October 29, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

1 of 59 sheets Page 1 to 4 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 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, OCTOBER 29, 2025 6:00 P.M. RE; PB-24-01 WEST ESSEX HIGHLANDS, INC. BOARD MEMBERS: ROBERT BAGOFF, Chairman JERRY GUARINO, Vice Chairman SUSAN McCARTNEY, Mayor KEN ALPER JOHN CARDOZA LORI KAPFERER SUSAN SCARPA, Councilwoman RYAN MacNEILL, Engineer MALVIKA APTE, Planner JAMILET BAQUERIZO VITE, Board Secretary GENIECE GARY-ADAMS, Zoning Official FISHMAN COURT REPORTING AGENCY 89 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA NORTH 4 SPEEDWELL AVENUE, SUITE 1440 MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY 07960 (973) 285-5331 - FAX - (732) 605-9391 2 A P P E A R A N C E S :1 2 H U T T , S H I M A N O W I T Z & P L O C K E R , E S Q S . B Y B R Y A N D . P L O C K E R , E S Q .3 B p l o c k e r @ h u t t s h i m . c o m 4 5 9 A M B O Y A V E N U E4 W O O D B R I D G E , N E W J E R S E Y 0 7 0 9 5 A p p e a r i n g o n b e h a l f o f t h e A p p l i c a n t5 6 G A C C I O N E & P O M A C O , E S Q S . B Y D I A N A P . M c G O V E R N , E S Q .7 O N E B O L A N D D R I V E , S U I T E 1 0 2 W E S T O R A N G E , N E W J E R S E Y 0 7 0 5 28 A p p e a r i n g o n b e h a l f o f t h e B o a r d 9 10 B R U C E I . A F R A N , E S Q . 1 0 B R A E B R U N D R I V E11 P R I N C E T O N , N E W J E R S E Y 0 8 5 4 0 A p p e a r i n g o n b e h a l f o f t h e O b j e c t o r , W e C a r e N J12 C o r p . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 I N D E X O F E X H I B I T S2 E X H I B I T D E S C R I P T I O N P A G E3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 C H A I R M A N B A G O F F : T h e a p p l i c a t i o n b e f o r e u s ,1 P B - 2 4 - 0 1 W e s t E s s e x H i g h l a n d s , I n c , B l o c k 1 7 9 L o t 3 22 Z o n e I H - 1 W a r n e r R o a d . T h e a p p l i c a n t i s p r o p o s i n g t o3 d e v e l o p a 4 9 6 u n i t i n c l u s i o n a r y m u l t i f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l4 d e v e l o p m e n t o n a v a c a n t 1 2 0 - a c r e p r o p e r t y i n t h e5 n o r t h w e s t c o r n e r o f t h e T o w n s h i p o f N e w J e r s e y .6 F o r t h e a p p l i c a n t , M r . P l o c k e r .7 M R . P L O C K E R : G o o d e v e n i n g . B r y a n P l o c k e r ,8 H u t t , S h i m a n o w i t z & P l o c k e r o n b e h a l f o f t h e a p p l i c a n t9 C H A I R M A N

. P l o c k e r .7 M R . P L O C K E R : G o o d e v e n i n g . B r y a n P l o c k e r ,8 H u t t , S h i m a n o w i t z & P l o c k e r o n b e h a l f o f t h e a p p l i c a n t9 C H A I R M A N B A G O F F : M r . A f r a n f o r t h e10 o b j e c t o r s .11 M R . A F R A N : B r u c e A f r a n f o r t h e o b j e c t o r .12 G o o d e v e n i n g .13 C H A I R M A N B A G O F F : G o o d e v e n i n g .14 M R . A F R A N : O k a y . W e h a v e o u r w i t n e s s - -15 I ' m s o r r y , I d i d n ' t r e a l i z e y o u w e r e w a i t i n g f o r m e .16 W e h a v e S e a n W a l s h f r o m P r i n c e t o n H y d r o w h o i s g i v i n g17 a s u p p l e m e n t a l r e p o r t . I f I m a y c a l l M r . W a l s h .18 H e ' s g o i n g t o s i t t h e r e , i f t h a t ' s o k a y . I d i d n ' t - - i s19 t h a t a l l r i g h t ?20 M S . M c G O V E R N : W e ' r e g o i n g t o b e m a r k i n g t h e21 S e p t e m b e r 3 , 2 0 2 5 r e p o r t a s O - 3 0 , I b e l i e v e . O k a y22 J a m i l e t .23 M R . A F R A N : I h a v e n ' t k e p t t r a c k o f t h e24 n u m b e r , b u t t h a t ' s o u r n e x t w i t n e s s .25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 5 to 8 of 149 2 of 59 sheets 5 MS. McGOVERN: I have.1 MR. PLOCKER: Before Mr. Walsh goes, there's2 something that I submitted to the board that I would3 like to have marked and entered into the record. I4 don't know if we could do this now or do it later.5 MR. AFRAN: Do I know what that is?6 MR. PLOCKER: It's on the agenda. The board7 had requested that we provide the legal documents8 regarding the rights and obligations of Oval Road.9 MR. AFRAN: Sure.10 MR. PLOCKER: So I did send that to the11 board. It's posted to the agenda. I just think, in12 full disclosure, we should put that on the record, have13 it marked as an exhibit.14 MR. AFRAN: I have no objection subject to15 looking at it and seeing if there's anything that's a16 surprise.17 MR. PLOCKER: I will show it to Mr. Afran.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We'll mark that in a19 minute.20 MS. McGOVERN: O-30 is Princeton Hydro. I21 am looking for the applicants exhibit markings. I think22 it's A-7 for the applicant and what are we describing23 that as? Mr. Plocker, what am I describing that as.24 MR. PLOCKER: I'm just going to give Mr.25 6 Afran a chance to review the document first.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead.2 MR. AFRAN: I just need a moment. I3 downloaded this earlier but it's a long document, I4 couldn't read the whole thing.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.6 Mr. Plocker, tell us what it is while he's7 reviewing it?8 MR. PLOCKER: Yeah, so I actually filed two9 documents, I had a cover letter dated October 22, 202510 and that attaches a publically recorded document11 entitled, Declaration of Easement and Right-Of-Way12 Agreement, I will very briefly summarize and I will do13 my best not to characterize the document. What it is,14 it's, like I said, a Declaration of Easement and15 Right-Of-Way Agreement dated January 19, 1988 and it's16 between the parties Allied Signal, Inc, Essex Fells17 Country Club and West Essex Highlands, Inc. It was18 recorded in the Essex County Clerk on January 28, 198819 in Deed Book 5012 at Page 571. And I will just very20 generally characterize, that document and it's21 attachments deal with the parties that I just mentioned,22 rights and obligations regarding Oval Road.23 MS. McGOVERN: And that's just one document,24 there's nothing else you want --25 7 MR. PLOCKER: Well, it -- is my cover letter1 a part of it?2 MS. McGOVERN: That's part of A-7.3 MR. PLOCKER:

l Road.23 MS. McGOVERN: And that's just one document,24 there's nothing else you want --25 7 MR. PLOCKER: Well, it -- is my cover letter1 a part of it?2 MS. McGOVERN: That's part of A-7.3 MR. PLOCKER: Okay. That's fine. So my4 cover letter is part of A-7 which is the publically5 recorded document and it's, I think it's approximately6 47 pages of recording documents itself.7 MR. AFRAN: It's obviously a matter of8 public record so we certainly have no objection.9 MR. PLOCKER: It speaks for itself.10 MR. AFRAN: Right. Subject to whatever11 relevance we have, we might see and need any additional12 evidence, but I'm not sure.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.14 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.15 Mr. Walsh, we are ready for you.16 MS. McGOVERN: Mr. Walsh, you gave testimony17 back on February 26, 2025, you are still under oath.18 Okay?19 MR. AFRAN: We have a problem with the20 table, we just need a moment.21 Mr. Walsh has previously been accepted as an22 Q. expert and I believe he's previously been sworn.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead. Identify24 what you're going to talk about now?25 8 I wanted to talk briefly about the response1 A. letter that CME wrote in response to our letter2 presented to the board.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Did you provide a report?4 MR. AFRAN: Yes, that's Exhibit 0-30.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I want him to say it for6 the board, he's talking about it.7 I just want to hit a few points that they had8 A. talked about. First, I want to go back --9 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry, there's a request10 from the back, if you could hold the mic closer.11 THE WITNESS: I want to go back to the12 mottling issue that we talked about originally,13 M-O-T-T-L-I-N-G, which was when they dig test pits to14 try to find the seasonal high water table. The way the15 applicant marked the seasonal high water table was by16 where they noticed water and what the DEP requires is17 them, for them to look for mottling, which is a18 discoloration of the soil profile that shows a historic19 level of the seasonal high water table. Now, what CME20 says is that, it's not in the record and we can only go21 by the water elevation, which is according to DEP22 standards. What we suspect is that they never looked at23 the mottling to begin with and that the records, the24 flood elevations in the slope profiles are lower than25

3 of 59 sheets Page 9 to 12 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 9 they really are and there's never any record of any1 notice of mottling. I think they took 100 test pits and2 we found that very suspicious. So what we've actually3 done is we had gone out on our own, we went near the4 site, we were not on the site, but we did four of our5 own test pits, we only went a few feet deep and each6 time we were able to find evidence of mottling within 127 inches of grade of the surface. Now, I am not saying8 that they would've always found mottling in all their9 test pits, but I did find it strange that we went four10 for four and they went from like zero for 100. So it's11 not, I don't think that they didn't see it, I just don't12 think they really ever were looking for it. So I think13 that's a little, I think those flow records are flawed14 and I just needed to point that out. And for the15 record, where we looked it's, we have the soil borings16 and the locations are in the O-30 record that we17 submitted and two of the test pits are within about 30018 feet of, at most 300 feet of Basin 1 and the other two19 are within about 300 feet of Basin 7. So while they're20 not on-site we're not terribly far away either from21 where these basins are and where you'd think if we saw22 mottling you would think they would have saw mottling as23 well.24 So I know that CME also said that, you know,25 10 they need to do additional testing and when they do more1 test pits that should be a condition of the approval. I2 think that's a really risky way to approach it. Because3 if we're right and the seasonal high water table is4 actually higher than we suspect, a lot of these basins5 are going to lose storage pretty quickly. Especially6 the aboveground storage basins. You know, you lose a7 foot, you lose two feet, you lose a significant amount8 of volume and then it starts to become very, very tricky9 of how you find that additional volume on the site,10 because you don't go down you have to go out and as11 everyone's seen on the plans there's a lot of site12 constraints. The designs very tight and I don't know13 where they would find extra volume and so then suddenly14 you're in a situation where they're building, what are15 they going to do. How are they going to change the16 design to meet the requirements of the DEP and local17 ordinance and it's in the middle of a

u're in a situation where they're building, what are15 they going to do. How are they going to change the16 design to meet the requirements of the DEP and local17 ordinance and it's in the middle of a construction18 project. All right. That's about all I wanted to say19 for the mottling and the lack of mottling in any of the,20 or in any of the soil profiles or stormwater report.21 Next I would like to talk about there is a22 discussion using alternative methods for groundwater23 mounding, TC calculations, or the Time of Concentration24 calculations, which result -- which are used to figure25 11 out the peak flow elevations. CME's right. In the DEP1 manual you actually use alternate methods to get to2 these stormwater calculations. But what's funny about3 when you read the stormwater report from the applicant,4 is they never really talk about using alternate methods.5 You read it, it seems like they're following, following6 it straight like as per code. They never cite an7 alternative reference and they never provide a8 justification for an alternate method. For example, I9 had talked about how they, when you have a flow path10 there's not a way of calculating velocity. This is a11 way of calculating how long that water takes to go down12 the flow path and they're definitely using an older13 method where you just classify it as unpaved. And the14 latest method requires you to look at the slope and the15 actual land uses and the forests and meadows, the16 street, so the newer method is a more conservative17 approach. The older method that the applicant uses18 it's, it makes the design more easy. I would think if19 you're going to use alternate methods you need to cite20 the method that you used, but then also cite the21 justification why this methods more appropriate then22 what the standard is. And they never do that. And it's23 not justified in the -- CME's report also does not say24 what the method is or why this method is better and more25 12 appropriate in this scenario. So alternate methods in1 some scenarios are more appropriate but there was two2 specific things that came with the TC runoff, the Time3 of Concentration runoff calculation. We didn't classify4 them as alternate methods. We classified two math5 mistakes -- not math mistakes, two analysis mistakes6 wherein one of the watersheds, one of the drainage areas7 when you calculate Time of

classify4 them as alternate methods. We classified two math5 mistakes -- not math mistakes, two analysis mistakes6 wherein one of the watersheds, one of the drainage areas7 when you calculate Time of Concentration you have to8 calculate it for the entire flow path of -- throughout,9 from the highest point to the bottom. It's called,10 point of analysis. They only calculated about half of11 the flow path. We couldn't figure out why. That was a12 mistake that would make the design easier to do. It13 seemed like a mistake, but it wasn't an alternate14 method, at least it's not a method that I'm aware of, or15 anyone else that I know of, that would be applicable.16 Again, that's a scenario where I think you would have to17 cite the method, cite the reference of the method and18 why this is more appropriate. I will just give you an19 example of the method the DEP requires or cites in their20 references are, they come from the National Engineering21 Handbook that was written by the USDA and the Natural --22 the Natural Resources Conservation District. So this is23 typically the reference that we use when we're trying to24 do the stormwater calculations. It's a handbook, it's25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 13 to 16 of 149 4 of 59 sheets 13 also a PDF and the other mistake we called out was that1 we have a watershed, we have one point of discharge. So2 all the water collects to one point of analysis. One of3 the watersheds, it had two points of discharge, but it4 treated them as one. So the water was being split in5 two different directions but the model never6 acknowledged that. And, again, I don't know an7 alternative method that allows for that kind of8 calculation. I don't know who does, but, again, you9 would think the report would cite the method, cite the10 justification for the method and then why this is the11 more appropriate method for this scenario. And, again,12 if you read the report, it doesn't say anything like13 that. It acts like it's acting straight from the DEP14 manual.15 I have one more point I just want to bring16 up with relocation of the sanitary line. I brought this17 up at the end of the presentation. The sanitary --18 there was a portion of the sanitary line that runs in19 through a stormwater underground basin. There's20 technically no rule against this, and I brought that up21 originally when I gave testimony. It just seemed like a22 bad idea and I wanted to bring it to the boards23 attention. In the CME letter they agreed and they24 actually, it's a requirement that the applicants going25 14 to move that sanitary line out of the stormwater basin1 and -- move it out of the stormwater basin and keep it2 out. No sanitary line should run through any stormwater3 basin and sanitary structure. It's a good rule. What I4 was curious is something -- CME also uses justification,5 not just the alternate method just in case some of it6 can't be called out, but also this has been approved by7 the DEP, the DEP was the expert on the rules and if they8 approved it then we should accept their decision. The9 DEP also approved to put the sanitary line through the10 stormwater basin and so it was very curious that in this11 instant CME chose not to defer to the DEP but instead12 chose -- they took a stance and said, no, we're going to13 need to move this line out of the stormwater basin and14 make sure no other lines go into the stormwater basin,15 despite the fact that maybe CME cited a rule. I didn't16 see them citing one in the letter, but I couldn't. So I17 thought that was curious, the fact that for this one18 instance

e stormwater basin,15 despite the fact that maybe CME cited a rule. I didn't16 see them citing one in the letter, but I couldn't. So I17 thought that was curious, the fact that for this one18 instance they went against DEP, but on many of the other19 instances called out they just deferred to them.20 Also like to point out from our, from our21 looking at it if they moved that sanitary line of the22 sanitary -- if they moved that sanitary line out of the23 underground stormwater basin they're going to have to24 move it into the wetlands. I'm saying you can't do25 15 that, but they're going to need to apply for more1 wetlands permitting to get that approved. Looks like2 they put it underneath the road, it's not an uncommon3 thing to do, because you're already disturbing the4 roadway for the -- you're disturbing the roadway so you5 tuck all you're utilities in the roadway. You couldn't6 in that situation so you have to run it to either side,7 either side of the wetlands. So they have to go back to8 the DEP and get more permitting approval.9 Let me just double check my notes to see if10 I have anything else.11 I'd just like to say one more thing, sorry,12 I missed this. I'll turn back to mottling. I'd like to13 just return back to the mottling for one more minute.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure.15 THE WITNESS: You know, you have a report and16 there's, you know, you have an update from us and you17 have a report from the applicant and they don't have18 anything. You don't have to take their word for it. I19 mean, like I think this is enough of a situation where,20 you know, you could go out to the property and have CME21 dig some test pits to know where the test pits were22 done, dig them adjacent, take some photographs and see23 if they find mottling too. And, you know, you don't24 have to -- it seems like we're sitting here like, well,25 16 you know, the report says what the report says. You're1 not held to the report. You can require additional2 investigation. You can inquire your own experts and be3 there and witness. They don't have to do 100 tests4 pits, they could do like five, that's a days worth of5 work, and see the veracity and see, you know, what you6 find.7 So I think that is the end of my8 supplemental testimony.9 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, we have no further10 questions at this time.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.12 Okay. Mayor McCartney, do you have

nd.7 So I think that is the end of my8 supplemental testimony.9 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, we have no further10 questions at this time.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.12 Okay. Mayor McCartney, do you have any13 questions on the witnesses testimony?14 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.15 Actually went back to my notes from February and also16 April of this year and I asked the same question then,17 are you recommending additional basins to go wider or18 deeper and just to clarify what you just said, are you19 saying that that would be impossible to do or should20 they be adding even more basins?21 THE WITNESS: What I'm saying is that I think22 we suspect the seasonal high water table is higher than23 what their report shows. So they don't need to add more24 basins, but the basins would have to get wider. I am25