June 23, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

11 of 21 sheets Page 41 to 44 of 52 07/19/2025 07:03:47 AM 41 documents out there.1 Yet, if the MLUL says in Subsection, I believe it2 Q. was D, that the board and the ordinances of course must3 consider the effect on neighboring municipalities, and4 you as a planner have not done that analysis, how could5 you say you have done this comprehensively?6 Well, again, I am reliant upon an engineering7 A. study that has been signed and sealed by a professional8 engineer who's qualified to perform that study. Coupled9 with sworn testimony under oath by that same expert.10 But in your comprehensive analysis you did not do11 Q. that review yourself?12 I don't know how to do drainage calculations.13 A. Well, I didn't ask about the calculations but I14 Q. did ask about the effect on neighboring communities.15 Did you do any analysis like that at all?16 My analysis focuses on what the engineer says.17 A. Would it be good planning for a site plan18 Q. application to come before a board and not have any19 sewer plan?20 Stormwater plan or sanitary sewer?21 A. No, real sewers.22 Q. No. Again, a network could be -- final design of23 A. the network, the size can all be part, in my mind, of an24 outside agency condition of approval, such as MUA.25 42 Is it sound planning for an applicant to ask a1 Q. Planning Board to approve a major development of this2 nature with no sewer plan. Yes or no question. Is that3 sound planning?4 Yes. It is not atypical for a certain aspect of5 A. a plan to be conditions of approval through an outside6 agency. A shovel doesn't get in the ground until those7 details are worked out and designed.8 My question wasn't about certain aspects in the9 Q. abstract, it was a simple question. Is it sound10 planning for an application to go before a Planning11 Board of this size and scope with no sewer plan?12 MR. PLOCKER: I am going to object to the13 extent the question insinuates there's no sewer plan.14 That's part of a site plan.15 MR. AFRAN: I haven't seen a sewer plan.16 The engineer hasn't seen a sewer plan for the town. It17 was made very clear that that's an issue here. If there18 is a sewer plan, I would like Mr. Plocker to present it.19 MR. PLOCKER: I think there's confusion20 between a sewer plan for the site and what may be21 happening off-site, which was discussed with Mr.22 Anderson and the township engineer during testimony.23 MR. AFRAN: Was

I think there's confusion20 between a sewer plan for the site and what may be21 happening off-site, which was discussed with Mr.22 Anderson and the township engineer during testimony.23 MR. AFRAN: Was there any plan to move24 sewage off the site at present before this board? The25 43 answer is, no.1 MR. PLOCKER: I object to that2 characterization.3 Is there such a plan?4 Q. I don't know.5 A. If there's no such plan would you say that6 Q. reflects sound planning?7 I would say that is not out of the ordinary for a8 A. project of this magnitude to defer that to a future9 phase.10 And your view is that would be sound planning to11 Q. have that absence?12 Yes, I believe that's cooked into the MLUL13 A. process.14 Okay.15 Q. If a development is going to introduce 1,70016 daily car trips, or more than 1,700 to a community where17 there's only one way out and one way in and that will be18 going through an existing neighborhood, the association,19 would you still say that that plan does not reflect20 undue sprawl?21 Yes, I would still say that.22 A. Cars are part of sprawl, correct?23 Q. Certainly are.24 A. Right. And the more cars we put in our25 Q. 44 environment and the more traffic we impose on the1 community by more and more development, that's all part2 of sprawl, isn't it?3 It's a subset of sprawl, yes.4 A. It's part of sprawl, right?5 Q. It's a part of sprawl.6 A. Okay.7 Q. And you would say the addition of almost 2,0008 daily car trips into this one way access and ingress9 through this existing neighborhood is not adding10 significant sprawl to our community?11 All things considered I would not say that the12 A. traffic alone would rate this project as a sprawl13 project.14 Well, I didn't ask alone about the traffic. I15 Q. think one can say that when you add all this extra16 traffic and we add destruction of this vast forest and17 add the 1,200 people who now live here and the multiple18 buildings spreading out through this forest, would you19 still say there's no significant sprawl?20 I would, again, I rely upon a licensed traffic21 A. expert who looks at the carrying capacity of the road22 network and the transportation infrastructure that's23 presently in place and that there is adequate capacity24 to accommodate that type of volume.25