June 30, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

21 of 70 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 175 08/07/2025 02:56:42 PM 81 property owner addresses that were obtained were filed1 with the board and they are made public as part of the2 application materials. So I would just ask that this3 board take notice that in evaluating the testimony and4 any comments made by Mrs. Pannullo, see what her address5 is in relation to the development.6 MR. AFRAN: I have to interject very7 strongly. There is not a slightest basis for inquiring8 where someone lives. The only time that matters is9 whether they're entitled to statutory notice as a10 200-foot owner. Anyone in this community or neighboring11 community can come up here and raise these concerns.12 His suggestion we need to check where she lives is13 ridiculous and to some people, to some people, not to14 Mr. Plocker and I who are used to abusing each other in15 courtrooms and things of that nature, but to some people16 it's intimidating and it should not be continuously17 raised.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I appreciate that and the19 board listens to everybody equally wherever they live.20 MR. AFRAN: Thank you. So let's ignore the21 address.22 MR. PLOCKER: No, I don't think we should23 ignore it, with all due respect. Many boards require24 street addresses of every person who does appear.25 82 I just want to state that for the record.1 MR. AFRAN: And they may do that but it's2 not in the law and it's not proper to demand it. And3 it's intimidating to the community.4 MS. McGOVERN: So I'm just looking at Cox,5 Section 18-3.4, Testimony of Objectors. "Objectors may6 appear individually and ask questions" blah, blah, blah.7 And then it says, "It must be -- it had been suggested8 that Boards would be most interested in hearing from9 those objectors who would be most effected if the site10 is developed as planned." And the MLUL recognizes this11 part and then it cites the case DeMaria v. Jet Brook,12 LLC, 372 N.J. Super, "The court appointed applicant and13 the MLUL has recognized this by requiring individual14 notice be given to those properties within 200-foot.15 The court suggested that a Board would well be within16 it's right to hear comments from those objectors who17 live near the subject property before others are given18 an opportunity to speak." So there is some, there are,19 there is some case law that weighs those people who live20 within a 200-foot radius more so than somebody

ct property before others are given18 an opportunity to speak." So there is some, there are,19 there is some case law that weighs those people who live20 within a 200-foot radius more so than somebody outside.21 So it is very relevant.22 MR. AFRAN: Only in terms --23 MS. McGOVERN: Excuse me.24 Then there's another suggestion, "That25 83 owners not within the 200-foot radius" and that's under1 Section 18-3.5 and I agree, members that are not within2 the 200-foot radius have the absolute right to come up3 here and ask questions and make comments. But, again,4 there's a prioritization, that the board should know5 what members of the public are within that 200-foot6 radius, because it gives extra weight to their comments7 and to their questions.8 MR. AFRAN: I don't think that's the reason9 the court said that. The court said that because those10 who live closer to the project may have a greater11 interest in it. But that doesn't mean the board should12 give greater weight to their remarks. A person --13 excuse me. I'm very troubled by this, there i not the14 slightest shred in our laws that would suggest the board15 should give greater weight to someone who lives within16 200-feet as opposed to someone who does not. If that's17 what you're going to be governed by you're violating the18 due process right and left. There's nothing -- the19 court was not referring to giving greater weight. The20 court was simply saying, because we may have a long line21 of people and people may leave because they have to go22 home, those who live within the notice period can be23 given a priority so they get heard because they have an24 absolute statutory notice right. It was never saying25 84 the board should give greater weight and I don't know1 where you're getting that from.2 MR. PLOCKER: I agree with Mr. Afran.3 MS. McGOVERN: I'm not saying that they give4 greater weight.5 MR. AFRAN: You just did.6 MS. McGOVERN: I said prioritization.7 MR. AFRAN: And you said the board's8 entitled to give greater weight to their comments and9 that's what I'm reacting to.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You're asking the board to11 weigh each person with the same weight based on their12 information that they provided wherever they live.13 We've always done that and that's been our history and14 the way we operate. So each member of the public,15 wherever they come from, will receive the weight of16 their

provided wherever they live.13 We've always done that and that's been our history and14 the way we operate. So each member of the public,15 wherever they come from, will receive the weight of16 their information based on the entirety of the project.17 MR. AFRAN: I think Ms. McGovern may have18 misspoke when she said the board shall give greater19 weight.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I understand what the law21 is. I agree with her and the methodology of who can22 speak, but overall we listen to everybody equally.23 MR. AFRAN: Right. This board does not24 maintain the practice of asking the 200-foot notice25