Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses applicant on impervious coverage and drainage mitigation for Route 35 project
Summary
Engineers and board members flagged inconsistent impervious coverage figures (application vs. engineering calculation) and discussed mitigation options including roof recharge, dry wells and grass pavers; the board conditioned approval on a drainage plan subject to the board engineer's review.
Board members and the applicant's engineering team spent substantial time on stormwater and impervious coverage after the application showed different figures for proposed coverage. The engineering testimony noted the site is largely packed gravel and that "gravel is considered by NJDEP as ... impervious surfaces," which affects calculations. The team reported their calculation as 76.9% proposed impervious while the application materials at one point listed 81.8%.
The applicant and the board engineer proposed mitigation strategies to address a roughly 6% overage above the borough's 70% threshold: recharge for the building's roof (one‑inch design), subsurface recharge or dry wells, and grass/porous pavers for seldom‑used parking areas. The board instructed the applicant to submit a drainage plan showing the proposed roof recharge and dry wells for review and approval by the board engineer before final action.
