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

15 of 33 sheets Page 57 to 60 of 130 09/16/2025 06:29:53 AM 57 No, I didn't.1 A. Okay.2 Q. So you didn't ask them about their flow, about3 their capacity?4 No, I didn't have time to do that. That all5 A. needs to be looked at.6 Okay.7 Q. Who ultimately approves water and sewer. You8 could take them one at a time. Does the applicant have9 to go to the DEP?10 MR. AFRAN: Objection. That's a vague11 question. Do you go to the DEP about water and sewer,12 did he testify about that.13 What approvals, what third-party approvals-- does14 Q. the applicant need to connect for water service and15 sewer service, separate questions?16 Well, the water is going to have to go to17 A. American Water.18 Okay.19 Q. And you didn't contact them, correct?20 No.21 A. Okay.22 Q. What about sewer, what third-party approvals does23 the applicant need to connect to sewer?24 He has to go to the local sewer authority. I25 A. 58 believe it's in the county.1 Does the DEP have any role in that process?2 Q. Who?3 A. The Department of Environmental Protection, do4 Q. they have a role in the process?5 MR. AFRAN: In the process of approving the6 connection or in the process of what?7 I don't think they have any in that particular8 A. area. They have a lot of role in what the sewer9 authority does with the water.10 Would the applicant need to obtain a treatment11 Q. works approval known as a TWA?12 This is something I'm not familiar with.13 A. MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this14 has anything to do with the absence of any connection15 between the waste system from the buildings and any16 other system.17 MR. PLOCKER: I'm asking him my questions,18 Mr. Chairman.19 MR. AFRAN: Well, because I'm objecting on20 relevance grounds. If crossing -- excuse me. The21 testimony on direct was that there's nothing in the22 plans showing any connection between the sewage removal23 in these 500 apartments and the ability to move it to24 anywhere else. In other words, we have sewage coming25 59 from the apartments. There's a pipe shown --1 MR. PLOCKER: Now he's testifying.2 MR. AFRAN: No, I am summarizing. And this3 is all --4 MR. PLOCKER: And I cannot cross --5 MR. AFRAN: This has also been acknowledged6 by the applicants own engineer, which Mr. Plocker seems7 to conveniently forget. The testimony from this witness8 was the absence of these things in the plans. He's not9 testifying as to what post plan

y the applicants own engineer, which Mr. Plocker seems7 to conveniently forget. The testimony from this witness8 was the absence of these things in the plans. He's not9 testifying as to what post plan regulatory aspects are10 needed. This is beyond the scope of direct.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead, Mr. Plocker.12 MR. PLOCKER: Mr. Chairman, the testimony13 was very general. Mr. Afran is referring to off-site14 sewer conditions, which this witness did not15 specifically testify to. He said there was no sewer16 plan. He said he doesn't know where it was going. So17 I'm going to ask the witness, do the plans show a sewer18 connection to a manhole in Bakley Terrace?19 I did not see such a thing.20 A. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. That's the answer.21 Okay.22 Q. MR. PLOCKER: I have no further questions at23 this time.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.25 60 Ms. Kapferer.1 MS. KAPFERER: Thank you Mr. Green for2 your testimony.3 Chairman, may I ask a question of Mr. MacNeill at4 this time or related to this. Is that not appropriate?5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let's get around the board6 and come back.7 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Yeah, that sounds8 good.9 That's all I really have then.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Wilkes.11 MR. WILKES: No questions.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino.13 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Yes, thank you Mr.14 Chairman.15 Mr. Green, thank you for being here this evening.16 Sir, can I ask you, did you personally review the17 applicants site, the physical site? Have you been to18 the site.19 THE WITNESS: Actually, I was there today.20 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: How long ago?21 THE WITNESS: I was there today. It's a22 very large site. So definitely did not survey the site.23 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: So you haven't been24 to the site physically?25

09/16/2025 06:29:53 AM Page 61 to 64 of 130 16 of 33 sheets 61 THE WITNESS: Not physically, no. I looked1 at all kinds of plans and grades and so forth.2 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: So --3 THE WITNESS: And I went on Google Earth and4 I looked at it there.5 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay.6 THE WITNESS: You get a pretty good view7 there. I use that quite often.8 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay.9 If I may ask you sir, so basically all of10 your statements, your assumptions, your conclusions are11 all based upon reviewing the site plan, the paper site12 plan and not actually being at the site to see the13 actual physical conditions of the site plan, the site as14 it exists today?15 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's correct.16 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay.17 So basically everything you've done is18 basically from the site plan, from the paperwork, from19 reports, so you're developing everything, no criticism,20 I'm just asking that -- so you're basing all of your21 conclusions and your testimony based upon written22 documentation, is that correct sir?23 THE WITNESS: Yes.24 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay.25 62 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1 Thank you, Mr. Green.2 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper.4 MR. ALPER: Sure.5 Can you talk a little more about what you6 were saying about oil washing into the Canoe Brook from7 the site. Do you have a sense --8 THE WITNESS: Yeah, roads all have oils9 dropped on them from the vehicles and it gets washed10 into the stormwater. In this case the stormwater basins11 are dumping into the creek. That's what -- I did read12 that report on stormwater, it was 500 pages long.13 They're saying that water's going there. Well, some of14 that water's never going to get there because it's going15 to rundown faster than the inlets can take it. But16 that's another problem, other people can talk about17 that. But, yeah, there will be some oil getting into18 that creek water and that's not what the -- the19 treatment plant would not be designed for that because20 it's pristine water coming off the -- well, it did have21 some contamination in it, I'm not sure what it was. But22 the treatment plant would have been design for whatever23 that element is, elements are in the water. When you24 add oil to it you need a wholly additional piece of25 63 equipment and methodology to take oil out as opposed to1 calcium, let's say, or magnesium or any other

s, elements are in the water. When you24 add oil to it you need a wholly additional piece of25 63 equipment and methodology to take oil out as opposed to1 calcium, let's say, or magnesium or any other element2 that gets in the water in ionic form.3 MR. ALPER: Okay.4 THE WITNESS: And I understand -- and I know5 a lot about this because I was involved in wastewater6 treatment facilities in design, built and operated7 through another association that I had years ago and8 actually still have to some degree. But yeah, that's my9 concern, that the waters going to be contaminated. Now,10 it remains to be seen, maybe they have something down11 there at the treatment plant that will take care of it,12 I didn't have a chance to look into that. I'm just13 raising the question that the applicant and the board14 needs to consider in this regard.15 MR. ALPER: Thank you. Appreciate it.16 THE WITNESS: Okay.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Council Person Scarpa, do18 you have any questions for Mr. Green on his testimony?19 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yes sir, I do. I20 would like to thank Mr. Green for your testimony and I21 appreciate your thoroughness in trying to help us22 understand this level of water. We talked about RSIS23 standards and the line that is used, we have a lot of24 conversations that were scrolled in and around and I25 64 want to better understand the water flow. You said its1 kind of captured in a treatment facility and then it2 comes back. Can you just, for a layperson, talk a3 little bit about that process. How it works and what4 your specific concerns were?5 THE WITNESS: Okay. My understanding is that6 the water is the creek water is captured and conveyed7 through a pipe, I'm assuming, down to the treatment8 facility. The treatment facility will go into a9 equalization tank generally and then it goes into a10 series of mixing tanks where they put in coagulants and11 then flocculents somewhere in the middle of there, they12 might change the PH to make things work. The last step13 being the flocculents being added would cause14 particulates probably to float and be separated in a15 clarifier and then the clean water would be captured and16 the particulate, which is the contaminate, would be17 syphoned off the bottom. So that's where your clean18 water goes and that goes into another tank and now you19 got a pumping system taking that back to where --20 through that eight

minate, would be17 syphoned off the bottom. So that's where your clean18 water goes and that goes into another tank and now you19 got a pumping system taking that back to where --20 through that eight inch pipe to distribute to all the21 homes, the residences up in that neighborhood. That's22 the process. If there was oil in there they would have23 to put an oil/water separator in which would be24 additional piece of equipment in that treatment tank and25

17 of 33 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 130 09/16/2025 06:29:53 AM 65 unless they had oils why would they put it in, its an1 expensive piece of equipment. Especially at the flow2 rates that we're talking about. So that's my concern.3 I'm just rasing it for you, for all you folks to4 consider and realize that nothing, nothing on all these5 lines was addressed in what I saw in the application.6 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Thank you very much7 for clarifying.8 THE WITNESS: I didn't hear that.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Say it again, Counsel10 Person Scarpa.11 MR. AFRAN: I think the counsel member was12 thanking him.13 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: I said thank you.14 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza.16 MR. CARDOZA: Yes, thank you Mr. Green.17 I just want to clarify, the oil, you said18 they're coming from what, automobiles potentially?19 THE WITNESS: Any automobile has a20 transmission in it and motors, they all, you know, they21 all drop a little oil.22 MR. CARDOZA: When you're talking oil23 dropping, are these cars running?24 THE WITNESS: They're on the street, they're25 66 in parking lots, they're wherever. The water, you know,1 water hits them and it gets washed away so that water2 gets into the creek.3 MR. CARDOZA: Okay.4 THE WITNESS: That's all. How much, I can't5 tell you that. I mean, it's going to get there. It's a6 nasty contaminate.7 MR. CARDOZA: And it's not standard practice8 to have this oil separated as part of a, what are we9 calling the facility?10 THE WITNESS: Well, if you're designing it11 -- if you're designing a plant you usually go and find12 out what the contaminants are.13 MR. CARDOZA: Okay.14 THE WITNESS: In this case it was water15 coming out of the headwaters of the creek in the16 mountain. There's no oil there. Okay. There's other17 elements that you don't want to drink but --18 MR. CARDOZA: Okay. So you're saying --19 THE WITNESS: -- and those are the ones they20 would target in this process. No, oil, I wouldn't put21 an oil separator in if I didn't have any oil. I'm22 wasting the clients money.23 MR. CARDOZA: Got it. So you're saying that24 you're potentially introducing a new contaminate?25 67 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Exactly. This is a new1 contaminate because all of a sudden this forest has2 streets on it.3 MR. CARDOZA: Thank you. Appreciate it.4 THE WITNESS: No problem. That's a good5 question. Thank you.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr.

s a new1 contaminate because all of a sudden this forest has2 streets on it.3 MR. CARDOZA: Thank you. Appreciate it.4 THE WITNESS: No problem. That's a good5 question. Thank you.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeil.7 MR. MacNEILL: Thank you, Mr. Green.8 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.9 MR. MacNEILL: Did you have a chance to10 review the stormwater report associated with this11 application?12 THE WITNESS: The who report?13 MR. MacNEILL: The stormwater report.14 THE WITNESS: Stormwater report. Yes, I15 looked at it.16 MR. MacNEILL: Did you review the water17 quality section regarding the water quality treatment18 that the basins provide?19 THE WITNESS: Yeah, they have filters.20 MR. MacNEILL: Are they designed in21 accordance with NJ 7.8 as well as the BMP manual? Are22 you aware of that.23 THE WITNESS: No, they're really designed to24 take particulate out. I looked them up.25 68 MR. MacNEILL: Okay. That's all the1 questions --2 THE WITNESS: And they're certainly not3 going to take out any oil.4 MR. MacNEILL: Okay.5 THE WITNESS: And the other problem with6 them I had is that they're going to get plugged in a7 storm and fall, because the leaves are going to plug8 them up almost instantly and I don't care what kind of9 maintenance you think you have on it, you can clean them10 out today, have a storm overnight and they'll be plugged11 tomorrow morning and a lot of that water won't bypass12 and end up flooding the neighborhood down below because13 it can't get into this. The filters are the inlets,14 they're part of the inlet system, when I looked at it.15 MR. MacNEILL: So it sounds like from what16 I'm hearing, you would recommend an oil/water separator17 in each inlet prior to discharge into the basin?18 THE WITNESS: In theory it sounds good, but I19 don't know how you do it.20 MR. MacNEILL: Got it.21 That's all the questions I have.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.23 Mr. Haizel, do you have any questions for24 Mr. Green on his testimony.25

09/16/2025 06:29:53 AM Page 69 to 72 of 130 18 of 33 sheets 69 MR. HAIZEL: Not at this time.1 MR. PLOCKER: Can I ask a --2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker.3 Yeah, Mr. Green, thank you very much.4 Q. You referenced RSIS, can you confirm which RSIS5 section you were referring to, for the record?6 All of them. It's 152 pages.7 A. Okay, but you were talking about the governing8 Q. water, correct?9 Yeah.10 A. Just which section is that? Just so we're clear11 Q. so that when the board and their professionals and we12 can go back, we can see which regulations you were13 talking about.14 I think it's in my report.15 A. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, we don't have a16 copy of Mr. Green's report.17 THE WITNESS: Water, water --18 MR. AFRAN: That was a report to my client.19 I'm not sure if it's a final version, but I'll look20 intro it.21 MR. PLOCKER: He just referenced it.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He just referenced his23 report.24 MS. McGOVERN: He's looking at a report25 70 while testifying, we should have a copy of it.1 MR. AFRAN: I have no problem with that.2 Let me get a final one that's maybe typed in.3 MS. McGOVERN: Whatever he's using to assist4 him when he's testifying tonight is what the board5 should have.6 MR. AFRAN: Okay. My only copy has my7 notes.8 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I did not put that9 in the report, but the whole section on water.10 Is that section entitled Water Supply?11 Q. Probably. It's in the back of the RSIS.12 A. Okay.13 Q. Near the back. They also discuss sewer in the14 A. back.15 And is it your testimony that the application,16 Q. that the proposed site plan does not comply with that17 RSIS section at all?18 MR. AFRAN: He didn't say at all, he said19 with specific questions.20 Okay.21 Q. Does the RSIS section on water talk about water22 towers?23 MR. AFRAN: Wait, we don't have it in front24 of us. If Mr. Plocker wants to present --25 71 THE WITNESS: No, it doesn't specifically1 call out water towers. It tells you how much water you2 have to plan for supplying the residences and I3 calculated what it told me was a peak value and a daily4 amount.5 My question was --6 Q. And there is nothing in your application that7 A. mentioned either of those that I could find.8 My question was about water towers. Does the9 Q. RSIS section mention water towers?10 No. No, it doesn't.11 A. Okay.12 Q. Thank you.13 It doesn't. That's my engineering judgment and14

t I could find.8 My question was about water towers. Does the9 Q. RSIS section mention water towers?10 No. No, it doesn't.11 A. Okay.12 Q. Thank you.13 It doesn't. That's my engineering judgment and14 A. opinion as to how you could deliver the water probably15 to these facilities. From my experience.16 MR. PLOCKER: Nothing further.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, Mr. Green.18 MR. AFRAN: I have one follow-up question.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.20 Mr. Green, you mentioned two things with respect21 Q. to the oil contaminant question. In addition to water22 running into the basin, which have a filter, you23 mentioned water will bypass the basins in certain24 storms, is that correct?25 72 Yes, because the filters are part of the inlet1 A. structure. You see the inlets along the side of2 streets, they mostly don't have any filters on them but3 these they called out a specific type of filter, I can't4 remember name of it. But it's only intended to take out5 particulate.6 How do you distinguish particulate then from the7 Q. oil that you referred to?8 I mean, that's pretty obvious. It's totally9 A. different, oil is a chemical and particulate is small10 solids.11 Thank you. That what was I was asking you.12 Q. Thank you.13 Okay.14 A. And so when --15 Q. I'll try. It was so obvious to me I couldn't16 A. understand why --17 Usually lawyers don't do that, but I just took a18 Q. chance and asked the question.19 With respect to water that bypasses the basin,20 even if the basins, as the board engineer asked or21 suggested in his question, meet the standards in the22 regulations, if water is bypassing the basins would they23 address the oil contaminants?24 I'm not sure I understand the question.25 A.

19 of 33 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 130 09/16/2025 06:29:53 AM 73 I withdraw it because maybe I don't understand it1 Q. either.2 Thank you.3 A. A question from a board member was asked about4 Q. you seeing the site itself. I'm not -- I don't mean any5 criticism about the question, but let me ask you this.6 When you calculated the 211 foot upgrade, okay. Did you7 see that -- did you calculate that by physically seeing8 the property or from some other source?9 Through the drawing that had grades on it. That10 A. was done by a surveyor and it listed at the property11 line an elevation. I don't remember the exact number,12 and it had another number totally opposite on the high13 end of the property and another number. And the14 difference between the two numbers was 211. I do15 remember that. So that's the elevation difference.16 Now, when you --17 Q. That was on the survey, that was on a site survey18 A. with grade lines, they're all curvy lines all over the19 drawing and each one represents a different level20 contour. The contour of the land, yeah. It's a lot of21 contour to that land apparently.22 So when you go to this site you don't see that,23 Q. you only see that when you look at the written24 documentation, is that correct?25 74 Oh, yeah. Somebody has to survey to get these1 A. grades. They got special equipment to do that work. I2 don't physically do it but I've been involved in having3 that work done and seeing the result of it many times.4 So in order to -- so not seeing the site as you5 Q. were he asked, does not impact your ability to6 understand the grade, correct?7 Of course not.8 A. And similarly does not seeing the site --9 Q. May I add, if I was at the site I would've never10 A. figured out what that elevation difference was.11 So the question for the need for a pumping12 Q. station which provides stormwater upgrade would not be13 addressed by you visually seeing the site?14 "Yes" and "no". I mean, you can -- it's awfully15 A. high and you're going to need some help.16 Not seeing the site physically would not impact17 Q. that judgement?18 No. No.19 A. In other words, you make this judgement from20 Q. documentation?21 Absolutely. Another professional went there and22 A. figured out what the grades were and documented it and I23 looked at it and simple math. 211 feet. And that's,24 think about how tall is a high-rise building. That's in25 75 the