February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 37 to 40 of 154 10 of 68 sheets 37 little taller today as it was in 2000 -- this is a 20101 document, I believe, as it was in 2010 when another2 proposal was made by the developer. Those trees still3 exist in the same census numbers that the applicant4 itself offered for another version of the development on5 this site. Now suddenly the tree population is in half,6 and that means that the number you've been given, I7 believe somewhere in the order of 7000 trees are to be8 lost, is vastly inaccurate. The real number is probably9 two-and-a-half to three times greater based on the10 mathematical calculation using that tree survey. Not11 the tree survey that's more than cut in half that's12 offered on this application. The applicant is bound by13 its own admissions. It has not offered a single shred14 of evidence as to why that tree count was wrong back at15 the time of this drawing. And so the actual tree loss16 is probably going to be three times higher. I think17 when you check the testimony we offered calculations of18 that on cross-examination. So to begin with, the bare19 figure you've been given of 7000 something trees to be20 lost, is wrong. It's actually two and a half to three21 times larger and many of those are serious trees.22 Elderly trees, old trees, trees that are valuable23 ecologically. Dr. DeVito said the trees are about 90 to24 100 years old, many of them have another 100 to 20025 38 years of life left. So bear that in mind. Trees that1 will be knocked down and not even acknowledged because2 of the extreme undercount on this current application3 are going to be lost. Trees of that vintage, which have4 another 100 or 200 years of life left. They're an5 extraordinarily rare entity.6 This is an example of one of the many7 letters and statements you've received. This is from8 Boswell Engineering on behalf of Verona. I'll just note9 very quickly, we have them throughout here, I don't want10 to go through the pages, it's very difficult to read11 anyway. They're in the record, you've heard testimony,12 often they were cited by representatives of the13 different towns. They're reports from the West Orange14 Planning Board, Verona Town, Verona Planning Board15 through it's engineer, Verona Environmental Commission,16 South Orange Environmental Commission, West Orange17 Environmental Commission, County of Essex

ing Board, Verona Town, Verona Planning Board15 through it's engineer, Verona Environmental Commission,16 South Orange Environmental Commission, West Orange17 Environmental Commission, County of Essex Environmental18 Commission, County of Essex Commissioners, and I believe19 there are others that were cited on the record, not just20 documents that were submitted. So bear in mind many of21 you neighboring municipal agencies and municipalities22 have objected. You heard Mayor Ed Davis speak and there23 are other political officials who spoke, officials who24 spoke in here. Remember all the public comment, we25 39 heard 27, 28 sessions, at almost every one of them there1 was public comment. Some of it had been vociferous.2 There was not a single person, not one person in a year3 and a half in 28 sessions, that spoke in favor of this4 project. There was not one government official who came5 in and spoke in favor. There was not one neighboring6 agency, neighboring municipality that spoke in favor,7 and not one individual came forward to endorse this8 project and support it. Now, I've never been in case9 like that. Every time I've been in a case where there's10 serious environmental issues, there's always somebody11 who endorses it. There's always somebody who agrees12 with the notion of building it. I've never seen a case13 where 28 meetings take place, Ms. McGovern, if I'm wrong14 it's 27 or 28, I'm not sure. I've never been in a case15 where there are 28 hearings, I'll us that number, and no16 one has ever spoken in favor of the application, except17 the applicant. That tells you something. And under the18 MLUL, one of the objectives is respecting the interests19 of neighboring governments and municipalities. You20 can't pass ordinances, you can't approve plans that will21 injure the interests as expressed by neighboring22 communities. And many have said, sewer capacity is at23 risk. There's no sufficient water capacity. We're24 worried about flooding from this project, we're already25 40 experiencing it and you heard testimony about that. So1 bear in mind that there's been an extraordinary deposit2 of documents from other agencies opposing this project3 and giving their reasons, and you never heard a single4 person endorse this project, other than of course the5 applicant.6 I'll just scroll through these. I'm sorry.7 Let me go back.8 The next document we have

g their reasons, and you never heard a single4 person endorse this project, other than of course the5 applicant.6 I'll just scroll through these. I'm sorry.7 Let me go back.8 The next document we have is the hydrology9 report from the engineering firm Princeton Hydro, which10 represented the objectors. Now, I'm not going to go11 through all of what he testified to, his reports12 available to you. His testimony, I think, was very13 clear. I frankly think he was both clear, concise, and14 kind of modest in his presentation. He said, this is15 our knowledge. This is what we have to offer, that was16 Sean Walsh. What I'd like to do is take you to his17 analysis of wetlands impacts.18 Now, Mr. Fagan, if you could just please19 enlarge that. Thank you. A little less if you can.20 Perfect. Thank you.21 Now, this is at Page 4 of his report, and it22 was a, an engineering drawing that he created using what23 you saw earlier. The parking areas, the other areas of24 disturbance, and the buildings themselves in the site25