January 29, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

25 of 57 sheets Page 97 to 100 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 97 should be. It should be done in a public forum with the1 public and questions are posed, questions are answered.2 Where we landed now after I will say eight3 hearings, testimony on the record is clear that this4 project will not have any substantially adverse impacts.5 And lastly of course, I'm going to take you back6 to that Pizzo Mantin case which I can tell you I7 actually lived that case. It's up in Randolph, it8 involved a 90 acre virgin piece of land of woodland9 where the applicant was proposing a residential10 development. We went through multiple hearings, many,11 many hearings, public, very similar process to what has12 happened here. At the end of the day the board actually13 denied the application on the grounds that it did not14 constitute "good planning." It went through the courts15 and it landed with the Supreme Court that, again, taking16 us back to what I said at the outset, ruled that the17 essence of good planning "is rooted in your zoning18 ordinance." Where an application complies it is19 consistent with good planning and in that regard should20 be approved. It is not up to the discretion of the21 board or the public to say what does or doesn't22 constitute good planning. You have evidence here, you23 have conformance with the zone ordinance, which is24 particularly set up to safe guard public interest.25 98 So, again, we have two cases here that are1 fundamental tenants to the application before you. The2 Mount Laurel Doctrine and the Pizzo Mantin case as well3 which will give the board, I think, good legal framework4 to guide your decision making here. I'm not a lawyer,5 I'm a planner, we have to operate in a legal frame work6 and so I give those -- I certainly take those cases into7 consideration and I give it to the board as well.8 On balancing, I think clearly lands on the9 positive substantially outweighs any detriments10 associated with those slivers of raw wall exposure and11 clearly a better zoning alternative. It sounds like it12 is potentially feasible to eliminate that relief, but13 then you would get retaining walls, you'd get more land14 disturbance, more tree removal. The board's supposed to15 consider whether it represents a better zoning16 alternative, and for all those reasons I believe that17 the evidence proves that this is a better

urbance, more tree removal. The board's supposed to15 consider whether it represents a better zoning16 alternative, and for all those reasons I believe that17 the evidence proves that this is a better zoning18 alternative.19 Now, you did hear testimony outside of the20 variance relief, there are two de minimus exceptions21 which come from, again, the state regulation, the22 Residential Site Improvement Standards, and I'll call23 them RSIS for the purposes of my testimony. Really24 falling back on Mr. Pehnke's testimony to a certain25 99 extent, Mr. Anderson as well, we have here relief1 related to the fact that the loop road with the closing2 off of Kuzik, which comes as part of that settlement3 agreement with the neighbors there, would create a loop4 that has a greater than 1,000 average daily traffic5 rate. Greater than 1,000 average daily traffic. I6 think through the testimony it was 1,784 trips above7 that threshold. Mr. Pehnke, again, I'm not a traffic8 engineer, has addressed that through his testimony as9 the predicate for my planning conclusion that the site10 has adequate carrying capacity and can function safely11 and efficiently without any substantial adverse12 degradation of traffic or unsafe conditions to have13 Kuzik Road closed off as part of the court settlement in14 the interest of protecting the privacy of the neighbors15 but for emergency access.16 Likewise there was testimony that came on during17 the course of the hearing about having a sidewalk only18 on one side from the interior circle working your way19 back down to Warner, it's only a piece of the overall20 development. And, again, I think the board can find21 that, that relief is also justifiable in meeting the22 intent and purpose of the RSIS.23 Whenever we look at relief related to RSIS there24 are certain words that we need to speak to. First, the25 100 literal enforcement of one or more provisions of the1 standard is impracticable or will exact undue hardship2 because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the3 development in question. Again, given all the testimony4 on the record, strict or literal enforcement is5 impracticable and serves no practical planning purpose.6 In terms of the access, adequate access is7 provided and relief response to the neighbors request to8 close off Kuzik. Relief relates to a hardship created9 by the land and the surrounding road network already

of the access, adequate access is7 provided and relief response to the neighbors request to8 close off Kuzik. Relief relates to a hardship created9 by the land and the surrounding road network already in10 place. You heard that that sidewalk on the one side is11 going to provide for safe and adequate pedestrian12 circulation. There are no homes along that stretch of13 roadway, so the single walkway would nicely tie into14 what we see on the Warner side.15 Additionally, the RSIS purposes advanced here to16 eliminate unnecessary increases in cost of housing that17 are non-commensurate with the protection of public18 health and safety. To provide for residential projects19 that are based upon sound objectives, site improvement20 standards, rather than upon discretionary design21 standards. To provide the widest possible range of22 design freedom and promote diversity through performance23 oriented site improvement standards and then finally to24 separate the policy making aspects of the development25