February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

35 of 68 sheets Page 137 to 140 of 154 03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM 137 Regarding fire. Actually, pull up that1 document. One, it should be noted, as Mr. Appel2 testified to, our architect, the buildings are fully3 sprinklered. Sprinklered.4 Mr. Afran referenced a bullet point about5 there -- give me one second. Regarding access to the6 rear of the building. Mr. Afran read to you the first7 bullet point where it does say having rear access is8 ideal. However, our traditional attack tactics include9 entry through the front door.10 But the second bullet point he reaffirms,11 "Again, we traditionally enter structures from the front12 door. If hoses are to be deployed to a different13 location, we carry sufficient lengths on each apparatus14 to accommodate such situation. We have the ability to15 create a water supply with large diameter hose to16 stretch further than we traditionally would."17 And the final thing I just want to note,18 this job complies with the fire code and it complies19 with RSIS. So I'll just state that for the record.20 Just to address some of the other witnesses21 offered by the objector that Mr. Afran referenced this22 evening. Mr. DeVito testified on April 30, 2025 about23 forestry and forest ecology. Mr. DeVito offered no24 testimony regarding items which are regulated. His25 138 analysis regarding core forest and edge forest concerned1 items which are not regulated by the state outside of2 the Highlands and the Pinelands possibly. And they're3 not regulated by this town.4 When asked by Dr. Bagoff, What would you do?5 Meaning what's the solution for this site. Mr. DeVito6 responded that he would, "Find the money and save it."7 This fits in with the true intent of many people here8 who don't want to see a single thing built, but we have9 zoning and there is no legal justification to preserve10 100 percent of the property. The township was fully11 aware of the acreage of disturbance and the general12 areas of disturbance, which was vetted by its own13 professionals. The ordinance permits us to proceed with14 this development and nothing testified to by Mr. DeVito15 changes that.16 Mr. DeVito also confirmed on Pages 18 and 2017 of his testimony, that there are no threatening or18 endangered species present at the site.19 Luke Butler, the avian zoologist and20 biologist, he testified on April 30, 2025. Mr. Afran21 incorrectly takes the position

hat there are no threatening or18 endangered species present at the site.19 Luke Butler, the avian zoologist and20 biologist, he testified on April 30, 2025. Mr. Afran21 incorrectly takes the position that an ecological study22 was required for this application. The ordinance23 explicitly exempts this application from all24 environmental regulations of the townships land use25 139 code, including the obligation to provide an EIS. As1 previously stated, the township and my client had an2 extended period of time during discussions, and the3 township agreed to zone the property in a particular4 way. The settlement agreement provides that my client5 quote, and Mr. Afran read the same provision, "Shall6 submit all plans to DeFeo and Associates, the Townships7 environmental consultant, for review and comment." The8 proposed ordinance, which was adopted word for word9 after the recommendation of the Planning Board, was10 attached to that settlement agreement. There is no11 reading of the ordinance or the settlement agreement12 which required the submission of an EIS and the board13 followed that ordinance and never required it of us.14 Not withstanding, Mr. Butler testified about birds which15 may or may not be present on the property. In response16 to a direct question by the boards engineer on Page 10317 of that transcript, Mr. Butler confirmed that none of18 the species he observed were listed as endangered or19 threatened. Mr. Butler did not testify to any matters20 regulated by the ordinance or otherwise prohibited by21 the state.22 Mark Gallagher, the wetlands scientist, the23 ecologist, he testified on June 4, 2025. The24 regulations of wetlands is within the exclusive25 140 jurisdiction of the DEP, not the municipality. The DEP1 issued a valid LOI, which was extended during the2 pendency of this application, along with the DEP3 issuance of the required stormwater permits approving4 the proposed stormwater design. The objector disagreed,5 they filed an appeal in the Appellate Division, they6 told you many times that's for that farm. They even7 filed a request to suspend the permits, and that request8 was denied.9 The board's engineer on Page 56 of the10 transcript, confirmed that wetlands are regulated by the11 DEP and that it is not something the board can comment12 on. On Page 57 he confirmed, "It would just be a13 condition of approval that the applicant

ipt, confirmed that wetlands are regulated by the11 DEP and that it is not something the board can comment12 on. On Page 57 he confirmed, "It would just be a13 condition of approval that the applicant would have to14 obtain the necessary LOI as well as any development15 permits, general permits related to freshwater16 wetlands."17 Also there were allegations by the public18 that the property -- strike that.19 And it's important, by the DEP granting the20 LOI, that allows us to develop the buildings where they21 are proposed on the site and this board should not22 overlook that.23 Mr. Hasse, who Mr. Afran also referred to.24 He testified on August 25, 2025, the geology professor25