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

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 me take a step9 back. So the New Jersey DEP best management practice,10 best management practices refer to the specific11 stormwater term --12 THE PUBLIC: No, I'm talking about manuals13 and the manuals that you follow.14 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that manual is the BMP15 manual, best management practice referring to like the16 stormwater infrastructure, like the basins, those are17 called BMP.18 THE PUBLIC: Green infrastructure is a BMP?19 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Yeah, right. Exactly.20 That's implicitly listed in the structure. This is how21 to do tests pit and locate the seasonal high water22 table.23 THE PUBLIC: Okay.24 So on the test pits, would you say that or25 76 would it be your opinion that there weren't enough done1 on the site?2 THE WITNESS: It doesn't meet the minimum3 standard based on the size and the way DEP lays it out.4 THE PUBLIC: All right.5 Regarding the permeable pavers or the porous6 cement or the porous surface, do you know how many7 square feet they have proposed on-site?8 THE WITNESS: I have -- it's in the report,9 I do not know that off the top of my head.10 THE PUBLIC: Okay.11 But even under those or in that area, you12 were showing the parking lot a few minutes ago, you13 showed that there was, from your perspective, there were14 fewer than what would be compliant with DEP standard15 test pits tested in that area to basically figure out16 what the seasonal high water table is, yes?17 THE WITNESS: Yeah. There wasn't enough18 test pits there.19 THE PUBLIC: Okay.20 And what would happen if the pavement21 doesn't, if the pavement didn't have the capacity to22 infiltrate? Because I see from this that there are23 underdrains proposed on this underneath this permeable24 pavement?25

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 77 to 80 of 115 20 of 46 sheets 77 THE WITNESS: They have stormwater -- they1 have --2 THE PUBLIC: Underdrains for like overflow,3 I guess.4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, these are -- this is5 collection for the, I think these are underdrains. I6 think they got rid of the underdrains. I think this is7 just stormwater pipes to help convey the water, but it8 is to prevent infiltration.9 THE PUBLIC: Is there a basin underneath,10 any sort a basin, to capture --11 THE WITNESS: Yes.12 THE PUBLIC: -- runoff under permeable13 pavement?14 THE WITNESS: Yes, the stone layer15 underneath that's supposed to capture and hold the16 runoff and there's a structure at the bottom that has17 controlled openings that will force the water back being18 held and slowly released.19 THE PUBLIC: Okay.20 So if the capacity is compromised because21 the seasonal high water table is to high or if the22 stormwater does not infiltrate at the proper rate, or23 there isn't enough depth for the stormwater to24 infiltrate, what happens to the surface of that parking25 78 lot?1 THE WITNESS: Well, the water can come back2 up through the porous surface. It's porous, water can3 go through both ways and then it would go to the pipes.4 THE PUBLIC: Would it, could it rather,5 could it actually, you know, upset it to a point where6 it actually breaks and pops up?7 THE WITNESS: I don't know I've ever seen8 that happen, to be completely honest, but the upper9 pressures not something you want to have on pavement.10 THE PUBLIC: Right.11 THE WITNESS: So it might not, I don't want12 to say break the pavement, but definitely not what you13 want.14 THE PUBLIC: So you could have ponding.15 What about intensively cold weather, what happens then?16 THE WITNESS: Ice comes up first. It17 could.18 THE PUBLIC: So ice could do that?19 THE WITNESS: Yes.20 THE PUBLIC: Okay.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you very much. I22 have to ask you, you're over four minutes. Thank you.23 THE PUBLIC: I have a lot more questions.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's okay. We have25 79 other people asking questions.1 THE PUBLIC: I will come back up.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Next person who would like3 to as questions.4 Ladies and gentlemen, could you just keep5 quiet in the back, the court reporter can't hear and we6 can't here sometimes because the mic is somewhat older.7 Go right ahead.8 THE PUBLIC: Sure. Mike Mcglynn,9 M-C-G-L-Y-N-N,

could you just keep5 quiet in the back, the court reporter can't hear and we6 can't here sometimes because the mic is somewhat older.7 Go right ahead.8 THE PUBLIC: Sure. Mike Mcglynn,9 M-C-G-L-Y-N-N, and I think I'm probably the closest10 property to the tree line our house. But anyway, my11 question has to do with storm runoff. Probably just12 repeating one of the board members questions about what13 should be done, what should be done considering the new14 report about the water runoff being a lot worse than the15 original report?16 THE WITNESS: Go back and use the new time of17 concentration calculations and reevaluate the site based18 on those newer lower rates that they have to meet, which19 means their will be impacts to the site layout. I'm not20 going to speak to what that is, that's their prerogative21 how they move things around the site, but basins would22 have to probably get bigger and wider.23 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.24 But, you know, I think a lot of neighbors25 80 are concerned about the, about the development and I1 think about the negative effect on our community if it2 happens. Thank you.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, sir.4 Any other members of the public have5 questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony. Please come6 up.7 THE PUBLIC: Richard Meyer, I've been a West8 Orange resident a little under 20 years.9 I just want to get right to the chase. In10 your opinion, based off what you described of the basins11 and if there's overflow, I live in the community right12 below this, could there be runoff and damage, not13 damage, but could there be flooding, possible flooding14 to our community, to our homes?15 THE WITNESS: I don't know where that16 community is, I don't know the storage capacity of your17 system, but increasing the runoff volume of water and18 the rate it's coming to your community, yeah, it could19 increase flooding.20 THE PUBLIC: That's all I wanted to hear.21 Thank you.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, sir.23 THE PUBLIC: Good evening. Orin Knights.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: State your name for the25

21 of 46 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 115 03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM 81 record.1 THE PUBLIC: Orin Knights.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.3 THE PUBLIC: I have to ask you two4 questions. First one I have is for the Planning Board.5 Who -- does the DEP supercede the city or does the city6 have jurisdiction over DEP?7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: DEP supercedes the city.8 We listen to all the testimony and make a decision.9 THE PUBLIC: So if somethings in violation,10 let's say for instance, I'm hearing testimony about DEP11 and if they're making an error in decision, does the12 city make a judgment on that or it has to go to court?13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sounds like it has to go14 to court.15 THE PUBLIC: It has to go to court.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We would catch the error17 and the applicant would report back to the DEP or the18 council would.19 THE PUBLIC: The other question that I have20 is, we're talking about high water season and I am21 hearing this is form January to, Mr. Walsh?22 THE WITNESS: April.23 THE PUBLIC: January to April. So what24 happened from April to December, is that considered high25 82 water?1 THE WITNESS: That's considered dryer time2 so less rain. Or the water elevations are lower. Like3 in the summer it's hot, doesn't rain, those seasonal4 water tables drop. DEP wouldn't want to measure then5 and say, again, you're artificially lower at that time.6 They want you to look at during the wet periods of time7 where it's the highest because that's the most8 conservative point of view.9 THE PUBLIC: I don't want to take up all my10 time, but my testimony, as well as my neighbors, I'm11 actually at the lower part of the development and we had12 a flood two or three years ago, we had, actually my wife13 and myself, it took us, we were up all night to make14 sure that our basement wasn't flooding. So if the15 flooding is, the high water is not at that time, but we16 have high water on our street in that area, many homes17 were flooding, many, many homes from Cunningham,18 Rosemont, etc., areas downhill, it was affected by the19 heavy rains, that was past the high water season, that20 was dry season. And what happens if it rains, sometimes21 we get rain for like three, four, five, six days and22 does this, the catch basin, would that be able to catch23 all the water? From what I experienced in my family it24 wasn't able to catch it. Right now we don't

or like three, four, five, six days and22 does this, the catch basin, would that be able to catch23 all the water? From what I experienced in my family it24 wasn't able to catch it. Right now we don't have25 83 development on the top but if you put a development up1 there, obviously it's not going to be able to handle2 that kind of water. But if you look at your records we3 have a problem, even right now on Rosemont where the4 city has been there like three or four times to try to5 get that area taken care of. So that's one my concern.6 And I just can't understand that, it seems to me like7 the developer is getting --8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, can you ask him a9 question about his testimony. You're testifying right10 now.11 THE PUBLIC: I want to ask the developer the12 question here --13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He's not testifying right14 now. You can ask Mr. Walsh questions about the15 testimony he provided this evening.16 THE PUBLIC: So for instance, I'm hearing17 that a lot of rules and regulations are being bypassed18 so that the developer can have their way.19 MR. PLOCKER: I'm going to object to that20 characterization.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, that's why we are22 here listening, to hear exactly what the developer has23 to say and the other people have to say. Okay. So we24 are all listening. Nobody's bypassing anything.25 84 THE PUBLIC: My last question that I have as1 far as the project and for this city --2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, you can do this at3 the end. Right now we're trying to focus on asking Mr.4 Walsh questions.5 THE PUBLIC: I'm asking questions pertaining6 --7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: To Mr. Walsh.8 THE PUBLIC: -- to what he said and his9 testimony.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You got to ask him.11 THE PUBLIC: Was there -- can the city have12 some kind of a survey at the lower level of that13 development area, for instance like Rosemont Terrace,14 Mayfair, etc., those neighborhoods. Was any testing or15 anything conducted in that area?16 THE WITNESS: No, typically you don't do17 additional stormwater mottling or analysis for much18 further downstream.19 THE PUBLIC: But it's affecting us, so if20 you're going to project uphill then you have to have21 some kind of testing. You just can't say well, just22 going to affect this area so I'm not going to test down23 here because it's going to affect the downhill24 neighborhood.25

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 85 to 88 of 115 22 of 46 sheets 85 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you very1 much, sir. We appreciate that.2 Do any other members have questions. Please3 come up.4 THE PUBLIC: Mr. Walsh, my question -- Susan5 Pannullo, P-A-N-N-U-L-L-O, 57 Holton Lane, Essex Fells.6 Mr. Walsh question. In your November 157 letter you show, on Page 3, a BMP soil test summary of8 that test. Can you explain that to us, please? There9 is a table, if you want.10 THE WITNESS: Yeah.11 THE PUBLIC: Thank you. Take your time.12 THE WITNESS: So this is a summary table13 showing an area, I'm going to start from the left and go14 to the right. The left column is a list of all the15 basins or porous pavement systems they had proposed.16 Next column is their infiltration area, which is what17 the DEP uses as a measuring stick of how many test pits18 you're supposed to have. The number of tests provided.19 The number of test pits that were required and whether20 or not they were compliant. What I will say about this21 is it actually ended being a little outdated. I --22 either I didn't get notified or somebody slipped, there23 was another set of tests that I didn't get to see.24 Those ones happened in 2024. So they did more testing,25 86 so this shows the testing is less sufficient but they1 did additional testing to this board so this, as this2 table is outdated. They still don't meet it but it3 doesn't -- it's not to the extremity that this table4 shows.5 THE PUBLIC: Okay.6 Could I just ask, just identify what page this is7 Q. on the screen so we have a reference?8 THE PUBLIC: Page 3. I will ask you a9 question, is that Page 3?10 THE WITNESS: It is Page 3.11 THE PUBLIC: Thank you very much.12 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry, Page 3, that's right.13 So what document?14 THE PUBLIC: I'm sorry. The BMP soil test,15 correct? I'll ask a question.16 THE WITNESS: It was the letter that we17 wrote to the DEP in --18 THE PUBLIC: November 15.19 THE WITNESS: -- November 15.20 THE PUBLIC: Thank you very much. November21 15. Thank you.22 You know what, I have another question but I23 need a little -- need to read about it first, so I will24 let somebody else --25 87 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Anybody else have a1 question? Please come up here.2 THE PUBLIC: Seth, S-E-T-H, Weisleder,3 W-E-I-S-L-E-D-E-R.4 My question is, if we can go back to where5 you were showing some of those flow rates and

nybody else have a1 question? Please come up here.2 THE PUBLIC: Seth, S-E-T-H, Weisleder,3 W-E-I-S-L-E-D-E-R.4 My question is, if we can go back to where5 you were showing some of those flow rates and the6 potential for recalculation. You were showing a map7 with the actual buildings there.8 So I know we focused a lot on this page to9 the left and then down towards the bottom. If you look10 at Building D, that is the closest to the homes that11 have been testified before. That corners, I think,12 about 150 to 200 feet. Were you able to see any flow13 rates there down towards the home that you see by number14 8 over there and down that slope, were there any flow15 rates that were calculated there?16 THE WITNESS: So --17 THE PUBLIC: In your --18 THE WITNESS: -- the additional flows come19 from the building. The way the roof is designed is20 going capture through the gutters and drains and it21 would be routed this way, towards the porous pavement22 system. So it wouldn't be routing water towards this23 property, it would be routing away in this direction.24 MR. AFRAN: He means routing to the left of25 88 the building.1 THE WITNESS: To the left of the building,2 yes.3 THE PUBLIC: So you're saying once it's4 built, correct?5 What about during construction and having6 to, if you're blasting into soil or rock and bedrock, it7 takes a while to get that structure and those flows8 going that one direction, how would that affect9 potential flow rates during construction down towards10 the neighborhood?11 THE WITNESS: I didn't look --12 THE PUBLIC: Your opinion.13 THE WITNESS: I didn't look at it in14 proposed construction condition. It would probably have15 to have protocols, I mean during construction because16 it's a messy process, they have to probably have17 protocols in place to try to prevent that kind of issue.18 But you're right, if you remove a lot of vegetation the19 water, the runoff could or would increase and if the20 contractors weren't careful it could increase in the21 direction it's going now. So if you look at the22 contours it would -- runoff travels perpendicular to the23 contours, so it would flow this way.24 THE PUBLIC: That way towards number 17 and25

23 of 46 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 115 03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM 89 number 18?1 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Now, again, I don't2 know what the systems going to be set up in3 construction, so I don't -- I'm speaking generally.4 THE PUBLIC: So you haven't seen any reports5 of what could be set up during construction to mitigate6 any potential issues, damage, high flow rates?7 THE WITNESS: I didn't review the erosion8 control -- sediment control plan, no.9 THE PUBLIC: I guess a point Mr. Chairman,10 were erosion controls submitted to the board?11 THE WITNESS: I believe they have erosion12 control.13 THE PUBLIC: There are so many documents.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.15 THE WITNESS: It's outside my review.16 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.17 That's all for now.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you very much.19 Any other members of the public have any20 questions on Mr. Walsh's testimony? Please come up.21 THE PUBLIC: Orin Knights.22 I have a question for Mr. Walsh. As far as23 with the deforestation of hundreds of trees that's going24 to be taken from that area, how will that it affect the25 90 drainage as far as, because you're not going to have the1 trees there anymore. This plays a major part in2 absorbing the water. So is the catch basin, those3 things enough to stop major flooding not only uphill but4 downhill?5 THE WITNESS: Well, when they remove --6 THE PUBLIC: We're talking hundreds of7 trees.8 THE WITNESS: No, I understand. It's a9 large area the development. So when they remove those10 trees they're going to change the landscape type which11 means it's going to generate runoff. The forest doesn't12 generate a lot of runoff. Now, what's supposed to13 happen, is the design system is supposed to understand14 that and counteract that and capture stormwater in15 pipes, trap it in basins and slowly release it. What I16 was trying to say was, I think there was some flaws in17 some calculations where it's not actually going to do18 that. It is their intent to do that. They're not19 trying to intentionally flood anyone, but I think there20 were some missed calculations and missed observations21 that I think this design will increase flooding. Will22 increase runoff that can trigger flooding.23 THE PUBLIC: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank any.25 91 Any other members of the public have1 questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony? Please come2 up and identify yourself.3 MS.

ding.23 THE PUBLIC: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank any.25 91 Any other members of the public have1 questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony? Please come2 up and identify yourself.3 MS. MCGOVERN: Mr. Afran, is Ms. Pannullo4 your client?5 MR. AFRAN: As far I know Ms. Pannullo is6 not an officer of my client. She may be married to an7 officer, but as far I know she's not an officer.8 THE PUBLIC: I am a neurosurgeon not a9 client of his.10 MS. MCGOVERN: You're not a client?11 MR. AFRAN: As far I know Ms. Pannullo is12 not an officer retaining jurisdiction.13 MS. MCGOVERN: We Care is his client, if14 you're representing --15 MR. AFRAN: I don't represent Ms. Pannullo.16 Her husband is the president of We Care NJ. As far as I17 know Ms. Pannullo is not an officer of my client.18 THE PUBLIC: I am not an officer.19 MR. AFRAN: Therefore I have no client20 relationship with her.21 MS. MCGOVERN: My understanding was that22 nobody -- my understanding was that if you are23 representing the organization that any member of the24 organization was therefore being represented by you and25 92 you were going to be asking the questions on their1 behalf.2 MR. AFRAN: As far as I know they only have3 officers, it's not a member corporation and I think we4 progressed to the point, Ms. McGovern, the wife of an5 officer is an individual in her own right.6 MS. McGOVERN: Believe me, I'm not7 challenging that. My point, my question is, if she's8 part of the organization, separate and distinct from her9 husband?10 MR. AFRAN: Allow me to ask a question. One11 moment.12 THE PUBLIC: Ask my husband.13 MS. MCGOVERN: You can ask her.14 MR. AFRAN: I'm asking Mr. --15 MS. MCGOVERN: I'm asking who you represent.16 MR. AFRAN: I'm not asking Mr. Pannullo17 about his wife. I'm asking Mr. Pannullo about the18 structure of We Care NJ.19 MS. MCGOVERN: Fine.20 (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)21 MR. AFRAN: We Care NJ is not a member22 Corporation, it is a 501(c)(3) but not a member23 corporation -- 501(c)(4), does not have members. It24 only has officers. So all though I understand Ms.25

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 93 to 96 of 115 24 of 46 sheets 93 McGovern's question that perhaps the wife of the1 president might well be a member, it does not have2 members. It only has officers.3 MS. MCGOVERN: Just officers, not members?4 MR. AFRAN: It has trustees, no members.5 MS. MCGOVERN: Okay.6 MR. AFRAN: As far we know Ms. Pannullo is7 fully an independent person in her own right.8 THE PUBLIC: That's a matter of debate9 sometimes. Okay.10 May I continue?11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead.12 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.13 Mr. Walsh, was the plan you and I discussed14 the original plan that was submitted?15 THE WITNESS: This plan has changed a few16 times since it was originally submitted to the DEP.17 THE PUBLIC: Did you review the previous18 plan?19 THE WITNESS: I reviewed a few different20 versions of this plan.21 THE PUBLIC: So I guess the answer would be,22 yes?23 THE WITNESS: Yes.24 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.25 94 What was the difference?1 THE WITNESS: The stormwater -- well, I want2 to say I reviewed the stormwater portion of the plan, I3 don't pretend I observed anything else, reviewed4 anything else. But the stormwater system became more5 complex as it kept developing. Originally I don't think6 there was any pervious pavement system involved.7 Basically basin number 2 was drastically different. I8 believe basin 1 was different. It's a little while ago,9 can't quite remember all the changes.10 THE PUBLIC: That's okay.11 THE WITNESS: But it looked like a different12 site.13 THE PUBLIC: Okay.14 And do you know why it was withdrawn?15 THE WITNESS: I don't know if it was, I don't16 know why they updated the plans.17 THE PUBLIC: Okay.18 THE WITNESS: I don't want to guess.19 THE PUBLIC: Okay. I won't go on. We don't20 have much time.21 So earlier you referenced ACS Page 9. Can22 we pull up, I believe Page 3 of the ACS report. Can we23 do that. I'm interested in looking at paragraph number24 2, I believe it is.25 95 THE WITNESS: Page 9.1 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.2 And we want Page 3. So we had referenced3 Page 9 earlier, but what I'm interested in looking at,4 if you can find Page 3. Thank you. And I think if you5 want to save some time it would be Paragraph 2, correct?6 That's the one I was interested in looking at.7 THE WITNESS: Under methodology.8 THE PUBLIC: No, maybe not. You know what,9 I'm not sure which paragraph, I will have to take a look10 back. I will