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

ept 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 of the board who hear it20 and it biases the public who then become intimidated by21 not raising their concerns.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I didn't say that. The23 public has a right to know that this is in fact a24 standard. However, she can ask the question.25 55 MR. AFRAN: Then witness himself can speak1 to that, I don't think it's the Chair's role to take2 that position at this stage.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, it wasn't brought4 out and the public does know --5 MR. AFRAN: Well, if the witness doesn't6 bring it out, he's an expert, that might demonstrate the7 point that I'm raising, that the professional doesn't8 necessarily always take sukur in the existence of the9 rules.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We do.11 MR. AFRAN: I do too. I hope they are12 carried out.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.14 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: In any case, go right16 ahead, ask your question.17 THE PUBLIC: So to repeat the question,18 what's the decibel level, the maximum decibel level that19 you believe the public who are listening to this, who20 live in range where this is happening, what are you21 expecting -- what should we be expecting?22 THE WITNESS: You should expect, very23 reasonably expect that the blasting program is designed24 to meet the standards that are set for this development.25 56 That is both in terms of the vibration level, in terms1 of velocity and the noise level. So each program has to2 be designed properly and there's many factors that can3 change that effect the noise that's generated on a4 blast, the vibration levels that's generated on blasting5 and the distance that they promulgate. That has to be6 designed and that has not been done yet. We've have7 not, Langan has not done any design with respect to this8 or any testimony related to that. These are questions9 on the speculation side. What you should reasonably10 expect is that the design is done properly so that all11 the noise and velocity and the vibration levels do12 comply with safe standards.13 THE PUBLIC: So I am getting very specific.14 I would like to know, you have done this before, you're15 the geologist, when this type of construction is done16 how high have decibel levels gone?17 THE WITNESS: I

: So I am getting very specific.14 I would like to know, you have done this before, you're15 the geologist, when this type of construction is done16 how high have decibel levels gone?17 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't recall18 how high they go. But what I think the important thing19 here, to help answer your question and help you20 understand how it works, when this program is designed21 these programs are designed, they are designed with22 different multitude of factors, all of which impact the23 amount of noise or vibration energy that's created. So24 it's incumbent upon the blaster to design and implement25

15 of 70 sheets Page 57 to 60 of 175 08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM 57 it so that it does not exceed the safe standards that1 are available for this project.2 THE PUBLIC: Well, what I'm trying to get at3 --4 THE WITNESS: I understand. You're asking5 me to speculate. I don't know.6 THE PUBLIC: We're trying to get across to7 you, see I'm not an expert in construction, you are the8 expert in geology, you see there are four buildings, you9 just said it's on the bedrock, the basalt which is very10 dense. How many weeks are we going to hear the11 blasting? What's the level of blasting? Are you aware12 that there are standards that are about, actually the13 Mayor should be interested, for children what's toxic.14 And there are new standards that are coming out which15 are more and more stringent. We got kids living around16 the neighborhood, even light noise machines continually17 --18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You're testifying. Ask a19 question.20 THE PUBLIC: I asked. I'm not getting --21 THE WITNESS: I don't have an answer. I22 tried to explain that, with all due respect, that the23 amount of noise that's created and vibration due to the24 function of the blasting itself, which I am not doing,25 58 so.1 THE PUBLIC: But you looked -- certainly you2 looked at a project like this and the scope of the3 project and the amount of blast, how many blasts, how4 many weeks are we going to expect to have this in our5 neighborhood? That's the question. And you're saying6 you can't estimate.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's the answer at this8 time. He doesn't know.9 THE WITNESS: I don't know.10 THE PUBLIC: So there's the concern as the11 resident that lives in the neighborhood, what am I going12 to be encountering should this project be permitted and13 all the kids that live in this neighborhood?14 MR. MacNEILL: Mr. Chair, if I could jump15 in. If I could offer this.16 Making it a condition of potential approval17 that the applicant, any construction activity on-site18 would have to comply with Township, state and federal19 regulations for that construction activity should, I20 recommend, be made a potential condition on the21 approval.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.23 MR. MacNEILL: It will ease the residents to24 ensure that all construction work would follow the noise25 59 -- the allowable noise decibels based on the Township1 and the state code.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That was in the January3 meeting.4 MR.

s to24 ensure that all construction work would follow the noise25 59 -- the allowable noise decibels based on the Township1 and the state code.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That was in the January3 meeting.4 MR. PLOCKER: That was acceptable to the5 applicant then and it is now.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And Mr. Afran.7 MR. AFRAN: Obviously there's nothing wrong8 with such a condition if the project is approved. But9 with great respect, all that says is that the applicant10 has to obey the law. So it doesn't add any additional11 layer of protection. It does not actually add any layer12 of protection. Simply says the applicant agrees to obey13 the law, which I assume he will have to in any case to14 the best of its ability. But that does not address the15 question of the harm potentially arising from it.16 Simply says you will adhere to the conditions of the --17 that exist. So while it is admirable to have the18 applicant say he will adhere to the law, that doesn't19 add anything. I want to make that point. It looks like20 it does, but it does not.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We'll have Mr. MacNeill22 come up with a solution and brief the applicant for the23 next meeting and that will end the layer of protection.24 MR. AFRAN: We'll see. Thank you.25 60 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.1 Next.2 MR. KLEIN: So --3 THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein --4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: First Mr. Klein.5 MR. KLEIN: So Mr. Seel, is there a way to6 design the blast to control the decibels at a certain7 distance at the property line let's say? Is it the same8 noise rules that we have for all kinds of other noises9 at the property line?10 THE WITNESS: Correct. There are methods11 that are available for contractors to use to limit the12 amount of noise and amount of vibration.13 MR. KLEIN: Do you design it and show it to14 someone and someone says, okay, if I'm looking at the15 calculation this is the proper way to do it and it looks16 like you're going to be below this decibel level at this17 location and if not they can look and say you got to18 take away some dynamite to make it quieter because it's19 like going to violate this noise rule?20 THE WITNESS: Certainly for the vibration21 end, yes, that's the case. And if -- I can't speak to22 the sound aspect of it. How that's dealt with, if it's23 calculated for, you know, to reach those certain levels,24 but they're, within the blasting there has to be25

08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM Page 61 to 64 of 175 16 of 70 sheets 61 guidance helps them through the development of those.1 MR. KLEIN: There are programs that an2 engineer or a blast specialist would use based on the3 type of soil, type of rock, distance, do they model4 something?5 THE WITNESS: Correct.6 MR. KLEIN: They model something that says7 this is where the blast will go based on what rock needs8 to be removed and this is what we can expect the9 vibration, you can dampen that vibration somehow. You10 can do smaller blasts as opposed to one big one, all11 that kind of stuff?12 THE WITNESS: Correct. There are a number13 of different parameters that can be adjusted to limit14 the amount of energy that's released and resulting in15 the amount of noise.16 MR. KLEIN: So it's not just we are going to17 blast, somebody complains about noise, we're going to18 stop blasting and try and figure it out. You're going19 to know before the blasting starts that they have met20 the vibration amounts, the levels and they dampened it a21 certain way or whatever they do to make it work to get22 the rock out but not to be vibrating so far away that it23 effects the neighbors?24 THE WITNESS: That's generally the way it25 62 works. To make sure that they achieve the goals of the1 design.2 MR. KLEIN: So they'll put some sort of3 vibration monitor at 15 or 13 Howell, maybe 61 Howell,4 to see what the vibrations are when the first set of5 blasts go off and if there's a problem they'll, oop,6 let's shut this down. We have to recalculate?7 THE WITNESS: Correct. The seismographs are8 placed in various locations and they monitor it in real9 time.10 MR. KLEIN: Okay.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Seel, is it true that12 a plan has to be presented to the town for approval for13 blasting and where monitors would be?14 THE WITNESS: That has typically been my15 experience. That a blasting plan is developed and16 presented to the Township for approval.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead.18 THE PUBLIC: But the question is, since none19 of us are experts on the actual toxic level of decibels,20 so you got a monitor there, what if it does exceed your21 theoretical, because I can tell you, 85 decibels is22 toxic. You haven't given me a single even hypothetical23 about what one set of blasting charge in your experience24 elicits and that's what I'm trying to get. A baseline25 63 from your experience, and so

ic. You haven't given me a single even hypothetical23 about what one set of blasting charge in your experience24 elicits and that's what I'm trying to get. A baseline25 63 from your experience, and so what's the, what if, what1 if it goes higher, you know, the project starts and2 we're stuck?3 MR. PLOCKER: I don't know what the question4 is.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I do. I think she's6 asking for the monitor and make sure that everything,7 indifference to Mr. Afran's --8 THE PUBLIC: You said you would get9 measurements.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: There are layers of11 standards that the applicant will have to live with and12 so will the Township and we do believe the Township will13 make sure that these things are monitored and the public14 also will be notified before any blasting is done by15 standard and if there's an issue they will contact the16 Township immediately.17 MR. PLOCKER: Mr. Chairman, if may I add,18 and I don't know the specific provision right now, so I19 do apologize. But in the settlement agreement there is20 an obligation from my client to not only inform the town21 but to maintain a website about ongoing construction22 activities, including blasting.23 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, ma'am.25 64 Ma'am.1 THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.3 THE PUBLIC: I guess my first question, to4 piggyback on the controlling of the sound and blasting,5 are we, for those who live below it, is there going to6 be an excessive amount of dust or is there a way you7 have to control that to keep it from our properties?8 MR. PLOCKER: Again, I think this is outside9 the scope of his testimony. I think that's the10 construction building department.11 MR. AFRAN: Could I ask the member of the12 community to repeat the question again.13 THE PUBLIC: About if there are controls14 when they're blasting, if there would be a way to15 control dust and debris from our properties, since we16 live directly below it.17 MR. AFRAN: Sounds like -- sounds to me as18 though that's something that's not outside the witnesses19 scope of expertise. An engineer, geotechnical engineer20 is not limited to only sound and energy input, certain21 effects of the blasting is something that he must have22 expertise and experience in, that would include the23 spread of blasting particularly. So I don't think it's24 outside his scope at all.25

17 of 70 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 175 08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM 65 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: But he didn't testify to1 that in his report.2 MR. AFRAN: Well, maybe the witness is3 suggesting -- the community member suggesting that it4 was not addressed but needs to be a part of the report5 and that's why she's raising it.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: She asked the question,7 let's see if the witness can answer it.8 THE WITNESS: So the question, if I may9 paraphrase, are there techniques available during10 construction to suppress dust. Is the question, is11 during construction are there methods available to12 suppress dust?13 THE PUBLIC: Yes, specifically the downhill14 flow of it. Because we're directly below, some of us15 are directly below where the buildings going to go and16 when they're blasting --17 THE WITNESS: Sure, I understand. So dust is18 airborne.19 THE PUBLIC: Airborne and things come20 tumbling down the mountain.21 THE WITNESS: It goes up and comes down22 under gravity. So there are methods available for23 contractors to suppress dust during blasting, yes.24 They're masked with water for example.25 66 THE PUBLIC: And then on a different note.1 Did you compare the slope stability here with the slope2 stability when the Seton Hall sports complex was3 approved?4 MR. PLOCKER: Objection. That's clearly not5 in his report.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Can you say that again.7 THE PUBLIC: Did you compare the slope8 stability here to the slope stability when the Seton9 Hall sports complex was approved? I believe you worked10 on both, that's why.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Two different things.12 That's out of the scope of the Planning Board right now.13 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.14 MR. AFRAN: Wait, wait. Mr. Chairman --15 MR. PLOCKER: Bruce, let's continue. This16 is getting obstructive.17 MR. AFRAN: No, no, no. Excuse me, the18 Chair continues to interject opinions.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The Seton Hall project is20 not part of this application, nor are we going to21 compare and contrast anything.22 MR. AFRAN: Well, I agree it's not part of23 the application. But the witness was simply asked a24 question, he's capable of answering whether he did. So25 67 whether it has relevance later in the proceeding is1 another issue. The witness shouldn't be denied to2 answer the question.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That has absolutely4 nothing to do with the Planning Boards, any information5 leading about that

roceeding is1 another issue. The witness shouldn't be denied to2 answer the question.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That has absolutely4 nothing to do with the Planning Boards, any information5 leading about that project. I believe it's in6 litigation that project and the Planning Board has7 nothing to do with the Seton Hall project.8 MR. AFRAN: No, the Planning Board may not9 but the professional geotech engineer may very well.10 And in the course of studying that project and problems11 it may be that the expert has knowledge from that.12 That's relevant to the general opinion, that's why the13 community member was asking the question. Now, if he14 didn't compare it and doesn't know anything about it,15 he's quite capable of saying so. It isn't the Chairs16 role to essentially block the witness and that's not17 appropriate.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: It's the Chairs role to19 make sure we focus on the application here and not20 something else. You can ask the question, he may have21 an answer, but the board --22 MR. AFRAN: I have done my job to raise my23 objection to that position.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead.25 68 MR. AFRAN: It is my job to do that, so I1 have done it.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.3 THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder. I will be4 quick.5 I guess a question is, which is more6 important, decibels or vibration levels? So it's come7 up several times, I am curious which it is. Seems like8 people are concerned with decibels versus vibration, are9 they equally important?10 THE WITNESS: They effect different things.11 So they effect different things. Noise or decibels12 effect human hearing and it's a function of perception13 largely, but also natural impact. Where as vibrations14 typically people can feel them but they tend to,15 depending of the level of them, may have an impact on16 structures.17 THE PUBLIC: So if it could have an impact18 on structure of homes that are within 200 to 150 feet of19 the blasting zone or did you come across any other20 critical structure, could that cause critical failure to21 other structures like sewer, methane gas lines, anything22 in that area?23 THE WITNESS: Typically buildings are most24 susceptible. Utilities tend to be more resilient to25

08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM Page 69 to 72 of 175 18 of 70 sheets 69 vibration energy.1 THE PUBLIC: So is there a factor safety for2 this blasting that could effect this slope and anything3 that's there that might be affected?4 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could you repeat5 that.6 THE PUBLIC: Sure. So is there a factor of7 safety that is taken into consideration and are there8 any critical infrastructures on the slope?9 THE WITNESS: Well, there's a utility in the10 slope and then the street sewers.11 THE PUBLIC: If it's an older sewer line12 could vibration cause damage problems?13 THE WITNESS: Potentially.14 THE PUBLIC: So last question. When doing15 blasting, I know things have to be presented, they'll be16 governed by the laws, the statutes and all those things,17 is in it your normal or could there be pretesting done18 to determine the safety factors? Is that recommended19 before just going into full on blasting after what you20 presented, do you do any pretests beyond the soil21 samples?22 THE WITNESS: Yes, so there's -- one of the23 things I've already testified is recommended pre and24 post blasting surveys where the threshold goes into25 70 homes or adjacent, someone inspects the outside, the1 exterior facade of potential sensitive receptor and2 writes a report with recommendations for protecting the3 structures.4 THE PUBLIC: Is that something that can be5 taken up by the Planning Board, not just as a6 recommendation, but a condition?7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: It was a condition in the8 first meeting.9 THE PUBLIC: It was. I am double checking,10 it's hard to keep track.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Absolutely. Thank12 you.13 Do any other members of the public have any14 questions?15 Come up.16 THE PUBLIC: Debbie Butensky.17 So my colleague brought up a question18 regarding a particular matter and the air pollution.19 What type of mitigation is expected on your end?20 MR. PLOCKER: I'm just going to object. I21 think that the question is assuming that there's going22 to be particular spread, that isn't necessarily the23 case. I think for a --24 THE PUBLIC: Absolutely.25 71 MR. PLOCKER: -- clear record.1 THE PUBLIC: You don't think there will be2 dust?3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let him answer.4 THE PUBLIC: I find the attorneys5 supposition that there will be no dust or debris --6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am.7 MR. PLOCKER: I didn't say there wouldn't be8 any. I just said, would there

him answer.4 THE PUBLIC: I find the attorneys5 supposition that there will be no dust or debris --6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am.7 MR. PLOCKER: I didn't say there wouldn't be8 any. I just said, would there necessarily be any.9 THE WITNESS: So let me try to --10 MR. PLOCKER: Everybody here is laughing but11 it's a legitimate question. I know they would like this12 to drag on and on, but let's get to an answer.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay, ma'am. Go ahead and14 ask the question.15 THE PUBLIC: Well, Mr. Plocker just asked a16 very relevant question.17 THE WITNESS: So let me try to get some18 context of the blasting question. This building has a19 certain area and then rock within that building is maybe20 roughly 28 or so the extent of the entire building. So21 it's somewhere between a quarter and a third of the22 entire building and the amount of excavation that we're23 seeing based of what the proposed elevations are of the24 building, is anywhere from 3-feet of rock excavation to25 72 in one case upwards of 20, I think 22-feet where there's1 a larger amount. And that's the extent of blasting.2 The remainder of it would be excavation of soils, which3 is, depending on the time of year, it can be dusty, but4 the contractor can suppress or make attempts to suppress5 any dust locally with water. And same thing would be6 done, I would expect, with blasting.7 THE PUBLIC: So we can multiply that times8 four because there are four buildings being proposed, is9 that what you're saying?10 MR. PLOCKER: Objection.11 THE WITNESS: I'm not saying that. I am12 only --13 THE PUBLIC: I'm trying to understand what14 the process is when the buildings in those 30 acres,15 that's what I'm trying to understand.16 MR. PLOCKER: Respectfully, we could have17 three hearings on the process of blasting and I think18 we've exhausted --19 THE PUBLIC: Not just the blasting, it's in20 his domain. Explain to me about mitigation or air21 hazard, the pollution that's going to ensue?22 THE WITNESS: I would expect that the23 contractor will make every effort to suppress dust24 through the blasting process, through the excavation25