transcript 9.28.10 creelman twp outside engineer

7/31/2019 Transcript 9.28.10 Creelman Twp Outside Engineer

1/79

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION, CIVIL PARTUNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEYDOCKET NUMBER: UNN-L-0140-08A.D. NO.:___________________

LEHIGH ACQUISITION, ET AL::

Plaintiff, :: TRANSCRIPT

vs. :: OF

TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, :: TRIAL

Defendant. :

Place: Union County CourthouseTwo Broad StreetElizabeth, New Jersey 07207

Date: September 28, 2010P.M. Session

BEFORE:

HONORABLE LISA F. CHRYSTAL, J.S.C.

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY:

CARL R. WOODWARD, III, ESQ. (Carella, Byrne,Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello)

APPEARANCES:

STEPHEN M. EISDORFER, ESQ. (Hill Wallack LLP)Attorney for the Plaintiff

CHARLES R. WOODWARD, ESQ. (Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,Olstein, Brody & Agnello)

Attorney for the Defendant

BRIAN FENLON, ESQ. (Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,Olstein, Brody & Agnello)


DARCEL D. HARTUTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

P.O. Box 1582Laurel Springs, New Jersey

(856) 784-4276


2/79

2

APPEARANCES (Continued)

VINCENZO M. MOGAVERO, ESQ. (Carella, Byrne,Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello)


DARCEL D. HARTUTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

P.O. Box 1582Laurel Springs, New Jersey

(856) 784-4276


3/79

3

I N D E X

September 28, 2010

WITNESSES Direct Cross Redirect Recross

Mr. Creelman 3

EXHIBITS Ident. Evid .

D-25c Photographs 30D-25d Photographs 30D-25m Photographs 30D-25n Photographs 30D-43 Site investigation report 21D-94 10/14/09 Creelman Report 9D-113 Report prepared in response to

L2A report 27D-138 Creelman Resume 6 8D-157 Alpha Survey prepared by Control

Point 10D-159 Letter from PS&S, Mr. Creelman dated

July 16, 2010 49D-162 August 3 plan 47D-178 Original development plans for the

site dated September 22, 2008 14D-179 Letter dated August 23, 2010 54D-181 Mr. Creelmans report 61D-182 The Urban Hydrology for Small

Watersheds 66D-184 Letter dated 9/2/10 with

supplemental information 60

P-37 Copy of the report from Mr. Dipple 27P-38 2/4/2010 letter from Mr. Dipple

to Mr. Eisdorfer 36

P-39 Concept Plan report dated 3/31/2010 37P_39a Board attached to the report 41P-80 Letter with flood storage volume

calculations 56P-82 Attachment to letter 57P-83 Attachment to letter 57P-87 August 19 report from Mr. Dipple 59


4/79

Creelman - Direct 4

(The afternoon session starts at 1:40 p.m.)1

MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, Id like to call2

my next witness who Mr. Thomas Mr. Creelman.3

(Pause)4

T H O M A S C R E E L M A N, DEFENSE WITNESS, SWORN5

THE CLERK: State your name for the record.6

THE WITNESS: Tom Creelman.7

THE CLERK: Spell your last name.8

THE WITNESS: C-R-E-E-L-M-A-N.9

THE CLERK: Be seated.10

THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.11

DIRECT EXAMINATION (VOIR DIRE) BY MR. WOODWARD:12

Q Mr. Creelman, by whom are you employed?13

A Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor, PS&S.14

Q And what is Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor?15

A We are a consulting engineering firm.16

Q And could you give us the benefit of your17

background and qualifications?18

A Yes. I've been with the firm for approximately 2119

years. I'm a Senior Associate with the firm. My20

duties have included project management and design.21

During that course of time period, I received my22

license for, as a Professional Engineer in the State of23

New Jersey in 2002.24

My duties also include, as a Project Manager,25


5/79

Creelman - Direct 5

we work in design teams in a Civil Group in our Civil1

Department. So I work with other peoples in my --2

other people in my team to design projects from3

conception to construction.4

Q And, where did you get your college degree?5

A I got my degree from the New Jersey Institute of6

Technology.7

Q And you're a licensed Professional Engineer?8

A Yes, I am.9

Q And, besides your current duties and10

responsibilities, what other prior employment have you11

had in the engineering field?12

A When I first graduated from college, I was13

employed by the engineering firm of Worchester14

(phonetic) Partnership.15

Q And what was your, what were your duties and16

responsibilities there?17

A I was a Staff Engineer, design of storm water18

systems, grading of sites, sanitary sewer system19

design, things of that nature.20

Q And is your area of practice Civil21

Engineering?22

A Yes.23

Q And Do you have any particular areas that you24

focus on?25


6/79

Creelman - Direct 6

A Probably in the past ten years, I have more1

focused on urban redevelopment, brownfield (phonetic)2

redevelopments in cities and so forth, where you take a3

what was formally a, industrial, more of an industrial4

site, and convert it into a residential and/or5

commercial use.6

Q And, as part of that, what sort of analysis7

do you--8

MR. WOODWARD: Strike that.9

BY MR. WOODWARD:10

Q Do you do analyses with respect to storm11

water management?12

A Yeah, we, we follow a, as of 2004, we now follow13

the new Storm Water Two regulations as adopted by the14

DEP.15

Q And, do you also practice in areas of16

determining flood hazards and flood hazard regulations?17

A Yes, we do.18

Q I'm going to show you what's been marked19

D-138 for identification, and ask you if you can20

identify this document. It's -- looks like it's a21

resume of sorts.22

A Yeah. This is my resume from my current firm,23

PS&S.24

Q And where is PS&S located?25


7/79

Creelman - Direct 7

A Our main office, our headquarters is in Warren1

Township, New Jersey in Somerset County.2

Q And is, is that the office that you work out3

of?4

A Yes, it is.5

Q Now, as part of your practice as a6

Professional Engineer, have you ever been qualified to7

testify, either before Planning Boards, Boards of8

Adjustment or in court?9

A Yes, I have, Planning Boards.10

Q And on how many occasions have you testified11

before Planning Boards?12

A Approximately 40.13

Q About 40 times?14

A Approximately 40 times, yes.15

Q And your testimony is in, is as a16

Professional Engineer. Is that correct?17

A Yes.18

MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, Id like to offer19

Mr. Creelman as a engineering expert in the field of20

Civil Engineering at this time.21

MR. EISDORFER: No objection, Your Honor.22

THE COURT: He will be so qualified.23

MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, Id also like to24

offer into evidence his resume which is D-138.25


8/79

Creelman - Direct 8

MR. EISDORFER: No objection.1

THE COURT: D-138 in evidence.2

(Pause)3

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. WOODWARD:4

Q Now, in connection with this litigation5

before the Court, have you been retained by the6

Township of Cranford?7

A Yes, I have.8

Q And could you tell us what the nature and9

scope of your assignment for Cranford has been?10

A We were requested to review the site and documents11

provided to us for a site constraints analysis to12

determine what physical constraints on the site would13

inhibit development of the site?14

Q And you say physical constraints, does that15

include environmental constraints as well?16

A Environment -- wetlands, boundaries, flood hazard17

issues, riparian rights issues, endangered species18

issues; things of that nature.19

Q And during the course of your retention by20

the Township, have you prepared any reports?21

A Yes, I have.22

Q I'm going to show you what's first been23

marked as D-94. It's a document from you addressed to24

me dated October 14, 2009, and ask you if you can tell25


9/79

Creelman - Direct 9

us what that is.1

A This is the first report that I prepared for the2

project after receiving documents. I received and3

reviewed several documents that I received from the4

Township through your office regarding elements of the5

site, a conceptual site plan prepared by the plaintiff6

dated September 22, 2008; a second conceptual site plan7

dated April 29, 2008; an aerial map of the site. Do8

you want me to list everything I went through that's in9

the report?10

Q Yeah, if you would go through it. I know11

it's fairly lengthy, but I think for the record, it's12

appropriate.13

A Okay. A water mane map, drawing number five, no14

date; center city sewer capacity study prepared in15

January 2009 by L2A; FEMA Study Map for the Township of16

Cranford dated September 20,2006; a letter of17

interpretation for a line verification for the property18

from the DEP dated August 20, 2009; the Township of19

Cranford applicable tax map last revised June 28, 1993;20

a copy of the Cranford Township Zoning Map; plaintiff's21

brief in support of the motion for the partial summary22

judgment dated January 30, 2009; the New Jersey State23

Development and Redevelopment Plan dated March 1, 2001;24

a Policy Map of the New Jersey Development and25


10/79

Creelman - Direct 10

Redevelopment Plan dated March 1, 2001; a Site1

Assessment Report dated May 21, 2008 referred by L2A; a2

plan entitled Wetland Survey Plan prepared by Control3

Point, last revised in July 29, 2009; an Alpha Survey4

dated June 11, 2008, last revised September 11, 2008,5

as prepared by -- again prepared by Control Point. An6

existing Center City Sewer Map dated January 20097

prepared by L2A; a memorandum prepared by the Township8

of Cranford Engineer dated October 19, 2008; a Wetlands9

Delineation Report dated November 2008 and prepared by10

the Princeton Hydro (phonetic) for the Township of11

Cranford.12

Q Now with respect to your assignment preparing13

the analysis, what was your starting point?14

A We began looking at the, these documents to get an15

understanding of where the site was located in the16

Township, what zone it was located in, what some of the17

physical features of the site were, the size of the18

site, where the wetlands were located on the site, what19

structures were located on the site. The site20

contained approximately 15 acres of property, two21

buildings and two parking lots.22

Q I'm showing you whats been previously marked23

as D-157 in this case. Have you seen this before?24

A Is that the --25


11/79


Q If you want to get up and take --1

A Sure.2

Q -- a look at it, you can.3

A Yes, I've seen this document.4

Q And that is what?5

A It's the Alpha Survey prepared by Control Point.6

It's a boundary survey thats been certified to a7

certain individual. It shows existing structures,8

buildings, parking lots, and topography on the site and9

immediately surrounding the site.10

Q Does it also show a delineated wetlands line?11

A Yes, it does show a delineated wetlands line12

covering approximately six acres in the southwest13

portion of the site in this area here.14

THE COURT: What exhibit is that? What15

exhibit is that Mr. --16

MR. WOODWARD: D-157, Your Honor.17

THE COURT: Thank you.18

(Pause)19

BY MR. WOODWARD:20

Q Now, did you do an environmental evaluation21

of the site?22

A We reviewed the site from a standpoint of23

wetlands, wetlands buffers, riparian buffers,24

endangered species, plants, and animals. We concluded25


12/79


that there were no threatened or endangered species on1

the site based upon data sets that we reviewed from the2

DEP that are available through the DEP. We also3

indicated that based upon the delineation that was4

provided on the map and the letter of interpretation5

provided by the DEP, that the wetlands that had been6

delineated on the site were appropriate.7

Q With respect to the other portions of the8

site, did you, in terms of environmental, I think you9

said -- did you evaluate --10

MR. WOODWARD: Withdraw, withdrawing, Your11

Honor.12

BY MR. WOODWARD:13

Q Did you evaluate any storm water or flooding14

that occurred or may occur on the site?15

A We reviewed, we visited the site in early October.16

Q What year?17

A 2009.18

Q Okay.19

A And we reviewed some, the storm inlets, the20

overall topography of the site. The site is bounded to21

the west by a brook known as Casino Brook, otherwise22

identified as, I believe it's --23

Q You can refer to your report, by the way, if24

you wish.25


13/79


A -- 10-24.1

Q And did you make any determinations as to2

whether there were, there was flooding on this3

property?4

A Based upon a review the FEMA maps and the5

delineation provided on the FEMA maps, it was our6

belief that there was a delineation of floodway and7

flood hazard lines to the site.8

Q You say there was from the FEMA maps?9

A Not on the FEMA maps, but the way they were10

configured, the adjacent towns, Kenilawn (sic)11

Kenilworth, sorry. Kenilworth showed a 100 year and12

500 year flood line ending at the municipal boundary13

line.14

We subsequently also called the DEP and asked15

for an interpretation of the map, and we were told that16

the, the, Kenilworth did request that FEMA map Casino17

Brook in their township, but Cranford did not. And,18

therefore, a delineation of the floodway on Casino19

Brook within the Township of Cranford did not exist.20

It was not mapped on the FEMA plans.21

Q So, did you form an opinion as to whether or22

not a flood hazard area study was required in23

connection with the proposed development on the site?24

A Based upon looking at the FEMA maps in25


14/79


Kenilworth -- I'm sorry, Kenilawn (sic) -- and for the1

mapping that was don for the Rahway River, we felt2

there was a necessity to have it done, that a floodway3

did exist, a flood hazard area would exist on the site.4

Q In connection with -- and I just referred to5

the proposed development on the site; I'm going to show6

you what's been marked as D-178 in evidence. And7

actually, I direct your attention to the exhibits.8

Take a moment to look at those. Have you ever seen9

those before? They're dated September 22, 2008.10

A Yes, I have.11

Q Okay. And was that the original development12

plan for this site proposed by the plaintiffs that you13

reviewed?14

A Yes, it is.15

Q Now, could you tell us exactly how the16

buildings were laid out on that particular site? As a17

matter of fact, I can also show you -- well, how were18

the parking lots laid out on that, on that map?19

A There were three, three buildings total. They20

were A, B, C. Building A is a residential building.21

Building B is a residential building. And Building C22

is a parking garage wrapped on three sides by Building23

B. A large portion of the, both buildings fronts on --24

to the north on Birchwood Avenue. And Building A takes25


15/79


up at least, I want to say, a third, if not more, of1

the frontage along Birchwood Avenue, as does Building2

B.3

Q And -- now, did you form a professional4

opinion as to whether a flood hazard area study in5

connection with a proposed development was required?6

A Yes, I did.7

Q And why was that?8

A Based upon the review of the documents from FEMA9

and our conversation and our call to FEMA, and the10

limits of what was provided upstream and downstream of11

the site, it was my professional opinion that a flood12

hazard area did exist for the site, even though one was13

not mapped at that point in time.14

Q Now, moving on in your report to the15

wetlands, did you -- you evaluated the wetlands survey,16

the wetlands delineation?17

A Yes, we did.18

Q And with respect to that, did you agree with19

all that was described in there?20


BY MR. WOODWARD:22

Q Did you find any areas that may have required23

riparian buffer?24

A We felt that an area to the south of the parking25


16/79


lot on Lot 215 may be as it was an -- appeared to be a1

natural generalized water course may have a riparian2

buffer on it.3

Q And why did you feel that it needed a, may4

have needed a riparian buffer.5

A Under the regu, under the regulations, if the, if6

a natural channelized water course for the drainage7

area of 50 acres or more, it is required by regulation8

to have a buffer, a minimum buffer of 50 feet.9

Q Now, in reviewing the plan, did you review10

the parking analysis or the parking that was indicated11

on that plan, the September 22, 2008 plan?12

A Yes, we did.13

Q And what conclusions, if any, did you draw14

from that?15

A That the -- excuse me. That the general at grade16

parking, the size of the parking was adequate. Our17

main concern was the relationship of the parking, the18

encroachment of the parking into the wetlands buffer.19

Q And, what conclusion in terms of, what was20

the issue there that there if was a problem?21

A It's been our experience that the DEP normally22

doesnt like encroachments into the wetlands buffer23

parallel to it. They prefer you to go perpendicular to24

it if you're going to have encroachment into it at all.25


17/79


Q Now, did you offer any comment on the storm1

water management in your report?2

A Yes, we did.3

Q And what observations -- first of all, what4

did you review, and what observations did you make, and5

what conclusions did you draw?6

A We reviewed the Alpha Survey. We met with the7

Township Engineer. We also visited the site. During8

my visit at the site, in reviewing the brook and the9

adjacent properties to the south side of 215 Birchwood,10

south of the parking lot, there is a channel. And11

adjacent to that channel where all the storm water for12

that parking lot drains to, there are existing13

structures that the parking lot pipes drain into.14

Leaving those structures, there is a different15

composition of pipe. And on top of those, above those16

grounds is indicated valves, some type of valve that17

can be closed.18

Q Could you go up to D-157 and point out to the19

Court -- first of all, 215 Birchwood versus 23520

Birchwood for the record?21

A Sure. I'm pointing at the Alpha Survey. And 21522

Birchwood is the site on the eastern half of the23

project. 235 Birchwood is the site located on the24

westerly half of the project. What I'm referring to is25


18/79


the area to the south of the parking lot at 2151

Birchwood.2

Q A parking lot sort of in the center of 215,3

correct?4

A Correct.5

Q All right.6

A In general, the drainage area for this parking lot7

drains to the south, southwest of the parking area into8

an area over here. The two pipes, the two main9

discharge pipes drain into two structures. Those two10

structures, the pipes enter on one side of the11

structure. On the opposite side of those structures,12

there is a ductile iron pipe that discharged. Those13

pipes eventually turn back from ductile iron pipe back,14

back into concrete pipes in the swale. But in the15

course of traveling underground, there are indications16

on the surface there are valves within, contained17

within those ductile iron pipes.18

Q Now what's a ductile iron pipe?19

A A ductile iron pipe is just a composition of pipe.20

It's made out of a type of steel thats used in21

development.22

Q And, --23

A Versus concrete pipe, plastic pipe, that sort of24

thing.25


19/79


Q Okay, so what you found there on the south1

side of the parking lot was leading out of the chamber,2

a ductile iron pipe, and before it got to its full3

outlet, it was a concrete pipe?4

A Correct.5

Q And then you said there were valves?6

A In, in the line with, where the pipe left7

the -- leaves the chamber --8

Q Right.9

A -- and where the pipe discharges into the channel,10

surface indications there is a valve shown on the11

ground, there is a physical valve, or the remains of a12

valve if you will.13

Q And there was a valve in what each one of14

those --15

A Downstream of each chamber that was there, each16

concrete chamber, yes.17

Q And you said it was associated with a ductile18

iron pipe?19

A Yes.20

Q How do you know that?21

A Experience. You dont put a, a metal valve on a22

concrete pipe normally.23

Q Why not?24

A In trying to make it -- to seal it is more25


20/79


difficult. Would you, would you have a type of1

situation where you have ductile iron pipes connecting2

to a valve? There will be plates, and you can bolt3

them together very easily.4

Q Now, did you draw any conclusion from the5

storm water system or whatever you saw in that parking6

lot particularly into the whole site regarding storm7

water management?8

A Basically my -- I summarized that the -- in my9

report that the existing valving system was utilized to10

provide some level of reduction or retention of the11

storm water leaving the site to reduce the amount of12

water off the site during the peak storm event.13

Q Did you make any recommendations in your14

report about what should be done, if anything, to study15

further that area?16

A We recommended that during the post-development17

analysis and design of the storm water managing system18

that this existing detention be taken into account19

during the overall design of the proposed storm water20

management system.21

Q Now, at the end of your report on page nine22

in paragraph five addendum, you added something to that23

report. Could you tell us what that was?24

A Our initial, the initial package that we25


21/79


22/79


A That is a report entitled Site Investigation,1

Birchwood Avenue Cranford Township, Union County, New2

Jersey. It was prepared by L2A Design and dated3

May 21, 2008.4

Q And I'm going to show you at the end of the5

report an appendix. And the first item on the6

appendix, is that, is that the conceptual, first7

conceptual site plan you reviewed?8

A That is correct, yes.9

Q And, --10

MR. WOODWARD: I, I know the Court is looking11

for its documents right now.12

THE COURT: Yeah, let me look. It was D-43?13

MR. WOODWARD: Yes. Heres one for the14

Court.15

THE COURT: Thank you. It's already up here,16

but it --17

MR. WOODWARD: It will be easier.18

THE COURT: -- takes a while to read through19

them all to find it. Thank you.20

BY MR. WOODWARD:21

Q Take a look at D-43. Could you describe the22

Concept Plan that was presented first in April of 2008?23

A The original Concept Plan --24

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, object to the25


23/79


24/79


THE WITNESS: Yes.1

THE COURT: Okay. So you -- can you just2

point to what you're referring to?3

THE WITNESS: Sure. Absolutely. I'm4

referring to Building C. On the April 29, 2008 map,5

Im just saying that Building C as identified in6

September plan, is the parking garage, here.7

THE COURT: Okay.8

THE WITNESS: And then the other, the9

building that wraps around it to the south, west and10

north, --11

THE COURT: Thats B.12

THE WITNESS: -- is Building B. It takes up13

approximately a little more than 50 percent of the14

frontage along Birchwood Avenue for the width of the15

property, and a loop road wraps around it providing two16

access points from Birchwood Avenue into the site.17

Also the southern portion of Building B18

respects the, the natural channelized water portion to19

the south, and the wetlands immediately to the west of20

it.21

BY MR. WOODWARD:22

Q Okay. Now, thank you. With respect to the23

plan on -- now, there was one large building plus a24

parking garage, correct, on the April ---25


25/79


26/79


units in September?1

A Yes.2

Q In the September plan?3

A Correct, as well as the parking.4

Q What was the parking called out in, in the5

April plan?6

A Parking provided for, the 379 units was 6957

spaces. And in the September plan it was listed as 6738

spaces provided.9

Q So there are actually, actually fewer spaces.10

A Correct.11

Q Now, with the comparison of the April 29 th12

plan to the September plan, did you draw any13

conclusions as to the impact of the September 22 nd ,14

plan, whether that was an increase in impact, or15

decreased impact of -- over the building that was16

described in the April 29 plan?17

A The September 22, 2008 plan showed an increase in18

impervious coverage above what was provided or shown on19

the April 29, 2008 plan.20

Q And, did that have any impact in terms of21

what needed to be studied, analyzed, or provided for by22

way of storm water management at the site?23

A It would increase the amount of runoff. And that24

would have to be taken into account in the storm water25


27/79


management design.1

Q And so is that a recommendation of yours2

that it needed to be studied?3

A Yes.4

Q Now, you prepared a second report, a5

January 14, 2010, Exhibit D-113, 113. I'm going to6

show you a copy of that, and could you tell me if you7

can identify that?8

A Yes, I can.9

Q And, tell us what this is.10

A This report, excuse me. We prepared this report11

to review additional plans that were provided in, later12

in the year, and in response to plan, a letter prepared13

by Mr. Dipple of L2A Associates -- L2A Design.14

Q And, what was it that you, what was it that15

you did in terms of responding to Mr. Dipples report?16

A There was a indication that flood hazard issue17

still did not exist. We went and reviewed FEMAs flood18

study maps for the Township of Cranford again. Those19

plans -- that plan was dated September 2006 --20

September 20, 2006. And a flood study map, and a FEMA21

flood study map for the Borough of Kenilawn (sic)22

again dated September 20, 2006.23

Q Kenilworth?24

A I'm sorry, Kenilworth. Excuse me.25


28/79


29/79


30/79


Town -- Cranford Taxpayers website, utilizing several1

of those photographs, we went and compared those2

specific photographs in, in that website to key points3

within the Alpha Survey which had elevations on it.4

And we were able to determine certain elevations, or5

approximate them, I should say.6

Q Now, the photographs are, are they exhibits7

C, D, E, and F, and G?8

A Yes.9

(Pause)10

Q I'm showing you what's -- and these are11

perhaps better copies. So, Id like to, to -- they're12

more presentable than, than the photocopies that you13

have. I'm showing exhibits D-25c, D-25d, D-25m, and14

D-25n. Are those the photographs that you used to15

assist you in trying to calculate the height of that16

particular flow?17

(Pause)18

A Some of them are, yes.19

Q Okay. Which ones did you use?20

A I used D-25n, D-25d, D-25c. And also, there's21

another photograph that doesnt appear to be in the22

pile here that I used.23

Q And that was --24

A It would be Exhibit C.25


31/79


Q -- Exhibit C, if youd show the Court --1

A Certainly.2

Q -- is a photograph of Birchwood.3

THE COURT: Exhibit D-113, right?4

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. Yes.5

BY MR. WOODWARD:6

Q Okay. Now, could you describe for us how you7

went about doing this evaluation based on the8

photographs and the, Alpha Survey, which is D-157.9

A Sure. I can go down to the map here real quick.10

Q Sure.11

A On the Alpha Survey, there are structures. In12

particular, I'm going to point to the west side of the13

entrance to the property at 235 Birchwood Avenue. If14

you look at Exhibit C, that picture was taken standing15

on the north side of Birchwood Avenue, excuse me; just16

west of the actual entrance to the property.17

If you look at the photograph, youll see two18

cars within the street that are, have water up to the19

rims. In the background of that, I don't think the20

photocopy is clear enough; youll see a structure that21

is a signage for the property. It identifies what this22

property is, the street number, the, the, who is there23

and all that kind of stuff. You can see that in the24

picture.25


32/79


33/79


the elevation as well. That's it.1

Q And did that --2

A There was no hydraulic analysis involved in that3

study.4

Q Did that support in any way your5

recommendation that a flood hazard area study be6

performed?7

A It did because, the, the rainfall event that8

occurred I believe on that date which was9

April 15, 2007 was around, I think, eight, eight or10

nine inches.11

And, given that elevation and the -- what was12

shown in the photographs, and the information provided13

on the FEMA maps, upstream of the site, it was my14

opinion that clearly a flood study would be required.15

And if an analysis was done, a floodway and a flood16

hazard line would certainly be showing, could be17

generated for the site, would be generated for the18

site.19

Q Now, with respect to this, this site, was20

this a site that, in your opinion, flooded21

frequently -- or flooded?22

A Yes.23

Q And was that a severe flood that you saw?24

A I would say it was significant.25


34/79


Q Now, with respect to storm water management,1

in your report, you also dealt with that particular2

issue. Could you tell us what your, whether there was3

any change in your position as earlier expressed or4

modification of your position? Please describe that.5

THE COURT: Which report are you referring6

to?7

MR. WOODWARD: I'm sorry, Your Honor, D-113.8

BY MR. WOODWARD:9

A I didn't change my opinion. I still felt that10

when a storm water management system was designed for11

the project, it would have to take into account the12

existing shower detention in the parking lot shown on13

215 Birchwood, and also that it needed to be taken into14

account once the flood hazard parameters were15

established. It would have to take that into account16

as well, that storm water analysis.17

Q And did you have any -- make any18

determination as to whether the conceptual site plan of19

September 22, 2008 provided sufficient detail to20

determine whether or not the fresh water wetlands21

regulations would be satisfied?22

A Could you ask that question again?23

Q Sure. Directing your attention to page four24

of your report, you have a comment about the detail for25


35/79


freshwater wetlands general permits and transition area1

waivers. Were you able to determine from the2

information provided whether or not there was adequate3

information to determine whether or not those permits4

would be granted?5

A No. No, there was not enough information.6

Q There was not enough information?7

A No, there was not.8

(Pause)9

Q Now, did there come a point in time when --10

let me just rephrase that. When Mr. Dipple in his11

October report -- take a look at this third paragraph12

down from the top of the page, and that first item,13

which is P-38. Your opinion was --14


BY MR. WOODWARD:16

Q Mr. Dipple felt that method three could be17

used for determining the flood hazard area, correct?18

A Yes, in that paragraph of his October 29 th , report19

2000 --20

Q And what's, what's method three?21

A Method three allows you to look at flood insurance22

rate maps for areas that have been delineated by FEMA23

of flood waters for the -- within the 100 year and24

outside the 100 year, within the 500 year, and outside25


36/79


the 500 year flood plain. If the map is available and1

it's delineated, then method three permits you to use2

that as, to verify whether you do or do not have a3

flooding situation on your site.4

Q And did you differ from Mr. Dipple on that,5

whether method three could be used on this site?6

A I did.7

Q And what was your opinion?8

A I felt that based upon the information I had9

reviewed, both the FEMA maps, the site, the10

photographs, the -- and my conversation that we had11

with the DEP regarding the interpretation of the FEMA12

map that a flood study was warranted and that either13

method five or method six; method five being an14

estimation method, and method six being a complete15

backwater analysis, would be required to determine16

where the floodway line and the flood hazard line would17

be determined.18

Q Did Mr. Dipple ultimately agree with you?19

A Several months later, yes.20

Q I'm going to show you what's been marked as21

P-38. It's a letter dated February 4, 2010. Is that22

from Mr. Dipple --23

A Yes.24

Q -- to Mr. Eisdorfer?25


37/79


A Yes, it is.1

Q And does that letter include his conclusions2

regarding whether or not method six should be used?3

A Yes, it does. He acknowledges that a, that a4

study would be required, and that method three was not5

appropriate, and that a, a flood hazard analysis, a6

hydraulic analysis would be required.7

Q Now, did there come a time when you became8

aware that a flood hazard study actually had been done?9

A Yes.10

(Pause - side discussion)11

BY MR. WOODWARD:12

Q I'm going to show you what's been marked as13

P-39. It's a report dated March 31, 2010. Have you14

ever seen that before?15

A Yes, I have.16

Q And, what is that?17

A This is a report by L2A by Mr. Dipple explaining18

that they went through and they prepared a backwater19

analysis -- I'm sorry, a flood plain analysis for the20

site using methodology number six, for -- to determine21

the flood hazard area, line as it wraps through the22

project.23

Q And does it -- is there anything else that's24

included with that report?25


38/79


A It provides elevation upstream at the northern end1

of the site of 78.6 for the elevation of the flood2

hazard elevation as it traverses through the site, an3

elevation of 78.4 at the downstream end. It also4

provides for a -- can you give me one minute?5

Q Certainly. Take your time.6

(Pause)7

A It also provides a, a map entitled FEO-01 dated8

March 31, 2010. I believe the basis of the map was the9

Alpha Survey prepared by Control Point. And on that10

map has been plotted the, the floodway lines and the11

flood hazard -- limits of the flood hazard area limit12

lines as it traverses through the site.13

Q May I see that, please?14

A Sure. But I dont see the other one.15

MR. WOODWARD: Excuse me, Your Honor.16

(Pause)17

Q All right. Now when you looked at that, were18

you able to determine whether there was a flood hazard19

area on the site?20

A Based upon the analysis performed L2A, yes, I was21

able to determine there is a --22

Q And, and can you show the Court where the23

floodway line is and the flood hazard area line is?24

A On this one?25


39/79


Q Hold it up, yeah. Show it to the Court.1

A Sure. The, the floodway line is a solid line2

traversing the site from north to south, about a third3

of the way in from the westerly property line. The4

other side of the floodway line is indicated on the5

west side of Casino Brook which is just on the property6

line adjacent to the adjacent property.7

The flood -- excuse me, the flood hazard area8

line, the easterly flood hazard area line is shown as a9

dash line approximately one-third off the east,10

easterly property line of the site.11

And the adjacent flood hazard area line to12

the westerly side of the stream is very close to the13

floodway line. Again, all, all of these refers to the14

north and south.15

THE COURT: Does it mean that everything in16

between is the floodway?17

THE WITNESS: Correct. The, the floodway18

goes to this, from this solid line here on the west19

side of the brook --20

THE COURT: To here.21

THE WITNESS: -- to this line here on the22

east side of the brook.23

THE COURT: (inaudible).24

THE WITNESS: Correct, that is the floodway25


40/79


41/79


42/79


the March 31, 2010 letter from Mr. Dipple. Was there a1

revised Concept Plan submitted?2

A Yes, there was.3

Q And, could you briefly tell us what the4

revisions were to the last plan which was September 22,5

2009 -- or 2008?6

A Youd like just a brief explanation of the7

comparison --8

Q Yes.9

A -- between the September 22 nd --10

Q Right.11

A -- and the -- okay.12

Q Right.13

A Do I still have a copy of the plan showing that?14

Q Here you go. It's D-178.15

A Okay.16

Q The exhibits D-178.17

A Thank you.18

THE COURT: Okay. So we're talking about19

D-43 and D-178, correct?20

MR. WOODWARD: P-39, Your Honor.21

THE COURT: P-39?22

MR. WOODWARD: P-39, Your Honor, yes.23

(Pause)24

THE COURT: Okay. P-39a, right?25


43/79


MR. WOODWARD: P-39. That's P-39a, Your1

Honor, on the board.2

THE COURT: I have it as P-39a. Is there a3

separate P-39?4

MR. WOODWARD: This is P-39a.5

THE COURT: Okay. The report is P-39.6

MR. WOODWARD: P-39. And there are actually7

two other pages that go with P-39 that are not there.8

MR. EISDORFER: They are, they are actually9

separate exhibits?10

MR. WOODWARD: Are they?11

MR. EISDORFER: Yes. So that's actually P-812

THE COURT: So what I'm looking at was in my13

binder.14

MR. EISDORFER: Right.15

THE COURT: So I just want to be clear that16

I'm looking at the same thing, --17

MR. EISDORFER: Yeah.18

THE COURT: -- that we're talking about in19

the testimony. So P-39a, --20

MR. WOODWARD: Is this board here, Your21

Honor.22

THE COURT: -- is the board that was23

attached? Okay. P-39 is the report, --24

MR. WOODWARD: Correct.25


44/79


THE COURT: -- the Concept Plan.1

MR. WOODWARD: And then there are two other2

exhibits, --3

THE COURT: Which I don't have.4

MR. WOODWARD: -- that Mr. Eisdorfer says5

have separate exhibit numbers.6

MR. EISDORFER: Yeah. They have separate7

exhibit numbers. I believe hes referring to P-8,8

which is the March 31 st .9

THE COURT: Let me check. P-8?10

MR. EISDORFER: Yes. And that together with11

that is P-9, which is seven sections.12

THE COURT: Let me just get that.13

MR. WOODWARD: -- of P-8.14

MR. EISDORFER: And they may have D numbers15

too, but I'm not sure.16

THE COURT: Okay. So P-8 and P-9?17

MR. EISDORFER: Yes. And, actually, the18

defendant marked those as D-150 and D-151.19

THE COURT: So P-8 is D-150?20

MR. EISDORFER: Yes.21

THE COURT: And P-9 is D-151.22

MR. EISDORFER: That's correct.23


(Pause)25


45/79


MR. WOODWARD: All right. Your Honor, just1

to clarify, what we're going to do here from the2

defense perspective, --3


MR. WOODWARD: -- there are three documents5

which we have marked as D-149 which is the floodway6

exhibit, --7

THE COURT: Oh, wait a minute.8

MR. WOODWARD: -- which is also the colored9

version of P-39a. If you take -- yeah. That's that10

page.11

THE COURT: Okay. So D-149 equals P-39a?12

MR. WOODWARD: Correct.13

THE COURT: Okay.14

MR. WOODWARD: Then D-150 is the revised15

Concept Plan --16

THE COURT: That's here. Yes.17

MR. WOODWARD: -- dated March 31, 2010.18

THE COURT: P -- it's P-9, right?19

MR. WOODWARD: P -- ...20

(Tape #1 ends; Tape #2 begins)21

THE COURT: Well, it's a total of 705 -- from22

that, according to this witness' testimony. Let's put23

it that way. Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt.24

MR. WOODWARD: No. That's all right, Your25


46/79


Honor. Thank you.1

BY MR. WOODWARD:2

Q Now, you said Building A in the March 31 plan3

was revised. And what was the purpose of moving that4

and revising it?5

A Building A used to be a T with the top of the T6

parallel to Birchwood Avenue as a result of the7

delineation and plotting of the floodway line, as was8

done by L2A. The old configuration of Building A on9

the September 2008 plan would have been, I want to say10

more than, I'm estimating more than three quarters of11

the way within the floodway, which is not allowed under12

the DEP regulations. So Building A was reconfigured to13

a, a reversed L with its long side perpendicular to14

Birchwood Avenue to respect the floodway line.15

Q Now, did that plan that you're looking at16

right now from March 31, 2010 show the flood, the limit17

of the flood hazard area?18

A No, it does not.19

Q So, --20

A It only shows the floodway line.21

Q Is that a significant omission?22

A In, in my opinion, yes.23

Q Why?24

A You need to know, not only where the floodway line25


47/79


48/79


have a reasonable overlap, so we felt that they're1

relatively accurate to their comparison to one other.2

We utilize what's shown on both plans as this3

blue line right here as it wraps around, as shown on4

the exhibit, represents the location of the limit of5

the existing parking lot on the south side, east side6

and west side of 215 Birchwood that exists in both7

plans. We were able to use that as a key point, if you8

will, to approximate bringing this line easterly, flood9

hazard limit line from the other plan, this plan here,10

the flood area, and flood plain delineation plan,11

Exhibit P-39a, to be able to superimpose it on this12

plan to see where it, in fact, falls in relationship to13

Building B.14

Q And what, as a result of that overlay, what,15

what was its relationship, what was that flood hazards16

limitation or limit line in relation to building A?17

A It shows that all of Building A still remains18

within the, the area between the floodway line, and the19

flood hazard line, the flood area known as the flood20

fringe area here.21

Q Now, could you also determine whether or not22

any portion of proposed Building B was in the flood23

hazard area?24

A Yes. Based upon the plot, we were able to show25


49/79


that the northern, a northern portion of Building B was1

within the flood, flood fringe area, or within the,2

encroaches in the flood hazard area.3

Q Now, --4

THE COURT: What exhibit is this?5

MR. WOODWARD: That's P, I think it's 162.6

MR. EISDORFER: No, D.7

MR. WOODWARD: No, D, D-162.8

MR. EISDORFER: D-162.9

MR. WOODWARD: Dated August 3 rd .10


BY MR. WOODWARD:12

Q Now, I'm going to show you what's been marked13

as D-159 for identification and ask you if you can14

identify that document? It's dated July 16, 2010.15

THE COURT: What is the number? I'm sorry,16

what number was that?17

THE WITNESS: D-159.18

BY MR. WOODWARD:19

A It's a letter from PS&S, myself, to Mr. Woodward20

dated July 16, 2010.21

Q And, what was this report?22

A This is a, a letter from us to, to respond to a23

request from you for us to review the information24

provided to us from the plaintiff on March 31, 2010.25


50/79


Q And so the documents that we've gone through,1

the report from Mr. Dipple, the, the delineation of the2

floodway and the flood hazard line, and the revised3

Concept Plan were what you reviewed in that letter,4

correct?5

A Correct, yes.6

Q Okay. Could you go through your report and7

tell us what observations you made or -- from your8

analysis of the documents dated March 31, 20109

submitted by Mr. Dipple?10

A The, the new layout provided by Lessard increased11

the -- well actually more than doubled the amount of12

surface parking -- one minute; yes, more than doubled13

the amount of surface parking from 73 to 171 spaces,14

which would --15

THE COURT: 73 to what?16

THE WITNESS: From 73 to 171 spaces.17

BY MR. WOODWARD:18

A -- based upon the new alignment of the, the19

buildings and the reconfiguration of the buildings.,20

which resulted in the reconfiguration of,21

reconfiguration of the driveway. And I noted that the,22

I was concerned that the driveway where it's between23

Buildings A and B had a double, a left-hand turn and a24

quick right-hand. I was concerned with respect to the25


51/79


52/79


the, I was able to go back and show the impervious area1

did decrease slightly, but as the proposed roof area is2

significantly above the surface, any discharge from the3

roof area will not be detained in a parking lot at all,4

as it does on the existing addition. It will readily5

just discharge off site. It won't even backup, because6

it's certainly higher than the surrounding elevations.7

And that should all be taken into account in the8

significant, in the storm water management design.9

Q Did you have any comments on the wetlands10

buffer?11

A The wetlands buffer itself, I agreed, I believe12

the plaintiff had issued a letter indicating that the13

wetlands buffer south of the parking lot on 215 as that14

had a -- no resource value. A buffer of 50 feet was15

not required. And we agreed with that as far as the16

wetlands goes, we were still concerned about a riparian17

issue though, to determine if the, that natural18

channelized water course had a drainage area of 50 feet19

or -- 50 acres or more going to it.20

And also that we couldnt see any proof that21

the, that any displacement of storage within the flood22

fringe area, if it was compensated for, it had to be23

compensated for both below, above between a 10 year,24

and a 100 year, and above the 100 year storm itself.25


53/79


You can't swap elevations for it.1

Q And was this as a result, these observations2

are from reviewing what was submitted on3

March 31, 2010, correct?4

A Correct.5

Q What conclusions did you draw from your6

analysis and the observations which youve just7

recounted to us?8

A Basically the entire project was squeezed closer9

together to the east property line, as a result of the10

delineation of the flood, floodway line, which you're11

not allowed to do any work within, beyond the floodway12

line. And that portion of -- all of Building A, and a13

portion of Building B would, would need to be14

compensated for, because that building footprints will15

lose storage volume below them within the floodway --16

or flood fringe area, excuse me.17

Q And, based on those documents,18

March 31, 2010, did you have an opinion as to whether a19

flood hazard area permit could have been granted, or20

would have been granted by the DEP based on the21

information and data contained in the Dipple report and22

the Concept Plan?23

A Of the March 31 st ?24

Q Yes.25


54/79


55/79


yesterday?1

THE COURT: Did you?2

MR. WOODWARD: What was the number of that3

again?4

THE WITNESS: D-179?5

MR. EISDORFER: I don't have any record of6

having that handed out.7

(Pause)8

MR. WOODWARD: My apologies to all involved.9

I did not hand it out yet.10

THE COURT: I'm trying to stay organized,11

so --12

MR. WOODWARD: I know you are, yeah; and I'm13

not helping you. Thank you.14

THE COURT: D -- okay, D-179?15

MR. WOODWARD: Yeah.16

BY MR. WOODWARD: 17

Q I'm showing you what's been marked as D-17918

for identification. This is a letter dated19

August 23, 2010. Have you ever seen that before?20

A Yes, I have.21

Q And, what was the purpose of preparing this22

letter?23

A As a result of the information provided by the24

plaintiff regarding the plan listed on page one, we25


56/79


57/79


Q Also P-86.1

(Pause - side discussion)2

A Is that entitled Floodway and Existing Flood3

hazard Area Delineation?4

Q It says Floodway and Flood Claim5

Delineation.6

A Okay.7

(Pause)8

MR. EISDORFER: There was one that was that9

we did not mark. Was it an, they just had an10

additional one, I guess.11

MR. WOODWARD: It was what?12

MR. EISDORFER: Theres one that we did not13

mark, it was Plaintiffs P-39, except the numbers added14

to it.15

MR. WOODWARD: We have a representation from16

Counsel that the missing document is the same as P-39a.17

MR. EISDORFER: It's, it's this document18

here. We didn't use because it's the same except it19

gets the numbers.20

THE WITNESS: Okay. They both have the same21

date. I think it was --22

MR. EISDORFER: That's right.23

THE WITNESS: -- July 19 th ?24

MR. EISDORFER: Yes.25


58/79


59/79


say a permit still would, would not be granted. This1

was submitted to the DEP.2

Q Now, with respect to -- there is one, I think3

P-86 document, which is the, which is that drainage4

map, there's a segment in the report, that area does5

not drain 50 acres, and, therefore, is -- does not6

require a riparian buffer. Have you reviewed that to7

see whether or not you agree with that conclusion?8

A I reviewed P-86. Based upon my review of that, I9

could not make a conclusive determination whether the10

area provided, in fact, was as stated on the drawing11

19.43 acres; mostly because the detail is insufficient.12

Q You couldnt make it out?13

A I couldnt, no.14

Q Now, did there come a point in time when you15

received another report dated August 19, 2010, which is16

P-87? Ill show you this. It's dated and it's from17

Mr. Dipple. Have you ever seen that?18

A Yes.19

Q And what is that letter about?20

A This letter talks about the conceptual design of a21

storm water management system that takes into account22

or tries -- it's an attempt to show that a storm water23

management system could be designed which will take24

into account the existing storm water detention that's25


60/79


provided on the easterly parking lot of 215, south of1

Building 215.2

Q And as I'm looking at P-39a, it's this, it's3

this area on the right-hand side that's outside, or4

generally outside the flood hazard area limit.5

A Correct. Correct.6

Q Did you perform an analysis of that report7

and all of the documents that were submitted with it?8

A We reviewed them and we, I believe we --9

Q You rendered a report?10

A We did, but I thought we had asked for some11

information first. I thought.12

Q Did you receive a letter dated13

September 2, 2010?14

A Yes, we did.15

Q D-184?16

A Yep.17

Q Is that the supplemental information?18

A Yes, it is.19

Q So, what was it that you reviewed, the letter20

dated August 19 th , correct?21

A Correct.22

Q And the letter with attachments dated23

September 2, 2010?24

A Correct.25


61/79


62/79


ones and the appropriate mane (phonetic) coefficient1

could be applied to them.2

A time of concentration was assumed for3

drainage areas 3 and 2 of 25 minutes. A type two4

rainfall distribution instead of a type three rainfall5

distribution was used in existing drainage area number6

two.7

Also, we could not determine any backup8

information, or discern any backup information as to9

where the, some of the information came from for the10

broad-crested weirs, and the diameters of the pipes11

that were listed.12

And also that the, finally, that in looking13

at the routing of the existing drainage area for this14

parking lot south of Building 215, it appears that the15

analysis assume that there are 12 inch valves, that the16

storm piping sewer drained into were completely open.17

Q Now, let's talk about each one of these.18

With respect to the soil types, is there a document,19

and I think it's in the September 2 nd additional20

documents, that contain a depiction of what soil types21

were on this property?22

A Yes. It's -- looking at the September,23

September 2 nd L2A plan, or letter, D-1 -- entitled24

D-184, or identified as D-184, there's a plan entitled25


63/79


Web Soil Survey 2.0 National Cooperative Soil Survey.1

And what it does, it provides a, an aerial photograph2

of the site and some surrounding areas with the soil3

survey overlapped on top of it so you could discern4

approximately where the soil limits are.5

Q And which soil types, if you could hold it up6

to the Court so the Court can see; which soil types are7

you referring to and where are they located?8

A The soil types for the eastern, roughly the9

eastern half of the site are HA2b, which is designated10

as a Hydric Soil C. And the PS, PCSAT soil type which11

predominantly covers the western portion of the site.12

And that's known as a Hydric Soil Group D.13

Q And what's the difference between Group C and14

Group D?15

A The, the predominant difference is the ability for16

water to drain into the soil itself. A type C soil is17

more permeable, and a type D soil is less permeable.18

Q So is there a --19

A That, --20

Q Go ahead.21

A The, the result of that is as less water could22

permeate into the ground, you have a higher rate of23

runoff, and is -- not using, using all of C instead of24

C and D, you're artificially lowering the amount of25


64/79


65/79


66/79


the area that it covers, youll get less runoff from1

one acre of C soil than you would from one acre -- I'm2

sorry, let me rephrase that. Youll get one -- youll3

get less runoff from an acre of C soil than you would4

from an acre of D soil, because more water will be5

allowed to percolate into the ground depending on the6

ground cover.7

Q And if, if you're doing the calculations and8

youve got two types of soil and you only use one type9

of soil, will that effect the reliability of your10

calculations?11

A Yes, it will.12

Q How will it do that?13

A You will reduce, by only using the Type C soil14

which allows for a greater permeability into the15

ground, you will reduce the amount of runoff from the16

site, and, therefore, -- excuse me. You will, in your17

routing, you will be allowed to allow more water to go18

off the site.19

Q Now, with respect to -- I'm going to show you20

what's been marked as D-182 for identification. Could21

you tell us what this is?22

A This is entitled The Urban Hydrology for Small23

Watersheds, otherwise known as TR55. And it's24

produced by the NRCS, the Natural Resources25


67/79


68/79


69/79


to a quarter inch in depth, no more. Once you exceed1

that, you get into what they call shower concentrated2

flow. And the velocity of water within shower3

concentrated flow is higher than it is within sheet4

flow.5

Q Why is the, why is the, is the velocity of6

the flow higher in shower concentrated flow than in7

sheet flow?8

A The resistance of the water to go across the9

surface when it's very thin, is greater in sheet flow10

than it is in shower concentrated flow. And, again, if11

you think about these in three segments, as all three12

segments are added up and you end up with a time, the13

time concentration, the time it takes the water from14

its farthest reaches of the drainage area to the point15

of discharge, that relates to how much water would come16

off of that drainage area.17

There are additional calculations that have18

to be done, but that's that portion of it. And when19

you calculate that, that has an impact on the amount of20

water, the rate of water, the rate of discharge.21

Q So what's the difference between using a22

sheet flow of 100 -- of 200 feet versus 150 feet?23

A You are allowing a sheet flow, which means a24

longer time of concentration, a longer period of time.25


70/79


And therefore, the rate of discharge, the peak rate of1

discharge will be lower, to some degree.2

Q And you mentioned that there are DEP3

regulations that require this?4

A Yes. There is a, in the DEP regulations, they5

require that you use 150 feet versus 200 feet. I6

believe I heard testimony earlier that they're allowed7

to do 200 feet for a parking area. I could not find8

that regulation. I found that the DEP, the TR55 says9

150 feet. Again, that goes to the amount of discharge10

within a given drainage area, both in the11

predevelopment and the post development condition.12

Q And that ultimately affects the size of any13

detention facilities that have to be constructed.14

A Right. What, what this all boils down to, is when15

you take all of these factors, the time of16

concentration, the coefficient of friction, when you17

calculate all these values, you end up with for any18

given storm in the predevelopment condition, a runoff19

rate, a flow -- discharge flow to a piping system in a20

drainage area.21

We are trying to show that, as it was said22

earlier by Mr. Morrisden (phonetic), that you're not23

going to exceed from the predevelopment in the post24

development. And the way to achieve that is to put25


71/79


72/79


guessed at it, but the odds are, we would probably come1

up with a different one. And that doesnt make sense.2

Q Now, going down your list, you indicate there3

is no backup data for the existing outlet structures4

for the watershed entitled, Existing Drainage Area5

One. Could you tell us what kind of backup data there6

should have been, and how that affects the ability to7

design this system, the storm water detention system?8

A Sure. The, the existing, when you're analyzing9

the existing discharge system from a site, be it a10

piping system, a surface flow; you need to know what11

the parameters are.12

In this case, the pipes were given as 1213

inch, and I believe it was, a four inch orifice and14

three broad-crested weirs. We could not confirm15

during -- at the time of this, reviewing of this letter16

if, where the four-inch pipe came out, and also where17

the broad-crested weirs were listed. They were listed18

at three different elevations. I think it was 80.1319

for 30 feet, 80.09 for 25 feet (God bless you.), and20

80.07 for 25 feet, for a total of, I believe, 80 feet21

in length.22

It wasnt clear as to where they were.23

Again, this all goes back to, you determine what your24

peak discharge under the existing condition is for a25


73/79


given storm, and then you compare that same storm event1

under the post development conditions. The delta, or2

the discharge, the difference in discharge between3

those two routings is what needs to be detained in4

storm water system.5

Q Now, with respect to the last point that you6

make there, the hydraulic calculations for the routing7

of the parking lot, the assumption was that the 12 inch8

valves were fully open.9

A Correct.10

Q Youve reviewed this parking lot, youve11

looked at the data, youve looked at the surveys; do12

you have a conclusion as to whether or not this parking13

lot was designed to retain or serve as a storm14

detention facility, storm water retention facility?15

A I believe it was designed to function as some type16

of detention facility, primarily based upon the17

observance of the valves that were at the downstream18

and -- or are at the downstream end of the existing19

pipes at the south end of the parking lot at 21520

Birchwood.21

Q And, what about those valves? What's the22

significance of them in terms of --23

A Well, --24

Q -- functioning as a storm water detention25


74/79


facility?1

A Well, let me, let me preface that by saying,2

working for developers, developers dont want to spend3

money. They do that barebones minimum. That applies4

now. It also applied back in 1973 when they built this5

facility or thereabouts.6

They would not have installed valves. They7

didn't have to. They didn't do it out of the8

generosity of their hearts. They didn't have to. They9

would have just put a 12 inch pipe in, and that could10

have acted, when they did the routing, as an orifice,11

or orifices.12

Therefore, having the valves installed, the13

purpose was to reduce the opening in the valves to some14

degree, I do not know what that degree is. I won't15

speculate on that; in order to provide or retain the16

existing water in the parking lot from discharging at a17

higher rate of, at a higher rate.18

Whether you close the valve from 12 inches,19

to nine inches to eight inches, to six inches; I --20

honestly I dont speculate. And I believe that's why21

Mr. Morrisden was saying the only way to determine or22

approximate how much those valves need to be, were23

closed, were to go back to compare what you have on the24

site today and then go back to the predevelopment25


75/79


condition and do a similar analysis, what I just1

described and say, okay, when it was a horse farm, it2

had 30 gallons, or 30 cubic feet per second, and now it3

has 40. Okay, well now we have to detain 10 cubic4

feet.5

So they close the valve down through modeling6

of the program -- through the TR55 modeling, and say,7

okay, well close the valve down from 12 inches to8

eight inches, and that will slow the discharge rate, so9

we detain an additional ten cubic feet per second10

within the parking area. And, therefore,11

predevelopment flows -- or post development flows will12

then equal predevelopment flows.13

Q Based on the foregoing and based on your14

analysis of the documentation submitted both in the15

August 19 th report and the September 2 nd16

supplementation, do you know, do you have an opinion as17

to whether or not the storm drainage facility proposed18

here by the plaintiffs would obtain a permit from the19

DEP?20

A Solely based upon the information provided to me,21

I would say that they would definitely not obtain a22

permit from the DEP --23

Q And why not?24

A -- for storm water management. One of the most25


76/79


significant ones is that, given the elevation of the1

swale that the proposed system would drain into, I2

believe the swale is somewhere around 75.1. The3

proposed discharge pipe from the underground storage4

system was at 75.4. They were providing a height of5

storage in a structure of 30 inches, 2 feet. We also6

know that the, the flood hazard elevation line is at7

78.6 uphill, on the up -- on the northern end of the8

site, and 78.4 on the downhill side.9

Somewhere below that is other storm events.10

The limits of where those flood waters would reach11

during those storm events, I'm going to pick on, I'm12

going to pick on, let's say the ten year storm event,13

which would probably occur somewhere, if we look at, I14

don't know what that, what's that exhibit again?15

Q P-39a.16

A If we look at P-39a. This is the --17

Q You're pointing -- you're using your --18

A I'm sorry. I'm pointing my laser pointer to point19

to P-39a. And showing the easterly floodway line20

traversing the site east of Casino Brook between the21

floodway line and the flood hazard line, we know that22

the 100 year flood line exists in there. It would not23

be unreasonable to say that somewhere in the limits of24

the 10 year storm event will also occur.25


77/79


If, when you're doing a storm water design1

and your discharging within the floodway, one of the2

requirements is that you design a storm water3

management system to be able to discharge against a4

head. A lot of times that head in this case may be the5

ten year design storm.6

Q When you say a head, is that like a7

tailwater?8

A A tailwater design, correct. So, instead of the9

pipe discharge freely at all times and not have any10

resistance, there would be water at the face of the11

pipe where your, where your proposed pipe is12

discharging to. So, instead of just flowing out into13

no mans land, it would be hitting water. That would14

re, that would result in an effect of the water, the15

proposed discharge of the water backing up in the16

piping system, and subsequently backing up in the17

proposed underground detention system.18

That could be equated to a loss in volume19

which would result in the underground detention system20

having to be increased in size to account for it's21

ability to need to store additional water until it,22

until this proposed discharge can hydraulically23

overcome the tailwater -- I'm looking for it; the24

tailwater effect, that's happening from a ten year25


78/79


storm. And I didn't see that in anything that I saw1

here.2

Q There's no tailwater analysis?3

A No.4

Q And if there's no tailwater analysis, is that5

something DEP would require?6

A Absolutely.7

MR. WOODWARD: No further questions, Your8

Honor.9

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to break now for10

the day, because I am actually teaching a, an11

(inaudible) course tonight which I have to get to.12

And, we're not going to finish with this witness today13

anyway, okay?14

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, I don't have a15

lot of cross-examination, but I'm happy to postpone it16

until first thing tomorrow.17

THE COURT: And we have to come back anyway,18

because Ms. McKenzie might have some questions. And19

then she has to give her total report. So, I'm going20

to break now for the day and well see you tomorrow21

morning.22

(Whereas proceedings of 9/28/10 were concluded)23

* * * * *24


79/79

79

1

2

CERTIFICATION3

4

I, Darcel D. Hart, the assigned transcriber, do5

hereby certify that the foregoing transcript of6

proceedings in the matter of LEHIGH ACQUISITION, ET AL,7

VS. TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, heard in the Union County8

Superior Court, Law Division, Civil Part on9

September 28, 2010, Tape Number 237-10, Index #1430 to10

Index #7428, and Tape Number 238-10, Index #0001 to11

Index #3302, is prepared in full compliance with the12

current Transcript Format for Judicial Proceedings and13

is a true and accurate non-compressed transcript of the14

proceedings as recorded.15

AUTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES16

17

BY: Darcel D. Hart A.O.C. #53818

Darcel D. Hart19

20

transcript 9.28.10 creelman twp outside engineer

Documents