February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 13 to 16 of 154 4 of 68 sheets 13 because of the very dense canopy in this mature forest,1 but the goal was, you'll get some. As far as it goes2 that's fine. So what is the bargain that you're being3 asked to approve. You're being asked to approve a4 project that will decimate most of the forest. The5 entire central portion of that forest will be clearcut.6 And we know that the fragmentary parts around the7 development will also be severely impaired. In exchange8 for a bargain, that bargain is that the developer will9 pay a relatively heavy cost of a couple hundred thousand10 dollars for deer fencing. Deer fencing to go on the two11 side pieces that will be left over. The town can't12 really afford deer fencing, the developers not going to13 do it on their own, unless they're getting something in14 return, so to avoid deer browse there's a compromise15 offer. That's the essence of that settlement agreement.16 Let us build a 500 unit development in a place no one17 ever built before, in a place that's never had18 construction of almost any kind, in an old growth forest19 that's almost unheard of in central New Jersey, and in20 an urban area. And in return we'll put up a couple21 hundred thousand dollars on this project in which will22 take hundreds of millions of revenue so we can maybe23 stop some additional deer browse on the two fragmentary24 pieces that are left. And they call that an25 14 environmentally sound project. Well, it's not. And we1 know it's not because of the testimony we offered2 through Mr. Farr and primarily Dr. DeVito, as well as3 Sean Walsh and Mark Gallagher.4 Now, they were experts in ecology and hydrology.5 Dr. DeVito is a PhD in ecology from University of6 Wisconsin. He worked in the field of forestry his whole7 entire life. He is the lead ecologist and forester for8 the New Jersey Conservation Fund, which is the body that9 has been most responsible for preserving forests in New10 Jersey.11 You may remember the Great Swamp where an airport12 was proposed on the Great Swamp. Figured it was a13 swamp, it was a waste of a place. It was the14 Conservation Fund that historically fought that, and15 Newark Airport was built where it is today because of16 the successful fight to protect the Great Swamp, which17 is today one of the great ecological resources in the18 state, and that's why we are here now. Those

t was built where it is today because of16 the successful fight to protect the Great Swamp, which17 is today one of the great ecological resources in the18 state, and that's why we are here now. Those battles19 occur in rooms like this, and they occur through a lot20 of commitment of time and money and human resources and21 a lot of your time. And the only way those battles are22 won is to go through this process. So Dr. DeVito is the23 chief ecologist and forester for the entity that is most24 responsible in New Jersey for preservation of forests.25 15 His credentials vastly outweigh, and I mean no criticism1 of Mr. DeFeo, and I can't quite see if he's here today,2 but I mean no criticism of him personally. His3 credentials vastly outweigh Mr. DeFeo's. Mr. DeFeo4 acknowledged, and he is in fact the towns recycling5 supervisor, his company does the recycling and the6 transfer of trash in the town. That's fine, it's an7 important field, but it's not expertise in ecology or8 forestry. Dr. DeVito has that. Mr. Farr has that.9 Sean Walsh and Mark Gallagher have that. Mr. DeFeo's10 knowledge went very -- to a very limited extent. Namely11 what will happen if you fence off a forest and reduce12 deer browse. And frankly, again, I mean no disrespect,13 you don't need any level of expertise to know that if14 you fence in woods deer can't get in. And if deer can't15 get in they can't eat what may grow. That is not proof16 of the absence of massive environmental harm on this17 property.18 Now, we'll go through the evidence and we'll19 see what would happen once this project is built. And20 environmental issues are only one dimension of the21 problem. I am not going to propose to go through the22 technical evidence in any detail, for good reason.23 Number one, it's just beyond the scope of doing a24 summary, a summation. And two, it may not get us25 16 anywhere, because experts can always disagree with each1 other. You'll have to go through the transcripts and2 see for yourself whether certain questions are answered3 to your minds or not.4 Before I get to the forest issues, I do want5 to address that in one general way. We had a lot of6 testimony on the geostructural issues, primarily7 concerning Building D, which is just at or near the8 ridge, and it comes up to a point of about seven feet to9 the top and it goes back a little bit. Now, we offered10 Geof Goll, who said

, primarily7 concerning Building D, which is just at or near the8 ridge, and it comes up to a point of about seven feet to9 the top and it goes back a little bit. Now, we offered10 Geof Goll, who said there are significant problems with11 the engineering in connection with the ridge. And he12 also recommended using a factor of safety of 2.0 because13 of the risk of significant problems if there's14 structural failure in the substrate. This board was15 sufficiently concerned that it took the position in16 asking CME that they have a, so-called, independent17 review of Langan and the applicants expert and from an18 engineering point of view and our expert. And both are19 qualified experts, from the objectors and the applicants20 perspective. So CME came in and did an independent21 review circle. Now, we went through and I regret we had22 to put Mr. Kleinberg through three nights or so of23 cross-examination, although he and I wrangled quite a24 lot because I felt he wasn't answering questions, he25