June 4, 2025, Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript - WEHI

06/20/2025 06:55:03 AM Page 77 to 80 of 101 20 of 41 sheets 77 MR. AFRAN: Far left.1 THE WITNESS: So this is what I am pointing2 out, the western most tributary, the eastern tributary3 as well. And their confluences south of the site.4 THE PUBLIC: Okay.5 So does all of this water currently work its6 way into the Canoe Brook or is it just on the left?7 THE WITNESS: No, both. They're both8 tributary's of Canoe Brook.9 THE PUBLIC: They're all tributary's of the10 headwater of Canoe Brook. Okay. So after the, assuming11 that construction occurred, and with this plan and with12 the basins the way they are designed, the water would13 flow out ultimately back into the brook?14 THE WITNESS: Yes.15 THE PUBLIC: Okay.16 So am I understanding correctly, that give17 or take 30 percent of the coverages, the natural18 coverages removed from a rain of any voracity, and19 natural percolation and everything, and then it goes20 through the system, is it absorbed into and retained21 into a basin and then it goes back into the natural --22 the Canoe Brook. Okay. And then it makes its way down23 into the Canoe Brook which runs for approximately, I24 don't know, whatever it is, you may know, but half a25 78 dozen miles or whatever. It runs through, at least in1 Roseland where I am, it runs --2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, is there a question3 in there somewhere.4 THE PUBLIC: It floods -- I am concerned5 about the way a rush of water might from a flooding6 perspective, since there's no ground percolation, is7 the, based on what you've testified today when we get8 these heavy storms, which I am no expert, but is it fair9 to say that it becomes more severe in general10 occasionally over the past 20 years?11 THE WITNESS: Yes.12 THE PUBLIC: Okay.13 Will the flooding as it goes from a lack of14 percolation, natural percolation into any retention15 system, at least as you're seeing it, it's going to16 become worse?17 THE WITNESS: I'll answer your question18 again by saying, if the systems aren't designed to19 completely satisfy the NJ BMP manual and New Jersey20 stormwater rules, then yes, it's going to change21 downstream flooding.22 MR. PLOCKER: I am going to object to this23 testimony. I believe it was outside the scope of his24 testimony. I acknowledge that his colleague, Mr. Walsh25 79 with Princeton Hydro, testified as to the issues, but1 they weren't testified to here tonight. They

elieve it was outside the scope of his24 testimony. I acknowledge that his colleague, Mr. Walsh25 79 with Princeton Hydro, testified as to the issues, but1 they weren't testified to here tonight. They weren't2 part of his testimony and I would object to this line of3 questioning.4 MR. AFRAN: Well, I would just add though in5 response --6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.7 MR. AFRAN: -- that the question of the8 accuracy of the high water table leading to flooding9 because of the detention basins can't support it, is10 directly related to the subject matter. And if water is11 going to flood any part of the system because12 inaccuracies, he did testify to those inaccuracies and13 it naturally flows from, no pun intended, from his14 testimony. Therefore it's relevant for members of the15 community to ask questions.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: In his opinion.17 MR. AFRAN: Of course. All in his opinion.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: As long as you say that.19 MR. AFRAN: And his opinion is relevant20 because of the predicate coming from the original21 examination.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Did you get your answer,23 sir?24 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you very much.25 80 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the1 public have any questions of Mr. Gallagher? Please come2 up and be identified.3 THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder, Howell Drive,4 West, New Jersey.5 I think my question, and thank you for the6 education this evening and for sharing, you know,7 definitely a course for me tonight. So thank you, but I8 would like to ask in layman's terms the design of the, I9 forget the vocabulary, the design of the stormwater10 system, you testified tonight that it's not 100 percent11 correct or up to par as it should be. So in layman's12 terms, if there is that 100-year storm that we mentioned13 several times in different testimony, what is the14 effects of this actual property and what could be the15 effects of the properties around it?16 THE WITNESS: To avoid --17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry, Mr. Gallagher.18 Testify about this property and water collection on this19 property. You didn't testify about surrounding20 properties.21 THE WITNESS: That's correct.22 THE PUBLIC: But --23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He testified about this24 property. So he can --25

21 of 41 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 101 06/20/2025 06:55:03 AM 81 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, then I would just1 note there's going to be flooding say at the lower2 detention basin because inaccuracies in the high water3 table calculation.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's fine.5 MR. AFRAN: That water has to go somewhere.6 It just doesn't stay in the basin. So it's going to go7 off-site onto the neighboring property, that's really8 relevant to the general subject matter.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Focus on this property.10 What's going on, on this property.11 THE PUBLIC: Okay. So let me rephrase that.12 How would it affect this property not just the13 construction on the site but the entire property that is14 owned by the builder in terms of how it would affect15 everything on this property, so we are focused in on16 the, where the buildings are but there's other acreage17 of land where there's deer fencing and other things, how18 would that be affected?19 THE WITNESS: A lot of the areas proposed20 for deer fencing aren't going to change. The areas that21 are proximate to the development will have the greatest22 impact as it relates to surface and groundwater flow23 patterns.24 THE PUBLIC: All right.25 82 What would -- is there any other impact to1 this property, not focused on the deer fencing, but in2 general?3 THE WITNESS: I can't offer this to show4 because flooding questions are going to come up that the5 applicant's flood hazard permit has a caveat on Page 16 that says, it doesn't obviate the town from having or7 getting an approval from the Township floodplain8 management. So the town -- well, that permit really9 isn't quite 100 percent valid until the town blesses --10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, I'm going to leave11 that to the Board attorney and she read some things in12 the record and we are going to leave the legalese to the13 attorney. I want you to testify on the water and --14 THE WITNESS: This is regulatory and I am15 happy to read the clause in their permit. But the DEP16 typically does this in their flood hazard permit to not17 overstep their role in dealing with local flooding18 issues and the Township Floodplain Act --19 MR. MacNEILL: Mr. Chairman, I would add,20 DEP's evaluation of the flood hazard area streams are21 regulated with the riparian, but it is not within the22 flood hazard area.23 THE WITNESS: But, again, any floodplain24 managers responsibility is to

s evaluation of the flood hazard area streams are21 regulated with the riparian, but it is not within the22 flood hazard area.23 THE WITNESS: But, again, any floodplain24 managers responsibility is to look at the health, safety25 83 and welfare of the community not just development.1 MR. PLOCKER: I am going to object. I2 believe it's mischaracterizing the towns own ordinance,3 which my understanding follows the DEP regulation word4 for word. I am not an expert on -- I am not holding5 myself out to be an expert in that area but my6 understanding, and I defer to the esteemed engineer,7 that the area, there has to be a drainage area of 508 acres or more and that this doesn't come close and this9 is evaluated by the DEP during the 20 months that the10 applications pending. We shouldn't get bogged down with11 legalese when the ordinance applies, but I'll leave that12 to the professionals that know those regulations.13 MR. MacNEILL: The floodplain administrator14 for the Township will only review development only15 within the flood hazard area. So this application is16 not within a flood hazard area as defined by NJ DEP, so17 it will not be reviewed as a, as a purview of the18 floodplain administrator of the Township.19 MS. McGOVERN: It's not relevant to this. I20 mean, our engineer is just --21 THE WITNESS: And I read the flood management22 ordinance for your Township and it's broader in scope.23 MR. AFRAN: I'd like to just say, if I24 could, I'm sorry, it really is a legal issue at this25 84 stage and I haven't researched everything that's been1 said here, Mr. Plocker either at the moment, so my point2 of view, I think we have heard the witnesses answer,3 we've heard the expert give a viewpoint, I think we may4 have to develop this further through legal argument.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Not this evening.6 MR. AFRAN: Correct. Thank you.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do you have anything else8 to say?9 MR. AFRAN: No. And I didn't mean to10 interrupt.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Would any other members of12 the public have any questions for Mr. Gallagher on his13 testimony? Please come up.14 THE PUBLIC: Debbie Jensen, West Orange.15 I have a question based on what you just16 said about the floodplain. If there was not a17 floodplain but the development created a floodplain,18 does that happen?19 THE WITNESS: It could create a nuisance20 flooding issue, that's possible.21 THE PUBLIC:

the floodplain. If there was not a17 floodplain but the development created a floodplain,18 does that happen?19 THE WITNESS: It could create a nuisance20 flooding issue, that's possible.21 THE PUBLIC: Okay.22 THE WITNESS: Doesn't mean, this isn't part23 of it, it doesn't mean it's within the 100-year24 floodplain as mottled by FEMA or NJ DEP, there could be25

06/20/2025 06:55:03 AM Page 85 to 88 of 101 22 of 41 sheets 85 issues of, flooding issues that created or exacerbated1 by any problem.2 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.4 THE PUBLIC: Thank you. I was here in the5 fall and submitted pictures of the area to the rear of6 the street that I reside on. It's Fowler Drive. Have7 you had any opportunity to see those pictures of a8 merging wetland in that area?9 MS. McGOVERN: Could you put your name on10 the record.11 THE PUBLIC: Susan Small, like little.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.13 THE PUBLIC: I submitted pictures, I came in14 and talked to the planner here, I also had an15 opportunity to look at your myriad of heavy plans that16 no one in the office was able to assist me in opening up17 and looking at.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, ask him a question.19 THE PUBLIC: My concern is that, that you20 have, you haven't had an opportunity to see that merging21 wetland and I could not take pictures of that wetland --22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, ask him a question,23 please. You're testifying.24 THE PUBLIC: What time, if he hasn't seen25 86 that, than he can't answer a question. Let me1 complete -- please give me a little bit of leeway.2 Okay. I'm just at plain citizen.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Me too.4 THE PUBLIC: The wetland is -- you're an5 official.6 The wetland is larger now, the grass is7 growing in greater and spreading, and the deciduous8 trees are dying --9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, I'm going to ask10 you one more time. People in the audience have11 questions. You're taking their time not mine. I am12 asking you to ask a question of him.13 THE PUBLIC: I am asking the question. I am14 giving information.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You're testifying. I16 don't want to argue with you, you are testifying.17 Please ask a question. I know you know what to do.18 Do you live anywhere on that street?19 THE PUBLIC: I can't even make clear exactly20 where Fowler Drive is on that and I have a hard time21 being able to open up all of the maps and looking at22 them when I came into the planning office and it was not23 very -- they were not very cooperative, not that they24 could be I guess. They don't know. They look like25 87 they've never been opened before. But I can't tell from1 this where Fowler Drive is. I am trying to draw your2 attention to that as the person who's looking to get3 drainage and planning for the safety of

've never been opened before. But I can't tell from1 this where Fowler Drive is. I am trying to draw your2 attention to that as the person who's looking to get3 drainage and planning for the safety of all the4 surrounding communities. So I am just openly asking5 you, we should be searching for solutions and possible6 problems, that's what we should be doing here. Not7 trying to stifle someone who doesn't have enough8 information to ask questions. But are you familiar with9 that area?10 MR. PLOCKER: To the extent that she's11 asking about off-site potential conditions, I would12 renew my objection from earlier.13 THE WITNESS: Well, I will point something14 out. You can see how this wetland comes down and hits15 the property line right here?16 THE PUBLIC: Yes.17 THE WITNESS: That's a large wetland area18 that ends at that property. What you will see here is19 there's a stream that kind of runs underneath this road20 and up this way, but this wetland, it can never --21 THE PUBLIC: Could you just show me where --22 show me with that little light where Fowler Drive is? I23 believe it's --24 THE WITNESS: I am not sure exactly.25 88 THE PUBLIC: The orange area on the right, I1 believe. I could be wrong.2 THE WITNESS: All I am pointing out is if3 you have what you believe is a wetland that's forming it4 probably has to, historically this wetland probably5 extended into that development area. From what I6 understand this is an older development that predated7 the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, so it's very8 possible that some of the homes and some of this area9 are what was historic wetlands.10 THE PUBLIC: Predated the Wetlands Act, I11 doubt it. The Wetlands Act to my recollection was way12 before these were built.13 THE WITNESS: 1988.14 THE PUBLIC: 1988, that's before the15 highlands was built, 1988. They were built in the16 '90's.17 THE WITNESS: I don't know the approval18 history.19 THE PUBLIC: All I could say is that I20 believe the Wetlands Act was in affect at the time. It21 was not a wetland 16 years ago when I moved in there.22 The trees were all deciduous and already Mother Nature23 is taking her action.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, will you please ask25

23 of 41 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 101 06/20/2025 06:55:03 AM 89 a question.1 THE PUBLIC: The question is, will you be2 responsible, do you care to look into in that effect?3 I have a question --4 MR. AFRAN: He is not the builder.5 THE PUBLIC: Well, if I asked the builder6 will the builder be willing to look into this?7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, do you have a8 question about Mr. Gallagher's testimony?9 THE PUBLIC: Do you think you should be10 concerned about what might happen, because the best laid11 plans of men and other men usually go astray.12 THE WITNESS: Look, the applicant's attorney13 made it clear we're looking at the site, but site14 impacts can go off-site. So do I think that they should15 be looking at off-site, yes.16 THE PUBLIC: Could you tell them that they17 should take a look at this because --18 THE WITNESS: I think he heard.19 MR. PLOCKER: I will say for the record, DEP20 does consider that when issuing stormwater permits.21 They look to see if there's any net positive runoff.22 The point is the stormwater system is designed, again,23 I'm not an engineer, to have a net negative runoff,24 meaning that the runoff would be less after development25 90 than it is in it's current condition. The DEP approved1 that design.2 MR. AFRAN: And this of course in a sense is3 a legal question that we'll have to address at the4 appropriate time.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.6 Any other members of the public have7 questions for Mr. Gallagher? Please come up.8 THE PUBLIC: Peter Gaurino, West Orange.9 Someone mentioned that the DEP permit has been in10 process for 20 months?11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Gallagher.12 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Plocker raised an objection.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The question is for Mr.14 Gallagher. If Mr. Gallagher doesn't know the answer he15 can't answer, but if he does know the answer than he can16 answer.17 THE WITNESS: I don't know the answer.18 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Anybody know the answer?19 MR. PLOCKER: I will make it clear for the20 record, since I did mention it before. From the time my21 client initially applied for the DEP permits in22 connection with this site plan application pursuant to23 the current ordinance and the settlement agreement, from24 time we applied, from the time the approvals were25 91 granted, that was a 20 month period.1 THE PUBLIC: Was it this development, this2 actual development?3 MR. PLOCKER: Yes, it was. And, again, I

m24 time we applied, from the time the approvals were25 91 granted, that was a 20 month period.1 THE PUBLIC: Was it this development, this2 actual development?3 MR. PLOCKER: Yes, it was. And, again, I am4 not the site engineer, I am an attorney so I would never5 pretend to be an engineer unless I slept in a Holiday6 Inn Express last night but I always wanted to try that7 one.8 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.10 Do any other members of the public have11 questions for Mr. Gallagher about his testimony? Seeing12 none. Thank you very much.13 Thank you Mr. Gallagher.14 I'm sorry, Mayor.15 MAYOR McCARTNEY: No.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.17 Since, Mr. Afran, Mr. Plocker, we have the18 management conference, we would like to see to an end19 with all the information.20 Mr. Afran, are there any other people that21 you need to present to the Board, because we are trying22 to get summer dates and we are competing with other23 agencies in town, so we want to have as many dates as we24 can. We do have two dates in July.25 92 MS. McGOVERN: June 23 and June 30,1 Monday's, here in person starting at 6:30.2 MR. AFRAN: Right. I am available both3 days. We have a planner who would be available on the4 30th, not the 23rd. So I don't know whether we'll have5 witnesses on the 23rd. Let me take a couple days6 because there are some community witnesses who plan to7 testify and if I can possibly have them ready for the8 23rd I can do that. I wouldn't want to waste a night9 but I don't want people to come here and we don't have10 anything to do.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're trying to bring this12 to a conclusion.13 MR. AFRAN: One issue of course is when the14 applicant brings the supplemental geotechnical report15 because that will potentially most likely cause us to16 bring an engineer in. So unless, I am not saying they17 should know yet and I am not criticizing them, that's a18 factor that will affect all this. If that report comes19 in three weeks then the staff needs time go over it and20 ten days notice has to be given then we need time to get21 an engineer for hearing testimony. So impossible to22 really predict that much at this moment.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The Board is trying to24 have this adjudicated in August.25

06/20/2025 06:55:03 AM Page 93 to 96 of 101 24 of 41 sheets 93 MR. AFRAN: I have no objection to that.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Work towards that.2 MR. AFRAN: I would like to and depends in3 part on when that engineering information comes in. If4 it comes in July 15, I don't see how that could happen.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We are going to work6 towards that.7 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chair, you had mentioned, to8 me anyway, that at one point you might consider a9 working session with counsel and the Board, I don't know10 if that's --11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Not counsel.12 MR. AFRAN: The Board, I'm sorry.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And we will. That's one14 of the first sessions, when everybody's done testifying15 the Board will review all the information and pick out16 information that our experts feel are relevant. We are17 going to look over the law, we are going to look over18 the ordinances and then we will come to decisions on19 what we hear and what we use and we may want to have20 additional testimony or read backs.21 MR. AFRAN: And when we spoke you mentioned22 counsel would be there with the Board.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: No.24 MR. AFRAN: Oh, that's what I understood you25 94 to say.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Counsel will do whatever2 counsel wishes, but this is purely Board review.3 MR. AFRAN: Now, would that occur before or4 after closing arguments?5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: After. Everybody's going6 to be finished, then the Board will decide if they need7 to hear something again, otherwise it's going to go8 through all the information. It's been a long and9 meticulous process, we want to make sure we get all the10 information in our hands.11 MR. AFRAN: I want to understand how you12 anticipate that working. And that would be, Diane13 mentioned August 6 as a possible cutoff, do you mean the14 hearings by then and the Board will have that meeting or15 where does that date work?16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That would be first work17 session.18 MR. AFRAN: August 6?19 MS. McGOVERN: That's our regular meeting.20 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. I wanted to21 understand that. And then after that the Board would22 have public deliberation?23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes.24 MR. AFRAN: But before that Mr. Plocker and25 95 I will presumably give our closing arguments?1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes.2 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.3 There's also --4 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I have a question.5 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran. One second.7 MR.