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

5 of 59 sheets Page 17 to 20 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 17 not saying it's impossible, but it would seriously1 affect the site layout and could require a serious2 design change. We didn't have my guy further but anyone3 that looks at the way the site is laid out, it is not a4 lot of spare room. They're trying to keep it tight to5 try to preserve as much of the woods as possible.6 MAYOR McCARTNEY: That was the same question7 that I asked CME at the last meeting.8 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer, do you have10 any questions on the testimony?11 MS. KAPFERER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.12 Thank you, Mr. Walsh. A few questions.13 Regarding the mottling issue, did you look14 at all of the soil surveys?15 THE WITNESS: I did look.16 MS. KAPFERER: And were you kind of looking17 at soils and the water table?18 THE WITNESS: The USDA soil survey?19 MS. KAPFERER: Yeah.20 THE WITNESS: We have in our record, O-30, we21 have two soils that we looked at from that survey. The22 report.23 MS. KAPFERER: Did they indicate the depth,24 you know, what the anticipated depth to the high25 18 groundwater would be?1 THE WITNESS: Let me -- give me a second to2 check. It doesn't specifically state where they expect3 the elevation in this report and they must have printed4 out a slightly different report. I can provide that to5 you and to the board. I apologize, it just doesn't say6 here.7 MS. KAPFERER: That would be great. If you8 could provide it.9 THE WITNESS: Tomorrow.10 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. That's great.11 One other question regarding the time of12 concentration. Do you know, were you able to say that13 the method that was used for their existing condition14 versus proposed condition, like was it, was the method15 consistent, I don't know, do you recall?16 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. I believe the17 method was not consistent. I believe for the proposed18 condition they used the entire forecast. It would be19 very different though because once developed it's a much20 smaller, larger set of sub watersheds, so it would be a21 very different flow path. But I don't think -- I22 believe I checked that but I would need to go back and23 double check, but I don't think that any one of those24 they ever used a fraction of the flow path for the25 19 proposed condition.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let the record show that2 Council Person Scarpa just joined the board. Thank

think that any one of those24 they ever used a fraction of the flow path for the25 19 proposed condition.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let the record show that2 Council Person Scarpa just joined the board. Thank you.3 MS. KAPFERER: I think you referenced in the4 materials there was time of concentration calculations5 and you said they only used half the flow path?6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.7 MS. KAPFERER: Was that an existing or --8 THE WITNESS: That was the existing9 condition, yes.10 MS. KAPFERER: And then so are you saying11 that in existing conditions that in the runoff that's12 calculated at the points of analysis was that it would13 be higher than, than it would had been if they had used14 the full flow path?15 THE WITNESS: Yes. It would be like an16 artificially higher peak flow rate.17 MS. KAPFERER: And so then you're saying18 when you compare the existing conditions runoff to the19 proposed conditions runoff that the required deductions,20 do you have any sense of whether --21 THE WITNESS: So that's actually a little22 more complicated because, you are right, that flow in23 the proposed condition would be lower. Like it's a24 different scenario because the land use changed25 20 dramatically and also those, all those peak flows go1 through a basin, so the basin is having a significant2 impact on the peak flow. That's the whole point of the3 basin, to reduce the flow. So you're right there, but4 there's a lot of math intertwined. So I think it would5 be hard to show like a direct connection there, but,6 yeah.7 MS. KAPFERER: Did you look specifically at8 a point of analysis at Warner Road at all?9 THE WITNESS: I think Warner Road is where it10 splits, in the mottling they don't split it. That's the11 watershed that has two points of analysis, but they only12 -- there's two different drainage points but they only13 have one point of analysis.14 MS. KAPFERER: I think that's my questions.15 Thank you.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino, do17 you have any questions on Mr. Walsh's testimony?18 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: No questions at this19 time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have any21 questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony?22 MR. ALPER: Thank you. Just one.23 You're optimum method in the analysis is the24 land use standard, you're using one to explain or is it25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 21 to 24 of 149 6 of 59 sheets 21 really just --1 THE WITNESS: I am going to be honest, I've2 never really used an alternate method. I would just3 think you would need to state it and explain it. I4 don't know many people that have actually used alternate5 methods before.6 MR. ALPER: So there's really no guidelines7 on it?8 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't think the DEP9 actually says you have to explain it, but I would think10 you should. Like a record.11 MR. ALPER: Thank you.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza, do you have13 any questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony?14 MR. CARDOZA: No.15 Thank you, Mr. Walsh.16 No questions, Mr. Chairman.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Council Person Scarpa, do18 you have any questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony?19 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: No questions.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I have a question. So you21 said that they may not be looking for mottling, how do22 look for it specifically, specifically and not find it?23 THE WITNESS: Well, you just --24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You said there was 10025 22 test pits.1 THE WITNESS: I think there's 100, yeah.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So what's the odds3 statistically of that happening, you don't find any4 mottling, however, on your four test pits, all four5 found mottling?6 THE WITNESS: I think it's pretty low. I am7 being honest, I don't know what the actual odds are, I'm8 not a gambler. Bad joke. But it seems very unusual and9 I have test pits done for sites in multiple parts of New10 Jersey. Mottling, it does pop-up, it doesn't always11 pop-up, sometimes on-site you will have some places12 where you won't, it can happen, but I think it's very13 unusual that it didn't show up anywhere. I mean, it's14 like, I just, in my original submission we showed, we15 have a copy of one of their test pits and how they16 denoted it and then we show like another example of17 something that uses the correct method, how you are18 supposed to denote the color changes and different19 sizes, their soil logs are devoid of any of that20 description. I think they were, they were looking for21 like, if you read the soil logs there's some notes on22 moisture, the softness of the soil, but there's never23 any discussion of any color. Mottling's mostly based on24 color. I don't know, I don't think they were looking25 23 for that. They were looking for water elevation and1 like softness of soil, different soil

scussion of any color. Mottling's mostly based on24 color. I don't know, I don't think they were looking25 23 for that. They were looking for water elevation and1 like softness of soil, different soil types, but not the2 color. So that's what I mean.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Did you both use the same4 methodology?5 THE WITNESS: I don't know what methodology6 they used, because we used the correct methodology DEP7 requires and the way we know to use it, you can see it8 in the records we provided. Their's was absent. They9 did not provide the correct detail or notation to meet10 that standard.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: They did not provide the12 methodology or did not provide the correct methodology13 which is what you just said, so two different things?14 THE WITNESS: I don't remember reading them15 citing a different methodology. They did not provide --16 they did not use the methodology -- they did not use17 like the notation methodology that is required or,18 required or recommended in the NJ DEP Manual.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.20 Mr. MacNeill, do you have any questions of21 Mr. Walsh on his testimony?22 MR. MacNEILL: Yes. Thank you, Mr.23 Chairman.24 First off, I have to clarify a few points in25 24 Princeton Hydro's letter. So as the Planning Board1 engineer, CME has not designed any portion of the2 project or performed any testing in support of the3 projects design. The role of CME is to review the4 proposed design and supported calculation as provided by5 the applicant for compliance with the local code of the6 Township of West Orange. It is important to highlight7 the fact that our review letter number 3 dated June 13,8 2025 remains to be addressed by the applicant. Further,9 upon receipt of revised documents and new information we10 always reserve the right to provide additional technical11 comments to ensure the code is maintained. So in this12 latest report by Princeton Hydro it is stated that the13 CME letter generally states that the proposed stormwater14 system is compliant with NJ DEP design standards and15 requirements found in N.J.A.C. 7:8 and the NJ DEP BMP16 Manual. This statement is incorrect. Our office17 reiterated that special condition number 2 of the NJ DEP18 permit that the applicant obtained from the NJ DEP,19 which indicates that DEP has determined that the project20 meets the requirements of the stormwater management rule21 N.J.A.C.

r 2 of the NJ DEP18 permit that the applicant obtained from the NJ DEP,19 which indicates that DEP has determined that the project20 meets the requirements of the stormwater management rule21 N.J.A.C. 7:8. Our office has outstanding comments22 regarding the proposed stormwater management design23 within our review letter number 3 that remains to be24 addressed by the applicant.25

7 of 59 sheets Page 25 to 28 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 25 Regarding soil testing. It is important to1 note that the submitted reports were prepared and signed2 by a licensed geotechnical engineer contracted by the3 applicant. CME did not perform or witness any of the4 soil testing and if any conflicts arise during5 construction regarding the seasonal high water table6 elevation, the applicant remains responsible to7 remediate accordingly. If major design changes are8 required the applicant would be required to return to9 the board to obtain amended approval.10 Finally, I'll end with one question for Mr.11 Walsh. Assuming the applicant agrees to address the12 final technical comments outlined within their latest13 report will your office issue a letter stating that you14 have no further objections with the development as it15 relates to stormwater management?16 MR. AFRAN: Well, I'm going to raise an17 objection.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Hold it. He asked a19 question of someone who testified. Please let him20 answer, if he can.21 MR. AFRAN: Just a moment, if I can. A22 question put to a witness is subject to an objection by23 counsel to the case. I am quite competent to raise an24 objection under the rules. My objection is very simply25 26 that it is a hypothetical question. We don't know what1 the applicant will say and it's impossible to ask an2 engineer now to say whether he will withdraw his3 comments based on things we have no idea will be4 presented later. It's a hypothetical question.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think he asked an6 objective question. If the applicant does everything7 that's in the letter -- Mr. MacNeill, would you restate8 that for the record so it's clear. If he does9 everything --10 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, in my opinion it is a11 simple question. If the applicant would agree to12 address the final comments, I count it as four comments13 remaining, mottling, time of concentration, groundwater14 mounding and the sanitary sewer line. So four comments15 remain out of 12 that was initially provided on the16 previous report. If they address those remaining17 comments will your office have any further objections to18 the development and will you issue a letter stating19 same?20 MR. AFRAN: And that's the nature of my21 objection. We have no idea how the applicant will22 address those matters. Merely because the applicant23 talks about them in the future

tter stating19 same?20 MR. AFRAN: And that's the nature of my21 objection. We have no idea how the applicant will22 address those matters. Merely because the applicant23 talks about them in the future doesn't mean that the24 engineer standing next to me, our witness, can possibly25 27 say whether he would agree with those. The questions1 simply calling for speculation by the witness. Now Mr.2 Chairman, it's your discretion to allow a question, I'm3 simply raising the objection.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeill, do you mean5 if he responds to them and or modifies them, based on6 Mr. Walsh's testimony, to Mr. Walsh's satisfaction,7 would that be what you mean?8 MR. MacNEILL: Exactly. If the applicant9 addressed the final comments in the letter would you10 have any additional objection to the development as it11 relates to the stormwater management?12 MR. AFRAN: Again, it's the same question.13 How will the applicant address those comments, my14 witness can't say whether he would agree or disagree15 until he sees how the applicant addresses those16 comments.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think what he said --18 I'll restate it, correct me if I am wrong. I am trying19 to get to an end. Sounds like he's saying, if the20 applicant does it to his satisfaction --21 MS. McGOVERN: Is there anything else he22 objects to?23 MR. CARDOZA: To your satisfaction. So if24 he were to review them and say, yes, I would like these25 28 proposed fixes --1 MR. AFRAN: Well, I think that's what you do2 after the applicant addresses it. You don't ask now in3 advance will he agree.4 MS. McGOVERN: It's a hypothetical question.5 MR. AFRAN: Yes, that's my point.6 MS. McGOVERN: That's okay. It's okay to7 ask a hypothetical question.8 MR. AFRAN: No, no, no, Ms. McGovern, a9 hypothetical question is when you --10 MS. McGOVERN: It's within the --11 MR. AFRAN: -- pose a factual scenario about12 facts on the ground, not when you ask a witness will you13 agree in advance to certify something by way of an14 answer that's not even presented. That's not a15 hypothetical.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Hypothetically if all the17 requirements are satisfied from what he just said need18 to be corrected, he's an expert, he said these things19 need to be corrected. So it's hypothetical.20 MR. AFRAN: That's a different question.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If it is corrected to his22 satisfaction, that was the question Mr. MacNeill

aid these things19 need to be corrected. So it's hypothetical.20 MR. AFRAN: That's a different question.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If it is corrected to his22 satisfaction, that was the question Mr. MacNeill asked.23 MR. AFRAN: Your question, with respect, is24 better. Because you're saying if everything's corrected25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 29 to 32 of 149 8 of 59 sheets 29 to his satisfaction, not merely addressed and that was1 my problem.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. I think the word3 address --4 MR. MacNEILL: So I'll change it to your5 satisfaction. If they addressed all the comments that6 are remaining in your letter to your satisfaction would7 you write a letter that indicates you have no further8 objection as it relates to the stormwater management?9 THE WITNESS: Well, can I ask a question to10 the question. I don't -- for the mottling, we think11 it's higher, I think they're saying it's lower for the12 seasonal high water table. Are they going to dig up 5013 test pits and take photographs and show us. Like I14 don't know the nature of how they would answer the15 question.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If they answer to your17 satisfaction, hypothetically, whatever they would have18 to do to make you satisfied, you're the expert. You19 testified, you said that there are these requirements,20 if they fulfill the requirements, these four21 requirements.22 MR. AFRAN: Same objection.23 THE WITNESS: But how, to the mottling24 question, I'm not trying to be difficult.25 30 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: They go back to do more1 tests.2 THE WITNESS: They dig 100 test pits and3 take photographs?4 MR. CARDOZA: For the sake of argument.5 THE WITNESS: For the sake of argument --6 MS. McGOVERN: Using the suggestion earlier7 that if you take four or five, I think you said five,8 you did them very close to the ones that they already9 did, you have an independent person do that to see10 whether, because you were suspicious, if somebody does11 that independently despite that, I'm not asking -- I'm12 not suggesting they do that, and came out with the same13 findings, would that satisfy you?14 MR. AFRAN: It might not satisfy the15 objectors as a matter of law because it depends on the16 nature of those tests. The engineer can give an opinion17 but I want to be clear, just because he's my witness18 doesn't mean the objector necessarily would agree in19 advance to commit to validating tests.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, you're going21 off base here. It's a simple question. The man22 testified as an expert, he said these things need to be23 corrected, however he decides they need to be corrected.24 If they are, Mr. MacNeill is saying, would that satisfy25 31 you. And now this hemming and hawing, I'm thinking

aid these things need to be23 corrected, however he decides they need to be corrected.24 If they are, Mr. MacNeill is saying, would that satisfy25 31 you. And now this hemming and hawing, I'm thinking --1 the board is listening very carefully and it's a simple2 question. So in this case he can't say yes, so I'm3 thinking there's something else that I'm missing here.4 THE WITNESS: No, no, no. I'm, I'm just5 trying to figure out the level to degree. The mottling6 --7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Whatever degree -- if you8 need another independent agency expert to come in and do9 these test pits and finds mottling or no mottling.10 THE WITNESS: So can I just talk for a11 minute and talk it out. So like if they do five --12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry. I'm not asking13 the objectors to agree, I'm just asking him as a14 professional.15 THE WITNESS: Understand. I'm just trying to16 understand. That's all.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let's say you need 20 test18 pits, just arbitrarily you need 20 test pits and 20 test19 pits are done and you guys, after the expert looks at it20 --21 MR. AFRAN: What if they're not --22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let the expert speak. He23 testified to something, I'm trying to understand.24 THE WITNESS: So I guess this is where I25 32 would, it would be more conditional for me. Because1 suppose they do 20, suppose we're right on ten but2 they're wrong on, you know, their ten are different.3 Well, then obviously -- well, wait a minute, do you need4 to take more, do you have hundred of them?5 MS. McGOVERN: You're not following. If6 they do 20 test pits and they all came out the same way7 that their experts came out, we're trying to figure out8 if there's anything else besides what you said in this9 report that you take issue with on stormwater10 management?11 MR. AFRAN: My objection is this is a set up12 question.13 MS. McGOVERN: No, it's not.14 MR. AFRAN: Let me finish. Let me finfish.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ladies and gentlemen, an16 expert testifies on his license and says something to17 the board, any one of you that would've come up with an18 application for your home would expect the same level of19 expertise and honesty. We're requiring an answer based20 on testimony. It may not be answerable, but if the21 answer is, these things need to be corrected and they're22 corrected to your satisfaction, then you come up with23 the answer. I'm just asking, the answer may