January 29, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

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 BAGOFF: -- this is not an overlay.7 THE PUBLIC: Could somebody help me out8 here. It's ridiculous.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: This is a matter of law,10 this is not an overlay zone. It is a zone --11 THE PUBLIC: Okay.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: -- that was adopted by the13 town council. Let's just be accurate when we're14 talking, please. Okay.15 THE PUBLIC: I'm asking him. So he could16 have qualified that instead of you yelling at me and17 treating members of the public with such caustic18 disrespect. Please. I asked him, it was in the form of19 a question and I'm really getting tired of getting20 yelled at by you and treated with total disrespect.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm not treating you with22 --23 THE PUBLIC: It's caustic.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: When you're ready, let me25 120 finish. Okay.1 THE PUBLIC: I don't need to be lectured by2 you, sir. That's what you do to people in the public.3 You cow them. It's really tiresome. I am, please I'm4 trying to ask some questions. You can correct me, but5 you can't lecture me. I asked him if it was an overlay6 zone. He could have said, no, ma'am. It's not.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You stated it was an8 overlay zone. There's a difference.9 Go right ahead, ask your question.10 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. It's not.11 THE PUBLIC: Thank you, sir. This is a12 gentleman.13 Okay. But it was drafted as a zone14 particular to this property, is that correct?15 THE WITNESS: Correct.16 THE PUBLIC: See, I asked a question.17 Okay. If that's the case, why if it was18 drafted in order to accommodate this property, why in19 fact would they need any waivers or any variances or any20 changes if they were part and parcel, and the council21 who drafted the zoning ordinance in conjunction22 hopefully with the planning board, why wouldn't they23 have taken everything into consideration and no waivers24 would have been needed, is that generally how it goes?25

31 of 57 sheets Page 121 to 124 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 121 MR. PLOCKER: John, don't answer that1 question because it is not really a question. I just2 want to explain something.3 THE PUBLIC: It is a question. Why do they4 need variances if this board and council drafted it5 particularly to this particular --6 MR. PLOCKER: As a --7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: May I answer first.8 MR. PLOCKER: Please.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: This board was not part of10 any decision, that is a legal matter.11 THE PUBLIC: It goes to him saying that we12 look at the zone. This gentleman testified to the fact,13 and he is a gentleman by the way, he's great. He14 testified to the fact that good planning and good, from15 a planners perspective, has to look at the zone and the16 way that, that zone was written in the zoning code. I'm17 simply asking him to please address the fact that18 they're asking for waivers in a zone code that was just19 written and revised. Did you say it was written in 201920 and maybe revised again in 2020?21 THE WITNESS: Yes.22 THE PUBLIC: To accommodate this very23 development. So why is there such an exigent need for24 waivers?25 122 MR. PLOCKER: All right. So initially there1 are no waivers being sought. You mentioned waivers in2 connection with the zoning ordinance. We are seeking3 one bulk variance for the building foundations.4 THE PUBLIC: I'm sorry, can you repeat that.5 One what?6 MS. MCGOVERN: Bulk variance. One C7 variance.8 THE PUBLIC: C. Okay.9 MR. PLOCKER: There's one bulk C variance10 for the application that --11 THE PUBLIC: Okay.12 MR. PLOCKER: I need to be able to finish13 without being interrupted, please Mr. Chairman.14 THE PUBLIC: I'm trying to listen. I can't15 hear.16 MR. PLOCKER: It's very hard to talk when17 there's an okay, okay, every few minutes.18 So I just want to address the question.19 There's a single variance that this application is20 seeking from the zoning ordinance that pertains to the21 percentage of the building foundations that are exposed.22 Mr. Appel addressed that in his testimony. Mr.23 McDonough relied upon that in his testimony. There are24 two exceptions from a state regulation, from a DCA,25 123 RSIS, and I believe you're on a planning board in1 another town, I'm sure you're familiar with them.2 Variances, exceptions and waivers are sought all the3 time. Importantly as the zoning ordinance, which Mr.4 McDonough relies

on a planning board in1 another town, I'm sure you're familiar with them.2 Variances, exceptions and waivers are sought all the3 time. Importantly as the zoning ordinance, which Mr.4 McDonough relies upon, our settlement agreement is5 referenced in the purpose of the zoning ordinance. That6 settlement agreement specifically recognizes that at the7 time of settlement, which was 2020, four and half years8 ago let's say, and the town was involved, it9 specifically recognizes at that time that job or any job10 that's part of the Mount Laurel settlement is extremely11 rare that a job would be fully engineered at that point12 until the applicant, the developer, the property owner,13 knows that the sites in the plan and approved by the14 court. This site was put in the settlement agreement,15 it was recommend by the special master, it was approved16 by the Superior Court of New Jersey. Pursuant to that17 the town had certain obligations under the settlement18 agreement. One of them was to enact the zoning19 ordinance, which is attached to the settlement agreement20 which wound up in form C in the town code. The job got21 fully engineered, the variance that we're here for is22 necessary and the two exceptions. We fully acknowledge23 them. One for was for Kuzik Drive pursuant to the24 agreement with the condo association to the south. If25 124 it's not granted it's understood the application would1 proceed with Kuzik open.2 THE PUBLIC: Thank you, Mr. McDonough.3 So I was asking Mr. McDonough, when you4 first began your monologue earlier about this particular5 site, did you mention that there were a number of things6 that this variance, that this applicant was looking for7 relief for?8 THE WITNESS: I did, yes.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 Did you put a number on that when you were11 talking?12 THE WITNESS: There's one variance.13 THE PUBLIC: Yes.14 THE WITNESS: That's for the exposure of the15 foundation.16 THE PUBLIC: Correct.17 THE WITNESS: Which is grading control.18 THE PUBLIC: Yes, I realize that.19 THE WITNESS: C variance.20 THE PUBLIC: I thought you said D, he21 corrected me. My bad. I thought you said C. Thank22 you.23 THE WITNESS: And just to sort of clarify24 the record. Sometimes we talk about bulk variances,25

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 125 to 128 of 143 32 of 57 sheets 125 that implies mass and scale. These buildings are not1 overly big. The height complies, you heard Mr. Appel2 talk about that over and over again.3 THE PUBLIC: I actually just asked you not4 to go into details on the C variance.5 THE WITNESS: So it's just one C. And then6 outside of the land use law we now go into what we call7 the RSIS --8 THE PUBLIC: Yes. And there were two did9 you say?10 THE WITNESS: Yes. One is the average daily11 traffic coming through Warner would exceed 1,000 trips12 per day.13 THE PUBLIC: So we go up to 1,700 and change14 you said, almost twice?15 THE WITNESS: Above.16 THE PUBLIC: If you round up almost twice.17 I mean, 75 percent more than currently -- than would be18 allowed?19 THE WITNESS: Yes.20 THE PUBLIC: That's pretty steep. Okay.21 And what was the third one?22 THE WITNESS: And also from the RSIS was23 from the circle in the middle of the development coming24 down to Warner there's a single walkway, a single25 126 sidewalk as opposed to double sided.1 THE PUBLIC: Okay.2 So just out of curiosity, there is no busing3 that, when that traffic expert said, that there's not4 going to be shuttles or are there going to be shuttles?5 You don't know. That's something you're not --6 THE WITNESS: I don't know. As I was7 listening I heard the word jitney, but I don't know if8 that was a community jitney that may come up into the9 community, I don't know.10 THE PUBLIC: Okay.11 So is it your opinion that it's good12 planning for an inclusive -- inclusionary development to13 be basically in a very, I would say, isolated area, when14 it comes to public transit and only have sidewalks on15 one side of the street that would get them in a walking16 or biking way to public transit?17 THE WITNESS: My answer is, yes, and that18 statement is not made in a vacuum. To get here with19 this project this has gone through your own affordable20 housing planner.21 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you. I hear you.22 THE WITNESS: A fairness hearing, in23 accordance with the Fair Share Housing advocacy.24 THE PUBLIC: You're a planner, I'm asking25 127 you in terms of your opinion of good planning, I'm not1 asking you to tell me what the fair share attorneys said2 about this. I'm asking your opinion and I just3 basically want to know what you really think, because4 I'm getting a lot of philosophical from

asking you to tell me what the fair share attorneys said2 about this. I'm asking your opinion and I just3 basically want to know what you really think, because4 I'm getting a lot of philosophical from you but in5 realistic terms, do you think that that's good planning6 to have a sidewalk on one side of a street where we have7 a pretty isolated 500 or 496 unit inclusionary building8 that has to potentially walk down that roadway in order9 to, or home, up that roadway, to get to and from public10 transit, which is not close?11 THE WITNESS: Again, my answer is, yes. One12 that's founded on multiple layers of advocates for13 affordable housing to say this sites appropriate but14 also from a pure design standpoint, a pure planning15 standpoint. It's as beautiful piece of land perched up16 on that hill.17 THE PUBLIC: That has nothing to do --18 THE WITNESS: Yes.19 THE PUBLIC: No, it's the safety and the20 walking, that was really the issue that you're not21 really addressing. You're telling me it's a pretty22 piece of property but we know that.23 THE WITNESS: It's a beautiful place to live24 and all people should have a right to live there.25 128 Regardless of --1 THE PUBLIC: That has nothing to do with the2 safety of walking down a sidewalk.3 THE WITNESS: It's all factored into the4 consideration.5 THE PUBLIC: So --6 THE WITNESS: I have not heard anything to7 convince me that putting people of lower moderate8 incomes on the top of that hill creates a safety9 detriment.10 THE PUBLIC: We're talking about a sidewalk11 on one side of the street. The RSIS does not, I guess12 they don't usually allow for that unless you ask for13 some sort of relief.14 THE WITNESS: I'm comfortable with what I've15 just told you based on the evidence on the record and16 the witnesses that have gone before me.17 THE PUBLIC: Okay.18 THE WITNESS: Mr. Pehnke, Mr. Anderson.19 There are crosswalks built into this. There are.20 THE PUBLIC: Okay. I get it. I hear you.21 Okay. Thank you.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.23 Do any other members of the public have24 questions for Mr. McDonough's testimony? Please come25

33 of 57 sheets Page 129 to 132 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 129 up.1 THE PUBLIC: I have a question. Patrick2 Laterza, L-A-T-E-R-Z-A.3 THE WITNESS: Hi, Mr. Laterza.4 THE PUBLIC: I'm a frequent questioner.5 Couple questions. First, have you seen the6 planning boards denial of this original application in7 2006?8 MR. PLOCKER: That's not relevant.9 MS. MCGOVERN: Have you seen the denial, the10 planning boards denial for the previous application.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Right, it's12 irrelevant to this application.13 THE PUBLIC: He testified to a point made14 about it earlier, about why it was denied then how it15 wouldn't apply to this application.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The reason for the denial17 is irrelevant. See, again, the public brings out things18 that the planning board needs to hear to look at this19 application. So that was an application for single20 family homes. It was a totally different application.21 They didn't have a fair share component and --22 THE PUBLIC: Fire safety --23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: -- different zone and so24 we're looking at a totally different animal here.25 130 THE PUBLIC: Okay.1 Are you aware that almost every municipal2 zoning environment ordinance was suspended for this3 application? They were.4 THE WITNESS: There was a tree -- there are5 tree controls that were put into here.6 MR. PLOCKER: The applicant will make the7 representation and make this point that the entire land8 use code doesn't apply to this application, except for9 this provision specific to the IH-1 zone ordinance.10 That's part of the ordinance, it's in black and white.11 It's part of the record.12 THE PUBLIC: As a planner is that13 commonplace for --14 MR. PLOCKER: It's challenging the zoning15 ordinance and it's not appropriate.16 THE PUBLIC: I mean, he's a planner. He can17 talk -- he's saying this is good planning, but a lot of18 the ordinances have been suspended.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He's looking at the zoning20 ordinance. He can answer it based on the zoning21 ordinance. Whatever opinion based on the zoning22 ordinance.23 THE WITNESS: Sure, if the question is, is24 this normal. Does this happen elsewhere. In my25 131 experience, yes, it is very common to write the zoning1 ordinances around affordable housing projects. You can2 look in towns they'll have an H-1 and H-2, H-4 zone3 districts specifically written in the interest of4 eliminating barriers to the

the zoning1 ordinances around affordable housing projects. You can2 look in towns they'll have an H-1 and H-2, H-4 zone3 districts specifically written in the interest of4 eliminating barriers to the provision for affordable5 housing.6 MR. PLOCKER: Which are provided for in the7 COAH regs, if it is not, isn't that correct?8 THE WITNESS: Correct.9 THE PUBLIC: And is it also the zoning, the10 ordinance that you look at, also to do with public11 safety though, isn't that in consideration?12 THE WITNESS: It is all about balance, yes.13 THE PUBLIC: So is this plan currently in14 compliance with the current tree ordinance? I know it's15 suspended for this.16 THE WITNESS: I haven't reviewed it against17 the current tree ordinance.18 MR. PLOCKER: Again, it's completely19 irrelevant. We have our own tree removal and20 replacement provision for this particular zone.21 THE PUBLIC: Things that have to do with22 public safety after the fact.23 MR. PLOCKER: That's a cute term that24 everyone likes to throw around, did the town necessarily25 132 consider that when they zoned this property.1 THE PUBLIC: Which was before the ordinance2 was put in place.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The tree ordinance within4 the zone plan and that's what the applicant has to5 comply to.6 THE PUBLIC: Except if it has to do with7 public safety, correct?8 MS. MCGOVERN: Except if it has to do with9 public safety.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think that would have to11 be reviewed by the attorney.12 THE PUBLIC: Okay.13 I'm just asking a question. Is it14 complying?15 MS. MCGOVERN: It's been -- there's been16 testimony, no, it doesn't comply -- I don't know whether17 it complies or not but what the difference is, they only18 have to comply with the ordinance that pertains to this19 zone. This specific zone.20 THE PUBLIC: Unless it could impact public21 safety, which we just established, but you could ask the22 attorney about it.23 MS. MCGOVERN: Unless it pertains to public24 safety. I guess the better question, I don't want to25

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 133 to 136 of 143 34 of 57 sheets 133 put a question in your mouth is, have you heard anything1 that would challenge public safety with respect to that?2 MR. PLOCKER: No, and first of all, let's3 face it, anybody could attempt to relate any4 governmental ordinance or statute to public safety.5 It's all for the public safety, good, health, welfare we6 all get that, so we'll start there. But this7 application was filed some time ago and we're eight8 meetings in. We have had various town professionals,9 engineers, planning, the environmental expert review10 this and that has not been a comment that has been11 brought to our attention by anyone of the township or12 board professionals.13 THE PUBLIC: I thought the point of the14 questions were to bring up questions that we thought15 were concerning. You said that several times, Mr.16 Bagoff.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, you feel there's a18 public safety issue, we heard about the trees in19 relation to the ordinance in the zone plan.20 THE WITNESS: No. Again, based on the21 letter of the ordinance and testimony that's been given,22 no.23 THE PUBLIC: That doesn't answer my24 question, but that's okay.25 134 Would you say the same about the steep slope1 that's been in place since the application?2 THE WITNESS: I have not reviewed this3 application for conformance with your nonapplicable4 steep slope regulations.5 THE PUBLIC: Are you aware of the distance6 that someone would have to walk from this project to any7 sort of public transportation?8 THE WITNESS: No.9 THE PUBLIC: Are you aware of, other than10 within the actual location and the sidewalks, what type11 of traffic anyone would have to walk across in order to12 get there, get to public transportation from the13 development?14 THE WITNESS: No.15 THE PUBLIC: Would you consider these might16 be items that would go to good planning for, especially,17 affordable housing location?18 THE WITNESS: It's -- all of that is cooked19 into the zoning regulations which established an20 appropriate population density limit on this property.21 So --22 THE PUBLIC: Are you aware that this23 property is locked by other properties in order to get24 to any sort of mass transit and/or all traffic has to go25 135 through?1 THE WITNESS: I don't know.2 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.4 Do any other members of the public have

to any sort of mass transit and/or all traffic has to go25 135 through?1 THE WITNESS: I don't know.2 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.4 Do any other members of the public have any5 questions for Mr. McDonough on his testimony?6 Please come up and be identified.7 Seeing none. I'm sorry, Mayor McCartney.8 MAYOR MCcARTNEY: Mr. McDonough, just going9 through my notes here and we're talking about sidewalk10 and public safety, are you aware that the sidewalk is on11 one side of the street, but I thought you said that12 there are no homes on that side of the street? Please13 clarify that.14 THE WITNESS: I am going to check the plan15 now. I thought that came out as part of Mr. Pehnke's16 testimony. From the circle to Warner I am not seeing17 any homes, ma'am.18 MAYOR MCcARTNEY: So that's raising the19 question for public safety. Does that mean someone has20 to cross the street to get to the sidewalk?21 THE WITNESS: Just checking. I know there22 are crosswalks built into the plan that also came out as23 part of Mr. Pehnke's testimony. I know from the24 sidewalk from Building A-2. There is a crosswalk across25 136 the proposed road, the extension of Warner that will1 take you to that sidewalk system on the east side of the2 property. So there is connectivity.3 MAYOR MCcARTNEY: Crosswalk connectivity?4 THE WITNESS: Yes.5 MAYOR MCcARTNEY: Thank you.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.7 Do any other members of the public have any8 questions for Mr. McDonough on his testimony?9 Seeing none.10 Thank you, Mr. McDonough.11 Mr. Plocker, you have the floor.12 MR. PLOCKER: All right. At this moment the13 applicant does not have any further witnesses. We14 understand that the witnesses who testified here15 tonight, we will have to bring them back at some point16 and we'll discuss that with Ms. McGovern and Mr. Afran17 about their cross examination and obviously we'll take18 some comments into consideration tonight, the questions19 from the board and public to determine if we're going to20 have any additional application submissions or have any21 further witnesses. If we don't, the applicant does22 reserve it's right to call any and all witnesses back or23 additional witnesses in response to whatever case the24 objectors make.25

35 of 57 sheets Page 137 to 140 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 137 MAYOR MCcARTNEY: One more question.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mayor McCartney.2 MAYOR MCcARTNEY: Mr. Plocker, where do we3 land as far as doing additional soil borings or test4 pits?5 MR. PLOCKER: That's something we'll6 definitely discuss.7 MAYOR MCcARTNEY: Thank you.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza, do you have9 any question or comments?10 MR. CARDOZA: Not at this time, Chairman11 Bagoff.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mayor McCartney, do you13 have any questions or comments?14 MAYOR MCcARTNEY: No, I asked my questions15 already.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.17 Vice Chairman Guarino, do you have any18 questions or comments?19 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Not at this time.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have any21 questions or comments?22 MR. ALPER: Not at this time.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Wilkes, do you have24 any questions or comments?25 138 MR. WILKES: No.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Councilwoman Scarpa, do2 you have any questions or comments?3 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah, I have a4 question about planning. You testified that good5 planning constitutes -- a good plan is comprehensive and6 you talked a lot about good planning. So if there was7 no Mount Laurel or affordable and you're a planner for8 West Orange, would you plan and approve this development9 for the site?10 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand the11 question. You're saying if there was no --12 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Affordable housing was13 removed from this, you were the planner for West Orange,14 do you think this plan is a good plan? The totality of15 all this.16 THE WITNESS: It's a hypothetical and I17 don't know. I don't know.18 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: You're a planner and19 you know about good planing, so I was wondering if this20 would be a good plan?21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ladies and gentlemen, you22 have to be quiet, he is taking notes.23 MR. PLOCKER: With all due respect, that's24 not the application before you, Councilwoman Scarpa.25 139 But John, if you want to, go ahead and answer it.1 THE WITNESS: It's a whole separate fact2 analysis. But, again, we're looking at a development3 that fully complies with the zoning requirements that4 are before you, so. There may be different zoning if it5 wasn't affordable housing. I don't know. I think the6 applicant has certainly demonstrated here that at this7 density, at this mass, at this scale the site