February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 93 to 96 of 154 24 of 68 sheets 93 approved the plan by a vote of eight to nothing. The1 board subsequently memorialized its decision in2 resolution 20-08 adopted on December 20, 2020. On Page3 9 of the approved Fair Share Plan, the West Essex4 Highlands development is identified as the third5 compliance mechanism providing 100 affordable units6 pursuant to which the town also received 51 bonus7 credits for a total of 151 credits towards it's overall8 third round obligation. That fair share plan9 specifically states on Page 9 that the property shall10 contain 496 family rentals, including 100 affordable11 units. That there is an executed settlement agreement12 that contains a concept plan, zoning amendment, design13 terms and conditions and West Essex Highlands14 condominium terms and conditions. The numerous15 mediation sessions occurred with both WEHI, the Township16 and the Condominium Association. And that the17 settlement agreement is the result of those sessions.18 The plan also states that the site is available insofar19 that it's owned by my client. The site is approvable in20 that there's an executed settlement agreement that21 contains the proposed zoning. The site is developable,22 that it has access to public water by New Jersey23 American Water Company and sewer from West Orange.24 The site is suitable that it's surrounded by25 94 residential uses, has Warner Road as it's primary1 access.2 Now, many people here, I know, they've done3 it during the hearings, they've questioned why the site4 was chosen as a third round compliance mechanism, but5 it's not this boards role to question, revisit or6 relitigate the townships affordable housing obligation.7 There was a public process for that, which culminated8 five years ago due to the townships settlement efforts,9 including the rezoning of this property and the township10 should be commended. They fought hard, they bent over11 backwards to preserve as much of this property as12 possible.13 The township filed its litigation in July of14 2015, my client became involved at the end of '15. The15 settlement occurred in April of 2020, this was not a16 quick process. There was much thought, review and17 investigation by the township and its full team of18 professionals which resulted in a settlement reached and19 ultimate adoption of the zoning ordinance. The20 settlement which

thought, review and17 investigation by the township and its full team of18 professionals which resulted in a settlement reached and19 ultimate adoption of the zoning ordinance. The20 settlement which incorporated the zoning ordinance was21 mediated by a court appointed special master approved by22 the court at a publicly noticed variance hearing and by23 fulfilling its obligations under the court approved24 settlement, the town received its final judgment25 95 compliance and repose. So with that backdrop let's look1 at the IH zoning ordinance.2 Knowing that the entire property is 120 and3 a half acres, a review of the ordinance reveals that the4 township had two overarching goals in restricting5 development. One, limit the disturbance of the property6 to a maximum of 30 acres. And two, do not disturb the7 eastern slope at all. Stay west of a certain lot. To8 be clear, it is not a setback line. Just stay west of9 what we affectionately refer to as the Lenny Line, a10 line named for Mr. Lapore, the former township engineer11 who was part of the towns team at the time. The plan12 meets these requirements, while disturbing only 27.713 acres of the property. And what happens to remaining14 undisturbed 93 acres, it will be forever preserved and15 deed restricted as open space. Meaning nothing may be16 built on the remainder of the property in the future.17 Now, it's obvious that the objector and the18 public don't like the zoning ordinance. They don't like19 the settlement the township made, and that's okay. But20 those items went through a lawful public process that21 went unchallenged. This Planning Board is not the farm22 to object to the ordinance or to the settlement23 agreement or to the Court's 2020 judgment which approved24 the settlement and sanctioned the rezoning of the25 96 property. With the exception of a bulk provision1 regarding the percentage of foundation exposure, which2 requires a C variance, the application fully complies3 with the ordinance requirements. Again, many people4 don't like the ordinance, they don't agree with its5 requirements and question why it was adopted, or why the6 ordinance treats this property differently. However,7 has a developer ready, willing and able to develop8 inclusionary housing on the site, the town had an9 obligation to treat this property differently.10 The applicable affording housing regulations11 recognize,

eloper ready, willing and able to develop8 inclusionary housing on the site, the town had an9 obligation to treat this property differently.10 The applicable affording housing regulations11 recognize, "The Fair Housing Act incorporates the need12 to eliminate unnecessary cost generating features from13 Municipal Land Use ordinances as a requirement of14 substantive certification" or in this case, Court15 approval. "In order to receive and approval of its plan16 municipalities shall eliminate development standards and17 requirements that are not essential to protect the18 public welfare and shall design municipal ordinances to19 expedite municipal decisions on affordable housing20 development applications." That is NJAC5:97-10.1.21 Some cost generative items specifically22 identified in the regulations are, "building setbacks,23 height and/or stories, spacing between buildings,24 impervious surface standards, excessive open space,25