MINUTES OF REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 Chairman Blewett called to order the regular meeting of the Board an announced the meeting was duly advertised in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act by notice dated September 13, 2017 sent to the Daily Record, Suburban Trends and posted on the bulletin board and website at Borough hall. All participated in the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: BLEWETT, KAUFMAN, KOLDYK, MARINO, MORREALE, TERRERO, WILD AND BRIGHTMAN (ALT. #2) ALSO PRESENT: BOOARDY, ENGINEER; NEISS, COUNSEL AND MC KENZIE, SPECIAL PLANNER ABSENT: *RUNFELDT, TAORMINA, AND REHFUSS (ALT. #1) Chairman Blewett stated the first item on the agenda is the approval of the August 17, 2017 minutes. Ms. Ward mentioned the members who can vote on these minutes are Blewett, Kaufman, Marino, Morreale, Terrero and Brightman. Mr. Terrero moved the minutes. Mr. Kaufman seconds. Roll call: Yes: Terrero, Kaufman, Blewett, Marino, Morreale and Brightman (Alt. #2) No: Abstain: None None Ms. Ward stated they re approved. Chairman Blewett mentioned the second item on the agenda is a request from Steven C. Schepis, Esq. for a one year time extension with reference to Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan and Variance Application #348 and Flood Plain Encroachment Application #FPE 12-05 by Genuine Biofuel of New Jersey, LLC, on property known as Block 3, Lots 7 and 10 on the municipal tax map also known as 425 Beaver Brook Road ( this was carried from the December 15, 2016 agenda and January 19 th, February 16 th, May 18 th and July 20 th, 2017 meetings) and here we are today. Mr. Schepis stated good evening nice to see you all again. I m Steven Schepis here on behalf of the applicant who is seeking a one year extension from October of 2016 through October of 20, 2017. *Mayor Runfeldt arrived at the meeting (CD 3:45). This project was approved by this Board back in October of 2013 and then from there we spent about 2½ years getting our building permit/plans approved through the Department of Community Affairs. By that time the initial two year approval expired and we petitioned the Board for a one year extension which was granted. From there plan modifications had been submitted in accordance with some of the requirements of the DCA, and since then your engineer has reviewed those plan and we have a commentary memo I think it is May 5 th, 2017. Mr. Mianecki, the project engineer, submitted correspondence of September 14, 2017 responding to item by item. Basically one of the things that has come up now just when you thought everything was done, the Department of Environmental Protection indicated to your engineer that they didn t look at the architectural plans as closely as they should have and asked for another opportunity to review it in conjunction with a flood hazard area activity permit which is really kind of incredible, but I guess that s the way it goes sometimes.
Page 2 September 21, 2017 So we made a resubmission to the DEP and we ve since been deemed complete by the DEP and we are anticipating getting the new flood hazard area activity permit shortly, hopefully within the next 30 to 60 days. I m going to allow Mr. Mianecki to comment on that. The other issue that came up is that our original letter of interpretation, wetlands determination by its terms and by the Permit Extension Act expired on June 30 th, 2016, and then from there even though there is no state requirement your engineer asked that we renew it just in case there was any change in wetlands, so we applied for a new wetlands interpretation. It is our understanding that the DEP is going to approve the line as it was previously approved so we don t anticipate there are going to be any problems. So the good news as far as the applicant is concerned, it seems as though despite the fact that we had to go back to DEP for a new flood hazard area activity permit and for a new LOI it doesn t seem that anything is going to change that in any way would negatively impact the project. So that all being said I have Mr. Mianecki here and he is prepared to tell you line by line responses to the memo from your engineer and hopefully we will be able to satisfy all your concerns. Now we did ask for a one year extension and based upon this DEP new application. We d ask you for the final one year extension under the statute Section 52 of the Municipal Land Use Law that you are authorized to grant up to three one-year extensions to a final site plan approval so we are entitled to three, so we d asked for the third of the three in light of the fact that we are still waiting for the DEP. Now after the DEP issues their approval, then we should be able to enter into a developer s agreement with the Borough which has been held in abeyance until all these other items have been resolved. So once we get the developer s agreement I don t see there is anything else that would stand in our way in order to proceed with the project as it was originally approved. So I m going to allow Mr. Mianecki to fill in the missing pieces so I don t know if you want to have him sworn? Mr. Neiss mentioned before we reach Mr. Mianecki I told the Board that I would provide it with a memo and I have been so jammed up that I didn t really have a chance to do it. So I m just going to take this opportunity just to read you the section of the statute that is at issue here before you tonight. I think it is pretty clear and you ll get the hang of it, but if you ll just permit me to read the section that Mr. Schepis has alluded to. It is N.J.S.A. 40:55D-52 sub. d. and it says The planning board shall grant an extension of final approval for a period determined by the board but not exceeding one year from what would otherwise be the expiration date. If the developer proves to the reasonable satisfaction of the board that the developer was barred or prevented, directly or indirectly, from proceeding with the development because of delays in obtaining legally required approvals from other governmental entities and that the developer applied promptly for and diligently pursued these approvals. A developer shall apply for the extension before (1) what would otherwise be the expiration date of the approval or (2) the 91 st day after the after the developer receives the last legally required approval from other governmental entities, whichever occurs alter. I will note also that section 52 of Section a. says that, as I indicated it is a shall for the first year, the Board shall grant it if the applicant proves to your satisfaction that it has been delayed because of the governmental approvals process or what have you. The planning board may extend such period of protection for extensions of one year, but not to exceed three extensions. So the distinction between what the first section that I read to you is that for the first year the Board shall if it believes that the applicant has shown this to its satisfaction. With regard to the second year and third year that Mr. Schepis has alluded to, it is the Board may extend those approvals. That would have been in a memorandum that I sent to you, so I m just reading you that so as to guide you as to your consideration of what it is that you hear tonight in connection with this request by the applicant. Mr. Neiss swore in Mr. Mianecki. Please state your full name and business affiliation for the record.
Page 3 September 21, 2017 Mr. Mianecki testified Joseph S. Mianecki, Jr. (M-i-a-n-e-c-k-i), owner of Mianecki Consulting Engineers, 9 Midvale Avenue, Towaco, New Jersey. Chairman Blewett mentioned can you hold on for a second. Mr. Mianecki testified absolutely. Chairman Blewett asked Boswell Engineering to come up and sit at the table or should we go through this letter first. Mr. Neiss stated well it is incumbent upon the applicant to go forward with its proof. There is no secret here, what the chair has just asked me should Boswell Engineering who has been the reviewing engineer on this project, should a representative of Boswell come up. Kevin Boswell is here in the audience on part of this. The Board may decide that they want to hear testimony from Mr. Boswell as well, so please join us at the table Mr. Boswell I didn t mean to exclude you. Mr. Boswell thanked Mr. Neiss. Mr. Boswell stated also with me this evening is Marisa Tiberi who has assisted in the review of this application, if she could join me at the table too. Mr. Neiss mentioned of course. Mr. Schepis Mr. Mianecki is your witness. Mr. Schepis stated yeah sure. All right Mr. Mianecki you have given testimony before this Board in the capacity of a licensed professional engineer and licensed professional planner and I assume your credentials have not changed since that last testimony in this matter. Mr. Mianecki testified that s correct. Mr. Schepis stated okay. You received a memo from Mr. Boswell dated May 5 th, 2017 critiquing the most recent plan submission you made on this matter correct? Mr. Mianecki testified that s correct. Mr. Schepis asked and you ve had opportunity to review it. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Schepis asked and are you prepared this evening to address his memo and the items that I guess would be open for discussion. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Schepis stated it is fair to say, many of the items are satisfied but there are items that need further clarification. Mr. Mianecki testified that s correct. Mr. Schepis stated all right why don t you take it from what you believe is the first item that requires clarification and perhaps walk us through the memo with Mr. Boswell and Ms. Tiberi assistance so we can make our way through quickly. Mr. Mianecki testified sure. Again I m referring to the May 5 th, 2017 letter starting on page 1, Item #1 relates, I ll read it verbatim and then I ll answer it. The property s NJDEP Wetland LOI issued in April of 2006 remained valid until December 31, 2014. Resubmission to the NJDEP regarding this wetland delineation and associated buffer is required. Dependent on the extent of any plan revision for this requirement, Amended Site Plan approval from the Planning Board may be required. As Mr. Schepis pointed out, I submitted for a new wetlands letter of interpretation footprint of disturbance so that it doesn t include the whole property it includes the area of proposed disturbance associated with the biofuel project. That application was submitted earlier
Page 4 September 21, 2017 this summer and is currently under their review. I don t expect any change in the wetland line at this point or the wetland buffer as confirmed with the department as of last week. The due date for the combine flood hazard area permit and the LOI is the beginning of November. I believe it is right around November 7 th or 8 th, or something like that. Item #2 the application affected by the NJDEP Flood Hazard Area Control Rules of June 20, 2016. Resubmission to the NJDEP regarding the applicability determination is required. Dependent on the extent of plan revision for this determination, Amended Site Plan approval from the Planning Board may be required. Again Mr. Schepis pointed out that I have applied for a flood hazard area permit, specifically a general permit for the tanks. All the other aspects of the project comply with permit-by-rule. That analysis was submitted to DEP and I ve had numerous conversations with the reviewing individual at DEP, the case manager, and there is absolutely no reason why any of these permits will not be approved essentially as submitted. There will be additional notations needed to be added to the plans, but aside from that the project isn t going to require any kind of substantial or any kind of modification. Item #3 the project has been modified in the number and size of the tanks within the buildings affecting NJDEP permits. That is an erroneous statement, the number and size of the tanks has not changed on this application since it was approved by the Board. Mr. Schepis asked it may be helpful if we have a response from Mr. Boswell as we go along because otherwise it is going to be Mr. Mianecki reading his letter. Chairman Blewett stated yeah I think it might be helpful. Mr. Schepis stated so we can get to the issue or concern. Mr. Neiss swore in Mr. Boswell. Please state your name and business affiliation for the record. Mr. Boswell testified Kevin James Boswell, I m a vice president and principal of Boswell Engineering, 330 Phillips Avenue, and I m a licensed professional engineer and planner; and certified municipal engineer in New Jersey, as well as 18 other states. We have been in businesses for approximately 94 years. We service a number of municipalities, counties, state, federal agencies and we also work for private development as well. Right now we services approximately 35 municipalities as their Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Municipal Engineers. Chairman Blewett stated okay does the Board have any concerns about the credentials of Mr. Boswell? Okay. Mr. Boswell testified Mr. Mianecki referenced the first matter dealing with the LOI, and we concur that the LOI has expired and he is returning to get a new one. The second one relating to the flood hazard area permit there was one permit that was missed and he is returning to upgrade the permits that have also expired and we concur that those are required. We would just have a message to the Board that since this Board last saw the application, the flood hazard regulations for the one hundred year flood elevation, the flood hazard elevations have been modified. At one time in February of 2016 and most recently there is a draft plan that s out that raises the flood hazard elevation again. That may or may not be material to the Board s deliberation of this application but I want to make you aware that the plans that were submitted to the Board, approved by the Board, were reviewed based on the 2013 flood hazard elevation requirements and those maybe determined to change, and in fact the most recent submission by Mr. Mianecki to the DEP in connection with those general permits does reflect the 2016 change but not the draft 2017 change that came out about the same time he made the submission to DEP. Mr. Mianecki testified that is correct. There is a set of new preliminary maps dated August 27 th of this year and it shows the one hundred year flood elevation increasing by approximately 1.8 feet. How that is possible I don t know? It is showing the center of town going down by 3 feet, so how they can possibly say it goes up 1.8 feet immediately upstream of the downtown area which went down 3 feet is beyond me. In any event Pequannock is appealing those maps.
Page 5 September 21, 2017 I did speak with the DEP several times with regard to these maps but the good thing is my client we have a valid flood hazard area verification on this property that is valid for approximately another two years. The DEP said they would honor that verification, and they also said that my application was submitted prior to the new preliminary FEMA maps coming out so that was also an aspect of the project that they said they would not necessarily hold me to those elevations. What I have agreed to do with the department is to publish preliminary numbers on my map but being held to our elevations that are on our approved verification. Chairman Blewett asked who did that flood hazard verification. Mr. Mianecki testified I did it. Chairman Blewett stated okay and it was accepted by the -- Mr. Mianecki testified believe it or not I included the verification. This Board may remember the taxiway improvement project because I knew that this particular issue may come up, so I included it as part of that verification. If my memory serves me right, it has got about another two years before it expires. Mr. Boswell testified not to go back and forth on this, but the flood hazard verification I would defer again to DEP because there is one matter and it deals with the bench elevation entering the building. On the plans that were reviewed and approved by both this Board, as well as the DCA, they rise to an elevation of 182.5 and the new regulations would require the current DEP regulations not counting the draft one, would require that that be increased by one foot to 183.5. So the draft ones that just came out on August 22 nd would increase that further to 184.4, so as of February 2016 if the DEP was receiving this application, barring any letter of map amendment, letter of map revision, it would be that the flood proofing would need to be one foot higher than approved by this Board. Mr. Mianecki testified there is absolutely no requirement to flood proof this building. There is nothing we are doing to this building that constitutes a substantial improvement. I verified this with the department last week. The permits that we are asking for are essentially elevation independent, so the only reason why we flood proofed the building is because we knew that the hundred year flood based on Hurricane Irene came within 8 inches of the floor of the building so we thought that we would provide an extra one foot of protection, as well as provide for interior containment in case there was a spill. But nowhere in any NJDEP requirement do we or are we required to flood proof this building and that was confirmed with the department and this is not a substantial improvement. Mr. Schepis stated I would also corroborate with what Mr. Mianecki said, in the resolution of approval that the Board adopted back in 2013, the Board Attorney at the time, Mr. Burns, included language that allocated prices for the improvement, the value of the building and then from there it came to the conclusion that we didn t constitute substantial improvement that would warrant or necessitate the flood proofing above what we were providing. I seem to recall it had to do more with containment that the Board was concerned and we provided that level of containment by a one foot berm. I m just looking for that section in the resolution. Yeah it was page 10 in the resolution, so in the submission that I made the resolution is attached so it would be page 10, Building Improvements. Mr. Boswell asked what number paragraph. Mr. Schepis stated the entire section says Building Improvements and it starts with 71. It conclude in Paragraph 74 where it reads: the proposed building upgrades therefore constitute less than 50% of the value of the building. Chairman Blewett asked does the Board have any other questions on Item 2. Next is Item 3. Mr. Mianecki testified yes that s why I say there was an inaccuracy in the memo saying that we modified the number inside the tanks where I maintain we haven t. Mr. Boswell testified it wasn t this Board where we were reflecting the number and size of the
Page 6 September 21, 2017 tanks had been changed, it was in fact that the general permits that were previously approved by the DEP were not done so with the interior of the buildings and the tanks being reflected in them, at least no documents that we saw that were part of that submission. Mr. Mianecki testified I provided those documents to your office. In fact at our meeting I went over this with Ms. Tiberi and Mr. Pazwash. If I m speaking incorrectly, they agreed what I submitted to the DEP was the same as what we are proposing now. Mr. Neiss swore in Ms. Tiberi. Please state your full name and your business affiliation for the record. Ms. Tiberi testified Marisa Tiberi, I work for Boswell Engineering. I am a professional engineer for over 15 years and I have been with Boswell for 22 years. Chairman Blewett asked any concerns about her qualifications. Thank you proceed. Ms. Tiberi testified the comment about the architectural plans and the tanks within the building initially the DEP submission, I think the DEP admittedly said that they didn t even open up the architectural plan when you first went to the DEP. Now when you just went in in August of this year, yes they are consistent with the plans that this Board saw. Mr. Mianecki testified that s correct. Chairman Blewett: Okay. Mr. Mianecki testified Item 4 in furtherance of the environmental aspects of this application, please see the attached report from Dr. Hormoz Pazwash. The applicant must address these comments, I will get to that in the end. I ll go through this letter and Mr. Pazwash s letter is later on in the memo okay. Item #5 the electric service transformer pad location has been modified. The detail for this pad addressing compliance with applicable local and NJDEP regulations for elevation shall be provided. The applicant shall address this. It is our opinion this does not warrant an amended site plan approval. I have amended the transformer pad and the electric service right now and it shows it to be elevated so we are complying with that. Chairman Blewett asked the Board, does the Board have any objection if we have Mr. Mianecki discuss those items which could be the subject to an amended site plan approval based on the recommendations from our engineer, or do you want to hear every item where there is no objection. Mr. Schepis stated I don t have a problem if you don t want to go over the ones that aren t an issue. Mr. Boswell testified neither do we. Mr. Schepis stated that makes sense. Mr. Mianecki testified we are going to comply with Item #5. It is agreed that that doesn t need any outside approval. Item #6 has to do with the meter stack panels and again that is another one that doesn t require anything. Item #7 two remote fire department connections again that doesn t warrant amended site plan approval. Number 8 has to do with the water service. Item #8 I have to read because they say it may require site plan approval. The water service has been revised in pipe size from a 2 inch service line to an 8 inch water main line with a connection off of the existing 6 inch main line in Jacksonville Road. The applicant shall address the reasons for this revision and address the applicability of the project projected usage requiring NJDEP permits. Additionally, approval from
Page 7 September 21, 2017 Pequannock Township shall be provided. Dependent on the extent of plan revision for this requirement, amended site plan approval from the Planning Board may be required. Originally when we first proposed the application, we didn t realize or the applicant didn t realize that the building needed to be fully sprinklered for fire reasons. As part of that investigation, the mechanical engineer determined that a two inch line naturally would not be of adequate size to supply firefighting water for both buildings so an 8 inch line was the design size that had to be installed to protect both buildings. In the resolution of approval, the resolution was very clear with regard to size it says a minimum 2 inch size. Mr. Burns was very clear on that in the resolution and naturally 8 inches is bigger than 2 inches. Mr. Schepis mentioned I would draw the Board s attention to page 18 of the resolution of approval, specifically sub-paragraph h.iii I says, the plans shall be revised to provide an adequately sized water line for both domestic and sprinkler service for both buildings; numbers 1 and 2 and the diameter, capacity, pressure and construction details for said water line shall be in compliance with all applicable legal requirements; including uniform construction code, fire subcode and approved by the Fire Department and Board Engineer. So this was apparently as a result of the DCA requirement the flow analysis; there was a determination there that there was a certain amount of capacity for water that was necessary in order to provide the sprinkler service and I even think, we also got an approval initially from the Fire Department and they since have re-approved the layout of the hydrant and standpipe and everything like that so it was known at the time that we had to upgrade the line. There is already a municipal water line from Pequannock and they did agree to provide the water service so we shouldn t have a problem with the flow. Chairman Blewett asked do we have a communication to that affect. Mr. Schepis stated we had a memo initially but since that time there was a request for a specific review by the Pequannock Township Engineer. Crew is reviewing it and I ve contacted them this week to find out if they had any engineering questions or issues, they said we will get their memo shortly. Chairman Blewett stated okay. Mr. Mianecki also how does this work from an engineering perspective if you are taking an 8 inch line off of a 6 inch line, what is the requirement at the end? Mr. Mianecki testified I am not a mechanical engineer by any means, but you know it makes sense we don t go from small lines into big lines. I don t know a 6 inch line may have been sufficient but to use an 8 inch line an 8 inch line has more storage capacity for firefighting. I m going to be honest with you, I m not a mechanical engineer they engineered it, the DCA approved it. Chairman Blewett asked who engineered it. Mr. Mianecki testified an outside mechanical engineer from Mr. Cutillo. Mr. Cutillo is here he can probably answer that question because it was done through his office. Chairman Blewett stated okay for your applicant. Mr. Mianecki testified yes for the airport for the two buildings. Chairman Blewett stated okay. Mr. Marino asked as of now Pequannock Township has not approved the 8 inch diameter pipe. Mr. Mianecki testified they have not. They approved the service project back at the time of the application but they are doing an engineering review of the connection and all of that, so they have not given us written approval yet. They may have to have more plan detail or something of that nature but I don t know, and I won t know that until I get a memo. I can t see the line getting any bigger.
Page 8 September 21, 2017 Mr. Neiss asked how long ago was that submitted to Pequannock. Mr. Mianecki testified Mr. DeRosa did it himself, I would estimate maybe a month and a half ago. Mr. DeRosa is here in the audience if you want to ask him specifically. Mr. Neiss stated it is up to you. Mr. Schepis stated I would point out to the Board that initially when we were before you there was a request that we get an approval and they did issue us an approval back in 2013. For some reason there was a subsequent request just recently I don t know why, but we had been contacted by the Pequannock Township Water Department and they specifically asked for an opportunity to review the details. Mr. Neiss asked when was that. Mr. Schepis mentioned I want to say within the last 60 days, maybe 90 days? We can have Mr. DeRosa come up and I think that is best because he was the one that dealt with them personally. But up until recently they haven t asked for anything other than the fact that they granted us an approval because the line is already on the airport property and they already provide water service for fire hydrants as part of the hangar project back in I want to say like in 2007/2008. Chairman Blewett asked what size line coming off the main. Mr. Mianecki testified it is a 6 inch line coming servicing the property. Chairman Blewett mentioned the fire hydrant. Mr. Mianecki testified and then we are going to be on the property and then we are going to be coming off that line with an 8 inch. Ms. Ward mentioned the Pequannock DPW contacted me about two months ago, Mark the superintendent, and he said the water line was larger and they wanted to send it to an outside firm to review. He mentioned Joe Golden, their engineer, wasn t going to review it but they would send it to an outside firm. Mr. Mianecki testified I believe it is Crew Engineering. Ms. Ward mentioned they didn t know whether they could provide it or not. Mr. Mianecki testified right. Mr. Schepis stated mystery solved. Chairman Blewett stated the question is around whether an amended site plan is required for those changes? Mr. Schepis stated well I would point out to the Board, at the time when the Board issued the approval it was specifically noted in the paragraph I cited, page 18 Sub-paragraph h.iii. that we had to provide for the adequately sized water line for domestic, the diameter/capacity; so in other words, it was known at the time that the 2 inch line wasn t going to suffice. Mr. Burns put in language that was broad enough to reflect the fact that we had to find out what the size would be sufficient and the DCA required flow capacity analyses as part of their review and as part of the fire sign off, and they required both buildings to be sprinkled. In addition to the foam that was required by this Board and as a result this is something that was contemplated in the original approval, and you know Mr. Burns has the foresight to include language in the resolution that specifically addressed this topic. Mr. Neiss stated Mr. Schepis you don t read that as meaning that the applicant should as soon as the resolution became adopted, and I wasn t there so I m just asking, but was the applicant required to submit a different set of plans that hadn t been presented to the Board based on changes recommended by the Board? You were the applicant s attorney back then?
Page 9 September 21, 2017 Mr. Schepis stated yeah. As you note in the paragraph, it says the uniform construction code and fire subcode, so this entire project had to be review by the Department of Community Affairs and they were the ones that did the code compliance analysis. Mr. Neiss stated right but my question is related to, did the applicant have to submit a revised set of plans after this Board approved the application back then? Mr. Schepis asked revised plans to whom. Mr. Neiss stated to the Board. Sometimes what happens is, again I wasn t here I m just asking? Mr. Schepis stated I don t recall that there was -- generally speaking you would satisfy after the Board granted the local approval, then we would satisfy all the outside agency approval and then incorporate any changes that were required by those outside agencies; like Morris County, DEP and in this instance DCA. So DCA came to the determination that the line had to be, as Mr. Mianecki shows it on his plan, so ultimately that made its way into the most recent revised submission. So to answer your question, ultimately there has to be a modified submission that satisfies the terms and conditions of the resolution that determination as to how big the line had to be was a determination that the DCA made ultimately in the issuance of their building permits you know which took 2½ year to get. So to answer your questions, yes but it was after the DCA told us how big the line had to be. Chairman Blewett asked they told you how big the line or just what the flow requirements were. Mr. Mianecki testified the mechanical engineer told the DCA and submitted flow calculations that show that the 8 inch line was required based on the pressure in Jacksonville Road. The fact that the 8 inch is fed by a 6 inch so that is how that all came about. Chairman Blewett stated okay thank you. Mr. Neiss stated I m sorry, again I wasn t there I m just reading h., and it says the applicant shall submit 8 complete signed and sealed sets of the plans approved herein with the following revisions all of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Board engineer. Mr. Mianecki testified right. Mr. Neiss stated and then this list follows that. My assumption reading this is that the Board engineer made recommendations that were to be included in a set of plans that the applicant was to submit after the Board approved the application. I think we may be having a difference of interpretation as to what the meaning of Sub-paragraph 3. Iii. is. I potentially read that as relating to compliance with the Board Engineer s recommendations that were approved by the Board, so the applicant was saddled with the responsibility of submitting a revised set of plans that incorporated the Board Engineer s recommendations as set forth in these sub-paragraphs. So if you don t read it that way that s fine there is a potential for difference. I don t see it as being a kind of future condition that okay three years down the road we are going to submit a new set of plans based on I don t know new requirements of local communities, that s the equivalent of saying we are going to submit a new set of plans required by others and I don t think that was the intent of this section I could be wrong. Mr. Schepis stated well I draw your attention then to the next page, page 19 Sub-paragraph iv. it says, the plans shall be revised to provide one new fire hydrant at a location approved by the Fire Department which was done. The flow capacity pressure and construction details of the hydrant shall be in compliance with all applicable legal requirement; including fire subcode and shall be approved by the Fire Department. Now the fire subcode analysis was prepared by the DCA and at the time when we appeared before the Board back in October of 2013 and the months before, when the Board actually approved it, there was no specific recommendations from the Board Engineer as to the sizing of a water line because that was an issue that was based upon the fire subcode and ultimately whoever the construction official was, and in this instance the DCA that would pass upon the size of the water line. So to answer your question, when we were here back in 2013 neither the Board Engineer, the Project Engineer or anybody else in this room knew exactly how large the pipe had to be coming
Page 10 September 21, 2017 from Jacksonville Road in order to provide water service for this project. It was up to the Department of Community Affairs subcode official as it related to flow capacity because the domestic water wasn t much, a 2 inch line would have provide enough water for a lavatory but in this instance it was the firefighting capacity of the sprinkler system and the hydrant that dictated the size of the line and that determination was ultimately made by DCA. There was no recommendation from the Board Engineer. Mr. Neiss stated again I don t want to argue the point, I hear what you are saying but my reading of that sub-section, however, is a little different than what you ve just said. Again I wasn t here so I don t know, but my reading of this section would suggest to me that right after the applicant got approval back in 2013 it was incumbent to ask the Fire Department what this should be and to incorporate that into the plans that were going to be submitted by the applicant right after the approval. Again I wasn t there. Mr. Schepis stated I don t think the Fire Department sizes something like that, especially at the time we didn t know the DCA was going to require the entire building be sprinkled. Mr. Neiss stated I m not asking about DCA this says Fire Department that s what you pointed to my attention, so I think it would have been a matter of going down the hall and asking the Fire Department what do we need for this and putting that into the final set of plans. Again that is just my reading of it. Mr. Schepis stated yeah I don t know I don t think the Fire Department -- Mr. Mianecki testified my experience with the Fire Department is they don t tell us what size line to put in. Mr. Neiss stated this is in this Board s resolution. So if the applicant had an issue with what was in the Board s resolution the time to address that was back after the Board did it. Mr. Schepis stated but we didn t have an issue with the Board s resolution because it was understood at the time that ultimately whatever the fire code required we would comply with. Chairman Blewett asked was there a set of revised plans submitted to the Board after the resolution of approval. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Chairman Blewett asked what did that include related to the fire. Mr. Mianecki testified it was so long ago. I am going to be honest with you I don t remember. All I do remember is that the review by the DCA prompted and the requirement to have to provide fire protection for both buildings is what prompted the water main size. Chairman Blewett stated okay. Ms. Ward mentioned you never submitted the revised site plans to us with reference to the resolution. Mr. Mianecki stated correct. Ms. Ward mentioned I mean you went right down to DCA and didn t submit any of the revised site plan to us like. We didn t review the revised site or sign them. Mr. Mianecki testified that s correct we are waiting on the DCA information because that controlled my plans. I didn t know at the time whether it needed to be a 2 inch line, 4 inch line, 6 inch line or a 8 inch line because there are a lot of things I didn t know the building required like a handicapped ramp accessibility for both buildings were mandated. There are a whole bunch of things that came out of the DCA approval or the approval process, so I said I can t keep revising these plans time and time again, so let s wait for the DCA to approve the plans and then I can revise the plans.
Page 11 September 21, 2017 Chairman Blewett stated okay so you do have the approved plats from the DCA currently now? Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Chairman Blewett stated and since that time you haven t submitted revised plans to the Board? Mr. Schepis stated they went in last summer. Mr. Mianecki testified last summer absolutely. Chairman Blewett asked including the 8 inch. Mr. Mianecki testified absolutely. I believe it was August of last summer. Hang on I can tell you I should have a revision date on my plan, July 7 th, 2016. Chairman Blewett asked what was the date. Mr. Mianecki testified July 7, 2016. Mr. Neiss asked that was the revision date of your plan. Mr. Mianecki testified yes that was the revision date, July 7, 2016 revised per Planning Board resolution of approval and that was after the DCA did the bulk of their review and that s when I did the final plan revisions for submission. Now there is another set of revisions August 3 rd of this year and that was relative to the NJDEP permitting. Mr. Neiss stated so I think what the Board is trying to, no disrespect intended, I think what the Board is trying to do is to get through this and understand whether or not those revised plans that were submitted by you, Mr. Mianecki, apparently last July or so, were sufficiently changed or different from the original plans that the Board had considered. Mr. Mianecki testified no they weren t. Mr. Neiss stated you can say that as blanketly as you just did? Mr. Mianecki testified absolutely. The site didn t change. Mr. Neiss stated you just finished telling the Board that the DCA caused you to make revisions to the plans. Mr. Mianecki testified yes the size of the water main, adding of a handicap ramp, what else? No change in grading, no change in that was it. Chairman Blewett mentioned so the plans that should be in our possession would have, and I m assuming the July 7 th, 2016 plans should have a reference to the water main other than 2 inches? Mr. Mianecki testified absolutely. It says July 7 th, 2016 revised per Planning Board resolution of approval and at that time, July 7 th that was submitted, if my memory is correct with a 14 or 15 page memo transmittal letter addressing every aspect of the Planning Board resolution of approval, as well as every agency within Lincoln Park and the county, how we met the conditions of the resolution in everyone. I m sure Ms. Ward has it on her prongs. Chairman Blewett stated and also submitted to us a new set of plan on July 7 th? Mr. Mianecki testified oh absolutely yeah that was my transmittal letter. Chairman Blewett stated okay. Mr. Mianecki testified it took me two days to write the letter it wasn t any fun. Chairman Blewett stated all right. Let me ask the Board do you have any more questions in
Page 12 September 21, 2017 reference to #9 and the revisions required by the DCA of the 6 inch main into an 8 inch main? Unidentified person asked how does that work. Mr. Terrero mentioned they may require some proof that this will work that it is not going to cause a problem down the road. Mr. Schepis stated I m sure we ll get something from the Pequannock Water Department with the review from their engineer, so I imagine if there is an issue we ll find out about it soon. Chairman Blewett asked do you in your plans as part of the submission have a specific flow requirements. Mr. Mianecki testified Mr. DeRosa s mechanical engineer, I believe and he is here and he submitted the flow calculations to Pequannock. Chairman Blewett stated to Pequannock. Mr. Mianecki testified as well as the approved sprinkler plans and I m sure everything else yes. Mr. Terrero mentioned but that was the flow calculations to sprinkler the building. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Terrero asked but does that include the flow calculation for a transfer from a smaller diameter to a larger diameter because you will be losing pressure automatically. When the 8 inch is depleted and it is time to refill it, the 6 inch doesn t have the capacity so you might have an issue down the line with that. Are you sure there is no issue? Mr. Mianecki testified stated I am sure the mechanical engineer included that in his calculations. I mean this isn t something as engineers we plan for but there are many instances where you have a smaller line feeding into a much larger line and you know it happens. But as long as the calculations support what they want to do, and they received approval from the Department of Community Affairs, the calculations were review by them so um -- Chairman Blewett mentioned the actual water is coming out in Lincoln Park so do you object to providing that to the Board the calculations? Mr. Mianecki testified I think we did give the calculations to the Board. Chairman Blewett asked did you. Mr. Mianecki testified I think we did submit the calculations. Chairman Blewett stated okay. Mr. Mianecki testified if we didn t we can give them to you. Mr. Schepis stated we ll resubmit them. Mr. Mianecki testified we will resubmit them. Chairman Blewett thanked them. All right any other questions on #9? Mr. Mianecki testified number 9 says it doesn t warrant site plan approval, again it has to do with the water line. Item #10 Building #1 now contains a methanol room. This revision will require amended site plan approval from the Board. The now proposed venting of this new use room is in direct conflict with the Planning Board resolution of approval for a fully closed system. Mr. Schepis stated I m going to allow Mr. DeRosa to testify on this so maybe he can be sworn
Page 13 September 21, 2017 because he was involved in the DCA application. He ll tell you what that is about and why that was, and then we have Mr. Cutillo here, the project architect, who can address any technical issues. Mr. Neiss swore in Mr. DeRosa. Please stated your full name and business affiliation for the record. Mr. DeRosa testified Peter DeRosa, I m from the airport and I m a holder in Genuine Biofuel. Mr. Schepis stated Mr. DeRosa you heard the question come up during the course of the review as to the methanol storage room. As part of the original application, it was discussed with the Board that there would be a tank with methanol and that we would agree to do whatever was required as to the building code/fire subcodes to address safety as it relates to that. So can you tell us how this methanol room came about and how it relates to fire codes and safety? Mr. DeRosa testified it is my recollection and the DCA s review; and mind you the shape, size and quantity of the methanol did not change from what was submitted to the Board. They wanted it in a separate self-contained room and we did it. It is a closed windowless room and like a bathroom it needs to be vented. The process has not changed. The venting has absolutely zero to do with the manufacturing process of the biofuel it is just there as a code issue with this closed windowless room that the methanol tank that DCA wanted it in its own room and that is really the long and short of it. Mr. Schepis stated what is this room made out of? Mr. DeRosa testified I believe it is a couple of layers of five eight sheet rock and some metal studs. Mr. Schepis mentioned when you say it is vented, is it fair to say then that the system itself isn t vented it is not as though methanol will be escaping into the atmosphere? Mr. DeRosa testified no it is like a bathroom vent. The mechanical aspect of it, I m not an engineer but whatever the code called for that s what it is, but it is there just to vent the room. It is not part of the process and we are not going to be skewing vapors anywhere. Chairman Blewett stated so the tank isn t vented directly to the outside of the building? Mr. DeRosa testified no it is a sealed double walled tank just like we testified it is not open The whole process nothing is open vats anywhere this is a closed low pressure, low temperature system, it is not batch processing. If it was batch processing, I wouldn t be sitting here right now. Now it is going on over ten years and we ve never had an issue down south. Chairman Blewett asked is the venting driven by any oxygen sensors or hydrocarbon sensors. Mr. DeRosa testified I don t know. Whatever the DCA code for the venting in the room is that s what was provided for. Chairman Blewett stated okay. Mr. DeRosa testified it was my understanding we had to do what the DCA wanted as far as making the inside of the building code compliant. Let me just go back one step with the water line, yes it is 6 inches to 8 inch, but ultimately when it comes into the building the sprinkler system is 4 inch and the hydraulic engineer, if that is the right terms to put on a mechanical engineer, and this system was designed and sized and calculated by a licensed professional engineer. It was my understanding that you go from the 6 to the 8 because of the length of the run to the building, they said it was volume and accounts for friction and that s why we just didn t run the 6 inch. They said you need to upsize for friction and some volume, and then when it comes into the building the sprinkler header I believe is a 4 inch. It was what the engineers and the professionals said had to be done and DCA ultimately agreed with the calculations and yes we did submit them. There are many factors that have fallen into a set parameter and that s what needed to be done, but it wasn t a willy-nilly decision to say hey
Page 14 September 21, 2017 let s put an 8 inch this was a sound engineering reason. Chairman Blewett stated okay and you ve agree to submit those to the town. Mr. DeRosa testified we have but we ll gladly submit them again, and the exact same thing we ll submit to you is what I personally handed over to Pequannock so they have it. Chairman Blewett stated okay, thank you. Mr. Marino asked are there any other tanks beside the methanol which is self-contained being vented outside. Mr. DeRosa testified no sir. Mr. Marino asked nothing in the hangers though. Mr. Schepis asked now Pete just so you are clear, the methanol is not being vented outside it s sealed, everything is sealed. Mr. DeRosa testified everything is sealed. Yeah it comes in off the truck sealed and -- Chairman Blewett mentioned but the external venting is in case of a spill, an accident you know. Mr. DeRosa testified so many of the codes are based on what ifs, what ifs, what ifs; you know in a perfect world you wouldn t need any of it, but that s why the codes are there and listen we want to comply with the codes. Chairman Blewett stated I mean that s the whole point of the venting though is if there is an issue it doesn t -- Mr. DeRosa testified everything is if. Chairman Blewett stated well you design for safety right? You know it is for public safety. Mr. DeRosa testified absolutely that s why we put the containment ring in there too. I mean listen we are trying to be a team player here and we want to do what is safe; and we followed the rules, we followed everything and we did what we were supposed to do but nothing has changed from our original testimony. Any changes were the result of the approval process. Chairman Blewett asked Mr. Boswell if he had any comments on the structure venting. Mr. Boswell testified we would just note that condition 111 of the approving resolution states that there shall be no discharge through the atmosphere from the biofuel production. So the definition of what is a biofuel production facility, whether it encompasses the building or not that wasn t on the original plan and we noted it was a vent that was added, and we would really leave it to the Board s interpretation how they look at it. As far as getting back to the 8 inch line, I would just note that it is not usual to see a dead end to an 8 inch off of a loop 6 inch servicing a facility. It is not usual to see that, we see that often and it could reduce friction which would serve to increase the fire flows delivered on that run which is about 900 feet I believe. Chairman Blewett stated okay. Any other questions from the Board? Mr. Schepis. Mr. Schepis stated I guess I ll bring Mr. Mianecki back. Mr. Mianecki testified Item #11 relates to the methanol room requiring NJDEP air quality permit or exemption. I ll supply the information that it qualifies for an exemption. Chairman Blewett asked is that the determination of the DEP or yours. Mr. Mianecki testified it is my review of the regulations that the tank is far under the 2,000 gallon
Page 15 September 21, 2017 requirement that would necessitate an air permit. Chairman Blewett stated so you will submit to the Board your evaluation. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Schepis stated we ll give it to Mr. Boswell as well. Mr. Mianecki testified Item 12. Mr. Schepis stated skip 12, 13, 14 and 15. Mr. Mianecki testified skip 16. Chairman Blewett stated 17. Mr. Mianecki testified the applicant shall address and define the area provided for within each building to effectively house vehicles in the process of transfer of all product fully indoors as outlined within the Board s resolution of approval. If the resolution is not complied with, then an amended site plan approval from the Board is required. We provided that at the time of the public hearing and nothing has changed inside the building from the original public hearing. It has always been our position that there will not be unloading outside of the building of any material, everything will be within the confines of the building, so the truck will pull inside the building and it will be loaded or unloaded. Mr. Marino asked Joe, the trucks will come in and ramp up and then ramp down into the facility. Mr. Mianecki testified for lack of a better word, a speed hump in the building that is 1 foot high and it has like a table top on top of it so a truck can roll up a 1 foot incline, flatten out and then roll down inside the building, and that s what maintains that one foot of freeboard around the building. Yes it can. Mr. Boswell testified we would just note that there is a distance of 12 feet from the base of the ramp back to the tanks in the structure that would be loaded and that s why we made that comment was effectively the truck would be straddling this hump in order to be inside the building, otherwise it would need to be outside the building. Mr. Wild stated there is just no room. Mr. Schepis asked Mr. Boswell which building are you looking at Building 1 or 2 because there was testimony that there would only be loading in one of the buildings. Mr. Boswell testified Building 1. Mr. Schepis asked do you have that plan Joe. Ms.Tiberi testified we have it right here if you want to take a look at it. (Inaudible side conversations among engineers) Chairman Blewett asked can you tell us what you are looking at now. Mr. Mianecki testified this is the architectural drawing for Building #2, Interior Layout. Mr. Boswell asked there would be no loading or unloading within Building 1. Mr. DeRosa testified no that s why we have the pipes going under. Mr. Schepis stated enlighten the Board what you just said. Mr. Mianecki testified all the loading and unloading is going to be done in Building #2.