February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 45 to 48 of 154 12 of 68 sheets 45 diverted from those wetlands. Those wetlands will lose1 that natural water runoff.2 Now, Mark Gallagher -- now this diagram was3 created by Sean Walsh of Princeton Hydro. Mark4 Gallagher, who testified in detail as to the substance5 of at what this means, I don't have him on the slide,6 but you'll be able to check the testimony. On the7 western side he said there's two drainage areas here,8 and you'll see in one of the later pictures, I believe,9 a dark green. I'll just use a laser pointer again, on10 roughly this side is a drainage area going to the left.11 That'd be in dark green on one of the engineering12 drawings. On -- to the right has a drainage area this13 way. Now, Mr. Gallagher calculated that the western14 drainage area to the left will lose 32 acres, which is15 presently 32 acres will be reduced by 9 acres. Will be16 reduced, excuse me, by 9 acres. It will lose 28 percent17 of the existing drainage area, which means 28 percent of18 the water supply to the wetlands will be lost. It is19 not being returned to the wetlands. We see very clearly20 it's being diverted away from the wetlands into the21 detention basin and back to the Canoe Brook. So while22 it gets to the Canoe Brook it is being diverted from23 it's natural course into the wetlands. On the eastern24 side there are 48.4 acres in the eastern drainage area.25 46 Mr. Gallagher testified that it will be reduced by 161 acres or 33 percent. So on the western side we will2 lose 28 percent of the drainage to the wetlands, that's3 28 percent of that surface water. And on the eastern4 side we will lose 33 percent of the drainage to the5 eastern wetland, or wetlands on the eastern side and6 that's 33 percent of their surface water all gone.7 These wetlands are very fragile, as you all know, and8 we've, over the last 40 or 50 years, respect wetlands.9 Remember the Great Swamp, people wanted to put an10 airport there because it was a wetland. We don't do11 that anymore. We wouldn't build the Meadowlands Stadium12 any longer on a wetland as we did. We don't do this13 anymore. It's happening because a litigation gun was14 put to the councils head, that's why it's happening.15 This is a dinosaur. It is contrary to modern thinking.16 It is contrary to scientific thinking. No municipality17 would allow this to happen if it wasn't forced into

head, that's why it's happening.15 This is a dinosaur. It is contrary to modern thinking.16 It is contrary to scientific thinking. No municipality17 would allow this to happen if it wasn't forced into it.18 You are a brake on that problem. You are a check and --19 part of the check and balances. If this will destroy20 the ecology or severely damage it, you have the ability21 to say no. That is why we call it planning. You are a22 check on the political process. The political process23 that we don't want to be sued, we don't have the money24 to be sued, we're going to yield. But you are a check25 47 on that process. Our system is based on checks and1 balances. That's why, to the degree it creaks along, it2 works, because a system of checks and balances are here.3 That is what you are part of. This project will4 inevitably destroy or severely damage those wetlands.5 Did you hear anyone come back after Mr. Walsh and Mr.6 Gallagher testified and say, no, that it's not going to7 happen. Did you hear a single witness from the8 applicant come back and say, no, that won't happen. Did9 anyone refute this testimony. The answers, no. Not one10 witness came back to refute this testimony. No one.11 That's pretty telling. Hundreds of millions of dollars12 of profit will come from this project and yet the13 applicant did not find a witness to come back and14 dispute this irrefutable evidence. And I think our15 common sense tells us if they could have they would16 have, and they didn't. So we now know the wetlands will17 be severely damaged. And it's not just a matter of18 losing 30 percent of the water, it's a matter of all the19 ecological losses that come with that.20 We can move on. This is the remainder of --21 well, let me go back to one point.22 At Page 4 of his report where the chart is,23 I think it's Page 4. He has a paragraph that discusses24 this issue. All right. I don't want to trouble you to25 48 be reading now. It says approximately what I said. And1 so you can go back and you could see what he said in2 characterizing the problem and Mr. Gallagher testified3 in detail as to the actual losses that will be4 experienced.5 Now, this is part of a series of exhibits,6 you probably remember this. This is an engineering7 drawing created by Mr. DeVito. It's not an engineering8 drawing, it's a demonstrative exhibit measuring certain9 areas.10 Now, in the red you see

,6 you probably remember this. This is an engineering7 drawing created by Mr. DeVito. It's not an engineering8 drawing, it's a demonstrative exhibit measuring certain9 areas.10 Now, in the red you see the area of11 disturbance. That roughly matches what we saw in the12 earlier engineering drawing of the overall plan. And13 the red outlines the area of disturbance and the area of14 disturbance is not just the building. The area of15 disturbance is the parking areas. It's the roadways.16 It's the manicured lawns. It's the detention basins.17 You see them bulging on the bottom there. That's what18 those bulges sticking out at the very bottom of the19 drawing are in red. All of the area of construction,20 development of all kind, pipe, conduits, all of that is21 the area of disturbance and that's in red.22 Now, what you see on the outside in yellow23 is the outline of the project site itself. Now, I want24 to just direct your attention to the right-hand corner25