March 4, 2026, Planning Board Regular Meeting - WEHI Transcript

25 of 54 sheets Page 97 to 100 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 97 per the NJDEP regulations, which they have complied1 with. There is, to my knowledge, hasn't been any2 capacity analysis currently done on that culvert, at3 least that I'm aware by the applicant, but again, they4 met their reductions at that point of analysis, so5 they're essentially reducing their flow to that point.6 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Yeah, I don't recall7 anyone testify or, you know, suggesting that it's an8 issue. I'm just curious, you know, if it's like a sole9 access point, typically you would ensure that it's above10 the flood elevation, it may be not an issue but just was11 curious.12 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, so in that case if it13 is undersized or under capacity right now the only thing14 this development would be doing would be reducing that15 flow. So a lot of times you see, if we're making a16 situation that's already noncompliant a little bit17 better by reducing that flow.18 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Thank you.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the20 board?21 Ms. McGovern.22 MS. McGOVERN: I have some information from23 -- Mr. DeFeo wrote a report dated July 2024, where he24 makes reference to plantings -- planting species where25 98 he reviewed a plan. "Planting species appear to be all1 requirements, as only native species are proposed.2 Applicant may wish to substitute certain species to3 respond to changes in the USDA planting zone map found:4 And it gives the site. "Updated planting plan to be5 reviewed for consistency with proposed planting numbers.6 There appears to be a discrepancy of 69 plants of two7 sheets." Confirm -- then it went into porous pavements8 and other environmental issues. So there was a planting9 plan reviewed by Mr. DeFeo and is commented on his10 report.11 There's another report dated July 2024 where12 he reviews, "Implemented tree preservation or13 replacement plan in accordance that the following14 parameters, and he provides tree density equals 21215 trees per acre as per the tree study." And he says,16 "Applicant is proposing LOD of 27.5 acres" and goes into17 details there. I believe the conditions, one of the18 conditions that was proposed was to comply with Mr.19 DeFeo's report. I can double check that. Other than20 that, I don't know -- I mean, he gave two days of21 testimony, so I don't remember anything more specific.22 MS. McCARTNEY: It's okay. I

ith Mr.19 DeFeo's report. I can double check that. Other than20 that, I don't know -- I mean, he gave two days of21 testimony, so I don't remember anything more specific.22 MS. McCARTNEY: It's okay. I don't need23 that.24 MS. McGOVERN: If we look at the agenda, I25 99 don't know, maybe there's a, if it's just a part of1 their site plan, I don't know that we can break it out2 by looking at the agenda at this point without going3 through it.4 COUNCIL WOMAN SCARPA: Now that we bring it5 up, I have one other condition.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Council Person Scarpa.7 Council President Scarpa.8 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: I wasn't going to9 bring up the whole deer fencing thing, but since we're10 on it. The deer fencing is unlikely to regrow the11 forest, you know, so like why do it. I can't wrap my12 hand around this whole plan and the Duke Forest Study,13 you know, came back with replanting as the way to do14 that. I think letting the developer take down all these15 trees and, you know, all the wildlife that's there, the16 deer, the coyotes, the foxes and the other wildlife, you17 know, where -- they're out of their natural habitat,18 where are they going. You know, we got a deer on every19 avenue. They roam the streets. It just doesn't make20 sense to me.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.22 So I didn't want to taint anybody's view, so23 I'll speak last.24 We saw the Vermule survey of the 1880,25 100 Roseland, Maplewood, Essex Fells were all trees. Howell1 Drive was all trees. People cut them down. They2 weren't good neighbors to us or they followed what our3 country has been doing, is building, so people can live4 in those areas. So if we use your concept, they5 shouldn't have built there. They shouldn't have cut6 those trees down. They weren't good neighbors to us.7 Being that this is the last piece of land another thing8 under the law is zoning inutility. So it is the plan,9 but if we say, you can't do it, and why, because10 everybody else did it first. They cut the waterway,11 they cut the wetlands, they cut the trees down, they12 built houses. There was testimony about the topography13 of the land and things over 30 degrees by someone I14 think was from the College Of New Jersey. And a small15 area of this applications over 30 degrees, but16 everything on Howell Drive is over 30 degrees. A golf17 course was built, they cut down a whole bunch of trees,18 all the trees, they built

d a small15 area of this applications over 30 degrees, but16 everything on Howell Drive is over 30 degrees. A golf17 course was built, they cut down a whole bunch of trees,18 all the trees, they built a golf course. They didn't19 put back all those trees. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm20 saying, as I said if before, the nature of our country21 is we build so people can live. So if we extrapolate22 and say, well, you, you can't do this because everybody23 else did it first, that violates the Municipal Land Use24 Law of the State of New Jersey. You have to be careful25