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

y. 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 be well,24 no, I don't want to do that and that's okay. But the25

9 of 59 sheets Page 33 to 36 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 33 board needs to hear that if these things are satisfied,1 we're not asking the objector to agree, we're asking as2 an expert would those areas be taken into consideration.3 MR. AFRAN: These questions have no4 specificity. You're now saying would what be taken into5 consideration. The questions inherently vague, it's6 asking him to say in advance that a set of tests that7 might or might not be done by the applicant, somehow8 could meet the standards in the profession he says needs9 to be met. How could he possibly say that without10 seeing the tests that are done. It's the applicants11 duty to prove its case. If there's a problem then the12 applicant has to prove it. At that point if the13 applicant meets proper engineering standards, and my14 expert has no further statement, then the objector might15 very well say, we have no issue there. But to ask a man16 in advance before the tests are done to say those tests17 would satisfy him, how could he do that. As an example18 he says, suppose ten show mottling and ten don't, how is19 he supposed to say in advance whether the methodology is20 correct. He might, again, say there's no notation for21 color as he testified to. How could he know in advance22 to answer this question.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Then the answer would be24 he can't, as opposed to, and I specifically said, if25 34 everything is done to his satisfaction, so take that for1 English. His satisfaction, all tests are done, he2 looked at everything, if his firm did it he would be3 satisfied with the results based on the testing and the4 methodology used. So if everything was done to his5 satisfaction on the four points that were brought up in6 his testimony today. Simple question, hypothetically.7 MR. AFRAN: It's not a simple question8 because what is his satisfaction. An expert has to see9 the methodology used in the set of tests before he knows10 he could be satisfied. A standard of care in any11 profession requires seeing what is done. One can't12 announce in advance they would accept the set of tests.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So an expert can, as he14 testified, present a set of facts and then say these are15 the requirements of the tests. He is an expert, he can16 set up the requirements.17 MR. AFRAN: This question appears to be18 designed to lock this man into something before expert19 analysis

ese are15 the requirements of the tests. He is an expert, he can16 set up the requirements.17 MR. AFRAN: This question appears to be18 designed to lock this man into something before expert19 analysis by the applicant is put in.20 MS. McGOVERN: Yes, the answer could be, I21 don't know. The answer can be, there are to many22 variables, I can't give you an answer. It was just a23 simple question.24 MR. AFRAN: It was not a simple question. I25 35 preserve my objection.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You preserve your2 objection, great.3 So you can answer any way you can sir, you4 are the expert.5 MR. MacNEILL: Mr. Chairman, if I could just6 clarify.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeill.8 MR. MacNEILL: So really all I'm asking is,9 as the objecting engineering if they agree to comply10 with any comments that remain in your letter, would you11 have any further issues or would you agree that the12 storm -- as it relates to stormwater management only,13 would you agree that they have fully met your concerns?14 MR. AFRAN: Same objection.15 MR. MacNEILL: I have no further questions,16 Mr. Chairman.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Mr. Walsh, thank18 you.19 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Walsh, are you able to20 answer the question?21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.22 MR. AFRAN: No, he's been presented with23 what I said was an improper question, I'll argue to24 that. Mr. Chairman, you said the questions proper, now25 36 there's a question not yet answered. I would ask my1 witness, do you feel you can answer the question put to2 you by the board's engineer?3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If you feel you can,4 answer it. If you feel you can't, say there's not5 enough information, you can't answer the question.6 THE WITNESS: I will give a little bit of a7 mixed answer, if you don't mind.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure.9 THE WITNESS: Some of the comments in the TC10 calcs it means they're going to go back and run11 everything as per the standard and it all works, I mean,12 there are trickle down effects to the results of those13 TC calculations and increased volume and peak flow14 calculations. So, yes, there's -- for those mistakes or15 alternate methods they use the standard methods, then,16 yeah, there's a chance that we could find it. I don't17 know what the trickle down effects of those are, I think18 they will actually trigger design and layout changes.19 For the mottling, I think it's a little to complicated.20 I would -- it's -- the

't17 know what the trickle down effects of those are, I think18 they will actually trigger design and layout changes.19 For the mottling, I think it's a little to complicated.20 I would -- it's -- the thing that causes me pause is the21 scenario if they dig 20 and ten are good and ten are22 bad, then it's like well, to my gut I'd say well, then23 you should dig more, but that's not the answer you want.24 So --25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 37 to 40 of 149 10 of 59 sheets 37 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I want the answer that you1 give.2 THE WITNESS: So that is more complicated,3 but I think it could, but the mottling's difficult to4 give a specific answer with.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. That's good. Thank6 you.7 Mr. Plocker.8 MR. PLOCKER: Yeah, I just have a very few9 brief questions.10 Thank you very much, Mr. Walsh. I reread11 your report, just by frame of reference, my client12 originally applied for the DEP permits in March of 202313 and the permits were issued on November 15, 2024. Does14 that sound about right?15 THE WITNESS: I think that sounds right.16 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.17 Did you or your firm ever have a chance to18 comment to the DEP at any point along during the19 application process?20 THE WITNESS: I believe we did.21 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.22 THE WITNESS: Multiple times. I think we23 sent several letters.24 MR. PLOCKER: I believe he sent one25 38 September 29, 2023. Does that sound about right?1 THE WITNESS: That sounds about right, yes.2 MR. PLOCKER: All right.3 And one October 30, 2023.4 THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes.5 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.6 And then there was one September 13, 2024,7 about two months before the permits were issued, is that8 correct?9 THE WITNESS: I think that's right. I don't10 have the dates.11 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.12 And you may recall you did send one, I don't13 know if it was coincidence or not, but on November 15,14 the same day that the permit was issued, is that15 correct?16 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct.17 MR. PLOCKER: So did you have a chance to18 make some or many of these comments to the DEP during19 the application process and the DEP review?20 THE WITNESS: Yes, the design changed so our21 comments can change, but many of these comments were22 reviewed.23 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.24 THE WITNESS: Some were reviewed in that25 39 last letter, but, yes.1 MR. PLOCKER: Thank you.2 And the permits were issued, correct?3 THE WITNESS: They were issued.4 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.5 And just one more point. Do you recall6 either you or you as a co-author, I believe it was you,7 sent a letter to the DEP dated April 29, 2025 during the8 pendency of this Planning Board proceeding about five,9 six months after the permit was issued, do you recall10 that?11 THE WITNESS: Yes.12 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.13 And isn't it true that you requested that14 the permit be suspended?15 THE

ceeding about five,9 six months after the permit was issued, do you recall10 that?11 THE WITNESS: Yes.12 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.13 And isn't it true that you requested that14 the permit be suspended?15 THE WITNESS: Yes, we did.16 MR. PLOCKER: Okay.17 Did the DEP suspend the permits?18 THE WITNESS: They have not gotten back to19 us, but, no, it's not been suspended.20 MR. PLOCKER: Okay. Thank you very much.21 That's all I have.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.23 Mr. Afran.24 MR. AFRAN: One clarification. The matters25 40 Mr. Plocker referred to are on appeal. So I want to1 remind the board there is an appeal pending in the2 Appellate Division on all of these issues Mr. Plocker3 raised. To the extent that DEP's rulings are binding or4 have impacts here, that, we don't agree necessarily that5 they do, but that matter is on appeal.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.7 Malvika, do you have any questions?8 MS. APTE: Not at this time. Thank you.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any members of the public10 have questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony this11 evening only? Please come up front, state your name for12 the record.13 MR. AFRAN: Let's make an arrangement. Mr.14 Walsh was actually at the lectern so --15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any members of the16 public have any questions for Mr. Walsh about his17 testimony this evening? Okay. And remember ladies and18 gentlemen, comments are something we don't -- we're not19 listening to tonight. We have a meeting set up for20 that. So these are questions specifically to Mr. Walsh21 about his testimony this evening. If anybody starts22 testifying or comments, I would ask you -- I will ask23 you respectfully to be quite. Okay. Thank you.24 Go right ahead.25

11 of 59 sheets Page 41 to 44 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 41 THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder, Howell Drive.1 Within the 200-foot range notice.2 Thank you for your testimony. A question3 that I have is, you said that you dug about four pits4 close to the site. Was that near Howell Drive, near5 Warner Road, where were these done?6 THE WITNESS: It was near Warner Road. It7 was on that side of the property.8 THE PUBLIC: Right. So as you know9 additional test pits were dug near Howell Drive along10 the slope that faces where Building D is going to be.11 Do you think that there should be more test pits dug12 based on mottling in that area to, to understand the13 stability of that slope and also water there too?14 THE WITNESS: That's more of a geotechnical15 question. I just spoke on the stormwater design, so I16 don't want to verge into that area. That would be,17 that's not my level of expertise when it comes to18 geotechnical engineering. So I wouldn't want to answer19 that question.20 THE PUBLIC: Okay.21 THE WITNESS: Those test pits were for the22 soil stability analysis, correct?23 THE PUBLIC: I believe so.24 THE WITNESS: Yeah.25 42 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.2 Any members of the public have any questions3 for Mr. Walsh on his testimony? Please come up, be4 identified.5 Do any members have any questions for Mr.6 Walsh on his testimony? Please come up and be7 identified. Come right up, sir.8 THE PUBLIC: Orin Knights. I have a9 question for Mr. Walsh. I am trying to find out when10 was their high water season? I don't know, do you know11 when exactly that is.12 THE WITNESS: I assume you mean for the13 groundwater?14 THE PUBLIC: Yes.15 THE WITNESS: That's between January and16 through the end of April, according to the NJ DEP Manual17 and that's where they did -- when they did their test18 pits.19 THE PUBLIC: So after that time period20 you're saying that the waters going to be observed and21 come to earth? In other words, for instance my22 basement, am I going to get flood after that high water23 season? The reason I'm asking the question is because24 we had floods in our area after the time frame that25 43 you're talking about.1 THE WITNESS: Well, what time?2 THE PUBLIC: So I'm a little confused and,3 you know, in regards to the basin, I'm not sure if the4 other person asked you that question, but one of the5 buildings I think it's Building

ll, what time?2 THE PUBLIC: So I'm a little confused and,3 you know, in regards to the basin, I'm not sure if the4 other person asked you that question, but one of the5 buildings I think it's Building D, it's right on the6 ridge. So are basins going to be in that area and if it7 is, is it going to be able to preserve all that water?8 Because I know when we have rains for a few days we get9 floods. So I'm concerned about the flood basins, which10 I don't believe by an expert by experience, myself and11 my family, that their basins are going to hold all that12 water and that's one of the problems that we have in our13 neighborhood. Especially because of the fact that we14 are downhill right at the bottom of that number D15 building. So that's my question.16 THE WITNESS: So I think your -- the plans --17 MR. AFRAN: Can I ask Mr. Walsh to speak up18 for the record, because it's hard to hear.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure. Absolutely.20 MS. McGOVERN: Is it better if you stand at21 the podium. Is that a microphone?22 THE WITNESS: All right. So I think your23 property is to the east of that Building D?24 THE PUBLIC: Yeah. Yeah.25 44 THE WITNESS: All right.1 Stormwater isn't being directed in that2 direction. Stormwater's actually being directed to the3 west of the property. There is no, there is no4 additional water being transported toward your property.5 THE PUBLIC: So I'm in trouble then.6 Because if I don't have any kind of protection, I mean,7 you're going to remove the trees and all this kind of8 stuff, I mean, where is, where is the observation for9 the water. I mean, you tear down almost 7,000 trees,10 this helps to absorb the water, what happens? I guess11 we all get flooded.12 THE WITNESS: I don't understand where you13 live so it's difficult to say.14 THE PUBLIC: I'm actually at the bottom of15 the building. This is Building D and I'm downhill.16 We're downhill.17 THE WITNESS: Any of that water comes off18 that building, I believe, is going to the east which is19 not where your house is. That's away from your house.20 The impact, I think you're out of that drainage area,21 according to the plans.22 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.24 Do any other members of the public have any25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 45 to 48 of 149 12 of 59 sheets 45 questions for Mr. Walsh? Please come up and be1 identified.2 THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive.3 I want to ask you about the retention4 basins. When I hear retention basin I understand it's5 going to hold water, right?6 THE WITNESS: Yes.7 THE PUBLIC: Do those have to be maintained?8 THE WITNESS: It will only hold water for a9 short period of time. They're only allowed to hold10 water for 72 hours at most and then they have to be11 emptied.12 THE PUBLIC: And something like, like13 another earthquake and something's damaged, would that14 have to be checked to make sure it wasn't broken and not15 working any longer?16 THE WITNESS: Stormwater systems have to17 routinely be inspected by their owners.18 THE PUBLIC: Routinely inspected by their19 owner?20 THE WITNESS: Yes.21 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the23 public have questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony?24 Come up and be identified.25 46 THE PUBLIC: Hi, Kevin Millman, the botany1 guy.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead, sir.3 THE PUBLIC: Mr. Walsh, I just want to4 clarify some things. So the first is, you talked about5 the analysis that the DEP suggests or requires or is at6 least detailed, correct? Are you saying that in the7 applicants report they didn't say whether they followed8 that, it was just silent.9 THE WITNESS: It's -- they used an alternate10 method. They don't say they used alternate, but that's11 been the justification.12 THE PUBLIC: But you can back into that13 through what they detailed?14 THE WITNESS: Yeah, we pointed out some of15 their calculations don't match DEP regulations.16 THE PUBLIC: Say it again.17 THE WITNESS: We found that some of their18 calculations and methodology didn't match what was found19 in the NJ DEP Manual, that's the standard.20 THE PUBLIC: So we're left to assume that an21 alternate method was used?22 THE WITNESS: Yes. For a portion of it, yes.23 THE PUBLIC: And that alternate method was24 not outlined?25 47 THE WITNESS: No.1 THE PUBLIC: Okay.2 If you were writing a report and you used an3 alternate method would your firm detail what methodology4 was used? Would that be industry best practice to do5 so.6 THE WITNESS: I never had to use an alternate7 method before, but I would think it would be a normal8 practice to call it out.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 THE WITNESS:

at be industry best practice to do5 so.6 THE WITNESS: I never had to use an alternate7 method before, but I would think it would be a normal8 practice to call it out.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 THE WITNESS: Honestly, to avoid the comment11 later from a reviewer.12 THE PUBLIC: And in reviewing the alternate13 method used were you able to determine what alternate14 method was used?15 THE WITNESS: For some of it they used an16 older method that used to be the standard for the DEP,17 for other ones we think they're just mistakes,18 miscalculation. So they weren't methods, we think they19 were mistakes.20 THE PUBLIC: Was the older method retired by21 the DEP?22 THE WITNESS: Yeah, they had replaced it.23 There's a more current one.24 THE PUBLIC: Do you know why?25 48 THE WITNESS: I don't know the particulars of1 that. I don't want to -- I imagine it's a more2 conservative method, but that's, I don't know what their3 thought was.4 THE PUBLIC: Okay.5 Since we're getting into hypotheticals --6 MR. AFRAN: Oh, please. Kidding.7 THE PUBLIC: If you are in CME's seat, would8 you want to go out personally and do tests so that the9 board could see for themselves about the mottling,10 M-O-T-T-L-I-N-G, the coloration. Would you want that --11 THE WITNESS: I think I'd have a lot more12 questions about the soil profiles and depending on what13 they said --14 THE PUBLIC: In other words, would you15 rather just rely on two conflicting reports or would you16 want to see it for yourself?17 THE WITNESS: It's an extreme option. I18 think I'd have a lot more questions for the geotechnical19 engineer and maybe it would deem to that fact.20 THE PUBLIC: I mean just from, for the21 board, from a common sense standpoint, I think I would22 want to see it for myself. But, okay.23 You talked about the volume of the basins,24 basically the high water table and the mottling were25