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 61 THE WITNESS: I don't know because I don't have enough information. THE PUBLIC: Okay. I guess the question is, there was identified that there was basalt rock more towards the top that was strong, could blasting create cracks within a strong basalt type rock and cause additional problems? THE WITNESS: Let me back up. The whole point of blasting is to basically weaken the rock so you can excavate down. THE PUBLIC: Right. THE WITNESS: You have to do a controlled basting. I mean, there's always an element just beyond the area they're blasting you're intending it to be rock but, you know, if it's a solid rock formation and they're blasting it appropriately you can do it and not reduce strength of that rock. In this situation though my concern is less on the top of the slope than it is the bottom. It is on the slope. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you. Come right up and state your name for the record and ask your question, please. THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive. When you looked at the numbers were you aware that there had been a landslide on this mountain

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 62 top before, only about 100 feet away from where they're proposing to blast, in 1998? THE WITNESS: I heard some anecdotal testimony at the June 30 meeting. There was discussion about that. THE PUBLIC: Does that change anything or do you think that event might happen again and something to be concerned about? MR. PLOCKER: I'm going to object. Does he know about the event. Was there an event. I don't know. I'm hearing this for the first time. If he has the details he can testify, but if he doesn't know about it I think it would be speculative. MR. AFRAN: Well, he did say -- I'm sorry. MS. McGOVERN: He's giving a hypothetical. THE PUBLIC: No, it happened. MR. AFRAN: The witness said he heard testimony about it at the prior meeting. MS. McGOVERN: He's taking it as hypothetical, which is permitted for an expert to do. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I am not saying it did happen. Representing it as a hypothetical. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. THE WITNESS: Well, to be clear, I don't know the nature of that failure. I don't know the

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 63 configuration. I don't know exactly what caused it. But if a landslide had occurred in that vicinity it can occur again. Just don't know the condition of that specific incident. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other member of the public have any questions regarding the testimony? Please come up and state your name. THE PUBLIC: Bob Sharenow, S-H-A-R-E-N-O-W. Based on your analysis of all the rock there and the blasting that would have to take place, will there be any kind of serious vibration that will go to those homes on Howell a short distance away? THE WITNESS: Well, that's what would be, and I'll back roll. That's going to be a combination of geotechnical design and also making sure that there are -- that's part of the state regulations where they're making sure, you know, adjacent structures are not going to be damaged and things like that. Could it happen. Absolutely. I mean, you set up seismographs and what you do is, in a lot of blasting locations or even deep excavations in an urban environment, for example when buildings are very close, they would install -- they basically place the portable seismographs that can

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 64 detect vibrations and if it goes above a certain vibration amount, then they have to actually figure out something else to do or stop what they're doing until they could figure out to make sure the slope isn't damaged. THE PUBLIC: Is it possible that they would be doing after they start and would have to stop and there would be no solution, is that a possibility too? THE WITNESS: I can't answer that, I don't know. I mean, it's, it would be site specific but I would imagine, you know, it is there to make sure that they're -- they might just have to change the method of where they're excavating. THE PUBLIC: Do I understand what you were saying, there is a possibility after this building is up that there could be some sagging in one area of the building? THE WITNESS: No, I never said that. I never said there would be sagging. THE PUBLIC: Is there a possibility based on all the information about the rock, the blasting? THE WITNESS: If the slope were to destabilize underneath the building, then yeah. THE PUBLIC: It could happen? THE WITNESS: It could settle, yeah.

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 65 THE PUBLIC: It could happen, right? THE WITNESS: It's in the realm, I guess, of possibility. But I just don't know. THE PUBLIC: It's happening with 20 buildings in Florida right now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, sir. Do any other members of the public have any questions for Mr. Goll? THE PUBLIC: Debra Butensky, 11 Rappleye Court, West Orange. So can you just clarify a little bit, you're saying that they have to -- to build the southern part of Building D they have to go down 25 feet to build parking? THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, I looked at the -- the topo, it's a little hard to distinguish. The Langan report specifically states that they'll have to, in a location, they're going to have to build at least 25 feet down. THE PUBLIC: And how many -- so my question, what is, the northern part has basalt, as you go to the, toward the south, you said you got more fracture, more fragile rock formation? THE WITNESS: Well, as you went down slope it became -- so along the whole slope. As you went 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 66 slope. The worst area was the north, the northeastern side of the corner by 15 Howell, I believe it is. That's where you were getting RQD's of like zero. THE PUBLIC: And what about the part of the slope near the area where you're excavating for the parking, what was that like? THE WITNESS: What was that like? THE PUBLIC: Yeah. In terms of stability, in terms of strength of the rock. THE WITNESS: Let me look to see where they took the borings in comparison to the -- it looks like when they printed this out, this is 24 by 36 not eight and half by 11. Let me look, just take a look at this a little closer. Well, let's see. They did borings, they did test pits in that area. There were no borings -- there's one boring in the right northeastern corner, which was NLB-4. And look at the NLB-4 quality, that boring log. NLB-4 they identified -- they stopped drilling down 22 feet. So they didn't go -- I'm sorry, they didn't go as deep as the buildings going to be but they went down 22 feet and according to LB-4 they were getting, they got RQD's of 52 and 93. 52 would be just above what's considered fair. And it goes into, that it looks like right over the border it goes into 50. 50 is the cutoff between poor and fair and it ends up going

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 67 right into fair. So it's not, it's the most, it's not the highest core. As a matter of fact in that location they did get 83 in a lower core, so 12 to 17 feet they got RQD of 52 and then at 17 to 22 feet they got 83, so it started improving at that depth. THE PUBLIC: My question is conceptually is there a potential for a sinkhole? THE WITNESS: No. No sinkholes. No. THE PUBLIC: Okay. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank very much. Any other members of the public have any questions? Please come up. THE PUBLIC: Jean Stoloff, One Fairway. I didn't get a chance to read the Langan report. Could you explain what the impact of the high groundwater is in the vicinity of Building D related to the development of the building and the grass? THE WITNESS: As it relates to the slope stability, when you look at the model it appears they did put a water table, there's a dashed line in there. It basically sits atop the highly fractured and decomposed bedrock and in some cases it sits on top of bedrock. But that looks like it was accounted for in the analysis. THE PUBLIC: All right. Thank 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 68 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members from the public who have questions? Please come up. THE PUBLIC: Mark Patel, West Orange. If the plan proceeds forward as it is laid out right now, what kind of impact would it translate to Bakley Terrace, which is right close to the building that's under question? THE WITNESS: Which road? THE PUBLIC: Bakley, B-A-K-L-E-Y, Terrace. THE WITNESS: It was cutoff. Is it also near Rosemont. THE PUBLIC: Yeah. The top area. THE WITNESS: That's a hard question. I don't know. What do you mean impact? THE PUBLIC: So if the plan goes as -- if the building goes as planned, current plans and you mentioned earlier that there could be stability issues, if, as we proceed forward then those unstable grounds can they penetrate or pass onto have an effect on other streets and areas around there? THE WITNESS: I would say not necessarily. You mean like a subsurface problem? THE PUBLIC: Subsurface problem that can pass onto other houses. THE WITNESS: No, I think you're far enough

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 69 away that it would not cause a subsurface problem. It would be a matter if the slope failed, the material coming down the surface would be a problem. THE PUBLIC: Okay. And then water impacts, would that be heavy rains or anything else once a 100 year storm, would that also increase any kind of impact or any kind of concerns? THE WITNESS: I didn't look at the stormwater system for the building, so I don't know which way they're directing water. THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the public? THE PUBLIC: Tony Vastola, V-A-S-T-O-L-A, 10 Lapis Circle. When you're talking about the boring you indicated you went down around 25 feet -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Can you speak into the microphone. THE PUBLIC: You were talking about the boring, you indicated that they took core out, they were checking the quality and some of it was pretty well broken up and not solid? THE WITNESS: Correct.

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 70 THE PUBLIC: If they -- that seems to me like that would be excavation level until it got down to something solid. How far did they possibly go down until they hit solid that they could, you know, put beams in and put a foundation for a building? THE WITNESS: Well, it wasn't an extensive set of borings done below the building. There were a few test pits, the poorer quality was more downhill from the building. All though -- yeah, it's on the downhill slope of the building, so it's not under the foundation. THE PUBLIC: Were you surprised about the quality of the cores? THE WITNESS: I mean, not when you review in accordance with the geologic mapping of the area, it makes sense and the topography. So obviously whenever you have an area that has exposed outcrops and rocks it's -- and this is geological time, it's an active, you know, when you have exposed rock it's, they're actively moving over. It might not be over years or decades or 100 years or something like that, but that just shows that it is, you know, it is an active movement over time. More erosion than if you're on a level area of land. So that would be a, you know, and then when you look at the contact between Preakness Formation and Feltville Formation, any time you get an area of contact