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

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

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