January 29, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM Page 93 to 96 of 143 24 of 57 sheets 93 we consider the application as a whole, we have good1 case law on that as well that says, look at the entire2 package and the good that it does. We counter balance3 that with the relief that the applicant is seeking,4 given that adherence to the zone, the higher zone5 controls and this relatively modest design relief that6 the applicant is asking the board to move on. Again,7 remember the little blue slivers that Mr. Appel showed8 in his Exhibit A-3 back in August, I think clearly the9 board can find that relief can be granted without any10 substantially adverse visual impacts by having that11 exposed building foundation and the relief that's being12 sought.13 On the positive side, we consider the benefits of14 the application as a whole. Paramount to this15 application is the public interest, the court mandated16 provision for affordable housing. These are the words17 of the New Jersey Supreme Court going all the way back18 to the Mount Laurel number 1. These are not John19 McDonough's words, these are the New Jersey Supreme20 Court which form the whole impetus why we have21 affordable housing here in New Jersey and this was22 brought on, again, by that 1975 case NAACP v. The23 Township of Mount Laurel where courts found that there24 was exclusionary zoning in Mount Laurel and open the25 94 doors, if you will, for the provision of affordable1 housing and obligation all towns. This is what the2 court said, "There is not the slightest doubt that New3 Jersey has been and continues to be faced with a4 desperate need for housing, especially of decent living5 accommodations economically suitable for low and6 moderate income families. This situation is7 characterized as a crisis." That's the pre-ample to the8 Mount Laurel Doctrine which has now been reaffirmed9 since 1975 for Mount Laurel 2, Mount Laurel 3 and here10 we sit with Mount Laurel 4 again. So what's happening11 here in West Orange is happening throughout New Jersey12 as well, and again, I compliment the community and the13 leadership for responding to the law. This is not the14 town per se driving this, but the law that's driving15 this and what our courts are mandating.16 The project not only provides affordable housing,17 which we just said is a paramount of public interest.18 We have new housing stock, we have attractive new19 buildings,

t our courts are mandating.16 The project not only provides affordable housing,17 which we just said is a paramount of public interest.18 We have new housing stock, we have attractive new19 buildings, we've got abundant robust landscaping. This20 project has been well designed, it has been well laid21 out. You have testimony, unwavering testimony that this22 project will flow, will function, will operate safely,23 conveniently and comfortable for the people that live24 here and will integrate with the land that is around it.25 95 The project will promote compact development,1 efficient land use and economic scale, which is what we2 see in multifamily developments, clustered development3 as opposed to sprawling single family development.4 The project promotes a variety of land uses in5 appropriate locations. Again, with what is a fully6 permitted use in this zone.7 The project promotes environmental preservation8 by preserving over 90 acres of woodlands. We always9 have to take this back to our land use law N.J.S.A.10 40:55D-2, which is what gives this community the right11 to create zone districts and essentially create this12 board and your zoning board as well and govern what13 happens from a land use perspective within the proper of14 your community.15 Fundamental purposes in the land use law, there16 about 18 or so of them. It's an obligation of the17 applicant to prove that one are met. I actually see18 multiple here based on the benefits that I just quoted,19 including purpose A, the promotion of the general20 welfare. Purpose G, again, the planning goal for21 variety. Purpose I, for promotion of a desirable visual22 environment and purpose N, efficient use of land.23 Counter balancing that with the negative24 criteria. Based on all the testimony and the credible25 96 evidence, relief can be granted without substantial1 adverse impacts. You have good, solid testimony from2 Mr. Anderson and also 60, 70 pages of detailed site3 plans that demonstrate this is a well thought out plan4 designed in accordance with sound site planning5 principles. Likewise you have a set of plans and6 testimony from Mr. Appel that this has been designed in7 accordance with all applicable building codes, UHAC and8 other life safety codes as well.9 You have testimony through your own environmental10 expert that there will not be any substantial11 environmental impacts. Testimony

licable building codes, UHAC and8 other life safety codes as well.9 You have testimony through your own environmental10 expert that there will not be any substantial11 environmental impacts. Testimony from Mr. Pehnke that12 there will not be any substantially adverse traffic13 impacts. And, again, you have testimony through an14 expert who's your technical that there will not be any15 substantial, geotechnical, impacts associated with this16 development. Again, this is uncontroverted expert17 opinion. That, as I stand now, I think strongly goes18 towards the resolution of the negative criteria and the19 applicant has certainly met it's burden through20 continued probing, which I think is certainly21 appropriate, very, very detailed, good questions and22 responsive applicant in the form of its professionals23 here. So the process has been interactive, which,24 again, is exactly what Pizzo Mantin says the process25