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

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