February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

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