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

09/16/2025 06:29:53 AM Page 37 to 40 of 130 10 of 33 sheets 37 Yes.1 A. Assuming the Canoe Brook facility were to be a2 Q. source for water, assuming that were available and there3 was sufficient surplus available in that plan, are there4 any additional facilities by way of entrances in the5 piping system or other physical facilities that would be6 needed? Do you understand my question?7 Yeah, my understanding is that the -- that water8 A. is captured and conveyed to a treatment facility9 somewhere seven miles away and then after it's treated10 it's pumped back in an aided line to that neighborhood11 in that area.12 Those are the 300 or so houses?13 Q. Yes, that neighborhood.14 A. Now, is there anything in the site plan, in the15 Q. site plan application or the engineering report that16 provides for transfer of the water from that plant to17 this new development?18 No, it's not their's to take.19 A. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.20 Q. That water, that water is all accounted for.21 A. No, assuming for the sake of argument that the22 Q. applicant were to say, we're going to use that facility,23 in your review of the site plan application, are there24 any connection facilities proposed to allow that water25 38 to come to this development?1 I didn't see any of that. But what my analysis2 A. showed that they need an eight-inch, full capacity3 eight-inch line which is what they have at the 300 unit4 development already being used. It's all used up.5 Is there any provision --6 Q. They need another line like that completely to7 A. service this new facility.8 Is there any line indicated in the site plan9 Q. application?10 No.11 A. Okay.12 Q. I didn't see any.13 A. With respect to sewer service, this development,14 Q. have you analyzed the site plan application and15 engineering reports?16 Yes, I did.17 A. And do you have any comments as to the status of18 Q. the reports of the application with respect to sewage19 service?20 Okay. I just -- in looking at the water I21 A. discovered that 73,900 gallons a day going into domestic22 water use and typically the sewage authority assumes23 what goes in comes out, which generally the case, except24 if you got water being dumped into the yard and it25 39 evaporates, never get's to the sewer. For the most part1 that's what it is. So 73,900 goes to a sewer. They2 didn't tell us what sewer was going to take all

ater being dumped into the yard and it25 39 evaporates, never get's to the sewer. For the most part1 that's what it is. So 73,900 goes to a sewer. They2 didn't tell us what sewer was going to take all that3 water.4 Now, in your view of the site plan application5 Q. and engineering reports, is there any connection from6 this development to any aspect of the local or regional7 sewer services?8 I didn't see anything.9 A. Now, you mentioned 73,900 gallons. Where does10 Q. that figure come from? How is that derived.11 That's the amount of water that comes into the12 A. facility for domestic water use.13 No, but how did you come up with that particular14 Q. figure?15 The RSIS gives a factor based on number of units16 A. and comes up to that.17 So that figure comes from the RSIS?18 Q. Oh, yeah. They tell you that's what you're19 A. supposed to be providing for. That's the point of that20 section of the RSIS. They're not leaving it for21 guesswork or your judgment. Here's what we use.22 Is there any sewer pipe going across the site in23 Q. these plans that connect to any external sewer service?24 There's one existing line that runs all the way25 A. 40 up from top to the bottom but it's -- they're not1 tapping into. That's already accounted for.2 So other than -- so that line is not accounted3 Q. for in these plans?4 No, that's not part of their plan, it's just5 A. there. In fact they may have to try and cross that line6 somehow to get to where you might have to go, but none7 of that's been identified.8 MR. PLOCKER: I'm going to object to this9 testimony. The plans speak for themselves and the10 testimony is not reflecting what's in the site plan at11 all.12 MR. AFRAN: Well, that's for rebuttal by the13 applicant if it can demonstrate that it somehow can move14 all of this vast amount of sewage off the site. But the15 point of this testimony is the lack of completeness of16 the plan.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. So go right ahead,18 Mr. Green.19 THE WITNESS: Thank you.20 I'm sorry, were you in the middle of an answer?21 Q. No, no, I was done.22 A. I don't object to Mr. Plocker's objection, that's23 Q. our job. I'm just saying, are you in the middle of24 anything.25

11 of 33 sheets Page 41 to 44 of 130 09/16/2025 06:29:53 AM 41 Now, when -- strike that.1 Let me just clarify this specifically. In2 reviewing the site plan application and the engineering3 reports, is there any connection built into these plans4 to move the sewage from this development into some5 municipal sewer system anywhere? Do you see any6 connection.7 I didn't see anything.8 A. Now, turning to the question of -- well, strike9 Q. that.10 Did you analyze the grade of this development and11 the grade of the site for this development in terms of12 your review?13 Yeah, we looked at that.14 A. And how does that bare into the question say of15 Q. water supply for example?16 Well, that's a really good question. Some of the17 A. waters not going to get into the basins because it's18 going to rush down the hill way to fast. Another19 problem with that is that the water coming down the hill20 with all the pavement and parking lots and such it's21 going to pick up oil from the automobiles. You got oil22 spots in your driveway and that's going to get washed23 out. Now currently there's nothing but trees and24 shrubbery and whatever. Now that water is going to get25 42 into the creek and the creek water is going down to your1 treatment facility. The treatment facility was not,2 probably not designed for oil. Probably designed for3 whatever contaminants are in the ground or in the sewer4 storm, comes out of the ground and mountain, trickles5 down, you know, pick it up and use it. It's a good idea6 and currently working. I'm afraid it's going to get7 contaminated. It doesn't take a whole lot of oil to8 contaminate a lot of water.9 Now, looking at the reverse problem.10 Q. I'm sorry, the what problem?11 A. Looking at the reverse, instead of the water12 Q. moving downward, stormwater. In terms of bringing the13 water supply in, up the grade, have you considered that14 question in terms of your analysis?15 Well, yeah. You're going to need some kind of16 A. pumping station.17 Now, what is the approximate grade that you18 Q. analyzed and you concluded from the site?19 Well, there's a 211 foot grade difference from20 A. the southern boundary to the high northern boundary on21 the ones I saw and now you got to consider that. On top22 of that, you got a 40, 50-foot tall building, a four23 story apartment building and if you want to get enough24 head to service all the

y on21 the ones I saw and now you got to consider that. On top22 of that, you got a 40, 50-foot tall building, a four23 story apartment building and if you want to get enough24 head to service all the faucets and facilities you got25 43 to have another 50-foot to get the proper amount of head1 to get water pressure basically. Because you need2 enough water pressure to service everything, otherwise3 the water won't flow.4 Now, in terms of the pumping station you referred5 Q. to, what role would they play in the system?6 Well --7 A. Assuming it was designed.8 Q. -- they would constantly fill a water tower tank9 A. which would provide assurance that you, you have reserve10 water and water pressure all the time.11 Now, are the pumping --12 Q. You have a water tower right on up on this next13 A. hill, I belive, I was driving over here. So it's not14 uncommon.15 Now, do you see any provision in the site plan16 Q. application or the engineering reports for any pumping17 stations?18 Not for that purpose, no.19 A. Did you see it for any purpose?20 Q. There's two stations on there, I think they're21 A. for sewage. I'm not sure where they're pumping it to22 because it doesn't show that.23 But in terms of water supply --24 Q. There would have to be a whole little building25 A. 44 just for, you know, water supply pumping.1 You're not an expert in designing those, correct?2 Q. I'm -- I've got a lot of experience. I have a3 A. relationship with a company in industrial water4 treatment. So, yeah.5 So --6 Q. Aside from what I do with Mr. Litwornia, I have7 A. other activities that are --8 So in other words that, in your professional9 Q. opinion, would you need pumping stations based on this10 211 foot grade in order to adequately bring water into11 this development?12 Absolutely.13 A. And do you see them built in anywhere for14 Q. purposes of supplying domestic water?15 There's nothing in the plans to cover that.16 A. And --17 Q. This is like, this is like picture a high-rise18 A. building in Manhattan. Okay. They got pumping in the19 basement, nobody could see it. You go in the building,20 it's all pristine, it looks great, but in the basement21 they got pumps, they got tanks on top of the building22 and that's keeping water pressure throughout the23 building for the same reason I'm bringing it up here.24 And is there any provision inside the structures25 Q.

09/16/2025 06:29:53 AM Page 45 to 48 of 130 12 of 33 sheets 45 that you were able to observe that provides for this1 pumping function?2 Absolutely not.3 A. And is there any provision outside the structures4 Q. on the site for pumping structures to provide this?5 I saw nothing.6 A. Now, in terms of electrical power, did you do --7 Q. strike that.8 In terms of supply of electrical power, did you9 do any analysis?10 I just looked at what I believe the load would11 A. be. It's a, you know, a rough number, I came up with12 six megawatts which would probably require some kind of13 substation near the site.14 Was there any provisions in the plans for a15 Q. substation?16 No, nothing.17 A. Was there any provision for transmission of this18 Q. power by any other means built into the plans?19 I didn't see any electrical plans as far as that20 A. goes.21 With respect to HVAC function, did you do any22 Q. analysis of the plans?23 Yeah, I looked at it because there wasn't24 A. anything and I thought well, let me see, how would it be25 46 done. And I've seen many, many, many buildings in my1 other activity that I mentioned involved in water2 treatment, these pumps would be very likely method of3 getting heating and cooling into every unit. Now,4 there's other possible ways, but that's a pretty5 economical way of doing it. But in order to do that you6 need hydraulic water supply which circulates throughout7 the building and generally has to be cooled, especially8 in the summer. That would entail the need for a cooling9 tower or several cooling towers, which I know a lot10 about. And then there's -- none of that discussed in11 any way, shape or form in the plan. So I just wanted to12 bring that up. Something needs to be disclosed and13 committed to as far as how they're going to heat and14 cool all these 496 units. They're not putting window15 air-conditioning in, so.16 Do you see anything in the site plan application17 Q. or the engineering reports that provides for heat or18 cooling?19 Nothing.20 A. In your opinion as a professional civil engineer,21 Q. is this application complete without these missing22 elements?23 Absolutely not. RSIS requires all these elements24 A. and many others that I haven't even discussed yet.25 47 Major problem.1 MR. AFRAN: May I have one moment please,2 Mr. Chairman.3 (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)4 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, I just need

many others that I haven't even discussed yet.25 47 Major problem.1 MR. AFRAN: May I have one moment please,2 Mr. Chairman.3 (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)4 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, I just need one5 moment.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure.7 (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)8 With regard to cooling towers -- strike that.9 Q. I'm sorry.10 With regard to water towers, say fire suppression11 or other domestic water usage, how high would they have12 to be relative to the height of the proposed buildings?13 My opinion they need to be about 50-feet above14 A. the top floor.15 Oh, that was that extra 50 feet you referred to16 Q. earlier?17 Yeah, that gives you enough hydraulic head to18 A. provide the amount of pressure you would need for the19 water going through all the pipes to all the units. A20 little more than the first floor. You got to deal with21 the fourth floor, that's the big problem.22 So if fire suppression towers are used, that23 Q. would obviously add to the height of the structures24 beyond what we know now from the plans?25 48 It would add volume. I don't know what that1 A. volume would be. That all depended on a whole other2 study by somebody who does that all the time. And it's3 also dependent upon how rapidly the tower can be4 replenished. That's another engineering decision that5 somebody else should be working on, not me. But I know6 about all these things, but none of that was done.7 That's my point.8 MR. AFRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's9 all I have at the moment.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.11 Okay. Mr. Plocker.12 MR. PLOCKER: Let the board go first or --13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: No, no. You.14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PLOCKER:15 Mr. Green, it's your testimony that you reviewed16 Q. the entire site plan set, is that correct?17 66 pages.18 A. Okay.19 Q. And there's no utility described in the site plan20 at all?21 MR. AFRAN: With respect -- he didn't say22 that.23 MR. PLOCKER: Let him answer the question.24 MR. AFRAN: No, no, no. Mr. Plocker makes a25

13 of 33 sheets Page 49 to 52 of 130 09/16/2025 06:29:53 AM 49 great habit of saying no, no, no, they didn't say that.1 Now Mr. Plocker is doing the same thing.2 Is it your testimony there were no water lines on3 Q. the plans?4 MR. AFRAN: He never said that, Mr.5 Chairman. This is nonsense.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He did. I'm sorry, he7 did.8 MR. PLOCKER: He did.9 MR. AFRAN: Waterlines --10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He did say there were no11 waterlines.12 MR. AFRAN: He never said that.13 THE WITNESS: I saw sewer lines, I didn't14 see waterlines.15 MR. AFRAN: Water supply.16 Maybe you missed them?17 Q. I could have.18 A. Okay.19 Q. MR. AFRAN: Is counsel prepared to show that20 he's wrong on his cross or --21 MR. PLOCKER: I can --22 MR. AFRAN: Excuse me. Let me finish my23 question.24 MR. PLOCKER: I can cross him in any manner25 50 I want.1 MR. AFRAN: Let me finish my -- no, you2 can't. There are rules. Is counsel prepared to show --3 excuse me.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Excuse me gentlemen.5 Okay. Mr. Afran and then Mr. Plocker.6 MR. AFRAN: Is counsel prepared to show the7 witness plans that show water source supply pipelines or8 is counsel simply asking the board to assume somehow9 that they magically exist so the board can have an10 impression left without any support.11 MR. PLOCKER: Which is exactly what your12 witnesses have been doing.13 MR. AFRAN: Excuse me. Cross-examination14 requires more than just inviting speculation. Is Mr.15 Plocker prepared to show this witness that he missed16 this.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, you said in your18 statement for the question and he, Mr. Green, involved19 himself in speculation also.20 MR. AFRAN: When did he do that, Mr.21 Chairman?22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He said that there's no23 evidence of any water supply. There's no evidence of24 any connection to the sewer system. So he's saying that25 51 in his mind, in his expert opinion, there is none.1 MR. AFRAN: No, Mr. Chairman. He said he2 examined the plans and saw no connections of those3 nature. He did not speculate, he said specifically as a4 civil engineer I have examined those plans and those5 connections are not on the plans. That is not6 speculation.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He also speculated about a8 water tower. There's no water tower. He speculated9 about the need for a water tower and pumping of the10 water tower. So there was some speculation in his11 testimony.12 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman,

t a8 water tower. There's no water tower. He speculated9 about the need for a water tower and pumping of the10 water tower. So there was some speculation in his11 testimony.12 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, you're13 characterizing a witnesses professional statement that14 you need some fire suppression in a development plan as15 speculation. That's not speculation. He said there's16 no evidence -- excuse me. He said there's no evidence17 in these plans of a fire suppression system by a way of18 sprinklers or otherwise or a fire suppression tower. He19 did not speculate, he said they're not there. I don't20 -- I resent frankly the Chair of the board suggesting a21 witness is speculating when he said he read the plans22 and it's not there. It's not speculation.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You talked to him about24 pumping stations, he spoke about pumping into the water25 52 tower. I'm sitting here listening to him, that's what1 he said.2 MR. AFRAN: He said these things don't3 exist. He's not speculating that they don't exist. He4 said he examined the plans and they are not there.5 That's not speculation. It's improper to suggest that.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He also covered what would7 be needed. That was the question, would this be needed.8 He said, yes. Yes, this would be needed.9 MR. AFRAN: That's not speculation. That's10 a statement of a civil engineer who says these things11 are needed in a development plan. I don't know why12 you're calling this witnesses testimony speculative.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Is that the only thing14 that is possible for fire suppression or it's an15 alternative for fire suppression?16 MR. AFRAN: He specifically stated there's17 no evidence of a sprinkler or other suppression system18 and no evidence of a fire suppression tower to provide19 water when a fire suppression system fails due to20 electric failure. He was not speculating. He gave very21 specific testimony. Now, if Mr. Plocker want's to say22 and demonstrate that that's not necessary, that's fine.23 But to say this man speculated is improper.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So you're telling us his25

09/16/2025 06:29:53 AM Page 53 to 56 of 130 14 of 33 sheets 53 opinion is this project needs a water tower for fire1 suppression?2 MR. AFRAN: He said that unless you have3 evidence of supplying water to a project of this nature4 and unless you have evidence of showing how you are5 going to supply water in an emergency when the pumping6 station, which he also said were not on the plans,7 should fail, you would need a water suppression tower as8 a measure in an emergency. That's not speculation. He9 said those are not there and in his professional opinion10 those are required.11 Now, how come other witnesses have stood12 here and given statements and you never said their13 professional opinions were speculation. You are14 prejudicing this case.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I am asking. I'm just16 asking. So the board should take this information he17 says, again, his professional opinion is that this18 project overall needs a water tower as part of the fire19 suppression system.20 MR. AFRAN: That's not speculation. He's21 giving you an opinion of what he thinks is needed.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's what I want the23 board to know. It is his opinion.24 MR. AFRAN: Before you said the gentleman25 54 was speculating, now you're getting back to the proper1 text.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm asking if that's his3 opinion, if that's his opinion then and that's what the4 board is interested in.5 MR. AFRAN: That's fair enough. But I'm6 just stating it's not appropriate to call it7 speculation.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Are you ready? Okay.9 Mr. Plocker, go right ahead.10 MR. PLOCKER: Thank you.11 Mr. Green, is it your testimony, I just want to12 Q. confirm, that there were no fire hydrants provided on13 this site plan?14 There were none shown.15 A. Are you sure?16 Q. I looked for them, I couldn't find them.17 A. Well, maybe you missed them again?18 Q. MR. AFRAN: Excuse me. He never said he19 missed anything. That's improper.20 MR. PLOCKER: He said it's possible. He21 said it was possible.22 MR. AFRAN: He never said he missed23 anything. So to say maybe you missed them again24 suggests he admitted he missed them.25 55 MR. PLOCKER: We're not getting anywhere.1 MR. AFRAN: That's not proper2 cross-examination.3 MS. McGOVERN: Why don't you let him ask the4 question.5 MR. AFRAN: I let him ask the question and6 he's assuming and the board is going to take the7 impression that this gentleman admitted

amination.3 MS. McGOVERN: Why don't you let him ask the4 question.5 MR. AFRAN: I let him ask the question and6 he's assuming and the board is going to take the7 impression that this gentleman admitted he missed8 evidence. He never said that.9 MS. McGOVERN: I think that we're getting to10 that, I'm assuming.11 MR. AFRAN: I don't think we are. I think12 we're seeing inference upon inference.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're listening to14 everybody.15 MR. AFRAN: Okay.16 Did you review the testimony from the applicants17 Q. engineer when he testified?18 Some of it.19 A. But not all of it?20 Q. I was provided stuff.21 A. All right. What stuff were you provided?22 Q. I have it in my bag. I don't have it in my head.23 A. But you clearly testified you made certain24 Q. conclusions, you're now saying you were provided with25 56 certain "stuff." What was that stuff?1 Most of what I got was traffic related and this2 A. testimony today is not related to traffic.3 So I'm going to ask you again. What stuff was4 Q. your testimony based upon?5 What I reviewed in the drawings. The 66 pages.6 A. So you only -- your testimony is that you only7 Q. reviewed the site plan?8 The engineering plans, yes. The 66 pages of it.9 A. You didn't review anything else?10 Q. No.11 A. Okay.12 Q. Who's the water utility for this property? Who13 services this area.14 MR. AFRAN: Wait. Wait. The area or the15 property? Those are two different things. There's16 nothing on the property so are you asking about the17 water service in the area or the property?18 What water utility services the area?19 Q. I believe it's American Water.20 A. New Jersey American Water?21 Q. Yeah.22 A. All right.23 Q. In connection with your testimony did you contact24 New Jersey American Water?25