December 3, 2025 Regular Meeting - WEHI Transcript

1 of 17 sheets Page 1 to 4 of 68 01/05/2026 02:58:16 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 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 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 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 2 E X H I B I T D E S C R I P T I O N3 O - 3 6 E - M A I L F R O M M R . K L E I N B E R G T O M A R K S E E L4 O - 3 7 L A N G A N E N G I N E E R I N G I N V E S T I G A T I O N P L A N W I T H5 M A R K I N G B Y M R . K L E I N B E R G6 7 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 : M r . K l e i n b e r g , y o u a r e1 s t i l l u n d e r o a t h , s i r .2 M R . K L E I N B E R G : Y e s , s i r .3 M S . M c G O V E R N : M y n o t e s s h o w t h a t y o u w e r e4 i n t h e m i d d l e o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f M r . K l e i n b e r g .5 M R . A F R A N : T h a t i s c o r r e c t . A n d I t h i n k6 M r . K l e i n b e r g w a s s u p p o s e d t o r e p o r t b a c k a s t o w h e t h e r7 y o u g o t t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f

R . A F R A N : T h a t i s c o r r e c t . A n d I t h i n k6 M r . K l e i n b e r g w a s s u p p o s e d t o r e p o r t b a c k a s t o w h e t h e r7 y o u g o t t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t y o u w e r e , t h a t8 y o u w e r e s e e k i n g f r o m L a n g a n .9 T H E W I T N E S S : I d i d .10 M S . M c G O V E R N : O k a y . T e r r i f i c .11 I g u e s s , M r . A f r a n .12 M R . A F R A N : Y e s , I d o n ' t k n o w i f M r .13 K l e i n b e r g w a n t s t o a d d r e s s t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n a s p a r t o f14 d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y n o w t h a t h e h a s i t .15 M S . M c G O V E R N : D o y o u w a n t t o f i l l u s i n a s16 t o w h a t y o u g o t , y o u k n o w , w h a t r e q u e s t e d i n f o r m a t i o n17 y o u g o t , w h a t w a s g i v e n t o y o u ?18 T H E W I T N E S S : Y e s . W i t h i n o u r r e p o r t t h e r e19 w e r e t w o o u t s t a n d i n g i s s u e s o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n20 t h a t w e h a d r e q u e s t e d . O n e w e h a d r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t21 t h e r e , t h a t i n c a s e o f s e v e r e w e a t h e r i n v o l v i n g h e a v y22 m i c r o b u r s t k i n d o f r a i n f a l l s i t u a t i o n s , s u c h a s w e h a d a23 c o u p l e m o n t h s a g o , t h a t s h o u l d b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e24 e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s l o p e s t a b i l i t y a n d t h a t w e w o u l d25

01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM Page 5 to 8 of 68 2 of 17 sheets 5 recommend that they include an elevated water surface1 elevation in their stability analyses. It's my2 understanding that Langan had included a case with an3 elevated water level in their original submittal but4 they didn't include the output drawings showing that5 summary of the calculations and we asked them to send6 them to us. They sent them to us about a week ago. I7 got home from vacation on Monday and took a look at the8 information and we noted that the water level that -- we9 felt that the water level they assumed wasn't high10 enough and that we recommended that they consider a11 water level at the surface with seepage parallel to the12 slope. This is an extreme condition, it's not certain13 that this could ever occur and I believe it's Langan's14 position that the condition cannot occur. But it's a15 worst case scenario and it's a, what if, question.16 There's a rather simple calculation that can17 be done to determine what the slope stability for a18 shallow slope failure under a condition with groundwater19 is flowing the groundwater level is at the top of the20 slope and that the seepage is parallel to the slope, so21 there are hydraulic, additional hydraulic measures which22 lead to a reduced stability. Using, we gave them an23 example of some simplistic calculations that showed that24 if a condition could develop and would develop that kind25 6 of flow that the stability would become marginal for1 shallow and localized slope failures. That's assuming2 the soil properties that were assumed for the, by both3 engineering firms, the opposers engineer and the4 applicants engineer, that assumes there is no cohesion5 in the soil, kind of sticky property that would be in6 certain types of soils compared to a plain sand. All7 the analyses done to date have been done for plain sand8 materials over lining the bedrock and additional type of9 cohesion and Langan's discussion, back and forth10 discussion on what we were recommending, Langan11 indicated, and we agree, that there are procedures for12 taking credit for the root action of the vegetation on13 the slope. And that, and that it can be shown to apply14 a significant amount of additional resistance equivalent15 to soil cohesion. And so we recommended to the, I think16 it was to Mark Seel, Langan's engineer who worked on17 the, their stability

apply14 a significant amount of additional resistance equivalent15 to soil cohesion. And so we recommended to the, I think16 it was to Mark Seel, Langan's engineer who worked on17 the, their stability study, that they do the engineering18 analyses showing what the additional credit could be19 taken for the vegetation and make a formal submittal to20 confirm that.21 In addition, the other outstanding22 item that we had was that we noted that the stormwater,23 the best management practice is a stormwater management24 system will be inducing the groundwater infiltration at25 7 the building, on the west side of the building, which is1 further away from the ridge line, but that would, we2 recommended that the applicants engineer confirm that3 the stormwater infiltration would not introduce or under4 sever rainfall system situations rather that that would5 not introduce any flow towards the slope that would6 impact the stability. And so we left them with those7 two recommendations in a conversation yesterday on the8 phone.9 MR. AFRAN: Is there any10 writing that reflects that discussion?11 THE WITNESS: I have my comments on e-mails.12 I can leave that with the board.13 MR. AFRAN: Well, I am a little concerned of14 the idea if you're producing a report outlining what15 needs to be done and now we are told that you made a16 request and phone call and none of us were privy. So we17 need to have some written record to show what was18 discussed and what was agreed with that. I need to know19 that. I can't cross-examine without seeing that20 material. Do we have that here?21 THE WITNESS: Yes.22 MR. AFRAN: Okay. Well, let's perhaps we23 break and take a look at that. I want know if it24 exists.25 8 THE WITNESS: It exists. It's here.1 MR. AFRAN: I can take it now?2 THE WITNESS: Sure.3 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.4 MS. McGOVERN: Okay.5 MR. KLEIN: Wait a minute.6 MR. AFRAN: Is there a problem?7 MS. McGOVERN: I would like to see it8 because I wasn't a part of it.9 MR. AFRAN: Well, yeah. Here's the thing,10 it's kind of long.11 MS. McGOVERN: I think what we need to do is12 make a copy and mark it for identification. So is there13 a copy machine close by?14 You can write the number on it and mark it.15 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Kleinberg, other than what16 you gave us, is there any other writing that references17 that discussion?18 THE WITNESS: No.19 MR. AFRAN: You also mentioned that

mber on it and mark it.15 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Kleinberg, other than what16 you gave us, is there any other writing that references17 that discussion?18 THE WITNESS: No.19 MR. AFRAN: You also mentioned that there20 was a discussion with Mark Seel dealing with an21 engineering analyses for the additional credit for the22 vegetation, is that discussion referenced in that23 e-mail?24 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.25

3 of 17 sheets Page 9 to 12 of 68 01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM 9 MR. AFRAN: Okay. Thank you.1 I interrupted, I don't know if you had more2 to go.3 THE WITNESS: No, those were the two4 outstanding issues we referenced in our original report.5 And that is a summary of what, that was a summary of6 where the review stood and the information that Langan7 had submitted.8 So from your perspective then what specific9 Q. things are we still waiting to get?10 An engineering confirmation that under extreme11 A. conditions and utilizing the benefits of the root12 vegetation would provide adequate stability for what13 would be an extreme and maybe a situation that could not14 actually develop.15 Is this referenced, is this issue referenced in16 Q. your original report?17 Yes.18 A. Okay.19 Q. Do you happen to know the page where that's20 referenced?21 I can check for you. I think it's Page 14. It's22 A. on page, I'm sorry, Page 19 of 21, I believe. And it's23 item number 7 on Page 19. The applicants engineer24 should, in our opinion, review the mounding influence of25 10 the proposed infiltration basins number 10 and 11 and1 consider mitigation by either providing a cutoff,2 possibly using the building foundation walls preventing3 infiltration to the east or relocation of the basins4 further down the back slope.5 Now -- thank you.6 Q. Now, perhaps I misunderstood, how does the7 question of vegetation play into that or have I8 misunderstood?9 It doesn't play into that. It's a separate10 A. issue.11 Okay.12 Q. So that is -- the second question now is the13 issue of vegetation and the engineering analyses in14 terms of the additional credit, does that appear in the15 original report?16 Yes, on the same page. Recommended requirements17 A. to be considered by the board, Item 2, long-term18 measures should be required to maintain the health of19 the forest on the slope. The health of the root system20 provides reenforcement to the shallow topsoil layer on21 the slope.22 So that's what I am, when you say, additional23 Q. credit, what did you mean by the term, additional24 credit?25 11 The root system provides a measure of tensile1 A. resistance within the soil that would improve the2 stability of the soil.3 So you don't mean an actual mathematical credit,4 Q. just an additional benefit to the structure, is that5 correct?6 I didn't, there are mathematical methods to7 A. provide the

stability of the soil.3 So you don't mean an actual mathematical credit,4 Q. just an additional benefit to the structure, is that5 correct?6 I didn't, there are mathematical methods to7 A. provide the beneficial effects for root systems.8 You don't reference those in your report because9 Q. you asked the engineer to come up with an analyses?10 Correct.11 A. Is it fair to say you don't have either of those12 Q. two elements yet?13 Yes.14 A. Okay.15 Q. Is there anything else based on what you said16 tonight that you're still waiting for from the17 applicants engineer?18 Waiting, waiting for them to provide the19 A. engineering calculation for that particular mode of20 slope stability.21 With the issue of the vegetation?22 Q. Right.23 A. Okay. That's a credit?24 Q. And I believe that can be done.25 A. 12 Okay.1 Q. Thank you.2 MS. McGOVERN: All right. So this we're3 calling O-36. We're marking it as O-36, this is an4 e-mail from Mr. Kleinberg to Mark Seel dated December 2,5 2025. That's the top e-mail, which is a reply to an6 e-mail earlier that day on the 2nd from Mr. Seel to Mr.7 Kleinberg.8 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry, what number did you9 give that, I missed that?10 MS. McGOVERN: O-36.11 I would like to take you back to your report. If12 Q. you, I am making reference to, a reference at Page 5 and13 you make a statement that structural drawings indicating14 building floor details and construction type were not15 available to check the likely distributed dead loading?16 I did.17 A. Now, are those drawings available at this point,18 Q. to your knowledge?19 No.20 A. Now, could you explain the significance, if any,21 Q. of this point that you included in Page 5?22 The significance is the magnitude of the uniform23 A. of the distributed load that was assumed for the24 stability calculation. However, the differences are not25

01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM Page 13 to 16 of 68 4 of 17 sheets 13 likely to make a big difference in the stability1 analyses based on our experience.2 What does the phrase, dead load, refer to?3 Q. Dead load is the weight of all the structural4 A. elements in the building. In other words, the weight of5 the walls, the ceilings, the floors, all the structural6 elements.7 Now, what does it mean where you say, "The8 Q. evaluation did not include an evaluation of the benefits9 to 'weight credit' achieved by removal of the existing10 soils in the basement."11 Well, where you take the bearing load of the12 A. building you are removing -- let's say soil weighs 12013 pounds a square foot, cubic foot, if you remove 10-feet14 of soil, let's say for the basement, in this case it's15 up to 20-feet of soil, that means that the weight is16 being taken off of the bearing surface, you eliminated17 that weight so you can reduce the effect of the new load18 on the foundation due to removal of the soils that are19 in place. It's called weight credit.20 Now, how do we know there will be a real benefit21 Q. if there's no evaluation of it?22 It's obvious that it's a benefit.23 A. But do you know what the benefit will be?24 Q. Yeah, I told you, if I take 10-feet, 1200 pounds25 A. 14 credit, which exceeds the load, that has a credit to the1 building.2 Okay.3 Q. So even though you don't have the drawings about4 the deadweight, the distributed dead loading?5 No, I said there is a benefit they could apply to6 A. it and that would likely keep the influence of the7 building in the neighborhood that they're assuming.8 How do we know what the effect of that weight9 Q. credit would be if we don't have the drawings as to the10 distributed dead load?11 You multiply 120 pounds cubic foot times 10-feet12 A. and you get 1200 pounds per square feet.13 No, I understand. If you don't know what the14 Q. dead load is how do you apply the credit?15 Well, it's whatever the final load that the16 A. foundation sees is the dead load minus the 1200 pounds17 of square foot. Which is less than the weight of the18 building that they're predicting.19 Where does your figure show that though? Show20 Q. the weight of the building.21 They assumed the building would be a load of 100022 A. pounds per square foot at the foundation level. That's23 in their report.24 And what percent differential would one expect25

t of the building.21 They assumed the building would be a load of 100022 A. pounds per square foot at the foundation level. That's23 in their report.24 And what percent differential would one expect25 Q. 15 potentially if we had drawings as to distributed dead1 loading?2 The differential, it would be a standard. That's3 A. a standard foundation design. It has in effect on the4 stability of the slope, which I think is the issue5 tonight.6 Okay. Thank you.7 Q. Have you been able to identify the actual high8 point of the ridge from any of the records?9 Yes.10 A. Okay.11 Q. Where does that appear in the record?12 The high point on the, I think it's said it in13 A. the report near Langan's boring. It's right at the last14 test pit 4 on the plan and it's in that Langan boring --15 it says on the report, Langan boring LB-3.16 Well, the building is 800 feet long and so it's17 Q. going to run along the ridge 800 feet?18 You asked me the high point. The high point is19 A. here. That's the highest elevation on the ridge.20 I apologize. Have you identified the ridge line21 Q. itself?22 Yes, the ridge line is identified on the drawing23 A. as a line that roughly runs through it and right about24 here, like this.25 16 May I see that.1 Q. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do you know what page you2 are looking at?3 MR. AFRAN: Yeah, I will do that.4 There is a very faint line about a quarter of an5 A. inch to half an inch from the line of the building. It6 sort of follows the high point of the ridge.7 Is that the hyphenated line with the graph line8 Q. moving up and down?9 Should I come over and point it out to you?10 A. MS. McGOVERN: Can we have a description of11 the document survey, what it is?12 MR. AFRAN: The document is Langan13 Engineering, it's a document that is described as14 Investigation Plan and bears the date of 6/18/2025 drawn15 by RLB checked by AY. It's a one page engineering16 drawing.17 MS. McGOVERN: Okay. Thank you.18 THE WITNESS: That was in the report. The19 original report.20 So let me walk -- I will save you the trip. So21 Q. let me just walk over to you. I see two lines, one is a22 dotted line somewhat faint.23 It's the dotted line.24 A. And I see a graph line that's moving up and down?25 Q.

5 of 17 sheets Page 17 to 20 of 68 01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM 17 It's the dotted line somewhat faint that hits1 A. the, you see the contours here it's following, that's2 the ridge line.3 Okay.4 Q. So I can describe it for the record then as a5 dotted line that is to the right of a more solid line6 that has a graph line going up and down through it?7 But I think the solid line you are referring to8 A. is the limits of the disturbance.9 Well, there is a line that says, limits of grade,10 Q. and then the doted line you are referring to is just to11 the right of that?12 Correct.13 A. MR. KLEIN: Is there a elevation number14 associated with the ridge line?15 THE WITNESS: What it does is the topo16 contours and what happens is right where there's the17 ridge is where the line is going perpendicular. Where18 it encircles the contours.19 In other words, this is superimposed on the20 Q. contour?21 Yes.22 A. MR. KLEIN: And what's the number? What's23 the elevation.24 THE WITNESS: Oh, the high elevation is --25 18 the elevation varies along the ridge. I am just going1 to grab it right here, 616, I think is roughly the high2 point.3 MR. KLEIN: Okay.4 THE WITNESS: And if you go to the north end5 of the building it drops to about 609 existing.6 So my question was, actually I misspoke earlier7 Q. when I spoke to the high point of the ridge, I simply8 want to identify the line of the ridge itself, so that9 would be the dotted line just referred to?10 Correct.11 A. Thank you.12 Q. You're welcome.13 A. MR. PLOCKER: Can I confirm the line that14 Mr. Kleinberg is talking about? Is referring to.15 THE WITNESS: It follows the ridge line all16 the way up and goes up into here.17 MR. AFRAN: Yeah, I would like to, I would18 like, since Mr. Kleinberg just put in my pen a trace on19 much of that line, I would like to just mark that as an20 exhibit, if we could.21 MS. McGOVERN: Okay. That would be O-37, I22 think we are up to.23 MR. PLOCKER: And I would like to say for24 the record that appears to be the line which the25 19 applicant must stay west of in accordance with the1 ordinance.2 MR. AFRAN: My reason for doing this we3 didn't identify it in earlier testimony. I want to have4 that established.5 MS. McGOVERN: At the end of tonight we are6 going to take that from you and we are going to give it7 to our board secretary and have it copied.8 MR. AFRAN: Should we just mark it O-37?9 MS.