February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 69 to 72 of 154 18 of 68 sheets 69 know, there was once a pristine old growth forest right1 in the middle of West Orange and we destroyed it. How2 do we answer that question.3 Now, are you convinced from the evidence you've4 seen, that Mr. DeFeo is right or that the experts the5 objectors marshaled have the better argument. If you're6 convinced that objectors evidence has the better case,7 you have to recognize the economic -- the ecological8 destruction of this site that will ensue. And therefore9 the only answer has to be, no.10 That's a satellite -- here, we're going to get to11 some aerial photos.12 I'm actually getting close to the end. I13 don't know, Mr. Chairman, when it's appropriate for a14 break. I'll leave it in your hands.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Keep going.16 MR. AFRAN: Okay.17 This is a 2024 satellite view. This is part of18 Dr. Hasse's presentation. Remember, he's basically the19 states cartographer. He maintains all of the data for20 the state on all of this collection of information.21 This, he testified, is a 2024 satellite image of the22 site. I think it's a beautiful picture. It shows the23 intense development in this area. And you can see the24 site is surrounded literally by thousands of buildings.25 70 And we have, and you can actually see a little bit of1 that connectivity corridor developing. I'm sorry. You2 can see it right here, that one area. You see over here3 above Ms. McGovern there. And then you see the center4 area. There's one, two, three. We are in the center.5 This is a vital point of connectivity for many species,6 particularly bird species that migrate and move from7 place to place. Take this away, destroy it and we wiped8 away one of the last remaining pieces of natural area in9 this community. Really in the whole northern area of10 the state. And you can see the intense development,11 that little bit, plus a little bit elsewhere, is all12 that's left of this. That's 1930 era. Again, our site13 Dr. Hasse placed in the center. This is most likely a14 winter or late fall picture. And you could see in 193015 there's very little development. And if I use above Ms.16 McGovern as a guiding point, right above there is some17 subdivision development back in the '30s. Some sand18 mining it looks like here. That may be why there's an19 open area shown, because it may be the remnants of that.20 And

right above there is some17 subdivision development back in the '30s. Some sand18 mining it looks like here. That may be why there's an19 open area shown, because it may be the remnants of that.20 And basically there's a little bit here, but most of21 it's open. This whole area. And if you go back you can22 see that this whole area is mostly developed. 1930 it23 was mostly undeveloped.24 Now, if we go further to what's known as25 71 Vermule Maps, those are done by the US Geological Survey1 back in the 1880s by a man named Vermule, the entire2 area was undeveloped. Now, the brown areas generally3 deemed farmland. The green areas are forested. So you4 can see where our project is in the center. Sorry. Our5 project is in the center and it's surrounded by woods.6 Those woods have largely disappeared over time. So what7 we have from Dr. Hasse is a demonstration of what there8 was and what there is left. And you're being asked to9 decide whether to literally destroy what is left, or10 large part what is left. There's very little of this11 left.12 Now, we're not talking about the destruction13 of an endangered species per se. We are talking about14 something equally rare. The destruction of old growth15 forest in the middle of central northern New Jersey.16 This is a rare entity and what's at stake is whether it17 survives or is destroyed. And as I said, Dr. -- the18 environmental evidence offered, and I won't say the19 applicant offered Dr. DeFeo, he's really mandated by the20 town as a board expert, but the only other environmental21 evidence offered was Dr. DeFeo. All he spoke about was22 if you put deer fences up you'll get some regrowth. He23 never got back on the stand and rebutted his testimony,24 nor could he. He didn't have the background. And no25 72 other witness came forward. None of this ecological1 evidence, the forest evidence, the hydrology, the loss2 of wetlands, the injury to wetlands, the loss of3 species, none of it was refuted by the applicant, or Mr.4 DeFeo.5 I'm not sure if this is the end of this6 exhibit or not.7 These are more of the documents submitted by8 the different towns.9 I do want to speak now about Mr. Litwornia.10 Now, you recall Mr. Litwornia, he was a11 traffic engineer. He's actually a very knowledgeable12 man, but he was very ill. So if you recall his testimony13 he had difficulty physically speaking at times, and

u recall Mr. Litwornia, he was a11 traffic engineer. He's actually a very knowledgeable12 man, but he was very ill. So if you recall his testimony13 he had difficulty physically speaking at times, and he14 couldn't always be heard and he couldn't always hear.15 He has a serious illness, but he testified and issued a16 report. When you read the transcript, his report and17 testimony, it's quite logical. He was a little hard to18 follow at times, but he made some very salient points.19 And the primary point he raised is, is that this project20 is a cul-de-sac.21 Now, this is -- let me just go to my notes22 for a moment, if I can. I just want to scroll through23 to make sure there's nothing else before I end the, I24 may shut this for a moment, but this is Chief Mann's25

19 of 68 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 154 03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM 73 statement that he came and made here. "The man who cuts1 down all of the trees and kills all of the animals will2 find that he has nothing left to eat." He quoted that,3 and he says, "Nature sustains us. It feeds us. You4 will be reaping the aftermath of this decision, your5 decision for years to come. Do the right thing. Show6 that you care." I disagree with Chief Mann in one way.7 It's not a matter of showing that you care. You can't8 do that. You're not allowed to rule because you care.9 You have to rule based on the facts before you. The10 facts before you show ecological environmental11 destruction and degradation of virtually an entirety of12 this forest. And there is not evidence against the13 objectors case of any substance on this point. There's14 no evidence. But the rest of what Chief Mann says is15 vital. We can not continue to destroy that bit of16 nature that's left, and the law says we have a duty to17 protect it. And the Municipal Land Use Law say we have18 the duty. And your fundamental task is protecting the19 public, health, safety, welfare, and morals. That's the20 task of the Planning Board. Are you going to be able to21 do that by approving this project and no amount of minor22 mitigation, such as putting up a sign about what23 wildlife and plant life used to be there, and no amount24 of signage -- there was one drawing on one of the25 74 engineering drawings that had model signs to show birds1 that would live there. No amount of that, that's what2 developers do, they pull that out all the time. They3 say, we'll put signage up. We'll say the birds that4 used to be here. Or the birds we think are there that5 may be left. We'll show what the Canoe Brook -- where6 the Canoe Brook was. We'll have a sign, the Canoe Brook7 was here. No amount of mitigation of that minor nature8 can even remotely address the issues raised here by the9 objectors. And there's no condition of approval that10 can eliminate any of these harms, which have been11 testified to.12 Dr. DeVito, Mr. Farr, Mr. Gallagher, Mr.13 Walsh on the environmental issues have made it utterly14 clear, and no one refutes this, and there's no15 mitigation that can be offered to challenge that16 evidence. And you heard no testimony about mitigation17 that can achieve that. All we've heard is Dr. -- Dr.18 DeFeo. Mr. DeFeo, who

and there's no15 mitigation that can be offered to challenge that16 evidence. And you heard no testimony about mitigation17 that can achieve that. All we've heard is Dr. -- Dr.18 DeFeo. Mr. DeFeo, who said if you build the fences19 you'll get some regrowth. Undoubtedly true. But that20 doesn't address the issues that have been raised.21 Now, I'd like to talk -- we can shut that, I22 think. Anyone wants to go back to it just let me know23 and we'll put it back on. But I just want to end with24 Chief Mann's statement. And he came here, and I wasn't25 75 here when he was here, I sitting Shiva. I don't know1 his reactions, he may have been angry, he may have been2 emotional, I don't know, when he spoke. But I can tell3 you this, if he was here there's a reason for that,4 because his people are still here. They have a5 community in northern New Jersey where they've always6 been, but they've lost everything else, as we have too.7 His loss, which is ethnic in terms of the Lenape8 people's loss of land and nature, his loss is our loss.9 They lost lands as they owned 250 years ago, 200 years10 ago, but we've also lost it too, and that's why he came,11 because his piece is still here. And if he was12 emotional or angry, I think we can forgive that because13 he lives this very deeply, as we should be.14 Mr. Litwornia testified on certain points,15 this a completely different issue. It relates to16 traffic questions.17 Now, the law regulates the Residential Site18 Improvement Standards -- sorry. I was trying to say19 RSIS, I must be getting tired. Thank you. The20 Residential Site Improvement Standards is a statute. It21 is the law that governs. There's no way around it.22 It's not an ordinance of the town, it's not a regulation23 or some agency like the Delaware and Raritan Canal24 Commission. It's the statutory law of the state. It25 76 binds this board. The question he raises is whether1 it's being violated.2 Now, the RSIS standards apply to the3 cul-de-sac. Now, this was an interesting legal issue4 that arose. Now, we certainly have a cul-de-sac in5 terms of the existing condo and the association.6 There's one way into it and one way out, that's Oval7 Road. That's a cul-de-sac. No one disputes that. And8 the RSIS standards for a cul-de-sac govern. The9 interesting thing that the developers doing, is it's10 adding to the cul-de-sac. Right. It's adding a11 cul-de-sac

l-de-sac. No one disputes that. And8 the RSIS standards for a cul-de-sac govern. The9 interesting thing that the developers doing, is it's10 adding to the cul-de-sac. Right. It's adding a11 cul-de-sac onto the cul-de-sac. It's really growing the12 cul-de-sac. You know, yeast grows and gets a bubble on13 the yeast, and it expands. Well, that's what's14 happening. The cul-de-sac is growing. The development15 tries to say, no, no, no. And with respect to CME, they16 took that position, we strongly disagree. This is two17 cul-de-sacs. It's a cul-de-sac on top of a cul-de-sac,18 but they're separate cul-de-sacs. So think about that.19 We have the existing development, there's only one way20 in through Oval, partly through Warner and not through21 Oval. The only way in is through Oval, the only way out22 is through Oval. It's a cul-de-sac by law, no one23 doubts that. What's happening is that this is a new24 project that's proposed immediately behind or on top of25

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 77 to 80 of 154 20 of 68 sheets 77 the existing development.1 Now, what is the way into this project. We2 had a lot of testimony on this and we absolutely3 incontestably shown there's only one way into this new4 project, that's Oval Road through Warner. You enter5 Oval, you go up Warner and you're in the project. There6 is no other way in. The way into this new project is7 exactly the way into the existing project. It's the8 same road. They have to extend Warner to kind of9 connect up to. But you're going from Oval to Warner in,10 that's it. If the first is a cul-de-sac then the second11 is part of the cul-de-sac. Now, I recall questioning, I12 think it was our engineer from the board, and the13 question I asked was, Well, if this new project had been14 built as part of the original rather than two phases,15 would it all have been one big cul-de-sac? If you16 recall the answer was, yes. So you want to get one set17 of average daily lives, one set of cars and trips per18 unit in a cul-de-sac, you can't double it because you19 wait 30 years and make a bubble of the cul-de-sac on top20 of the existing one. It's one cul-de-sac. And the21 concession by the engineer was that Well, if it had all22 been built at one time it would have been one giant23 cul-de-sac. The RSIS standards would apply. But24 somehow through some miraculous and manipulation of25 78 geography the applicants trying to sell you on the fact1 that this is a separate cul-de-sac. Goes in through2 Oval and Warner, goes out through Oval and Warner. It's3 simply an expansion of the existing cul-de-sac. And4 just because you decide to hold back and build this in5 two phases, doesn't mean you get credit for doubling the6 amount of cars, vehicles, units and trips. The law is7 the law. One way in, one way out, there's a limit to8 the number of trips available. Period. You cannot9 exceed it. There is no dispute that they exceed it.10 Mr. Litwornia's testimony was very clear. The only way11 they have around this problem is equivalent to juggling12 the books, so to speak. The only way they have around13 this problem, is Kuzak. Right. They can say well, we14 have, and maybe we can put the engineering drawing back15 on before we leave this. Thank you. I think this will16 work.17 Basically what we have is Kuzak is going to18 be closed and used only for emergency access, we

we can put the engineering drawing back15 on before we leave this. Thank you. I think this will16 work.17 Basically what we have is Kuzak is going to18 be closed and used only for emergency access, we know19 that, that's the proposal. Yet, they can't really do20 that. Well -- and they want a de minimis exception.21 They say there's really not a lot of extra traffic,22 therefore we don't need a second road inside the23 project. It says, de minimis exception. Well, there's24 going to be 7000 car rides per day than under the25 79 existing traffic conditions now. And, you know, I asked1 this question a few times and everyone said, oh, that's2 de minimis. We're having an enormous increase in3 traffic of about 2500 per day, I think. The existing is4 2700 something, I'll get the exact figures. And we're5 going to more than double or double it. Now, they want6 to close Kuzak as a de minimis exception and use it only7 for emergency access. That avoids the issue. That's8 the book juggling I'm talking about. They're saying9 well, if we have Kuzak we have two ways into this10 cul-de-sac. Yeah, if the only development was this,11 that might work. It's not. And it doesn't really work12 anyway because what does Kuzak feed into? Warner. What13 does Warner feed into? Oval. The only way in and out14 doesn't work out. So even if you didn't have the de15 minimis exception and you force them to open Kuzak, it16 doesn't work. Because Kuzak is still feeding into17 Warner and into Oval. It's not a separate way into this18 development. They're still stuck with the RSIS, and no19 one has explained any provision in the statute that20 allows you to simply expand an existing cul-de-sac and21 then start the bean counting over from scratch and22 ignore all the other traffic that exists from the23 existing part of it. There's no statute, no regulation24 offered. So the idea of de minimis exception, it means25 80 that -- well, if you -- we had to do Kuzak we would and1 that would solve the cul-de-sac problem. It doesn't.2 Because it all feeds right back into Warner which feeds3 back into Oval. There's only one way in and one way out4 and the fire chief made this very clear. You know, he5 said, he admitted in his report, we only have one means6 of ingress and egress except for those emergency ways.7 So there's no possibility that Kuzak is a separate way8 into this development. Under the RSIS

he admitted in his report, we only have one means6 of ingress and egress except for those emergency ways.7 So there's no possibility that Kuzak is a separate way8 into this development. Under the RSIS the only way to9 avoid the cul-de-sac minimums or maximums rather, is you10 have two separate ways in and out of the development.11 One here going to some arterial road, one here going to12 a road. When the two go into one that's one way in and13 out. It is not two ways. This is common sense. Why14 does the RSIS exist? It exists to protect people. It15 exists to minimize traffic problems. It exists to16 maximize the ability to access the site. It exists to17 minimize too many cars passing in front of houses,18 ruining the life of the people who live in them and it19 exists to minimize traffic jambs at a single way in and20 out. That's why if you want more trips per day, more21 trips per unit in a multifamily development, you got to22 have two separate ways in and out and you no longer have23 a cul-de-sac. They don't have it. So even if you say24 the hell with the de minimis exception, that's a lot of25

21 of 68 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 154 03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM 81 crap, because you got thousands of extra rides, it1 doesn't help them. Because if you open Kuzak it's still2 going into the same way in and out, Warner to Oval.3 There's no way around this problem. The law does not4 allow this project. Period.5 Now, I'm not an expert, so I'm going to6 recite the calculations and I may have, I believe I'm7 correct. Give me one moment, please. I'm sorry.8 Mr. Chairman, I just need one more moment. I'm sorry.9 A street -- a cul-de -- a development10 system, a cul-de-sac under the RSIS -- I'm wrapping up11 actually. This is fundamentally legally. Under the12 RSIS the maximum ADT, average daily trips, into and out13 of a cul-de-sac is 1000 for multifamily developments.14 Mr. Litwornia calculates, and no one disputes the15 figure, I think it's the applicants figure, 2228 trips16 per day for ADT. All right. That's almost three times17 the maximum permitted in a cul-de-sac. They don't have18 a second road in and out. Kuzak, even if you open it,19 is not a second way in and out. Simply goes right back20 into the only way in and out. It's not going to get21 them around the RSIS. There's almost three times more22 trips permitted from this development alone. Then Mr.23 Litwornia adds in the trips from the existing24 developments. We're about five times in excess of the25 82 maximum permitted average daily trips under RSIS for a1 cul-de-sac.2 Now, this is much more serious than mere3 aesthetics. It's a safety issue and quality of life4 issue. We're going to literally have 5000 average daily5 trips or more, in a place where the law says only 10006 are allowed. And the reason for that is the quality of7 life and safety of the people who live here. We're8 adding more than five times the average daily trips by9 the sheer fiction of claiming it's not a cul-de-sac,10 because you could open Kuzak, but all Kuzak does is loop11 right around to the same way in and out. It's no12 different than juggling the books when you're trying to13 evade your taxes. It's exactly what it is. You can't14 approve it. It's illegal, and there's not a single15 shred of authority offered by anybody. By your engineer16 who analyzed it or by the applicants very qualified17 engineers or their planner or their attorney to show how18 RSIS is not being violated. The only argument they have19 is well, if you