October 30, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

31 of 80 sheets Page 121 to 124 of 203 11/06/2024 03:21:43 PM 121 THE PUBLIC: In those particular parks?1 THE WITNESS: In these three images?2 THE PUBLIC: No, no, no. In those3 particular parks, sir.4 THE WITNESS: All right. This is all on5 Duke Farms. Duke Farms Estate has, not in the areas I6 took photographs of, but within their deer fenced area7 they have done a riparian restoration where they have8 taken acreage, riparian meaning, I'm sorry. Riparian9 meaning an area where river flow is and water can10 overflow a river area, river valley to give it11 consideration. They have indeed gone into the riparian12 area, which I did not go into because I was not allowed13 in there at that time, and they have indeed done14 plantings there. Nothing I have showed you shows any15 plantings nor were there any plantings made.16 THE PUBLIC: So you are testifying that Duke17 Farms has not planted any seedling trees at all in an18 effort to provide reforestation on their site?19 THE WITNESS: No, I just testified that in20 the area of riparian restoration, which I believe to be21 200 to 300 acres, I can't be absolutely certain, they22 have gone in, they have withdrawn and removed invasive23 species, they have gone in with equipment to do so and24 they have replanted with native plants. In the images I25 122 am showing you --1 THE PUBLIC: That's not what I asked. I2 wasn't asking about the images you were showing me, sir.3 I was asking you if the site had an effort to plant new4 seedlings or new trees or saplings in the areas that5 were deer fenced to help the forest in its effort to see6 through to regrowth?7 THE WITNESS: In the upland areas, which8 were the only ones I reviewed, based on my interview9 with the staff member in charge of the area, they have10 not done so.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, one more question12 because we have other people in the audience who would13 like to ask questions. One more question, please.14 THE PUBLIC: Yeah, I think I only have one15 more then I think you just knocked it out. I think I16 had one more question.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You can come back.18 THE PUBLIC: No.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you very much,20 ma'am. Other people would like to ask questions.21 THE PUBLIC: Hello.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.23 THE PUBLIC: Kevin Mailman. I live at 2724 Bayowski Road in the West Essex Highlands.25 123 Can you bring up that map, the famous

to ask questions.21 THE PUBLIC: Hello.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.23 THE PUBLIC: Kevin Mailman. I live at 2724 Bayowski Road in the West Essex Highlands.25 123 Can you bring up that map, the famous one1 we've been talking about.2 THE WITNESS: I don't know which one you're3 looking at. Tell me when I get to the slide.4 THE PUBLIC: The one with the deer fencing5 in the dark.6 THE WITNESS: Okay. Is that it?7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Guys, we want to have8 quiet so we can all hear.9 THE WITNESS: Is that the slide you want?10 THE PUBLIC: Yeah.11 THE WITNESS: Okay.12 THE PUBLIC: So I'm really, I took botany in13 college so I'm really, I got to dumb this down for14 myself just as a resident. Okay. I have a bunch of15 questions. The deer fencing, is that plan to go in16 prior to construction or after construction?17 THE WITNESS: I don't know the sequence of18 construction for the property.19 THE PUBLIC: Okay.20 One of the things I heard you testify to and21 I think it was more of an opinion than expert testimony,22 was that it was more humane for the deer and not23 shooting them, right? But if the deer fencing is put up24 before construction and they're all sloshing around in25 124 that smaller area and the wetlands and everything,1 there's two things that come to my mind. Isn't it2 possible that it would be inhumane, because the deer are3 either going to be squeezed out and amongst construction4 or stay in because you're assuming, when you said --5 testified earlier that they're just roaming around in6 that same area. So unless that construction is just7 magically put together and plopped down without all the8 trucks and everything going through, like where is9 Warner Road on this?10 THE WITNESS: You have to help me with that.11 Here. Isn't that it here? Oh, Warner Road, the main12 road you're talking about.13 THE PUBLIC: Where they would be coming in14 from.15 THE WITNESS: Here?16 THE PUBLIC: Yeah.17 THE WITNESS: No -- yeah, this is it.18 THE PUBLIC: Because I live like up to the19 right. I'm surrounded by forest up there.20 THE WITNESS: Here?21 THE PUBLIC: Yes. Well, no, the top of the22 Highlands. Yeah.23 THE WITNESS: That's the top of the24 Highlands.25

11/06/2024 03:21:43 PM Page 125 to 128 of 203 32 of 80 sheets 125 THE PUBLIC: Yeah, but in the right top1 corner by the Manor.2 So I just have a hard time understanding3 where the deer are going to go, because they're already4 -- well, all right, I got you. Because they're already5 coming down into our neighborhood and they don't just6 come along the side of my house and there's a family of,7 two families more than eight to ten and I know you were8 just saying what you observed while you were there.9 There's a lot more. A lot. And I like the deer but the10 thing is they also come into the roads in our11 neighborhood and I feel like regardless of when the deer12 fence -- the deer fencing comes up it's going to squeeze13 them out or in and amongst the construction. See what14 I'm saying?15 THE WITNESS: Again, I can't answer your16 question as to when the deer fencing will be installed,17 because I'm not in control of the schedule of18 construction.19 THE PUBLIC: No, but in someways --20 THE WITNESS: I just can't answer it.21 THE PUBLIC: It doesn't matter when it goes22 up really, because either way the construction is going23 to effect the deer, right? And there are trees and24 everything. There's going to be less area for them to25 126 go and you assume they're just going to stay in that1 area, but I guess my question is, isn't that somehow2 incorrect, because aren't they going to be squeezed out3 of that area?4 THE WITNESS: First, let me literally state5 that I did not say they would stay in the area. I said6 that they would move in all directions as they do today.7 THE PUBLIC: I thought you meant, sorry. I8 thought you meant, maybe I misunderstood.9 THE WITNESS: And I may not have been clear.10 THE PUBLIC: The neon green area.11 THE WITNESS: Let's be clear. What I --12 during construction deer obviously aren't going to stick13 around with a backhoe sitting there. I can't say they14 will, unless maybe they will, I don't know. But, you15 know, sure, any kind of construction activity disturbs16 wildlife, that's not anything anyone can argue with.17 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Fair enough.18 You said that the areas outside -- in19 between the deer fencing would just grow as normal and20 as is. In the neon, right?21 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Sorry for the color.22 THE PUBLIC: My question about that is,23 wouldn't that have to assume that concrete and the24 buildings and the

w as normal and20 as is. In the neon, right?21 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Sorry for the color.22 THE PUBLIC: My question about that is,23 wouldn't that have to assume that concrete and the24 buildings and the construction aren't disturbing any of25 127 the root systems or anything that are there now?1 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not certain of your2 question, but if you're thinking construction here is3 going to effect the root system here, the answer is no,4 it won't. Might it effect the root systems immediately5 adjacent to an area of disturbance, it's possible,6 certainly. There is a point of which we can't control7 that.8 THE PUBLIC: So you're saying it would be9 limited to just the areas right around it?10 THE WITNESS: Yeah. We're not in here with11 -- we. They're not in here with heavy equipment. There12 is nothing to disturb, thus the term undisturbed.13 THE PUBLIC: That's kind of --14 THE WITNESS: Along this area. If for15 example, let's just hypothetically say, to answer your16 question, try to answer your question correctly, let's17 say for hypothetical argument there's a tree literally18 right up against what might be a curb line, assume19 there's a curb line in there. And I excavate here to20 cut that curb line in the road and that tree is right21 there and I disturb those roots, there's a good chance22 that trees going to die right up adjacent to it, sure.23 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Great.24 So my question is this, ist that, so you're25 128 saying that little strip of white going up that's the1 only place that the construction equipment is going to2 be to build that bigger area of where the buildings are?3 THE WITNESS: As I understand it, and I4 don't know for certain how they're coming in, but it's5 got to come in on a road. I mean, so that's the only6 limitation I can give you. You can't move construction7 equipment of a road, so I don't know the answer to your8 question, I would defer to the applicant. I presume9 they'd build an access road first and then they'd start10 construction. I presume that's how it's done, but I11 don't know that, I can't testify to that.12 THE PUBLIC: Yeah, it's just hard for me to13 visualize. I think about how all our decks were just14 done and our siding and on a microlevel the area that15 they were actually building or replacing, it was16 impacted to a much larger degree on the outside area.17 So I just have a hard time thinking

4 done and our siding and on a microlevel the area that15 they were actually building or replacing, it was16 impacted to a much larger degree on the outside area.17 So I just have a hard time thinking that none of that18 other area will be disturbed by the construction19 equipment.20 THE WITNESS: You know, when you're looking21 -- all I can tell you is from my own experience having22 done a lot of the same things you're talking about,23 you're looking at a very small piece of property and24 when I work on even my own yard it's the same thing and25

33 of 80 sheets Page 129 to 132 of 203 11/06/2024 03:21:43 PM 129 often I have to block off what I'm doing. This is a1 fairly large piece. There is a, as you may recall,2 there will be staging areas. I can't attest to what the3 applicants going to do for staging areas, I don't know.4 I can't answer your question. But I know this is the5 maximum area of disturbance.6 THE PUBLIC: Okay.7 So let's keep it to where your area of8 testimony and expertise is. I have a question about the9 wetlands area.10 THE WITNESS: Okay.11 THE PUBLIC: So it's not just that strip12 though, isn't it down --13 THE WITNESS: No, there's some in here.14 THE PUBLIC: Right.15 THE WITNESS: And there's little bit here.16 THE PUBLIC: Where, down below the17 Highlands?18 THE WITNESS: Here and here and there's even19 a tiny little bit up in there.20 THE PUBLIC: So deer fencing and the21 absorption that you talked about and the runoff, isn't22 the absorption going to stay on the right and the left?23 In other words, I'm confused, because somehow you're24 saying that the absorption's going to be better, but25 130 it's, it's fenced off. The new undergrowth and1 everything you're talking about is actually away, from2 what I can tell, unless I'm misreading the map, away3 from where the runoff is actually happening.4 THE WITNESS: No, there's runoff in a lot of5 directions first of all, on this property.6 THE PUBLIC: Okay. I would love it if you7 can explain.8 THE WITNESS: I'll do my best. This a9 contour map and when you see these lines here, let's go10 to this one because they're easier to see. The closer11 together these lines appear the steeper the slope.12 THE PUBLIC: Oh, the little faded?13 THE WITNESS: Yeah. You see how it goes like14 this.15 THE PUBLIC: Yeah. Yeah.16 THE WITNESS: Now, I don't have the number17 in front me but being on the site enough, this is18 downhill, that I can tell you.19 THE PUBLIC: Down towards where, the20 Highlands?21 THE WITNESS: Down here. No, this is the22 Highlands here, right.23 THE PUBLIC: Right.24 THE WITNESS: So this is also downhill, to25 131 answer your question.1 THE PUBLIC: Right.2 THE WITNESS: Any storm water runoff, you3 know, in here, they already talked about and I'm not4 going to testify to that, but I know there's been5 testimony, there is a plan pending to deal with that6 storm water runoff. What I talked about and all I can7 testify to is that in

about and I'm not4 going to testify to that, but I know there's been5 testimony, there is a plan pending to deal with that6 storm water runoff. What I talked about and all I can7 testify to is that in the deer fenced area as8 undergrowth continues to grow, because it can, what will9 happen is you will have more plants in this area total10 than there are today. More plants means more water11 absorption.12 THE PUBLIC: In those areas?13 THE WITNESS: In those areas. Now, I am14 projecting, hypothesizing, that over time due to the15 increase in plants here, this is -- one of the board16 members asked me the same question in a similar fashion.17 I, again, let me make that clear. I cannot guarantee18 anything, but I hypothesize that as there are more19 plants growing here and more plants growing here that20 get to seed stage, meaning they can produce seed, those21 seeds will travel throughout the property, which is what22 I want to happen and you would want and the more growth23 that occurs naturally in here the more absorption we24 could hopefully get there, because you have more plants.25 132 THE PUBLIC: Because you nave more planted1 and things like that. Okay. So, but then there's the2 deer that are still there.3 So to go to something that was just asked4 before and I wanted to kind of bring this up within the5 context of the native plants that you talked about.6 THE WITNESS: Yes.7 THE PUBLIC: And what was asked about the8 deer eating what the new plantings might be because9 they're there. I mean, one of the benefits should be10 the native plants as you discussed, correct?11 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's wonderful to have a,12 I rarely get, in my environmental commission, do I get13 developers saying, I'll do all native plants.14 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Great.15 So --16 THE WITNESS: Never had, sorry.17 THE PUBLIC: -- regardless of whether the18 deer are eating them or not, if you have to do things19 like do deer proof plants, deer resistant plants, does20 that, do those plants in your expertise fit within that21 realm of the benefit of native plants?22 THE WITNESS: Yes, there are many native23 plants that are deer resistant, there are many that are24 not. But there certainly are native plants that are.25

11/06/2024 03:21:43 PM Page 133 to 136 of 203 34 of 80 sheets 133 We will certainly, when I review their plans, I will1 make emphasis to those plants. You can't always find2 some of them but, you know, you do the best you can.3 THE PUBLIC: Okay.4 Can we move to the formula.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, last question please.6 We have other people that want to ask questions.7 THE PUBLIC: My question is, if we could go8 to another side.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Excuse me.10 THE PUBLIC: My question was, can we go to11 another slide so I can ask a question.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure, one more question.13 Go right a head, sir.14 THE WITNESS: This one?15 THE PUBLIC: No. Well, it's sort of this16 one.17 THE WITNESS: This one?18 THE PUBLIC: Yeah, yeah.19 THE WITNESS: Okay.20 THE PUBLIC: This one. I don't know, I'm21 not saying it was intentional but because of the number22 of questions that were asked about it by the planning23 board and my own sort of, it just came across as24 misleading, so for all those on zoom, I just want to25 134 make sure I'm getting this right. The net requirement1 replacement of 1498 over the requirement is not actually2 a replacement. No trees are actually -- like in other3 words, after all the discussion when I read this,4 basically what it's saying is 5803 are being removed,5 zero saved, I get the credit. That's from the next6 slide or something, right?7 THE WITNESS: Yeah.8 THE PUBLIC: But because of the credit it9 comes across, right, as if they're plant -- replacing10 1498 over when actually, just to make sure I'm clear,11 there's nothing being replanted here?12 THE WITNESS: No, that's not true. There are13 trees, there's 279 native trees being planted. So let14 me explain how the number comes about.15 THE PUBLIC: Real quick, but the 149816 replacement is not actually a replacement. The 279 I17 get, but that's not a replacement of replanting, it's a18 credit.19 THE WITNESS: Correct.20 THE PUBLIC: Okay.21 Can we go to the next slide because that22 talks to this slide. So this is what's actually being23 planted?24 THE WITNESS: This is as proposed. This is25 135 not final.1 THE PUBLIC: Okay. This is what is2 proposed?3 THE WITNESS: Yes.4 THE PUBLIC: So the 5803 removed, zero5 saved, 279 trees, right?6 THE WITNESS: Yes.7 THE PUBLIC: My question is, I see that8 there' a lot of shrubs and things like that, but the9 shrubs and the perennials and things,

the 5803 removed, zero5 saved, 279 trees, right?6 THE WITNESS: Yes.7 THE PUBLIC: My question is, I see that8 there' a lot of shrubs and things like that, but the9 shrubs and the perennials and things, those seedlings10 aren't going to create more trees. I don't know, I'm11 not a botanist, but those don't, eventually seeds drop12 in the ground and a tree grows. Seeds go in the ground13 and make another shrub or perennial grows, correct?14 THE WITNESS: You've explained it very well15 botanically. You're right on point.16 THE PUBLIC: Botany 101.17 So, I mean, really your losing about 550018 trees?19 THE WITNESS: All right. So let me -- I'll20 explain that and let me point out again. The tree loss21 at 5800 trees is maximum potential loss based on the22 tree survey. I can't tell you with 100 percent23 certainty there are exactly 5800 trees in the disturbed24 area. Nor do I know that there will be that many fully25 136 removed. That is a worse case estimate that I can come1 up with, there could be less. There could be more, a2 little, but not much, but probably less. The other side3 of that coin is, going to your point, you described it4 very well. If I plant a shrub I'm going to get shrubs.5 Shrubs don't turn into trees. But trees can turn into6 trees and most importantly in the deer fenced area I7 have large healthy trees and those large healthy trees8 are dropping seeds today, acorns, maple leave seeds,9 etc., etc., etc. The problem is the seedlings that do10 come up get eaten. So the trees will come from the11 trees that are already in the forest, including in the12 undisturbed area, those seeds with travel by animals, et13 al.14 THE PUBLIC: Unless the deer eat them.15 THE WITNESS: Well, deer will eat acorns.16 If you have a good year they eat lots of acorns, you17 have healthy deer. Squirrels will take those acorns and18 move them into the fenced areas. So --19 THE PUBLIC: I just really wanted to clearly20 understand --21 THE WITNESS: You absolutely explained it22 correctly.23 THE PUBLIC: -- the formula.24 Because the other thing, my question about25

35 of 80 sheets Page 137 to 140 of 203 11/06/2024 03:21:43 PM 137 the 212, it comes across as generosity. You're being1 generous, statistically speaking, in terms of the number2 of trees per acre, right? But if you go back a slide to3 the one we were discussing.4 THE WITNESS: This one?5 THE PUBLIC: Yeah. My question is, because6 I'm also not a mathematician unfortunately and I don't7 know what the ordinance that was based off of the8 settlement what that formula says. But by using the9 212, does that somehow give you, because you're using a10 maximum, that net required replacement credit over the11 requirement by using a bigger numerator, let's say,12 doesn't that give you a bigger credit as well?13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I've stated that. Look,14 the bottom -- the way I had to figure that is, as I15 stated, just to show you on that slide. As I said, this16 is a worse case scenario, the 212, when we're talking17 about tree removal. Well, as a matter of equity I can't18 say it's 212 per acre for removal but I'm only going to19 credit you 50 when you're deer fenced, because my goal20 in the negotiated section was to say, I want more21 acreage of deer fencing, therefore when you negotiate22 this, the way I've done it, is to negotiate and say,23 we'll give you 212 for that area too, so you get credit24 for it. So you give me more acreage.25 138 THE PUBLIC: Right, but by getting that --1 THE WITNESS: Which they did, by the way.2 THE PUBLIC: -- the developer does get a3 bigger credit as well?4 THE WITNESS: Yes.5 THE PUBLIC: Okay.6 Last question for now, because I really have7 so much, but going back to the three-year that you were8 looking at where you're looked at the new undergrowth.9 THE WITNESS: Yup. This one?10 THE PUBLIC: Yeah. Where you said those11 trees enhance the undergrowth. When I look at that12 picture, I walk that forest, it's right behind --13 THE WITNESS: It's beautiful.14 THE PUBLIC: I take my dog back there and15 it's a pretty heavily canopied forest, wouldn't you say?16 THE WITNESS: Oh, it's absolutely a heavily17 canopied forest. Mature canopy forest. No argument.18 THE PUBLIC: Okay.19 But when I look at that picture, it looks20 like it's open in the sunlight with not a lot of canopy21 cover.22 THE WITNESS: That's correct. That23 particular image, that's correct.24 THE PUBLIC: So my question is, is it really25 139 an apples to apples fair