August 13 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 41 there was a landslide, what would the impact be? THE WITNESS: Well -- THE PUBLIC: On the water tower. THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know, depends where the water towers placed. If the slide happened underneath, yeah, it would undermined the support of the water tower. If it was above it, that means the water can hit, I don't know where the water would be placed, but if it was down slope of something and there's a slope failure, it could damage the water tower, so. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Anyone else from the public have any questions? Come up and state your name. Three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Hi. Valerie McCarthy again. I just had a question, follow up on -- following up on Seth's question. Does the proposed project recognize engineering standards for construction on a steep slope or a near steep slope, in your opinion? THE WITNESS: I think it's more a matter of, you know, I mean, I think the Township does have a steep slope ordinance, usually there's setbacks and things like that, but I'm not, you know, familiar, to familiar specifically with this townships steep slope ordinance. I've seen others where you need to have like 50 feet

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 42 away. Like in Jersey City has a steep slope ordinance that requires, I think you have to be at least 50 feet away from the edge or 30, I think it's 40 or 50 feet from the edge of a cliff and there's a number of different requirements for that, both from a -- from an aesthetic standard. THE PUBLIC: But from an engineering standpoint, is there a, is there a standard, construction standard for a building on a steep slope or near a steep slope? THE WITNESS: Well, as I said, you know, it depends on how much investigation, how much design you're willing to do. I mean, with enough money you can do a lot of things. But you would also then have to expand the footprint of the development going into these stabilization measures and they're not inexpensive. They're probably at least a hundred of thousands of dollars, you know, could be over millions. Very expensive. THE PUBLIC: And in terms of mitigation of safety, part of your comment was that that was not included in the proposed development. As an engineer would that give you pause as it relates to particularly the residents at 1 Howell Drive, that those mitigation standards were not part of the development or the plan?

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 43 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if there was, I am, again, I am not the design engineer on this site, I'm not the geotech, but we would want to look at this carefully and closely. If it ws below factors of safety we would recommend that they go further to increase that factor of safety along that slope. THE PUBLIC: Based on your analysis is it at safety or below the standard? THE WITNESS: Well, based on my letter and our analysis, it is below the required or the industry standard factor of safety that's recommended by the United States Army Core of Engineering. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Do any other members of the public have any questions? Please come up. THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder, 17 Howell Drive. One question. What additional investigation measures would you recommend to the Planning Board to determine if this slope possesses no undue risk to the neighboring homes? THE WITNESS: I would do a, if it were me, I would do more soil borings and cores. I would go deeper with the cores because they only went ten-feet. Like I said at the last meeting, some of the cross sections didn't extend necessarily far enough. It should have

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 44 probably meet standard RS sections to show the depth of potential impact was. I would look more of doing a geological analysis. They talk about how in their report that they went out in the field and they saw small outcrop and it looked like it was, you know, the dip of the fracturing was in towards the slope. But that's really a very isolated small area. Who knows what it's like for the rest of the leg. You want to -- you have aerial stereos and other GIS and actually look at the geology of the area. And then I would have gone further to also, and I didn't do it in mine, because as I said, we did this one exercise, I didn't want to do too much in fairness to our client, but also looking at the, for example, the wastewater utility line that's down there that has now, you know, it was excavated at one time into the native soils and presumably, yes, probably proper bedding and things like that, but it is in an open space area probably back filling wasn't exactly like the structural standard for example, preparing for a road or something like that. I don't think they foresaw, you know, something developed that would be going on and up to the top of the slope. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the public have any questions? Please come up and be identified.

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 45 Young lady first, please. THE PUBLIC: Hi. It's Barbara White, 51 Howell. I have a question for you regarding the extent of the investigation you did. I think it was primarily around Building D, is that correct? THE WITNESS: Well, I didn't conduct the investigation. THE PUBLIC: I'm sorry, what did you do? THE WITNESS: Yeah, I focused, the report that I was provided was a focused investigation around Building D. THE PUBLIC: So in your professional opinion, while you may not have looked at A, B and C, would there be similar considerations that need to be looked to regarding the other structures as well? THE WITNESS: I would say that the Building D is probably the most exposed to a, you know, a potential slope issue. It's at the top where it drops off again. Looking at the other plans for the other buildings they're not quite as close to any other steep slopes in those areas. I'm going by recollection from looking at the plans that focused on D, but I would say D would be sort of the biggest concern I would have. THE PUBLIC: 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 46 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other members of the public have a question? Please raise you hand and be identified. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Yeah, Bernard Fiscus on the other side. The question I have for you is that the bore holes were ten-feet, in your opinion is that deep enough to do a proper analysis? THE WITNESS: Just to be clear, the borings were much deeper than ten-feet. That was just the rock core portion of it. So they went down through the soil that sits on top, weathered rock and materials that settle there over time and then they, once they hit competent rock, not competent rock, rock able to collect core data through these diamond teeth core barrels, that's when they took the samples. You know, there was, especially one boring, where they got a very poor RQD at the bottom, I forget what boring it was, but it was on Section C, cross section C. They still had only gotten a RQD of 23 and I would have, you know, requested of my client to go another five-feet to see if it gets better. THE PUBLIC: So you're opinion is that the holes weren't drilled deep enough where you think they should have gone deeper?

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 47 THE WITNESS: I would've pushed it deeper to get more competent rock. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Any other members of the public have any questions? Please raise your hand and be identified. Any members have any questions, please raise your hand and be identified. Come right up, sir. THE PUBLIC: I have one last question. As far as the area that the work is being projected, does that area being affected as far as water runoff, as far as building number 4, it's at the edge of the slope. One -- two questions. Is there going to be possibly a retaining wall that he mentioned about reenforcing that area? Building number 4 is right on the edge actually -- THE WITNESS: Which is building number 4? THE PUBLIC: That's D. THE WITNESS: D. Okay. THE PUBLIC: In your professional opinion should there be a retaining wall in that area right there? And number 2, right in that area downstream there's other streets down there where there's a lot of

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 48 flooding on a normal basis. So is there, I'm not sure if it's for you or for the city, but is there a stormwater runoff system that was studied to handle the amount of water that's going to be coming down, because they're cutting down trees, parking lots and so a lot of waters going to be coming down. So would that affect downstream like the streets down there like Rosemont and other streets? THE WITNESS: A stormwater analysis was not part of my analysis. I know another gentleman from my firm had testified to the stormwater system previously. So that is the person who you should ask. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other members of the public have questions? Please come up and be identified. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive. I am trying to remember if this was asked, I know we're talking a lot about possible damage to surrounding homes, but would you be worried at all about Building D itself and it's structural families if it were put there based on what possibly could happen with what it's, you know, being anchored by? You know, if it was built where they're proposing to build it would 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 49 live in it? THE WITNESS: Well, that was asked the last -- THE PUBLIC: I said I couldn't remember, yeah. THE WITNESS: Yeah, no, I would not, based on the current situation. And I'm going by my recollection of my report and I remember looking at some of the blogs and they didn't seem to go as deep as the basement would go. Or the garage was going to go. So they didn't go far enough. So I wouldn't be able to look at the analysis of that. My concern was also stability of the slope immediately next to the building. So when you excavate down to stabilize that slope, which then could lead to potential impacts for the building itself. THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other member of the public have questions? Please come up and be identified. You have three minutes, sir. THE PUBLIC: Justin Goldman, Moran Road. Just had a question in terms of both the application and our general consensus about what we're talking about. Seeing people are talking a lot about start to finish

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 50 from this project, if we're at point A and by point B should we have these concerns of stability. Do we have like a phasiology projection to say that in Phase 1 these are some expectations, you know, versus in Phase II towards the end of the progress, towards the end of the process. Right now there's X amount of trees, obviously all the trees aren't coming down in one swoop, so as they slowly or expedientially come down, is there a continuous progression of, if there's 5000 trees today we can expect this much soil, water, tomorrow we're moving here, etc. And in terms of how that might impact the residents in the area and should they then be notified as the process is ongoing or in Phase 1 these are expectations you can assume from drilling from things this is now Phase II, so is there a phasiology of progressive development in the application? THE WITNESS: I don't know anything about the phasing of the project. And that sounds like what a person asked before, that's kind of more a similar question. That would be the other expert. THE PUBLIC: Would we potentially -- would you, sorry, potentially as this project, if it does in fact go through as the construction development goes, can we expect the further along the project goes to see if it exacerbates the level of environmental concerns?