January 29, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

as close to that, that taller cropping where21 that turned in building is closest to the edge of that22 slope.23 THE PUBLIC: I'm not sure that made that24 much sense to me. I kind of didn't really get what25 71 you're saying out of that, but if that's your answer1 then so be it. Didn't actually explain why you chose2 those two areas to my mind.3 What happens to that 25 -- that massive4 sewer line, that easement that runs through, if that5 somehow -- now, that runs through the entirety of the6 property, as you can see. It's a massive sewer line.7 It goes up onto Howell and my understanding is it8 currently has some leaks and it's sewage. It is raw9 sewage --10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry, he didn't11 testify about the sewer line.12 THE PUBLIC: Sir, it is on his map. I am13 asking about it so please allow me to finish. It's on14 his map.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: There are many things on16 the map. You have to focus on the testimony, on the17 report, please.18 THE PUBLIC: Sir, it's on his map. I am19 asking him a question about something that is on his20 map.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Answer it if you can. If22 you can't answer it, let's move on.23 MR. PLOCKER: For the record Chairman24 Bagoff, the underlying part of the site plan set, that25 72 was submitted by our civil engineer. That was not --1 THE PUBLIC: He's a geotechnical --2 MR. PLOCKER: I need to finish.3 That was not -- the underlying map was not4 prepared by the witness here. I guess it is fair to say5 the color notations and the, the location of the test6 pits and borings you added to that map, but you did not7 draw the underlying map, is that correct?8 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct. We put9 in our borings on the overlay.10 THE PUBLIC: Did you put that existing sewer11 easement lettering there and that arrow, is that what12 you -- did you draw that on there, existing?13 THE WITNESS: Yes, anything in red or blue14 is what we added to the map.15 THE PUBLIC: Okay.16 So as a professional geotechnical engineer,17 what is your opinion of what happens to a line that may18 undergo, I think you know it's not a brand new sewer19 line mind you, that may undergo a great deal of20 vibration. What would your, and it would all be21 conjecture on your part, right? Like you don't know how22 the walls are going to react. The slopes are going to23 react after blasting.24 THE WITNESS: And to answer your question25

19 of 57 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 73 related to how that behaves after blasting, correct, I1 can't speak to that.2 THE PUBLIC: That's all I got.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.4 Come right up, sir.5 THE PUBLIC: One more. Can I have the laser6 pointer, please.7 So line A on your other map is approximately8 here, is that correct?9 THE WITNESS: Yeah.10 THE PUBLIC: And line B is approximately11 here, correct?12 THE WITNESS: Correct.13 THE PUBLIC: And this is the area which I14 figured out is something like 500,000 square feet, you15 did not check, but this here, this slope, do you -- did16 you take any measurements of what the steepness of this17 slope here is?18 THE WITNESS: No, we didn't.19 THE PUBLIC: There were no measurements20 taken?21 THE WITNESS: We didn't do any borings.22 THE PUBLIC: The reason I ask is, you know,23 first of all, the distance from this corner to this24 house, I'm pretty good geometrically speaking, it's25 74 somewhere between 150 to 200 square feet, which is not1 very far.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Again, you're testifying.3 You can ask a question, if you know.4 THE PUBLIC: Sir, Mr. Bagoff, he will be5 able to answer my question, please allow him to answer6 my question.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let me explain one second.8 You're adding information that is not evidentiary.9 THE PUBLIC: Sir, Mr. Bagoff, the reason why10 I am interrupting you is because you are incorrect.11 There is a map in front of us, there is a line from this12 point to this point which shows the 700 feet. In the13 middle of that 700 feet would be 350 feet, given this14 line this long. We can take from the map, which is part15 of the testimony, that line and superimpose it in our16 minds from this point to this point and we would be all17 the way over here. So being that this map is part of18 the testimony it is fair game for me to ask questions19 about it, even though his expertise is safety and the20 building and insulation and all the grade and all that,21 the question I was going to ask before you interrupted22 me is directly related to this. It won't be about the23 floodplain, it won't be about some other analysis he24 hasn't made. It is a question and I think fair game.25 75 So may I finish.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If he's going to answer2 your question --3 THE PUBLIC: Yes.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: -- he has to be able to5 measure that. You're testifying, you put on

nk fair game.25 75 So may I finish.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: If he's going to answer2 your question --3 THE PUBLIC: Yes.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: -- he has to be able to5 measure that. You're testifying, you put on the record6 a certain amount of feet.7 THE PUBLIC: Sure. Strike that from the8 record. Sorry.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So you may ask him a10 question about a distance if he knows, that's fair game.11 THE PUBLIC: Mr. Seel, do you see the line12 here marked 700 -- oops, I think I hit the wrong button13 here. The line marked 700 feet?14 THE WITNESS: Yes.15 THE PUBLIC: Would you be able to make a16 mental estimate of approximately one-half of that line?17 THE WITNESS: Yes.18 THE PUBLIC: Okay. And would you be able to19 superimpose that line from this corner right here to20 this area? Can you take a moment and do that with your21 mind, sir.22 THE WITNESS: Yes.23 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Would you tell me in24 your opinion based upon this map right here how far,25 76 taking a second to really look at it, from this corner1 to this backyard would be?2 THE WITNESS: So from the corner of the3 building --4 THE PUBLIC: From the very corner of the5 building to where these people live on Howell.6 THE WITNESS: So if you pick a point --7 THE PUBLIC: This point to this point.8 THE WITNESS: I would say roughly say 150 to9 175 feet.10 THE PUBLIC: Right. Roughly 100 to 17511 feet. So based on this map right here does this look12 like this is a 17 degree slope to you based upon looking13 at this map?14 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that quick. I15 have to measure it.16 THE PUBLIC: Well, I'm not allowed to17 testify about the fact that it's not physically possible18 for me to walk down that, so I won't make that19 testimony, but I will ask you that or I just want to20 know why no analysis was done in this particular area21 given the proximity of this corner to where people22 actually live and how steep, at least to this map, to my23 eyes it appears that this slope might be, I am wondering24 why an analysis was only performed along this lateral25

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 77 to 80 of 143 20 of 57 sheets 77 here and this lateral here. Why wasn't there an1 analysis of this area?2 THE PUBLIC: Well, I believe I testified to3 that. Perhaps my voice was low.4 THE PUBLIC: Probably, sorry.5 THE WITNESS: That's okay. At the time that6 we performed this work it was our understanding that the7 main concern here was, had to deal with more to rock8 excavation and slope stability. General construction of9 that building. So our focus area was in the area that10 we investigated.11 THE PUBLIC: Okay.12 Now, pardon my ignorance, but whose13 concerns, the person contracting you or the concerns of14 the board here and the people?15 THE WITNESS: What we understand as concerns16 from this room.17 THE PUBLIC: From?18 THE WITNESS: This room.19 THE PUBLIC: From this room. Okay.20 So this area has never been brought up as a21 possible, to you knowledge, as a possible area for22 landslides or anything like that?23 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.24 THE PUBLIC: Not to your knowledge. Okay.25 78 All right. The last question I will ask1 you, given your breath of experience do you think it2 would be appropriate to do some exhaustive testing in3 this area given the proximity of the corner of this4 building to where people's family sleep, do you think5 that may be a good idea to actually do some testing in6 this area, especially if, and this is an if, if this7 grade is considerably steeper than anything over here?8 THE WITNESS: It would be certainly9 something that we, that we would look at.10 THE PUBLIC: Okay.11 Thank you very much. Appreciate it.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes.13 THE PUBLIC: Hi. Patrick Laterza again.14 I'm sorry, I have more measurement questions15 for you. Can we switch over to like the main one with16 the, all the test pits and everything.17 Mr. Seel, do you have an idea or give us a,18 because there's no legend on this map or whatever, what19 the distance is between TB -- I'm sorry, TP-1 and TP-320 is?21 THE WITNESS: TP-2 and TP-3?22 THE PUBLIC: Yeah.23 THE WITNESS: The question is the distance?24 THE PUBLIC: Correct.25 79 THE WITNESS: If you zoom in.1 In rough numbers I would say 100 feet or so.2 75, 100 feet.3 THE PUBLIC: Okay.4 And how about -- sorry. LB-4 to TP-6? It5 is down to the right.6 THE WITNESS: This one here? Again, maybe7 50 to 75 feet. I can't really tell the scale on this.8 If you can zoom out again

BLIC: Okay.4 And how about -- sorry. LB-4 to TP-6? It5 is down to the right.6 THE WITNESS: This one here? Again, maybe7 50 to 75 feet. I can't really tell the scale on this.8 If you can zoom out again so I can get a better sense of9 the scale, but looks like maybe 50, 75 feet.10 THE PUBLIC: If we use those approximations,11 could you calculate what the actual slope is on this12 slope, because I think that's where we're getting to you13 said 17 earlier, so my question about slope on these14 lines and those areas where we're closest to 17 based15 off my math. I know we are using approximations here,16 but I'm getting 20 and 30 for slope.17 THE WITNESS: Percent or degrees?18 THE PUBLIC: Degrees.19 THE WITNESS: I suggest if we are going to20 -- if you want to know precisely what every section of21 line is we can do that, but I need time to sit with a22 scale and calculate it.23 THE PUBLIC: I understand. I'm just --24 would it be possible to say that it's not 17 degrees in25 80 those areas. That perhaps 17 degrees might be the1 entire run and as it lengthens out your slope gets less,2 but the area very close to the building it is much3 higher?4 THE WITNESS: It varies.5 THE WITNESS: Height varies. But we do --6 what we look at along the entire line it's close to,7 again, roughly, rough numbers, 10 degrees.8 THE PUBLIC: Across the entire line, that9 whole distance of A?10 THE WITNESS: You're measuring the very far11 left to the far right, which, and admittedly the slope12 varies as you navigate from one section to another. So13 it is going to be steeper in sections, that's what the14 contours show.15 THE PUBLIC: Well, I mean from my16 perspective then, the longer you elongate that line the17 lower the slope is going to get, correct?18 THE WITNESS: That's correct.19 THE PUBLIC: So I think we're all concerned20 about where the, a lot of that is very steep just21 looking at these lines. You know, especially in the22 areas where --23 THE WITNESS: I understand, but I think just24 to help allay your concern. When we do our slope25

21 of 57 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 81 stability analysis we're using actual topography along1 these lines. So regardless of what I'm saying the2 overall slope might be, we're looking at the surface3 from one end to the other along that entire line, so4 that's factored into the slope stability analysis.5 THE PUBLIC: I know, but I think our concern6 in response to your testimony is you're stating that the7 building is being built on a slope at the top that's 108 some odd degrees and overall the slope is 17. But9 wouldn't it be safe to say that that's using the very10 elongated area that you're looking at on line A or line11 B as opposed to looking at the steeper portion of the12 slope which are significantly steeper than 17 degrees?13 THE WITNESS: Well, I guess I said, my14 testimony was that the approximate number from one end15 to the other is on the order of 10 degrees, not the16 other way around. But you are correct, it is steeper17 but our analysis accounts for that and if varies18 dramatically. So it's a conversation with respect to,19 it's difficult to try to describe that in testimony.20 But the fact is our analysis utilized the actual21 topography to describe the stability of the slope. So22 it factors in all these nuances you're describing, so,23 yes, it's steeper in one section, it flattens out, get's24 steeper again. All that topography is imbedded in our25 82 slope stability analysis.1 THE PUBLIC: Okay.2 But I just want to go back to right after to3 ask a question again, right after towards the ridge4 line, it is significantly steeper than 17 degrees,5 correct?6 THE WITNESS: I don't have a calculator.7 THE PUBLIC: I know you don't have a8 calculator in front of you, I think a certain assertion9 could be made here.10 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm saying it certainly11 could be, but I can't tell, specifically tell you what12 they were. I know I measured it in one particular13 section, it was 17 degrees. I can't tell everyone what14 the section is and some may be steeper, some may be15 shallower.16 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.17 THE PUBLIC: Hi. Victor Misarti again.18 Joe, could you zoom in again. Those last two -- just19 referring to those two.20 I want to say that it says right there 5.821 elevation, that's above sea level and 584, so that's 5622 feet and if you estimate between LB-4 and TP-6 as being23 50 feet, that's just a

to those two.20 I want to say that it says right there 5.821 elevation, that's above sea level and 584, so that's 5622 feet and if you estimate between LB-4 and TP-6 as being23 50 feet, that's just a guess, it says, vertical site24 absolutely 56. So 50, potentially 50 vertically, 4525 83 degree slope, you know, it's as wide as it is tall, so1 45 degrees and that looks like about the steepest, but2 in other areas that steep, but certainly 10 or 17. I3 mean, that's my question.4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, again, my testimony is5 not to dissect every section of the slope, just to6 generalities because our slope stability analysis7 utilizes the steepness and flatness along the factors8 given and I don't know what the precise horizontal9 distance is, for example, between LB-4 and TP-6, but10 your logic is correct, if you look at the rise and run11 that tells us what that slope is. I just don't know12 what the horizontal distance is.13 THE PUBLIC: The horizontal is a guess but14 the vertical is given from the parameters?15 THE WITNESS: Correct.16 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.18 Do any other members of the public have a19 question on Mr. Seel's testimony?20 Seeing none. Close that part.21 Thank you, sir.22 We're going to take a five-minute bio break.23 (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Welcome back. Thank you25 84 for joining us on Zoom.1 MR. Plocker.2 MR. PLOCKER: Thank you, chairman Bagoff.3 The applicant would like to call it's professional4 planner, John McDonough.5 MS. MCGOVERN: Give me your name.6 THE WITNESS: Sure. Hi there everyone. My7 name is John McDonough.8 MS. MCGOVERN: Do you swear or affirm to9 tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth.10 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.11 MS. MCGOVERN: Thank you.12 J O H N M C D O N O U G H, having been duly sworn13 under oath according to law testifies as follows:14 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PLOCKER:15 Okay. Thank you.16 Q. Mr. McDonough, could you give the board and the17 public the benefit of your credentials?18 Sure. I am a licensed professional planner here19 A. in the state of New Jersey. That license is current.20 It's in good standing.21 I testify in this capacity throughout the state22 on a nightly basis. So we get to see the full cross23 section, if you will, of this great state.24 Again, for the record my name is John McDonough.25

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 85 to 88 of 143 22 of 57 sheets 85 I'm a licensed professional planner here in the state of1 New Jersey. That license is current. It's in good2 standing. This is what I do on a nightly basis3 throughout the state of New Jersey. I am also a member4 of the AICP, American Institute of Certified Planners.5 That's a national certification. Again, both are6 current and in good standing. I do this on a nightly7 basis and I have been here in this great community many,8 many times.9 THE PLOCKER: Okay.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any member of the board11 have any questions about Mr. McDonough and his12 licensures?13 We accept you as a professional planner in the14 state of New Jersey, sir.15 Go ahead.16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.17 Okay.18 Q. John, the application seeks one bulk variance and19 two exception requests from the RSIS standards. Please20 give your overview of the project proposed as a planner21 and address those three items as part of your testimony?22 Sure. So from a planning standpoint we conducted23 A. what would be a customary planning analysis in support24 of the application. There are four parts to our25 86 analysis. First part we look at is existing conditions.1 Second, we look at proposed conditions.2 Third, we look at applicable zoning and how the3 particular development stacks up with the zoning4 criteria that's articulated in your regulations. And5 then finally, again, to the extent that the applicant is6 seeking relief, we do have some relief sought here, we7 look at the statutory criteria which have been well8 established by our Municipal Land Use Law in existence9 since 1975.10 So taking you through the four parts.11 Part number 1, it's been well established here12 that we are dealing with a single tax lot, Block 179,13 Lot 32, approximately 120 acres of vacant land. The14 surrounding lands, as you've seen during the course of15 seven hearings, now this being the eighth hearing, it's16 all surrounded by development, predominantly residential17 development.18 Part number 2, we look at what's proposed. The19 plan here is, as you've heard, is for what we call an20 inclusionary housing development. In accordance with21 the towns Fair Share Plan, the Housing Element and Fair22 Share Plan and the court settlement. There are 49623 units proposed here with a 20 percent affordable set24 aside that will contribute to the

the towns Fair Share Plan, the Housing Element and Fair22 Share Plan and the court settlement. There are 49623 units proposed here with a 20 percent affordable set24 aside that will contribute to the towns regional25 87 obligation to provide for it's fair share of affordable1 housing, that equates to 100 units in four buildings, as2 you heard through the testimony of the witnesses3 extensively before me. And over 90 acres of preserved4 land as part of this development.5 Part number 3, we look at the zoning6 considerations and we are here in the IH-1 inclusionary7 housing district. A zone that is specifically aimed at8 producing affordable housing. It comes on the heels of9 your 2019 Master Plan update and reexamination report10 which continues to call out as a core goal of the11 community to provide for Fair Share Housing and decent12 housing for people of all income levels. Quoting from13 the Master Plan in general, in terms of general housing14 obligations, West Orange remains committed to addressing15 its, "Fair Share of regional affordable housing needs as16 well as providing a range of housing opportunities."17 Again, this also comes on the heels of our Fair Housing18 Act and the state wide obligation to provide Fair Share19 Housing and affordable housing for persons of low and20 moderate income. Not only does this come on the heels21 of the 2019 Master Plan, you followed that up with a22 2020 fair share element and housing element as well,23 which specifically references this site on page number 924 and specifically references this development, quoting25 88 again, "West Essex Highlands Block 179, Lot 32 will1 contain 496 family residential units including 1002 affordable family units or rental units." Again, that3 was part of a court settlement with Fair Share Housing4 advocacy group. Again, that avoids a potential5 challenge under a builders remedy and gives the6 community immunity from a developers challenge for7 failing to meet your fair share obligation.8 This is one of multiple sites that, again, the9 town is being proactive in meeting its fair share10 obligation, so compliments to the community, your11 leadership, this board all with the foresight to see12 that you have a responsibility to provide for your Fair13 Share Housing obligation.14 This is a third round project, you actually are15 now facing the fourth round coming at you next, as

ight to see12 that you have a responsibility to provide for your Fair13 Share Housing obligation.14 This is a third round project, you actually are15 now facing the fourth round coming at you next, as all16 municipalities are, 80,000 -- actually more than 80,00017 affordable housing units are mandated by the DCA as part18 of the numbers that came out in October to provide a19 realistic opportunity to stabilize 80,000 affordable20 housing units by 2035, that's 10 years starting in 2025.21 Your town is getting hit with an obligation as22 well in the fourth round, 660 units is what I'm seeing23 as part the DCA numbers. Again, this is a third round24 obligation, so this is looking at your prior obligation.25