December 3, 2025 Regular Meeting - WEHI Transcript

rn practice in New Jersey.4 MR. KLEIN: And he answered.5 MR. AFRAN: I am not sure what the answer6 was. What he said is no one told me.7 MR. KLEIN: Yes, still do.8 THE WITNESS: Yes, we'll do it. If we need9 to put the building there, we'll do it.10 Is it typical practice any longer in most11 Q. municipalities to allow buildings to be built on top of12 ridge lines, simple question?13 If you're saying that there are ordinances that14 A. say that you're not, I am not aware of them. I didn't15 read the West Orange one, if there's a restriction on16 building on ridge lines.17 So my question simply is, are you able to answer18 Q. whether building on top of ridge lines is typically19 constructed as a general matter in New Jersey or is this20 an exception to general practice in a modern context?21 I gave you my opinion. It is not an exception,22 A. that's my opinion. I don't know what else to say. I am23 out of answers.24 Well, there is a steep slope ordinance in --25 Q. 60 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're talking about1 ordinances, he said -- you asked specifically, you asked2 can they be built. He said, he said he is not aware of3 an ordinance. I think we're done with the ordinance.4 Thank you.5 You would agree under the Army Corps of Engineer6 Q. a higher safety factor of 2.0 is appropriate where a7 slope failure would have severe consequences to life and8 property?9 Right. They're talking about, they're talking10 A. about huge dam structures is what they're talking about11 in that reference manual.12 Well, let's take a look at that.13 Q. What they say in the ordinance, slopes of 1.5 is14 A. adequate.15 Just a moment. It says in Section 7-12, for16 Q. major concrete structures, dams, wells, basins, walls17 and retaining embankments, etc., the minimum requirement18 safety factor is 2.0?19 Right.20 A. That's 7-12. However, you would have to agree21 Q. that Section 8-13 speaks of applying a safety factor of22 2.0 in general circumstances for major rock slope23 consequence of failure is severe. And in Section 8-13A24 they don't talk about limiting that to dams and similar25

01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM Page 61 to 64 of 68 16 of 17 sheets 61 functions, do they?1 No, but in other references they reference 1.5 as2 A. adequate for slopes.3 Yes, but in Section 8-13A it says, Where the4 Q. failure of a slope will have severe consequences, the5 appropriate standard is 2.0. Isn't that what it says,6 "yes" or "no"? Isn't that what the Army Corps Manual7 says.8 That's what it says for the structures that you9 A. are talking about and this is not what they're talking10 about.11 Well, I am going to hand this to you and take a12 Q. look at 8.13, does it have any reference to limitation13 to dams and things of that nature. And if you could14 find it please show it to me.15 I brought the wrong pair of glasses today, do you16 A. want to read it to me.17 I am not going to read 8 paragraphs. Well, you18 Q. know, let me get back to that.19 You know the Army Corps, right?20 Sorry.21 A. You know the Army Corps Manual, right?22 Q. I know it exists. I can't quote it chapter and23 A. verse. I don't know what you mean, do I know. Yes, I24 downloaded it, I looked through it and your references25 62 for situations that we are in 1.5 is adequate.1 And you're not in a position to dispute that2 Q. because you don't have your glasses, that Section 8-13A3 3G does not refer to specialized projects such as dams4 and things like that?5 I believe it does.6 A. 8-13A, "For major rock slopes where the7 Q. consequence of failure is severe, the minimum required8 calculated factor of safety is 2.0."9 This is not a rock slope to begin with. It's a10 A. soil slope for the most part.11 Well, we have been analyzing the rock strength12 Q. all along, now you tell us it's not a rock slope?13 None of the failure surfaces that were referenced14 A. as significant in the reports were passing through rock.15 They were passing through soil.16 Well, we have analyzed rock repeatedly in your17 Q. presentation and in your report and you made the point,18 you made the point that there could be joints that we19 don't know about and you say there are thousands of20 smaller joints and it seems to me the purpose of talking21 about that was because failure of that rock could have22 severe consequences. Isn't that why you talked about it23 in your report? Isn't that why you talked about it in24 your report.25 63 I talked about it as a precaution that you would1 A. usually take into account in your

s. Isn't that why you talked about it23 in your report? Isn't that why you talked about it in24 your report.25 63 I talked about it as a precaution that you would1 A. usually take into account in your design. You always --2 it could occur, I don't know that it does occur.3 None of us have that skill to predict the future4 Q. and engineering is designed to take into account things5 we may not expect to happen but may very well, isn't6 that correct?7 Very well. But for this case the safety factor8 A. of 1.5 is adequate, in my opinion.9 And you would agree however your report focuses10 Q. on rock safety, doesn't it?11 Sorry.12 A. And you would agree that your report focuses13 Q. almost entirely on the safety and structure of the rock,14 isn't that true?15 We do reference in a number of areas precautions16 A. that should be taken when you have rock underlining a17 slope.18 Almost all of your report deals with quality and19 Q. structure and safety of the rock, isn't that true?20 Well, it's true but the stability analyses of the21 A. rock, the rock does not come into play that were done by22 both engineering firms.23 I'm simply asking if this slope where rock is a24 Q. major feature, not the failure of it, would fall under25 64 Section 8-13?1 But the stability analyses don't exist, don't2 A. indicate that there would be a failure.3 Well, 8-13 doesn't say only if the stability4 Q. analyses indicates a likelihood. It simply says, "Where5 the consequence of failure is severe the minimum6 required factor is 2.0."7 What you're referencing is a design manual for8 A. heavy-duty engineering projects and this is not. That's9 not applicable, in my opinion, to this particular10 situation.11 And you're saying that Section 7-12, which refers12 Q. to safety factor 1.5 for other kinds of buildings is --13 strike that.14 You would agree that Section 7-12, which refers15 to the 1.5 safety factor, is in this same section of the16 manual, isn't it? They're in the same section of the17 manual, aren't they? You want my glasses.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, last question.19 THE WITNESS: Okay. From the same manual20 there's, I think 7.12 and what it says, for retaining21 walls ordinary type structures a safety factor of 1.5 is22 adequate.23 I know. And that's the same section as 8-13 that24 Q. refers to places where it can be major consequences the25

17 of 17 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 68 01/05/2026 02:58:16 PM 65 safety factor is 2.0. So isn't it a fact that this is1 not referring only to dams and structures like that?2 Right.3 A. But to perfectly ordinary buildings?4 Q. Right. And they say a 1.5 safety factor is5 A. adequate for retaining walls.6 But when you say 8-13 is the only section dealing7 Q. with dams and similar structures, that was not correct?8 Yeah, I am reading now to Section 7-12.9 A. Where in 8-13 does it limit it to things such as10 Q. dams or doesn't it, sorry?11 You're having an assistant reading it for you.12 I'm sorry, I brought the wrong glasses.13 A. We can revisit this another time. The Chair says14 Q. we should end and I have a little left, but I think we15 have to stop. So I would ask you to please read 8-13 so16 we can go over that subject. Okay. My question is very17 simply, does Section 8-13 -- don't answer now because18 you don't have your glasses, does Section 8-13 --19 What's the name of the manual?20 A. Army Corps Manual. Section EM 1110-1-290.21 Q. Continue. What's the title?22 A. Sliding Stability is Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 is23 Q. titled --24 But --25 A. 66 -- Design Considerations.1 Q. I think the manual is for rock foundations. The2 A. manual is -- I think the title of the manual is Rock3 Foundations.4 We can resolve that next meeting since we don't5 Q. have cover letters, but Section 8-13 is Design6 Considerations. It's headed, Design Considerations.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.8 Ladies and gentlemen -- thank you Mr. Kleinberg.9 MR. AFRAN: Thank you, Mr. Kleinberg. Thank10 you.11 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: PB-24-01, West Essex13 Highland, Block 179, Lot 32, Warner Road will be carried14 to the December 10 Special Meeting at 6:00 o'clock PM in15 council chambers.16 The next regular Planning Board meeting --17 MS. McGOVERN: 6:30.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: 6:30.19 Would be 6:30 PM in council chambers and the20 regular Planning Board will be January 7, 2026 at 7:3021 via zoom.22 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, I was writing --23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.24 MR. AFRAN: Clarify the date. December 1025 67 at what time?1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: December 10 at 6:30 PM in2 council chambers.3 (Hearing concludes at 11:00 PM.)4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 68 C E R T I F I C A T E I, ERIC S.

bers.3 (Hearing concludes at 11:00 PM.)4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 68 C E R T I F I C A T E I, ERIC S. FISHMAN, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New Jersey do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the testimony as taken stenographically by and before me at the time, place and on the date hereinbefore set forth, to the best of my ability. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of the parties to the action; and that I am neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel; and that I am not financially interested in the action. --------------------- ERIC S. FISHMAN, S.R. Dated:__________________