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

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 101 to 104 of 149 26 of 59 sheets 101 believe to be your purview?1 THE WITNESS: So since I had no part of the2 design, I didn't -- I did nothing with the design,3 didn't do any soil testing. I reviewed the design and I4 wrote a letter outlining that. I could comment on that5 letter but anything outside that is for the applicant.6 That is the applicants burden to provide that testimony7 to justify their design.8 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.10 Would any other member of the public have11 any questions? Please come up be identified.12 THE PUBLIC: Diedre Dyson, Slayback Terrace.13 Couple minutes ago it was stated, and I want to make14 sure I have this right, that the light at Oval Road and15 Eagle Rock was either required or was agreed to in 2015,16 is that correct?17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's correct.18 THE PUBLIC: Okay. So back then --19 MR. PLOCKER: No.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry, you said no?21 MR. PLOCKER: It was agreed to in the22 settlement agreement, which was in 2020. It was always23 contemplated.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.25 102 THE WITNESS: I thought it was 2015. Back1 then wasn't this only for single family homes?2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker.3 MR. PLOCKER: It was not. In 2020 when it4 was agreed to the application did not contemplate single5 family homes.6 MS. McGOVERN: What he said was --7 MR. PLOCKER: I --8 MS. McGOVERN: In 2015 was when you started9 this application, this project.10 MR. PLOCKER: 2000 -- just to be very clear11 so there's no misunderstanding and I can explain. In12 July of 2015 all municipalities in the State of New13 Jersey, if they so wanted to, could voluntarily attempt14 to comply with their third-round Mount Laurel obligation15 by filing a lawsuit, I believe the date was July 15,16 it's called the Declaratory Judgement Act, seeking17 approval, blessing for their plan which goes from the18 years 2015 to July of 2025, which just ended. We're now19 in the fourth round. Any interested party, any20 developers, the Fair Share Housing Center, many people21 made applications to intervene in those litigations, so22 the Township of West Orange 100 percent absolutely filed23 such a litigation 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

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