February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

, primarily7 concerning Building D, which is just at or near the8 ridge, and it comes up to a point of about seven feet to9 the top and it goes back a little bit. Now, we offered10 Geof Goll, who said there are significant problems with11 the engineering in connection with the ridge. And he12 also recommended using a factor of safety of 2.0 because13 of the risk of significant problems if there's14 structural failure in the substrate. This board was15 sufficiently concerned that it took the position in16 asking CME that they have a, so-called, independent17 review of Langan and the applicants expert and from an18 engineering point of view and our expert. And both are19 qualified experts, from the objectors and the applicants20 perspective. So CME came in and did an independent21 review circle. Now, we went through and I regret we had22 to put Mr. Kleinberg through three nights or so of23 cross-examination, although he and I wrangled quite a24 lot because I felt he wasn't answering questions, he25

5 of 68 sheets Page 17 to 20 of 154 03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM 17 took it well and I appreciate that. But nevertheless it1 was very serious and even though I may have shaken his2 hand afterwards and wished him well going home, it3 doesn't change the primary seriousness of the issues.4 Your primary duty as a board is to determine whether or5 not the public health and safety, or welfare in certain6 instances, is protected by this project. Ultimately7 after all the ordinances are done, after all the8 variances that may be sought are done, after all the9 expert testimony, your primary task has to be, is the10 public health and safety protected. Health, safety and11 welfare. Welfare comes more in the aesthetic questions.12 But health and safety certainly are related to the13 engineering problems. So you have to ask yourself, are14 you satisfied that the evidence shows that the public15 health and safety, with respect to Building D, because16 that's really all we were talking about on that issue,17 is protected. Is the public health and safety protected18 by this plan based on the evidence you saw.19 Now, I repeatedly asked Mr. Kleinberg questions20 about things that were in his report. And when you go21 through the transcripts you'll see those. And every22 time I got to a place in his report where I said, Well,23 you said this here and you indicate you don't have24 enough information, or this is a problem or potential25 18 problem, and almost without exception every time I asked1 about those provisions in his report, Mr. Kleinberg's2 answer was, Well, I didn't really have to write that.3 I'm not sure that's really necessary to have said.4 Maybe we didn't need that in there. And he did this5 several times. And this was the whole reason he was6 there. Was to give an independent appraisal of the two7 expert views from the applicant and the objector and8 give a report and his criticisms of significance. And9 then when I asked him about them, each time he said,10 Well, maybe I didn't need to say that. I don't know why11 I said it. Well, it was said by an engineer, a licensed12 engineer, many years of experience, hired to give an13 independent evaluation, he puts it in his report. And14 you have to say to yourselves, Why did he back off. Why15 did he continuously backpedal. Whenever I asked him16 about these aspects of his opinion, he backs off. Says,17 nah, they weren't

eport. And14 you have to say to yourselves, Why did he back off. Why15 did he continuously backpedal. Whenever I asked him16 about these aspects of his opinion, he backs off. Says,17 nah, they weren't really necessary to say. Not18 important enough. I don't know why he kept doing that.19 I do know that he may have had a little bit of a20 Stockholm syndrome impact, in which the victims sort of21 identifies with the torturer, because he kept22 communicating with the applicants engineers over and23 over and over. Never communicated with me. Didn't even24 communicate with Ms. McGovern in an open way telling her25 19 he's not telling me these things. We had that dialogue.1 E-mail after e-mail is sent to Langan. Never copied me2 or my engineer, even though his task was to3 independently evaluate the two sets of experts. He goes4 on a field trip on the site, doesn't bother telling me5 or my engineer that they're doing it. So he's sitting6 there walking around the site, as much as one can there,7 and he's in constant contact with the applicants8 engineers doing a "independent" evaluation. This was9 not an independent evaluation, and it didn't happen just10 once. The inspection happened once, the e-mail contact,11 the phone meetings happened over and over and over, and12 he didn't even own up to it in his report. I had to13 pull it out of him through cross-examination and that's14 why he had to keep coming back, because he had to keep15 supplying what was not produced.16 Now, I have no doubt that he understands17 engineering, and at certain points he answered questions18 succinctly and clearly, but whenever I got to the crux19 of the question of his own opinion to criticize the20 geostructural engineering, he backpedals and goes back21 the other way, and then we learn he's in constant22 contact with the applicants engineers, never my23 engineer. Never me. Was it truly an independent24 report, I don't think so. Not as you understood it25 20 would have. I'm sure none of you assumed the engineer1 for CME, the independent engineer, would be having2 constant contact ex parte with the applicant without the3 objector ever knowing. His job was to evaluate my4 report versus Mr. Plocker's clients report, and he5 didn't do that. He did a one sided analysis with input6 only from the applicant. On no occasion did he even ask7 my engineer, What do you think about

eport versus Mr. Plocker's clients report, and he5 didn't do that. He did a one sided analysis with input6 only from the applicant. On no occasion did he even ask7 my engineer, What do you think about Langan's8 supplementation. That was not an independent report,9 you should not rely on. You have to ask yourselves,10 after all of that testimony, are you satisfied that the11 public health and safety is protected with respect to12 Building D. If you can't honestly say, I feel assured,13 then you must vote this plan down. That's your14 fundamental responsibility.15 There other aspects to Building D that are16 troubling. I'm sorry. The fire chief -- I'm sorry, I17 have to find it. The fire chief issued a report that's18 been filed in this case dated August 1, 2024, shortly19 after we began. It's from Fire Chief Anthony Vecchio,20 and he noted the questions raised by certain parties,21 and perhaps some of it came through my22 cross-examination, I don't know if he had seen that yet.23 Certainly there are comments made in various quarters,24 this is very early in the case, remember. And he made25

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 21 to 24 of 154 6 of 68 sheets 21 the point of noting -- of answering these questions.1 Now, one of them was, as you know, there's only one2 major means of ingress and egress, the other plan of3 means of ingress and egress is for an emergency access4 road of going to the north to Howell, which we'll talk5 about in terms of zoning later, and also possibly if6 Kuzak gets opened up for emergency purposes. But7 there's no other means of ingress and egress, other that8 Oval Road. Warner goes into Oval. That's the only9 means of ingress and egress. So the fire chief was10 addressing a question, number one, about direct access11 to the rear of the building. Now, the only building12 that this applies to is Building D. Remember, we had13 some discussion early in the case when Mr. Appel was14 testifying, about is there enough room for emergency15 vehicles in the back of Building D along the ridge. And16 someone actually asked, probably some member of the17 public, I don't think I asked the question, someone18 asked Mr. Appel, Well, can you get a vehicle back there?19 You know, how close to the building could you go. Mr.20 Appel replied, and I remember, I think Mr. Klein raised21 the issue, I remember Mr. Klein and Mr. Appel were22 having dialogue, and Mr. Appel said, Well, no, you23 wouldn't want to get right up to the building anyway.24 And Mr. Klein said, Because of the fall zone, the drop25 22 zone of course. If the parts of building are dropping1 down onto trucks, you don't want a truck next to it.2 But there's no other room for a truck back there. That3 factors not contested. You can't go right up to the4 building, its illegal in a fire. And after the fall5 zone or the drop zone, there's no room for fire6 vehicles. They're going right over the edge. And so7 the fire chief was asked these questions, about access8 to the rear of the building, the rear of the four story9 building, and his answer was, "Having rear access is10 ideal. However, our traditional tactics include entry11 through the front door of a residential structure to12 protect the means of egress for fleeing occupants." But13 his important phrase is the first clause. "Having rear14 access is ideal."15 Now, when we design a building, a four story16 building sitting on top of a ridge, or just next to it17 with no access for emergency vehicles, and the fire18 chief says,

ing rear14 access is ideal."15 Now, when we design a building, a four story16 building sitting on top of a ridge, or just next to it17 with no access for emergency vehicles, and the fire18 chief says, "Having rear access is ideal." What do we19 do? Do we say, well, ideal means you could do without20 it. You're dealing with lives of hundreds of people who21 live in this building and these questions have been22 raised repeatedly by members of the public also, because23 members of the public live in multifamily dwellings all24 over this area and everyone lives with these questions.25 23 How do we get protected in case of an emergency. So now1 we learn, there's no rear access, that's not debated.2 And the fire chief says, Rear access would be ideal.3 But notes, he doesn't even explain though, how we get4 around the problem of having no rear access. What he5 said was very interesting. He says, I will repeat it,6 "However, our traditional tactics include entry through7 the front door of a residential structure to protect the8 means of egress for fleeing occupants." Well, what9 happens if the fire is in the front door? What happens10 if the fire is in the front of the building and you11 can't get in and there's no rear access? That's why12 having rear access is ideal, as he says. Do we approve13 a project where the geostructural evidence is weak, or14 highly debatable and never really independently15 reviewed. And do we approve that same project where the16 four story building on top of a ridge with rear access17 for emergency vehicles, or fire vehicles, is18 unavailable. How do we protect the people in this19 house, four story structure, if there's a fire in front20 and firefighters can't get in and no one can get around21 the back? Are you comfortable approving a multistory22 apartment complex on a ridge where there's no access in23 the entire rear of the structure, and we'll put the24 pictures on, and I'm sure you'll remember, it's a very25 24 long structure. The entire length of that structure is1 unavailable in the rear, and the only way of entering2 the building, according to the fire chief otherwise, is3 through the front door. If the fires in the front, what4 do we do? You have to say to yourselves, am I5 comfortable approving the project. Do I believe I'm6 meeting my duty as a Planning Board in those7 circumstances.8 Now, there's other aspects to his

hat4 do we do? You have to say to yourselves, am I5 comfortable approving the project. Do I believe I'm6 meeting my duty as a Planning Board in those7 circumstances.8 Now, there's other aspects to his report in9 which he says, "Because there's only one means of10 ingress and egress" other than emergency access on the11 -- in the back and possibly Kuzak. He says, "Response12 time may be delayed." He then goes and says, but we can13 get in. I'm going to read exactly what he says in14 response to this question. "Review of the plans show15 emergency access from Kuzak Drive and Howell Drive."16 The question is, "Is that sufficient for emergency17 access in addition to the normal means entering on18 Warner Road." The answer is, "As with any development19 setback from arterial roadways response may be delayed,20 but access should not be in question." So we have a21 couple of things working here. We know response may be22 delayed, because we're off an arterial road and we don't23 have any other means of ingress and egress, except the24 Oval/Warner structure.25

7 of 68 sheets Page 25 to 28 of 154 03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM 25 Now, we saw through graphic evidence, it was1 last year, there was a fire on Oval and nobody could get2 in or out. And we saw the videos, and it went on for3 several hours and people testified, one woman said, "I4 couldn't even get to my mother who is elderly and ill.5 I couldn't even get out of my complex to get to her."6 And another woman said, "I couldn't get back in the7 hours that was blocked. One to two hours at least."8 And the only means of ingress or egress is that9 structure.10 Now, Mr. Litwornia quotes the applicants11 engineer in his report as acknowledging that if there is12 a blockage or accident at Oval, access to the complex13 will be impeded. We all know that, it's logical. We14 also saw it happening, because when the fire occurred15 and the smoking trees were blocking entrances this past16 year, nobody could get off Oval. Now, there's no17 development here yet, but if there was a development18 here no one could get into it or out of it if Oval's19 blocked. That means the only means of emergency20 entrance are these emergency access drives, possibly21 Kuzak, which would have to get open, and Howell would22 have to get opened.23 Now, would you approve -- you feel it's24 appropriate to approve a 500 unit complex, 496 units,25 26 which will have between 1000 and 2000 people living1 there, assuming they all rent, with this type of tenuous2 emergency access available. This is one of those3 wake-up moments. God forbid a tragedy occurs and people4 die. Five, ten, 20 people die and everyone says, What5 happened? There was no way to the back of the building.6 We couldn't get in to the complex because Oval was7 blocked, and then someone goes back to the Planning8 Board file or the town file and they see this report,9 and they see that the fire chief himself said, "Well,10 rear access would be ideal." We don't have it. The11 fire chief says himself, "access may be delayed because12 we only have one means of ingress and egress." And the13 engineers acknowledge that if Oval is blocked, and the14 evidence shows if Oval is blocked, nobody gets in or15 out. So God forbid some tragedy happens, and they do16 happen, we saw it in California this past year from17 other causes. Ordinary suburban towns went down.18 People are going to go back and look at the file of this19 case and say, there was a

they do16 happen, we saw it in California this past year from17 other causes. Ordinary suburban towns went down.18 People are going to go back and look at the file of this19 case and say, there was a reason to believe this should20 not have been approved. Yet it would have been approved21 and built. So your duty is to say, can I protect the22 public by approving this project, at least as it's23 presented here tonight. The answer has to be, no.24 There's no possible way you can approve it. And it25 27 makes no difference about affordable housing. It makes1 no difference about the settlement agreement and it2 makes not a damn bit of difference about the ordinance.3 You can not legally approve a project if you believe the4 public health and safety is not adequately protected.5 You cannot do so. So I ask you to think about that. I6 know you are. It's probably the most important issue7 here.8 Some people may be wondering, Mr. Plocker's9 letters to council sort of alluded to this and we talked10 about that colloquy, whether the town is in trouble11 legally in the courts if this board denies the project.12 I know some people have been thinking about that. The13 answer is, no. And the answer is no for a very simple14 reason. The town met its obligation. Council approved15 the ordinance pursuant to the settlement agreement, it16 did exactly what the settlement agreement said. It did17 not deviate one iota. Not one dotted I, not one crossed18 T is missing. Council approved that settlement19 agreement, the ordinance went into force, and by the20 requirements of the settlement agreement of the21 ordinance it comes to this body. The township, and you22 are not, the township, legally the township met its23 obligation under that settlement agreement. So if you24 decline to approve this for any of the good reasons we25 28 talked about right now which require a denial, aside1 from what else we talked about, the township is not in2 legal jeopardy, because if the township met its duty to3 approve the plan, to approve the ordinance, then it4 comes here. And it is not your job to worry about5 whether the township gets sued, it could. Towns get6 sued every day of the week. Our brethren and sisters in7 the law makes sure that happens, but that's because8 there are issues at risk. Your job is not to worry9 about that. And in any event, the town met its10 obligation. The town

brethren and sisters in7 the law makes sure that happens, but that's because8 there are issues at risk. Your job is not to worry9 about that. And in any event, the town met its10 obligation. The town cannot be sued for breach of11 contract because you're separate jurisdiction denying12 this plan. And I hope you'll think that through,13 because I know you thought about it. And I know Mr.14 Plocker's letter alluded to it. He wrote two letters15 about it. You should not be threatened with lawsuits,16 the township should not be threatened with lawsuits17 because this body doesn't vote. You can't protect the18 public if you have a litigation gun to your head from an19 applicant.20 Now, I'd like to go to the beginning of our21 PDF. I'm sorry, I get short of breath sometimes. I22 apologize. We'll start with this. I may start and23 stop. This is not meant to be strictly chronological24 necessarily and it's not containing every exhibit in the25