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 51 goals of the state plan as much as possible. That's the idea. But it's not prescribed. It doesn't impose what the local Master Plan. MR. HAIZEL: So as we're in the process now of, the end process I guess, of the abatement of the state plan, is there, as we do with local ordinances and things of that sort, is there a requirement or a review to see whether local ordinances contradict or are in conflict with the state plan and it's goals and objectives? THE WITNESS: They don't have -- they have a very small office, they don't have the capacity to view 564 municipalities. So I don't know of any mechanism where it is, you know, gauged against the state plan, but I am sure that if a municipality wanted to have that conversation, they probably could make that happen. But I don't know that it prescribed that it has to happen. MR. HAIZEL: Well, having participated in it way to much myself, there is a process in which there is all local ordinances matched up against the goals and objectives of the state plan and you identify where there is conflict, staff of the state plan Office of Planning Advocacy, does also comment on each. So there is that process where one can indicate whether there is conflict or not. I guess what I'm getting at is --

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 52 THE WITNESS: You're talking about the cost acceptance processes? MR. HAIZEL: Yeah. The question that I'm getting at is, is there anything with this development, which is in the area that has been zoned for it, is there anything that you can see that contradicts or conflicts with that plan? THE WITNESS: When was the zoning changed to be that this would be able to be developed like this? MR. HAIZEL: Was it 2000. I don't recall the year, but the state plan, and that's why I asked the first question, the state plan and PA-1 designation for this area has been around for well over the past couple decades and this was done within that period. So I'm going -- I'm asking, is there anything you can see within this area that's been zoned accordingly that is in contradiction with the goals of the state plan? THE WITNESS: I believe, I think the state plan does want to see important natural resources protected no matter what zone it's in. Whatever planning area it's in. I can't think of another parcel in the county that has a natural resource value to it that's graded, perhaps there are, but this one certainly stands out as a parcel that has an extraordinary conservation worth if it was conserved.

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 53 MR. HAIZEL: I guess this is my last question. In terms of, you know, you just, is there any aspect -- is there any provision in the MLUL, the Municipal Land Use Law, that basically gives, I'm just trying to figure out how best to word this. Basically gives any ability for someone to -- does the situation where our a proposed development that's in an area where it's zoned for, is there any mechanism, as far as you know in the, in the MLUL that allows that development not to be permitted based on not meeting any of the smart growth criteria even though it is permitted in that zone? THE WITNESS: That would take a pretty detailed analysis to begin to know how the zone is actually written. That is not something I've done. It's not something that I typically do. But I do believe that there are a lot of details that have to be done correctly for the, for an application to not have grounds to be denied. And so it is possible that there are grounds that could deny this application. That's not something that I have information on or that I have been able to research. MR. HAIZEL: But are there components in the MLUL, like whether an area has a sensitive waterway or something of that sort that does provide that

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 54 opportunity for a project or development not to take place within so many feet of sensitive areas like a waterway and things of that sort? I guess what I'm getting at is, beyond the mechanisms that are built into the Municipal Land Use Law now, which this and other projects would have to basically comport with, is there anything in this project, as far as you can see, that does not comport with that? THE WITNESS: I think that's a question better asked of the land use lawyer. That's not something that I would testify on. It's not my expertise. MR. HAIZEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any members of the public have any questions for -- I'm sorry. Mr. Plocker. MR. PLOCKER: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Thank you very much Professor, and I do appreciate that map. I use the parcel locator all the time. As a land use lawyer I find it a very valuable tool in doing what I do on a daily basis. I think you might have answered it in your

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 55 testimony in answering the questions to Mr. Haizel, did you review the IH-1 zone ordinance for this property? THE WITNESS: I did not. MR. PLOCKER: Is it your understanding that the 496 units proposed by the site plan application are permitted by zoning ordinance? MR. AFRAN: Brian, can you say it again. MR. PLOCKER: I'll will repeat the question, because some people are having a problem hearing. I believe you said you did not review the IH-1 zone ordinance for this project, is that correct? THE WITNESS: In detail. I glanced at it. MR. PLOCKER: Okay. Is it your understanding that the 496 units proposed by the site plan application are permitted by the ordinance? THE WITNESS: I can't answer that. I don't know. I didn't read in detail enough to answer that. MR. PLOCKER: And you do have some kind of planning certification? THE WITNESS: I am. MR. PLOCKER: Okay. But you chose not to review the zoning ordinance? THE WITNESS: That was not what I was asked to do.

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 56 MR. PLOCKER: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you very much. And I have one other question. Are you aware that the application proposed is preserving 93 acres of the subject site and deeded to the Township of West Orange in perpetuity? THE WITNESS: That seems to be what the plan indicates. MR. PLOCKER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any members of the public have a question for Mr. Hasse on his testimony? Please come up, state your name and ask your question. Three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Seth Weisleder, 17 Howell Drive. Thank you Professor for sharing your maps, I've seen it a couple of times online and I think I have learned how to use it a little better. But a question on slide 8, you showed the red slope, the GT-15. I thought was interesting because it was something I've never seen before. Can you zoom in on the upper right-hand corner. Can you explain maybe what slope GT-15 percent means? THE WITNESS: Greater than 15 percent slope. THE PUBLIC: I'm sorry.

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 57 THE WITNESS: The GT in the slide is greater than. So 15, 16, 17, it's greater than 15 percent slope. So 15 percent slope is the land over the height rise of the center. THE PUBLIC: So in laymen's terms, like what does that mean? THE WITNESS: It's how steep the slope is. So the slopes that are 15 percent or higher are considered steep slopes. THE PUBLIC: So if we were to zoom in even closer up towards Howell Drive, on the right-hand side, upper right-hand corner of the parcel. Yup, right there. Keep going. So where the cul-de-sac is, if you can move the pointer for me. Thank you. So what we're looking at there, is what we're saying is, that's where Building D might be up in that corner when you looked at it? THE WITNESS: I believe it's just above the steep slope area right here. THE PUBLIC: Okay. So I want to zoom in again. So the houses above -- below Building D, we are showing 15 percent or greater. Very steep slopes there, correct? THE WITNESS: Correct. Yes. THE PUBLIC: And that would be the parcels,

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 58 you can see the houses. I think that's, I can't read them, but whatever blocks those are, but those would be the houses of where I live and my neighbors live. Okay. Thank you for sharing what that means. And then my other last question is, on slide number 9. Can you just give the definition of what a protected important soil is, like what does that mean? THE WITNESS: So the Natural Resources Conservation Service is a federal agency that maps and monitors the soils. And so they have mapped the entire country and they have soil maps for New Jersey and each soil type is in their data base of having certain productivity, a certain water retention, a certain texture that can be translated to how well a forest will grow there. How productive. It's generally done in the case of whether it's productive wood lots, but it's giving soil fertility indications. The equivalent of prime farm soils. New Jersey also has a prime soils map and prime soils are the ones that are most productive and so it's a goal or mission program to try to save the best, most fertile soils. This is showing forest productivity because this is a forested area. So it's a map, a model that's taking the soils data and showing which ones are the most productive. The ones that are green are the 1A, the ones that are purple, light

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 59 purple, is 1B. So that's the highest and then second tier and the third tier would be the 1C and some orange up here, yellow is 2A, which is least and then you have saturated soil which is a different category. It's not necessarily better -- THE PUBLIC: So things could grow there, trees and things -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. It's good for trees, it may not be good for farmland. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, very much. Your time is up. Next person, come up please. Any other questions, anybody else have a question? Please come up. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Victor Misarti. I live on Mayfair Drive. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Speak up, sir. THE PUBLIC: I have a question about the smart development regarding the wetlands and the Canoe Brook. Like for instance, the Canoe Brook goes down to the, you know, these reservoirs that are drinking water and I was just wondering what smart conservation has to say about that? THE WITNESS: Well, I think the point that I was trying to make about that is that, that the

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 60 headlands of the stream begin in this parcel and the headwaters of any stream are where the stream quality and the stream quantity begin. Right. So if the hydrology changes on this parcel it potentially has impacts downstream. And so this is showing the stream and the stream buffers, but we also have the FEMA FIRM maps and the FEMA plus 3 feet. So you can see further down the stream, these orange areas are now the new DEP calculated FEMA plus 3, because the increased amount and variability of rain. But these areas can be considered at risk for flooding. You can see how that area has expanded with this expanded orange area there. So these houses will likely be impacted if there is a significant stormwater -- MR. PLOCKER: I'm going to object to that testimony. He did say he's not an engineer. THE WITNESS: I'm not an engineer. I am a geographer and we do map the floodplain. MR. PLOCKER: For the record, there is some yellow on the map. We got it. Thank you. THE PUBLIC: Can I say also, the plus 3 means the normal water level plus 3 feet higher if it was flooding. THE WITNESS: The FEMA plus 3 is New Jersey DEP mapping that took the FEMA FIRM maps, those were the