December 10, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM Page 101 to 104 of 144 26 of 55 sheets 101 THE WITNESS: And some of the lots are1 benched into the slope.2 THE PUBLIC: I'm literally like, I'm3 retaining wall city.4 THE PUBLIC: You have retaining walls on5 your --6 THE PUBLIC: Three.7 THE WITNESS: Three?8 THE PUBLIC: Yeah.9 THE WITNESS: I mean, I, the lower slope is10 like a 10 to 15 degree angle. I don't anticipate that11 would occur.12 THE PUBLIC: So there's no recommendation13 then to create any kind of buffer between us and the14 project?15 THE WITNESS: I don't have one.16 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.17 THE WITNESS: Sorry.18 THE PUBLIC: Hi. My name is Victor Misarti.19 I live on Wayfair Drive, which is at the bottom of the20 hill to the east. And it's, I am very concerned too. I21 have a question, if maybe you could give some more data,22 Bruce was asking for more data. Maybe one of them,23 maybe is it possible you can give a better, more24 accurate idea of the angles of the slope. Because for25 102 instance you have been saying 10 degrees or 20 degree1 average and it's not. It's, you know, like the contour2 lines in places like close to 40, 45 degrees. So I3 don't know if it's possible you could confirm or deny4 that?5 THE WITNESS: The Langan submittal includes6 the topographic plan. I didn't see anything that steep.7 THE PUBLIC: Okay.8 All right. So the other thing is more9 information is needed, you're going to come back with10 that from the other engineers. Is any other testing11 needed? I have questions about the water table. Like12 you mentioned, it was tested at a dry time.13 THE WITNESS: We have the -- have you seen14 our report?15 THE PUBLIC: Yes sir, I have seen your16 report.17 THE WITNESS: There is a list of 11 or 1218 recommendations or requirements and that includes19 monitoring wells too.20 THE PUBLIC: So that still can happen?21 THE WITNESS: That's in our recommended22 requirements.23 THE PUBLIC: Okay.24 So the Langan or someone's going to do more25 103 testing per the recommendations?1 THE WITNESS: That I don't, I mean, I don't2 know exactly what the process is, and so I understand3 that if requirements are set they have to be resolved4 and that there's a formal process for that, but that's5 all I understand.6 THE PUBLIC: I have one last question. So7 the water table, I think it was you or maybe some prior8 engineers testimony, was saying that the water table

process for that, but that's5 all I understand.6 THE PUBLIC: I have one last question. So7 the water table, I think it was you or maybe some prior8 engineers testimony, was saying that the water table in9 the more wet time of the year might interfere with the10 detention basins, was that you?11 THE WITNESS: No, that's another issue.12 That's the best management practice because -- can you13 help me out with this. It's the, that was the DEP14 requirement for ground water recharge infiltration.15 THE PUBLIC: Right. Like the basins but the16 water tables already that high.17 THE WITNESS: Well, the recharge basin to18 work properly has to be at least 2-feet, this is my19 understanding, I'm not an expert on this, has to be at20 least 2-feet above the local seasonal high water21 groundwater level and so that evaluation that's22 referring to the stuff to the west.23 THE PUBLIC: Is that some of the additional24 information you're going to be getting, the water table?25 104 THE WITNESS: Well, we recommended that they1 install monitoring wells to check the influence of the2 construction on the water level and since there's no3 precise measurement of the groundwater level, that they4 install wells to monitor the affect of the construction5 on the groundwater level.6 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.7 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.9 Any other members of the public who have10 questions for Mr. Kleinberg on his testimony, please11 come up. Go right ahead.12 THE PUBLIC: Hi. My name is Safina Joseph.13 I also have prepared a five-minute speech, I know you14 mentioned not tonight, I am wondering when we would have15 an opportunity to make statements rather than questions?16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Questions now.17 THE PUBLIC: I understand. When would we18 have an opportunity to --19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Some time in January.20 THE PUBLIC: Okay.21 I guess I won't read my speech then, but I22 did have a question concerning something that you23 mentioned and in terms of a prior person who came up.24 The impact of cutting down the 6,000 trees for this25

27 of 55 sheets Page 105 to 108 of 144 01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM 105 project, you mentioned that it would not affect the soil1 health or the ability of the soil to be more stable?2 THE WITNESS: No, the slope that we've been3 talking about is the one that's going to remain forested4 and that's what I meant to stay.5 THE PUBLIC: Well, okay. So let's rephrase6 the question then about the 6,000 trees that would be7 cut down for the property. How will that affect the8 soil health in that regard in terms of its ability to9 absorb water, prevent flooding, flash flooding,10 especially in the setting of climate change?11 THE WITNESS: That's beyond my expertise.12 You know, and we didn't, we were tasked with looking at13 the slope on the east side of Building D and I didn't, I14 didn't look to that area. I can't speak to it.15 THE PUBLIC: I understand, but it's going to16 affect the soil and in some way, in regards to the17 flooding and things brought up this meeting and if it's18 not your expertise who, who would look into this in19 terms of this impact?20 THE WITNESS: That would have been21 included -- I am guessing it would have been included in22 the previous review with the DEP. But I am not sure.23 THE PUBLIC: Well, that, you know, on my way24 here I told my four year old and he told me to bring a25 106 book about the Amazon and he understands the concept of1 cutting down trees and how it affects the health of this2 climate and environment, which we are, so I feel if a3 four year old is able to understand, I am sure, even4 though you may not be an expert in this, you're cutting5 down 6,000 trees that roots into the soil, we understand6 that that's going to affect the soil health and the7 ability of the soil to prevent flash flooding and keep8 our community safe. Does the board understand that9 generally or is that something we're just not willing to10 comment on given that's not your expertise?11 THE WITNESS: Well, are you asking the12 board?13 THE PUBLIC: I'm asking anybody willing to14 answer in terms of this project.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, so you understand,16 this is for questions of the expert, statements will17 come at a later time. Right. There is a process, we18 have to keep on track. So the public can ask the expert19 questions and later on provide comments.20 THE PUBLIC: I do feel it is within the21 realm of the expert given he's been talking quality

, we18 have to keep on track. So the public can ask the expert19 questions and later on provide comments.20 THE PUBLIC: I do feel it is within the21 realm of the expert given he's been talking quality of22 the soil.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: But he's not talking about24 trees.25 107 THE PUBLIC: I do feel trees do affect1 quality of the soil.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Then you can ask the3 question and if he can answer the question he will.4 THE WITNESS: I'm so sorry, I can't answer.5 That's a whole other thing.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.7 Come right up.8 THE PUBLIC: Hi. Sam McKenzie.9 You made it pretty clear that you don't10 believe an extreme event is likely, if you're incorrect11 and a mudslide or a rock slide or something were to12 happen, what might that look like? What's the, like13 level of impact. How many homes would be damaged in14 that area?15 THE WITNESS: I, I think -- well, based on16 the angles of the slopes that are out there the, I think17 it would be localized.18 THE PUBLIC: What does localized mean? Can19 you define that at all.20 THE WITNESS: Couple hundred feet, something21 like that.22 THE PUBLIC: So no ones property would be23 damaged, including this new development?24 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, the new25 108 development?1 THE PUBLIC: So like if something were to2 happen are there going to be damage to homes, including3 the apartment that would go into this new development?4 THE WITNESS: I think we're talking about a5 slope that's not being built on and the slopes on the6 new development are much flatter.7 THE PUBLIC: Okay.8 THE WITNESS: But I did not look at it or9 evaluate it.10 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.12 THE PUBLIC: Good evening. Danielle13 DePalma, 200-foot notice area.14 I want to ask you something without all the15 technicalities involved. None of the percentages, none16 of the technicalities. If you, if you lived below the17 mountain slope, as Rachel said, she has three retaining18 walls, would you feel safe living here without any sort19 of catchment for construction or debris and after20 hearing the families complaints for 25 years, even if a21 100-year storm happened, would you feel safe without22 constantly looking over your shoulder? I have friends23 who live here and I am worried about them during and24 after construction and it bothers me that they are25

01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM Page 109 to 112 of 144 28 of 55 sheets 109 constantly looking over their back. Can you ensure us1 tonight that nothing will happen?2 THE WITNESS: I can't do ensurances, but3 it's the analysis that shows that it's not likely, but4 that's the best I can do.5 THE PUBLIC: Would you feel safe living here6 below the project?7 THE WITNESS: I would feel safe.8 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Come right up.10 THE PUBLIC: Hi. My name is Jacqueline11 Kennedy.12 I had a question for you regarding the13 gentleman's cross-examination. You seem to sort of14 downplay the likelihood of what we're calling the15 100-year storm, but I've lived here 16 years and we've16 had three 100-year storms in the --17 THE WITNESS: No, I was not saying a18 100-year storm is not likely.19 THE PUBLIC: Okay.20 THE WITNESS: I was saying that the21 development of the infinite slope, this is a technical22 term, the infinite slope condition, the likelihood of23 that developing is not great. It's something that we24 recommended as a "what if" analysis to see what the25 110 reserve stability would be.1 THE PUBLIC: And I guess another question I2 would say, you keep talking how one of the slopes, and I3 know we're talking about several, that there would be4 some trees as a buffer. My understanding is that there5 were trees, the trees for the buffer, if there were6 anything, the slope would remain with trees. Part of7 the slope, correct? Is that what you said.8 THE WITNESS: Correct.9 THE PUBLIC: So I'm wondering how much is a10 good amount to absorb any kind of slide, because there11 were trees buffering Seton Hall's field and the12 apartments as well, so how do we measure how much trees13 is enough trees to prevent a slide from happening again?14 THE WITNESS: I, I think that the situation15 that you're talking about below the field is much16 different. It's -- I haven't done an investigation or17 anything like that on the site. I did read a report for18 the existing residences, there was an engineering report19 done that are adjacent to the apartment building, it's20 an entirely different situation than the slope we're21 talking about. That's like, the slope is nearly22 vertical and, and the rock is entirely exposed and it's23 not buttressed by soil at the toe. This slope is. The24 one for the West Essex, the one slope below Building D25 111 is buttressed by soil. So

vertical and, and the rock is entirely exposed and it's23 not buttressed by soil at the toe. This slope is. The24 one for the West Essex, the one slope below Building D25 111 is buttressed by soil. So it's not, it's not the same1 type of condition as what, as the one you're referring2 to.3 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.4 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.5 THE PUBLIC: Jack Michael of Verona.6 I just want some clarity, you spoke earlier,7 maybe last week, is this a soil slope? You kept8 mentioning a soil slope.9 THE WITNESS: All of the modes of stability10 that were analyzed by the two engineers, the engineer11 for the, for We Care and the engineer for the applicant,12 all evaluated soil slopes that -- all the analysis and13 calculations that were done involved safety factors in14 the soil.15 THE PUBLIC: Okay.16 Now, would you, as a professional, rather17 build on a soil slope or on a rock slope?18 THE WITNESS: They both have their problems19 and --20 THE PUBLIC: If you had a preference.21 THE WITNESS: I prefer soil slope myself.22 You're asking me a personal opinion, this is not a23 professional recommendation.24 THE PUBLIC: You'd rather go on a soil slope25 112 rather than a rock slope where the stability on a rock1 slope is greater?2 THE WITNESS: Sorry.3 THE PUBLIC: Stability on a rock slope is4 greater.5 THE WITNESS: I don't know. It's kind of6 hypothetical. I don't know.7 THE PUBLIC: Okay.8 THE WITNESS: Soils are easier to work with9 and rock is not, if you have to. But the rock we're10 talking about here is not involved in the construction11 itself.12 THE PUBLIC: But earlier you talked about a13 mountain slide factor. The mountain slide factor that14 exists already on this property, you just spoke about15 it.16 THE WITNESS: Oh. Oh, okay. I know what17 you're referring to. You're referring to the landslide18 hazard report.19 THE PUBLIC: You just mentioned about that20 15, 20 minutes ago.21 THE WITNESS: Sorry.22 THE PUBLIC: You just mentioned it about 15,23 20 minutes ago.24 THE WITNESS: I mentioned it in our report.25

29 of 55 sheets Page 113 to 116 of 144 01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM 113 THE PUBLIC: Yes.1 THE WITNESS: And it was -- and I think in2 the discussion at the last meeting said that we could3 not find -- there was no explanation given as to why4 they identified the slope.5 THE PUBLIC: In your testimony you said, and6 I won't be quoting this, this is a condition that7 already exists.8 THE WITNESS: No, it's reported. This was,9 this was identified by the, I think, the USGS was10 working for the New Jersey Geological Survey and they11 identified an area which they said was a hazardous class12 B-3, slopes up to 15 degrees. And we said that we'd not13 discounted that because we had not been able to find out14 why it particularly identified, they identified it as a15 hazard, but they didn't say what the mechanism was.16 THE PUBLIC: Okay.17 But having that hazard here, and you said it18 existed for many years, and nothings happened, it's19 always been there. What would change that and make that20 slide occur? Let me rephrase it.21 Would digging a trench 800 feet wide by 2522 feet deep at the top of that mountain create or enhance23 the chances of having that slide on the western side of24 this, or eastern side of this property?25 114 THE WITNESS: Well, we made a recommendation1 in our report in order to minimize, that we feel should2 be, should be included as a requirement of the Planning3 Board so that the excavation is performed in a4 responsible manner that wouldn't lead to damage5 downhill.6 THE PUBLIC: But my point is, if you're on7 that ridge and you're digging on, I'm almost positive8 you said this in the last meeting, that you're going9 25-foot below grade for the footings of that building.10 Now, at that 25-foot mark --11 THE WITNESS: That's on the southern half,12 not as deep on the northern half.13 THE PUBLIC: On the eastern side I am14 talking about. At that base corner of 25-feet on the15 eastern side of that mountain, I will say dropping off16 the cliff, did anybody calculate where, if you went in a17 horizontal line down the mountain, exactly how far out18 that goes? Is it 100-feet, like, because then you're19 creating a triangle basically of an area of rock that,20 as you said, could slide down the mountain?21 THE WITNESS: I didn't say -- I said that22 the rock should be, the excavation should be supported.23 In other words, when you're digging rock you

that,20 as you said, could slide down the mountain?21 THE WITNESS: I didn't say -- I said that22 the rock should be, the excavation should be supported.23 In other words, when you're digging rock you evaluate24 the rock as you're going down and if it looks like it25 115 could loosen or has been loosened, you would install1 rock bolts, something like that. But, so we recommended2 it in the report that these requirements be set by the3 Planning Board for, you know, for the construction4 requirements.5 THE PUBLIC: But the area between the6 building and going down the slope, it comes to a point7 where the bottom of that building footings are equal8 with what point down the mountain? You're kind of9 creating -- not creating a weakness across the base of10 that. Now, on top of it, not to mention 30 years ago,11 40 years ago a trench was also carved out along the base12 of that mountain for a sewer easement that went from the13 property next door across that mountain to Howell Drive.14 Does that create a weakness in that, I'm going to say,15 triangle part of the mountain there?16 THE WITNESS: The applicants engineer did a17 slope stability calculation and their report is that it18 did not indicate that it led to an instability.19 THE PUBLIC: Okay.20 Now, with their calculation do they also21 calculate the, since you mentioned earlier you designed22 dams at some point, do they calculate the amount of23 hydrostatic pressure that's going to be added to that24 slope in that mountain? Now, I'm going to, I know25 116 you're not a tree expert, but several people said 6,0001 trees, earlier on in the report 7,500 trees, so that2 soaks up between 50 and a 100 gallons of water a day.3 So even if it's at 50 times 7,500, we're talking shy of4 400,000 gallons of water per day.5 Now, you mentioned the nine inch rainfall.6 If we get a nine inch rainfall any particular day, I7 know over ten acres of land, if you get a five inch8 rainfall you're close to 4 million gallons of water,9 multiply that by three, because there's 30 acres of land10 we're clearing, so does that amount of water put11 pressure on that building or put pressure on that lower12 mountain?13 THE WITNESS: I think in general the levels14 on the western side would be lower downhill, so that --15 THE PUBLIC: The topographic map does show16 the elevations continue upward on the western side of17 that D building, so

n general the levels14 on the western side would be lower downhill, so that --15 THE PUBLIC: The topographic map does show16 the elevations continue upward on the western side of17 that D building, so there is going to be added water18 coming back to that. So that's why I only mention 1019 acres and not the complete 30.20 THE WITNESS: Looking at the contours and21 they slope away from the building. I don't know what to22 say.23 THE PUBLIC: Clearing of that acreage you24 don't think adds hydrostatic pressure?25

01/14/2026 10:36:25 AM Page 117 to 120 of 144 30 of 55 sheets 117 THE WITNESS: I have to say I was only1 tasked with looking at the analysis done by Princeton2 Hydro and Langan for the slope on the eastern side of3 the building. I made no evaluation regarding the4 western side of the building.5 THE PUBLIC: But the activity of clearing on6 the western side of the building, don't you think that7 that adds to the pressure on the eastern side of the8 building? They're clearing 7,500 trees and they're not9 replacing any trees, so you're talking hundreds of10 thousands of gallons of water.11 THE WITNESS: Well, that would have been in12 the stormwater management plan, that evaluation. I13 can't talk to it.14 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any other members of16 the public have questions? Please come up. On Mr.17 Kleinberg's testimony. Please come up here.18 THE PUBLIC: Good evening. Seth Weisleder,19 Howell Drive.20 So I heard a lot of calculations, I tried to21 follow them all. When you entered onto this site to22 look at this slope did you enter from Warner and then23 walk-through the forest or did you enter from Howell?24 THE WITNESS: I entered from the cul-de-sac25 118 at the end of Howell Drive where it goes around.1 THE PUBLIC: So if you entered -- so that's2 where the emergency road access would be, correct?3 THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes.4 THE PUBLIC: Okay.5 And when you were entering that can you6 describe what you kind of saw and what you looked at and7 what was going through your mind a little bit at that8 time?9 THE WITNESS: Well, I noticed the trees, the10 rock outcrops and boulders in place. The slopes, the11 slopes appeared visually to me to be stable under12 existing conditions. I did not see any evidence of, of,13 of a potential slide or, you know.14 THE PUBLIC: Just out of curiosity, what15 would demonstrate evidence?16 THE WITNESS: Well, you would see mounding17 of -- tilting of trees and those sorts of things. I18 didn't notice that.19 THE PUBLIC: And did you notice any roof20 lines of homes or how steep the slope was?21 THE WITNESS: I saw the homes that are, I22 mean, I could see what, see number 15 and 13 Howell23 Drive, something like that.24 THE PUBLIC: So you testified that this is25 119 basalt and sandstone and at what point along the slope,1 along those homes specifically there, does the basalt2 and sandstone line