June 30, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM Page 21 to 24 of 175 6 of 70 sheets 21 MR. PLOCKER: I want to, hopefully we can1 just make a clear record, Mr. Afran. I believe that not2 the objector group but a comment made by an individual3 or individual members of the public who made comments or4 asked Mr. Seel questions on January 29 prompted5 questions whether the applicant would consider extra6 additional geological testing. After the meeting we did7 get back to the board, I believe I did it through Ms.8 McGovern, and we said that we were willing to perform9 additional testing. That testing was performed and it10 resulted in the revised report that Mr. Seel's firm11 issued this month. So I just wanted to make that clear12 for the record.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.14 Mr. Afran.15 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.16 Did you, I am not asking this by way of17 Q. criticism, I am really trying to lay a background. Did18 you read Princeton Hydro's report?19 I have not seen it.20 A. Okay.21 Q. And you didn't hear Mr. Walsh from Princeton22 Hydro, Mr. Gallagher, testify?23 I did not.24 A. So what you did hear was not necessarily25 Q. 22 responding to what they were talking about?1 I did not respond, I wasn't aware of any of their2 A. comments.3 Okay.4 Q. So when there was questions about, asked from the5 board whether this related to the mottling that6 Princeton Hydro spoke to, that wasn't really what you7 were looking for, was it?8 I had no knowledge of Princeton Hydro's report,9 A. so I couldn't respond to it. It's something that we do10 normally as part of our investigation.11 And you don't know where he was referring to in12 Q. terms of what he said was incorrect measurements or lack13 of proper measurements?14 I have no idea what he was referring to. I did15 A. not see his report.16 Okay.17 Q. So we can't say what you did is necessarily18 responsive to what he was saying?19 I can't say that.20 A. Okay. I wanted to clarify that.21 Q. I am going to hold off on any questions because I22 am not an expert and we have a geotechnical engineer23 listening in and we may call him or her, I am not sure24 who it is, and they will testify if we feel the need,25 23 but I don't want to burden the board with questions and1 any across that I don't really have expert knowledge in.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.3 Do any members of the public have any questions4 for Mr. Seel on his latest presentation and report,

th questions and1 any across that I don't really have expert knowledge in.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.3 Do any members of the public have any questions4 for Mr. Seel on his latest presentation and report, June5 13, 2025?6 State you name for the record.7 THE PUBLIC: Deborah Butensky, Rappleye8 Court, West Orange.9 Any way I can get a map to see where the10 borings were done, because I'm totally unclear where11 they were done?12 MR. FAGAN: What map would you be looking13 for?14 THE WITNESS: Go to Figure 1 in our report.15 MR. FAGAN: I don't have your report.16 MR. AFRAN: Could I just ask while we're17 waiting. People really brought to my attention they18 can't really hear because of the air-conditioning, which19 we need. So if any people who can't hear can move20 forward, but when people talk, I'll try and keep my21 voice up. It was really brought up that people are22 having trouble hearing. So I just want to stress now23 that the air is back on if people could talk up, because24 it keeps being brought to my attention. I know my voice25 24 breaks all the time, so I'm not guilty, but if we could1 try.2 MR. CARDOZA: Feel free to move the mic3 closer to your mouth, Mr. Afran.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Can you identify this5 report, please?6 MR. AFRAN: Could we zoom in a little bit7 more.8 MR. PLOCKER: Joe, that's not you.9 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Seel, is that --10 THE WITNESS: Yes, that looks like the one.11 MR. AFRAN: That would be the Investigation12 Plan with the number 1 on it.13 MR. FAGAN: Is that it here?14 MR. PLOCKER: Bruce, do you have a PDF page?15 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's it. Yeah.16 MR. AFRAN: PDF page -- oh, he's got it.17 That's it.18 THE PUBLIC: Does anybody have a laser19 pointer?20 Can you delineate the borings? Can you21 please delineate, perhaps he has a laser pointer, where22 the new borings were done, where the borings were made?23 MS. McGOVERN: So Council Person Scarpa, can24 you see the laser pointer? Because if not, I am going25

7 of 70 sheets Page 25 to 28 of 175 08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM 25 to ask you to also describe what you're pointing at on1 the figure.2 THE WITNESS: Sure.3 MS. McGOVERN: Thank you.4 THE WITNESS: I'll describe it as this, so5 this is the area here. These two pink lines, A and B.6 These are the areas that we focused on initially and if7 you scroll up to the north. Up to here. These are the8 additional investigations that were done as part in May9 of this year.10 MS. McGOVERN: Those are C and D pink lines?11 THE WITNESS: Correct, C and D lines. This12 is Howell Drive over here. There's 13, 15 Howell. This13 is the entrance into the access road into the14 development, Building D, and we show our property and15 rock, some bolder's and some supplemental test pits.16 This is the majority of the work that was being17 described in this report.18 THE PUBLIC: How many borings did you do?19 THE WITNESS: There's four borings. Two on20 the C line, two on the B line -- D line, excuse me. And21 then there's an additional five test pits through here22 and there's additional test pits that were done a little23 further to the south.24 THE PUBLIC: How deep do you go?25 26 THE WITNESS: These vary, but the test pits1 were typically 5-feet or less. And the borings went2 variable depths, at least typically about 20-feet. We3 took them into the rock.4 THE PUBLIC: Can you just remind us, why did5 you have to go back or what was the indication to do6 more borings?7 THE WITNESS: Well, it was brought up during8 the, during the January 29 meeting, the question was9 raised about what about this area here, that there10 wasn't date that was further here that we were going to11 use for that, so we went back and did the additional12 investigation up in this area to the north.13 THE PUBLIC: And did you find any noticeable14 difference?15 THE WITNESS: Yes. One noticeable16 difference was that the rock was generally shallower to17 the north. So in this area here rock was about 10-feet18 deep, 10 or 12 and the same here. I think it was also19 10-feet here and dropped to about 20-feet over here.20 And then rock through this cross section A was a little21 bit deeper. So relatively thin as you went from, or22 shallow rather, as you went from north and south and I23 think, but the soils themselves were very -- showed very24 dense soil profile.25 27 THE PUBLIC: So overall what's your1 impression of what

or22 shallow rather, as you went from north and south and I23 think, but the soils themselves were very -- showed very24 dense soil profile.25 27 THE PUBLIC: So overall what's your1 impression of what your findings were from the borings?2 THE WITNESS: That this area up -- or this3 areas a very, it's a dense soil profile over hard rock.4 It's a condition that is favorable for slope stability5 and that the, our analysis indicated that slopes are6 stable now and would be after the development.7 THE PUBLIC: And how -- what's the depth of8 the bedrock?9 THE WITNESS: The bedrock vary from about10 10-feet here. You can see here -- well, this shows an11 elevation and a depth. That's the depth of rock that12 was encountered in the boring.13 THE PUBLIC: That's good.14 THE WITNESS: And then similarly, so there15 was rock around six and half feet shown here. I think16 that was -- it was probably broken rock and as we went17 further to the south, NLB-4, it was 12-feet and as you18 to scroll into this area here. It shows it was deeper19 than 11, but, again, it's weathered rock and broken20 profile below 11-feet.21 THE PUBLIC: So I am trying to understand,22 when you got bedrock you said 22-feet as you have there,23 that means the bedrock went down, your borings were24 22-feet, but how deep was the actual bedrock?25 28 THE WITNESS: So for example, right here1 this is telling us the depth of this boring, it is2 telling us the depth is below ground surface at which3 the top of rock is encountered. So 10-feet below ground4 surface we encountered rock.5 THE PUBLIC: So what constitutes the minimum6 requirements for a stable --7 THE WITNESS: Well, stability is a function8 of materials, strength of properties. So in rock like9 this it's very, we look at density of the soil, number10 one. Then we look at the rock properties, rock quality,11 strength of material and we enter those values into our12 model and that helps inform us of the overall stability13 of the material.14 THE PUBLIC: So the last question is15 regarding water flow, stormwater over bedrock down into16 that area. As a geologist, can you explain what your17 findings are to me as a layperson?18 THE WITNESS: Well, we found in our borings19 that we are not seeing groundwater, so when you look at,20 I will say from a precipitation event, there's an21 approximate peak or high point or elevation on this site22 that runs

und in our borings19 that we are not seeing groundwater, so when you look at,20 I will say from a precipitation event, there's an21 approximate peak or high point or elevation on this site22 that runs right about through this area. So everything23 to the right of that, any stormwater that hits will tend24 to flow overland in this direction and overland in this25

08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM Page 29 to 32 of 175 8 of 70 sheets 29 direction from that high point. Not all that water for1 instance seeps into the ground. Some runs over2 naturally and is collected in a storm system. Some of3 it may seep into the ground, may or may not form much of4 a groundwater table only to the fact there's a5 relatively small area between the high point and this6 area here which water can be concentrated in the form of7 groundwater table.8 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.10 Please state your name for the record?11 THE PUBLIC: Good evening. Seth Weisleder.12 Good evening, Mr. Seel. I have a question13 to just maybe refresh, I guess, everyone's memory from14 back in January. It's a long time ago, more like15 yesterday. But what was the main purpose for checking16 the stability of the slopes that we see where all the17 borings were done? What was like the main purpose of18 it.19 THE WITNESS: The purpose of a stability20 assessment is to determine whether or not the slope is21 currently stable and whether it would be stable after,22 certainly, construction activity.23 THE PUBLIC: Okay.24 Can you go more into that construction25 30 activity, would that include blasting?1 THE WITNESS: Well, it would be, it's really2 not so much about blasting, it's really mostly3 construction. So we look at the loading from the4 building, is what we look at. So we got a slope that we5 look at, then we ask them to redraw the lines to6 determine where the building is going to be going to7 load this slope and we enter that and put that8 information into a model.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 That could include blasting, correct?11 MR. PLOCKER: I believe Mr. Seel testified12 extensively to blasting the last time when questions13 were brought up. It is in the transcript and it's not14 part of this report.15 THE PUBLIC: He said construction activity,16 I want to clarify specifically what construction17 activities, and does that include blasting.18 THE WITNESS: Well, let me rephrase it then.19 The stability analysis is run based on the existing20 conditions and then if conditions change during21 construction. So it's not the activity of construction,22 it is whether changing or adding -- adding grading or23 you're adding filling or cutting slopes and you're24 adding load to it. That's what --25 31 THE PUBLIC: And based on the new ones that1 you found, what kind

r changing or adding -- adding grading or23 you're adding filling or cutting slopes and you're24 adding load to it. That's what --25 31 THE PUBLIC: And based on the new ones that1 you found, what kind of rock was that? What kind of2 soil, I think there was some more specifics in your3 report.4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, the report described5 soils that were encountered, very similar to what was6 found elsewhere on-site which generally speaking is very7 dense soil, combination of sand, silt and gravel. Some8 varying amounts of clay. And the rock itself is a fine,9 relatively fine-grained igneous rock that tends to be10 very hard and ashy.11 THE PUBLIC: So could there possibly be risk12 in the surrounding area because basalt is dense and13 transmits energy efficiently like shock waves and14 blasting, couldn't that travel further based on what the15 basalt is?16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, when you're17 referring, specifically to an activity?18 THE PUBLIC: Since there will be some19 blasting for Building D does the rock basalt, that is a20 dense rock, correct?21 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.22 THE PUBLIC: And it transmits energy23 efficiently, so couldn't those shock waves from the24 blasting travel further?25 32 THE WITNESS: So blasting is a science that1 is a little, it's very complex. So, yes, it is. I2 testified in the past that if they do excavate here due3 to rock issues, there's controlled blasting techniques4 to minimize the amount of energy that is transferred to5 the rock capacity and beyond the property. And when we6 do that, if it's done properly, like blasting rock7 immediately adjacent to a four story buildings without8 incident.9 THE PUBLIC: So could there be potential10 slope destabilization if blasting from, especially atop11 Preakness Basalt that kind of rock? I mean, we're12 talking about a specific kind of rock which you're13 familiar with, couldn't there be potential14 destabilization on that slope?15 THE WITNESS: I've not encountered that16 rock. This type of rock is very hard. It has a17 relatively high sheer weight and these types of, if18 they're blasting for example, those waves pass very19 quickly through the rock and it's when they slow down20 and hit material that's much softer that the material21 could tend to disturb ground. It's less likely in very22 hard rock like this. Especially unlikely in the event23 that these controlled blasting techniques

terial that's much softer that the material21 could tend to disturb ground. It's less likely in very22 hard rock like this. Especially unlikely in the event23 that these controlled blasting techniques are put into24 place.25

9 of 70 sheets Page 33 to 36 of 175 08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM 33 THE PUBLIC: Will there be any pre-blast1 surveys or monitoring in place due to the hardness and2 unpredictability of fracturing the basalt?3 THE WITNESS: Well, I understand that there4 will be, that's a owner decision, but that has been our5 recommendation and I believe the owner is intending to6 perform that, but I can't speak for them.7 THE PUBLIC: So you're suggesting to the8 developer that they conduct seismic monitoring and9 pre-blast surveys in nearby structures and vibration10 control measures?11 THE WITNESS: That's a common recommendation12 I make for any development project or request.13 THE PUBLIC: Would you say that basalt14 blasting is typically louder and more destructive than15 blasting in soft rock or soil?16 THE WITNESS: I would say that's a relative17 term, because it depends on a person's perception of18 sound and vibration.19 THE PUBLIC: And what concerns do you have20 for residents and for environmental protection in that21 area, do you have any concerns?22 THE WITNESS: If the excavation is done23 properly under the guidance of a qualified professional,24 then I expect everything would be done properly and that25 34 risk would be mitigated.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I believe the zoning2 ordinance has protections in the building department for3 blasting. It's sent down from the state and the4 township. We have had this before with blasting, so5 there are guard rails.6 Mr. Plocker.7 MR. PLOCKER: Yeah. And if I may add,8 looking at a portion of the January 29 transcript, I am9 not going to read it line by line but Pages 14 to 1510 this was discussed and I believe, I won't quote you, and11 I think it's going to be up to the building department12 once they get the documents, they will work with the13 engineering firm to ensure that everything is within14 code and within state regulations and I am skipping a15 few lines and I went on to make a representation on16 behalf of my client -- yeah, I said that "It's standard17 procedure of my client throughout this process and any18 period of compliance will be working with the towns19 professionals in connections with that as I expect to20 many others as well."21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.22 THE PUBLIC: With regard specifically to23 basalt that you found, could blasting introduce new24 fractures and weak points on the slope?25 35 THE WITNESS:

hers as well."21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.22 THE PUBLIC: With regard specifically to23 basalt that you found, could blasting introduce new24 fractures and weak points on the slope?25 35 THE WITNESS: Well, with any rock if, where1 the energy's introduced, it could introduce breakage.2 But if properly implemented, design and implemented3 controlled blasting techniques are used that amount of4 energy is significantly reduced, if not eliminated5 beyond that hole. So at periphery air cushion that's6 created by the control blasting techniques.7 THE PUBLIC: And when you destabilize a8 slope or possible destabilization, what risk, what other9 risks could be there, like what would that cause?10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I'm not -- could11 you rephrase it.12 THE PUBLIC: Sure. So if you, if this slope13 does come destabilized because of the fractures,14 potential fractures, weak points, what other risks could15 that cause where we checked out the stabilization?16 THE WITNESS: Well, that's somewhat17 speculative. I guess I would --18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry, I'm going to19 stop that. He didn't testify to that, but there are20 state ordinances and there will be post blasting testing21 done by the ordinance and by state rules on how blasting22 is done. If there's an issue that has to be addressed23 through the state and the local government will ensure24 stability and that covers that.25 36 MR. AFRAN: May I.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.2 MR. AFRAN: I would respectfully disagree3 with the Chairs position on that. Because the question4 of risk is inherent in the testimony as to stability.5 And since the witness testified that this is a stable6 structure, I think the question of risk associated with7 it is within the scope of his testimony. So I8 respectfully disagree with --9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He wants to know10 afterwards if it happens. He wasn't talking about risk,11 he was saying if this happens what next.12 So then rephrase the question. Ask13 specifically about risk as opposed to what happens14 afterwards because that's what he was asking.15 MR. AFRAN: I heard the question concerning16 the question of risk, I thought it was relevant. If17 that's not what the speaker is asking, that's a18 different issue.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The speaker asked what20 happens afterwards, so that's where we went. Okay. I21 have no problem with that.22 THE PUBLIC: I guess what is that