August 25, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 I have a quick question for you. One, were you at this site, development site to look and see what it looks like? THE WITNESS: No. I had not walked the site, no. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: You had not walked the site to see the condition as it stands right now and the surrounding community, and the current residents and their houses and development? THE WITNESS: I have been in the surrounding community, yes. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: All right. So you've been within the West Essex Highlands development itself? THE WITNESS: No, from what I understood it was private property. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay. I'm just asking. MR. AFRAN: I think this is an ambiguity. I think West Essex Highlands, I think the witness meant the forest. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: That's my next question. Thank you. So you didn't go on the property and you haven't seen the current condition of the forested area,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 condition of the trees, the under bush and everything else. When you did this whole presentation this is basically paper, it's basically from reporting and so -- okay. And so can I ask you a hypothetical question. So the part you're saying about connectivity to the neighborhood and stuff like that, are you saying that it's a bad development if it does not connect to the surrounding community? So the further away or further up the hill it was, not walkable, you're saying it's -- no, I'm not saying you're saying, but you would say it's not a proper development? THE WITNESS: I didn't use the word bad, I didn't use the word proper. I said it's not smart growth. It's not walkable, right. You can't push a baby stroller. That's what I'm saying. I'm not putting any judgment on it. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay. And my last question Professor, have you seen the site plan? Have you looked at the plans and construction plans and what's going to be put there? THE WITNESS: I have reviewed what's online, which is what I understand is the plans. It doesn't seem like it's complete plans. I don't see sidewalks and things like that. Details where I could evaluate that. I had to read what was online.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you very much and thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have any questions? MR. ALPER: Thank you. Are there specific things, any specific things you might suggest that would put a project, that would put a project into more smart growth mode? THE WITNESS: In what regard? Whether to -- like change the design, the plans -- MR. ALPER: Right. Based on what you've seen and how that comports to your mapping and everything, are there things that could improve it from that perspective? THE WITNESS: The location, location, location of this has problematic aspects. When you look at the factors that we looked at in trying to evaluate whether somethings smart growth or sprawl, it is not compliant with what is the priorities for smart growth. It's consuming, you know, the last remaining parcel in the county and the future of development in West Orange, as well as most of New Jersey, is redevelopment. So I know there's an affordable housing component to this and, you know, the affordable housing need is a really

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 important part of smart growth. But locating affordable housing in places where you actually have a neighborhood that you can have the ability to go to the grocery store and to do other things that it doesn't require a mile and a half drive, is a smarter location for affordable housing. That's what I'm saying. MR. ALPER: Thank you. MAYOR McCARTNEY: I'd like to come back to the affordable housing plan. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer. MS. KAPFERER: Thank you Dr. Hasse, for your presentation. Are you able to speak at all, you referenced the state plan. Are you able to comment at all about how this state plan conforms to things like local zoning and affordable housing numbers? I asked about how the state plan may conform to local zoning and also affordable housing requirements, if you can. THE WITNESS: Yeah, the state plan certainly talks about affordable housing and it talks about what types of zoning can achieve the goals for the state plan. But the state plan is not, is not a direction, it is a recommendation. It's trying to get communities and municipalities to work together for the overall benefit

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 of regional planning. So it doesn't have descriptions of exactly how to do it or numbers for affordable housing, but it does say affordable housing is part of the structure of development in our community and it should be housed appropriate. MS. KAPFERER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza, do you have any questions? MR. CARDOZA: No questions. Thank you for your presentation. My colleagues on the board asked my questions. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chair, you have a second question? VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Counsel Person Scarpa. COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: I have no questions at this time. Thank you for your presentation, it was very informative. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chair. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor, going back to affordable housing and it's -- I'm sorry. I have hearing aids, so I'm sorry. Can you go back, you were talking about affordable housing and transportation and everything

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 else. People have this wrong impression about affordable housing. People have this wrong impression about when you hear affordable housing so -- don't look at me, okay. Affordable housing, people who are entitled to affordable housing have to make in the Township of West Orange $71,000. Did you hear that? $71,000. So if somebody's making $71,000 and can't afford a car or something, I kind of think it's kind of a bias attitude if you think. So, I'm not being upset with you Professor, but when you talk about the affordable housing component, just because the development has affordable housing, doesn't mean people can't get transportation, cannot afford a car and everything else. This is not directed at you. Okay. The Township of Verona -- okay, don't waive your hands at me. Township of Verona has affordable housing, you know what the affordable housing income is? $51,000. So if you're saying that, and you can respond to my comment, what I'm saying is, the affordable housing component, yes, is a part of it but should not be the only part of it. So thank you, Professor. Thank, Mr. Chairman. THE WITNESS: I'm glad you made that distinction. I hope I didn't come across saying that affordable housing units are only people that would want

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 to not have to drive a car. Walkability is for all income levels. The ability to take a train to New York is for all income levels. The ability to walk around the block with a stroller of a grandchild is for all income levels. This has an affordable housing component to it, so that is something to be openly and honestly addressed but I'm not implying that affordable units are the ones that really need to have not only available transportation. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Captain Grady, do you have any questions? CAPTAIN GRADY: Not at this time. Thank you. MR. AFRAN: I have a follow up question. A Council Member had a question about the state plan, and I want to ask if you could explain what role you played in the development of the state plan? THE WITNESS: Okay. For the state plan we have been doing New Jersey map layer, so we can see under the state plan, we have the state plan viewer. This is showing all past, and you can see the Planning Area 1 is in the red here. This is where we are, right. This is the parcel in question. This has all kinds of information showing past development and then we have the Smart Growth Explorer which is all about the future

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 and this is a map that has the principles of smart growth modeled into, something similar that I went through with the report card, but you can actually see the component layers here. So for example the component layers -- - this is the model all mixed together and what it is, is each layer, this is the state plan, if you're Planning Area 1 you get ten points. If you're Planning Area 2 you get five points. Four points, three points, two points, that's one part of the model. Right. Another part of the model is centers. If you're a center you get 25 points. Historic preservation, one point. Half a mile from a recreation, that gets five points. Proximity to public facilities, that gets -- so you can see we build all these things up and then you can look at any particular parcel and see what the points are for this. Now, this is not the state plan. This is a companion GIS model that's not, you know, under the state plan law. It's an auxiliary project to help make the state plan be more understandable and usable. Okay. So this way we don't have to wait 21 years to have the map update. We can update it as needed because it's not, it's an appendix, it's not the state plan. But these are planning tools that Rowan has developed to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 work with this and then an impact assessment of the state plan, as it comes out I have to write that document as well. MR. AFRAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Rizzo, do you have any questions? MR. RIZZO: No Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Haizel, do you have any questions? MR. HAIZEL: Yes, if I may. Going back to the state plan, as you mentioned before and you showed this area is B-1. According to the state plan what is the area where the plan recommends that most of the state group take place in? THE WITNESS: In Planning Area 1. MR. HAIZEL: We're in the process now of abating the state plan, which has been around for quite some time. As far as you're aware is there any intention to change this area from PA-1, which it has been previously? THE WITNESS: No. No, it makes sense for it to stay. The maps will change a little bit as the negotiation with each municipality. There is some little changes here and there with the actual planning

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 map, but this is a broad concept plan. We have Planning Area 1 through 5B, it's not detailed, and in Planning Area 1, yes, that's where the majority of growth is expected to go because of the infrastructure there. But it doesn't mean every parcel of developed land in Planning Area 1 should be developed. There's this idea of environments within Planning Area 1, which are the sensitive lands to be not developed and redevelopment is primarily the future of Planning Area 1. MR. HAIZEL: Okay. In terms of the Master Plan, I think someone mentioned that before. What is your understanding of the interplay between what you have here and the Master Plan? THE WITNESS: West Orange Master Plan? MR. HAIZEL: Master Plan. THE WITNESS: Any Master Plan? The Master Plan is the document vision -- document by which zoning ordinances should be fulfilling what the Master Plan says. So the state plan is kind of a Master Plan of Master Plans, this is what the state vision is for regional coordination. Now, individual municipalities have their own ability to make the Master Plan what they want to be, but it should be sensitive to and reflecting the