November 13, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

21 1 MR. WEISLEDER: No, I -- 2 MR. DeFEO: There is, however, a lack of 3 undergrowth that is healthy. 4 MR. WEISLEDER: Correct. 5 MR. DeFEO: And there is a lack of new 6 growth. So, to answer your question, I think I just 7 answered it, is that when you have steep slope and you 8 have a lack of undergrowth on that steep slope, you 9 have more water flow. As the forest becomes healthier 10 and undergrowth becomes denser, it reduces water flow. 11 And there are multiple studies around the country that 12 would show that you can have as you have more growth, 13 more plants, you have more water absorption and you 14 reduce the flow of water. 15 So, to answer your question on the steep 16 slope, where it is proposed to be fenced, the deer 17 fencing, the steepest slope from the property have 18 proposed deer fencing on them, over time those steep 19 slopes would have new undergrowth because a deer would 20 not be able to browse it and, therefore, it would 21 decrease the flow of water. 22 Does that answer the question? 23 MR. WEISLEDER: I agree with what you’re 24 saying, but it’s not lining up. If we have a map, it 25 looks like the deer fencing is not on the slope, it’s 22 1 after the slope comes down to a plain at the bottom to 2 absorb the water like a sponge which was testified to 3 last time. So I’m confused that if you’re saying 4 there’s a lack of growth and a lack of new seedlings 5 that can grow, then how are we protecting the slopes if 6 that could be a problem. That’s my question. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. DeFeo, if you could 8 identify for the record what we’re looking at now? 9 MR. DeFEO: Yes. This is one of the slides 10 from my original presentation of the 30th and this is a 11 rendering or, if you will, an SP-4, which was part of 12 the site plan submitted by the applicant. SP-4 has a 13 highlight of a deer fencing and is specifically 14 designed just to highlight where deer fencing would be. 15 This is not a topographical map, so bear with me. But 16 this is here, beginning roughly, of the steep slope. 17 MR. WEISLEDER: Okay. 18 MR. DeFEO: So, that entire area going down 19 the slope and across would be fenced. 20 MR. WEISLEDER: Okay. Can you show the 21 topographical map just -- 22 MR. DeFEO: Let’s see if -- 23 MR. WEISLEDER: -- if that’s there? 24 MR. DeFEO: Hang on. 25 MR. WEISLEDER: And, again, it was more maybe 23 1 a clarification. 2 MR.

the 21 topographical map just -- 22 MR. DeFEO: Let’s see if -- 23 MR. WEISLEDER: -- if that’s there? 24 MR. DeFEO: Hang on. 25 MR. WEISLEDER: And, again, it was more maybe 23 1 a clarification. 2 MR. DeFEO: Okay. 3 MR. WEISLEDER: Thank you. 4 MR. DeFEO: Yeah, so you can see here this 5 dark green line, this is the deer fencing. Okay, the 6 red line is an approximately location of the ridge, 7 meaning water flowing on this side of the red line goes 8 down the steep slope. Water falling on this side of 9 the red line goes this way. And you can see, this 10 being the steepest slope area, it is encased in deer 11 fencing which will allow for new growth. 12 MR. WEISLEDER: Okay. No, that’s fine. I 13 agree. We’re in agreeance. My second question would 14 be would you recommend any other areas of the forest to 15 be protected for growth based on you and your team’s 16 observations? 17 MR. DeFEO: Well, that’s a good question. 18 There are some areas that are just not feasible. One 19 of which is, of course, you know, in the wetland area 20 it just makes it very difficult. You can’t go into the 21 wetlands and disturb them. They are protected by state 22 law. So, there’s very little you could really do in 23 here. There is another wetland area here as well right 24 along here. 25 So, those areas, in a perfect world, while I 24 1 might deer fence the entire property in a perfect 2 world, it’s not feasible or necessary to do so. This 3 and this, the two areas that have been selected are 4 designed number one, because they are in the area where 5 there’s no disturbance. Number two, they’re selected 6 for the reason we just talked about in part. 7 And, number three, in part here, it’s 8 selected for the same reason in the other direction 9 because, again, I have steep slope and I’m trying to 10 increase the overflow or the goal is to increase plant 11 growth to decrease water flow from interrupting into 12 this area and that water flow is going to go this way. 13 The rest of this area is contained and controlled, 14 which is not my design, and this is something the state 15 will approve, by a professional stormwater management 16 system to minimize any flow impact. 17 So, this area as we’ve discussed in previous 18 meetings I believe, one of the explanations is this 19 area which of course in the disturbed area, this will 20 be replanted with native plants which will

, this area as we’ve discussed in previous 18 meetings I believe, one of the explanations is this 19 area which of course in the disturbed area, this will 20 be replanted with native plants which will act as a 21 seed bank for the entire property to allow for more 22 plant growth. Where we can control it, we are doing so 23 here and here because as these deer fenced acreage, 24 about 33 acres, begins to regenerate, it will then 25 become a reversed seed bank for the unfenced area.

25 1 And the hope, of course, over time and what 2 we have seen in studies is that the entire area will 3 start to see regeneration of growth. The goal being, 4 of course, the hope is that the areas here, which will 5 be planted by the developer with native plants, it will 6 be their -- I’m sure will do what they can to protect 7 those plants from excessive browse -- and there are 8 many ways to do that, one of which is a deer repellent 9 that can be applied, which that would be up to them. 10 There’s no mandate that they do so, of course, but that 11 will then seed these areas. 12 So, would I say the whole area should be deer 13 fenced? Probably not feasible, at least in my reviews 14 of it, nor would I say it’s necessary completely 15 because it would be impossible at that point, I think, 16 to keep and not cause problems with neighboring 17 properties. This gives an area that deer can still, if 18 you will, roam and play in that’s open to them while 19 protecting the forest and allow it to regenerate. So 20 this is what you call the best of both worlds as I see 21 it. 22 MR. WEISLEDER: Right. So, in an 23 approximation -- I know it’s not a perfect world 24 because there’s so many different variables, in an 25 approximation, how long would it take before we see a 26 1 difference in the deer fenced area to absorb that 2 additional -- approximately? 3 MR. DeFEO: Based on my observations of other 4 deer fenced areas, you should start seeing new growth 5 within one to three years. Start within the first year 6 of seeing low growth herbs, flowers, that sort of thing 7 -- ferns. 8 Within three years you’ll start seeing the 9 beginning of shrubbery. And then over about nine to 10 ten years, or nine years, this space should virtually 11 be impenetrable from the naked eye to look through. 12 So, I’d say within a year you’ll start to see growth. 13 MR. WEISLEDER: Okay. If you don’t see 14 growth, is there recommendations to help that growth in 15 that area? 16 MR. DeFEO: Well, I don’t have a 17 recommendation, per se, because I’ve never seen an area 18 that’s fenced not show new growth. 19 MR. WEISLEDER: Okay. Thank you. 20 MR. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 21 Come right up, sir. 22 MR. COOPER: Yes. Good evening. My name is 23 Randy Cooper. I live in the West Essex Highlands. 24 Thank you for your contribution. I just had one quick 25 question. What would you attribute

p, sir. 22 MR. COOPER: Yes. Good evening. My name is 23 Randy Cooper. I live in the West Essex Highlands. 24 Thank you for your contribution. I just had one quick 25 question. What would you attribute the unhealthy 27 1 environment to that’s in that area? Would you 2 contribute that to the deer or -- what would you say? 3 MR. DeFEO: If you’re asking -- I think your 4 question is why is the forest so unhealthy in my view 5 over its long terms life? It’s mostly over deer 6 browsing. Any study you’ll see -- there are some 7 things posted online you could read if you want to, but 8 you’ll look at almost every one of those studies about 9 forest health in New Jersey in a suburban like hours or 10 ex-urban area, you will see excessive deer browse is a 11 large and massive problem in this area. So I would 12 attribute that to deer browse. 13 MR. COOPER: Okay. So, you could also 14 consider this a healthy environment due to its deer 15 grazing. In other words, when you have deer grazing, 16 you would have this environment, you would expect this 17 environment to be as such. 18 MR. DeFEO: No, it’s not healthy in that 19 regard because when you have a higher population of 20 deer than the forest can carry -- meaning it’s carrying 21 capacity is exceeded, which is in the findings of this 22 area pretty generally true. In fact, in New Jersey in 23 urban areas pretty much generally true, or suburban, 24 some of the studies show as many as 90 to 120 deer per 25 square mile. The carrying capacity of a normal healthy 28 1 forest would be 20 deer per square mile. 2 When you have excessive deer per square mile 3 generally in an area, and we’re not just talking about 4 this 120 acres, but when you have excessive deer 5 density, the deer are unhealthy and it is a sign of 6 unhealth. The herd becomes unhealthy because they do 7 not have enough forage and the forest itself becomes 8 unhealthy because about the only thing left that will 9 grow after excessive browsing, are invasive species 10 which we see an excess in this property, such as 11 barberry. That’s just an example. 12 There are many invasive species but that’s 13 what you will see left because Barberry has virtually 14 no wildlife value and the deer won’t eat that. In 15 fact, I haven’t seen deer eat that virtually at all 16 unless absolutely starving at which point they’re not 17 healthy anyway. 18 MR. COOPER: So, in

wildlife value and the deer won’t eat that. In 15 fact, I haven’t seen deer eat that virtually at all 16 unless absolutely starving at which point they’re not 17 healthy anyway. 18 MR. COOPER: So, in your opinion, you would 19 view this as a area that was over concentrated with 20 deer? 21 MR. DeFEO: All of West Orange and Essex 22 County is over concentrated with deer. 23 MR. COOPER: Okay. Thank you. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Coviat? 25 MR. COVIAT: Good evening. Mr. DeFeo, your

29 1 presentation included a slide called total native plant 2 additions as proposed, which summarized the additional 3 plantings the applicant planned to make inside the 4 proposed deer fence to help restore the forest -- 279 5 trees, 1,065 shrubs and 2,166 perennials, grasses, 6 ground covers -- total of 3,510 plantings. And you 7 said these all, in terms of specific species are 8 subject to further discussion. So, just had a series 9 of questions from that. 10 Who determines this specific proposal and 11 what are the main factors impacting such a proposed 12 formulation? 13 MR. DeFEO: So, I understand the question, 14 are you asking specifically about the species being 15 selected as of right now and proposed? 16 MR. COVIAT: Well, both. It was a compound 17 sentence. I probably shouldn’t have done that. But 18 I’ll break it into two questions. 19 MR. DeFEO: Please. 20 MR. COVIAT: Who actually determines this 21 proposal and is there a formula that is generally 22 followed in the industry? 23 MR. DeFEO: I’m not certain I understand the 24 question. Let me try my best. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you asking the nature 30 1 of the individual trees -- how many elm trees, how many 2 oak trees -- the species of trees? 3 MR. COVIAT: Yes, and the actual number and 4 who actually does that. 5 MR. DeFEO: Okay. As far as the specific 6 species of plants that were selected, that is the 7 applicant submitting that to us for consideration. 8 They submitted native species. As I testified, I 9 think, in the prior testimony, I stated in at least one 10 case I have recommended that they consider replacing 11 one of the native species with a second one because of 12 climate change and the species probably would not do 13 well. 14 In fact, there are a number of studies that 15 show we need to be thinking about planting species that 16 are at the northern range, historically, of their 17 survival rate and picking more southern species as 18 they’ll do better. So we talked about that. As far as 19 the formula itself and this number of trees, the 20 applicant submitted that. 21 MR. COVIAT: Okay. And would the applicant 22 typically hire a forester to help put this proposal 23 together? Would it be a forester or -- 24 MR. DeFEO: Applicants can hire whomever they 25 want. I don’t know who they hired to do this. 31 1 MR. COVIAT: Okay. So, when you say that the 2 proposal is subject to

Would it be a forester or -- 24 MR. DeFEO: Applicants can hire whomever they 25 want. I don’t know who they hired to do this. 31 1 MR. COVIAT: Okay. So, when you say that the 2 proposal is subject to further discussion, do you mean 3 that the Planning Board can make changes to this 4 proposal as a condition of approval? 5 MR. DeFEO: I can’t answer that question. 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: The Planning Board can have 7 a condition that a forester can be engaged to review on 8 behalf of the Planning Board all these new trees and 9 growth that we planted. 10 MR. COVIAT: Okay. So, again, I just want to 11 clarify a little bit. And I realize the witness is 12 here as opposed to the Chair, but could the Board, 13 perhaps upon the recommendation of Mr. DeFeo, say that 14 we need a different number of a particular proposed 15 species or that we need a different species as he’s 16 already mentioned and is that something that the Board 17 would have to decide upon as part of their decision? 18 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The applicant will 19 work with the Planning Board as a condition whether 20 it’s through our forester or their forester with our 21 forester to make sure that they are no invasive species 22 and are conducive to the new growth that Mr. DeFeo’s 23 been speaking about. 24 MR. COVIAT: Okay. So, let me just throw out 25 a hypothetical. The proposal is for 279 trees. If Mr. 32 1 DeFeo or a majority of the Board said we think there 2 should be 30 more trees as opposed to what are 3 proposed, is that something that has to be reached by 4 consensus or the can the applicant say nope, not going 5 to do it? 6 MR. CHAIRPERSON: It would have to be by 7 consensus. And the applicant has been very reasonable 8 with this, so -- I can’t speak for Mr. Plocker -- he 9 may want to -- 10 MR. PLOCKER: Yeah, I just wanted to say for 11 the record because I thought this may have come up 12 before and I may have made a representation on behalf 13 of the applicant, if not, I’ll make it now. We do have 14 a landscaping plan. That’s what’s before the Board. 15 The application complies with the tree requirement of 16 our zoning ordinance. 17 However, we did represent, and will continue 18 to represent that as a condition of approval, we will 19 continue to work with Mr. DeFeo, the town forester or 20 whatever town professionals are going to be involved 21 when we are out in the field and it

present that as a condition of approval, we will 19 continue to work with Mr. DeFeo, the town forester or 20 whatever town professionals are going to be involved 21 when we are out in the field and it is time to do these 22 plantings after the buildings are built. And we stand 23 by that representation. 24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. 25 Plocker.

33 1 MR. COVIAT: And I didn’t want to give the 2 impression that I was questioning that dedication that 3 commitment. I just was trying to clarify it. 4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible). 5 MR. COVIAT: Okay. This question has to do, 6 Mr. DeFeo, with whether you have been involved in these 7 types of situations where an applicant would propose a 8 plan similar to this to help revive the forest. Have 9 you don’t many of these or approximately -- 10 MR. DeFEO: No. As I testified last time, 11 the answer’s no because to my knowledge and talking to 12 other professionals around the state, no one’s ever 13 tried to do this before. That doesn’t mean that it 14 hasn’t been done, just to my knowledge it hasn’t been 15 done. 16 MR. COVIAT: Okay. And in your professional 17 opinion other than your suggestion that they change one 18 of the species, is there anything else in the plan at 19 this point that you think should be subject to 20 modification or further discussion? 21 MR. DeFEO: I have reviewed the existing 22 landscape plan and that was the only thing that I red 23 flagged in it. Other than that, it comes down to 24 nuance. You know, when they get out in the field and 25 when you start planting things, you know, you may say I 34 1 want to put a hole here, you may not be able to put a 2 hole there. And so things may have to be moved around 3 a little bit. 4 But that’s something, as the Chairman noted, 5 in the field, things will of course be shifted but 6 under this situation which, again, I find highly 7 unusual, is that there will be someone there to look at 8 that and have a discussion with the builder at that 9 point as to, well, we need to do this or we need to 10 substitute that. 11 An example might be, a species may have been 12 selected -- it may be unavailable. That can happen. 13 Then we have to look at a substitute species. So, to 14 give you an example, it’s not going to say you must 15 have a red maple . I mean, it might be that -- bad 16 example because they’re easy to get but it might be I 17 can’t get a red maple. Well, then you might have to 18 use a swamp white oak And I’m just giving you an 19 illustration of two species that could substitute one 20 for the other and still meet the same condition of 21 native plants in the right area. Does that answer your 22 question? 23 MR. COVIAT: Yes. So, just as a 24 hypothetical, if the application