October 29, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

back in 2015. Some point thereafter24 my client moved to intervene in the case, our motion to25 103 intervene was granted, this property was offered as a1 site for an inclusionary development to help the2 township satisfy what was a pretty significant3 affordable housing obligation for the third round. From4 that time to 2020 the parties negotiated, obviously5 COVID began towards the end, but there were many6 deviation sessions, there were many discussions, the7 town was represented by its attorney, its professionals,8 engineer, planner, affordable housing planner, my client9 had professionals and what ultimately was the settlement10 agreement, which was signed in the spring of 2020 and11 eventually approved by the court, was a settlement12 agreement which contemplated a 496 unit multifamily13 development. The court approved that settlement14 agreement and the town had certain obligations under15 that settlement agreement. In addition to the16 settlement agreement with the Fair Share Housing Center,17 one of those requirements was to rezone this site and18 adopt the zoning ordinance which is applicable to the19 property today.20 THE WITNESS: I understand what you're21 saying, but that has nothing to do with the light. The22 light, when this application was asked for, as far as23 the light was concerned, this had nothing to do with 50024 units, correct?25 104 MR. PLOCKER: Absolutely. When this case --1 the settlement agreement is part of this application.2 It's on the agenda. Please read it carefully. The3 light is referenced in the settlement agreement.4 THE PUBLIC: All right.5 MR. PLOCKER: It absolutely --6 THE WITNESS: As far as traffic is concerned,7 this traffic light was going for single family homes,8 not expecting that it's going to be this many cars9 coming in and out.10 MR. PLOCKER: Look, I don't want to keep11 testifying, but I will explain what's on record with the12 board. The traffic light was specifically required by13 this developments density, correct. Not a single family14 development, by this development which is why we are15 here now.16 THE WITNESS: That's not taking into account17 --18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you very19 much.20 THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein. Is it okay if I21 help my neighbor, she's asking one question.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead.23 THE PUBLIC: Thank you. The county zoning24 board did not recognize this as being for a

BLIC: Rachel Klein. Is it okay if I21 help my neighbor, she's asking one question.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead.23 THE PUBLIC: Thank you. The county zoning24 board did not recognize this as being for a multifamily25

27 of 59 sheets Page 105 to 108 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 105 unit. They're supposed to be single family homes as of1 July 2024 when this all began. The traffic light is for2 a county road, I think that's what she meant. Not the3 2020 settlement discussion.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.5 Anybody else from the public have any6 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?7 THE PUBLIC: One final question. Seth8 Weisleder.9 We talked -- you talked about units and then10 there was a question by the public about businesses. I11 believe the beginning of this, on day two I think it was12 or hearing two, the site is scheduled for a business or13 two businesses, but when you do traffic studies and14 things like that, you take into account how many units15 and do you also take into account the square footage of16 the business to determine traffic?17 THE WITNESS: So I will say this again, I do18 not do any traffic studies. I did not design this19 traffic study. Our firm reviews the traffic study that20 was submitted and review the objectors traffic review21 and outline what does and doesn't comply with the22 standards.23 THE PUBLIC: Right. After reviewing each24 traffic study did it indicate that units were only taken25 106 into consideration for the traffic study? Was there any1 square footage of the business taken into consideration2 for the traffic study as you reviewed per reviewing each3 report?4 THE WITNESS: So, again, anything related to5 my testimony tonight I could answer it, if there's more6 detailed questions on the traffic impact study, I do not7 feel comfortable answering them as board engineer8 because I did not prepare the traffic impact study.9 THE PUBLIC: You said you reviewed each10 traffic study, correct?11 THE WITNESS: Yes.12 THE PUBLIC: I asking, upon review of each13 traffic study was square footage of the businesses taken14 into consideration for the traffic volume, "yes" or15 "no"?16 THE WITNESS: That was the same question and17 I have the same answer.18 THE PUBLIC: Okay.19 THE WITNESS: If you have that question for20 the traffic --21 THE PUBLIC: Well, if you reviewed it, you22 either saw it or didn't see it. I don't understand,23 it's a yes or a no?24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The question was the board25 107 had asked, and there was two traffic studies.1 THE PUBLIC: Compare and contrast, I get it.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The objectors and the3 applicants

a no?24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The question was the board25 107 had asked, and there was two traffic studies.1 THE PUBLIC: Compare and contrast, I get it.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The objectors and the3 applicants and both speaking about RSIS. We asked our4 engineer to look at this in relation to RSIS, not the5 basic study but each parties related to the RSIS, which6 is the Residential Site Improvement Standards. So the7 board wanted to know is it a cul-de-sac or isn't it a8 cul-de-sac, is it this or is it that, and he answered9 those question for the board. So there are other10 questions you may have, but they were answered11 previously by each the objector and applicants traffic12 engineers. So for what the board asked him to do he13 did. Okay.14 THE PUBLIC: Thank you very much.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any other members of16 the public have a question fro Mr. MacNeill on his17 testimony? Please come up and ask your question.18 THE PUBLIC: John Haydu, 81 Avon Drive,19 Essex Fells.20 When Mr. Plocker talks about the settlement21 agreement, did anything come into play with the town of22 Essex fells about our settlement agreement with the23 builder from 2005?24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I am just going to say,25 108 Mr. MacNeill didn't testify to that.1 THE PUBLIC: I am asking --2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I understand you're3 asking.4 THE PUBLIC: Why don't you want to answer5 the question?6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The reason you are up7 there is to ask Mr. MacNeill a question.8 THE PUBLIC: He brought up the settlement9 agreement, keeps bringing up the settlement agreement.10 My question is, did you guys, when you did the11 settlement agreement --12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We guys, I'm sorry, sir.13 We don't have anything to do with it.14 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Can I ask Mr. Plocker.15 The settlement agreement in 2005 with Essex16 Fells, did you guys bring that into --17 MR. PLOCKER: Everybody was aware of the18 history of this sites prior applications. If you want19 to make an argument Mr. Haydu, under that settlement20 agreement, go to a courthouse, because it's not for this21 board.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Wait a second. Hold it.23 One second. Organized.24 Now, go right ahead.25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 109 to 112 of 149 28 of 59 sheets 109 MR. AFRAN: I'm sorry, I just want to take1 the position, we said this very early on, but I think2 because of Mr. Plocker's analysis, which I understand3 why he gave it, we don't necessarily accept that the4 settlement agreement is a binding document.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You have stated this6 before and we understand your stance.7 MR. AFRAN: That's all I wanted to say.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That is on the record.9 Thank you.10 Do any other members of the public have any11 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony this12 evening? Come right up, sir.13 THE PUBIC: So I have a question, feel free14 to say no if it's not --15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Name, sir.16 THE PUBLIC: John, and I am.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Last name, sir.18 THE PUBLIC: My name is Johny. I'm here19 representing an Indigenous Social Club called Top Hats.20 I just have one question, if it is no I will21 talk to the camera outside after this is done.22 So I came an hour away here to deliver a23 message, so I was hoping that you guys could let me, you24 know --25 110 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ask your question. Go1 ahead, ask your question, sir.2 THE PUBLIC: All right. So it's not really3 much of a question, I'm just going to go ahead and --4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Right now is only time for5 questions, sir.6 THE PUBLIC: It's not a comment. I came7 from an hour away to deliver a message. This is8 important, especially for the Mayor over here. So the9 entire night I've seen a lot of slurs, a lot of giggling10 up here on the board, just want you guys to know that11 half of the people on that zoom are currently recording12 this and most of them are public figures as well. Not13 only do you guys not care about your own people of this14 town, you're also messing with sacred land that belongs15 to Indigenous People. So now you have a bigger problem16 on your hands. I just came to deliver that message.17 This is about to become a nationwide issue. It's about,18 we have some more friends in New York including the New19 York Times and the news outlets out there. So I want to20 let you guys know that you guys are really embarrassing,21 but this is really a bigger issue for you guys now. So22 from hereon out whatever it is you guys are doing here23 and for Zygy Wilf who might be listening to this or24 whatever, you guys have an entire battle on your hand25 111 you're not

you guys now. So22 from hereon out whatever it is you guys are doing here23 and for Zygy Wilf who might be listening to this or24 whatever, you guys have an entire battle on your hand25 111 you're not going to win and if you do win it's going to1 be one of the toughest --2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, sir. I think3 you're done. Thank you very much.4 THE PUBLIC: Have a good night.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Any other members6 of the public have a question --7 THE PUBLIC: Yes, Jessica Pearson.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, let me finish, like9 everyone. You don't have to sit down. Let's not play10 games.11 THE PUBLIC: Please don't call me ma'am.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Please state your name for13 the record and go ahead and ask your question.14 THE PUBLIC: Jessica Pearson, Verona. Thank15 you.16 Mr. Engineer, Mr. MacNeill --17 THE WITNESS: Yes.18 THE PUBLIC: -- earlier you had responded to19 a question about the ADA necessities and you actually20 said, I absolutely agree.21 THE WITNESS: Yes.22 THE PUBLIC: So you actually were weighing23 in on certain answers that you feel strongly to guide.24 As the board engineer you're guiding this board in a25 112 direction, that is a problem. That is what your job is1 as the board engineer, to review the plans and to say2 yeah, this is deficient, this meets the standards, and I3 recommend that this board have new tests done. I don't4 agree with the results of this. This looks fishy.5 Isn't that what the board engineer is supposed to do?6 It's supposed to grant guidance to the very people that7 are entrusting you over, by the way, their engineer and8 perhaps over an objectors engineer. They're entrusting9 you to give them the guidance and you're refusing to do10 it right now.11 THE WITNESS: So --12 THE PUBLIC: That's your job.13 THE WITNESS: That's not the role of the14 board engineer.15 THE PUBLIC: Okay. What is your job, you16 tell us?17 THE WITNESS: So we review submitted18 information, we write a report where we outline our19 comments. We do have an open rapport, review number 3,20 our third review that's dated June 13, 2025.21 THE PUBLIC: You're citing work that you did22 review work, but you're not telling me what you see your23 job is big picture. Is your job not to help this board24 make proper determinations for a safe and effective and25

29 of 59 sheets Page 113 to 116 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 113 --1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm going to stop you2 right there. Ma'am, I'm going to stop you.3 THE PUBLIC: Excuse me, I am asking what his4 job is and he's not answering. He's telling me a report5 he drafted.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, right now --7 THE PUBLIC: Can you tell me what your job8 is? I am not getting an answer.9 THE WITNESS: My job is reviewing the10 applicants plans and reports and writing a review letter11 that says what does and does not comply with the code.12 And if it does not comply, we have review comments for13 the applicant to revise and address before we would14 indicate that the plans are then sufficient with our15 review comments.16 THE PUBLIC: Which code do you check it17 with?18 THE WITNESS: Township of West Orange.19 THE PUBLIC: Township of West Orange code?20 THE WITNESS: Yeah.21 THE PUBLIC: But see the developer's22 agreement threw that all out. There is no code included23 in the developer's agreement, so what are you checking24 it against?25 114 THE WITNESS: Okay. So in this case it's1 the settlement agreement as well as the Township of West2 Orange code.3 THE PUBLIC: But the Township of West Orange4 code doesn't exist in the settlement agreement.5 THE WITNESS: So, I did --6 THE PUBLIC: It was all tossed out.7 THE WITNESS: So it related to stormwater.8 It was all outlined in the local code regarding the9 landscaping, lighting, site layout. It's all outlined10 in the zoning code.11 THE PUBLIC: I understand that, but the12 zoning code was completely cancelled in the settlement13 agreement.14 THE WITNESS: Are you talking about the use?15 THE PUBLIC: Talking about the October 202016 settlement agreement that continuously is getting17 referred to right now this evening, correct?18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am.19 THE PUBLIC: Where's the zoning code, it's20 very clear it was tossed.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm going to ask you to22 ask him a question.23 THE PUBLIC: I am. So I am asking him what24 code he is referring to.25 115 You keep saying, zoning code, but the zoning1 code was basically written out of the settlement2 agreement that is the basis for this entire plan, would3 you agree?4 THE WITNESS: So we reviewed it against the5 Township of West Orange. That is my answer. We6 reviewed it against the code at the time of submission.7 I don't have any other answer but that. That is

e?4 THE WITNESS: So we reviewed it against the5 Township of West Orange. That is my answer. We6 reviewed it against the code at the time of submission.7 I don't have any other answer but that. That is the8 only job of the board engineer.9 THE PUBLIC: That's your -- that's how you10 construe what your job is?11 THE WITNESS: That's not -- that's not12 construing.13 THE PUBLIC: Check the box and say, this14 doesn't meet our code or this does?15 THE WITNESS: Exactly.16 THE PUBLIC: Not to give guidance?17 THE WITNESS: As -- my role is not to18 recommend an approval, recommend a denial.19 THE PUBLIC: I'm not saying recommend an20 approval, please. I'm not -- don't confuse --21 THE WITNESS: So what guidance are you22 referring to?23 THE PUBLIC: Giving guidance in telling this24 board this doesn't look like a complete plan or this25 116 doesn't meet all of the safety recommendations that I1 would want this township to follow.2 THE WITNESS: So it's not --3 THE PUBLIC: Don't you give guidance in that4 light?5 THE WITNESS: I can't comment on what I6 think would be the best.7 THE PUBLIC: Okay.8 THE WITNESS: I have to review against the9 code. I can't create regulations. I review against10 what code was already put in place. That's the only job11 that I have. It's reviewing, exactly like you said --12 THE PUBLIC: I want that job.13 THE WITNESS: -- checking off the boxes.14 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.16 Any other members of the public have any17 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?18 Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. MacNeill.19 MR. AFRAN: I have a follow up.20 Mr. MacNeill, you mentioned --21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran, go right ahead.22 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.23 Mr. MacNeill, in your report number 3 you24 still have issues you're waiting for answers on?25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 117 to 120 of 149 30 of 59 sheets 117 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct.1 MR. AFRAN: With respect to reports 1 and 2,2 because there were two prior ones, are there still3 issues outstanding, were they incorporated into report4 three 3, can you explain that status?5 THE WITNESS: Typically review 3 would6 incorporate any items that were addressed, yes.7 MR. AFRAN: Okay. Thank you very much.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker.9 MR. PLOCKER: Thank you.10 Mr. MacNeill, I believe you know we looked11 at your number 3 and the issues pursuant to the revised12 plan which was revised to comply to show what was sent13 to the DEP and what was approved by the DEP. I believe14 we stated we would comply with the items in those15 reports, but we'll go back and check to make sure we16 have a clear record.17 THE WITNESS: From my understanding that was18 the applicants testimony was that you can comply with19 our comments.20 MR. PLOCKER: Thank you.21 MR. AFRAN: Well, is it expected --22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.23 MR. AFRAN: Mr. MacNeill, is it expected24 from your point of view that the written statement25 118 explaining how compliance will be done?1 THE WITNESS: So I, again, the applicant2 provided testimony that they will comply. But a written3 response would be on the applicant to provide. Again, I4 am only reviewing what's submitted.5 MR. AFRAN: Okay. Thank you.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.7 Okay. Sir, would you like to ask a8 question?9 THE PUBLIC: Hello. My name is Kemonte10 Howard. I live at 5 Slayback Terrace. I live across11 from the development, I walk my dog there all the time.12 I tried to get a permit through the town not to long ago13 and they said we had to mark all the trees in order to14 cut them down. And I have noticed none of the trees are15 marked in the forest across from my house. So how does16 that work?17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I think it's the job of18 the forester. If you call the building department19 tomorrow speak with the forester.20 THE PUBLIC: Don't they have to mark all the21 trees?22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I don't know anything23 about that, so I would refer you to the township24 forester who will probably give the best answer.25 119 THE PUBLIC: Okay. But it's not in the1 plans.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We haven't approved3 anything, so there's no plan right now.4 THE PUBLIC: Okay.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I am not sure what trees6 are to be

19 THE PUBLIC: Okay. But it's not in the1 plans.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We haven't approved3 anything, so there's no plan right now.4 THE PUBLIC: Okay.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I am not sure what trees6 are to be removed or not, that would be a function of7 the complex, but for right now, if there's trees to be8 marked, I would go to the township forester.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.11 Okay. Thank you. And that wraps up Mr.12 MacNeill.13 Okay. Malvika.14 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,15 members of the board.16 So I would be presenting from a planning17 standpoint what this application brings, what is it that18 the board members have to look for in the application,19 and answer, you know, the synopsis of it.20 So this application is seeking a21 preliminary/final site plan with one bulk variance and22 two de minimis waivers from the RSIS standards.23 The first and the only bulk variance they're24 seeking has got to do with the maximum exposure of the25 120 walls that should not exceed 15 percent. They require1 it all for the four buildings, A, B, C and D, and2 they're seeking the two waivers, one is for creating the3 Kuzik Road as an emergency access, that means they're4 requesting that they put a, some kind of stopping fence5 over there and make it only an emergency access road.6 And the second waiver is for sidewalks, because as part7 of RSIS standard, a minor collector street are required8 to have sidewalks on both sides. The area they're not9 meeting is where, for the circle is coming from Warren10 Road to Building D, there is a certain section that they11 are not providing the sidewalk on one side of the road.12 Now, typically in cases like this what is it13 about variance that the board has to look for. Again, I14 apologize if I'm repeating, I know this board has seen15 several applications, but because of the intensity of16 this application I do want to remind board what is it17 that they are looking for in a bulk variance. As per18 MLUL the applicant can request to seek a bulk variance,19 which is commonly known as a C Variance and there are20 two proofs for that. Either can apply for a C-121 variance or a C-2 variance. C-1 is a hardship which is22 peculiar for the property and C-2, which I believe the23 applicants planner testified to, is more known as the24 benefits outweigh the detriment. Or also known as the25