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

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