July 31, 2024 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

the potential for 5 landslides? 6 The second question is: Of all of 7 those, how many times did you recommend for the 8 security of the site and that there wouldn't be a 9 landslide? 10 And the third part of the question is: 11 Was there ever any instances where you approved a 12 site where it turned out that there was a landslide? 13 MR. ANDERSON: Okay, so I have not 14 worked with any projects where there were 15 landslides. What we do every day is we ensure site 16 stability of soil conditions by providing 17 appropriate grading, looking at existing soil 18 conditions and things that might create soil 19 instability. There has been no soil failures on any 20 of the projects that I've worked on over my career. 21 MR. KRAKOVIAK: Okay. 22 MR. ANDERSON: Did I miss one part? 23 What part did I miss? 24 MR. KRAKOVIAK: No, that was -- that 25 was sufficient. Page 57 1 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. 2 MR. KRAKOVIAK: You didn't, by chance, 3 work on the project here in West Orange several 4 years ago for the Seton Hall Prep athletic fields? 5 MR. ANDERSON: No, I did not. 6 MR. KRAKOVIAK: Okay. For this 7 specific project, did you evaluate with a potential 8 for landslide in mind? If so, what was your process 9 of evaluation and what was your conclusion and your 10 rationale? 11 MR. ANDERSON: I don't look at it in 12 terms of landslide; again, I look at it in terms of 13 soil stability. So when we're looking at something 14 that might cause instability of that building on the 15 slope, which has become a concern, I look at what 16 the building is founded on based on the geotechnical 17 studies that have been done in the area in terms of 18 what I see is bedrock down approximately 7 to 11 19 feet into the ground, so the building would be 20 founded on bedrock, probably pinned to bedrock 21 entirely over its entire foundation and it would not 22 be on soil that would be unstable, it would be on 23 solid bedrock. So if you -- if I was to be asked 24 whether I think that's a stable situation, poured 25 concrete foundations pinned into bedrock all the way

16 (Pages 58 to 61) Page 58 1 through, I think it's probably one of the most 2 stable circumstances you can get from an engineering 3 basis. 4 MR. KRAKOVIAK: Thank you, Mr. 5 Anderson. 6 MR. FAGAN: You can just hand it 7 behind you. 8 MR. KRAKOVIAK: Oh, sorry. 9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Good evening. 10 MR. LATERZA: Good evening. Patrick 11 Laterza, L-A-T-E-R-Z-A. I have a really quick 12 question because I couldn't hear earlier. 13 The flood hazard permit with the DEP 14 was pulled. Are you able to confirm -- I couldn't 15 hear what you said -- that it was pulled maybe 16 around November of 2023? 17 MR. ANDERSON: I didn't give a date -- 18 MR. LATERZA: Oh, okay. 19 MR. ANDERSON: -- but it's probably 20 correct. I mean, I'd have to go back and look at my 21 records to see the exact date that it was pulled. 22 MR. LATERZA: Okay, so like eight 23 months ago? 24 MR. ANDERSON: Say again? 25 MR. LATERZA: About eight, nine months Page 59 1 ago, somewhere around there? 2 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, it was -- yes. 3 MR. LATERZA: Okay. 4 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. 5 MR. LATERZA: Thank you. Now I'll put 6 it back. 7 MR. FAGAN: No, hand it to the person 8 -- 9 MR. LATERZA: Oh, another person. 10 MR. PATEL: Good evening. Kumar 11 Patel, P-A-T-E-L. 12 (Court reporter asks Mr. Patel to re-state 13 his first name.) 14 MR. PATEL: Kumar, K-U-M-A-R. 15 COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 16 MR. PATEL: I have a question. So how 17 many projects have you worked where stability could 18 be an issue? 19 MR. ANDERSON: Could you say that last 20 part again, please? 21 MR. PATEL: You mentioned earlier the 22 landslides, right? That you look at the landslides 23 piece from a soil stability standpoint. So over 24 your career, from 1988 or whatever you mentioned 25 when you were certified, over your career's Page 60 1 duration, how many projects have you worked on where 2 this could have been a potential issue, similar to 3 the site that's under question right now? 4 MR. ANDERSON: I don't know what the 5 number is but there's quite a few steeper lots that 6 are being developed throughout New Jersey that I've 7 worked on over the years and it comes up in just 8 virtually every municipality in North Jersey in 9 steep areas that we work on. 10 MR. PATEL: And has there ever been 11 any issue of stability of the building, structure? 12 MR. ANDERSON: No, there is not. 13 MR. PATEL: That you're aware of, 14 okay.

steep areas that we work on. 10 MR. PATEL: And has there ever been 11 any issue of stability of the building, structure? 12 MR. ANDERSON: No, there is not. 13 MR. PATEL: That you're aware of, 14 okay. Thank you. 15 One question for the Board. The Board 16 mentioned that there was a consultant hired, right, 17 last evening for doing the survey of the forest 18 again, and if I understood correctly from the 19 comments, it was the same consultant who provided 20 the report previously. Is that correct? 21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's correct. 22 MR. PATEL: Is there any rationale for 23 hiring the same consultant compared to any other 24 third parties out there -- 25 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes. Page 61 1 MR. PATEL: -- in New Jersey? 2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes. 3 MR. PATEL: Okay. Is there an answer 4 that the Board will be providing of the rationale 5 for -- 6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes. He has great 7 credentials -- 8 MR. PATEL: Okay. 9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: -- he teaches 10 environmental science -- 11 MR. PATEL: Okay. 12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: -- and he knows the 13 area, as was brought out by many people, what has 14 changed between 2020 and today. 15 MR. PATEL: Okay. 16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He would be the best 17 person and his group would be the best people to 18 give the most accurate understanding of where it was 19 and where it is today. So as opposed to trying to 20 reinvent the wheel, we have somebody who is well 21 known in the field, an expert, and knows the site. 22 MR. PATEL: Okay. And credentials 23 will be shared by the Board? 24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Absolutely. 25 MR. PATEL: Thank you.

17 (Pages 62 to 65) Page 62 1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any other members 2 of the public have any questions for Mr. Anderson 3 about his testimony? 4 (No response) 5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Seeing none, thank 6 you very much, Mr. Anderson. 7 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Sorry, can I 8 ask -- 9 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. 10 Chairman. 11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Oh, I'm sorry. 12 MS. JHAVERI-GAJARAWALA: Sorry. I was 13 trying to figure out who was going to come speak. 14 My name's Sejal Jhaveri-Gajarawala. Okay, let me 15 help you out with this. S-E-J-A-L, the last name is 16 J-H-A-V-E-R-I hyphenation G-A-J-A-R-A-W-A-L-A. 17 COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 18 MS. JHAVERI-GAJARAWALA: You're 19 welcome. So my question is, if this were -- sorry. 20 My question is: If this were to move forward, Mr. 21 Anderson, would your applicant -- or maybe it's to, 22 I'm sorry, to Mr. Plocker, would the developer be 23 willing to put in an escrow fund for anybody who may 24 be impacted by the blasting? 25 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think that's going Page 63 1 to be a condition that we have to hear all the 2 testimony and then there may be a condition, there 3 may not, based on testimony of all the experts. 4 It's a good question. Stay with us and come back, 5 please. 6 MR. PATEL: We'll stay. Thank you. 7 (Applause by members of the public) 8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any other members 9 of the public have any questions for Mr. Anderson? 10 (No response) 11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Seeing none, thank 12 you. 13 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker. 15 MR. PLOCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 16 The applicant calls our architect, Larry Appel. 17 MS. McGOVERN: Can we have the 18 spelling of your last name. 19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Can you state your 20 name and spell your last name for the record? 21 MR. APPEL: Yes. My name is Laurance, 22 L-A-U-R-A-N-C-E, Appel, A-P-P-E-L. 23 MR. AFRAN: Can we hear that again, 24 please? I'm so sorry. 25 MS. McGOVERN: They didn't hear you in Page 64 1 the back. 2 MR. APPEL: Laurance Appel, A-P-P-E-L, 3 and that's L-A-U-R-A-N-C-E. 4 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. 5 MS. McGOVERN: Please raise your right 6 hand. 7 L A U R A N C E A P P E L, P. A., is duly sworn/ 8 affirmed by the Board attorney. 9 MR. PLOCKER: Okay. Mr. Appel, could 10 you please offer your qualifications to the Board? 11 MR. APPEL: Sure. I am a principal of 12 Appel Design Group Architects, I hold a Bachelor of 13 Science

y. 9 MR. PLOCKER: Okay. Mr. Appel, could 10 you please offer your qualifications to the Board? 11 MR. APPEL: Sure. I am a principal of 12 Appel Design Group Architects, I hold a Bachelor of 13 Science degree in civil engineering and a master's 14 in architecture. I'm licensed in New Jersey since 15 1992, also New York, Pennsylvania, I'm NCARB 16 certified, I've appeared before many local boards, 17 including West Orange, not the Planning Board but 18 the Zoning Board several times, Livingston, Florham 19 Park, Millburn, Maplewood, South Orange, most of the 20 municipalities in the area. And I'm here just as an 21 expert in architecture. 22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, is your license 23 in New Jersey in force? 24 MR. APPEL: Yes. 25 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Did you do Page 65 1 the architecture for the site or is your name on the 2 plans? 3 MR. APPEL: Yes. 4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Do any 5 members of the Board have any questions? 6 (No response) 7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Seeing none, we 8 accept Mr. Appel as an architect in the State of New 9 Jersey, who drew the plans for the site. 10 Great. Thank you. So one of the 11 questions first is that I have some exhibits here. 12 Do I need to start tagging them or -- or reference 13 them? 14 MS. McGOVERN: Were they given to the 15 Board with the record or -- 16 MR. APPEL: Yes. Well, no. 17 MS. McGOVERN: No? 18 MR. PLOCKER: I'm just going to 19 consult with Mr. Appel to determine what he's 20 referring to. 21 MS. McGOVERN: Okay. 22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So ladies and 23 gentlemen, what's happening is some housekeeping, 24 for those on Zoom. Anything that's not presented to 25 the Board in our packets has to be identified for us

18 (Pages 66 to 69) Page 66 1 and the public, so the applicant's attorney and the 2 architect are talking. 3 MR. PLOCKER: I guess the question is, 4 was that part of your packet and was it posted as 5 part of the agenda documents? 6 MS. McGOVERN: Yeah, what we could 7 also do is if you have -- I think you already 8 submitted this PowerPoint to -- we'll mark the 9 PowerPoint as A-1 so that we have it, even though it 10 might be duplicative in terms of what the Board has. 11 MR. KLEIN: Isn't there already an 12 A-1? 13 MS. McGOVERN: No. 14 MR. KLEIN: Really. 15 MS. McGOVERN: Did we mark anything 16 yet? 17 MR. PLOCKER: No, I think it's fair to 18 say that these were demonstrative exhibits that were 19 provided to Mr. Fagan so he could digitally display 20 it for everybody in the room, so perhaps actually we 21 should mark Mr. Anderson's PowerPoint presentation. 22 MS. McGOVERN: As A-1 -- 23 MR. PLOCKER: As A-1. 24 MS. McGOVERN: -- and this will be 25 A-2. Okay, so we'll retroactively mark last night's Page 67 1 PowerPoint as A-1 and tonight's PowerPoint will be 2 A-2. 3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Use the microphone. 4 MS. McGOVERN: Our PowerPoint from 5 last night will be A-1, the PowerPoint from tonight 6 will be A-2. 7 MR. AFRAN: Yeah, I'm sorry, could we 8 just make it a standing request that Mr. Plocker 9 will forward these PDFs to me as well? Because we 10 don't have a copy. 11 MS. McGOVERN: Do you have any 12 objection to that? 13 MR. PLOCKER: That's not a problem, 14 and just for the record, I did not know of Bruce's 15 involvement until after we submitted these to the 16 Board. 17 MS. McGOVERN: Okay. 18 MR. AFRAN: Oh, no criticism intended. 19 Thank you. 20 MS. McGOVERN: Okay. 21 MR. APPEL: I'll start with -- and am 22 I talking loud enough because I'm trying to speak a 23 little bit louder than normal. Can everyone hear 24 all right? 25 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Talk into the Page 68 1 microphone. 2 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: You gotta lean 3 in. 4 MR. APPEL: Is this okay now? 5 (Many members of the public say "yes.") 6 MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: Thank you. 7 MR. APPEL: So Mr. Anderson provided a 8 thorough presentation regarding the site. The 9 project was designed in accordance with the IH-1 10 zone, as well as the settlement agreement. We 11 worked diligently with the project team and other 12 professionals to create an exciting architecture for 13 the buildings. 14 This

ce with the IH-1 10 zone, as well as the settlement agreement. We 11 worked diligently with the project team and other 12 professionals to create an exciting architecture for 13 the buildings. 14 This is one of the rendering reviews 15 that we have prepared. I will just keep this up. 16 It's a little nicer than seeing the last screen with 17 my name on it, so... 18 We worked diligently with the project 19 team and other professionals to create an exciting 20 architecture for the buildings. This is a luxury 21 community providing a balanced lifestyle with 22 integration of both market and affordable homes in a 23 pristine, wooded site. The team was able to retain 24 large portions of the wooded site which surround the 25 buildings and the surrounding neighbors. Page 69 1 The project includes well-thought-out 2 vehicular circulation, parking, as well as 3 pedestrian circulation around the site, and in 4 particular, between the buildings. 5 There are -- as Mr. Anderson explained, 6 there are four building clusters, A, B, C and D. 7 496 rental units proposed with 26 percent affordable 8 component. This also contemplates on-site 9 superintendents as well. Buildings A and D are 10 separated into small -- two smaller buildings, which 11 create smaller volumes, so when you saw that larger 12 building, both the A and D buildings were broken up 13 into two smaller buildings while maintaining a 14 compact design as well. So the affordable housing 15 are all integrated in each building and all the 16 units are described in a unit-distribution matrix, 17 which is on the cover page of the drawing that all 18 of you were circulated. That's on drawing C-01. 19 One of the things to mention in here 20 when we're looking at units is we have a lot of 21 diversity in the types of units in a building like 22 this, and we've done that because we've taken the 23 corridor, the internal corridor on each floor, and 24 offset it slightly, so you have basically a deeper 25 side and a shallower side, and we believe that this

19 (Pages 70 to 73) Page 70 1 gives more opportunity, um, opportunity to be 2 responsive to residents. 3 So the typical unit configurations are 4 shown on Drawing PB-4.7. And I'm not going to pull 5 that up and walk through the design in there because 6 I wanted to keep in mind that while the overall 7 building and massing is set with the design, the way 8 the interior units are configured sometimes shift 9 slightly a couple of inches one way or another way 10 to take advantage of structural issues, structural 11 concerns and architectural development following the 12 approvals, and this is because we bring drawings for 13 an architectural submission for the Planning Board 14 to a schematic completion, as opposed to the site 15 design is brought to full completion. Some we have 16 a lot of work still to do in here, but this is an 17 accurate depiction of what we're proposing, but 18 there's a little bit of some of the internal 19 workings of the building that will develop over 20 time. 21 Now, all of the buildings share a 22 similar design motif. They use similar palliative 23 materials that's shown here on the rendering. One 24 of the things that's a little different is Building 25 D. It incorporates additional amenity spaces as Page 71 1 well as a rooftop outdoor amenity deck as well. 2 Building D also incorporates higher 3 interior ceilings. We have made that building 10- 4 foot ceiling heights as opposed to 9 feet and all of 5 the buildings are conforming with the height 6 provisions in the ordinance. 7 So parking. This was discussed a 8 little bit in the prior testimony and I'm sure 9 you'll have more about this when the traffic 10 consultant comes up as well. So the project was 11 designed with a mix of surface spaces, surface 12 stalls, as well as covered spaces, internal garage 13 spaces under the building, as Mr. Anderson 14 explained. All of these were designed to meet RSIS 15 and, in fact, exceed the ratios that are provided in 16 RSIS. 17 So, typically, below the buildings, the 18 spaces are assigned. One of the questions raised by 19 the Board professionals was with regard to tandem 20 stalls. We have used tandem stalls on numerous 21 buildings. They're efficient, they work very well, 22 but there's a caveat. They need to be assigned to a 23 single residential unit, and it's no different than 24 having a townhouse with a garage and if my wife

They're efficient, they work very well, 22 but there's a caveat. They need to be assigned to a 23 single residential unit, and it's no different than 24 having a townhouse with a garage and if my wife was 25 parked in the garage and I was parked in the Page 72 1 driveway, I've got to move my car out, let her pull 2 her car out and all is fine. It's the same thing 3 with a tandem stall in a common garage. 4 So all of the surface parking will not 5 be assigned, so all of the surface spaces will be 6 available for both residents as well as guests. We 7 comply with the half a stall per unit, which is a 8 requirement of RSIS. 9 Now, another small caveat in here is 10 Building D, as Mr. Anderson explained, has mostly 11 internal garage parking, not surface stalls, so we 12 had to make a portion of those garages not secured, 13 in other words, that they would not be able to have 14 a gate on the outside opening to the garage, that 15 gate would be put internal to allow the requisite 16 number of stalls to meet the RSIS provisions. 17 So another item that was questioned was 18 with regard to EV stalls, electric vehicle. They're 19 provided per the ordinance and applicable state 20 laws. Mr. Anderson placed at each building one 21 handicap and one standard surface stall that would 22 be EV. This is something that we coordinated with, 23 but it was not fully updated on our architectural 24 submission. So the balance of the stalls for EV 25 compliance are going to be placed inside the Page 73 1 garages, and while we show some of these locations, 2 I would represent that the overall number will be 3 met but the location may vary because we don't know 4 exactly where the utility company is going to allow 5 us to put our transformer and bring power in, so 6 we'd like to keep all of these things clustered 7 close to our electrical distribution for efficiency. 8 So this ordinance requires that there 9 be 5 percent of the overall parking stalls to be for 10 EV charging and additionally, provisions for make- 11 ready stalls for another 5 percent and 5 percent 12 phased in the future. We will comply with all of 13 the requirements in here, and as I indicated, Mr. 14 Anderson is showing his stalls on the revised site 15 plan, the balance of the EV stalls are proposed to 16 be internal to the buildings. 17 So in doing everything that we're 18 doing, we're actually permitted to

showing his stalls on the revised site 15 plan, the balance of the EV stalls are proposed to 16 be internal to the buildings. 17 So in doing everything that we're 18 doing, we're actually permitted to take a 10 percent 19 credit on our parking, but I understand Mr. Anderson 20 has not taken that credit so that even adds a little 21 bit to the potential additional stalls that are 22 available, and the other thing that I would mention 23 is with these EV stalls, what we like to do is plan 24 for the future. We're not going to put in extra 25 charges, but we want to make sure the building has