BIO DETENTION BASIN, THE MOST ACTUALLY PROPER WAY IT WILL BE TO DO THIS TO HOLD THE YOU KNOW THE BASIC THE APPROVAL TO THE POINT THAT YES, IT WAS ONCE PART OF THE APPROVAL. IT SHOULD BE PART OF APPROVAL NOW, RIGHT? BECAUSE WHAT HAS CHANGED? AND WE STILL WILL BE DEALING WITH THE FACT THAT YOU KNOW THIS, AND THAT'S THE REASON I ALSO ASK ABOUT THE DETAIL, ANALYSIS, DETAIL MODELING HAS SOMEONE DONE AND CALCULATED, YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU KNOW NOW THIS STAGE VERSUS WHAT WILL BE WHEN WE WILL INCLUDE THIS ADDITIONAL 71 UNITS. THAT'S A MASSIVE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF ACTIVITIES AND, OF COURSE, UM, THE WATER THAT IT WILL BE GENERATED. SO I WOULD LIKE TO, ACTUALLY, UM THINK THE TOWNSHIP FOR REPRESENTING US ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE THERE WERE REALLY EXCELLENT QUESTIONS AND POINTS RAISED HERE, BUT THE SAME TIME LET'S ACTUALLY BE HONEST AND LET'S HOLD. YOU KNOW THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL AND THEN BASICALLY HAVE THAT IN CONJUNCTION WITH BUILDING THE BIO RETENTION BASIN. TO HELP US FOR THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. C. I HAVE ONE MORE, UM, COMMENT THAT THAT MAY HELP MAY NOT, BUT IT'S NOT A DIRECT QUESTION RELATED TO THEM. THEY'RE AS A MEMBER KEENAN HAD MENTIONED EARLIER. THE TOWNSHIP DID GET GRANT MONEY FOR BY A RETENTION BASINS FOR TWO. IT WAS TRIED TO MOVE IT TO THE SITE. IT DIDN'T WORK, BUT JUST BEYOND THE TREE LINE OF THIS EXISTING BASIN IS ANOTHER BASIN, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS GIVEN GRANT MONEY FOR SO THE TOWNSHIP IS LOOKING TOWARDS GETTING THAT ADJACENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TREE LINE. CLOSER TO RED FOX RUN HAVING THAT, UH, DETENTION BASIN. DONE AS A BIO RETENTION, SO JUST WANTED TO LET THE RESIDENTS KNOW THAT CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT THAT WOULD BE A WHAT THAT GRANT WOULD BE APPROVED. NOW THE GRANT WAS, UH, IT'S A MATCHING GRANT. IT WAS ALREADY RECEIVED. IT'S JUST IN IN, UM THE AND REMEMBER KEENAN. I IS WELL AWARE OF IT. I THINK SHE WAS INVOLVED WITH GETTING IT, BUT IT'S IN YOUR ENGINEERING STAFF'S REVIEW RIGHT NOW TO SEE HOW TO GET THAT CONSTRUCTED. BUT THE GRANT MONEY WAS ALREADY WAS ALREADY AWARDED.
THAT WAY. DO WE HAVE ANY PICTURE OR ANYTHING THAT I MEAN, THAT SEEMS LIKE VERY, VERY PERTINENT INFORMATION, ACTUALLY. SO THANK YOU FOR SLIDING THAT IN, UM THANK YOU TO YOUR RESIDENTS WHO MADE COMMENTS AND REMINDED ME TO SAY SOMETHING GREAT. GREAT WELL CAN GET, UM DO DO WE HAVE ANY CONTEXT FOR THAT? BECAUSE I, I COULD I COULD JUST BACK JUST BACKFILL IT AS PART OF THE NEW STORMWATER REGULATIONS. WE HAD TO DO AN AUDIT OF ALL OF OUR BASINS IN THE TOWN, AND FROM THAT THERE'S OVER 200 BASINS AND THE MUNICIPAL ITSELF OWNS SOMETHING LIKE 55. THE COUNTY OWNS SOME THEIR THEY'RE NO LONGER TAKING THEM. UNFORTUNATELY I'M SORRY THE COUNTY OWNS SOME AND THE REST ARE ALL PRIVATE. WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT THE COUNTY? I'M SORRY.
SO THERE'S ABOUT OVER 200 RIGHT. THE MUNICIPALITY OWNS SOMEWHERE AROUND 55 THE REST. THERE'S MAYBE 20. I THINK THAT WERE COUNTY OWNED AND THEN THE REST ARE OWNED BY HOAS PRIVATE. YEAH I MEAN THEIR DEVELOPMENTS OR THEIR PRIVATE P. YOU KNOW, IT'S PRIVATE. SO YOU KNOW, BY DOING THAT WHOLE ANALYSIS, THEN WHAT WE DID IS WE SAID, WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THE MUNICIPALLY OWNED ONES AND WE WENT. WE'VE BEEN PUTTING IT FOR GRANTS TO SEE HOW WE CAN, UH DO THAT. SO THERE WAS A STUDY DONE ON, UH, BUT ALL OF THEM AND TWO WERE IDENTIFIED AS THE ONES THE MOST. UH, IMPACTFUL THAT WE SHOULD DO. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE PLAN IS TO DO WITH THOSE TWO. AND WHICH TWO
[01:50:05]
WERE THEY? I MEAN, IS IT THE ONE THAT THE IT'S NOT THIS ONE? NO IT BECAUSE THIS ONE WAS NOT CONSIDERED A OR THIS ONE I THINK IS OWNED BY THE COUNTY. RIGHT SO THE COUNTY AUTHORITY SO THE ONES WE WERE LOOKING AT ONES WERE MUNICIPALLY OWNED, AND THAT WAS SOMEWHERE. UH, RIGHT OUTSIDE THIS BORDERS TOWARDS A RED FOX. I HAVE A PICTURE, BUT OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T SHARE IT ON MY PHONE.RIGHT? SO THAT'S UM YEP. HAVE A PICTURE TOO, OKAY? MAYBE THEY CAN PUT IT ON THE COMPUTER. YES.
WHERE IS RED FOX? I MEAN, WHERE DOES YEAH, BUT WE'RE ON RED FOX, I GUESS. MM. I KNOW WHERE RED FOX IS. I'M I'M BUT WE ON WHICH BASIN, IS IT? YEAH. THAT WILL BE IT. THAT? YEAH. I'M SORRY FOR CONTEXT. THIS BLACK HATCH LINE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE EXISTING BASIN THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. LOCATED GENERALLY IN THIS AREA. THIS OPENING RIGHT OVER HERE. ABOUT RED COURT.
THERE'S ALSO NEW INFORMATION, SO TO BE TO BE CLEAR, I JUST I DON'T KNOW THAT. I THINK THAT THIS IS THAT RELEVANT BECAUSE THE WATER FLOWS INTO THE BASEMENT OF THE BASEMENT THAT IS GONNA FLOW IN AND WE'RE NOT TREATING, UH, THIS FOR TS, YOU KNOW 90% ON THE TOTAL PERCENT OF SOLIDS, NO MATTER WHAT YOU'RE DOING AT THAT OTHER BASE AND THROW ALL THE WATER THAT FLOWS INTO TO THIS WELL, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WATER QUALITY, WHICH I THINK YOU'VE SPOKEN VERY GENUINELY ABOUT IT. AND I THINK YOU YOU C CONCERNS A REC CERTAINLY BAD AND IN MY OPINION. VERY WELL SAID, BUT I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING MY READING I GUESS WE'RE IN BOARD DISCUSSION NOW. RIGHT OK, SO MY READING IS THAT THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS ARE MAINLY ABOUT WATER, WATER, WATER FLOW, RIGHT. UM, SO THE TWO THINGS LIKE IT AND THANK YOU, UM, FOR THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY TO A POINT THIS OUT BECAUSE IF THE GRANT MONEY EXIST TO FIX THAT BASIN RIGHT THERE THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE WATER FLOW. I MEAN, WATER DOESN'T RESPECT PROPERTY LINES RIGHT AS WE AS WE KNOW. UM I GUESS I I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO DO ENGINEERING ON THE FLY, BUT I. I MEAN, FROM WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S POSSIBLE TO BE IMPROVED. JUST BY THAT VISUAL. IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT? WHAT'S THAT IT'S NOT APPROVED. IN SENSE. IT'S JUST A PROJECT THAT WE'RE UNDERTAKING. RIGHT WE OWN IT. SO THERE'S NOT AN APPROVAL PER SE. BUT NO, NO IMPROVED, NOT APPROVED THAT COULD BE IMPROVED. IT. IT REALLY DEPENDS ON ON ON WHAT WE'RE WHAT THE RETROFITTING CONSISTS OF RIGHT SO THERE. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS YOU CAN DO TO DETENTION BASIN, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE. SO IF THE CONCERN IS THAT THE BASIN IS NOT ACTUALLY PERFORMING ANY KIND OF WATER QUALITY FUNCTION, WHICH IS MOST OF THE RETROFIT PROJECTS THAT THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN IS WHEN YOU HAVE THESE OLD OLD SCHOOL BASINS WHERE THERE'S A CONCRETE CHANNEL AT THE BOTTOM OF IT, AND THE WATER IS JUST GOING FROM THERE. ENVELOPE LOCATION ALL THE WAY STRAIGHT TO THE OUTFLOW, AND THERE'S NO REAL DETENTION OR WATER QUALITY BENEFIT. WE SOMETIMES WILL WILL ACTUALLY, UH, FLATTEN OUT THE BOTTOM BREAK UP THAT CONCRETE CHANNEL. PLANT THE BASIN WITH WITH VEGETATION TO NATURALIZE IT AND GET MORE WATER QUALITY OUT OF IT. THE WATER QUANTITY BENEFIT DOES COME THROUGH IN THAT THE WATER ISN'T JUST FLOWING STRAIGHT THROUGH THE BASIN SO DOWNSTREAM QUANTITY IS AIDED IN THAT REGARD, BUT THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THAT WOULD AGAIN BE WATER QUALITY AND WITH A WITH A SIDE BENEFIT OF QUANTITY. NOW, IF THERE'S A QUANTITY CONCERN A LOT OF TIMES. WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS INCREASING THE VOLUME OF A BASIN AND MAYBE RETROFITTING THE OUTLET STRUCTURE. TO METER THE WATER, SO IT'S SLOWER IN GETTING OUT, SO IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE PROJECT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OR TAKING, SO I COULDN'T.
I COULDN'T SAY IT. THERE'S NO GENERAL ANSWER THAT SAYS YES, UH RETROFITTING WILL AFFECT WILL IMPROVE QUANTITY OR QUALITY. IT REALLY DEPENDS ON ON WHAT YOU WHAT THE ISSUES ARE AND THEN WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. AS A RETROFIT. HM? AS A FOR A NON ANSWERS FOR YOU. YEAH. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE BIO BASIN IS GOING TO HELP MORE WITH THE QUALITY THAN THE QUANTITY OF THE WATER. I'M SORRY, MAYOR. I MISSED THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION. OK, SO I WAS JUST GONNA ASK YOU. DO YOU THINK THE BIO BASIN AS I'M HEARING YOU IS GONNA HELP MORE WITH THE QUALITY OF THE WATER THAN THE QUANTITY. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. ABSOLUTELY 100% AND THE, UM CAN I JUST SAY WHICH BASEMENT? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WHICH BASIN, ARE YOU? I THINK THE MAYOR IS ASKING ABOUT THE THIS PROJECT THAT WE'RE TALKING THE CURRENT PROJECT. SO OK IN THIS ONE, OK, YOU GOT MONEY. SO I WENT THROUGH THOSE NUMBERS EARLIER WITH THIS WITH THOSE THREE CHARTS IN THE
[01:55:03]
ADDENDUM THAT MR HAMILTON REFERRED TO AND THERE WASN'T A REAL APPRECIABLE. DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTITY. THERE'S A ONE CFS DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTITY FOR THE TWO YEAR STORM. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY FROM THE PRIOR NUMBERS, SO THERE WASN'T A REAL APPRECIABLE IMPACT ON WHAT QUANTITY WHETHER THEY'RE RETROFITTING BASIN OR NOT. REALLY, THE IMPACT WOULD HAVE BEEN A WATER QUALITY. I THINK MR SHELLEY WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. BUT BUT I MEAN, YES. I DEFINITELY AGREE LIKE THE QUALITY IS IMPORTANT AND PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT HERE.BUT THE QUANTITY, THOUGH, LIKE IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE RUNOFF RATES, WHICH YOU KNOW MAIL WHEN YOU CHANGE BY ONE CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WHATEVER, BUT THE MAXIMUM STORAGE THAT IS IN. THAT SA ME MEMO. IF WE LOOK AT THE TWO YEAR STORM THE MAXIMUM STORAGE WITH THE BIO AND THE 67. COMPARED TO 49,000. RIGHT. SO WE'RE HOLDING 1000 CUBIC FEET MORE IN THAT V BASIN THAT'S NOT RELEASED. INTO THE DOWN, YOU KNOW, DOWNSTREAM INTO BEN'S BROOK. AS QUICKLY RIGHT 20,000. THAT'S A LOT RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S ACTUALLY, UH SO YOU KNOW, LIKE IT'S 20 OR, LIKE 33% SO THE QUANTITY DIFFERENCE REALLY? UH BUT REALLY NOT. I'M SORRY. NOT THE VOLUME DIFFERENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE IN THE APPLICANT WAS ACTUALLY PROPOSING. AND THAT NUMBER BY THE WAY CORRECTLY, 70,000. IS BECAUSE THEY WERE ACTUALLY UM, EXCAVATING OUT AND THEN PUTTING BACK UH, CERTAIN VOLUME OF SOIL AND I AGAIN. I THINK MAYBE MR SHELLEY CAN SPEAK TO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THERE SHOULD BE LESS.
VOLUME IN THE PROPOSED CONDITION. WITH THE RETROFIT THAN AN EXISTING CONDITION BECAUSE THEY WERE THEY WERE GONNA ACTUALLY BE BRINGING SOME SOIL IN TO FILL IN, SO THEY WERE EXCAVATING AND BRINGING SOIL IN UM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DOWNSTREAM FLOODING THAT HAS TO DO WITH A AS A FUNCTION OF RATE. NOT REALLY TOTAL VOLUME BECAUSE YOU YOU'RE HOLDING WATER BACK AND LETTING THAT AT A CONTROLLED RATE SO FLOODING YOU TALK ABOUT DOWNSTREAM FLOODING IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH FAST. THE WATER IS COMING OUT OF THE BASIN, THE OVERALL VOLUME IS JUST THE VOLUME THAT'S BEING DETAINED. AND EVENTUALLY, ALL THAT SPLITTING BEING LET OUT, SO EVEN THE 70,000 THAT'S BEING HELD EVENTUALLY GETS OUT. SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DOWN FLOODING, YOU REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. AND IN YOUR OPINION. THIS. BARELY INCREASES THE RATE ONE CFM CS. C FX. UM YES, IT'S A TO GO BACK TO THE NUMBERS. IT WAS IN THE EXISTING CONDITION AT 6.78. UH, CFS IS WHAT'S BEING DISCHARGED CURRENTLY IN THE PROPOSED CONDITION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 5.64 CFS. SO, YEAH, THAT'S UM A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 1.14 CS S. 6.8 TO 5.4. 5.64 IT WAS LIKE A 20% INCREASE. THE NUMBERS A RE SO AS THE BASIN IS RIGHT NOW. 6.78 CFS LEAVES IT IN THE TWO MONTHS IN THE IN THE CURRENT CONDITION. BY NOT CONVERTING IT INTO A BIO RETENTION LEAVING THE BASIN THE WAY IT IS. THAT NUMBER IS 6.81 WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT DONE SO 300 OF A CHANGE IN JUST THAT TWO YEAR STORE. THE 10 YEAR STORE IS A 900 TH REDUCTION. 100 YEAR. STORM IS A 3/10 REDUCTION IN THE FLOW THAT LEAVES THE BASIN. THAT'S ALL. ACCOMPLISHED BY THE MEASURES THAT WERE INTRODUCING ON OUR SITE BECAUSE WE LET THE RUNOFF LEAVE OUR SITE. SLOWER THAN IT DOES TODAY. SO BY NOT TOUCHING THAT BASIN AND BY MAKING OUR IMPROVEMENTS WE ARE STILL AFFECTING OR REDUCING THE RUNOFF THAT LEAVES THAT BASIN WITHOUT TOUCHING IT. BUT THERE ARE THREE CONDITIONS RIGHT THERE IS THE EXISTING RUNOFF WITH WITHOUT ANYTHING DONE. THERE'S THE RUNOFF WITH WITHOUT TOUCHING THE BASIN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN THERE'S THE RUNOFF WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND A NEW BASIN SO AND YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THE THOSE TWO THINGS. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE DIFFERENCE? IN. THE RUNOFF BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE BIO RETENTION BASIN AND THE DEVELOPMENT. WITH THE CURRENT BASIN. THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT I GAVE YOU EARLIER, WHICH IS A 20% INCREASE IN DISCHARGE RATE. FROM THE ENHANCED YEAH, FROM FROM AS FAR AS THE TWO YEAR RUN OFF GOES, IT'S 20% TO OR BASED FROM WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING WHEN YOU RETROFIT THE BASIN. VERSUS NOT RETROFITTING THE BASIN. AND THAT MAYBE I MEAN, IT'S NOT IN THESE MEMOS, BUT I WOULD ASK LIKE FOR
[02:00:02]
IDA, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE WE HOUSES FLOODED ALONG. WHAT WAS IT SORRY. NO I JUST COULDN'T SAY SO. WHAT WHAT WERE THE RUNOFFS? YOU KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS FOR IDA. BUT BUT, UM WHEN YOU GET TO THE LARGEST STORM EVENTS, IT'S YOU KNOW? WE GOT TWO IDA WAS PROBABLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN A 10 AND A 100 YEAR EVENT. RIGHT? AND SO WE KNOW WE HAD FLOODING THERE. SO EVEN IF WE GET TO THOSE LEVELS, WE'RE NOT. BUT AT THOSE LEVELS, THE NUMBERS ARE ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS. NOT AS AS AS UM YOU KNOW? YES. I GUESS YOU COULD SAY CAUSE IT'S WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 16.07 CFS IN WITH THE BIO RETENTION BASIN VERSUS 7.17 0.3 CFS WITHOUT A BIOGENIC BASIS FOR A 10 YEAR STORM. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? 1.2 CFS DIFFERENCE. WHICH IS LESS THAN A 10% INCREASE. RIGHT OVER THE FIRE RETENTION BASIN AND THEN 100 A YEAR. TALKING ABOUT 38.01. VERSUS 38.28. SO AS YOU WHICH AGAIN STANDS TO REASON, BECAUSE WITH THE HIGHER STORMS, THE WATER IS JUST COMING IN. AND BY RETENTION ISN'T REALLY DOING A WHOLE LOT FOR TO DETAIN THE WATER. EXPLAIN THE WATER GO OUT LIKE IT WAS BEFORE. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENCE FOR THE 100 YEAR STORM OF 0.27 CFS. THAT'S WITH THE BUYER. ATTENTION VERSUS NOT THE FOR THE EXISTING WITH THE BUYER RETENTION THIR 38.01 FOR THE 100 YEAR STORM VERSUS 38.28. SO IT HELPS A LOT MORE WITH, UH, TWO YEARS FORMS. REALLY WELL, YEAH, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. WHEN I SAY FLOODING YOU YOU BUY TENTION ISN'T REALLY HELPING THE FLOODING SO MUCH AS YOU KNOW? IT'S HELPING WATER QUALITY WATER QUALITY. THAT SO WE'RE WE'RE REALLY LOOKING A T. I MEAN, THIS ISN'T AN IDEAL SITE. IT'S ALREADY COMPROMISED, RIGHT? THAT THE PARKING LOT ALREADY EXISTS SO TO SOME DEGREE, RIGHT? ALMOST MORE THAN SOME DEGREE THAN IT'S ALREADY THERE, AND IT'S NOT GREAT. I MEAN, IF WE WERE TO TOTALLY RETROFIT OR RENEW THE WHOLE AREA, IT WOULD LOOK TOTALLY DIFFERENT, RIGHT. WE PULL UP EVERYTHING AND NOT BUILD IT ALL, BUT WE'RE DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY THERE AND LOOKING AT THE THIS ISN'T HELPING FROM A STRONG PERSPECTIVE, AND IT AIN'T HURTING WORSE THAN IT ALREADY IS . RIGHT THAT'S UNFORTUNATELY WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE, YOU KNOW, FROM A FLOODING STANDPOINT , IT'S NOT MAKING A HUGE DIFFERENCE SINCE THE WATER QUALITY AND THAT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY MY OPINION OR BASED OFF AS JUST BASED OFF THE FACTS BASED OFF THE NUMBERS. IF FLOODING IS A CONCERN IT REALLY BY RETENTION VERSUS NOT HAVING IT ISN'T MAKING A DIFFERENCE. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THAT OPINION THAT VERY CLEAR I. I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION ON THE ON THE ONE. THAT'S UM, THE MONEY THE GRANT MONEY THAT WAS RECEIVED. THAT WAS FOR THAT. THAT BASED ON THAT'S CLOSER TO THE RED FOX THAT'S GONNA BE TARGETED. AND LEFT THERE IF IT'S APPROVED, RIGHT? IT'S NOT AN APPROVAL. IT'S A PROJECT THAT'S ALREADY UNDERWAY. IT'S BECAUSE IT'S BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE MUNICIPALITY AND WE'VE GOTTEN GRANT MONEY FOR IT. THAT'S BEEN OKAY, WELL, WHAT I'M WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN IMPROVE THE FLOODING CONDITION AS WELL. RIGHT QUARTER QUALITY QUALITY DEPENDS. IT WOULD FOR THE TWO YEAR STORM, BUT NOT FOR THE TWO YEAR STORMS, RIGHT? AND YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST SITTING THERE WITH THE WATER JUST SITTING THERE, AND IT'S GOT A CONCRETE BOTTOM. NOTHING'S HAPPENING THERE, RIGHT SO IT WILL IMPROVE AND THESE ARE ALL IMPROVEMENTS, ADDING MORE TREES AROUND. WE WANT TO RIP UP THE WHOLE PARKING LOT. WE COULD.WE COULD DO A LOT FOR THE STUFF THAT IT MADE. UM THE DECISIONS THAT WE CAN MAKE, I GUESS AS A MUNICIPALITY. YEAH DEFINITELY REALLY STUCK BETWEEN SO WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPMENT. IF IT'S A REGULAR DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT, WE WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT. THIS WE'RE LOOKING TO LOOK AT THIS, WHICH IS VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS. RIGHT IT'S 100% AFFORDABLE AND THERE'S THE LAWS THAT COME INTO PLACE WHEN IT'S 100% AFFORDABLE. RIGHT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. SO YEAH, WE WERE REALLY HOPEFUL THAT WE WERE LIKE A GREAT WE COULD MAYBE GET SOMETHING THROWN IN. AS A BENEFIT, YOU KNOW, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE TO. IF WE DON'T DO IT, THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER HUGE PROBLEM, WHICH IS THE YOU KNOW WE'RE AT A DEFICIT AND THE VERY LARGE DEFICIT THAT IS FROM OUR SETTLEMENT FOR THEM TO THE THIRD ROUND. AROUND. SO THEN WE WOULD BE GOING IN, YOU KNOW? IT'S JUST STINKS. BUT AGAIN, WE COULD ALWAYS YOU KNOW, TRY TO DO IT ON HER OWN AND RAISE TAXES OR SOMETHING FOR IT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW THE MUNICIPAL WHEN IT COMES OUR BASIN, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW. IF YOU WE DO HAVE OPTIONS IN THE FUTURE. WE WERE HOPING TO RECTIFY IT NOW. YOU
[02:05:05]
KNOW? UM AND AGAIN. AND WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE I'LL BE HONEST. DO NOT GET THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THE EDUCATION HAS TO BE BETTER IN ALL OF NEW JERSEY. IF I CAN SAY THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY IS MISSING BECAUSE I HEAR THIS ALL THE TIME FROM PEOPLE AS TO WHY ARE YOU BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING? YEAH WE'RE WE'RE PAYING THE DEBT OF NOT DOING IT IN THE PAST. EXACTLY THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. WELL, I MUST SAY, I JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT MONTGOMERY IS WELL AHEAD AHEAD OF WHERE MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN AND FRANKLY, WE'VE BEEN PUSHING BACK AT SOME OF THE UM THE NEXT ROUND THAT COMES UP. WE WANT TO LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH EVERYBODY ELSE THAT NEEDS TO PUT IN SOME MONTGOMERY HAS BEEN. I THINK VERY RESPONSIBLE IN THAT REGARD. UM AND THAT'S NOT IT'S FRANKLY IT'S THOSE DECISIONS ARE LEST 20 YEARS 30 YEARS SO NOW WE JUST HAVE TO KIND OF BALANCE WHERE WE'RE AT. YOU KNOW WHERE WE'RE AT. CHAIRMAN, CAN WE CALL THE QUESTION? YEAH I, UM I JUST WANTED TO ASK TWO QUESTIONS FROM MR PONTIER OF FIRST. MR SHELLEY. YOU WERE REFERRING TO CERTAIN PAGES OF THE AMENDED SIDE PLAN IS THAT CORRECT? WOULD YOU LIKE THOSE MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT? IF YOU CAN LET ME KNOW WHAT THOSE SHEETS WERE? PATIENTS ARE NOT NEW THIS EVENING. BUT IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE DENMARK IF YOU WOULD JUST TELL ME, MR SHELLEY ACT THAT WASN'T A UTILITY PLAN.AND YES, I HAVE USED THE SURVEY. OR THEY JUST THINK CONDITIONS PLAN. SHOOT, TOO. HMM. AS WELL AS THE UTILITY PLAN. ONE, WHICH WAS SHED SEVEN. ALSO REFERENCED THE LANDSCAPING PLAN ON SHEET NINE. THE LIGHTING. ONE SHEET 10. RIGHT SO WHY DON'T WE SAY COLLECTIVELY? THAT WOULD BE YOUR EXHIBIT A ONE? AND MY SECOND QUESTION IS JUST TO CLARIFY. MR PONTIER. YOUR CLIENT IS NOT SEEKING RELIEF FROM ANY CONDITION OF EITHER PRELIMINARY OR FINAL APPROVAL. EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO THE RETROFITTING. OF THE EXISTING BASE INTO BIO RETENTION BASIN. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY? THANK YOU. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT LIGHTING. YES YES. AND LIKE JUST A REQUEST WAS A REQUEST. I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT AND THERE'S THE BOARD SAYING HE WANTS THIS AS A CONDITION THEM OR YOU KNOW, GREG , IF WE DECIDED TO AMEND THE PLAN, WE WOULD ALSO AMEND THE SAME PLAN TO SPECIFIED DOWNWARD. FACING LIGHTING LESS THAN 300, KELVIN. 6000 AND I THINK YOU THOUGHT THEY SORT OF SAID THAT THEY WOULD WORK WITH THE TWEET 1000. RIGHT, REMEMBER, YOU AGREE. SO USUALLY I KNOW WHEN THE MEMOS THAT'S COMMON COMMENT. SO I'M SURPRISED IT WASN'T ALREADY ADDRESSED. WE KNOW IT WASN'T ACTUALLY ADDRESSED IN PREVIOUS NUMBER, 132. SO UM, THE INITIAL APPROVAL WAS IN 2021. THE LIGHTING WAS APPROVED AT THAT TIME WAS NOT HERE FOR THAT ONE. I WAS HERE FOR THE AMENDED APPROVAL OR FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL IN 2023. AT THAT TIME.
WE DID REVIEW THE LIGHTING THE LIGHTING, UM BUT FOR THE SIGN SO I APOLOGIZE. I WAS TOTALLY READY TO DO THIS. LIKE AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES AGO, I HAD THIS DISCUSSION IN MY HEAD AND NOW I'M FINALLY HERE AND I'M NOT HITTING MY MARK. SO UM, A DESIGN EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED IN 2021 FOR THE OVERALL LIGHTING LEVEL TO BE AT 1.7 RATHER THAN 1.0 THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE LIGHTING FROM THE SIGN WHICH IS MINIMAL. I WANT TO STATE THAT THERE IS A NUMBER OF LIGHTS BEING PROPOSED ON THIS PROPERTY. THE LIGHTING BEING ADDED BY THE SIGN IS IT'S LIKE A IT'S A VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY SMALL PART OF THIS. SO IT IS POSSIBLE IN 2023 WHEN I REVIEWED THE FINAL APPLICATION THAT I MISSED THAT THOSE LIGHTS OR, UH, 5000 KELVIN OR 3800 KELVIN.
WHATEVER WAS IDENTIFIED BY MS WASIELEWSKI AND HER MEMO. I'M VERY GRATEFUL THAT SHE DID THAT.
IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO SAY RATHER THAN HAVE A PLATES ON THE SIGN. WE'LL HEAD DOWN LIGHTS AND RATHER THAN HAVE THEM BEAT IT, 3800 KELVIN OR WHATEVER IT WAS, WE'LL REDUCE THAT TO 3000 OR 2700. KELVIN THAT'S GREAT. I DO WANT TO JUST INDICATE THAT AS THAT PROPORTION OF THE LIGHTING FIRST THE REST OF THE SITE. IT'S IT IS VERY SMALL, BUT EVERY LITTLE BIT
[02:10:01]
HELPS, AND I'M A FAN OF LAURA, KELVIN AND DOWNWARD FACING LIGHTING, SO IF THEY'VE AGREED TO DO THAT, THAT'S GREAT. HIT THAT LAST POINT. YEAH. ALL OF THE LIGHT FIXTURES PROPOSED. FOR ALL THE 3000 KELVIN. WE DID ADD ON THIS SET OF PLANS THAT WASN'T ON THE ORIGINAL ONE WITH A COUPLE OF BUILDING MEN IN LIGHTS. LIKE YOUR SCONCES RIGHT NEXT TO THE DOOR ENTRANCES HAVE BEEN UPGRADED NOW THAT WE HAVE THAT COORDINATOR WITH THE ARCHITECTS, AND THEY WERE LISTED 4000 KELVIN ON HERE, BUT THEN IN THE FILE NAME IT, SAYS 3000, SO I THINK IT'S ALL MODELED AS 3000 WILL MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ALL 3000. THAT'S THAT'S THE INTENTION. UM THAT DOING? WHAT WERE JUST DOING? CAN WE JUST WRAP IT UP? LET'S JUST WRAP IT. OKAY I WAS JUST ABOUT TO ASK OR ATTORNEY TO REHASH WHAT WE'RE APPROVING HERE IF WE WOULD, IF WE WOULD GO THAT ROUTE. WELL, WE'VE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION, BUT ULTIMATELY, THE RELIEF THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THEY WANT RELIEF FROM THE CONDITION. THAT THEY WOULD CONVERT. ONE OF THESE BASINS TO A BIO RETENTION BASIN. UH, IF THE BOARD GRANTS THAT APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THEY DO NOT WANT RELIEF FROM ANY OTHER. CONDITION EITHER IN PRELIMINARY OR FINAL APPROVAL. AND THEY'VE INDICATED THEIR WILLINGNESS AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. TWO. HAVE THEIR, UH DEVELOPMENT SIGNED WITH DOWNWARD LIGHTING. WAS COLOR TEMPERATURE AT 3000 K. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER CONDITIONS OF THE BOARD WANTS TO PLACE ON IT IF IT'S APPROVED DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE APPROVED THE AMENDED APPLICATION. WAIT A SECOND.THANK YOU. IN THE 2ND 2ND. YOU CALL THE ROLL TO JUST MAKE A QUICK COMMENT HERE. LET ME POINT OUT THAT IF THIS APPLICATION WORK YOU IF THIS DEVELOPER WORD TO UM GO AWAY. THAT. OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS WOULD HAVE TO BUILD. 3500 HOUSES IN ORDER TO SATISFY BY 20. YOU ARE REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE LAW. THOSE 3500 HOUSES, ORGAN AND JANE HECK OF A LOT MORE WATER RUNOFF. AND WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS. IS PROPOSING. MY INTERPRETATION OF OUR ENGINEERS ANALYSIS. IS THAT THE BASIN. THAT WAS PROPOSED BY RETENTION BASIN AND THE BASE OF THIS NOW THEY'RE RETAIN APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AMOUNT OF WATER. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT UH, GENERATING MORE WATER OR LESS WATER BY APPROVING THIS CHANGE. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS AFFECTING THE QUALITY OF THE WATER THAT'S RELEASED INTO STREAMS. AND NORMALLY I WOULD BE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WATER. REMEMBER, THE AMOUNT OF WATER IS THE SAME. BUT IF THIS WERE AN AMAZON WAREHOUSE I WOULD SAY. MAKE THEM GIVE THE HIGHEST QUALITY WATER THEY CAN BUT GIVEN THE BENEFITS TO THE TOWN. UM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING PLAYING HERE. GIVEN THE CORPORATION THAT'S OCCURRED BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPER AND OUR MUNICIPAL STAFF. AND LEADERSHIP. I THINK THAT I CAN VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. THANK YOU, UM WELL, SAID WE DO HAVE A, UH, MOTION TO PASS AND THE SECOND DON. CAN YOU CALL A ROLL, PLEASE? BATTLE. YES. BLODGET? YES. HAMBLETON. KEENAN? YES. SAYING YES. CLARK CLARK. YES.
[02:15:05]
KHAN. YES, THANK YOU. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. YOU. AND THANK YOU, MR GLOBULAR. I THINK THAT WAS A VERY WELL SUCCINCT AND WE'LL PUT, UM, COMMENTS. SO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.UM, I SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED YOU THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE I CALLED FOR EMOTIONAL SO UM ALRIGHT. THE FUTURE MEETINGS. WE DO HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MARCH. 25TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
SEVEN PM APRIL 2ND IS A SITE PLAN SUBDIVISION MEETING AT 8:30 A.M. APRIL. 8TH IS OUR NEXT SCHEDULE. PLANNING MORE MEETING AFTER THAT, AT 7 P.M. APRIL 22ND IS OUR NEXT SCHEDULE PLANNING.
WE'RE MEETING AFTER THAT AT SEVEN PM THROUGHOUT THE MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING, SO MOVED. 2ND 2ND ALRIGHT, TIME IS
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.