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

ct?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 give somebody else the opportunity to come11 up while I take a look, I'm sorry, which paragraph it12 was. Okay.13 Thank you.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other member of the15 community have a question for Mr. Walsh on his16 testimony? Please come up.17 THE PUBLIC: Mike Brick, 19 Colony Drive,18 West Orange.19 Am I allowed to appear as the chairman of20 the Environmental Commission or as a private citizen21 right now?22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Private citizen asking Mr.23 Walsh questions.24 THE PUBLIC: Okay. I am a private citizen.25 96 Mr. Walsh, you discussed the criteria from1 EPA on the old standard. Do you ever forecast the2 future what standards will be as the environment3 continues to deteriorate say in 10, 20, 30 years?4 THE WITNESS: What do you mean, forecast?5 THE PUBLIC: The changes in the environment6 will only get worse and so we've seen the EPA change7 their standards from five, six years ago to now. Do you8 forecast another --9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, referencing DEP?10 THE PUBLIC: Yeah, is that what I said?11 MS. MCGOVERN: You said EPA.12 THE PUBLIC: Sorry.13 DEP. Do you forecast five or six years and14 then another 10 or 15 years for the standards that your15 looking at for stormwater runoff, is that possible?16 THE WITNESS: That would involve a17 statistical model that I don't think -- I will say with18 forecasting the inland flooding rules that DEP tried to19 do, they wanted to forecast 100-years into the future20 and they provided storm sizes for what we need to21 predict now based on data on what it would look like 10022 years in the future.23 THE PUBLIC: So the data that you are24 talking about that are not being applied to this project25

25 of 46 sheets Page 97 to 100 of 115 03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM 97 are standards from five or six years ago that had1 nothing to do with the 100-year project and as you look2 at five or six years ago were they projecting the3 stormwater runoff?4 THE WITNESS: Were they projecting the5 future storm sizes?6 THE PUBLIC: Yeah.7 THE WITNESS: That's was when we saw the8 latest rules, inland flooding rules and I believe that9 was, I can't remember the date now, but two or three10 years ago.11 THE PUBLIC: If you looked at the old12 standards versus the new standards, and looking forward13 to our future with environmental degradation, would you14 say that the new standards, which you're not even15 governed by, would be woefully inadequate for the future16 10, 20 years?17 THE WITNESS: I don't know if I can speak18 what it's going to look like in 10, 20 years compared to19 the new standards I have. That's like an evaluation, so20 like the DEP rules that I am not really, I don't think I21 could talk to that point. Are you trying to imply22 they're going to be even worse?23 THE PUBLIC: Absolutely.24 THE WITNESS: I haven't reviewed data to like25 98 give that kind of professional opinion on it, so I don't1 think I can comment on that.2 THE PUBLIC: Army Corps of Engineers, have3 you taken into consideration what they plan to do4 downstream on the Rahway River, the Orange Reservoir,5 that's an improved future project for stormwater runoff?6 THE WITNESS: No, I haven't seen any of7 those plans.8 THE PUBLIC: Are you aware that the9 topography of this land supplies water to two river10 systems, the Canoe Brook and the Rahway River systems?11 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that was my12 understanding.13 THE PUBLIC: Have you look at the percentage14 of water running off of each of these two different15 systems?16 THE WITNESS: From this section itself you17 mean?18 THE PUBLIC: This project. You know, this19 mountain side.20 THE WITNESS: I discussed a little bit how21 it was draining to wetlands that are headwaters of that22 area.23 THE PUBLIC: The wetlands are which river24 system?25 99 THE WITNESS: Well, this is Canoe Brook on1 the left and I think -- well, I'll be honest, I was2 focused on the site. I don't know exactly where these3 feed into and what their headway's are. The stormwater4 analysis is pretty close to the site and that's where I5 was trying to put my focus on.6 THE PUBLIC: Would

te. I don't know exactly where these3 feed into and what their headway's are. The stormwater4 analysis is pretty close to the site and that's where I5 was trying to put my focus on.6 THE PUBLIC: Would it be possible for you to7 do that evaluation?8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He didn't testify to that9 so let's -- he didn't testify to that.10 THE PUBLIC: He didn't?11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He didn't testify to that.12 You can ask him questions about what he testified to.13 Right now you used up your time. Thank you very much.14 THE PUBLIC: You're welcome.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the16 public have questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony?17 Please come up.18 THE PUBLIC: Jessica Pearson again. Thank19 you.20 So picking up on a couple other things that21 were said by other members of the public. You looked at22 their calculations for peak flow?23 THE WITNESS: Yes.24 THE PUBLIC: Okay.25 100 And you looked at them under present1 conditions and it's natural state?2 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's the benchmark3 used.4 THE PUBLIC: And then you looked at their5 calculations based on the 2, 10 and 100-year storms?6 THE WITNESS: For existing conditions, yes.7 THE PUBLIC: Under existing and then their8 proposed conditions in various states of development9 depending on which portion of the site and which10 watershed they were talking about, right?11 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I didn't try to12 recalculate what they did in proposed conditions. I was13 measuring against the new -- the way, I would call them14 revised peak flow, existing peak flow evaluations.15 THE PUBLIC: So when you explained their16 calculations you had stated that, we know that they're17 not running calculations for the future for year 2100,18 we know that they're not running calculations based upon19 the new rainfall totals currently, but going back to the20 2021 stormwater ordinance, before the new rainfall21 totals were wrapped up for Essex County, accordingly22 were their proposed conditions meeting the muster of23 that ordinance or did they fall under even there?24 THE WITNESS: I think based on my analysis25

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 101 to 104 of 115 26 of 46 sheets 101 and findings some of the design calculations, they were1 not passing that.2 THE PUBLIC: So they didn't pass 2021,3 forget about 2024?4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, no.5 THE PUBLIC: Okay.6 Can I ask you to go to, I don't know if it's7 9 or 10.8 THE WITNESS: Can you explain to me --9 THE PUBLIC: You were talking about time of10 concentration. You were talking about it. It's a map.11 THE WITNESS: It's here.12 THE PUBLIC: I guess what I was trying to13 understand is, you were talking about that they14 artificially increased the time of concentration?15 THE WITNESS: They decreased.16 THE PUBLIC: Decreased it. Okay.17 Tell me what that really -- I am trying to18 understand, get my head around this. If they decreased19 the time of concentration, you know, when they take all20 the trees down the water can rush and it won't look like21 a big deal, right? I'm just saying.22 THE WITNESS: That's -- I'm not saying like23 that could happened. But like, yeah, generally it's24 higher so then when they change the landscape where it's25 102 going to generate more runoff it's easier to come down.1 THE PUBLIC: So I'm just trying to get this2 straight. If you artificially reduce the time of3 concentration --4 THE WITNESS: Yes.5 THE PUBLIC: -- and you see the water rushing6 down a slope and now there's not even anything to slow7 the water down because the trees are gone, it's going to8 look like fast time of concentration. I'll say fast.9 The water rushes fast. And then in your proposed10 conditions it wouldn't be such a shock when there's no11 buildings and no trees. It will just be a little bit,12 maybe a little bit faster, but we're going to put basins13 in that will hold and contain some of that water?14 THE WITNESS: Yes.15 THE PUBLIC: And so was your final thing16 where you showed that table and you said their time --17 was that time of concentration --18 THE WITNESS: That was peak flow rates.19 THE PUBLIC: Okay.20 And they were, you said increased or21 decreased over and above what the, what the site started22 out as? I hope I'm not confusing you, I'm confused, so.23 THE WITNESS: I gave very technical24 testimony, I appreciate everyone's patience for that.25 103 THE PUBLIC: I don't know where --1 THE WITNESS: This is the table.2 THE PUBLIC: That was their table from their3 storm management report?4 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

eciate everyone's patience for that.25 103 THE PUBLIC: I don't know where --1 THE WITNESS: This is the table.2 THE PUBLIC: That was their table from their3 storm management report?4 THE WITNESS: Yeah. So what we're saying, I5 was talking about the two-year storm and 100-year storm.6 Where they did the 100-year storm they calculated a peak7 flow runoff of 83.8 THE PUBLIC: Is that 83 --9 THE WITNESS: It's cubic feet per second.10 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.11 THE WITNESS: It's a big area. We12 calculated the peak flow rate of 37 cubic feet per13 second, so a lot lower than this. And what's really14 interesting to note is there was that their proposed15 peak flow runoff rate was actually higher.16 THE PUBLIC: Higher than?17 THE WITNESS: It was higher than what was18 calculated as existing. So it was actually almost two19 to three feet per second.20 THE PUBLIC: So that when the changes occur21 on the site it wouldn't show as a change, it will just22 be like, oh, we're keeping everything -- well, they're23 saying they're improving?24 THE WITNESS: They're saying they're25 104 improving, but we're saying in reality you're actually1 going to see it get worse.2 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you very much.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the4 public have any questions for Mr. Walsh? Please come5 up.6 THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder.7 We are focusing a lot on flow rates coming8 down and where they go, but I think at the beginning of9 your testimony you were talking about the storage.10 Storing of the water and basins. So if I am correct11 from what I understood, the basins, because of more --12 well, higher flow rates I guess, depending on where they13 fill up, they're going to be filled up to almost14 capacity based on potential mottling issues and not15 having the correct table, so potentially what I think16 you're trying to say is that their basins need to be17 deeper or recalculated, is that correct?18 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I wouldn't say deeper,19 have to be wider because the problem was they were going20 to deep. They were running into seasonal high, so it21 was eating away their storage. So you have to make it22 shallower and wider. You can't go deeper, you have to23 go wider.24 THE PUBLIC: And in your opinion, based on25

27 of 46 sheets Page 105 to 108 of 115 03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM 105 the plan that you see, if they're not wider what1 happens?2 THE WITNESS: You're going to have increased3 flow rates. You're not going to meet the required4 reduction. You're going to have increased flood storm5 runoff coming from the site and you're going to risk6 flooding downstream.7 THE PUBLIC: And then in your opinion,8 looking at the overall plan, of course porous pavement,9 basins, is there enough of that or does there need to be10 more? We're talking about widening things but does11 there need to be more porous pavement and things in12 different areas?13 THE WITNESS: Need to see more volume,14 larger basins and more basins, more porous pavement. In15 general you need to hold more water back to meet your16 flow reduction requirements to make sure you're not17 flooding others. You're going to have a lot more water18 coming so you're going to hold it back and slowly19 release it over time.20 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're going to close that22 portion of the meeting and we're going to take a23 five-minute break.24 Thank you.25 106 (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Back on the record.2 Mr. Afran.3 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, I do have one4 follow-up question for my clients witness, but I don't5 know if the members of the public concluded.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're done with public.7 You're up.8 Mr. Walsh, you --9 Q. THE PUBLIC: We got a member of the public.10 MR. AFRAN: We'll defer to the, Chair.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry, ma'am. Come12 up.13 Go right ahead.14 THE PUBLIC: Sarah O'Farrell, Verona.15 Mr. Walsh, good evening. I heard all the16 trees would be cut down and also heard natural runoff17 will be diverted to wetlands on-site. So does that mean18 that wetlands will then cease to exist in their present19 state as natural stormwater management surrounding20 neighborhoods?21 MR. PLOCKER: I'm just going to object. I22 don't think there was any testimony that all the trees23 would be cut down.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think you can clarify25 107 what he testified to answer the question.1 MR. AFRAN: I don't recall the witness spoke2 to cutting down trees, but in the record there was other3 witnesses, there has been testimony about trees being4 cut down and we offered our own tree --5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Right now we're focused on6 the wetlands and Mr. Walsh

t in the record there was other3 witnesses, there has been testimony about trees being4 cut down and we offered our own tree --5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Right now we're focused on6 the wetlands and Mr. Walsh did testify to wetlands and7 what's happening to them and the amount of water,8 stormwater. He said --9 MR. AFRAN: We're not pointing out, it's in10 the record from other witnesses testimony about trees11 being cut down, so I don't know what the focus is of12 this member of the publics question, but there is other13 information in the record that trees are being cut down,14 so I think it's proper for a question to incorporate15 that, even if this witness didn't necessarily testify to16 it, depending on the nature of the question.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: She can review the18 previous questions. Right now Mr. Walsh is talking19 about stormwater and you should direct your questions to20 stormwater only.21 MR. AFRAN: Should she reask it or repeat it22 because --23 THE PUBLIC: I can repeat it.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Please.25 108 THE PUBLIC: I saw that the water on one of1 your slides will be diverted from the wetlands on-site.2 So does that mean that the wetlands then will cease to3 exist and in their present state as natural stormwater4 management for the surrounding neighborhoods?5 THE WITNESS: So I showed that on the left6 side of the plan 55 sanitary and right side about 327 percent. I'm not a mathematician, I'm an engineer guy,8 so I can't speak specifically to the logical results of9 that. I think we have testimony coming later that will10 speak directly to your question. So I don't know that I11 can speak to that.12 THE PUBLIC: I understand. Thank you.13 So Mr. Walsh, if this is built in a14 neighborhood -- okay.15 With the property of this size consisting of16 wetlands and high seasonal high water tables in addition17 to removing all those trees, is it really possible to18 design a stormwater management system that will retain19 enough water for this large scale project and not20 negatively effect the surrounding homes? Homes down the21 street and the surrounding wetlands.22 THE WITNESS: I am not doing the design of23 this. I just reviewed someone's design itself and I24 wouldn't go as far as to say they couldn't do this, but25

03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM Page 109 to 112 of 115 28 of 46 sheets 109 any way you look -- I didn't really look at that kind of1 scope, so.2 THE PUBLIC: What about if, Mr. Walsh, if3 this is built and the system that's designed doesn't4 work as planned because the calculations are outdated,5 who ultimately is responsible for the flooding?6 I don't know if that's --7 THE PUBLIC: That seems like law, I would8 defer to -- it's legal liability.9 MR. AFRAN: I don't think I would comment on10 that at this point. It is partly a legal question,11 partly a practical question.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let's leave legalese at13 the moment.14 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you very much.16 I'm sorry, Mr. Walsh, you had a follow-up17 question? I'm sorry, Mr. Afran, you had a follow-up18 question.19 Mr. Walsh, I believe a witness, Dr. Pannullo I20 Q. believe, asked a question that led you to say that there21 was a later set of figures submitted by the applicant to22 DEP that when you wrote the letter November 15 you had23 not yet seen that. Do you recall that question and24 answer?25 110 Yes, I remember that.1 A. Now, could you clarify to what extent, though2 Q. your November 15 letter did not address that additional3 information, that your testimony tonight has?4 My testimony tonight includes that additional5 A. soil testing. I have updated my findings after I was6 able to review that. What I'm saying now is in7 conclusion with that report.8 Fair to say the November 15 letter did not9 Q. address that because you had not seen it but your10 testimony does?11 Yes.12 A. Thank you.13 Q. MR. AFRAN: That was the extent of my14 follow-up question.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So --16 MR. PLOCKER: Just really quick.17 Can we just confirm for clarity of the18 record the additional soil testing that Mr. Afran and19 the witness was referring to, is that the additional20 testing that was performed during the pendency of this21 hearing that was testified to by Langan at the more22 recent meeting?23 MR. AFRAN: I believe it's for the witness24 to answer not me personally.25 111 MR. PLOCKER: That's fine. I just want a1 clear record.2 THE WITNESS: I wasn't there when Langan3 spoke.4 MR. PLOCKER: Let me --5 THE WITNESS: I can tell you the dates of the6 reports.7 MR. PLOCKER: Yeah, I was going to ask you8 that. Can you identify the additional testing reports9 that you were referring to in your

Let me --5 THE WITNESS: I can tell you the dates of the6 reports.7 MR. PLOCKER: Yeah, I was going to ask you8 that. Can you identify the additional testing reports9 that you were referring to in your testimony?10 THE WITNESS: February 12, 2024. April 4,11 2024.12 MR. PLOCKER: Thank you.13 MR. BAGOFF: Mr. Klein.14 MR. KLEIN: So that chart that you had --15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Which chart?16 MR. KLEIN: I'm going to try to describe it.17 It had different types of detention -- that's the one.18 Page 3. Thank you.19 You had a bunch of testing things that were20 missing, a certain -- yeah, that.21 So that column, now you're saying the22 numbers are less, do you know how much less?23 THE WITNESS: I provided testimony --24 MR. KLEIN: You said one or two instead of25 112 three or five.1 THE WITNESS: One moment.2 I discussed earlier BMP number five, six,3 eight -- I'm sorry. Five, six, eight, nine, ten are one4 short. Seven is two short.5 MR. KLEIN: And the rest stay the same?6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.7 MR. KLEIN: Okay.8 THE WITNESS: The rest are compliant.9 MR. KLEIN: Can we get a new table?10 THE WITNESS: Yeah.11 MR. KLEIN: It's not that -- I thought the12 no was still going to be in the right column.13 THE WITNESS: No.14 MR. AFRAN: Between now and the next meeting15 we will try and have an updated table.16 And just for the record, what we're17 referring to is Page 3 of Mr. Walsh's November letter.18 MR. KLEIN: Okay.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.20 Anybody else?21 Done. Thank you.22 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.23 MR. AFRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We24 appreciate the board having heard our witness.25

29 of 46 sheets Page 113 to 115 of 115 03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM 113 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So this meeting will be1 carried to a special meeting on March 19 at 6:30 PM,2 town hall in person and no additional notice will be3 required.4 (Hearing includes at 9:35 PM.)5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 C E R T I F I C A T E1 I, ERIC S. FISHMAN, a Shorthand Reporter2 and Notary Public of the State of New Jersey do hereby3 certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate4 transcript of the testimony as taken stenographically by5 and before me at the time, place and on the date6 hereinbefore set forth, to the best of my ability.7 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a8 relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of9 the parties to the action; and that I am neither a10 relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel; and11 that I am not financially interested in the action.12 13 14 ---------------------15 ERIC S. FISHMAN, S.R.16 17 18 19 Dated:__________________20 21 22 23 24 25 115 SIGNATURE PAGE/ERRATA SHEET1 2 WITNESS: CASE REFERENCE:3 4 INSTRUCTIONS TO WITNESS5 After you have read your transcript, please note any errors in transcript6 on this page. Do not mark on the transcript itself. Please sign and date this sheet as indicated below. If additional lines are required for corrections, attach additional sheets.7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ERROR OR AMENDMENT/REASON FOR CHANGE8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page Line9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I have read my transcript and subscribed to its accuracy, to include the corrections or amendments noted above or hereto attached:23 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signature of Witness Date25