September 17, 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 31 THE WITNESS: Correct. MR. KLEIN: -- you're going to be deeper and you're still not going to be -- THE WITNESS: You're still never going to affect the slope. MR. KLEIN: Where would it have to be to affect the slope? You said down by the trees. THE WITNESS: On the slope, correct. MR. KLEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker. MR. PLOCKER: And just for the record, it's been established and was set forth in the zoning ordinance, the peak of the ridge line, dotted line Mr. Seel is referring to, is not a setback. It was a line agreed to as part of this ordinance in connection with the settlement and there could be no development that occurred to the east of it. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. MR. PLOCKER: I just want to make that clear for the record. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, Mr. Plocker. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You rise. MR. AFRAN: Yes, of course. But the question factually would be, where is the ridge line? We can have a settlement or an ordinance that says there

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 32 shall be no development east of it. The question is frequently raised is, where exactly is that point. I want to note there is a difference between the factual location of the Ridge line and the fact what that we said it's a rule, no development east of it. So the statement in the ordinance and the settlement actually tell us geographically where the ridge line is in relation to a building. I just wanted to point that out, that's a separate question and one of the problems has been that the schematics don't really tell us the location of the ridge line and Mr. Plocker had one version where it is, for example, in statement he's made on behalf of his client. So I just want to point out that regardless of what the ordinance says about where you build in relation to the ridge line, there's a factual issue as to where the ridge line is which is not in the ordinance. I just wanted to make that point. Because Mr. Plocker's statement makes it suggest like we know where that is because of the ordinance. We don't. Not because of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The question is, do you know where the ridge line is based on the geography not because of the ordinance, correct? MR. AFRAN: Correct. I just wanted to make the point that the ordinance is not telling us where 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 33 ridge line is in relation to the building. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think the board understands and we'll ask the applicant to proffer exactly where the ridge line is based on the geography. MR. AFRAN: If we need to do that, yes. I just wanted to point out that the -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think it has been done already. MR. PLOCKER: I think it has and just to be clear, the language in the ordinance is, I believe the peak of the ridge line. That line was, you know, on the concept plan and Mr. Anderson in his direct testimony did show it on his plan and showed that we were to the west of it. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. MR. AFRAN: I'm simply pointing out that what the ordinance says in terms of where you build, does not tell us actually where it is. So to the extent we need to know that, that's not sufficient. That's all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: These are important pieces of information. We're going to make sure everyone is comfortable, I promise. Go right ahead. THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive.

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 34 Can you put the drawing back up for a second. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: State your name, please. THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. THE WITNESS: Mr. Seel, did you prepare this picture, this rendering? THE WITNESS: No, this document is from this firm here, who is the architect. All we did is put on this information here, just to show the -- just to show the proximity of the, of the load that would be shed by the building onto the underlying soil rock. THE PUBLIC: So the landscape in there it rises and falls, this isn't actually realistic to what's in there. So at points where the actual slope, there's only one part of your slope that is really that high and then for almost the entirety of it's heading north, it actually goes lower and lower. So this is right above Mayfair, I know that house, and I know how the slope goes. So when the slope drops ten feet, seven feet, 20 feet, what's that going to change? Because that rendering -- because the building as you see is not exactly in a straight line, but it's not so far off either. It's following more or less the way that the slope, the ridge does drop, but there's very -- there's only one point in the entire forest where the slope

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 35 rises that high and then it just continues to drop downwards north the entire way. So that's the most southern tip of the building. That's Mayfair and the top of the building that's where Howell Drive is. So my question is, you're telling everyone that it's all stable and fine, but that's because you're saying you are going to the top of the slope, but that's really only one small portion of this building. So knowing that now are you still saying that everything's going to be -- it's fine, it's fine. That's my question. Does that change anything? THE WITNESS: Is your question, is your question, does it change anything. Does that change anything? THE PUBLIC: Because the top of the slope to the building, that isn't -- it's not realistic. The slope drops and drops and drops and drops towards the north. See, that's why -- MR. KLEIN: You're saying this line is down here sometimes? THE PUBLIC: And lower. MR. KLEIN: Okay. So where -- so the question is -- THE PUBLIC: But the drop off is more precipitous as that happens. That looks gentle.

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 36 MR. KLEIN: So ask him what elevation the slope would have or the ridge would have to be in order for this trapezoid to influence the slope. Ask him that question. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. What Mr. Klein just asked. THE WITNESS: Well, so to try to recap this. This building would have to be situated on the area of the slope and would have to basically sit out beyond it. Unless this slope line here, anywhere where this slope is steeper than 45 degrees, this line could potentially intercept it. THE PUBLIC: But is deeper than 45 degrees -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am. Ma'am. Ma'am. You can do a lot of -- you can ask questions, you just can't testify. You can ask him anything you want, but please do no testify. THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you. You answered my question. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Okay. MR. AFRAN: Could I just clarify the question. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.

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 37 MR. AFRAN: Mr. Klein as helpfully referred to the trapezoid, which is a good term. MR. PLOCKER: I think Mr. Seel want's to say something. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: One at a time, I'm old. Please. MR. AFRAN: Let me just clarify one factual thing. Mr. Seel, is the purple trapezoid the part your added to this exhibit? THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. MR. AFRAN: And the original building was on Mr. Appel's schematic, is that correct? THE WITNESS: Correct. MR. AFRAN: Okay. THE WITNESS: I want to clarify just one thing. There was -- in the last question there was a lot of discussion about how the position of the building changes with respect to the dashed black line and the closest it gets is seven feet, which is probably a lot closer to the turn at the southern end of the building, but as you get further to the north in general it gets further back. So in other words -- yeah, I can use the pointer here. So, so all though that dashed black line, I'm not sure it's shown on here, but it somewhere falls within this area down here like this. This is the high

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 38 point, you can see this topographic feature. So this would be the high point. So that dashed black line kind of goes through there something like this. MR. KLEIN: All right. THE WITNESS: So -- MR. KLEIN: I'm trying to clarify. I think what Ms. Klein was saying is, this is a high point, another high point and then it dips down. So maybe in here, can you talk about what happens in here when that -- when the slope is lower, it's lowest point relative to the floor of the garage? If you say it that way. THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'd have to see what the contours are, but these are two foot contours, you're dropping six feet, you're dropping 12 feet off here. All that happens is your basement -- MR. KLEIN: That's the back patio, I think even, right? THE WITNESS: It could be. But if you're -- basically you have a footing just a little bit below that. Below the grade here. And so what that -- if you zoom out now. Back out to this. So maybe your slope would be somewhere like down at -- the ground surface would be something like this. Come out and then down the hill. MR. KLEIN: And the trapezoid still doesn't

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 39 affect the slope? THE WITNESS: Correct. The trapezoid is still below the slope. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other members of the public have any questions for Mr. Seel on his testimony? Come up, state your name for the record, please. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Hi. Susan Pannullo, I live within the 200-foot notice point of the development. I have a question. I read your report, thank you Mr. Seel. The blasting versus no blasting, there was an extensive section in the report describing the whole situation of the different methods of excavating, etc., And you said there's not likely be blasting. But when there's blasting, if there's blasting that impacts people like me who are within earshot of the blasting. So at what point do I know is there blasting or no blasting. Because that makes a really, really big deal to people who are in proximity to that in terms of even things like stability of our domiciles, forgetting about quality of life. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, I think that is set by the state ordinance and the applicant will have to -- will have to apply for a blasting license. The Township

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 40 -- Mr. Plocker. MR. PLOCKER: And I think it's -- THE PUBLIC: I still get to get an answer to that question, no? MR. PLOCKER: I'm going to answer the question for Ms. Pannullo. The applicant has an affirmative obligation -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker. MR. PLOCKER: I'll wait. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. MR. PLOCKER: Thanks for your comment and question. I can confirm with the applicant, as part of the settlement agreement, even though there were no Essex Fells residents who were part of the settlement agreement, even though Essex Fells itself was not party to the settlement agreement, we do have an affirmative obligation in connection with working with the town in following all the regulations. As we previously advised the board and the public, we do have an affirmative obligation to provide notice, whether it be on the Township website to work with the town when any and all blasting activity occurs and we would certainly apply that curtesy to Essex Fells. MR. AFRAN: Well, I don't think that's what the question was.