September 17, 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 1 TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2025 6:30 P.M. RE; PB-24-01 WEST ESSEX HIGHLANDS, INC. BOARD MEMBERS: ROBERT BAGOFF, Chairman JERRY GUARINO, Vice Chairman SUSAN McCARTNEY, Mayor KEN ALPER LORI KAPFERER SUSAN SCARPA, Councilwoman RICHARD KLEIN WILLIAM B. WILKES JOHN CARDOZA RYAN MacNEILL, Engineer GERARD HAIZEL, Planner JAMILET BAQUERIZO VITE, Board Secretary GENIECE GARY-ADAMS, Zoning Official JOSEPH FAGAN, Zoom Moderator WITNESSES: MARK SEEL, Geotechnical Engineer KARL PEHNKE, Traffic Engineer FISHMAN COURT REPORTING AGENCY 89 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA NORTH 4 SPEEDWELL AVENUE, SUITE 1440 MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY 07960 (973) 285-5331 - FAX - (732) 605-9391

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 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: HUTT, SHIMANOWITZ & PLOCKER, ESQS. BY BRYAN D. PLOCKER, ESQ. Bplocker@huttshim.com 459 AMBOY AVENUE WOODBRIDGE, NEW JERSEY 07095 Appearing on behalf of the Applicant GACCIONE & POMACO, ESQS. BY DIANA P. McGOVERN, ESQ. ONE BOLAND DRIVE, SUITE 102 WEST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY 07052 Appearing on behalf of the Board BRUCE I. AFRAN, ESQ. 10 BRAEBRUN DRIVE PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540 Appearing on behalf of the Objector, We Care NJ Corp.

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 3 I N D E X O F E X H I B I T S EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION A-5 HIGH RESOLUTION COPY OF IMAGES IN MR. SEEL'S SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 REPORT

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 4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The application PB-24-01 West Essex Highlands, Incorporated, Block 179 Lot 32 Zone IH-1, Warner Road. The applicant is proposing to develop a 496 unit inclusionary multifamily residential development on a vacant 120 acre property in the northwest corner of the Township. For the applicant. MR. PLOCKER: Good evening everybody, Mr. Chairman. Bryan Plocker from firm of Hutt, Shimanowitz & Plocker on behalf of the applicant, West Essex Highlands, Inc. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, sir. Mr. Afran. MR. AFRAN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Bruce Afran for the objector, We Care New Jersey. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Mr. Plocker, I think you have the floor. MR. PLOCKER: Yeah. The applicant would like to recall Mark Seel. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Seel, you realize that you are still under oath, sir? MR. AFRAN: Let me just ask in terms of timing, because we have Mr. Hudacsko here, the planner -- as the planning expert for the objectors. Does Mr. Plocker have an idea how much time his engineer on

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 5 recall will take, roughly? MR. PLOCKER: I don't suspect my redirect of Mr. Seel to be very long. We also do have Mr. Pehnke, we're bringing back after Mr. Seel, and I don't expect his direct testimony to be very long either. MR. AFRAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Mr. Plocker. MR. PLOCKER: Okay. Q. Thank you, Mr. Seel and you do recognize you're still under oath from last time? A. I do. Q. Okay. Were you able to review the testimony given by Mr. Goll from Princeton Hydro regarding the geotechnical issues he raised? A. Yes, I was. Q. Okay. And you reviewed the reports that he submitted to the board, correct? A. Correct. July 16 letter and the August 12 letter. Q. Okay. And did you, in addition to the reports you previously prepared and that we made part of 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 6 application materials, did you prepare a letter dated September 15, 2025? A. Yes, we did. Q. Okay. A. That was in response to the testimony and to the aforementioned Princeton letters. MR. PLOCKER: And for the record, I did provide that for the board and I believe it was added to the agenda prior to this meeting. Q. Okay. Mr. Seel, can you just characterize -- can you go over your response to Mr. Goll's comments and collusions? A. I can. Can you bring it up on the screen? MS. MCGOVERN: What are we bringing up, the report or that -- MR. PLOCKER: It's going to be the, I think what I labeled, the companion exhibit. MS. MCGOVERN: Separate document? MR. PLOCKER: And I'll describe it in a second. MR. AFRAN: So to be clear, just to be clear for the record. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're going to raise our

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 7 hand and be identified. Mr. Afran, go right ahead, sir. MR. AFRAN: Just to be clear for the record. The report, the letter is what's called the companion document, is that correct? MR. PLOCKER: No, that's not correct and I was going to explain all of that. MR. AFRAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker, explain. MR. AFRAN: I just want to be sure. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Hang on one second. We are going to see what comes up and we'll go from there. Mr. Plocker, is that what you're looking for? MR. PLOCKER: Yes, it is and I want to identify if for the record and we should probably mark it, but I'll explain it first fully. It's a two page PDF. It has two images, both images are imbedded in Mr. Seel's September 15, 2025 report on Page 2 out of 7. This copy has a bit of a higher resolution, so we wanted it to be legible for the board and everybody in the room, so we made it a separate exhibit. So we could mark that as a the next applicants exhibit since it's a stand alone exhibit, all though I will represent and Mr. Seel can confirm, it's the same exhibit that's imbedded

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 8 in the report. MS. MCGOVERN: Okay. Jamilet, I have it as A-5 for a stand alone exhibit, is that your number? So A-5. What are we calling this, an imbedded -- MR. PLOCKER: I -- MS. MCGOVERN: It says, PB 4.4B. MR. PLOCKER: I would say, Higher Resolution Copy of the Images Contained on Page 2 of Mr. Seel's September 15, 2025 report. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, you rise. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. That -- we agree that appears as Page 2, so that's a good way of referring to it. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You agree. MR. AFRAN: Good way of referring to it. Just confirming that's how I see it. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Plocker. Q. Mr. Seel, please go ahead. A. Okay. Thank you. So after having reviewed the two letters from Princeton and the testimony, we prepared this report dated September 15 and we maintain that the slope is

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 9 stable and that there will be no additional loading from the building on the slope. We put these two exhibits together to help illustrate that point and this is a cross section of the proposed buildings through, you see the upper right corner, the red section line goes on from the north end of the building to kind of the northeast. And that's the -- that represents this particular section. What this shows is what you would expect for a typical foundation loading case where you have a basement. Now, this doesn't identify a particular isolated footing, but what it shows is there's typically a fairly shallow foundation influence line, call it one to one influence line. So basically what happens is all the load is shed within that kind of blue zone and there is no load that is shed to the slope. There's been, from my understanding, questions and comments that have been made, there's been a concern that this building is shedding the load directly onto the slope and that's simply incorrect. Q. And just to confirm, the exhibit that we are looking at, and I just want -- so we want, do have a clear record. That this is your markup of one of the sheets of Mr. Appel's architectural submissions, is that 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 10 A. That's correct. And if you go to the next sheet we can see -- well, look at the other section line and as you look at in the upper right-hand corner there's that red line, it goes kind of down the middle of the building as well and here you can see the top of the slope is where that approximate vertical dash line is, which is the, from what I understand, negotiated limit from the top of the slope and the building is located and this, in this particular section further back from the slope, and the -- and we represent the one to one influence line and, again, you can see that there's no influence of the building loading onto the slope. In fact beneath the soil and/or rock that abuts the right side of, the east side of the building we put a load onto the building rather than the building putting a load on the slope. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Can you identify the letter of the building? THE WITNESS: That's Building D. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you. A. Sorry. Nothing else on here. I, I also wanted to say further that the, as we reviewed Princeton's comments and their report we found that there appears to be a fair amount of misalignment and inconsistency within the document. You know, more