Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grills developer over stormwater, dry‑well design and contamination testing at Morristown Road hearing
Summary
Engineers said the site’s dry‑well infiltration system is sized for 4.5 inches of rainfall and will capture runoff from proposed roof areas; residents and board members pressed for a full‑site stormwater calculation, monitoring commitments and an explanation from the LSRP on contamination depth and risk of migration.
At the continued hearing for 37 Morristown Road, project engineers explained stormwater design, contamination testing, and how the proposed dry‑well infiltration system will function. The applicant’s engineer said the system is being sized to store 4.5 inches of rainfall (3 inches design plus a 50% safety factor) and that roof leaders and downspouts will discharge into a perforated stone dry well with an accessible manhole for maintenance.
The engineer also stated existing impervious surface on the property is approximately 3,113 square feet and that the proposed plan increases impervious coverage to about 7,288 square feet. Several board members and residents questioned whether the system should be sized to cover the entire site rather than only the incremental increase; the board’s engineering consultant recommended designing for 4.5 inches across the whole site. The applicant agreed to revise hydrology calculations and provide more detailed manhole, invert and overflow profiles.
The environmental consultant’s letter (LSRP Consulting LLC, 06/15/2026) was discussed: the LSRP concluded residential development with infiltration is permissible on the site and that additional monitoring will be necessary. Residents and board members voiced concern that infiltration could mobilize contamination given the site’s gas‑station history; the engineer said he would obtain more detailed LSRP support explaining why infiltration would not spread contaminants and agreed to provide monitoring and sequencing details in revised filings.
The board requested the applicant provide overflow routing calculations for storms larger than the design capacity, clarifications on whether the rear parapet wall would require openings to permit discharge to the railroad property, and evidence that NJ Transit and other outside agencies will accept any overflow routing that affects adjacent railroad property. No votes were taken pending revised hydrology and environmental clarifications.
