January 29, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

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