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

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 potential23 risk? I will rephrase --24 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if you don't mind,25

08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM Page 37 to 40 of 175 10 of 70 sheets 37 rephrase the question.1 THE PUBLIC: So what are the potential risks2 when the slope becomes destabilized?3 THE WITNESS: Well, I have not been involved4 in a rock mass basalt that has become destabilized as a5 result of blasting. So it's hard for me to speculate on6 what would happen. But as I have testified and provided7 that the safeguards are in place, that is a controlled8 blasting program is in place, I'm not expecting there --9 that risk becomes incredibly low, if not all together10 zero with the indication of controlled blasting11 techniques. So then as the amount of charge is put in12 the hole and blasted the energy is reduced and if there13 is an air cushion between, let's say the face of the14 excavation and down slope, then there's no -- the risk15 is mitigated by that method.16 THE PUBLIC: Okay.17 You talked a little bit about -- you said18 you found Preakness Basalt, hard rock, but I did a19 little research, I mean, I'm not a, you know, geologist20 but Preakness Basalt stores a lot of natural geological21 stress to begin with, correct?22 THE WITNESS: Certainly at a depth --23 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Seel.24 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. So when rock25 38 is exposed to the ground surface it tends to dilate1 slightly, especially on the lead face. There's a2 certain amount of findings that exist in the rock mass,3 especially with the depth with burial, the depth of good4 rock and the face very gradually starts to de-stress and5 open up. So the -- so materials, they were, the6 materials you see today are what we would expect to see7 after blasting, provided those controlled techniques are8 put in place.9 THE PUBLIC: So considering if blasting was10 to be done correctly, properly, according to ordinances,11 all those other things, laws, etc., couldn't blasting12 trigger release of some of that stress causing13 unexpected cracking, more mass movement?14 THE WITNESS: I'm struggling to find a case15 where I've seen something like that happen. You're16 talking about stress fields in rock, you're talking17 about large scale stresses, these are relatively smaller18 that we're seeing in outcrops and I would expect that,19 I've not seen where uncontrolled blasting has been done20 in an instance relative to neighboring homes. In one21 instance I've seen where it was used in a quarry and if22 it does, it can

xpect that,19 I've not seen where uncontrolled blasting has been done20 in an instance relative to neighboring homes. In one21 instance I've seen where it was used in a quarry and if22 it does, it can be destructive, but that was -- those23 cases are very -- they're not relative to what we're24 seeing or what we expect to see here in a development in25 39 a residential area.1 THE PUBLIC: Do you know if this slope2 contains subsurface water channels?3 THE WITNESS: Well, we look for ground4 water.5 THE PUBLIC: I guess how far would you have6 to go to see or know if there was subsurface water? I7 mean, could it be if you went down, what, 20-feet?8 THE WITNESS: 20 or 40 feet.9 THE PUBLIC: 20 or 40. Okay.10 So in your professional opinion blasting on11 or above Preakness Basalt ridge line is, is it risky?12 One being low and ten being high on a scale of one to13 ten.14 MR. PLOCKER: I'm going to object.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, he hasn't testified16 anything about this.17 THE PUBLIC: About what?18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're going too far off19 the hypotheticals.20 THE PUBLIC: Okay.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: It's just a different22 flavor vanilla.23 THE PUBLIC: Well, I was asking for a24 professional opinion for blasting on, which we're25 40 building on Preakness Basalt.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You asked for the risks.2 THE PUBLIC: Okay.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: But move on.4 THE PUBLIC: Okay.5 Will your firm be assisting on the blasting6 guidelines or is this just specifically for, I guess I7 have to ask something that you testified on, I8 apologize.9 I think I'm okay for now.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Would any other member of11 the public have any questions for Mr. Seel on his12 testimony? Please come up and state your name for the13 record.14 THE PUBLIC: Yes, hello. My name is Leigh15 Masci. I have a question for Mr. Seel.16 MS. McGOVERN: Did you say Clair?17 THE PUBLIC: Leigh.18 MS. McGOVERN: Leigh.19 THE PUBLIC: Yes.20 Mr. Seel, in your professional opinion what21 do you think might be some of the effects of blasting on22 the walls of the houses closest to and directly across23 from this site?24 MR. PLOCKER: Again, this wasn't in his25

11 of 70 sheets Page 41 to 44 of 175 08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM 41 report.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He didn't testify to that.2 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.4 Do any another members of the public -- come5 right up. State your name for the record, please.6 THE PUBLIC: Hi. Thank you. I'm Susan7 Pannullo and I'm within the 200-foot zone. I have a8 quick question for something you testified to a few9 minutes ago. If I understood correctly you were saying10 that there is no way to measure the difference in the11 blasting of different materials, and my understanding is12 there's objective measures to measure that. There are13 decibels, I think it's called, that would help us to14 determine whether the blasting is different in terms of15 sound volume and impact on people around there.16 THE WITNESS: So can we read that back17 because I don't recall saying anything like that, at18 least not intending to.19 MR. PLOCKER: Again, this subject matter is20 not in the purview of the board, it's not in his report,21 he didn't testify and just for the record, I just want22 to confirm that Mrs. Pannullo is an Essex Fells23 resident?24 THE PUBLIC: Yes.25 42 MR. PLOCKER: Okay. I believed so, I just1 didn't hear you say that.2 THE PUBLIC: Yes, Essex Fells. Thank you.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He didn't testify to that.4 THE PUBLIC: It was a few minutes ago, your5 question was whether there was basalt or other materials6 for volume, I think was the word or something like that.7 You did not use the word decibels that came from me.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.9 THE PUBLIC: Yes, thank you.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let him answer.11 If you can, you can answer.12 THE WITNESS: I don't recall specifically13 what I said.14 THE PUBLIC: I recall. Do want to read it15 back.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: No, he can't do that.17 MS. McGOVERN: Okay.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Why don't you ask the19 question and if he can answer the question, he will go20 ahead and answer the question.21 THE PUBLIC: So the question that I asked22 was, are there objective measures, as you alluded to, to23 quantify how that blasting is for people that are within24 earshot of the property?25 43 THE WITNESS: Yes, there are.1 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.2 MR. PLOCKER: Again, I'm going to object to3 the line of questioning. The decibels or the sound or4 whatever effects of blasting, as the Chairman dully5 stated, they are controlled by ordinances.

you.2 MR. PLOCKER: Again, I'm going to object to3 the line of questioning. The decibels or the sound or4 whatever effects of blasting, as the Chairman dully5 stated, they are controlled by ordinances. There are6 state regulations possibly and my client will work with7 the town and follow those guidelines and listen to it's8 own professionals in that regard.9 THE PUBLIC: So I guess my question -- go10 ahead, please.11 MR. AFRAN: Well, I think it's relevant for12 the members of the community to go into this subject.13 It may well be that the applicant intends to adhere to14 zoning codes and rules, but that doesn't mean the15 information about the extent of sound and blasting16 noises is not relevant to the application. Certainly is17 and it's certainly within the scope of the testimony in18 general. The witness says he's aware of those objective19 measures, so clearly it's within the scope of his20 knowledge and it relates.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Nobody's arguing except22 that I asked her to ask her question. If he can answer23 the question he'll answer the question.24 MR. AFRAN: No, I'm just responding to Mr.25 44 Plocker's position. They may adhere to every rule but1 still relevant subject for the members of the community.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm asking him to answer3 the question. If he can't answer, he can't. If he can,4 he will.5 MR. AFRAN: Okay.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.7 Go right ahead.8 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.9 So is this within your area of expertise?10 MR. PLOCKER: Is what?11 THE PUBLIC: Is the sound of blasting within12 your area of expertise?13 THE WITNESS: I believe so. You can ask a14 question and I will answer it.15 THE PUBLIC: So now the next question is,16 are there objective measures of the amount of noise17 that's made for the people that live in the community18 surrounding the development?19 THE WITNESS: There are -- there are sound20 levels which are measured in decibels and some of them21 are nuisance levels, some of them are threshold levels22 or beyond which it becomes a nuisance.23 THE PUBLIC: Okay.24 And are there objective measures, you know,25

08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM Page 45 to 48 of 175 12 of 70 sheets 45 I'm a neuroscientist, so bear with me for a minute. Are1 there objective measures for the impact of various2 decibel levels on the human brain?3 THE WITNESS: I can't speak to the science4 behind it but there are levels above which you hear5 things or that are harmful to the human ear.6 THE PUBLIC: So are you aware of studies7 within your expertise, we'll stay with that, are you8 aware of studies that actually quantify the amount of9 sound that qualifies as nuisance or threshold levels?10 THE WITNESS: I am aware of studies and I11 can't cite the exact levels, but I am aware of the12 different levels that relate to various thresholds of13 harm or nuisance.14 THE PUBLIC: Got it. Thank you.15 Are there experts in that field that can16 testify perhaps to specifics regarding the effects of17 sound upon humans living within particular areas of18 nuisances like blasting?19 THE WITNESS: I suppose there are. I would20 imagine there are. I don't personally know any, but I21 am sure there is someone with the proper training and22 education that can speak to that.23 THE PUBLIC: Okay.24 And I think we're okay for now.25 46 Thank you very much.1 MR. PLOCKER: For the record, could we get2 Mrs. Pannullo's address?3 THE PUBLIC: I'm sorry.4 MR. PLOCKER: Your address. It's a5 legitimate question.6 THE WITNESS: I don't think -- am I allowed7 --8 MR. PLOCKER: I can look it up the deed, but9 I --10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Are you within 200 feet?11 MR. PLOCKER: I'd would like to know the12 address, because I'd like to show where Mrs. Pannullo13 lives.14 THE PUBLIC: I'm in the 200-foot notice15 area, if that's what you would like to know.16 MR. PLOCKER: I can look up my notice, but I17 think I want, for the record, where Mrs. Pannullo lives18 in relationship to Building D.19 MR. AFRAN: Well, wait a second. The member20 of the community wasn't speaking necessarily only for21 herself.22 MR. PLOCKER: I didn't say she was.23 MR. AFRAN: She's entitled to raise -- so24 why does it matter where she lives and it seems to me to25 47 be an intrusion --1 MR. PLOCKER: Because every board meeting I2 go to people are required to give addresses. I can look3 up my notices.4 MR. AFRAN: There's absolutely no law that5 says a citizen coming here or any other municipal held6 meeting must do that.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker can look

e addresses. I can look3 up my notices.4 MR. AFRAN: There's absolutely no law that5 says a citizen coming here or any other municipal held6 meeting must do that.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker can look it8 up.9 MS. McGOVERN: Okay. There is some rational10 for asking people their address, because there is the11 presumption of whether you have standing to object to12 something. It's granted that you have standing if you13 are in the 200-foot radius. There are other reasons why14 you might have standing, but it is germane to the issues15 to find out where somebody lives if it's been requested.16 MR. AFRAN: I must respectfully disagree.17 And the reason is very simply that there is no18 requirement as an -- to be an objector that one must19 live within the 200-foot range. I'm not sure where, Ms.20 McGovern, you get that from. Anyone in the community21 can stand as an objector. Our standing rules are22 extremely broad.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're not arguing.24 MR. AFRAN: My point though is, that the25 48 question was asked as a general matter of the impact of1 the project and it doesn't matter whether this witness2 lives near where the blasting will be or not. She's3 asking a question about the impact on the community. To4 start focusing on where people live is intrusive and5 certainly suggests some people have more rights than6 others and that would be wrong.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, she stated8 herself she lives within 200-feet of the area. It9 wasn't that anybody's putting it upon her.10 MR. AFRAN: Whether she said that or not11 doesn't mean it's relevant to ask where people live when12 they asked a question. The entire community is13 concerned with these issues.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: It may be relevant, she15 brought it up as a matter of fact, but I am not arguing16 the point. We are going to move on.17 I am going to say one thing for the record.18 That blasting and safe operations are covered by MSHA19 and OSHA and the township will make sure that the20 decibel levels fall within the prescribed guidelines.21 Can you hear me?22 THE PUBLIC: Now we can.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Blasting is covered by the24 guidelines and will be monitored by the applicant and by25

13 of 70 sheets Page 49 to 52 of 175 08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM 49 the township to ensure that it doesn't achieve a higher1 level than prescribed in the ordinance. So just for the2 public's edification.3 MR. PLOCKER: May I, Chairman Bagoff.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: May I have your name and5 address, please?6 THE PUBLIC: Gilda Paul and I live at 617 Howell Drive, which is right across the cul-de-sac from8 the development.9 For some reason none of the maps show where10 I live, they show the block under me. I am not sure11 why, but I would like to ask the same question about the12 --13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry, doesn't the map14 show Howell Drive?15 THE PUBLIC: They're always going to 1316 Howell Drive. Some reason they don't show my house, I17 don't know why. I am right across the cul-de-sac from18 the development.19 MR. KLEIN: Further away?20 THE PUBLIC: Closer. Right on the21 cul-de-sac.22 MR. KLEIN: This over here?23 THE PUBLIC: No, 13 and 11, I'm below them.24 Right across there. That's a whole street below me.25 50 MR. KLEIN: To the left?1 THE PUBLIC: No, right underneath it.2 MR. KLEIN: All the way down the right?3 THE PUBLIC: No, below. For some reason I'm4 not on there.5 MR. KLEIN: 11. Where's 61?6 THE PUBLIC: 61 is, there's a cul-de-sac and7 6l is on the cul-de-sac.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The cul-de-sac that faces9 the golf course?10 THE PUBLIC: Yeah, faces the golf course. I11 am right on that cul-de-sac and for some reason I am not12 on any of your maps.13 MR. KLEIN: Right there. There's the14 cul-de-sac.15 THE PUBLIC: Right. I'm right above it, but16 you don't seem to show it.17 MR. KLEIN: Where the number three is? That18 little number three on the page.19 THE PUBLIC: Some reason you're talking20 about numbers.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Because it's blown up and22 more information is on that side.23 THE PUBLIC: Okay. So I am number three.24 So I share the concerns about blasting and I don't know25 51 if you want to address them or feel like you already1 addressed them, but if you're concerned with where2 people live in terms of the blasting, I just wanted to3 raise my concerns as well.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.5 Any other members of the public have any6 questions for Mr. Seel on his testimony?7 Please, go right ahead.8 THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder, 17 Howell9 Drive.10 So question, did you study whether the rock,11 the new borings was cracked or weakened

uestions for Mr. Seel on his testimony?7 Please, go right ahead.8 THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder, 17 Howell9 Drive.10 So question, did you study whether the rock,11 the new borings was cracked or weakened already?12 THE WITNESS: We studied the -- we when13 drilled the borings we drilled them to rock and when we14 hit refusal then we core the rock and we evaluate,15 called rock quality segregation, so that is the measure16 of the relative fracturedness of the rock.17 THE PUBLIC: So in your expert opinion, how18 close is too close to the blasting of homes like ours19 that are only 150, 200 feet away?20 MR. PLOCKER: Again, I'm going to object to,21 respectfully Mr. Weisleder, object to his line of22 questioning. We have covered blasting, we covered what23 it's governed by. It's not governed by this board. My24 client said they will follow all the rules and25 52 regulations and work with the Township of West Orange1 and their professionals in that regard.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I have to agree with that.3 We're done with blasting.4 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Maybe our professionals5 can comment on that later.6 All right. That's my last question. Thank7 you.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You're welcome.9 Come right up and state your name.10 THE PUBLIC: Debbie Butensky.11 In general when blasting is done on a12 surface like this, what's the usual decibel level?13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He didn't testify to14 decibel levels. There's a standard, there's a standard,15 there's a standard set by the state and federal16 government.17 THE PUBLIC: He's a geologist. I am asking18 --19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm not arguing. So the20 noise of something, that is set. It can't go higher21 than certain decibel levels. So you want him to just22 say what the decibel level is?23 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, I must24 respectfully object. I believe in your good intentions25

08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM Page 53 to 56 of 175 14 of 70 sheets 53 you're effectually testifying that -- if I can explain.1 Not intentionally. It's having the effect of testifying2 that the controls and zoning rules and construction3 rulings that exist in the state or municipally will4 protect the public. Now, that's the viewpoint you're5 holding and it presumes the rules are good enough and6 the people will adhere to them and enforce them, but I7 think it's a relevant question and the public has a8 right to inquire into these areas and I think when you9 repeatedly say, despite your good intensions, that10 everything will be all right because the rules protect11 people, you're offering your viewpoint it has an impact12 of prejudicing the effect in the room. I don't think13 it's the boards role at this stage to say those things14 will protect the public. The public has the right to15 raise their concerns. So I respectfully would object to16 the characterizing these rules as protective.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think the public has the18 right to also know that there are guidelines in place19 and the town does monitor, the applicant is required to20 monitor, so both sides of that coin. I will allow the21 question, but the public has the right to know there are22 other monitoring agencies, it doesn't go willy-nilly23 that the applicant can just do what they wish.24 MR. AFRAN: Well, I think it's true that25 54 there monitoring agencies, but I don't think it's really1 appropriate for the Chair to be assuring the public that2 there's no problem because those rules exist. We all3 know rules can be improperly enforced, incorrectly4 applied and things of that nature.5 MR. PLOCKER: That's speculation.6 MR. AFRAN: It's not speculation, it's7 reality of the world.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, the question is, are9 you representing that you have information that the10 rules in the Township have ever not been followed?11 MR. AFRAN: I think that's a dogmatic point12 that you're raising and to defeat what's obvious. That13 the quality of any rule and any enforcement depends how14 it is carried out and enforced. Merely because a rule15 exists does not mean the public should necessarily16 accept that a project is safe. They have the right to17 inquire and I don't think that, I don't think the Chair,18 respectfully, should be giving that constant assurance19 because it biases those members