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

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