July 16, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 to reanalyze? THE WITNESS: I'm not designing the study. MR. KLEIN: No, I understand. Okay. So all you could say is with your experience if they plugged in the correct RQD's, GSI's what? It would be worse than what they said. You don't know how much worse but worse? THE WITNESS: Right. Correct. MR. KLEIN: Okay. THE WITNESS: If the question is why. Why did they do that, it would have been simple enough. MR. KLEIN: Well, if it's that simple, you couldn't have done it? THE WITNESS: I'm not the geotechnical engineer. MR. KLEIN: No, I am saying like if you're -- well, I am trying to prove something. I can say that's wrong, and I think it's going to fail. If I can show that it failed then there's no doubt that it failed. You're saying that this data, they're not using the right factors. They're cherry picking the best factors on their slope and then they do their analysis. Yeah, it's going to be fine. It wouldn't fail. But you are saying no, that's not right. They should use this factor and that factor and this factor and then you

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 would see it would fail? THE WITNESS: Let them reanalyze it and we'll take another look. MR. KLEIN: All right. MR. AFRAN: It's clear to us that the burden of -- the burden of this evidence is the applicants. We are demonstrating that the applicant chose to cherry pick certain statistical figures, ignored others and therefore it shows, as the witness says, a significant flaw. It's the applicants burden to show this can work safely. It's not our burden to do the figures and proof what or disprove what they're supposed to show. We're showing their analysis is not meeting, as the witness says, a proper engineering analytical standard. It is not our job to proof what they're supposed to prove. MR. KLEIN: I understand. So then is it the method of removing the rock to make the foundation for the building and garage, is that, is there, is there an ability to still dig the foundation for the building and the garage and not effect the slope? Have a different method, it may be a more expensive way of doing it or do you just -- THE WITNESS: It also -- well, there's two factors. There's the construction method. I've seen it where we do what's called a rock trench which is where

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 instead of blasting, building a trench for rock, a little less vibration, still vibration. But it's also the configuration of the rock itself. One thing I didn't see here is any recommendations, for example, remediation. If all of a sudden these slopes start to destabilize are they going to go in and install, you know, anchors on the -- are they going to rundown there and is there a plan, an approved area of disturbance that they can then go in and now install these rock anchors and as they start seeing this slope start to fail. Or can they even do it in time before it fails. Sometimes it's simply the condition of the material. If they put this building there it could just destabilize. MR. KLEIN: Just the weight of the building? THE WITNESS: No, just the fact that they're excavating and they're separating if from the rest of the rock mass. It could be a destabilizing factor, but I didn't see anything in the report that discussed that. Move the building away one hundred feet and I think they would get a better result. MR. KLEIN: So there is a solution? THE WITNESS: Well, they'd have to go into the wetlands. MR. KLEIN: Okay. THE WITNESS: That's why they jammed it,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 they put it right next to the slope for their parking lot. Between there and the wetlands. They didn't want to get a permit for the lot. MR. KLEIN: So if they want to try to get a permit they possibly could do it? THE WITNESS: Sure. I guess. I don't know why they didn't. MR. KLEIN: All right. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Guarino. MR. GAURINO: That was my question, so thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper. MR. ALPER: Sure. Thank you. Are you saying that it's unstable to build or that there is not enough information to tell if it's unstable to build? THE WITNESS: I think it's not necessarily responsible to build that close to the slope. This Township is no stranger to landslides, it's occurred before. So to have that information I would say, yeah, there's not enough -- the information is not robust enough. The analysis was not done in a manner that would provide myself at least with any confidence that nothings going to happen or there's going to be no failure of the slope.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 MR. ALPER: What are the chances of a slope failure or a landslide if Building D is built as proposed? THE WITNESS: I am not a statistician. I have no idea. MR. ALPER: Is it a non zero chance? THE WITNESS: Oh, it's definitely a non zero chance. I can say, as we say when we testify, it's within a reasonable degree of engineering scientific certainty, which really is a 50/50. So 50/50. MR. ALPER: He said a 50/50 chance. THE WITNESS: A reasonable -- I'd say there's a reasonable -- within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty. MR. ALPER: Would you live there? THE WITNESS: No. MR. ALPER: I'm good. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Council Person Scarpa, any questions? COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: My question has been answered. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Mr. MacNeill, do you have a question? MR. MacNEILL: One quick question. Do you have a recommendation for the number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 of borings that you would recommend that the applicant complete to ensure stability? THE WITNESS: Well, there's a number of different things they could do. Obviously the more borings, the better usually, to try to get a more understanding of the distribution of unstable rock materials. There's also what's called seismic analysis, where you can actually use, basically a geophysical means to look at the surface of the rock. Look at the competency and through seismic analysis you could actually also look at rip ability of the rock. Which means it shows the quality of that rock as well. There are a lot of different things you could do to give you more information. Will it show that it's stable or maybe it will provide them better solution, but maybe it will say hey, we need to move the building. I don't know. With geotech work, one of the things to understand geotechnical, we're dealing with borings. So we're dealing with one boring here, one boring 50 feet away or 100 feet away and we're interpolating in between. And so that's why there are factors of safety, but at the same time if you have a boring up here on the top of the slope and then you have a boring at the middle or the bottom of the slope very far away and then

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 you can tell judgmentally as an engineering judgement that there's a very big difference in quality of rock between those two borings. MS. McGOVERN: What's the number? What's that number. THE WITNESS: Number of borings? MS. McGOVERN: Yeah. That's what he asked. THE WITNESS: No, it would be and it, I mean, it's an engineering judgment. And it's -- MR. MacNEILL: Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Haizel, do you have a question? MR. HAIZEL: To what extent would you -- to what extent would your conclusions or your inferences change if you knew for a fact that blasting was not going to be used in excavating? THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. If blasting was what? MR. HAIZEL: Was not going to be used. THE WITNESS: Again, still have to understand the configuration of that rock. It's overall like condition of the quality of that material during the slope stability material. Now, keep in mind, non of their analysis addressed blasting or not blasting. None

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 of it. It addressed static condition of the slope as it exists and one with loading of the building on it. And one if there was an earthquake. They didn't do anything about blasting. There was no actual analysis. MR. HAIZEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any other members of the public have any questions for Mr. Goll on his testimony? Please come up, state your name and ask your question. You have three minutes. Do any members of the public have any questions. Come up and ask Mr. Goll. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder, 17 Howell Drive. So I live on one of those toes of the slope, I guess close enough, about 150 feet. As testified before we have 15 Howell that's even closer, directly in line with this -- THE WITNESS: You're 15 Howell? THE PUBLIC: No, I'm not 15 Howell, but right next door. When you -- did you physically observe the property by any chance? Did you walk-through there. THE WITNESS: No, I did not. THE PUBLIC: Okay. So were you able to look at Google Maps looking down?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 THE WITNESS: Yes. THE PUBLIC: So can -- so are those homes on the toe of the slope, are they built into the toe of the slope? Because I know my backyard has several -- THE WITNESS: Retaining walls. THE PUBLIC: -- Retaining walls. Correct. THE WITNESS: Yeah, I saw those. THE PUBLIC: So is that part of the toe, the original slope that's already been built into? THE WITNESS: Yes, they cut -- in order to make those houses work, you can see how the topography, the slope goes down, it then gets cut off by a retaining wall and then you get a lower elevation. A much lower elevation that shows that a retaining wall was constructed into the slope. For example that's why I was asking 15 Howell, there's not, at least that's the one closest to that northeastern or that northwestern side of the site. THE PUBLIC: I think most of the homes there have an average of, how many retaining walls would you say were built? THE WITNESS: I don't know. THE PUBLIC: You don't know. So if this was built as it's proposed today, not on a conceptual plan that was originally shown and,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 and if we had another 100 year rainstorm similar to like what we did the other night, what would I expect as a person down slope and what will my neighbor expect and the other three homes and the other five homes, what would happen? THE WITNESS: Well -- THE PUBLIC: This is very disconcerting hearing two very different reports, so. THE WITNESS: It's an excellent question. Water is the enemy of slope stability. Basically as soon as you start, for example, suddenly like for example in Atlantic Highlands, which is not bedrock geological formation, it's more of cements and sands. More recent sudden changes in groundwater elevation such as a rainstorm initiates what's called landslides. Or they're called, it's a block failure of the slumping -- it's a slumping of the soils. But similar things can happen if rainwater gets sandwiched between fractures and rock, not only acts as sort of a lubricant it also can add in water pressure basically. That would actually lower the strength of the rock. THE PUBLIC: So if this was built as proposed and approved as proposed what could be done to protect the homes that are the closest to this construction?