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

31 of 59 sheets Page 121 to 124 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 121 Flex C.1 What the applicant -- what the board here2 has to review from the testimony that the applicants3 expert has provided is, there are four -- five items4 that the board has to review. One, the application5 relates to the specific piece of property. The variance6 that they're requesting relates to the specific piece of7 property.8 The purposes of the Land Use Law will be9 advanced by deviation from the zoning ordinance10 requirement.11 The variance can be granted without12 substantial detriment to the public good. I do want to13 stress on the fact, substantial detriment.14 And the fourth is the benefits of the15 deviation have to, again, substantially outweigh the16 detriment.17 I do want to go back to what Mr. Cardoza was18 trying to just moments earlier talk about, you know,19 when he was trying to balance in his head about how the20 benefits will outweigh the detriments. This is what the21 board has to kind of review over here with this22 application. Again, the variance is for the exposure of23 the walls and that's what the applicant is requesting.24 And the last kind of proof, again, the25 122 applicant has to provide, is that this variance, this1 bulk variance, will not substantially outweigh the2 intent and the purpose of the zone plan and the zoning3 ordinance.4 So to wrap up, this was the main task that5 the applicants expert had to provide to the board in6 terms of this bulk variance.7 Now, as we move to, one thing that the board8 has to understand is if the, if the, what we call the,9 relaxation of standards, of granting this variance it10 has to benefit not only the applicant but also has to11 present an opportunity for the general welfare of the12 entire community. So those are the aspects that the13 board has to look at.14 Now, the two RSIS de minimis waivers that15 the applicant is requesting, I already stated what they16 are.17 Now, the examples of de minimis exception,18 which is brought up again earlier tonight, the RSIS19 standards does list some of them as an example, but it20 also says these are not limited to only these examples,21 we're just giving them to you as some of the exceptions.22 What the board or the approving authority, the municipal23 approving authority in granting of these exception has24 to see is, again, there are four criteria's that

to you as some of the exceptions.22 What the board or the approving authority, the municipal23 approving authority in granting of these exception has24 to see is, again, there are four criteria's that the25 123 applicants expert has to meet. First of all, is the1 exception consistent with the intent of the RSIS act.2 Then, is it reasonable, is it limited and is3 it not unduly burdensome.4 Is it meeting the needs of the public health5 and safety, and does it take into account the existing6 infrastructure and possible surrounding development. So7 those are the four criteria's that, again, RSIS asks you8 to review and decide on when applicants are seeking the9 requirement.10 Now, the third part of what I had to do was,11 I know a lot of times, again, in seeking, in reviewing12 some of these transcripts, the question was brought up13 as to how this application has come about and I know a14 lot of times a settlement agreement is referred to and a15 concept plan is referred to. What I did together is16 kind of put together a concept plan which is attached to17 the agreement. It's, I believe, dated March 3, 2020.18 Reviewed that against the site plan, the latest site19 plan, I believe I have the date of October 28, 2024, and20 the ordinance. So I'm not going to go through each21 item, I know you guys have reviewed these site plan22 in-depth, however I do want to bring up the key points.23 First, the concept plan contemplated the24 multifamily use. The site plan does show a multifamily25 124 use and that is permitted in the IH-1 zone.1 The concept plan did show a dog park, a dog2 kennel, a maintenance building, a recreation building,3 which included a clubhouse and a pool and a pump4 station. Those items are in the site plan with, for5 example, the site plan does show a clubhouse with a pool6 and tennis courts. It does show a dog kennel, it does7 show an independent maintenance building and it does8 show a pump station.9 Now, does the ordinance provide for all10 this, I believe it does. It does list these accessible11 uses, it permits clubhouse buildings, it permits12 swimming pools, it permits courts, it permits pet13 friendly stand alone buildings, it permits maintenance14 buildings and permits parking.15 The concept plan, again, contemplated a16 maximum of 496 units. The site plan proposes 496 units.17 And the ordinance that's the max that it permits.18 Again,

enance14 buildings and permits parking.15 The concept plan, again, contemplated a16 maximum of 496 units. The site plan proposes 496 units.17 And the ordinance that's the max that it permits.18 Again, the applicant shows that.19 The concept plan requires set aside of 2020 percent, which comes to 99.2, but 100 units. The site21 plan proposes 100 units over here and that is what the22 ordinance also requires.23 And another key aspect was the concept plan24 contemplates an area of disturbance of about 26.9 acres.25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 125 to 128 of 149 32 of 59 sheets 125 The site plan shows the area of disturbance of about1 27.82. The ordinance said the maximum area of2 disturbance that this development would be permitted was3 30 acres.4 The site access, the concept plan showed5 site access from Warner Road as well Kuzik Drive. The6 proposed site plan does show the access from both Warner7 Road and Kuzik Drive with the caveat that they're8 seeking an exception by proposing an emergency only9 access on Kuzik Drive. What the ordinance does say,10 ordinance says the unrestricted site access shall be11 permitted from Warner Drive and Kuzik Drive.12 Then couple of other points, the concept13 plan did show an emergency roadway to Howell Drive from14 Lots 8 & 9, which is not of the property. The site plan15 shows that emergency roadway and the ordinance said an16 emergency access shall be permitted on Block 179.17 Lots17 8 & 9.18 The next couple of other things that, again,19 comparing the concept, the site plan and the ordinance20 that it details provided on what the unit sizes can be21 for affordable units. In the ordinance there's a22 requirement which is based on the Uniform Housing23 Affordability controls, which is a state standard. The24 site plans do provide you the square footage and they25 126 meet that requirement. The concept plan doesn't have1 such details, obviously at that point that was not2 contemplated.3 The building height. Ordinance permits a4 maximum building height of 75 feet, I believe the5 concept plan didn't state how much height is proposed6 for those buildings. I think at that point it was a7 concept plan, however the site plan notes that as 47.58 feet is the height that they're proposing.9 The ordinance is -- they have no details on10 the exposure of perimeter walls. There were no details11 in the concept plan. There is the requirement in the12 ordinance that you're not supposed to exceed the 5013 percent and applicant is requesting that variance for14 all four buildings.15 There was a buffer requirement, again, in16 the concept plan and I do want to add the caveat here, I17 was reviewing it based on the concept plan that's in the18 agreement. So I was -- the minimum buffer requirement19 that the ordinance requires is 100 feet, I believe the20 concept plan showed somewhere between 108, 212 and the21 proposal has, I believe, 106.3 as the

nt. So I was -- the minimum buffer requirement19 that the ordinance requires is 100 feet, I believe the20 concept plan showed somewhere between 108, 212 and the21 proposal has, I believe, 106.3 as the buffer that22 they're proposing at the closest point in the site plan.23 Then the other requirement that the24 ordinance has is that the east face of the Watchung25 127 Mountain shall remain undisturbed from the peak of the1 ridge line. I believe the site plan does not show any2 bedrock beyond the ridge line and that is shown on the3 line and steep slope stability report also, where the4 ridge line is that they've shown. The concept plan5 doesn't outright show the ridge line as marked out on6 the concept plan, so that comparison can't be made. But7 I believe the ordinance says that they have to not --8 they have to remain -- east face of Watchung Mountain9 shall remain undisturbed and applicants site plan shows10 that.11 The parking requirement in the ordinance has12 to be as per RSIS standards. There were, the detail13 count wasn't very legible on the concept plan but I14 believe the site plan shows that they meet that15 requirement of the parking spaces.16 Lastly, I believe the concept plan noted17 each of building to be four stories and the site plan18 shows that as four story buildings.19 Again, reviewing the settlement agreement as20 well, the ordinance, the ordinance does have points in21 the statement that applicant can seek bulk variances, no22 use variances, however they are allowed to seek bulk23 variances as the engineered the site plan.24 The agreement also states something similar25 128 to that affect, that the applicant has to substantially1 be similar to the concept plan. However, because no2 engineering was done during the concept plan they may3 seek bulk variances as permitted in the ordinance.4 So that was the third part of my review.5 I believe then, I think there was another6 question raised about the emergency access. I believe7 in the review it shows that there is a 16 foot emergency8 access, which in the transcript review was testified to9 that is going to be paved. It would be along Lots 8 & 910 and connecting to Howell Drive. I believe this11 requirement is in the zoning ordinance and it follows12 the settlement agreement that was mentioned.13 I believe these were the four items I was14 tasked with when reviewing the application and

this11 requirement is in the zoning ordinance and it follows12 the settlement agreement that was mentioned.13 I believe these were the four items I was14 tasked with when reviewing the application and provided15 testimony on that.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.17 Mayor McCartney, do you have any questions18 on the testimony?19 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thanks for your review.20 Thank you very much.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mayor?22 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I have no questions.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.24 Ms. Kapferer, do you have any questions?25

33 of 59 sheets Page 129 to 132 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 129 MS. KAPFERER: I also don't have any1 questions. Thank you so much for your testimony.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino, do3 you have any questions?4 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: I don't, no. Thank5 you very much. Very detailed.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have any7 questions?8 MR. ALPER: I have no questions. Thank you.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza, do you have10 any questions?11 MR. CARDOZA: I appreciate your summation.12 No questions.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Council Person Scarpa, do14 you have any questions?15 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: No. Thank you.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeill, do you have17 any questions?18 MR. MacNEILL: No, Mr. Chairman.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.20 Any members of the public have any21 questions?22 Mr. Afran.23 MR. AFRAN: Very briefly. Thank you.24 Is there a difference in the position of25 130 Building D versus in the concept plan and the site plan1 in terms of the ridge line or what we're roughly calling2 the ridge line?3 THE WITNESS: So as I stated earlier in the4 concept plan the ridge line is not outright marked.5 It's just saying the shape of the Building D. It is a,6 the shape is, geometrically you could say there is a7 little difference between the two -- between the concept8 plan and site plan.9 MR. AFRAN: No, I was really referring to10 the distance of the position of Building D from the11 ridge in the site plan that's been submitted versus is12 the concept plan, are you able to opine on that?13 THE WITNESS: No, again, on the concept plan14 the ridge line is not very clearly marked out. The site15 plan does show the ridge line and that's why it meets16 the ordinance requirement which said that nothing east17 of the ridge line should be undisturbed and I think it18 meets that.19 MR. AFRAN: Okay. But you're not able to20 comment on the relative position from the concept plan21 to the site plan?22 THE WITNESS: Yes, because of the fact in the23 concept plan I can't see where the ridge line is.24 MR. AFRAN: Thank you very much.25 131 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Anyone from2 the public have any questions?3 THE PUBLIC: I have a quick question.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Please come up. Go right5 ahead.6 THE PUBLIC: May I speak? Jessica Pearson,7 Verona.8 I have a question regarding, I think it was9 your opinion that this would cause no

ick question.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Please come up. Go right5 ahead.6 THE PUBLIC: May I speak? Jessica Pearson,7 Verona.8 I have a question regarding, I think it was9 your opinion that this would cause no substantial harm,10 right? No -- hold on, I'm not done. In regard to the11 placement of roadways and facilities and routes that12 might cause congestion or blight. How can you say that13 the placement of these buildings and the congestion of14 the roadways that has been a serious topic of discussion15 would not cause substantial harm and was that in fact16 just your opinion? I mean, can't be fact, right? So17 that's your opinion, you're putting your thumb on the18 scale.19 THE WITNESS: All right. I'll answer the20 two questions in three parts, if I may.21 THE PUBLIC: Sure.22 THE WITNESS: So the first question,23 basically I didn't testify to the fact whether the, as24 you put it, the substantial impact of all this concept25 132 plan would be. What I stated for the board is what is1 it that they're reviewing when they're looking at what2 the bulk variance is bringing to that fact. So I stated3 what is it in the testimony of the applicant that the4 applicant has to prove to the board and what are the5 five parameters they have to review with them.6 THE PUBLIC: Right. But doesn't one or two7 or maybe three parameters include particular waivers in8 regard to RSIS standards?9 THE WITNESS: RSIS standards, again, I listed10 for the fact what is it that the board has to --11 THE PUBLIC: Yes, but those entail roadways,12 yes? Those entail --13 THE WITNESS: Yes.14 THE PUBLIC: And so in regard to my original15 question, which is a planning question.16 THE WITNESS: I still haven't answered, but17 okay.18 THE PUBLIC: It's a Municipal Land Use Law19 question in terms of the placement of routes and20 facilities that will not cause congestion or blight21 that, you don't want to do that, and you're saying that22 this is fine. Even with all the waivers granted and23 everything is okay, it will cause no substantial harm?24 THE WITNESS: I believe I did not say that,25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 133 to 136 of 149 34 of 59 sheets 133 you know, the site plan will not cause substantial harm.1 I asked -- provided for the board what is it that they2 would be looking for when they are reviewing what the3 applicant is asking them. The three -- the one variance4 and the two waivers, what is it that they have to base5 their decision on.6 The second part of the question, what I did7 speak about is, I compared the concept plan, which was8 the original concept plan in the settlement agreement9 against the site plan that the applicant is presented10 before the board and third comparison I made to the11 ordinance.12 THE PUBLIC: Did you not go a little further13 than that and actually weigh in and state for the record14 your opinion that there would be no substantial harm?15 THE WITNESS: I did not do that.16 THE PUBLIC: You, actually I think, if we17 back up --18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: She did not say those19 words.20 MS. McGOVERN: I was sitting here taking21 notes, we can get a read back, but not what she said.22 THE PUBLIC: I believe she did, but we could23 look at the transcript before they get erased or before24 they, if they get posted.25 134 MS. McGOVERN: They are by the certified1 court reporter.2 THE PUBLIC: I know, I wasn't referring to3 his job. I was referring to things on your website that4 are aren't there.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Things are never erased,6 ma'am. That's not truthful. We want to be truthful7 here. That's totally untruthful.8 THE PUBLIC: I have not seen --9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am.10 THE PUBLIC: -- the testimony from Greg11 Mescera or the film or the tape, so.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Everything --13 THE PUBLIC: My planning board attorney was14 here.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Because you didn't see it16 doesn't mean it was not there.17 THE PUBLIC: It's nowhere to be found. So18 that, I will state on the record, that he came.19 At any rate, so you're saying that this20 would not cause substantial harm?21 THE WITNESS: I did not testify to that.22 THE PUBLIC: What is your opinion on this23 then?24 THE WITNESS: I was asked to review what the25 135 criteria that the board has to look at on the variance1 and I believe I provided them that.2 THE PUBLIC: And you believe the board3 should just grant all the waivers and it would not cause4 substantial harm for them to do so?5 THE WITNESS: I didn't say whether the board6 should weigh which way

HE PUBLIC: And you believe the board3 should just grant all the waivers and it would not cause4 substantial harm for them to do so?5 THE WITNESS: I didn't say whether the board6 should weigh which way or vote which way. I did ask7 them what is that they have to review against for what8 the variance or the waivers the applicant is asking.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.11 Any other member of the public have any12 questions on the testimony? Please come up and be13 identified.14 THE PUBLIC: Can I ask about the ridge line?15 Rachel, Klein, Howell Drive.16 So the concept plan and the site plan, did17 I, what they call the ridge line on either of those is18 that like the real ridge line as far as you're aware or19 is it still like a line drawn on the map and the ridge20 line is just this theoretical line still not determined21 as to where it actually is?22 THE WITNESS: So the site plan I can define23 the ridge line, which I believe has been done by a24 licensed professional engineer. I can't speak to the25 136 fact whether that is, you know, the ridge line or a line1 on the paper. But I believe a licensed professional2 engineer has drawn that on the site plan.3 THE PUBLIC: Because the Building D that4 we're most concerned about specifically for the ridge5 line, we are concerned about other buildings for other6 reasons, but that building appears to be getting closer7 to that line that we're saying is not necessarily a real8 line but there is a sewer line that runs a little more9 east of it that's on both site -- on both plans. It's10 real, it's easily found, it's not theoretical and so it11 would appear that Building D has moved quite a few feet12 east.13 MR. PLOCKER: I'm just going to object to14 the question and characterization that the line is15 theoretical. The line is on the concept plan, it's on16 the site plan. The line is not theoretical, it was not17 arbitrary. It was a negotiated line that during the18 settlement negotiations between the applicants19 professionals and the township professionals, including20 their engineer.21 THE PUBLIC: And it represents the amazing22 drop for the part of the east of the, of where you want23 to put the building, so --24 MR. PLOCKER: The building complies with the25