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

3 of 41 sheets Page 9 to 12 of 101 06/20/2025 06:55:03 AM 9 and we can use it in our discussion making process then1 we should hear it. So I am going to defer and, I am2 sorry, I want to qualify you and your expertise. You3 have any expertise in stormwater management or exactly4 what, hydrology?5 MR. MacNEILL: Yes, exactly. So I am a6 licensed professional engineer in the State of New7 Jersey. I have over ten years of experience. In that8 time I have reviewed or designed over 100 stormwater9 management designs as well as obtained NJ DEP land use10 approvals, including freshwater wetlands, as well as11 flood hazard areas.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You read the description,13 the testimony provided before us, is this in the purview14 of the Planning Board and can we use it or is there15 another regulatory body that should be hearing this?16 MR. AFRAN: Before the answer comes forward,17 I raise an objection to the question and the reason for18 that is, I mean no disrespect to you or the engineer.19 The reason for that is the engineer doesn't decide what20 evidence and testimony is heard by the Planning Board.21 Number one. That's for the Planning Board to decide if22 it wishes to rule in or out evidences or not allow a23 witness to be heard, but the engineer doesn't have any24 special role here in telling the Board what it should25 10 hear or not hear. Nor is the engineer a lawyer, even1 Ms. McGovern doesn't have the power to make such2 decisions. So the engineer, not being a lawyer, is not3 in a position to say what this Board should hear4 jurisdictionally. It should not -- that's outside the5 purview of the engineer.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I asked the engineers7 opinion based on his expertise. The Board will then8 talk amongst ourselves in the public view and decide9 based on what's provided -- the information provided and10 I understand what you're saying, we are not asking him11 to say yes or no for us, we are asking him in his12 opinion can the Board use this information to make a13 decision or should it be viewed by another governing14 body to make a decision.15 MR. AFRAN: And the basis of my objection is16 very simple. That I don't know what the engineer will17 say, but it's my job to object to something I don't18 like. I don't hear something and say wait, I object.19 The point is that the engineer is not a lawyer. The20 engineer doe not have expertise in the

ay, but it's my job to object to something I don't18 like. I don't hear something and say wait, I object.19 The point is that the engineer is not a lawyer. The20 engineer doe not have expertise in the jurisdiction of21 different body's. Now, if I ask Mr. Gallagher to speak22 to an engineering question, he would not have the basis23 to give an opinion nor would the Board be justified in24 hearing it. In the same way a jurisdictional question25 11 as to what type of evidence goes before what body is not1 within the professional training of an engineer and he2 doesn't have that authority. So you are asking his3 opinion, you are asking the opinion of an expert, I4 would say not an expert in that field. And so therefore5 he doesn't have the right and the Board should not be6 consulting him on a jurisdictional question. So I do7 raise the objection.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We are asking him to give9 us an opinion as to information you provided relevant to10 making our decision.11 MR. AFRAN: It's exactly the same point.12 How can the engineer decide an issue of relevance as to13 an objectors position. It's not in the engineer's14 purview to make rulings on whether evidence is proper or15 improper. The only one that can make that ruling is16 you, Mr. Bagoff, because that's your job as Chair17 ultimately. But certainly the engineer has no purview18 to say whether evidence is relevant in a site plan19 application. It's outside -- I never heard of such a20 request.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, stick around.22 MR. AFRAN: Also evidence hasn't been heard23 yet.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Right. So.25 12 Ms. McGOVERN: The Board Chair is not1 suggesting that Mr. MacNeill is going to make a2 decision. He is asking him to give the Board3 information so that the Board can make that4 determination as to whether this is useful or not. Just5 going to flesh out what types of information are helpful6 or relevant to this application.7 MR. AFRAN: My clients are not bound by an8 engineers opinion about what's helpful to the Board and9 understanding the objectors position or the applicant's10 case. So even though it's been put to the engineer in11 the context of well, we want your opinion to guide us,12 it would be like Mr. Gallagher, a wetland scientist, to13 give expertise on whether or not a building can sit on a14 ridge without collapsing. The engineer is not a lawyer15 and is not someone with

12 it would be like Mr. Gallagher, a wetland scientist, to13 give expertise on whether or not a building can sit on a14 ridge without collapsing. The engineer is not a lawyer15 and is not someone with expertise in relevance. This is16 evidentiary questions and we are a quasi judicial body17 here and Mr. Bagoff ultimately makes these decisions.18 But asking the engineer to give his view of what is19 relevant is simply another way of asking the engineer to20 make a legal judgment. It's simply outside his purview.21 I've never heard of a board requesting an engineer to22 give such an opinion.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's why we asked the24 engineer for an opinion and we'll listen to the opinion25