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

08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM Page 141 to 144 of 175 36 of 70 sheets 141 quantity, runoff quality, groundwater recharge as well1 as drain infrastructure. So they have met the standard2 for water and quality. So for quantity they have to3 reduce to each point of analysis. The design has been,4 it has been prepared to meet the runoff quantity as5 outlined by DEP under N.J.A.C. 7.8.6 MR. KLEIN: So things will get slightly7 better if not stay the same?8 MR. MacNEILL: What they will do is they'll9 mitigate the impact by reducing their peek runoff.10 MR. KLEIN: Okay.11 MR. MacNEILL: So really what happens in12 stormwater is, with the impact of additional impervious13 coverage, there will be more volume. But what the state14 puts out in their regulations, the basins on-site slows15 the rate of runoff. So they hold water on this site and16 let it leave the site at 50 percent rate of the two year17 storm, 75 percent of the 10-year storm, and 80 percent18 of the 100-year storm. So really what that's saying is19 if in current conditions you're at 10 cubic feet per20 second in the two year storm, they are required to hold21 that back to 5 cubic feet per second, which based on our22 review it appears they have complied with that23 requirement.24 MR. KLEIN: Okay.25 142 So I think you sent a letter in a long time1 ago, the beginning of this, that your engineer looked at2 this and didn't agree with that?3 THE PUBLIC: You're referring to something4 else.5 MR. AFRAN: Our engineer testified and with6 respect to your engineer said that the applicant is7 wrong and they calculated incorrectly and there will be8 flooding. Now, I realize DEP has done it's end of it as9 the engineer said, but you evidence before you from an10 expert who says they have not calculated it correctly11 and here are the reasons and Mr. Walsh was very detailed12 and so you are not obligated necessarily to rubber stamp13 it because he said something. You have an expert who14 gave very, very detailed and considered explanations as15 to why flooding will get worse.16 MR. PLOCKER: We're getting into legal17 argument here. The neighbor testified this is his18 observation.19 MR. AFRAN: I'm not required to sit here20 like a wallflower when the engineer refers to DEP --21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You, never do.22 MR. AFRAN: Well, that's my point. The23 point is, if the engineer says DEP said this, I am24 entitled to remind you

a wallflower when the engineer refers to DEP --21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You, never do.22 MR. AFRAN: Well, that's my point. The23 point is, if the engineer says DEP said this, I am24 entitled to remind you of the evidence.25 143 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, for the public,1 the board heard all parties and we will take all sources2 into consideration, including all the experts testimony.3 Thank you.4 THE PUBLIC: I would in response to the5 engineers comments, I keep hearing the same reference to6 many hearings which you guys were patient enough to sit7 through about the applicants met the burden under the8 law. I disagree and the burden, you know, can anybody9 on this dais explain, and I told you the existing10 conditions, right. You could give me credit, whatever11 credibility you'd like. 150 year storm today you're12 going tell me that what's the impact is going to be13 reduced. Really. Is that credible from your own14 engineer. If not how much worse is it going to get?15 That's a great question. That's something that you16 should get your own experts or get the developer to17 testify to precisely and, again, do not outsource this18 to the DEP, assuming they did their job, because my19 belief based on personal experience, what I have done20 through the DEP and what I've seen here, the answer is21 they have not discharged that obligation. You have22 independent obligations to the DEP you should satisfy.23 MR. KLEIN: Are you an engineer?24 THE PUBLIC: I am not testifying as an25 144 expert. I made that very clear.1 MR. KLEIN: You said they don't meet -- our2 engineer said they're going to reduce the runoff for the3 two year by 50 percent, 75 percent for the 5 and you're4 saying no.5 THE PUBLIC: He's saying that's the rule.6 MR. KLEIN: And they met the four prongs and7 they met the rule on your review, not DEPs review, your8 review?9 MR. MacNEILL: Yes, on my review. On our10 letter we did have concerns about some of the soil11 testing that Princeton Hydro brought up, but to mitigate12 that and something we discussed previously at one of13 these meetings was they're required to do soil testing14 during and post construction to verify the submitted15 soil testing that we had reviewed. So what they16 submitted was the seasonal high water table is 10-feet17 higher than what their geotechnical engineer certified,18 then they will have to address that in

l testing that we had reviewed. So what they16 submitted was the seasonal high water table is 10-feet17 higher than what their geotechnical engineer certified,18 then they will have to address that in construction.19 They will have a stop work order for construction and if20 the seasonal high water table is 10-feet higher than21 their design they will have to stop and address it with22 -- by stormwater design that would have to be approved23 by DEP as well as our office. So if at this point all24 we could do is review soil testing. Right. Everything25