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

1 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 it's correct to use the more recently1 gathered data is there a reasonable requirement what2 they should use instead, etc.?3 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't think there's an4 issue with the recent or what's more recent would give5 more information. The problem is -- the difference is6 location. I'm going to use, this is porous pavement7 number 6 again, just as an example. So here's number 438 and here's 42. Now, one difference is, like the9 existing grade elevation here is 610, but the existing10 grade elevation here is 605. So you're already, this is11 a 15 foot different elevation. So that's where you12 start seeing the complication of it. That's why, again,13 the DEP, and this is a pretty large basin, it's a pretty14 large parking lot of porous pavement, that's why it's15 using more test pits because it's, especially when you16 have large variations in grade, the seasonal high water17 table can change. Now, that's why Councilwoman asked18 what I recommend. I recommend some more test pits to19 get an understanding of the story of what's going on20 here. I'm not saying -- I don't want my testimony21 construed that everywhere the seasonal high water table22 is, you know, at 608, obviously the ground drops, but we23 need to understand how it changes. So we do, I mean,24 maybe having this parking lot is not going to work but25 60 it does work on this half of the parking lot because1 they took the test pits on this side which is much2 higher here. You understand what I mean?3 MR. ALPER: Okay.4 In the cases where you suggest that the5 applicant has done the math wrong, not saying that's the6 case or not the case, that's what you're claiming. If7 you're correct, is the applicant now noncompliant with8 the new DEP required numbers or with the old numbers in9 the cases where the math is different, or is it a10 mixture?11 THE WITNESS: They would not be compliant12 with the rules they're being held to. Not the inland13 rules, the rules they're being held to.14 MR. ALPER: The ones that were in place when15 they applied?16 THE WITNESS: Yeah, when they applied.17 MR. ALPER: That's all I have. Thank you.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Wilkes.19 MR. WILKES: In regards to mottling,

The ones that were in place when15 they applied?16 THE WITNESS: Yeah, when they applied.17 MR. ALPER: That's all I have. Thank you.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Wilkes.19 MR. WILKES: In regards to mottling, you're20 saying -- you didn't take any tests yourself, you're21 reading everything from the applicants, right?22 THE WITNESS: I'm reading what they did. I23 didn't go out there at all.24 MR. WILKES: All information came from25

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 61 to 64 of 115 16 of 46 sheets 61 basically samples they had?1 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.2 MR. WILKES: Now, a project this large, have3 you ever seen the situation where mottling didn't exist4 before or is it just that uncommon? I'll take out the5 didn't exist before.6 THE WITNESS: I think it's very, very7 uncommon. In some places, I'll give another example.8 Another way you can look at this historically, if you9 want to, you can go to, I can't remember the name now,10 go to the website they'll give you soil maps and it'll11 give you a rough idea of where the seasonal high water12 might be. DEP will let you do that. But people are13 conservative and people don't want to do that. So14 sometimes you would see mottling if you have seasonal15 high because sometimes seasonal high can be like 20 feet16 below grade, you know. What I think is unusual here is17 that when, in every instance where they found seasonal18 high there was no note of mottling and sometimes19 seasonal high was two feet below grade, you would see20 something there. So it's absence of it's reporting I'm21 just wondering about it.22 MR. WILKES: I'm wondering why DEP would23 have let it go then?24 THE WITNESS: I have that same question.25 62 MR. WILKES: But this is -- you're not1 saying it's uncommon or it's common?2 THE WITNESS: I think it is very uncommon to3 see that. I can't speak for what the DEP's thinking is4 about it unfortunately, I'd love to.5 MR. WILKES: I wouldn't take that as the6 fault of the applicant necessarily. It's kind of what's7 the explanation behind DEP's reasoning behind it, but I8 digress.9 No more questions.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza.11 MR. CARDOZA: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman.12 Mr. Walsh, just building on Mr. Alpers question13 on experience calculations between yourself and the14 applicant, the numbers you presented, are they15 conservative estimates?16 THE WITNESS: I'm using mostly their17 information, so I don't think -- I'm trying to be as18 conservative as they are. I'm not trying to like jack19 up the stats in the other way. I'm trying to use their20 slopes, their areas, I'm just trying to see the way they21 analyzed it and just use the most updated method. I was22 trying to be as unbiased as possible. So like I didn't23 remeasure slopes. They told me 5.4, I'm going to say24 it's 5.4. I didn't want to be argumentative

nd just use the most updated method. I was22 trying to be as unbiased as possible. So like I didn't23 remeasure slopes. They told me 5.4, I'm going to say24 it's 5.4. I didn't want to be argumentative about25 63 slopes. I wanted to see what they did.1 MR. CARDOZA: That's helpful.2 That's my only question. The board members3 asked my other questions. Thank you so much.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer.5 MS. KAPFERER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.6 One question, I'm not sure if this is for7 you Mr. Walsh or us. If the Township is looking at8 everything, you know, in comparison against our own9 ordinance, is it like to say that we're looking at the10 version of the stormwater ordinance that's prior to. I11 think we just adopted a new version in November, right?12 So it's the, is it right to say that it's the version13 prior to the one that was just adopted?14 MS. MCGOVERN: You have to apply -- DEP15 rules that apply here preempt whatever the town does.16 So if our rules now are stricter, like the new DEP17 rules, but the DEP already ruled that the old rules18 apply, I think our old ordinance also, at the time of19 the application, will come into play.20 MS. KAPFERER: Okay.21 MS. MCGOVERN: But there are other things22 being described as well.23 MS. KAPFERER: Okay.24 MR. AFRAN: Ms. McGovern, I'm sorry, I won't25 64 address the point but say we reserve our view on the1 legal issue.2 MS. McGOVERN: Understood.3 MS. KAPFERER: And then I understood you to4 say that their testing was done at least two different5 times, was it the same consultant that did the testing?6 THE WITNESS: It was the same consultant.7 MS. KAPFERER: Okay.8 THE WITNESS: Soil Consultants Engineering.9 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Thank you.10 And then one last question. When you were11 working through your calculations, did you do a12 comparison on your own at Warner Road?13 THE WITNESS: So I, to go back to the14 previous councilman's question. I didn't want to delve15 to far into like redesigning or reevaluating the site.16 I wanted to use the numbers that they had. I didn't17 want to get into that argument. I was trying to18 evaluate their design.19 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Understood.20 That's it for me.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.22 Mr. Rizzo.23 MR. RIZZO: No, I don't have any questions.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Martini.25

17 of 46 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 115 03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM 65 MR. MARTINI: No questions, Mr. Chairman.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker.2 MR. PLOCKER: I have one question.3 I want to confirm, is it your testimony that4 you reviewed every single page that my clients submitted5 to the DEP in support of the permit applications?6 THE WITNESS: I can't say that I reviewed7 every single page because there's a 900 page stormwater8 report and a lot of it was modeling results that I9 didn't felt I needed to look at. I felt what I looked10 at was what I felt was important, but I tried to review11 everything, every single thing they submitted.12 MR. PLOCKER: But not every single page of13 the stormwater report?14 THE WITNESS: No, I definitely did not read15 every single page. Couple hundred pages of modeling16 results that I did not.17 MR. AFRAN: I just want to clarify, did you18 mean modeling with a T or D?19 THE WITNESS: I meant D.20 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Klein, go ahead.22 MR. KLEIN: So Mr. Rizzo, I've got to ask23 you, what do you think of Mr. Walsh's testimony?24 MR. RIZZO: Well, certainly it's a lot to25 66 unpack there and obviously I need to review it and come1 up with a number of different comments.2 As far as the soil tests, my opinion, if3 they were done in January to April it's probably the wet4 season and that's probably why mottling wasn't5 discovered. I don't want to speak for the person who6 did it obviously, that's my assumption.7 MR. KLEIN: You're saying the water itself8 was a level that they were confident that --9 MR. RIZZO: If they were done between10 January and April it's the wet season.11 MR. KLEIN: Right.12 MR. RIZZO: Seasonal high may have been the13 highest it could go to, so.14 MR. KLEIN: Okay. So now let me pause you15 then.16 So Mr. Walsh, I'm sorry, I don't mean to go17 back and forth. So if they did the testing January to18 April, it's the wet season, why do they need to do the19 mottling, with double T?20 THE WITNESS: Yeah, he's correct, it's done21 during the wet season which was the correct time and the22 mottling will show the genuine height, even if it's the23 wet season during that period of time where the seasonal24 high is dry. The water isn't consistent from January to25 67 April, it does move.1 MR. KLEIN: Okay.2 MR. RIZZO: You could and you could not, so3 it's really the person who dug the test, that's the

l24 high is dry. The water isn't consistent from January to25 67 April, it does move.1 MR. KLEIN: Okay.2 MR. RIZZO: You could and you could not, so3 it's really the person who dug the test, that's the only4 person that knows that answer.5 MR. KLEIN: All right.6 THE WITNESS: That's why I said, I think7 they should provide some testimony just for8 clarification, you know.9 MR. KLEIN: Because the mottling may show10 that the seasonal high water tables correct or accurate?11 THE WITNESS: It would show --12 MR. KLEIN: It would show -- it would be13 more accurate than the day they were there?14 THE WITNESS: Yes.15 MR. KLEIN: Okay. And -- okay. And that's16 gone, because the samples are destroyed?17 THE WITNESS: Well, no you take --18 MR. KLEIN: You can do more.19 THE WITNESS: It's still there.20 MR. KLEIN: Right. Do you have to dig new21 samples?22 THE WITNESS: You have to probably dig like23 ten feet to the left.24 MR. KLEIN: Right. Okay.25 68 THE WITNESS: That's the value, it's always1 there.2 MR. RIZZO: As far as location of tests,3 that's a lot of gray area there. I think that someone4 could use all the tests within the basin, that's what5 we're primarily going to look at. Sure, I agree that as6 that natural grade elevation changes their tests could7 change also. It's tough to say, you definitely need a8 test pit outside the basin though.9 MR. KLEIN: Quantity wise, he said he was10 short one in one, too in the other. You think they have11 enough?12 MR. RIZZO: That I'm not positive now, I13 took notes and Mr. Hess can certainly verify it.14 As far as like the over excavation as15 porous, I guess of porous pavement basins, I think16 that's natural practice where you don't have good soils,17 you certainly want to make sure you're infiltrating. So18 it's good practice to over excavate and put back better19 soils.20 MR. KLEIN: And what do you think about two21 feet of 40 percent voids versus, I assume they did two22 feet 100 percent voids?23 MR. RIZZO: Yeah. Again, I took notes,24 we'll definitely verify it again. That's a very25

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 69 to 72 of 115 18 of 46 sheets 69 specific detail.1 MR. KLEIN: Right.2 MR. RIZZO: I don't want to say one way or3 the other.4 MR. KLEIN: At this point do you agree with5 or disagree with Mr. Walsh, knowing what he said and6 what you have seen so far, or is it really Mr. Hess?7 MR. RIZZO: It's really Mr. Hess. I am not8 sure it's going to be one grand total yes or total no.9 I think maybe some points are probably valid but, again,10 there's a ton of gray area of this stuff and you could11 have ten different people review it and come up with ten12 totally different sets of comments. As you see with the13 DEP, you know, there's lots of things they miss in their14 rules, so, or potentially missed. But like I mentioned,15 we're going to take these notes back to Mr. Hess, he16 will verify them.17 MR. KLEIN: What do you think about the18 sanitary sewer line going through the, under the road,19 where that's going to be?20 MR. RIZZO: Yeah. I agree, that's probably21 not typical.22 MR. KLEIN: Even if it's PVC piping which23 doesn't leak as much as concrete.24 MR. RIZZO: Probably be either way. You25 70 could even have groundwater entering into the sewer1 system.2 MR. KLEIN: Right.3 MR. RIZZO: So I think if there's an4 opportunity to relocate it, it should be considered.5 I'm not sure if there's an opportunity but it should be6 looked at. Also I'd want to know the depth, maybe the7 sewer system is deeper, is much deeper than the basin8 and that's probably different.9 MR. KLEIN: Under the road. He shows the10 gray area, right in the gray area.11 MR. RIZZO: It could be changed vertically,12 it could be changed horizontally. I think it should be13 looked at.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Anything else, Mr. Rizzo?15 MR. RIZZO: I have nothing else.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If the DEP misses their17 own regulations what's the recourse for the applicant or18 for -- if the DEP misses it's own regulation what's the19 recourse of the applicant or the objector?20 MS. McGOVERN: Or this board.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Or this board.22 MR. RIZZO: It sounds like they've gone back23 to the DEP and I'm not sure about stance, I don't want24 to speak for them. I'm sure the board is -- not the25 71 board, but the towns engineers responsible for review1 but it's really the applicants responsibility at the end2 of the day to own the design that they designed and3 signed off on. So I'd

not the25 71 board, but the towns engineers responsible for review1 but it's really the applicants responsibility at the end2 of the day to own the design that they designed and3 signed off on. So I'd say probably the applicant, then4 the town and DEP are equal responsibile as far as review5 goes.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.7 So at this time I'm going to have members of8 the public come up, ask questions of Mr. Walsh. I want9 to preference this by saying, you heard how the board10 asked questions. The board did not testify. The board11 did not tell stories. Ask a question of the information12 provided or I will ask you to stop speaking. Questions13 start with if, when, what, how, which, does it. But use14 the way the board asked questions as to the way to ask15 questions. Okay.16 If everybody can be quiet so we can hear,17 everybody in the room can hear the questions.18 The person standing.19 THE PUBLIC: Thank you very much.20 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, I think we have21 one microphone so I will give it to members of the22 public who might have to give it back to Mr. Walsh.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm going to limit24 questions to three minutes. So Joe can you put three25 72 minutes on the clock.1 We well keep it. I'm on it.2 THE PUBLIC: I'm Victor Misarti,3 M-I-S-A-R-T-I, and I have a question about this4 stormwater discharge.5 One of your site plans you showed that there6 was, it was calculated to be one point of discharge but7 you're saying it was actually two. So here's my8 question. On one of the other site plans that you were9 showing, you were showing that a lot of water was not10 going into that system, it was going to the west, to the11 left directly into the stream and then to the east to12 the, right directly down that hill. Down the mountain.13 So my question is, shouldn't that discharge be14 calculated as well? Like why just the two pipes.15 THE WITNESS: So they are only testing16 disturbed areas. Basically it's simplified if you were17 looking to include that, but what they're basically18 doing, they're saying we're going to hold that as steady19 and we're going to show only the disturbed area that's20 where the change would be. So it showed a reduction and21 those changed areas, so they're not counting those other22 areas, there's a totally normal thing they can do. Just23 kind of to simplify the analysis. I think you would24 agree with me on

uction and21 those changed areas, so they're not counting those other22 areas, there's a totally normal thing they can do. Just23 kind of to simplify the analysis. I think you would24 agree with me on that.25

19 of 46 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 115 03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM 73 MR. MISARTI: So to follow-up on that1 question then. On that one site plan that had, had blue2 arrows, there were no -- yeah. There were no developed3 areas that were just going to the stream?4 THE WITNESS: No, those are being captured5 and rerouted to the storm structures. They do go to the6 wetland down here. It goes to here but no longer gets7 distributed along here or along this upper wetland area.8 THE PUBLIC: I'm sorry. So those blue9 lines, none of that developed areas is -- I think I was10 looking the other way.11 So there were no developed areas that were12 just running -- the blue lines didn't show any developed13 areas?14 THE WITNESS: No, where it's developed and15 designed it's supposed to be there. Supposed to capture16 and then runoff and treat the runoff and peak flow17 runoff so it doesn't go to the public.18 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.20 Any other members of the public have any21 questions for Mr. Walsh. Please come up and be22 identified.23 THE PUBLIC: I'll try to speak more loudly.24 Jessica Pearson, Verona.25 74 Okay. I have questions regarding some of1 the questions that the board asked. The sanitary sewer,2 that's proposed or existing?3 THE WITNESS: Proposed.4 THE PUBLIC: That's proposed. So where does5 it go? If don't you mind. It comes from obviously the6 buildings en masse and --7 THE WITNESS: It's the sanitary sewer line8 that's going to collect from, sanitary waste from the9 proposed buildings.10 THE PUBLIC: From all of the four buildings,11 do we know?12 THE WITNESS: I'm looking right now.13 THE PUBLIC: Okay.14 THE WITNESS: The stormwater is definitely15 collecting from here. I think it is, at least it's16 collecting -- it is going over this wetland and goes to17 a pump station and then it gets pumped off-site.18 THE PUBLIC: So wait it -- and it runs19 underneath one of the basins, one of the stormwater20 basins?21 THE WITNESS: It runs through.22 THE PUBLIC: Okay.23 All right. Is that mottling testing that24 you talked about, mottling with a T, is that found in25 75 the best management practices?1 THE WITNESS: Chapter 5.2 THE PUBLIC: Chapter 5.3 THE WITNESS: Chapter 12.4 THE PUBLIC: Chapter 12 was the test pits?5 THE WITNESS: Yes.6 THE PUBLIC: So that would be something that7 would be a best management practice?8 THE WITNESS: It's -- let