January 29, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

representation we believe that it is generally feasible21 and if it is we would be able to do that. Yes, Mr.22 Alper.23 MR. ALPER: Okay. Thank you.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Wilkes, do you have25 103 any questions on Mr. McDonough's testimony?1 MR. WILKES: No questions.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.3 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Do you have any4 questions for Mr. McDonough on his testimony?5 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: No questions.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Hess, do you have any7 questions for Mr. McDonough on his testimony?8 MR. HESS: No questions.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Haizel, do you have10 any questions for Mr. McDonough on his testimony?11 MR. HAIZEL: Yes, I do.12 John, in terms of the stipulation of the13 exposure of the foundation, what, in your opinion, is14 the intent of that stipulation?15 THE WITNESS: I agree with, I think what you16 said Mr. Haizel, and I think other board members said as17 well back at that August hearing. It's primarily18 aesthetic. Not functional per se. Not a safety19 control, but generally to avoid having foundations, I'll20 say, on the lower levels of the building overpowering21 the overall development. Given all the mitigating22 measures here and those visuals to support that23 conclusion, I think that planning intent is clearly met24 here.25 104 MR. HAZEL: Thank you.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.2 Do you any members of the public have any3 questions of Mr. McDonough on his testimony? Please4 come up, state your name.5 THE PUBLIC: Hi. Victor Misarti. Thank you6 everyone in the room, I can hear you. It was loud and7 fantastic.8 THE WITNESS: I'll run with that.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 So my first -- I have two questions.11 My first question is, you covered very well12 how it meets the zone, it meets fair share, the13 development, proposed development meets, you know, ADA,14 etc. I see there, I'd like your opinion on two areas15 which I don't think you comply with regulations I'd like16 you to answer. So one is traffic, you know, we had a17 traffic expert testify you referred to that, we have18 over a thousand cars a day, you know, going through one19 access road. We're going on Eagle Rock Avenue which is20 going to be a problem. We have right there Laurel21 Avenue through traffic light which is going to be a22 conflict with these two turning movements, etc. So as a23 planner I think it's a fair question, you know, for the24 public good, etc., don't

rel21 Avenue through traffic light which is going to be a22 conflict with these two turning movements, etc. So as a23 planner I think it's a fair question, you know, for the24 public good, etc., don't you see that as -- how do you25

27 of 57 sheets Page 105 to 108 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 105 see it?1 THE WITNESS: Are you talking about the sheer2 volume of traffic?3 THE PUBLIC: The whole traffic picture, yes.4 THE WITNESS: I think I can conclude that5 the traffic picture has been well thought out by6 experienced professionals who have done a lot of7 applications and looked at a lot of traffic conditions.8 You have solid testimony from Mr. Pehnke, he swore under9 oath that the project will, again, not create a10 substantially adverse traffic impact. So that's on the11 record.12 THE PUBLIC: Okay. And you agree with that,13 you would agree?14 THE WITNESS: I can't dispute it. I'm not a15 traffic expert and I have not heard any expert opinion16 that would contravene or contradict that.17 THE PUBLIC: Okay.18 And my second question, doesn't seem like19 this proposed development complies with DEP regulations.20 I think there was an agreement where they did not have21 to meet, the development did not have to meet the latest22 DEP stormwater stream encroachment buffer zones as to23 how much water is retained on this site. So as a24 planner what's your opinion, do you think, I mean, if25 106 it's not meeting the newest regulations it seems like1 it's not.2 MS. McGOVERN: Is that a question.3 MR. PLOCKER: No, I believe that the4 gentleman is asking about not complying with certain DEP5 regulations. It was testified as to what DEP stormwater6 regulations apply. That was agreed with to by the DEP7 itself and as we stated on the record before and as I8 believe the township has, we did obtain all our required9 DEP permits. I understand there are a group or two who10 want to try to change the DEP's mind and that's fine,11 that's not within the purview of this board, but that's12 not something Mr. McDonough addressed or can or should13 address.14 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Just my question was as15 a planner looking at the public good, you know, it's all16 right that, you know, we're not meeting the latest17 regulations?18 MR. PLOCKER: Again, outside the scope.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He didn't testify to that,20 sir. He didn't testify to that, nor is he going to21 testify to that.22 THE PUBLIC: Okay. He's not involved.23 That's it. Thank you.24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.25 107 THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein.1 So when you looked at the site as a planner2 you pretty much stopped at Warren or Oval or you looked3 at

ot involved.23 That's it. Thank you.24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.25 107 THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein.1 So when you looked at the site as a planner2 you pretty much stopped at Warren or Oval or you looked3 at everything as has been done in the past? You said4 you've been very familiar with this site for a long5 time. Most other sites when developed they look at6 everything. It sounded like you just stopped kind of7 where Warner and Oval began and that was it. You didn't8 go to Oval and Eagle Rock, is that true? You said the9 traffic expert testified that he stopped at Warner and10 Oval, he didn't look at Oval to Eagle Rock?11 MR. PLOCKER: I just don't think it's a fair12 question, because I believe the traffic professional,13 Ms. Klein --14 THE PUBLIC: Yeah.15 MR. PLOCKER: I believe he did testify to16 that and he did testify as to the nature of the county17 improvements, including the traffic signal installation18 at the corner of Eagle Rock and Oval and I believe he19 testified how that would interplay with Laurel as well,20 and I know the other gentleman had mentioned those21 intersections. So our professional definitely did22 address traffic with regard to those roads.23 THE PUBLIC: Not where Bakley joins oval and24 more houses empty on the same road, but other planners25 108 had looked at that. That's the reason I asked the1 question.2 In your professional assessment this is a3 safe, great project, looks wonderful, Mount Laurel4 housing is going to be met, but when I look at the5 magical number on Mount Laurel housing made deemed it6 unsafe for 136 single family homes is now suddenly safe7 for almost 500 homes.8 THE WITNESS: Two totally different9 properties. Single family housing is notorious for10 sprawl. For disturbance, for land disturbance. One of11 the fundamental principles of this application was to12 have a compact development and, again, preserve over 9013 acres of trees. That was not part of the single family.14 THE PUBLIC: I think you misunderstood my15 question. The town planner had deemed it's unsafe for16 136 family homes based on traffic alone and the areas17 where traffic meets was not really changed, except they18 added Howell Drive as a possible egress for emergency19 use only. So that was my --20 THE WITNESS: First of all, I'm not aware of21 the prior planner saying that 136 units was unsafe from22 a traffic standpoint. I'm looking at the

le egress for emergency19 use only. So that was my --20 THE WITNESS: First of all, I'm not aware of21 the prior planner saying that 136 units was unsafe from22 a traffic standpoint. I'm looking at the application23 now and the uncontroverted expert opinion from the24 traffic engineer was that the development before you25

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 109 to 112 of 143 28 of 57 sheets 109 will not be unsafe from a traffic standpoint.1 THE PUBLIC: From Oval to -- from Warner to2 Oval?3 THE WITNESS: Based on standard traffic4 impact analysis.5 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.7 Do any other members of the public -- please8 come up. State your name.9 THE PUBLIC: Good evening, Edward Davis, I'm10 Mayor of Essex Fells. I apologize for my casual attire,11 I wasn't expecting to speak tonight. Thank you for your12 testimony, just a couple questions for you.13 You mentioned a court case where I think14 your description of it was the court ruled, and you15 apparently agree, that if a development is consistent16 with the zone, with the zoning ordinance, that by17 definition is sound planning. Do I have that right, is18 that what you said?19 THE WITNESS: That's the gist, yes.20 THE PUBLIC: Okay.21 So this zoning ordinance changed over time,22 correct? In West Orange.23 THE WITNESS: Yes. Zoning evolves, land use24 does not standstill.25 110 THE PUBLIC: Okay.1 So in the zoning ordinance that applied, I2 think it was six years ago, predated the current zone,3 you're saying by definition that was sound at the time,4 correct?5 THE WITNESS: Yes.6 THE PUBLIC: Okay.7 So now a drastic change in terms of8 multifamily homes what's allowed in the zone, drastic9 change in roughly 2020, that's also sound even though10 it's vastly different than what proceeded it?11 THE WITNESS: Planning is all about balance.12 There were significant changed circumstances with round13 3 court mandated obligations. Certainly environmental14 protection is one of the considerations, but affordable15 housing is another force that has influence on this16 town. So, yes, that is a clear cut and conventional17 reason why a zoning would change. We see it throughout18 New Jersey.19 THE PUBLIC: Right. You're not testifying20 to the board in your expert opinion on Mount Laurel,21 you're not a lawyer, right?22 THE WITNESS: I am not a lawyer.23 THE PUBLIC: So you're a planner. So you24 did an independent analysis consistent with sound25 111 planning principles outside just looking at the zone,1 looking at Mount Laurel, etc., correct?2 THE WITNESS: All I can tell you is that I3 lived that, that Randolph case. It had a lot of4 parallels to what we're seeing here. A public that5 clearly did not like the application,

l, etc., correct?2 THE WITNESS: All I can tell you is that I3 lived that, that Randolph case. It had a lot of4 parallels to what we're seeing here. A public that5 clearly did not like the application, move the road,6 move this or move that. Eventually the applicant threw7 up his hands and said, I can't. I can't. I comply with8 the ordinance and then went through the legal process.9 THE PUBLIC: Did you look at anything else10 outside the law in your analysis of this site, whether11 it's sound planning or not?12 THE WITNESS: The law is at the heart of13 land use planning.14 THE PUBLIC: Did you look at anything other15 than the law as a planner? Did you look at, for16 instance, the site conditions. Did you look at17 neighboring property. Did you look at the impact this18 development would have on neighbors in West Orange and19 else were at all?20 THE WITNESS: Yes.21 THE PUBLIC: Okay.22 Did you look at the impact of this23 development on Laurel in Essex Fells, which is adjacent24 -- owns adjacent parcel in town itself, adjacent to this25 112 property?1 THE WITNESS: I'm am not sure what the2 question is?3 THE PUBLIC: Did you look at anything4 outside the boundaries of this property itself?5 Downhill for instance.6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I've been in homes in7 Essex Fells that border this property.8 THE PUBLIC: Were you aware Essex Fells9 itself owns 18 acres on Essex Fells Country Club, which10 acts as a well field for the water supply?11 THE WITNESS: No.12 THE PUBLIC: You're not aware?13 THE WITNESS: No.14 THE PUBLIC: Did you look at the impact on15 stormwater under todays condition on Essex Fells or any16 other neighboring town?17 THE WITNESS: I did not. I'm not an18 engineer.19 THE PUBLIC: Now, we have in your summary20 that characterizes various experts that appeared before21 this board. You said things like, their testimony was22 thorough. Their testimony was sound. Traffic23 engineering, other types, geotechnical engineering, you24 don't have the capability to evaluate their testimony on25

29 of 57 sheets Page 113 to 116 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 113 an expert basis, do you? That's not a planning opinion.1 THE WITNESS: A planners charge is to look at2 land development, land use comprehensively. We consider3 technical testimony, technical reports, plans. If this4 plan did not work we wouldn't be here. This has gone5 through a well thought out engineering process and the6 plan before you has been based on sound engineering7 principles.8 THE PUBLIC: Is it your belief that this9 board cannot consider impacts on stormwater quality,10 potable water in Essex Fells or other impacts from an11 environmental standpoint or quality of life standpoint12 downhill?13 THE WITNESS: Yes, the board can, again,14 with consideration to how it's articulated in the15 ordinance.16 THE PUBLIC: But you haven't looked at any17 of that?18 THE WITNESS: I've looked at the ordinance19 from top to bottom.20 THE PUBLIC: What are the types of21 conditions, if you looked at stormwater, on neighboring22 property?23 You haven't looked at adjacent to this24 property?25 114 THE WITNESS: I have not studied engineering1 aspects of the stormwater management plan, times of2 concentration, runoff coefficients, recharge, two year,3 10 year, 50 year. Only relied upon the conclusions.4 THE PUBLIC: So you're relying on other5 expert testimony saying it's sound planning?6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.7 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.8 THE WITNESS: That's my job.9 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.11 THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder.12 You mentioned at the beginning of your13 testimony, you said the setbacks conform and can you14 expand on that a little bit. What do you mean by15 setbacks conform?16 THE WITNESS: No relief is being sought with17 respect to the positioning of the buildings, parking,18 the roadways or any other structures with respect to19 setbacks from property lines.20 THE PUBLIC: Okay.21 THE WITNESS: Those are light and air22 controls and the application is not asking for any23 relief in that regard.24 THE PUBLIC: Do you feel that the buildings,25 115 that the plan of setbacks to adjacent neighborhoods are1 all equal?2 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the3 question.4 THE PUBLIC: You said the setback is, I'm5 sorry, I'm just trying to --6 THE WITNESS: It's okay.7 THE PUBLIC: I'm not a planner.8 But the setbacks, are they, you said they're9 adjacent to the property,

THE PUBLIC: You said the setback is, I'm5 sorry, I'm just trying to --6 THE WITNESS: It's okay.7 THE PUBLIC: I'm not a planner.8 But the setbacks, are they, you said they're9 adjacent to the property, correct?10 THE WITNESS: To the property line. To the11 outbound of the property.12 THE PUBLIC: Okay.13 You also mentioned lighting conforms. Can14 you expand on how lighting conforms and what constitutes15 conforming and not conforming for lighting?16 THE WITNESS: I'd have to go back and look17 at the specifics of the ordinance. But, again, the18 applicant is not asking for any relief with respect to19 illumination levels, light heights, light temperature,20 color of the lights, dark-sky compliance. No relief in21 that regard.22 THE PUBLIC: So with regard to dark-sky23 compliance, I'm not familiar with the terminology, can24 you explain what you mean by dark-sky compliance?25 116 THE WITNESS: Sure. These are downward1 directed lights cutoff in the back, so the spillage will2 not go beyond the limits of the property or up into the3 sky to intercept with what we call the dark-sky.4 THE PUBLIC: So like light pollution?5 THE WITNESS: Yes.6 THE PUBLIC: So you think -- does that7 conform to all neighboring neighborhoods, whether a8 little closer or further away, would you say that those9 conform?10 THE WITNESS: Yes.11 THE PUBLIC: Can you expand a little bit,12 I'm sorry. You gave like a one word sentence, but can13 you expand on what you mean by, from a planning point of14 view, that it's well designed and well laid out. I15 mean, that's, that's your opinion based on other expert16 testimony but can you expand on what you define what17 well laid out is versus not well laid out?18 THE WITNESS: Sure. There are many accepted19 design principles with respect to, for example, roadway20 construction, horizontally, vertically, geometrically,21 to ensure safe circulation. Start with that, that's22 sort of the backbone of the development. And then of23 course the positioning of the buildings, access into the24 buildings. You heard extensive testimony through Mr.25

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 117 to 120 of 143 30 of 57 sheets 117 Appel how people get into the buildings. How people get1 to their units. The amenities. Again, these are all2 done with consideration to acceptable design principles.3 THE PUBLIC: What about design principles in4 terms of nearby neighbors. Can you maybe share your5 opinion on being well laid out and being well balanced6 between neighborhoods and how far a particular building7 should be of this magnitude to adjoining neighborhoods?8 I mean, looking down at the property at the map of the9 design would you say that, that is well laid out the way10 it's balanced out? Maybe it's to close to one or two11 neighborhoods.12 THE WITNESS: Short answer is, yes. No13 relief is being sought for the buffers. I'm not here to14 question the integrity of the zoning ordinance. This is15 a development that is going to have and preserve a soft16 green edge around the perimeter of the property. That's17 consistent with what we try to do from a planning18 standpoint.19 THE PUBLIC: All right. Thank you.20 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the22 public have questions?23 THE PUBLIC: Hi. Jessica Pearson.24 THE WITNESS: Hi there.25 118 THE PUBLIC: Couple of questions. Did you1 listen to all of this testimony or did you watch it on2 YouTube?3 THE WITNESS: Combination of the two. I've4 been here but I tend to stay in the back because it's5 crowded and I'm trying to maintain some space.6 THE PUBLIC: And you can hear back here?7 THE WITNESS: On Zoom. I can hear back there8 better than here sometimes.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 So you have listened to 100 percent of the11 -- or read the transcripts of the testimony?12 THE WITNESS: Yes.13 THE PUBLIC: So are you still saying it's14 uncontroverted?15 THE WITNESS: Yes.16 THE PUBLIC: Okay. I guess stick around for17 like Part 2. Well, I'm certainly not part of that Part18 2 but I'm just saying I think that you put the cart19 before the horse.20 THE WITNESS: If Part 2 makes me change my21 mind, I'll come back, I'm sure.22 THE PUBLIC: So this particular zone, this23 was drafted in order to accommodate this housing, would24 that be correct? It's an overlay zone of sorts.25 119 MR. PLOCKER: No, objection to that.1 THE PUBLIC: I'm asking a question to the2 planner.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You made a statement.4 This is not --5 THE PUBLIC: Oh, my God.6 CHAIRMAN