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

06/20/2025 06:55:03 AM Page 45 to 48 of 101 12 of 41 sheets 45 MR. AFRAN: There's been no activity yet. I1 think the applicant responded and there's no activity2 yet from DEP.3 MR. PLOCKER: For the record, I believe, and4 Mr. Afran can correct me if I am wrong, I believe that5 letter was sent after the filing of the Notice of Appeal6 in the Appellate Division --7 MR. AFRAN: Correct.8 MR. PLOCKER: -- of all the permits. So why9 would the DEP, and Ms. McGovern can correct me if I10 wrong, the DEP shouldn't even have jurisdiction over the11 permits.12 MS. McGOVERN: Well, that's my13 understanding. They made a request to the DEP they did14 it and now there's an appeal in front of the Appellate15 Division. So now it's under their jurisdiction.16 MR. AFRAN: Not necessarily.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let's go back to the18 original question. You stated that you're not sure what19 the DEP did in their analysis. They only came to a20 conclusion.21 THE WITNESS: Correct.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I am asking him.23 THE WITNESS: Yes, the permit described24 their conclusion.25 46 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. So their analysis1 may be done by the normal process that they do of an2 analysis of a site, is that correct?3 THE WITNESS: We don't know if they used the4 normal process.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So is it, in your expert6 opinion, does the DEP in areas not using the normal7 process use something that is more or less?8 THE WITNESS: Well, I can answer your9 question this way. We were surprised that the things10 DEP missed in the stormwater management plan that11 affects how the basin will function.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So the answer to the13 question is, nobody here is 100 percent sure what the14 criteria were the DEP used in the analysis but only in15 the conclusion?16 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, hold on a second.17 The criteria don't change for each application. He is18 an expert in permitting in this field and he is19 testifying that the criteria used, the analysis used20 focuses on water quality subsequent to recharge. That's21 the standard DEP uses and he testified to that. The22 criteria don't change for each application. He is an23 expert in that and says when DEP does stormwater24 analysis they're looking at recharge in terms of water25 47 quality following the return of the water to the system.1 And he said specifically they do not look at wetlands2 health following construction. And so the

re looking at recharge in terms of water25 47 quality following the return of the water to the system.1 And he said specifically they do not look at wetlands2 health following construction. And so the criteria3 don't change each time we do this. He's saying DEP's4 analysis does not go to these environmental points.5 That doesn't change each time and then let me ask a6 follow up question, if I can.7 In reading DEP's stormwater approval as you8 Q. described it, do you see any reference there commenting9 on wetland conditions post construction?10 No.11 A. So the DEP did not comment on in it and their12 Q. decision administratively that he read is where they put13 their findings. There aren't a separate set of findings14 somewhere else that they don't share with us. So we15 know two things. One, an expert who works on permitting16 in this area says that they focus on water quality17 following a recharge. And when reading DEP's stormwater18 analysis they don't address wetlands health at all. So19 we have two things. One, this is not what they focus on20 normally in terms of criteria.21 And two, they did not address this in their22 findings. So in answer to the Chairs question, they23 indeed made a decision but it doesn't go to these24 environmental issues dealing with wetland conditions and25 48 health. That's our point. That this is not something1 that is superceded by DEP. This is an environmental2 question and to the extent environmental questions are3 relevant here, and we said they are for what reason we4 have in our colloquy, this testimony is relevant.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeill.6 MR. MacNEILL: I definitely have a question7 on, have you identified any noncompliance with the8 freshwater rules specifically towards the drainage area9 towards the portion of the sloped wetland area?10 THE WITNESS: Remember, the freshwater11 wetlands permit on this site were really close so that12 would subsume the freshwater wetlands.13 MR. MacNEILL: So the freshwater rules do14 not regulate the flow of surface runoff to specific15 sections of a slope or wetland area?16 THE WITNESS: No.17 MR. MacNEILL: So I guess, just a follow up18 question. Would a recommendation if you are the19 applicant be simply adding addition that stormwater20 discharge upstream to ensure the ecological impacts are21 avoided?22 THE WITNESS: I think the bigger issue here23 is to relook at the soils

the19 applicant be simply adding addition that stormwater20 discharge upstream to ensure the ecological impacts are21 avoided?22 THE WITNESS: I think the bigger issue here23 is to relook at the soils to determine where the24 seasonal high water table is.25