July 30, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

8 (Pages 26 to 29) Page 26 1 waiver -- 2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Woah, woah, woah. 3 MR. AFRAN: The explanation beginning 4 -- 5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Wait, wait. 6 MR. AFRAN: -- with -- 7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir -- 8 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry. 9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: -- sir, you have to 10 be identified. He's in the middle of testimony. 11 Let -- 12 MR. AFRAN: I'm concerned about the 13 record. Bruce Afran, objector's counsel. 14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. McGovern? 15 MS. McGOVERN: You're looking for 16 qualification on what he just said or you want him 17 to repeat what he said? 18 MR. AFRAN: Let me explain. 19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Time out. Guys, you 20 must identify yourself for the record who's 21 speaking. 22 MR. AFRAN: Bruce Afran, counsel for 23 We Care New Jersey. 24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. 25 MR. AFRAN: I simply wanted to note Page 27 1 that, beginning with the statement from Mr. Anderson 2 that "we're seeking a de minimus waiver," I don't 3 believe the rest was intelligible because we 4 couldn't hear it, so I didn't want him to move on 5 because I don't know whether we can hear that, 6 that's all I was pointing out. 7 MS. McGOVERN: Okay, so it's just a 8 question of. 9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's fine. 10 MS. McGOVERN: Will you please repeat 11 what you just said. 12 MR. ANDERSON: I will repeat it. 13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. 14 MR. ANDERSON: So the applicant is 15 seeking, as required in the settlement agreement, a 16 de minimus exception from the RSIS requirements for 17 this roadway connection. If granted, we will have a 18 gate across this roadway and have it closed and only 19 used in emergency situations where there's some need 20 for a fire vehicle or an ambulance to get through 21 there, but it would be closed on a regular basis. 22 The traffic engineer for this project will go over 23 the traffic considerations of the volumes of traffic 24 and how that relates to how the granting -- or 25 considerations that the Board can make in granting Page 28 1 that de minimus exception. 2 So we also have one other exit to the 3 property and that is an emergency exit to Howell 4 Drive, which is a 15-foot-wide asphalt roadway that 5 has a gate -- this is proposed to be closed at all 6 times, unless there's an emergency where they need 7 to get in. 8 The roads are all designed as high- 9 intensity minor collector roads. To the left or the 10 west of the circle, they're designed

ll 6 times, unless there's an emergency where they need 7 to get in. 8 The roads are all designed as high- 9 intensity minor collector roads. To the left or the 10 west of the circle, they're designed without parking 11 on the street, and to the right or to the east by 12 Building D, they do have parking on both sides. 13 So if we look at the zoning schedule 14 for this property, it conforms to virtually 15 everything in the IH zone requirements, the one 16 exception being, which I will go over last, the 17 percentage of foundation exposure. So it conforms 18 with lot area, disturbed area, total number of 19 units, total number of affordable units, bill of 20 lading height, parking space size, sparking space 21 number. With regard to the exposure of the 22 foundation, the zone permits a 50 percent exposure. 23 Building A has 76.5 percent, Building B has 76.4 24 percent, Building C, 69.1, and Building D, 54.8. So 25 this property is ungulating, has topography that Page 29 1 goes up and down, and you could see that the 2 topography -- well, maybe you can't see, the 3 topography goes up and down and what we've tried to 4 do is build these buildings into the slope so that 5 we minimize the actual disturbance around each 6 building. Instead of creating a large-level area 7 and sinking the building into the ground to limit 8 the foundation exposure, we have, for example, we 9 have this entire side of Building B exposed, same 10 thing for Building A, the entire side is exposed so 11 that we don't have to grade further down the hill by 12 burying it, and it goes on like that, so in my 13 opinion, this is a better zoning alternative to have 14 more limited disturbance, less clearing associated 15 and working with the existing topography. Also, 16 what's important is if you recall the setbacks, the 17 large setbacks that we have for each of these 18 buildings to the property line, the impact to 19 adjoiners is -- is negligible at best, being, like I 20 said, 900 feet from this property line because no 21 one's going to see some additional foundation. Our 22 planner will go over the plan proofs for that 23 variance when he gets his opportunity to testify. 24 We have -- this is the parking 25 analysis, this is part of our set. The project