February 26, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

that these peak, the peak flow rates that19 they're giving are artificially low and now we know20 that, you know, their bar is to high. Their bar needs21 to be lower. The sites going to generate more runoff22 than we think it is.23 So I also want to go through the 100-year storm24 as well for one more point.25 43 So their peak flow runoff rate for the existing1 condition is 83.4. We calculated it at 37.6. The point2 I'm trying to point out here is for the 100-year storm3 what they're predicting their flow rate will be is4 38.99. That's what their, after they build the entire5 development that's going to come out.6 That's what they said?7 Q. That's what they said. That's higher than what8 A. we're calculating right now. So that means in the9 100-year storm this sites going to generate more runoff10 than is does now today, which definitely exacerbates any11 flooding problem they're having downstream. Because12 existing conditions based on our measurements are 37.713 and they're at 38.99. I know these are a lot of14 numbers, I do appreciate your patience with it all.15 All right. I'm going to go back to one thing we16 want to bring up about POA-2. We're still in the17 stormwater drainage report that the applicant provided,18 this is DA-2. So POA-2 is right here. This is the19 final point of analysis. It's the point where all the20 water leaves the site. It's the point of analysis for21 the stormwater analysis to make sure you're not22 discharging more water. What's strange about this is23 that that's not where all the water goes. The water has24 two discharges locations. It comes from basin 2 and25 44 discharges at Kuzik Street and it also comes from basin1 7 and it goes to Warner Street. But for some reason2 this report treats them as two -- as not two distinct3 locations but as one. They're simply combined. But4 it's ignoring the flow from Kuzik, what the flow from5 Kuzik would be. What you're supposed to do is you're6 supposed to analyze both points so you don't have a7 situation where you're discharging more water coming8 into the one stream as opposed to other. For example,9 we don't really know how the flow is diverted based on10 the land development.11 Now, the drainage area that normally goes to12 Kuzik is much larger and they need to have to design to13 take that into effect or is it larger over here. You14 lose that in the detail.15 I'm going to

Now, the drainage area that normally goes to12 Kuzik is much larger and they need to have to design to13 take that into effect or is it larger over here. You14 lose that in the detail.15 I'm going to scroll to DA-1 again.16 Is it your testimony that we have a single figure17 Q. of discharge from the detention basin as for both18 instead of separate figures for each?19 Yes, the model treats those discharges as20 A. combined when they don't combine, they're two distinct21 flow rates. I would imagine what should happen is this22 larger drainage area should be split into two different23 drainage areas so these individual points can be24 analyzed individually. So they can be certain that the25

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 45 to 48 of 115 12 of 46 sheets 45 flow at Kuzik and at Warner are not increased.1 All right. I have just two more points.2 I would like to talk about the inland flood3 regulation rules that DEP uses, and now I understand4 that this project was grandfathered and wasn't, it5 wasn't held to the standards of the new inland flooding6 rules and those who are unfamiliar, inland flood rules7 are basically meant to protect the residents of New8 Jersey from increasing storms. DEP has observed, as has9 many other people, that storms are being more intense10 and larger over time. So what they did is they updated11 the size of the storms from two to ten or 100 year, but12 then also instituted another evaluation tool. They have13 the present storm flow rates, storm sizes, but then they14 have future conditions, which is even larger. A15 100-year storm in the present condition is about16 8-inches. But in future condition it's 11 inches. It's17 a lot more water.18 MR. PLOCKER: I'm going to object very19 quickly, Mr. Chairman. Part of the application of the20 stormwater rules, the witness is reciting to the21 requirements and the rules the he recognized, we were22 grandfathered in. It is the DEP's own regulation which23 allowed us to be grandfathered in because the24 application was filed on or before a certain date and I25 46 wanted to state that for the record.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.2 MR. AFRAN: Our position is that the DEP3 made a judgment on its view that the older rules applied4 in this case. We have appealed that and that is pending5 in the Appellate Division. It's not briefed and the6 appeal was just recently filed challenging that7 decision, so we don't have a decision from the Court yet8 as to whether DEP is correct, as Mr. Plocker suggests,9 or whether it is incorrect, as we suggest. So the issue10 will be litigated. As Mr. Walsh said earlier, the board11 does have an independent duty to understand and assess12 and he's offering testimony to address that. And in13 addition this is responsive to testimony the applicant14 offered on its own initiative on these very issues. So15 all though I respect Mr. Plocker's view, we obviously16 have a different legal view of the condition.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.18 Mr. Walsh.19 I want to speak to the fact that what they -- I20 A. understand they were grandfathered in and that's

ously16 have a different legal view of the condition.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.18 Mr. Walsh.19 I want to speak to the fact that what they -- I20 A. understand they were grandfathered in and that's under21 appeal, but you could still run these storms, you could22 still take your model, it's not a giant effort to change23 a few numbers and at least for the sake of the town and24 the community you can give an idea like hey, how25 47 resilient is your design in case of these storms. You1 don't have to meet the reduction requirements but you2 could show them what that would mean, give them some3 peace of mind, which I don't think would be a negative.4 I have one last point I want to bring up.5 So we're looking at the construction plans6 submitted by the applicant, let me get the sheet number.7 I did not change this at all, just looking at the plan.8 Looking at SP-16.9 This is porous pavement area number 9 on the10 plans. I wanted to point out a concern I have here. If11 everyone can see where my cursor is going, you see the12 line that has the S running through it. So that is a13 sanitary sewer line that is running through the14 infiltration basin, and I'm going to go to the profile15 view just to confirm it. Again, this is the 8-inch S,16 this is the sanitary line, this is the in infiltration17 stormwater storage basin. They have a sanitary line18 running through it. I can't find anything explicit in19 the stormwater BMP manual that prevents you from doing20 this, but it seems like generally a very bad idea to run21 a sanitary line through a storage system that's going to22 fill up with water.23 Now, in -- there are other rules keeping about24 keeping stormwater infrastructure apart from sanitary25 48 lines, the risk is obviously the sanitary lines carry1 human waste, you don't want a leaking sanitary system.2 These pipes get old sometimes, they leak into the3 stormwater pipe and then suddenly you're discharging4 bits of raw human waste into your local water body.5 That's not very good. In fact typically you need to6 keep stormwater pipes about ten horizontal feet away7 from a sanitary line or one vertical foot away. There8 are conditions where there are site constrains so you9 can't do that, so you have to encase the sanitary line10 in concrete to protect it from leaking and impacting the11 sanitary line.12 I think this line should be moved. I mean,

site constrains so you9 can't do that, so you have to encase the sanitary line10 in concrete to protect it from leaking and impacting the11 sanitary line.12 I think this line should be moved. I mean, now,13 again, I said you can't find a rule against it, but to14 give you a better idea, another way to look at it is,15 what I couldn't do is I couldn't take, like if I have a16 stormwater pipe 64 inches in diameter, a massive17 stormwater pipe, it could happen. I couldn't run a18 sanitary line through it, that would not be allowed and19 I don't think you should be allowed -- they shouldn't be20 running a sanitary line through this. So this porous21 pavement section should be eliminated and they should22 find another way to store the water or they should move23 the sanitary line out from underneath the roadway.24 Now, the consequence of that, I think it would25

13 of 46 sheets Page 49 to 52 of 115 03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM 49 impact their flood -- I'm sorry. The consequence of1 moving the sanitary line out of the roadway into the2 grassed area, the vegetated area, I think there would be3 impacts on the flood hazard permit and their wetlands4 permit. They might need additional permits to do that,5 but just generally good practice, I think that line6 should be moved out of the infiltration basin.7 That is all my thoughts, but I want to summarize8 what I went through with you today was things that we9 found in our technical review of the report where we10 were concerned that the design is not compliant with the11 New Jersey requirements design standards and that lack12 of compliance you have two problems, you're not going to13 have proper ground water recharge because the waters14 going to be held up and the water, instead of being15 infiltrated as I explained during the mounding exercise,16 it's going to go down the pipes. It's going to go out.17 And, again, we're going to have much higher -- we're18 going to have higher peak flows than what we're19 anticipating and that's, it's kind of pairing that with20 the fact that the existing peak flow rates weren't21 calculated correctly and they were elevated that we're22 really risking having a flooding -- this site causing23 additional flooding downstream than it should. So it24 should have reduced flows, I'm worried this sites going25 50 to generate more runoff than it does now.1 Does that conclude your presentation, Mr. Walsh?2 Q. That's all my notes, so thank you. I won't take3 A. up anymore of your time. I appreciate it.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.5 I call on the board. Mayor McCartney, do you6 have any questions?7 Mr. Plocker, do you --8 MR. PLOCKER: No, the board can go ahead.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mayor McCartney, do you10 have any questions?11 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Mr. Walsh, thank you very12 much for you testimony. It was somewhat technical.13 THE WITNESS: I tried --14 MAYOR McCARTNEY: No, the implications of15 what you're saying can't be ignored.16 Anyway, your testimony brings me back to17 something you originally said about recommendations of18 you have to go deeper or go wider, that is my take away19 from all of this. And/or, and/or to add additional20 basins --21 THE WITNESS: Yes.22 MAYOR McCARTNEY: -- to the proposed plan.23 THE WITNESS: Deeper if you have

per or go wider, that is my take away19 from all of this. And/or, and/or to add additional20 basins --21 THE WITNESS: Yes.22 MAYOR McCARTNEY: -- to the proposed plan.23 THE WITNESS: Deeper if you have the24 distance but wider when you don't. Or additional25 51 basins, yeah. So, which impact the roadway layout,1 impact permitting, impact the site layout in general.2 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I understand the issues3 being litigated but it seems that, I appreciate what you4 said about the Township, you don't want to be5 responsible as well, understood. Thank you.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Klein.7 MR. KLEIN: So you're saying that they don't8 have enough test pits to determine what's going on9 underneath where the basins are going?10 THE WITNESS: For some of the basins.11 MR. KLEIN: No, to some basins. Some spots12 you showed they weren't really underneath --13 THE WITNESS: Well, I think it's off a14 little. There is flexibility, they don't have to be15 right in the middle. There's flexibility built in there16 because sometimes when designing a site you don't always17 know exactly where you're going to be.18 MR. KLEIN: Right.19 THE WITNESS: It goes the same way. Just20 because it's on the site 20 feet away it's still going21 to have significance.22 MR. KLEIN: What's the seasonal high water23 table?24 THE WITNESS: So it's called seasonal high25 52 water table because it fluctuates.1 MR. KLEIN: Right, not supposed to take2 samples in July or August or --3 THE WITNESS: No. So you can measure4 seasonal high basically whenever you want, but that's5 usually when they're mottling because mottling, with a6 T --7 MR. KLEIN: With double T.8 THE WITNESS: The mottling, that's always9 there, because what's going to happen, you know it's10 sustained. Now, what you can do is measure it from, if11 you want to try to use the water elevation, you can12 measure it from January to April, which in the reports13 they do, so. But if the mottling is higher you have to14 use the mottling.15 MR. KLEIN: And DEP wants you to use the16 mottling?17 THE WITNESS: They want you to use the18 mottling, yeah.19 MR. KLEIN: Did the DEP comment on that?20 THE WITNESS: Not that I can tell.21 MR. KLEIN: In your experience have you seen22 DEP ask for mottling?23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have. I've seen DEP24 ask for it.25

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 53 to 56 of 115 14 of 46 sheets 53 MR. KLEIN: So I guess it depends on who's1 reviewing it?2 THE WITNESS: Depends who's reviewing it. A3 lot of times the stormwater profiles also show it.4 MR. KLEIN: I understand. You pull out a5 sive of soil and you're able to tell, right? Is that6 what you're talking about.7 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Can I show --8 MR. KLEIN: Sure.9 THE WITNESS: This is a presentation we gave10 for a different project but I mean, the language is11 different, where usually don't ask for the mottling12 because you see where it says, for example, you have13 common medium, common gray. Gray is the color of the14 mottling that happens. It's the gray in the soil.15 MR. KLEIN: If you have water where the16 water table is gray?17 THE WITNESS: Yeah. There would be18 spotting.19 MR. KLEIN: Okay.20 THE WITNESS: So in my experience they don't21 usually ask for it because a lot of times you fill it22 out anyway. The absence of it is when you're -- this is23 an example of a soil boring log, so you would explain24 where it is to begin with.25 54 MR. KLEIN: And their soil borings didn't1 have this?2 THE WITNESS: There's no mention of it.3 MR. KLEIN: Okay.4 MR. AFRAN: Do we need to mark this last5 document as an exhibit? I'm asking Ms. McGovern for6 your opinion.7 MS. MCGOVERN: He did refer to it, so just8 that one page. What are we calling that? Sample of9 Mottling, is that what it is?10 MR. AFRAN: From another project.11 THE WITNESS: It's a sample test pit log.12 MR. AFRAN: It says that at the bottom.13 MR. KLEIN: I think that's it for me.14 MS. MCGOVERN: We're up to 10.15 MR. AFRAN: I think we're up to 11. The red16 arrow was 10.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Council Person Scarpa.18 COUNCIL PERSON SCARPA: I'm trying to get a19 little more understanding, I'm not sure if you20 summarized it. I'm trying to get a little more21 understanding of the wetlands. I'm unsure if you22 summarized it or just quantified it, but how will the23 flow of water be impacted by the disturbance of the24 wetlands? You showed, you know, how other wetlands that25 55 were not -- the flow of water, that wider area.1 THE WITNESS: You mean how the flows of2 wetlands would be --3 COUNCIL PERSON SCARPA: Impacted by where it4 flows down through the wetlands.5 THE WITNESS: It's reduced.6 COUNCIL PERSON SCARPA: Or more would be7 affected, so how would that -- other wetlands

be --3 COUNCIL PERSON SCARPA: Impacted by where it4 flows down through the wetlands.5 THE WITNESS: It's reduced.6 COUNCIL PERSON SCARPA: Or more would be7 affected, so how would that -- other wetlands would be8 affected, right?9 THE WITNESS: Yeah.10 COUNCIL PERSON SCARPA: Because the flow of11 water?12 THE WITNESS: It would get less water.13 COUNCIL PERSON SCARPA: So there's less14 water?15 MR. AFRAN: We have another witness, Mr.16 Sean being an engineer -- Mr. Walsh being an engineer17 gave you the physical description. Mark Gallagher is18 our wetlands expert who will testify on another night19 and he will go into more detail on that. We offered Mr.20 Walsh's testimony just to show the statistical analysis.21 COUNCIL PERSON SCARPA: Thank you.22 And I'm concerned about the responsibility23 of the municipality to understand this and really24 quantify it. I mean, if you were sitting in our chair25 56 with Mayor McCartney, what would you be recommending our1 Township do to get a better understanding of the real2 impact of this?3 THE WITNESS: I would recommend additional4 soil testing. I would recommend they split that POA-25 into two drainage areas. They need to recalculate the6 existing time of concentration calculation. Basically7 everything I called out. A lot of things need to be8 reevaluated to make sure it's not going to cause a9 flooding problem.10 COUNCIL PERSON SCARPA: All right. Great.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino.12 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you, Mr.13 Chairman.14 Thank you for being here tonight and for15 your presentation. I have a number of questions.16 One, what was the time period that your17 sampling was done?18 THE WITNESS: Their sampling, it was between19 April and -- January and April.20 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay.21 Can you tell me sir, what were the22 conditions prior to and during the testing core samples,23 was it rainy, snowing?24 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I didn't take25

15 of 46 sheets Page 57 to 60 of 115 03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM 57 these core samples.1 MR. AFRAN: Let me just clarify. Mr. Walsh2 is referring to the applicants work. So he wasn't3 personally there to observe the conditions.4 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay. Thank you.5 My other question is, has anyone or6 yourself, did anybody test the solubility of the7 wetlands as they currently exist now before than based8 upon your calculations when and if this project goes9 forward? Was there a sampling of how the current10 conditions of the wetlands are now.11 THE WITNESS: I think that's a no.12 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Are they very13 soluble, are they maintaining, you know, spec specific14 volume of water, growth, food, you know?15 MR. AFRAN: I think for Mr. Walsh's benefit,16 your question is whether or not any testing of that17 nature is in the record. Presumably from the applicant18 is what I assume your question is.19 THE WITNESS: No, there's no testing that I20 know of.21 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO. Okay. Thank you22 very much.23 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper.25 58 MR. ALPER: Sure. Taking a step back. Is1 what you're showing us tonight only relevant to the DEP2 approval and whether or not it should be granted or some3 or all of the issues that you're raising specifically4 also are important to the Planning Board because it5 impacts the drawings, the reports that are part of the6 application that's before us?7 THE WITNESS: This implicitly impacts the8 Planning Board. The Planning Board -- the local9 ordinance also has the same peak flow reductions that10 are presently in the New Jersey state regulations, so11 elevated peak flow runoff rates separation -- for12 example, the separation between the seasonal high water13 table in the bottom basin, that's in the rules too. The14 way you're supposed to calculate the runoff that's in15 your rules too. New Jersey kind of made every state,16 every municipality update their local ordinance to meet17 -- your ordinance has to meet the minimum, which is the18 New Jersey DEP state regulation. Now, there are some19 cities that have stricter regulations, but yours has to20 meet the minimum. So it impacts on both levels.21 MR. ALPER: Thank you.22 On the seasonal high water table, question,23 the difference between the 2021 numbers and the 202424 numbers, can you explain a little about why they're25 59 different and if