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

06/20/2025 06:55:03 AM Page 61 to 64 of 101 16 of 41 sheets 61 doesn't just say for review in the abstract. It says,1 for review by the Township environmental consultant.2 MR. ALPER: All right. That was it for my3 questions.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza, do you have5 any questions of the witness?6 MR. CARDOZA: No questions.7 MR. AFRAN: Probably got more than you8 bargained for by way of colloquy.9 MR. CARDOZA: No questions.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Haizel.11 MR. HAIZEL: Someone asked this question a12 little differently. In your experience have you ever13 come across a situation where there has been any sort of14 an error, if you will, meaning any of the DEP findings15 that has been -- have you ever come across a situation16 where that occurred and how was that dealt with?17 THE WITNESS: Yes, and we just did a review18 of a project in Mercer County that the state ended up19 overturning or suspending their permit. Same process.20 MR. HAIZEL: Okay.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The state, when you say22 the state, what portion?23 THE WITNESS: New Jersey DEP and specifically24 with the Flood Hazard Area Control Act issue.25 62 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: DEP looked at an1 application again and came up with a different decision?2 THE WITNESS: That's correct.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. So that's within4 the body of the DEP?5 THE WITNESS: Correct.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.7 Mr. MacNeill, do you have any questions?8 MR. MacNEILL: Kind of going back to my last9 question. Do you have any recommendation for this10 development to lessen the impacts to the northern11 portion of the wetlands area from an ecological12 perspective?13 THE WITNESS: And, again, I would say that14 right now it's all based on a better understanding of15 the soils and in the absence of that it makes it16 difficult to make a recommendation. If the soils are17 what the soil survey says they are, their seasonal high18 water table is high. It can be a major constraint on19 how to manage the stormwater on the site. So in an20 ideal world, to me there are often ways you can do21 things better, but you still need a fundamental22 understanding of what the constraints are before you can23 kind of take that journey.24 MR. MacNEILL: So is it a volume, like the25 63 volume has to match an existing proposed condition for1 the wetland impacts to be minimal? Essentially like2 runoff volume has to match the existing condition for3 there

is it a volume, like the25 63 volume has to match an existing proposed condition for1 the wetland impacts to be minimal? Essentially like2 runoff volume has to match the existing condition for3 there to be no ecological impacts to the wetland area?4 THE WITNESS: And look, we know that's never5 possible, especially in a headwater site like this.6 They are very sensitive to change. It doesn't take a7 lot to change, to modify surface and groundwater flow8 paths. A little bit of excess volume you're going to9 have these streams erode, so there will be impacts. But10 really your question focussed on stormwater management.11 Again, it's really understanding the constraints that12 the site has relative to how you manage stormwater.13 That's the first step and that's the step we think they14 missed. Because that fragipan is typical on all those15 sites and for some of the borings to find seasonal high,16 eight to ten feet, it just defies logic, at least as far17 as we are concerned.18 MR. MacNEILL: That's all I have. Thank19 you.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.21 We are going to take a five-minute break and22 come -- I'm sorry. One second.23 Mr. Plocker.24 MR. PLOCKER: I have just at few questions25 64 for Mr. Gallagher.1 First, I would like to reiterate my2 objection that if the objector and Mr. Gallagher take3 any issue with what the DEP didn't do, any methodology4 or procedure that they disagree with that is currently5 at the Appellate Division or the Superior Court of New6 Jersey, it is not in the purview of this Board, the7 jurisdiction of this Board. That being said, I have a8 few questions.9 Are you aware that the site currently has an10 LOI?11 THE WITNESS: I am.12 MR. PLOCKER: Have you reviewed the LOI?13 THE WITNESS: I've reviewed the LOI. I14 didn't see the submitted documentation.15 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.16 Did you testify today that you take any17 issue with the delineations as set forth in the LOI18 which was issued this past November?19 THE WITNESS: That was an extension that was20 issued.21 MR. PLOCKER: Correct.22 THE WITNESS: I did not take issue.23 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.24 And what is the process or procedure when25