November 10, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

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