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

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