SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY DOCKET NUMBER: UNN-L-0140-08

A.D. NO.:___________________ LEHIGH ACQUISITION, ET AL: : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, : : Defendant. : Place:

TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL Union County Courthouse Two Broad Street Elizabeth, New Jersey 07207 September 28, 2010 P.M. Session

Date: 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) Attorney for the Defendant

DARCEL D. HART

UTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

P.O. Box 1582 Laurel Springs, New Jersey (856) 784-4276

APPEARANCES (Continued) VINCENZO M. MOGAVERO, ESQ. (Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello) Attorney for the Defendant

DARCEL D. HART

UTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

P.O. Box 1582 Laurel Springs, New Jersey (856) 784-4276

I N D E X September 28, 2010 WITNESSES Mr. Creelman EXHIBITS D-25c D-25d D-25m D-25n D-43 D-94 D-113 D-138 D-157 D-159 D-162 D-178 D-179 D-181 D-182 D-184 P-37 P-38 P-39 P_39a P-80 P-82 P-83 P-87 Photographs Photographs Photographs Photographs Site investigation report 10/14/09 Creelman Report Report prepared in response to L2A report Creelman Resume Alpha Survey prepared by Control Point Letter from PS&S, Mr. Creelman dated July 16, 2010 August 3 plan Original development plans for the site dated September 22, 2008 Letter dated August 23, 2010 Mr. Creelmans report The Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Letter dated 9/2/10 with supplemental information Copy of the report from Mr. Dipple 2/4/2010 letter from Mr. Dipple to Mr. Eisdorfer Concept Plan report dated 3/31/2010 Board attached to the report Letter with flood storage volume calculations Attachment to letter Attachment to letter August 19 report from Mr. Dipple Direct 3 Ident. Evid. 30 30 30 30 21 9 27 6 10 49 47 14 54 61 66 60 27 36 37 41 56 57 57 59 8 Cross Redirect Recross

Creelman - Direct 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 A A T H O M A S (The afternoon session starts at 1:40 p.m.) MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, Id like to call

my next witness who Mr. Thomas Mr. Creelman. (Pause) C R E E L M A N, DEFENSE WITNESS, SWORN State your name for the record. Tom Creelman.

THE CLERK:

THE WITNESS: THE CLERK:

Spell your last name. C-R-E-E-L-M-A-N.

THE WITNESS: THE CLERK:

Be seated. Okay. Thank you.

THE WITNESS:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (VOIR DIRE) BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Mr. Creelman, by whom are you employed?

Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor, PS&S. Q And what is Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor?

We are a consulting engineering firm. Q And could you give us the benefit of your

background and qualifications? A Yes. I've been with the firm for approximately 21 My

years.

I'm a Senior Associate with the firm.

duties have included project management and design. During that course of time period, I received my license for, as a Professional Engineer in the State of New Jersey in 2002. My duties also include, as a Project Manager,

Creelman - Direct 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 A A we work in design teams in a Civil Group in our Civil Department. So I work with other peoples in my --

other people in my team to design projects from conception to construction. Q And, where did you get your college degree?

I got my degree from the New Jersey Institute of

Technology. Q And you're a licensed Professional Engineer?

Yes, I am. Q And, besides your current duties and

responsibilities, what other prior employment have you had in the engineering field? A When I first graduated from college, I was

employed by the engineering firm of Worchester (phonetic) Partnership. Q And what was your, what were your duties and

responsibilities there? A I was a Staff Engineer, design of storm water

systems, grading of sites, sanitary sewer system design, things of that nature. Q And is your area of practice Civil

Engineering? A Yes. Q focus on? And Do you have any particular areas that you

Creelman - Direct 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 A Probably in the past ten years, I have more

focused on urban redevelopment, brownfield (phonetic) redevelopments in cities and so forth, where you take a what was formally a, industrial, more of an industrial site, and convert it into a residential and/or commercial use. Q do you-MR. WOODWARD: BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Do you do analyses with respect to storm Strike that. And, as part of that, what sort of analysis

water management? A Yeah, we, we follow a, as of 2004, we now follow

the new Storm Water Two regulations as adopted by the DEP. Q And, do you also practice in areas of

determining flood hazards and flood hazard regulations? A Yes, we do. Q I'm going to show you what's been marked

D-138 for identification, and ask you if you can identify this document. resume of sorts. A PS&S. Q And where is PS&S located? Yeah. This is my resume from my current firm, It's -- looks like it's a

Creelman - Direct 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 A of? A Yes, it is. Q Now, as part of your practice as a A Our main office, our headquarters is in Warren

Township, New Jersey in Somerset County. Q And is, is that the office that you work out

Professional Engineer, have you ever been qualified to testify, either before Planning Boards, Boards of Adjustment or in court? A Yes, I have, Planning Boards. Q And on how many occasions have you testified

before Planning Boards? A Approximately 40. Q About 40 times?

Approximately 40 times, yes. Q And your testimony is in, is as a Is that correct?

Professional Engineer. A Yes. MR. WOODWARD:

Your Honor, Id like to offer

Mr. Creelman as a engineering expert in the field of Civil Engineering at this time. MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: No objection, Your Honor.

He will be so qualified. Your Honor, Id also like to

MR. WOODWARD:

offer into evidence his resume which is D-138.

Creelman - Direct 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 MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: No objection.

D-138 in evidence. (Pause)

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Now, in connection with this litigation

before the Court, have you been retained by the Township of Cranford? A Yes, I have. Q And could you tell us what the nature and

scope of your assignment for Cranford has been? A We were requested to review the site and documents

provided to us for a site constraints analysis to determine what physical constraints on the site would inhibit development of the site? Q And you say physical constraints, does that

include environmental constraints as well? A Environment -- wetlands, boundaries, flood hazard

issues, riparian rights issues, endangered species issues; things of that nature. Q And during the course of your retention by

the Township, have you prepared any reports? A Yes, I have. Q I'm going to show you what's first been It's a document from you addressed to

marked as D-94.

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

Creelman - Direct 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 us what that is. A This is the first report that I prepared for the I received and

project after receiving documents.

reviewed several documents that I received from the Township through your office regarding elements of the site, a conceptual site plan prepared by the plaintiff dated September 22, 2008; a second conceptual site plan dated April 29, 2008; an aerial map of the site. Do

you want me to list everything I went through that's in the report? Q Yeah, if you would go through it. I know

it's fairly lengthy, but I think for the record, it's appropriate. A Okay. A water mane map, drawing number five, no

date; center city sewer capacity study prepared in January 2009 by L2A; FEMA Study Map for the Township of Cranford dated September 20,2006; a letter of interpretation for a line verification for the property from the DEP dated August 20, 2009; the Township of Cranford applicable tax map last revised June 28, 1993; a copy of the Cranford Township Zoning Map; plaintiff's brief in support of the motion for the partial summary judgment dated January 30, 2009; the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan dated March 1, 2001; a Policy Map of the New Jersey Development and

Creelman - Direct 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 Redevelopment Plan dated March 1, 2001; a Site

10

Assessment Report dated May 21, 2008 referred by L2A; a plan entitled Wetland Survey Plan prepared by Control Point, last revised in July 29, 2009; an Alpha Survey dated June 11, 2008, last revised September 11, 2008, as prepared by -- again prepared by Control Point. existing Center City Sewer Map dated January 2009 prepared by L2A; a memorandum prepared by the Township of Cranford Engineer dated October 19, 2008; a Wetlands Delineation Report dated November 2008 and prepared by the Princeton Hydro (phonetic) for the Township of Cranford. Q Now with respect to your assignment preparing An

the analysis, what was your starting point? A We began looking at the, these documents to get an

understanding of where the site was located in the Township, what zone it was located in, what some of the physical features of the site were, the size of the site, where the wetlands were located on the site, what structures were located on the site. The site

contained approximately 15 acres of property, two buildings and two parking lots. Q I'm showing you whats been previously marked Have you seen this before?

as D-157 in this case. A Is that the --

Creelman - Direct 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 BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Now, did you do an environmental evaluation A A A A Q Sure. Q -- a look at it, you can. If you want to get up and take --

11

Yes, I've seen this document. Q And that is what?

It's the Alpha Survey prepared by Control Point.

It's a boundary survey thats been certified to a certain individual. It shows existing structures,

buildings, parking lots, and topography on the site and immediately surrounding the site. Q Does it also show a delineated wetlands line?

Yes, it does show a delineated wetlands line

covering approximately six acres in the southwest portion of the site in this area here. THE COURT: What exhibit is that? What

exhibit is that Mr. -MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: D-157, Your Honor.

Thank you. (Pause)

of the site? A We reviewed the site from a standpoint of

wetlands, wetlands buffers, riparian buffers, endangered species, plants, and animals. We concluded

Creelman - Direct 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 A A Honor. BY MR. WOODWARD: Q

12

that there were no threatened or endangered species on the site based upon data sets that we reviewed from the DEP that are available through the DEP. We also

indicated that based upon the delineation that was provided on the map and the letter of interpretation provided by the DEP, that the wetlands that had been delineated on the site were appropriate. Q With respect to the other portions of the

site, did you, in terms of environmental, I think you said -- did you evaluate -MR. WOODWARD: Withdraw, withdrawing, Your

Did you evaluate any storm water or flooding

that occurred or may occur on the site? A We reviewed, we visited the site in early October. Q 2009. Q Okay. What year?

And we reviewed some, the storm inlets, the The site is bounded to

overall topography of the site.

the west by a brook known as Casino Brook, otherwise identified as, I believe it's -Q you wish. You can refer to your report, by the way, if

Creelman - Direct 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 A A -- 10-24. Q And did you make any determinations as to

13

whether there were, there was flooding on this property? A Based upon a review the FEMA maps and the

delineation provided on the FEMA maps, it was our belief that there was a delineation of floodway and flood hazard lines to the site. Q You say there was from the FEMA maps?

Not on the FEMA maps, but the way they were

configured, the adjacent towns, Kenilawn (sic) Kenilworth, sorry. Kenilworth showed a 100 year and

500 year flood line ending at the municipal boundary line. We subsequently also called the DEP and asked for an interpretation of the map, and we were told that the, the, Kenilworth did request that FEMA map Casino Brook in their township, but Cranford did not. And,

therefore, a delineation of the floodway on Casino Brook within the Township of Cranford did not exist. It was not mapped on the FEMA plans. Q So, did you form an opinion as to whether or

not a flood hazard area study was required in connection with the proposed development on the site? A Based upon looking at the FEMA maps in

Creelman - Direct 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

14

Kenilworth -- I'm sorry, Kenilawn (sic) -- and for the mapping that was don for the Rahway River, we felt there was a necessity to have it done, that a floodway did exist, a flood hazard area would exist on the site. Q In connection with -- and I just referred to

the proposed development on the site; I'm going to show you what's been marked as D-178 in evidence. And

actually, I direct your attention to the exhibits. Take a moment to look at those. those before? A Have you ever seen

They're dated September 22, 2008.

Yes, I have. Q Okay. And was that the original development

plan for this site proposed by the plaintiffs that you reviewed? A Yes, it is. Q Now, could you tell us exactly how the As a

buildings were laid out on that particular site?

matter of fact, I can also show you -- well, how were the parking lots laid out on that, on that map? A There were three, three buildings total. They

were A, B, C.

Building A is a residential building. And Building C

Building B is a residential building.

is a parking garage wrapped on three sides by Building B. A large portion of the, both buildings fronts on -And Building A takes

to the north on Birchwood Avenue.

Creelman - Direct 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 A up at least, I want to say, a third, if not more, of the frontage along Birchwood Avenue, as does Building B. Q And -- now, did you form a professional

15

opinion as to whether a flood hazard area study in connection with a proposed development was required? A Yes, I did. Q And why was that?

Based upon the review of the documents from FEMA

and our conversation and our call to FEMA, and the limits of what was provided upstream and downstream of the site, it was my professional opinion that a flood hazard area did exist for the site, even though one was not mapped at that point in time. Q Now, moving on in your report to the

wetlands, did you -- you evaluated the wetlands survey, the wetlands delineation? A Yes, we did. Q And with respect to that, did you agree with

all that was described in there? MR. WOODWARD: BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Did you find any areas that may have required Strike that.

riparian buffer? A We felt that an area to the south of the parking

Creelman - Direct 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

16

lot on Lot 215 may be as it was an -- appeared to be a natural generalized water course may have a riparian buffer on it. Q And why did you feel that it needed a, may

have needed a riparian buffer. A Under the regu, under the regulations, if the, if

a natural channelized water course for the drainage area of 50 acres or more, it is required by regulation to have a buffer, a minimum buffer of 50 feet. Q Now, in reviewing the plan, did you review

the parking analysis or the parking that was indicated on that plan, the September 22, 2008 plan? A Yes, we did. Q from that? A That the -- excuse me. That the general at grade Our And what conclusions, if any, did you draw

parking, the size of the parking was adequate.

main concern was the relationship of the parking, the encroachment of the parking into the wetlands buffer. Q And, what conclusion in terms of, what was

the issue there that there if was a problem? A It's been our experience that the DEP normally

doesnt like encroachments into the wetlands buffer parallel to it. They prefer you to go perpendicular to

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

Creelman - Direct 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 Q Now, did you offer any comment on the storm

17

water management in your report? A Yes, we did. Q And what observations -- first of all, what

did you review, and what observations did you make, and what conclusions did you draw? A We reviewed the Alpha Survey. We met with the During

Township Engineer.

We also visited the site.

my visit at the site, in reviewing the brook and the adjacent properties to the south side of 215 Birchwood, south of the parking lot, there is a channel. And

adjacent to that channel where all the storm water for that parking lot drains to, there are existing structures that the parking lot pipes drain into. Leaving those structures, there is a different composition of pipe. And on top of those, above those

grounds is indicated valves, some type of valve that can be closed. Q Could you go up to D-157 and point out to the

Court -- first of all, 215 Birchwood versus 235 Birchwood for the record? A Sure. I'm pointing at the Alpha Survey. And 215

Birchwood is the site on the eastern half of the project. 235 Birchwood is the site located on the What I'm referring to is

westerly half of the project.

Creelman - Direct 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 A A A the area to the south of the parking lot at 215 Birchwood. Q correct? A Correct. Q All right. A parking lot sort of in the center of 215,

18

In general, the drainage area for this parking lot

drains to the south, southwest of the parking area into an area over here. The two pipes, the two main Those two

discharge pipes drain into two structures.

structures, the pipes enter on one side of the structure. On the opposite side of those structures, Those

there is a ductile iron pipe that discharged.

pipes eventually turn back from ductile iron pipe back, back into concrete pipes in the swale. But in the

course of traveling underground, there are indications on the surface there are valves within, contained within those ductile iron pipes. Q Now what's a ductile iron pipe?

A ductile iron pipe is just a composition of pipe.

It's made out of a type of steel thats used in development. Q And, --

Versus concrete pipe, plastic pipe, that sort of

thing.

Creelman - Direct 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 A A A A Q Okay, so what you found there on the south

19

side of the parking lot was leading out of the chamber, a ductile iron pipe, and before it got to its full outlet, it was a concrete pipe? A Correct. Q And then you said there were valves?

In, in the line with, where the pipe left

the -- leaves the chamber -Q Right.

-- and where the pipe discharges into the channel,

surface indications there is a valve shown on the ground, there is a physical valve, or the remains of a valve if you will. Q those -A Downstream of each chamber that was there, each And there was a valve in what each one of

concrete chamber, yes. Q iron pipe? A Yes. Q How do you know that? You dont put a, a metal valve on a And you said it was associated with a ductile

Experience.

concrete pipe normally. Q Why not?

In trying to make it -- to seal it is more

Creelman - Direct 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 difficult. Would you, would you have a type of

20

situation where you have ductile iron pipes connecting to a valve? There will be plates, and you can bolt

them together very easily. Q Now, did you draw any conclusion from the

storm water system or whatever you saw in that parking lot particularly into the whole site regarding storm water management? A Basically my -- I summarized that the -- in my

report that the existing valving system was utilized to provide some level of reduction or retention of the storm water leaving the site to reduce the amount of water off the site during the peak storm event. Q Did you make any recommendations in your

report about what should be done, if anything, to study further that area? A We recommended that during the post-development

analysis and design of the storm water managing system that this existing detention be taken into account during the overall design of the proposed storm water management system. Q Now, at the end of your report on page nine

in paragraph five addendum, you added something to that report. A Could you tell us what that was?

Our initial, the initial package that we

Creelman - Direct 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 received -- excuse me; when we started our analysis included a map prepared by the Lessard that was dated April 29, 2008. On a visit, I want to say in early

21

October, to the Township Engineers office, we were provided with a different plan that was dated September 22, 2008. Q looked at? A The initial package that we received, the I'm sorry. What was the first plan that you

documents to review when we first started our analysis of the project, contained a plan dated April 29, 2008. And subsequent to that, during a visit to the site, we were provided with, our visit to the Township Engineers office, we were provided with a map, it's a very similar map that was dated September 22, 2008. Q Were there any changes between -- in the plan

between April 2008 Concept Plan and the -A We noticed that the, the unit count increased, as

did the, what appeared to be the impervious surface of the building footprint also increased. Q I'm going to show you what's been previously And I'm going to ask you if D-43 is a

marked as D-43.

copy, or if youve ever seen that before? A Yes, I have. Q And that is?

Creelman - Direct 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 but it -MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: them all to find it. BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Take a look at D-43. It will be easier. Court. THE COURT: Thank you. A That is a report entitled Site Investigation,

22

Birchwood Avenue Cranford Township, Union County, New Jersey. It was prepared by L2A Design and dated

May 21, 2008. Q And I'm going to show you at the end of the And the first item on the

report an appendix.

appendix, is that, is that the conceptual, first conceptual site plan you reviewed? A That is correct, yes. Q And, -MR. WOODWARD: I, I know the Court is looking

for its documents right now. THE COURT: Yeah, let me look. Yes. It was D-43?

MR. WOODWARD:

Heres one for the

It's already up here,

-- takes a while to read through Thank you.

Could you describe the

Concept Plan that was presented first in April of 2008? A The original Concept Plan -MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, object to the

Creelman - Direct 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 A form of the question. said it was presented. MR. WOODWARD: THE WITNESS: provided April 29, 2008. MR. EISDORFER: I think I said dated. The question says, I think he

23

You said the first Concept Plan

I don't have an objection to

the question posed as dated rather than presented. MR. WOODWARD: BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Okay. Go ahead, you can respond. The April 29, 2008 plan prepared by Lessard Fair enough.

showed a one -- or two buildings, a parking garage, I'm going to call it, although it's not identified on this drawing, it will help for later when I compare it to the September plan. The parking lot is -- the parking

deck is described as Building C. Building B, which exist on the eastern half of the site is, takes up approximately, I want to say a little more than 50 percent of the frontage along Birchwood Avenue and then extends to the south; again, along the eastern side of the site respecting the, the wetlands. And then -THE COURT: Yeah, okay. MR. WOODWARD: I think so. Are we looking at the same map?

Creelman - Direct 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 THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Yes. So you -- can you just

24

Okay.

point to what you're referring to? THE WITNESS: referring to Building C. Sure. Absolutely. I'm

On the April 29, 2008 map,

Im just saying that Building C as identified in September plan, is the parking garage, here. THE COURT: Okay. And then the other, the

THE WITNESS:

building that wraps around it to the south, west and north, -THE COURT: Thats B. -- is Building B. It takes up

THE WITNESS:

approximately a little more than 50 percent of the frontage along Birchwood Avenue for the width of the property, and a loop road wraps around it providing two access points from Birchwood Avenue into the site. Also the southern portion of Building B respects the, the natural channelized water portion to the south, and the wetlands immediately to the west of it. BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Okay. Now, thank you. With respect to the

plan on -- now, there was one large building plus a parking garage, correct, on the April ---

Creelman - Direct 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 A A That is correct. Q Yes. Q if at all? A The, the -- Lessards September 22, 2008 plan -- plan?

25

On the September plan, how was that changed,

trimmed off the portions of the western two -- how should I say it; trimmed off portions of the west side of the buildings of the two, Ill call it the ears, the northern ears and put a, rerouted the driveway through that shortened portion of the building, Building B, which provided more room along Birchwood Avenue to insert a second building, Building A. And, therefore, you would now have a situation where you have the loop road wrapping around Building B as it did before the April plan, but now it's going between Building A and Building B in the September 22, 2008 plan. Q Now was it a difference in the number of

units, residential units in the plan of April 2008 versus the one in September? A Yes. The original analysis provided in the April And the

plan was 379 units for a four-story building. September plan permitted 419 units. Q

So there was an increase in the number of

Creelman - Direct 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 A A units in September? A Yes. Q In the September plan?

26

Correct, as well as the parking. Q What was the parking called out in, in the

April plan? A Parking provided for, the 379 units was 695 And in the September plan it was listed as 673

spaces.

spaces provided. Q So there are actually, actually fewer spaces.

Correct. Q Now, with the comparison of the April 29th

plan to the September plan, did you draw any conclusions as to the impact of the September 22nd, plan, whether that was an increase in impact, or decreased impact of -- over the building that was described in the April 29 plan? A The September 22, 2008 plan showed an increase in

impervious coverage above what was provided or shown on the April 29, 2008 plan. Q And, did that have any impact in terms of

what needed to be studied, analyzed, or provided for by way of storm water management at the site? A It would increase the amount of runoff. And that

would have to be taken into account in the storm water

Creelman - Direct 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 A A management design. Q And so is that a recommendation of yours

27

that it needed to be studied? A Yes. Q Now, you prepared a second report, a I'm going to

January 14, 2010, Exhibit D-113, 113.

show you a copy of that, and could you tell me if you can identify that? A Yes, I can. Q And, tell us what this is. We prepared this report

This report, excuse me.

to review additional plans that were provided in, later in the year, and in response to plan, a letter prepared by Mr. Dipple of L2A Associates -- L2A Design. Q And, what was it that you, what was it that

you did in terms of responding to Mr. Dipples report? A There was a indication that flood hazard issue We went and reviewed FEMAs flood Those

still did not exist.

study maps for the Township of Cranford again. plans -- that plan was dated September 2006 -September 20, 2006.

And a flood study map, and a FEMA

flood study map for the Borough of Kenilawn (sic) again dated September 20, 2006. Q Kenilworth? Excuse me.

I'm sorry, Kenilworth.

Creelman - Direct 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 Q I'm showing you what was P-37 in evidence. MR. WOODWARD: MR. MOGAVERO: MR. WOODWARD: BY MR. WOODWARD: Q P-37 Vince? P-37. Okay.

28

Is this a copy of the report from Mr. Dipple

that you wrote your response to? A Yes, it is. Q Now, did Mr. Dipple offer any comments

regarding whether he thought a flood hazard area study was necessary? A He felt that a flood hazard study was not

required, and a permit was not required either. Q So, did you do any studies or take any

assignment to evaluate whether or not a flood hazard area study was required? A As I said, we went, went back and reviewed the

FEMA maps again for both the Township of Cranford and the Township of Kenilworth. We also -- excuse me;

visited a website where we were able to see some pictures of some flooding issues. Based upon that, we created an estimate, a composite plan, and utilizing the elevation provided on Alpha Survey done by Control Point, and certain points showing those photographs, did an approximation of the

Creelman - Direct 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 A A D-113? THE COURT: Yes. Okay.

29

elevation at which the flood waters were shown in those photographs and plotted that on a plan. Q report. MR. WOODWARD: The Court has a copy of that Now, Id like you to take a look at your

MR. WOODWARD: BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Yes. Q

Exhibit H, take a look at Exhibit H.

Now, what is Exhibit H?

Exhibit H is an approximation that we prepared We

utilizing Control Point Alpha Survey as a base map. superimposed on top of that the September 22, 2008 Concept Plan as prepared by Lessard. We then went

through and highlighted the area between the bottom of the Casino Brook. Ill call it elevation 74 And then we

approximately up to elevation 76 in blue.

went up between elevation 76 and elevation 77, and we highlighted that -- those areas in purple on that map. Q And, and what was the basis of using

elevation 76 and 77? A In reviewing the photographs that we observed on

the taxpayer, I think it was entitled on the Cranford

Creelman - Direct 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 A A A Q

30

Town -- Cranford Taxpayers website, utilizing several of those photographs, we went and compared those specific photographs in, in that website to key points within the Alpha Survey which had elevations on it. And we were able to determine certain elevations, or approximate them, I should say. Q Now, the photographs are, are they exhibits

C, D, E, and F, and G? A Yes. (Pause) I'm showing you what's -- and these are So, Id like to, to -- they're

perhaps better copies.

more presentable than, than the photocopies that you have. D-25n. I'm showing exhibits D-25c, D-25d, D-25m, and Are those the photographs that you used to

assist you in trying to calculate the height of that particular flow? (Pause) Some of them are, yes. Q Okay. Which ones did you use? And also, there's

I used D-25n, D-25d, D-25c.

another photograph that doesnt appear to be in the pile here that I used. Q And that was --

It would be Exhibit C.

Creelman - Direct 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 A A Q -- Exhibit C, if youd show the Court --

31

Certainly. Q -- is a photograph of Birchwood. THE COURT: Exhibit D-113, right? Yes, it is. Yes.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Okay.

Now, could you describe for us how you

went about doing this evaluation based on the photographs and the, Alpha Survey, which is D-157. A Sure. Q I can go down to the map here real quick. Sure. In

On the Alpha Survey, there are structures.

particular, I'm going to point to the west side of the entrance to the property at 235 Birchwood Avenue. If

you look at Exhibit C, that picture was taken standing on the north side of Birchwood Avenue, excuse me; just west of the actual entrance to the property. If you look at the photograph, youll see two cars within the street that are, have water up to the rims. In the background of that, I don't think the

photocopy is clear enough; youll see a structure that is a signage for the property. It identifies what this

property is, the street number, the, the, who is there and all that kind of stuff. picture. You can see that in the

Creelman - Direct 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 A And the significance about that is around that is a verified wall. And on the Alpha Survey,

32

there is elevations provided on the top and the bottom of the wall. And the top of the wall is provided at

approximately, I would say it almost elevates to 76. So utilizing that and the fact that water generally is level, that's the basis I used for my first elevation out there -Q All right.

-- on the photograph. Q Fine. And then what else did you do? Take

us through it. A Utilizing that elevation, I -- from the Exhibit H,

I found the contour, 76 and 77 on the Alpha Survey that existed between the westerly property line of the site, and where the contour traversed, north to the south to the site, and I highlighted from that contour all the way over to the property line. seeing in blue. Again, this is just an approximate -- it was just an approximation to show about where the flooding that was shown in the photographs would show up on the plan itself, and then be able to compare that to the proposed footprint of the buildings. 77 was used, just That's the area you're

again, this is just an approximation, so I added 77 to

Creelman - Direct 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 A A the elevation as well. Q That's it.

33

And did that --

There was no hydraulic analysis involved in that

study. Q Did that support in any way your

recommendation that a flood hazard area study be performed? A It did because, the, the rainfall event that

occurred I believe on that date which was April 15, 2007 was around, I think, eight, eight or nine inches. And, given that elevation and the -- what was shown in the photographs, and the information provided on the FEMA maps, upstream of the site, it was my opinion that clearly a flood study would be required. And if an analysis was done, a floodway and a flood hazard line would certainly be showing, could be generated for the site, would be generated for the site. Q Now, with respect to this, this site, was

this a site that, in your opinion, flooded frequently -- or flooded? A Yes. Q And was that a severe flood that you saw?

I would say it was significant.

Creelman - Direct 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 to? MR. WOODWARD: BY MR. WOODWARD: A I didn't change my opinion. I still felt that Q

34

Now, with respect to storm water management,

in your report, you also dealt with that particular issue. Could you tell us what your, whether there was

any change in your position as earlier expressed or modification of your position? THE COURT: Please describe that.

Which report are you referring

I'm sorry, Your Honor, D-113.

when a storm water management system was designed for the project, it would have to take into account the existing shower detention in the parking lot shown on 215 Birchwood, and also that it needed to be taken into account once the flood hazard parameters were established. It would have to take that into account

as well, that storm water analysis. Q And did you have any -- make any

determination as to whether the conceptual site plan of September 22, 2008 provided sufficient detail to determine whether or not the fresh water wetlands regulations would be satisfied? A Could you ask that question again? Q Sure. Directing your attention to page four

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

Creelman - Direct 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 A Q A

35

freshwater wetlands general permits and transition area waivers. Were you able to determine from the

information provided whether or not there was adequate information to determine whether or not those permits would be granted? A No. Q No, there was not enough information. There was not enough information?

No, there was not. (Pause) Now, did there come a point in time when -When Mr. Dipple in his

let me just rephrase that.

October report -- take a look at this third paragraph down from the top of the page, and that first item, which is P-38. Your opinion was -Strike that.

MR. WOODWARD: BY MR. WOODWARD: Q

Mr. Dipple felt that method three could be

used for determining the flood hazard area, correct? A Yes, in that paragraph of his October 29th, report

2000 -Q And what's, what's method three?

Method three allows you to look at flood insurance

rate maps for areas that have been delineated by FEMA of flood waters for the -- within the 100 year and outside the 100 year, within the 500 year, and outside

Creelman - Direct 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 P-38. A A the 500 year flood plain.

36

If the map is available and

it's delineated, then method three permits you to use that as, to verify whether you do or do not have a flooding situation on your site. Q And did you differ from Mr. Dipple on that,

whether method three could be used on this site? A I did. Q And what was your opinion?

I felt that based upon the information I had

reviewed, both the FEMA maps, the site, the photographs, the -- and my conversation that we had with the DEP regarding the interpretation of the FEMA map that a flood study was warranted and that either method five or method six; method five being an estimation method, and method six being a complete backwater analysis, would be required to determine where the floodway line and the flood hazard line would be determined. Q Did Mr. Dipple ultimately agree with you?

Several months later, yes. Q I'm going to show you what's been marked as It's a letter dated February 4, 2010. Is that

from Mr. Dipple -A Yes. Q -- to Mr. Eisdorfer?

Creelman - Direct 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 A P-39. A Yes, it is. Q

37

And does that letter include his conclusions

regarding whether or not method six should be used? A Yes, it does. He acknowledges that a, that a

study would be required, and that method three was not appropriate, and that a, a flood hazard analysis, a hydraulic analysis would be required. Q Now, did there come a time when you became

aware that a flood hazard study actually had been done? A Yes. (Pause - side discussion) BY MR. WOODWARD: Q I'm going to show you what's been marked as It's a report dated March 31, 2010. Have you

ever seen that before? A Yes, I have. Q And, what is that?

This is a report by L2A by Mr. Dipple explaining

that they went through and they prepared a backwater analysis -- I'm sorry, a flood plain analysis for the site using methodology number six, for -- to determine the flood hazard area, line as it wraps through the project. Q And does it -- is there anything else that's

included with that report?

Creelman - Direct 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 Q All right. A A A

38

It provides elevation upstream at the northern end

of the site of 78.6 for the elevation of the flood hazard elevation as it traverses through the site, an elevation of 78.4 at the downstream end. It also

provides for a -- can you give me one minute? Q Certainly. Take your time. (Pause) It also provides a, a map entitled FEO-01 dated I believe the basis of the map was the And on that

March 31, 2010.

Alpha Survey prepared by Control Point.

map has been plotted the, the floodway lines and the flood hazard -- limits of the flood hazard area limit lines as it traverses through the site. Q Sure. May I see that, please? But I dont see the other one. MR. WOODWARD: Excuse me, Your Honor. (Pause) Now when you looked at that, were

you able to determine whether there was a flood hazard area on the site? A Based upon the analysis performed L2A, yes, I was

able to determine there is a -Q And, and can you show the Court where the

floodway line is and the flood hazard area line is? A On this one?

Creelman - Direct 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 A Q Sure. Hold it up, yeah. Show it to the Court.

39

The, the floodway line is a solid line

traversing the site from north to south, about a third of the way in from the westerly property line. The

other side of the floodway line is indicated on the west side of Casino Brook which is just on the property line adjacent to the adjacent property. The flood -- excuse me, the flood hazard area line, the easterly flood hazard area line is shown as a dash line approximately one-third off the east, easterly property line of the site. And the adjacent flood hazard area line to the westerly side of the stream is very close to the floodway line. Again, all, all of these refers to the

north and south. THE COURT: Does it mean that everything in

between is the floodway? THE WITNESS: Correct. The, the floodway

goes to this, from this solid line here on the west side of the brook -THE COURT: To here. -- to this line here on the

THE WITNESS: east side of the brook. THE COURT: THE WITNESS:

(inaudible). Correct, that is the floodway

Creelman - Direct 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 apologize. (Recess) MR. WOODWARD: have mislaid a -THE COURT: Well why dont we take a ten Well move on. BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Now, with respect to -(Pause) Sorry, Your Honor. MR. WOODWARD: looking for something. (Pause) zone, yes. And then stepping out from that, the next

40

two dash lines -- this dash line here and this dash line would be the flood hazard. And this area between

this solid line, floodway line, this dash line is known as floodway. THE COURT: Outside of the -It could be beyond this

THE WITNESS:

line -- no, no, no -- between these two lines, between the floodway line and the flood hazard line -- beyond the flood hazard line, nothings clear. (phonetic) (Pause) Excuse me, Your Honor, we're

We seem to

minute break and you can find it. MR. WOODWARD: Thank you, Your Honor. I

Creelman - Direct 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 MR. WOODWARD: BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Now, I'm showing you what was marked, Mr. Thank you, Your Honor.

41

Creelman, as P-39a.

Does this show the delineation of

the floodway in the flood hazard areas? A Yes. Q All right. And I know this has got a date of

July 19th, but I think you have, I gave you a copy of the report that has that there. it. It was -- I know I had

But in any event, could you point us at -- point

to us the flood hazard area in the floodway. A Sure. Pointing with the map, it looks -- the And

easterly flood hazard area line is this dash line. it traverses from the south side of the site to the north side of the site. The flood hazard -- the

floodway line on the easterly side of Casino Brook is this solid red line; again, as it traverses from the south side of the site to the north side of the site. The matching lines for this on the west side of the creek are very close to the creek itself, You can see

the red solid line, again, paralleling the creek fringe north to south. And that's the floodway line. And

then immediately behind that is the flood hazard line, the heavy dash red line. Q Now, you have a copy, I think of, of P-39,

Creelman - Direct 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 THE COURT: A A A A A the March 31, 2010 letter from Mr. Dipple. revised Concept Plan submitted? A Yes, there was. Q And, could you briefly tell us what the

42 Was there a

revisions were to the last plan which was September 22, 2009 -- or 2008? A Youd like just a brief explanation of the

comparison -Q Yes.

-- between the September 22nd -Q Right.

-- and the -- okay. Q Right.

Do I still have a copy of the plan showing that? Q Okay. Q The exhibits D-178. Here you go. It's D-178.

Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. So we're talking about

D-43 and D-178, correct? MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: P-39, Your Honor.

P-39? P-39, Your Honor, yes. (Pause) Okay. P-39a, right?

MR. WOODWARD:

Creelman - Direct 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 attached? Honor. THE COURT: Okay. -- is the board that was binder. MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: Right. MR. WOODWARD: Honor, on the board. THE COURT: separate P-39? MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: This is P-39a. The report is P-39. I have it as P-39a. Is there a P-39. That's P-39a, Your

43

Okay.

MR. WOODWARD:

P-39.

And there are actually

two other pages that go with P-39 that are not there. MR. EISDORFER: separate exhibits? MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: Are they? Yes. So that's actually P-8 They are, they are actually

So what I'm looking at was in my

So I just want to be clear that

I'm looking at the same thing, -MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT: the testimony. Yeah.

-- that we're talking about in

So P-39a, -Is this board here, Your

MR. WOODWARD:

P-39 is the report, -Correct.

MR. WOODWARD:

Creelman - Direct 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 THE COURT: -- the Concept Plan. And then there are two other

44

MR. WOODWARD: exhibits, -THE COURT:

Which I don't have. -- that Mr. Eisdorfer says

MR. WOODWARD:

have separate exhibit numbers. MR. EISDORFER: exhibit numbers. Yeah. They have separate

I believe hes referring to P-8,

which is the March 31st. THE COURT: Let me check. Yes. P-8?

MR. EISDORFER:

And that together with

that is P-9, which is seven sections. THE COURT: Let me just get that. -- of P-8. And they may have D numbers

MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER: too, but I'm not sure. THE COURT:

Okay.

So P-8 and P-9? And, actually, the

MR. EISDORFER:

Yes.

defendant marked those as D-150 and D-151. THE COURT: So P-8 is D-150? Yes.

MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT:

And P-9 is D-151. That's correct.

MR. EISDORFER: THE COURT:

Thank you. (Pause)

Creelman - Direct 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 MR. WOODWARD: All right. Your Honor, just

45

to clarify, what we're going to do here from the defense perspective, -THE COURT: Thank you. -- there are three documents

MR. WOODWARD:

which we have marked as D-149 which is the floodway exhibit, -THE COURT: Oh, wait a minute. -- which is also the colored That's that

MR. WOODWARD: version of P-39a. page. THE COURT:

If you take -- yeah.

Okay.

So D-149 equals P-39a?

MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT:

Correct.

Okay. Then D-150 is the revised

MR. WOODWARD: Concept Plan -THE COURT:

That's here.

Yes.

MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT:

-- dated March 31, 2010.

P -- it's P-9, right? P -- ...

MR. WOODWARD:

(Tape #1 ends; Tape #2 begins) THE COURT: Well, it's a total of 705 -- from Let's put

that, according to this witness' testimony. it that way. Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt. No.

MR. WOODWARD:

That's all right, Your

Creelman - Direct 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 A A A Honor. Thank you.

46

BY MR. WOODWARD: Q Now, you said Building A in the March 31 plan And what was the purpose of moving that

was revised.

and revising it? A Building A used to be a T with the top of the T

parallel to Birchwood Avenue as a result of the delineation and plotting of the floodway line, as was done by L2A. The old configuration of Building A on

the September 2008 plan would have been, I want to say more than, I'm estimating more than three quarters of the way within the floodway, which is not allowed under the DEP regulations. So Building A was reconfigured to

a, a reversed L with its long side perpendicular to Birchwood Avenue to respect the floodway line. Q Now, did that plan that you're looking at

right now from March 31, 2010 show the flood, the limit of the flood hazard area? A No, it does not. Q So, --

It only shows the floodway line. Q Is that a significant omission?

In, in my opinion, yes. Q Why?

You need to know, not only where the floodway line

Creelman - Direct 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 is, but you need to know where the flood hazard line is. Because under the DEP regulations, the Flood

47

Hazard Area Control Act rules, there are certain things that can and cannot be done and are allowed within, between the floodway line and the flood hazard line. Q Now, did you do anything to be able to

determine whether or not there was a, or, or what the -- where the -- let's go on. Did you do anything

based on the documents that you had received and reviewed to prepare or determine where the flood hazard, the limit of the flood hazard line? A Yes, we did. Q We --

And, and I'm going to, I'm going to put up

here what's been marked as D-162 for identification, and ask if you can identify this? show it to you at this point. A Thank you. Q Yes, this is the plan. I'm going to put this up In fact, Ill just

And, and -- okay.

here, if you want to come down and tell the Court what you actually did with this drawing. A Certainly. We took the two plans that were We created them, we

provided on March 31, 2010.

scanned them and made images out of them which allow us to get them to a reasonable scale and overlap them, in order to try and key one plan to another plan so we

Creelman - Direct 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 have a reasonable overlap, so we felt that they're relatively accurate to their comparison to one other.

48

We utilize what's shown on both plans as this blue line right here as it wraps around, as shown on the exhibit, represents the location of the limit of the existing parking lot on the south side, east side and west side of 215 Birchwood that exists in both plans. We were able to use that as a key point, if you

will, to approximate bringing this line easterly, flood hazard limit line from the other plan, this plan here, the flood area, and flood plain delineation plan, Exhibit P-39a, to be able to superimpose it on this plan to see where it, in fact, falls in relationship to Building B. Q And what, as a result of that overlay, what,

what was its relationship, what was that flood hazards limitation or limit line in relation to building A? A It shows that all of Building A still remains

within the, the area between the floodway line, and the flood hazard line, the flood area known as the flood fringe area here. Q Now, could you also determine whether or not

any portion of proposed Building B was in the flood hazard area? A Yes. Based upon the plot, we were able to show

Creelman - Direct 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 A

49

that the northern, a northern portion of Building B was within the flood, flood fringe area, or within the, encroaches in the flood hazard area. Q Now, -THE COURT: What exhibit is this? That's P, I think it's 162. No, D. No, D, D-162. D-162. Dated August 3rd.

MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER: MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER: MR. WOODWARD: THE COURT: BY MR. WOODWARD: Q

Thank you.

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

as D-159 for identification and ask you if you can identify that document? THE COURT: what number was that? THE WITNESS: BY MR. WOODWARD: A It's a letter from PS&S, myself, to Mr. Woodward D-159. It's dated July 16, 2010. I'm sorry,

What is the number?

dated July 16, 2010. Q And, what was this report?

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

request from you for us to review the information provided to us from the plaintiff on March 31, 2010.

Creelman - Direct 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 Q

50

And so the documents that we've gone through,

the report from Mr. Dipple, the, the delineation of the floodway and the flood hazard line, and the revised Concept Plan were what you reviewed in that letter, correct? A Correct, yes. Q Okay. Could you go through your report and

tell us what observations you made or -- from your analysis of the documents dated March 31, 2010 submitted by Mr. Dipple? A The, the new layout provided by Lessard increased

the -- well actually more than doubled the amount of surface parking -- one minute; yes, more than doubled the amount of surface parking from 73 to 171 spaces, which would -THE COURT: 73 to what? From 73 to 171 spaces.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. WOODWARD: A

-- based upon the new alignment of the, the

buildings and the reconfiguration of the buildings., which resulted in the reconfiguration of, reconfiguration of the driveway. And I noted that the,

I was concerned that the driveway where it's between Buildings A and B had a double, a left-hand turn and a quick right-hand. I was concerned with respect to the

Creelman - Direct 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 fire truck access maneuverability. The area of the buildings, or the driveway between Buildings A and B had parking on both sides. That could be an issue for fire truck access and Firemen access.

51

I felt that that should be reviewed by The, the original application

the, the municipality.

brought up issues with respect to fill on adjacent properties; although that -- it may be a fact that they filled. The relevance of that to this particular

project as they were filling occurred before the regulations came into effect, and they had no bearing or relevance; that there were -- as a result of the new configurations, they had to prove to DEP that there would be no net fillings within the flood fringe area, as listed on the regulations; the, that the driveway area that wraps around the east, south, and west portions of Building B, the loop road, all of that needs to be one foot above the delineated area, as listed in the flood regulations. discharge still exists. The issue of the

I haven't see anything that

tells me anything differently from that. Q discharge? A Storm -- I'm sorry; storm water discharge with I did note finally that What kind of discharge, storm water

respect to impervious area.

Creelman - Direct 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

52

the, I was able to go back and show the impervious area did decrease slightly, but as the proposed roof area is significantly above the surface, any discharge from the roof area will not be detained in a parking lot at all, as it does on the existing addition. just discharge off site. It will readily

It won't even backup, because

it's certainly higher than the surrounding elevations. And that should all be taken into account in the significant, in the storm water management design. Q buffer? A The wetlands buffer itself, I agreed, I believe Did you have any comments on the wetlands

the plaintiff had issued a letter indicating that the wetlands buffer south of the parking lot on 215 as that had a -- no resource value. not required. A buffer of 50 feet was

And we agreed with that as far as the

wetlands goes, we were still concerned about a riparian issue though, to determine if the, that natural channelized water course had a drainage area of 50 feet or -- 50 acres or more going to it. And also that we couldnt see any proof that the, that any displacement of storage within the flood fringe area, if it was compensated for, it had to be compensated for both below, above between a 10 year, and a 100 year, and above the 100 year storm itself.

Creelman - Direct 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 You can't swap elevations for it. Q

53

And was this as a result, these observations

are from reviewing what was submitted on March 31, 2010, correct? A Correct. Q What conclusions did you draw from your

analysis and the observations which youve just recounted to us? A Basically the entire project was squeezed closer

together to the east property line, as a result of the delineation of the flood, floodway line, which you're not allowed to do any work within, beyond the floodway line. And that portion of -- all of Building A, and a

portion of Building B would, would need to be compensated for, because that building footprints will lose storage volume below them within the floodway -or flood fringe area, excuse me. Q And, based on those documents,

March 31, 2010, did you have an opinion as to whether a flood hazard area permit could have been granted, or would have been granted by the DEP based on the information and data contained in the Dipple report and the Concept Plan? A Of the March 31st? Q Yes.

Creelman - Direct 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 THE COURT: D, a D exhibit. MR. WOODWARD: Did I, I handed it out A A A I would say, no, they would not. They would not

54

grant a permit. Q And why not? A

Enough information was still not provided.

complete design was not provided. Q Now, with respect to, with respect to that

building, did you -- based on, on -- and I'm limiting your approach to that. Did you have an opinion as to

whether the flood hazard area regs could have been complied with, based on the information in the March 31 report? A No, they could not. Q And why not?

There still is insufficient information. Q So as of March 31, there wasnt enough

information to make a determination? A No. MR. WOODWARD: Now, I want to move on to

D-179, Your Honor, which is a letter dated August 23, 2010. yesterday. And I think I handed that up

Do you have that? (Pause) The only thing I have in here is

Creelman - Direct 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 so -MR. WOODWARD: not helping you. MR. WOODWARD: again? THE WITNESS: MR. EISDORFER: having that handed out. (Pause) D-179? I don't have any record of yesterday? THE COURT: Did you? What was the number of that

55

MR. WOODWARD:

My apologies to all involved.

I did not hand it out yet. THE COURT: I'm trying to stay organized,

I know you are, yeah; and I'm

Thank you. D -- okay, D-179? Yeah.

THE COURT:

MR. WOODWARD: BY MR. WOODWARD: Q

I'm showing you what's been marked as D-179 This is a letter dated

for identification. August 23, 2010. A Yes, I have. Q letter? A

Have you ever seen that before?

And, what was the purpose of preparing this

As a result of the information provided by the

plaintiff regarding the plan listed on page one, we

Creelman - Direct 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 A Give me one second. A A A could not verify if the existing and proposed flood storage volumes within the flood fringe were true and correct.

56

We requested additional information and were

requested to perform an analysis to verify those numbers, and we did so. Q Now, you prepared that -- did you prepare

that in response to a report dated August 6, 2010 from Mr. Dipple? A Correct. Q Yes. Q Have you seen that before? P-80. I'm showing you that?

Yes, I have. Q And P-80 contains a discussion of the

calculations of flood storage volume? A Correct. Q And were you asked to review that?

Yes, we were. Q And there were also attached to that a series

of plans and some other calculations. A Correct. Q P-82 and P-83. Now, did you review that

letter and all those attachments? (Pause)

Creelman - Direct 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 here. MR. EISDORFER: we did not mark. A Q Also P-86. (Pause - side discussion) Is that entitled Floodway and Existing Flood

57

hazard Area Delineation? Q It says Floodway and Flood Claim

Delineation. A Okay. (Pause) There was one that was that

Was it an, they just had an

additional one, I guess. MR. WOODWARD: MR. EISDORFER: It was what? Theres one that we did not

mark, it was Plaintiffs P-39, except the numbers added to it. MR. WOODWARD: We have a representation from

Counsel that the missing document is the same as P-39a. MR. EISDORFER: It's, it's this document

We didn't use because it's the same except it

gets the numbers. THE WITNESS: date. I think it was -MR. EISDORFER: THE WITNESS: MR. EISDORFER: That's right. -- July 19th? Yes. Okay. They both have the same

Creelman - Direct 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 A THE WITNESS: BY MR. WOODWARD: A Okay. Q Okay.

58

So, reviewing those documents, were you able

to draw any conclusions regarding the ability of this revised proposal to satisfy DEP? A Yes. We utilized the information provided We were able to calculate an

electronically by L2A.

existing storage volume and then a proposed storage volume and compare those numbers with a value provided in the August 6, L2As August 6, 2010 Exhibit P-280 -P-80 letter. acceptable. Q All right. But were you able to draw any And we found them to be appropriate,

conclusion as to whether or not the FHA regulations could be satisfied based on that information? A We still could not, no. Q Why not?

There a series of requirements that the DEP, the This is more

flood hazard area requires you to submit.

to what they need, but it's still not complete. Q And does that able, enable you to make a

determination as to whether or not a permit could be granted? A With the information I'm provided to date, I would

Creelman - Direct 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 A A say a permit still would, would not be granted. was submitted to the DEP. Q This

59

Now, with respect to -- there is one, I think

P-86 document, which is the, which is that drainage map, there's a segment in the report, that area does not drain 50 acres, and, therefore, is -- does not require a riparian buffer. Have you reviewed that to

see whether or not you agree with that conclusion? A I reviewed P-86. Based upon my review of that, I

could not make a conclusive determination whether the area provided, in fact, was as stated on the drawing 19.43 acres; mostly because the detail is insufficient. Q You couldnt make it out?

I couldnt, no. Q Now, did there come a point in time when you

received another report dated August 19, 2010, which is P-87? Ill show you this. It's dated and it's from

Mr. Dipple. A Yes. Q

Have you ever seen that?

And what is that letter about?

This letter talks about the conceptual design of a

storm water management system that takes into account or tries -- it's an attempt to show that a storm water management system could be designed which will take into account the existing storm water detention that's

Creelman - Direct 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 A A A provided on the easterly parking lot of 215, south of Building 215. Q

60

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

this area on the right-hand side that's outside, or generally outside the flood hazard area limit. A Correct. Q Correct.

Did you perform an analysis of that report

and all of the documents that were submitted with it? A We reviewed them and we, I believe we -Q You rendered a report?

We did, but I thought we had asked for some I thought.

information first. Q

Did you receive a letter dated

September 2, 2010? A Yes, we did. Q Yep. Q Is that the supplemental information? D-184?

Yes, it is. Q So, what was it that you reviewed, the letter

dated August 19th, correct? A Correct. Q And the letter with attachments dated

September 2, 2010? A Correct.

Creelman - Direct 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 Q Did you prepare a report based upon your

61

review and analysis of that information? A Yes, we did. Q I'm going to show you D-181 for

identification and ask you if that is a copy of your report? A Yes, it is. Q Yes.

And, could you tell us what your analysis was

and what conclusions you drew from that analysis? A In reviewing information provided, what we

determined was that the conceptual report had some inconsistencies which we noted, some of them being that the, where there are two existing soil types on the site, and some of these drainage areas, instead of using both the soil types in the calculations, only used one as opposed to two, which would have an affect, excuse me; on the peak runoff from the site for that -any particular storm. Also, the kind of concentrations used in one particular drainage area exceeded a maximum of 150 feet as required. Also at the time of concentration shown The time of

on the -- I -- let me start again.

concentration paths for the existing drainage areas, on some of the existing drainage areas were not provided, so we couldnt confirm if they were the appropriate

Creelman - Direct 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 ones and the appropriate mane (phonetic) coefficient could be applied to them. A time of concentration was assumed for drainage areas 3 and 2 of 25 minutes. A type two

62

rainfall distribution instead of a type three rainfall distribution was used in existing drainage area number two. Also, we could not determine any backup information, or discern any backup information as to where the, some of the information came from for the broad-crested weirs, and the diameters of the pipes that were listed. And also that the, finally, that in looking at the routing of the existing drainage area for this parking lot south of Building 215, it appears that the analysis assume that there are 12 inch valves, that the storm piping sewer drained into were completely open. Q Now, let's talk about each one of these.

With respect to the soil types, is there a document, and I think it's in the September 2nd additional documents, that contain a depiction of what soil types were on this property? A Yes. It's -- looking at the September,

September 2nd L2A plan, or letter, D-1 -- entitled D-184, or identified as D-184, there's a plan entitled

Creelman - Direct 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 A A Web Soil Survey 2.0 National Cooperative Soil Survey. And what it does, it provides a, an aerial photograph of the site and some surrounding areas with the soil survey overlapped on top of it so you could discern approximately where the soil limits are. Q

63

And which soil types, if you could hold it up

to the Court so the Court can see; which soil types are you referring to and where are they located? A The soil types for the eastern, roughly the

eastern half of the site are HA2b, which is designated as a Hydric Soil C. And the PS, PCSAT soil type which

predominantly covers the western portion of the site. And that's known as a Hydric Soil Group D. Q Group D? A The, the predominant difference is the ability for A type C soil is And what's the difference between Group C and

water to drain into the soil itself.

more permeable, and a type D soil is less permeable. Q So is there a --

That, -Q Go ahead.

The, the result of that is as less water could

permeate into the ground, you have a higher rate of runoff, and is -- not using, using all of C instead of C and D, you're artificially lowering the amount of

Creelman - Direct 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 A runoff into that particular drainage area that's associated with it. Q And how would that affect the calculation

64

going into determining the soil or, a storm detention system, storm water detention system? A Well, in the simplest of terms, the, all this

boils down to the faster the water can be released from the site under existing conditions, it's similar to what you can release under the proposed conditions. If you can show that you can release 100 cubic feet of water per -- excuse me; per second, in the predevelopment conditions, then you could do the same in the post development condition for example. If you show that no, you have to -- you reduce less, then you have to hold back more in the post development condition after you construct it. Q So, if I understand it correctly, if, if your

predevelopment condition is 100 cubic feet per second, you -A Discharge. Q -- discharge, you can't increase that

discharge over 100 cubic feet per second? A In the post development condition. Q In the post development --

Correct.

Creelman - Direct 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 A A A Q -- situation with your new project?

65

Correct. Q Okay.

Correct. Q Now, is there a methodology for doing this?

For, for the design of a storm water sewer system,

storm sewer system? Q For the analysis of the types of soil and how

you calculate the runoff where you have two different soil types? A Yes. The accepted practice is a technical paper

called Technical Release 55 or TR55, which is used extensively in New Jersey by engineering companies and individuals for certain drainage areas of certain sizes. Q And, if you're going to do this analysis and

you have two different kinds of soils, or two different soil types, how do you go about putting that together so you come up with an average or a number? A For each drainage area in the predevelopment

condition, you break the drainage area into what the cover is, what the soil is, and you apply factors to it, taken into account, when you're developing, how much water will run off. For example, under type C soil not -- forget

Creelman - Direct 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 A the area that it covers, youll get less runoff from

66

one acre of C soil than you would from one acre -- I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. Youll get one -- youll

get less runoff from an acre of C soil than you would from an acre of D soil, because more water will be allowed to percolate into the ground depending on the ground cover. Q And if, if you're doing the calculations and

youve got two types of soil and you only use one type of soil, will that effect the reliability of your calculations? A Yes, it will. Q How will it do that?

You will reduce, by only using the Type C soil

which allows for a greater permeability into the ground, you will reduce the amount of runoff from the site, and, therefore, -- excuse me. You will, in your

routing, you will be allowed to allow more water to go off the site. Q Now, with respect to -- I'm going to show you Could

what's been marked as D-182 for identification. you tell us what this is? A

This is entitled The Urban Hydrology for Small And it's

Watersheds, otherwise known as TR55.

produced by the NRCS, the Natural Resources

Creelman - Direct 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 A upon? A Yes. Q That's the standard in the industry? A Conservation Service. 1986. And it was produced in June

67

And this is what is standardly used for the

design of pre and post development watersheds, storm sewer systems, and routing those systems to prove to a review agency that your predeveop -- or your post development flows do not exceed your predevelopment flows after routing. Q Go ahead. I interrupted.

I'm sorry; go ahead.

After routing to a detention system. Q And if, if you're going to submit that -MR. WOODWARD: Strike that.

BY MR. WOODWARD: Q In the TR55 publication, there's a whole

methodology for dealing with two different soil types. Isn't that correct? A That is, yes. Q And that's what, is that what Engineers rely

For the smaller watersheds such as what we're

dealing with here, even up to, Ill forget the limits they're allowed to, but it's several hundred acres that you can use it up to, yes. Q Now, the next item that you mentioned in your

Creelman - Direct 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 A report was time of concentration for existing area -drainage area one used the sheet flow length of 200

68

feet or the maximum allowable by DEP regulations is 150 feet. Can you explain the nature of that requirement

in the regulations and what affect, using a 200 foot sheet flow versus 150, would have on the flows in the calculation? A The -- as, as time of concentration decreases, the As time of concentration It is

rate of runoff increases.

gets longer, the rate of runoff goes down.

retarded, regarding peak, peak discharge from a site. Q Can you tell us what a time of concentration

is, what, what does it measure? A Time of concentration is the time period it takes

for a drop of water in the farthest reaches of any particular drainage area to go from that point to the point of discharge. called travel time. But it's broken up into segments And the first segment of travel You go, the

time is the, what they call sheet flow. first segment is sheet flow.

The second segment is

shower concentrated flow, and the third segment is channel flow. Q What is sheet flow?

Sheet flow is flow that -- I forget the exact

depth of water, but it's flow that is normally a 16th

Creelman - Direct 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 to a quarter inch in depth, no more. Once you exceed

69

that, you get into what they call shower concentrated flow. And the velocity of water within shower

concentrated flow is higher than it is within sheet flow. Q Why is the, why is the, is the velocity of

the flow higher in shower concentrated flow than in sheet flow? A The resistance of the water to go across the

surface when it's very thin, is greater in sheet flow than it is in shower concentrated flow. And, again, if

you think about these in three segments, as all three segments are added up and you end up with a time, the time concentration, the time it takes the water from its farthest reaches of the drainage area to the point of discharge, that relates to how much water would come off of that drainage area. There are additional calculations that have to be done, but that's that portion of it. And when

you calculate that, that has an impact on the amount of water, the rate of water, the rate of discharge. Q So what's the difference between using a

sheet flow of 100 -- of 200 feet versus 150 feet? A You are allowing a sheet flow, which means a

longer time of concentration, a longer period of time.

Creelman - Direct 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

70

And therefore, the rate of discharge, the peak rate of discharge will be lower, to some degree. Q And you mentioned that there are DEP

regulations that require this? A Yes. There is a, in the DEP regulations, they I

require that you use 150 feet versus 200 feet.

believe I heard testimony earlier that they're allowed to do 200 feet for a parking area. that regulation. 150 feet. I could not find

I found that the DEP, the TR55 says

Again, that goes to the amount of discharge

within a given drainage area, both in the predevelopment and the post development condition. Q And that ultimately affects the size of any

detention facilities that have to be constructed. A Right. What, what this all boils down to, is when

you take all of these factors, the time of concentration, the coefficient of friction, when you calculate all these values, you end up with for any given storm in the predevelopment condition, a runoff rate, a flow -- discharge flow to a piping system in a drainage area. We are trying to show that, as it was said earlier by Mr. Morrisden (phonetic), that you're not going to exceed from the predevelopment in the post development. And the way to achieve that is to put

Creelman - Direct 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 some type of a structure, a containment structure, a detention basin; in this case, an underground structure, on the site to hold that water into and release it at a much slower rate, or a rate that is equal or less than what was observed or calculated in the predevelopment condition. Q Now, you mentioned that the time of

71

concentration path was not shown on the drainage map, and, therefore, you could not check the applicability of various factors. Could you just briefly explain

that, what that means and how that affects the calculation of the design of a storm water management system? A You want -- again you want to go back and choose If you

the longest time of concentration you can.

should use a shorter time of concentration, youll end up with, excuse me; a larger discharge in predevelopment, which allows you to have a larger discharge in the post development condition, from a given drainage area, i.e., a given site. Q Now, if you couldnt, if it wasnt shown, how

does that affect your ability to review the submission from Mr. Dipples office? A We couldnt confirm that the, that the time of We, we could have

concentration was appropriate.

Creelman - Direct 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

72

guessed at it, but the odds are, we would probably come up with a different one. Q And that doesnt make sense.

Now, going down your list, you indicate there

is no backup data for the existing outlet structures for the watershed entitled, Existing Drainage Area One. Could you tell us what kind of backup data there

should have been, and how that affects the ability to design this system, the storm water detention system? A Sure. The, the existing, when you're analyzing

the existing discharge system from a site, be it a piping system, a surface flow; you need to know what the parameters are. In this case, the pipes were given as 12 inch, and I believe it was, a four inch orifice and three broad-crested weirs. We could not confirm

during -- at the time of this, reviewing of this letter if, where the four-inch pipe came out, and also where the broad-crested weirs were listed. at three different elevations. They were listed

I think it was 80.13

for 30 feet, 80.09 for 25 feet (God bless you.), and 80.07 for 25 feet, for a total of, I believe, 80 feet in length. It wasnt clear as to where they were. Again, this all goes back to, you determine what your peak discharge under the existing condition is for a

Creelman - Direct 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

73

given storm, and then you compare that same storm event under the post development conditions. The delta, or

the discharge, the difference in discharge between those two routings is what needs to be detained in storm water system. Q Now, with respect to the last point that you

make there, the hydraulic calculations for the routing of the parking lot, the assumption was that the 12 inch valves were fully open. A Correct. Q Youve reviewed this parking lot, youve

looked at the data, youve looked at the surveys; do you have a conclusion as to whether or not this parking lot was designed to retain or serve as a storm detention facility, storm water retention facility? A I believe it was designed to function as some type

of detention facility, primarily based upon the observance of the valves that were at the downstream and -- or are at the downstream end of the existing pipes at the south end of the parking lot at 215 Birchwood. Q And, what about those valves? What's the

significance of them in terms of -A Well, -Q -- functioning as a storm water detention

Creelman - Direct 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 facility? A Well, let me, let me preface that by saying,

74

working for developers, developers dont want to spend money. now. They do that barebones minimum. That applies

It also applied back in 1973 when they built this

facility or thereabouts. They would not have installed valves. didn't have to. They didn't do it out of the They didn't have to. They They

generosity of their hearts.

would have just put a 12 inch pipe in, and that could have acted, when they did the routing, as an orifice, or orifices. Therefore, having the valves installed, the purpose was to reduce the opening in the valves to some degree, I do not know what that degree is. I won't

speculate on that; in order to provide or retain the existing water in the parking lot from discharging at a higher rate of, at a higher rate. Whether you close the valve from 12 inches, to nine inches to eight inches, to six inches; I -honestly I dont speculate. And I believe that's why

Mr. Morrisden was saying the only way to determine or approximate how much those valves need to be, were closed, were to go back to compare what you have on the site today and then go back to the predevelopment

Creelman - Direct 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 A condition and do a similar analysis, what I just described and say, okay, when it was a horse farm, it

75

had 30 gallons, or 30 cubic feet per second, and now it has 40. Okay, well now we have to detain 10 cubic

feet. So they close the valve down through modeling of the program -- through the TR55 modeling, and say, okay, well close the valve down from 12 inches to eight inches, and that will slow the discharge rate, so we detain an additional ten cubic feet per second within the parking area. And, therefore,

predevelopment flows -- or post development flows will then equal predevelopment flows. Q Based on the foregoing and based on your

analysis of the documentation submitted both in the August 19th report and the September 2nd supplementation, do you know, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the storm drainage facility proposed here by the plaintiffs would obtain a permit from the DEP? A Solely based upon the information provided to me,

I would say that they would definitely not obtain a permit from the DEP -Q And why not? One of the most

-- for storm water management.

Creelman - Direct 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 A A significant ones is that, given the elevation of the swale that the proposed system would drain into, I believe the swale is somewhere around 75.1. The

76

proposed discharge pipe from the underground storage system was at 75.4. They were providing a height of We also

storage in a structure of 30 inches, 2 feet.

know that the, the flood hazard elevation line is at 78.6 uphill, on the up -- on the northern end of the site, and 78.4 on the downhill side. Somewhere below that is other storm events. The limits of where those flood waters would reach during those storm events, I'm going to pick on, I'm going to pick on, let's say the ten year storm event, which would probably occur somewhere, if we look at, I don't know what that, what's that exhibit again? Q P-39a. This is the --

If we look at P-39a. Q

You're pointing -- you're using your -I'm pointing my laser pointer to point

I'm sorry.

to P-39a.

And showing the easterly floodway line

traversing the site east of Casino Brook between the floodway line and the flood hazard line, we know that the 100 year flood line exists in there. It would not

be unreasonable to say that somewhere in the limits of the 10 year storm event will also occur.

Creelman - Direct 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 If, when you're doing a storm water design and your discharging within the floodway, one of the requirements is that you design a storm water management system to be able to discharge against a head.

77

A lot of times that head in this case may be the

ten year design storm. Q tailwater? A A tailwater design, correct. So, instead of the When you say a head, is that like a

pipe discharge freely at all times and not have any resistance, there would be water at the face of the pipe where your, where your proposed pipe is discharging to. So, instead of just flowing out into That would

no mans land, it would be hitting water.

re, that would result in an effect of the water, the proposed discharge of the water backing up in the piping system, and subsequently backing up in the proposed underground detention system. That could be equated to a loss in volume which would result in the underground detention system having to be increased in size to account for it's ability to need to store additional water until it, until this proposed discharge can hydraulically overcome the tailwater -- I'm looking for it; the tailwater effect, that's happening from a ten year

Creelman - Direct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Honor. THE COURT: Okay. A storm. here. Q No. Q There's no tailwater analysis? And I didn't see that in anything that I saw

78

And if there's no tailwater analysis, is that

something DEP would require? A Absolutely. MR. WOODWARD: No further questions, Your

I'm going to break now for

the day, because I am actually teaching a, an (inaudible) course tonight which I have to get to. And, we're not going to finish with this witness today anyway, okay? MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, I don't have a

lot of cross-examination, but I'm happy to postpone it until first thing tomorrow. THE COURT: And we have to come back anyway, And

because Ms. McKenzie might have some questions. then she has to give her total report.

So, I'm going

to break now for the day and well see you tomorrow morning. (Whereas proceedings of 9/28/10 were concluded) * * * * *

79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Dated: October 10, 2010 BY: Darcel D. Hart Darcel D. Hart A.O.C. #538 I, Darcel D. Hart, the assigned transcriber, do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript of proceedings in the matter of LEHIGH ACQUISITION, ET AL, VS. TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, heard in the Union County Superior Court, Law Division, Civil Part on September 28, 2010, Tape Number 237-10, Index #1430 to Index #7428, and Tape Number 238-10, Index #0001 to Index #3302, is prepared in full compliance with the current Transcript Format for Judicial Proceedings and is a true and accurate non-compressed transcript of the proceedings as recorded. AUTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES CERTIFICATION