November 10, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

1 of 28 sheets Page 1 to 4 of 112 01/05/2026 03:19:18 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 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 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 LEE D. KLEIN WILLIAM B. WILKES KEN ALPER JOHN CARDOZA LORI KAPFERER SUSAN SCARPA, Councilwoman JORDAN RIZZO, Engineer MALVIKA APTE, Planner JAMILET BAQUERIZO VITE, Board Secretary GENIECE GARY-ADAMS, Zoning Official WITNESS: SAMUEL N. KLEINBERG, 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 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 ,12 W e C a r e N J C o r p . 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 S1 E X H I B I T D E S C R I P T I O N2 3 O - 3 1 L E T T E R F R O M M A Y O R D A V I E S 4 0 - 3 2 R E S O L U T I O N A D O P T E D N O V E M B E R 7 , 1 9 8 7 5 O - 3 3 A G R E E M E N T - A P R I L 1 9 8 7 6 O - 3 4 O R D I N A N C E - A U G U S T 1 8 . 1 9 8 7 7 0 - 3 5 L E T T E R - M A R C H 9 . 2 0 0 6 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

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 A n d w e n o w h a v e o u r e x p e r t , D i a n a , d o y o u7 w a n t t o s w e a r h i m i n .8 M S . M c G O V E R N : D o y o u s w e a r t o t e l l t h e9 t r u t h t h e w h o l e t r u t h n o t h i n g b u t t h e t r u t h .10 T H E W I T N E S S : I d o .11 M S . M C G O V E R N : P l e a s e s t a t e y o u n a m e f o r t h e12 r e c o r d .13 T H E W I T N E S S : S a m u e l N . K l e i n b e r g . I a m a14 p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e S t a t e o f N e w15 J e r s e y .16 C H A I R M A N B A G O F F : C o u l d y o u g i v e u s a l i t t l e17 b i t o f y o u r b a c k g r o u n d , s i r . I s y o u l i c e n s e a c t i v e i n18 t h e S t a t e o f N e w J e r s e y a t t h i s t i m e ?19 T H E W I T N E S S : I t i s a c t i v e i n t h e S t a t e o f20 N e w J e r s e y a t t h i s t i m e . I g r a d u a t e d f r o m S t e v e n s21 I n s t i t u t e i n 1 9 7 3 . I h a v e b e e n - - I h a v e a m a s t e r ' s22 d e g r e e f r o m N e w J e r s e y I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g y i n 1 9 8 023 a n d s p e c i a l i z e i n s o i l m e c h a n i c s a n d f o u n d a t i o n24 e n g i n e e r i n g .25

01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM Page 5 to 8 of 112 2 of 28 sheets 5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Who do you work for now,1 sir?2 THE WITNESS: I work now for CME Associates.3 We are consultants to the Planning Board.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.5 Do any members of the board have any6 questions?7 Go right ahead, sir.8 Okay. The purpose of our services, as we9 A. understand this particular task, was to review both the10 applicants engineer report and the objectors engineer11 report and assist the Planning Board with an opinion as12 to the validity of the, of the statements in each13 report. We went through the development plans focusing14 on the area of Building D, which is on the top of the15 slope that's in question at this time. The subsurface16 investigation was performed by the applicants engineer17 Langan Engineering and the explorations on the slope,18 which are to the east of -- primarily to the east of the19 Building D, were done by Langan.20 The applicant also did investigations for the21 Best Management Practices of the stormwater infiltration22 systems. They were done by an engineering firm called23 by Shore Engineering and we also, because their24 explorations were in the same area, we reviewed the25 6 results of their explorations as well.1 We reviewed the calculations and a detailed2 description --3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Did you provide a report4 to the board?5 THE WITNESS: Yes, we did. It's a report of6 October 28, 2025 and I was the principal author of the7 report.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead, sir.9 The, the subsurface conditions on the slope were10 A. characterized by Langan Engineering for the applicant.11 Our review, based on review of the geological mapping,12 indicates that their findings conform to the official13 geology as indicated on the USGS map for this area and14 that is -- means the sands and the, dense sands, the15 medium dense sands and the topsoil layers that were16 described in the report.17 The -- we found that Langan had characterized the18 bedrock formation on the site as being uniform under the19 site and being related to the basalt formation.20 Actually the basalt formation ends near the middle of21 the site and so the rock changes, the bedrock changes22 from basalt to sandstone when you get to the middle of23 the slope, roughly around where the sewer easement for,24 that the town, that the township has there runs across25 7 the site just

ck changes22 from basalt to sandstone when you get to the middle of23 the slope, roughly around where the sewer easement for,24 that the town, that the township has there runs across25 7 the site just about at the boundary between the basalt,1 the harder rock, and the sandstone.2 The site was included, as is shown in the Langan3 report, in a Landslide Hazard Study for Essex County and4 there was a zone map for that area. We were unable to,5 while the mapping is shown in the Langan report it's6 shown to be very close to the building in the area of7 the investigation. While the mapping is shown it8 appears to relate to the sandstone formation, which is9 about the middle of the slope, not up near the top of10 the slope where most of the explorations were concerned11 and we were unable to determine, to get the basis of the12 classification as a landslide hazard. We anticipated13 it's due to possibly higher groundwater level and14 seepage levels that could be close to the ground15 surface.16 So, so, in the conclusion -- the -- Langan did do17 an investigation that included assuming, while they were18 unable to identify groundwater in their explorations on19 the downhill slope, they didn't, reportedly didn't20 encounter, they don't, and it's their opinion that it21 doesn't occur. They, they did assume a groundwater22 level at the top of the decomposed rock, which is about,23 on their mapping, about two feet above that mapping and24 those -- and the stability analysis that were performed25 8 for that case didn't indicate that there was a1 significant impact on stability.2 They had contacted our firm after reviewing this3 report and they indicate that they do have analysis that4 assume a conservative groundwater level near the5 surface, but we haven't seen those, those results at6 this time.7 The, the two consultants differ in the8 interpretation. I think the objectors principal9 concerns were that the descriptions of conditions10 encountered primarily in the test pits did not address11 mottling and I think the applicants engineer reports say12 that they didn't -- they don't describe mottling because13 they didn't notice any mottling in their exploration.14 That's our understanding of the response in the Langan15 rebuttal report.16 The -- both of the consults differ in their17 categories -- categorization of the strength of the18 bedrock. Langan, and that's based on

nderstanding of the response in the Langan15 rebuttal report.16 The -- both of the consults differ in their17 categories -- categorization of the strength of the18 bedrock. Langan, and that's based on something called19 the Geological Strength Index for the rock. This is a20 highly empirical tool that's used to enable, to enable21 an engineer to provide input into the currently, the22 current state of the art computer software. It doesn't23 necessarily indicate what happens, but what actually24 would happen where a slope failure surface would pass25

3 of 28 sheets Page 9 to 12 of 112 01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM 9 through the rock.1 The Princeton Hydro writing for the objectors2 were of the opinion that a very low strength index3 should be used and they did perform analysis using their4 stability index.5 It's our opinion that it's prudent to use the6 lower strength index. The complicating factor is that7 while they did use the lowest strength index the safety8 factor came out to be something like 1.7, which in our9 practice would be considered to be adequate. So that,10 that particular zone of slope evaluation where the11 failure surfaces passed through the bedrock, even though12 if you really downgrade the strength of the rock, you13 still come up with an adequate safety factor stability14 based on most of the references. The Princeton Hydro15 references an Army Core of Engineers standard for very,16 very large engineering projects, actually built on17 bedrock slopes, and it's for structures like major dams,18 structures where the failure would result in a19 catastrophe. You know, multiple deaths, you know, in20 the downstream channel below the dam if the structure21 was to fail. That criteria is not, in our, in our22 experience or in our opinion, you know, appropriate for23 this particular analysis case. So we have two24 consultants doing stability analysis. One consultant25 10 using a program called, Slope/W, which is a high powered1 conventional software program for doing this analysis2 and Princeton Hydro used a program called Slide, which3 is also an equally competent tool to use. And they both4 come out with safety factors that exceed 1.5 from5 multiple cases, and so it was our conclusion that, that6 the, that the studies both indicate that the -- that7 none of the analysis performed indicate that there is8 unstable conditions in the slope and yet you have this9 USGS mapping of a slope, potential slope hazard at the10 site. First impression based analysis, it's classified11 as a Hazard Class B3 and for slopes that were up to 1512 degrees from incline from the horizontal.13 The other slope on this site is inclined at slope14 angles between 20 and 30 degrees and so our first15 impression was the mapping was in error, but I think16 it's just a, through the -- they were talking about the17 sandstone slope, that's the lower half of the slope, and18 it's probably due to the effect that if groundwater

ing was in error, but I think16 it's just a, through the -- they were talking about the17 sandstone slope, that's the lower half of the slope, and18 it's probably due to the effect that if groundwater rose19 into it the cemented sands might weaken based on the20 influence of the groundwater and if you get a condition21 called, what's called a Simplified Increment Slope22 Condition, in other words the groundwater flows just23 parallel to the slope, it's established that, that would24 be the controlling safety factor and basically when you25 11 have groundwater -- if you do not have groundwater1 through the slope then the infinite slope is what I2 guess would be conventionally called the angle of3 repose. In other words, if you poured sugar out of a4 jar it would form a certain slope and that would be the5 angle of repose. The theory is that when groundwater6 rises up to the level of the top of the slope and then7 begins to flow downhill towards that, that the stable8 slope reduces to about half of what would ordinarily be9 the angle of repose. In a more complicated, it's called10 the angle of internal friction. It's a much more11 complicated phenomena than the angle of repose, but in12 order for the sheer -- for the soil to fail there's a13 thing called a friction angle, which is roughly related14 to the angle of repose and so, and so the, but the15 analysis performed by both consultants both indicate16 safety factors at 1.5 or better. So it doesn't indicate17 the slope, but the hazard report may be, may be18 considering that on the lower slope the groundwater19 would rise into the slope and could lead to landslides.20 That's our -- we could not find a geological report in21 time for this meeting that would explain why the, the22 hazard classification was made. It's just our opinion23 of what it probably is.24 We felt that the, that the analysis did not, that25 12 we had seen in the reports did not address extreme1 rainfall events where these slope conditions typically2 arise and we recommend that they do that. Langan's3 engineer as of they reported that that analysis was4 included but they didn't include the, the output5 presentation and so, and so that should be provided so6 that we, you know, that we could see it and we would be,7 it would, if the analysis proceeded to the lower slope,8 if you assume that the groundwater is at the surface,9 the slopes, the

e provided so6 that we, you know, that we could see it and we would be,7 it would, if the analysis proceeded to the lower slope,8 if you assume that the groundwater is at the surface,9 the slopes, the safety factors might be reduced below10 the 1.5, but we haven't seen those analysis.11 We, in reviewing the plans we noted that there12 are two best management practice infiltration basins at13 the building location. And so the purpose of the14 infiltration basin is to, is to mound the groundwater15 during a high rainfall event and infiltrate at least, I16 think, I'm not, I don't do this type of design analysis17 work and so, but is they have to, they have to show that18 they're infiltrating water based on an assigned storm, a19 low level storm and they have to prove that they can20 infiltrate that much. The problem here is that for21 slope stability you don't want to be introducing,22 introducing more groundwater at the top of the slope, so23 we recommended that they, that the, that the applicants24 engineer or the applicant instruct his engineer to25

01/05/2026 03:19:18 PM Page 13 to 16 of 112 4 of 28 sheets 13 evaluate the potential for the infiltration at that1 particular location to be detrimental to the stability2 of the eastern, the eastern slope.3 There was a good deal of discussion in the4 reports as to the impact of the construction on the5 stability. In other words, everything that was included6 in the -- well, no, I have to correct myself. There7 were factors at least for the bedrock where they have8 disturbance factors, where you're supposed to assume a9 certain disturbance influence, let's say if blasting is10 required, that that would change the character of the11 bedrock, the joint might introduce more fractures and12 create a different situation that was included in the13 analysis.14 So there are two affects, there's the affect of15 the construction for the building which involves16 excavations of up to 23 feet and removal of bedrock to17 that depth. And then there's the, the stormwater18 infiltration. These are affects that should be19 evaluated.20 We included at the conclusion of the report some,21 that if the application is approved to move forward that22 any approval should include a number of provisions that23 should be made to ensure that the stability of the24 slopes are monitored during the construction and we made25 14 specific recommendations. I can go through each of1 them.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go right ahead.3 The, the clearing of the site should be4 A. controlled and maintained within the limits that are5 indicated on the site plan and should not be done6 carelessly so that it impacts the, the wooded area that7 is required to be maintained on the entire east slope.8 That there's no effects on that.9 There should be requirements for long-term10 maintenance of the health of the wooded area on the11 slope. It's our understanding there's a mandated12 requirement to maintain the woods on the sloping,13 sloping, on the eastern slope and even long after14 development we have, where I live we have a number of15 species that are endangered now by parasites and that16 sort of thing. So there should be some provision for17 maintenance of the forest.18 The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan should19 provide specific details for protection of the ridge and20 slope. That's, in particular discharge of the watering21 from the excavation should be -- should not be, not be22 discharged over

an should19 provide specific details for protection of the ridge and20 slope. That's, in particular discharge of the watering21 from the excavation should be -- should not be, not be22 discharged over the slope and should be discharged with23 all the requirements that are ordinarily included in a24 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.25 15 Surcharges resulting from the excavation. In1 other words, piles of earth. Very heavy equipment2 operating on the slope, they should not operate3 immediately on the slope to the east of where the4 building is situated on the slope side of the site.5 There should be provisions to keep all equipment and6 stock piles away from the top of the slope.7 What we ordinarily do when we're specifying8 projects for capital improvement plans for towns, we9 require that the, before any excavation begins that the,10 that the contractor provide an excavation and dewatering11 work plan. That, describing in detail the methods that12 they are going to employ, what the limits are and they13 should be reviewed, usually we require that to be done14 by an engineer retained by the earthwork contractor and15 this engineer would look at criteria for blasting in16 particular and heavy rock excavation.17 We recommend, there's going to be excavation18 between, I guess 10 or 12 feet to about 25 feet in the19 Building D area. The excavation, ordinarily if there is20 not, if there is not a need to protect structures21 alongside the excavation the developer will -- I mean22 the contractor would cut the slope back so it falls23 back, but if they do that in this particular case on the24 eastern side of the building that would disturb the rock25 16 on the, at the top of slope and that shouldn't be1 permitted. Support of excavation systems that might2 even include rock bolting or tieback systems should be3 employed for excavation for the building because of its4 proximity to the top of the slope. And as we had5 mentioned they shouldn't allow, in other words, if there6 are layover times and there's rainfall and water7 collection at the bottom of the excavation that would8 infiltrate, could infiltrate into the bedrock and reduce9 -- and have stability impacts on the lower slopes. So10 the excavation has to be dewatered at all times.11 We recommend, because there are concerns from the12 residents that, that, there would be slope movement, so13 we recommend