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

19 of 70 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 175 08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM 73 process, the hauling process.1 MR. PLOCKER: Is your company the blasting2 contractor?3 THE WITNESS: No, they're not.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do you have any other5 questions?6 Okay. Do any other members of the public7 have questions? Please come up, name for the record.8 THE PUBLIC: Robert Sharenow,9 S-H-A-R-E-N-O-W.10 A rather simple question. Let's talk about11 vibration. Based on soil that you found, the rocks that12 you found, do you have any idea on the average blasting13 that would take place as to how far, how, many feet or14 yards does your vibration carry?15 THE WITNESS: Well, as I testified we are16 recommending controlled blasting techniques. So if that17 is properly implemented the distance, rather than the18 magnitude, is truncated. Distance to which something is19 felt can vary depending, it's solely on the function of20 the linear distance and the amount of charge.21 THE PUBLIC: Give me an idea of linear22 distance, 200-feet, 500-feet?23 THE WITNESS: It'll vary by the amount of24 charge.25 74 THE PUBLIC: But it could carry a long1 distance, could they not?2 THE WITNESS: It depends on how it's3 supplied.4 THE PUBLIC: The reason I'm saying this, I5 live in the third house from the ridge line, when they6 built 280 back in 1969 we had to take everything off of7 the walls and off the shelves with the blasting that8 took place then. Thank you.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.10 Any other member of the public have any11 questions for Mr. Seel? Please come up and be12 identified. Seeing none.13 Thank you, Mr. Seel.14 Mr. Afran.15 MR. AFRAN: The questions did prompt a few16 questions from me.17 In answer to the last set of questions, the18 linear movement of sound and energy depends on a19 multitude of factors, is that correct.20 THE WITNESS: Referring to this last21 question, I was speaking to vibration. I wasn't --22 MR. AFRAN: Right. Well, the vibrations are23 a factor of the movement of energy through the rock and24 ground?25 75 THE WITNESS: Correct, yeah. But he1 mentioned sound.2 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry. Sound also is a3 factor of the multitude of things, is that correct?4 THE WITNESS: To some extent, yeah.5 Absolutely.6 MR. AFRAN: Now, if you can't identify the7 linear projection because it depends on the amount of8 charge, then how could this board know or any member of9 the community know ahead

yeah.5 Absolutely.6 MR. AFRAN: Now, if you can't identify the7 linear projection because it depends on the amount of8 charge, then how could this board know or any member of9 the community know ahead of time what the expected10 impacts are?11 THE WITNESS: There would be a blasting12 plan, in that blasting plan there's a formula that will13 ascribe the amount of charge that the plan would use.14 MR. AFRAN: Would you repeat that.15 THE WITNESS: Yeah. So what I was saying is,16 within the blasting plan that we prepared in advance of17 this construction, there is a formula that would be18 presented that describes what I just testified to. I19 just don't have that number. But that's how it would20 work. There would be, the blasting contractor would21 prepare that and they would show how he intends to limit22 the amount of vibration energy.23 Is there any reason that you're aware of that24 Q. plan cannot be prepared in advance of the decision on25 76 this application? I don't mean in terms of time, is1 there any technical reason why that plan cannot be2 prepared now as a part of the application?3 THE WITNESS: Well, typically in my4 experience contractors are not yet engaged to do that.5 That would be the primary reason.6 MR. PLOCKER: And, again, it's a7 construction issue. It's not an issue for this board.8 MR. AFRAN: Well, I'm glad Mr. Plocker is9 testifying as an expert as to what is a construction10 issue and what is not. He's a lawyer here, he's not11 supposed to be testifying.12 MR. PLOCKER: And that's not what I was13 doing, Mr. Afran.14 MR. AFRAN: I think it is, but we'll move15 on.16 MR. PLOCKER: It is not.17 MR. AFRAN: Is there any reason you're aware18 of -- strike that.19 So in other words, it's often done or20 typically done that a contractor is retained later,21 after approval, but no reason why that blasting plan22 could not be prepared in advance, is there?23 THE WITNESS: I don't know of any reason why24 or why not. It's just typically the process works25

08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM Page 77 to 80 of 175 20 of 70 sheets 77 approvals are given first with the understanding that1 all these other provisions on safety will be put into2 place effectively approved by the Township, the3 municipality and then implemented and monitored.4 MR. AFRAN: You've answered my question,5 there's no reason why it couldn't be done now for6 example?7 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't speak8 for the owner.9 MR. AFRAN: Are you aware of any reasons why10 a blasting plan could not be prepared in advance of11 construction and in advance of the decision on this12 application?13 THE WITNESS: I don't know of any.14 MR. AFRAN: Okay.15 Now, you mentioned --16 MR. PLOCKER: Because it's not an ordinance17 requirement.18 MR. AFRAN: There's a lot of things that are19 not ordinance requirements and there's an environmental20 review for example and all of this leads to questions21 that do relate to broader problems. If we don't even22 know how far the linear impact will be it's relevant.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.24 MR. AFRAN: I'm not arguing with Bryan.25 78 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm waiting for you to ask1 a question.2 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.3 Now, you mentioned a few minutes ago in4 response to one of the last questions that there are5 impacts on human beings from blasting noise or6 vibration, is that correct?7 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could you repeat8 that.9 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry. I believe you10 mentioned a little while ago that there are impacts from11 blasting noise or vibrations potentially on human12 beings, is that correct?13 THE WITNESS: That is the reason those14 conditions exist, because of the potential for impact on15 people and dwellings.16 MR. AFRAN: Now I couldn't hear you.17 THE WITNESS: Potential for some form of18 impact on humans or on dwellings.19 MR. AFRAN: Now, what impacts would20 typically be seen -- by those impacts you mean potential21 neurological impacts for example?22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Don't testify as to --23 MR. PLOCKER: Objection. I don't think he24 qualifies as a neurological expert.25 79 MR. AFRAN: I'm posing a leading question1 because that's the job of the cross examiner.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You have to ask him what's3 the impact. Let him answer the question.4 MR. AFRAN: No, I don't have to ask him5 what's the impact. I can pose a proposition to him,6 that's cross examination. Ms. McGovern will agree with7 that

t's3 the impact. Let him answer the question.4 MR. AFRAN: No, I don't have to ask him5 what's the impact. I can pose a proposition to him,6 that's cross examination. Ms. McGovern will agree with7 that point.8 MS. McGOVERN: Leading questions are9 permitted on cross examination.10 MR. AFRAN: That's the whole point. To put11 a proposition to the witness. Ask him to agree or12 disagree.13 MS. McGOVERN: If the question is outside of14 what his expertise is, then that is a problem.15 MR. AFRAN: Most certainly is not in this16 instance.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, let him answer what18 his expertise is.19 MR. AFRAN: When you said there would be20 impacts or could be impacts, what kind of impacts on21 human beings were you thinking of?22 THE WITNESS: Common impacts are nuisance,23 bothersome noise levels. Impacts to hearing, if a noise24 is so incredibly loud that it somehow impacts hearing,25 80 that's not something I'm qualified to testify to, but1 just in general.2 And then with buildings, it could be minor3 shaking of things off walls, cracking of sheetrock,4 dislocation of joints or something like that. Door5 jambs, that kind of -- those kinds of impacts that are6 not uncommon or not uncommonly monitored in this7 instance.8 MR. AFRAN: When Dr. Pannullo was asking you9 questions, she's the individual who said she's a10 neuroscientist. I belive you said impacts to hearing11 are known to be among hazards from blasting noise?12 THE WITNESS: I don't know that I said13 known, but I know it's one of the things that are14 monitored. That's a concern, that someone's hearing15 could be impacted in general terms.16 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. That's all I was17 asking.18 Thank you. That's all I have.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.20 MR. PLOCKER: May I.21 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker.23 MR. PLOCKER: I'm not going to say it, but I24 just want to say for the record, that all 200-foot25

21 of 70 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 175 08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM 81 property owner addresses that were obtained were filed1 with the board and they are made public as part of the2 application materials. So I would just ask that this3 board take notice that in evaluating the testimony and4 any comments made by Mrs. Pannullo, see what her address5 is in relation to the development.6 MR. AFRAN: I have to interject very7 strongly. There is not a slightest basis for inquiring8 where someone lives. The only time that matters is9 whether they're entitled to statutory notice as a10 200-foot owner. Anyone in this community or neighboring11 community can come up here and raise these concerns.12 His suggestion we need to check where she lives is13 ridiculous and to some people, to some people, not to14 Mr. Plocker and I who are used to abusing each other in15 courtrooms and things of that nature, but to some people16 it's intimidating and it should not be continuously17 raised.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I appreciate that and the19 board listens to everybody equally wherever they live.20 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. So let's ignore the21 address.22 MR. PLOCKER: No, I don't think we should23 ignore it, with all due respect. Many boards require24 street addresses of every person who does appear.25 82 I just want to state that for the record.1 MR. AFRAN: And they may do that but it's2 not in the law and it's not proper to demand it. And3 it's intimidating to the community.4 MS. McGOVERN: So I'm just looking at Cox,5 Section 18-3.4, Testimony of Objectors. "Objectors may6 appear individually and ask questions" blah, blah, blah.7 And then it says, "It must be -- it had been suggested8 that Boards would be most interested in hearing from9 those objectors who would be most effected if the site10 is developed as planned." And the MLUL recognizes this11 part and then it cites the case DeMaria v. Jet Brook,12 LLC, 372 N.J. Super, "The court appointed applicant and13 the MLUL has recognized this by requiring individual14 notice be given to those properties within 200-foot.15 The court suggested that a Board would well be within16 it's right to hear comments from those objectors who17 live near the subject property before others are given18 an opportunity to speak." So there is some, there are,19 there is some case law that weighs those people who live20 within a 200-foot radius more so than somebody

ct property before others are given18 an opportunity to speak." So there is some, there are,19 there is some case law that weighs those people who live20 within a 200-foot radius more so than somebody outside.21 So it is very relevant.22 MR. AFRAN: Only in terms --23 MS. McGOVERN: Excuse me.24 Then there's another suggestion, "That25 83 owners not within the 200-foot radius" and that's under1 Section 18-3.5 and I agree, members that are not within2 the 200-foot radius have the absolute right to come up3 here and ask questions and make comments. But, again,4 there's a prioritization, that the board should know5 what members of the public are within that 200-foot6 radius, because it gives extra weight to their comments7 and to their questions.8 MR. AFRAN: I don't think that's the reason9 the court said that. The court said that because those10 who live closer to the project may have a greater11 interest in it. But that doesn't mean the board should12 give greater weight to their remarks. A person --13 excuse me. I'm very troubled by this, there i not the14 slightest shred in our laws that would suggest the board15 should give greater weight to someone who lives within16 200-feet as opposed to someone who does not. If that's17 what you're going to be governed by you're violating the18 due process right and left. There's nothing -- the19 court was not referring to giving greater weight. The20 court was simply saying, because we may have a long line21 of people and people may leave because they have to go22 home, those who live within the notice period can be23 given a priority so they get heard because they have an24 absolute statutory notice right. It was never saying25 84 the board should give greater weight and I don't know1 where you're getting that from.2 MR. PLOCKER: I agree with Mr. Afran.3 MS. McGOVERN: I'm not saying that they give4 greater weight.5 MR. AFRAN: You just did.6 MS. McGOVERN: I said prioritization.7 MR. AFRAN: And you said the board's8 entitled to give greater weight to their comments and9 that's what I'm reacting to.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You're asking the board to11 weigh each person with the same weight based on their12 information that they provided wherever they live.13 We've always done that and that's been our history and14 the way we operate. So each member of the public,15 wherever they come from, will receive the weight of16 their

provided wherever they live.13 We've always done that and that's been our history and14 the way we operate. So each member of the public,15 wherever they come from, will receive the weight of16 their information based on the entirety of the project.17 MR. AFRAN: I think Ms. McGovern may have18 misspoke when she said the board shall give greater19 weight.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I understand what the law21 is. I agree with her and the methodology of who can22 speak, but overall we listen to everybody equally.23 MR. AFRAN: Right. This board does not24 maintain the practice of asking the 200-foot notice25

08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM Page 85 to 88 of 175 22 of 70 sheets 85 person to come first. And since the board hasn't,1 there's no reason to start inquiring into addresses.2 MS. McGOVERN: There's a question as to the3 motivation of people. If they're within the 200-foot4 radius, it says it right here, I'm looking it. It says,5 "To some extent the motivation of an objector must be6 considered" and it cites the case Exxon Company v.7 Bernard Hill. So there are reasons why a board member8 or members of this board would want to know an address.9 MR. AFRAN: It's not referring though to the10 200-foot zone in that case, it's referring to a personal11 interest an objector may have that's different from12 other people.13 MS. McGOVERN: Understood. But there are a14 variety of reasons why it is relevant for a persons15 address and Mr. Plocker is correct, people within the16 200-foot radius, we have them, that's there. So I don't17 understand what the objection is.18 MR. AFRAN: The issue is asking for Dr.19 Panullo's address targets her for some reason, which I20 don't understand. Our concerns would apply to anyone in21 the community and I am reacting to the fact that a22 member of the community comes here in good faith, raises23 important issues with her scope of expertise, as a24 matter of fact, and now she's being challenged as to25 86 where she lives. This is a problem and I don't1 understand why you're entertaining it in any way.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Two things you said. One,3 she's not targeted. B --4 MR. AFRAN: Sounds that way. To a member of5 the community it sounds that way.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Nobody's targeting her.7 And number two, there was a question and answer, like8 anybody else here and he said no, I'm not going do this9 and that's okay too. It was asked and answered.10 We appreciate the colloquy, but at this11 moment we are going to take a ten-minute break so our12 court reporter can rest his fingers.13 (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Back on the record.15 Mr. Afran, you have the floor.16 MR. AFRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.17 We have several witnesses who are going to18 be called. First we call Lee Tractenberg who is, if I19 may, make a presentation on several issues, in part of20 which will be presenting, will be explaining We Cares21 position and reasons for objecting in this matter.22 Mr. Plocker and I were discussing some23 issues,

esentation on several issues, in part of20 which will be presenting, will be explaining We Cares21 position and reasons for objecting in this matter.22 Mr. Plocker and I were discussing some23 issues, he indicated there are one or two areas he might24 find cause to raise an objection on so that may happen25 87 and we can hash it out if it happens.1 MR. PLOCKER: Just as a predicate Bruce, can2 we just confirm Mr. Tractenberg is an officer of We3 Care?4 MR. AFRAN: Yes.5 MR. PLOCKER: Okay. Thank you.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: What's the difference7 between public comment and what he's going to present?8 For the boards edification.9 MR. AFRAN: I think we have to wait until10 Mr. Tractenberg speaks. I can't answer that, except I11 know generally what he plans to do, but I couldn't12 really say, but more importantly he's an officer of We13 Care. We Care is the objector. There is no other14 objector. All though the community has a lot to say,15 there's no other formal objectors and I think the16 objector has the right to testify through one of it's17 officers to explain why it's here and what its position18 is and, you know, obviously there may be things that Mr.19 Plocker may object to as we move forward and we can deal20 with those as they arise.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: What we're going to do is22 cautiously and slowly, because we have to determine what23 is public comment and -- we have to determine what is24 public comment and what is true testimony. So public25 88 comment can be testimony, so the board has to1 differentiate exactly what Mr. Tractenberg is speaking2 about, so.3 MR. AFRAN: Only way to do that is to let4 him speak and see what happens.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Exactly right.6 Ms. McGovern.7 MS. McGOVERN: Since he's represented by8 counsel you should be asking him questions.9 MR. AFRAN: I don't necessarily have to do10 that. I have a witness who can make a presentation.11 Applicants come in all the time, they have witnesses12 make a presentation. They have even developers who own13 the company make a presentation, they're not asked14 questions necessarily. I'm not obligated to ask him15 questions.16 MS. McGOVERN: I'm looking at Section17 18-3.4, Testimony of Objectors and says, "Objectors may18 appear by an attorney at law and if such is the case all19 questions must be put by the attorney. If any testimony20 given the objector should be given in response to

ectors and says, "Objectors may18 appear by an attorney at law and if such is the case all19 questions must be put by the attorney. If any testimony20 given the objector should be given in response to the21 questions presented by his attorney."22 MR. AFRAN: I don't think that's intended to23 say that the only way an objector witness can speak is24 by being questioned. What I think it's meaning to say25