February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 101 to 104 of 154 26 of 68 sheets 101 After vetting this site and a proposed development1 during negotiation period the Governing Body agreed to2 this provision, which also in good faith complied with3 the towns obligation to eliminate cost generative items,4 which is the regulation I was just referring to.5 This board does not have the authority to6 second guess the Governing Body about what was included7 and what was not included in the ordinance. Just like8 the Planning Board can't revisit the reasons why the9 property was included as an affordable housing site10 compliance mechanism. The board had a role back in that11 process back in 2020 and unanimously voted to include12 this site in the plan. However, the plain language of13 the ordinance is clear, unambiguous, speaks for itself14 and governs this application.15 The use regulations. The permitted16 principal uses, multifamily residential and open space.17 The application clearly complies.18 Permitted accessory uses. I'm not going to19 go through them all, but there are many amenity type20 uses that are listed that are permitted by the21 ordinance. But one that is included, it includes the22 rooftop amenity for Building D. Now, does that mean we23 can violate the townships nuisance laws, absolutely not.24 All though there was lot of yelling and proverbial25 102 pounding during public comment, I do want to make clear1 that doesn't apply to Mr. Weisleder. Throughout the2 hearings, as one of our physically closest neighbors,3 Mr. Weisleder attended regularly and asked thorough,4 rational questions of the witnesses. As someone who was5 one of the most involved and respectful members of the6 public to participate, I would have been fine if the7 board gave him 30 minutes to speak during public8 comment. That's not an invitation because I think he9 deserved that respect. His comments and concerns10 regarding residents of the development possibly being11 able to see him and his family from those northern12 terraces or the rooftop amenities, it did not go13 unnoticed and we do take them seriously. Please don't14 take this the wrong way Mr. Weisleder, but as much as15 you don't want any residents seeing you, we don't want16 them seeing you either. All though the sight lines are17 rather lengthy and there will be an undisturbed forest18 on the eastern slope, we will absolutely agree

y residents seeing you, we don't want16 them seeing you either. All though the sight lines are17 rather lengthy and there will be an undisturbed forest18 on the eastern slope, we will absolutely agree to a19 condition of approval that imposes an obligation which20 appropriately screens any areas which could create such21 an issue, and that doesn't extend through the Planning22 Board or a resolution compliance process, that extends23 in the future. We will agree to interact with Mr.24 Weisleder or any of our neighbors in good faith post25 103 construction should any issue arise.1 The bulk regulations. Total number of2 units, 496. We comply. 20 percent affordable housing3 set aside. We comply. No minimum lot size requirement.4 We comply. Development is limited to a maximum5 disturbance of 30 acres out the 120 and a half. The6 site plan proposes the disturbance of 27.7 acres and the7 remaining 92.2 acres, as I said before, will forever be8 deed restricted as open space. We comply. Unrestricted9 site access, ingress and egress shall be permitted from10 Warner Road and Kuzak Drive. We comply.11 Recall that as submitted the site plan12 proposes full regular access to and from the proposed13 development via Kuzak Drive. As the board is aware14 pursuant to my clients agreement with the condominium15 association as provided for in the settlement agreement,16 we are making a request for RSIS de minimis exception to17 have Kuzak gated to serve as a emergency access only,18 which would only be able to be accessed by and used and19 regulated at then discretion of the townships emergency20 professionals. I'm going to get into that request in a21 little more detail shortly where I address traffic22 generally, but I would like to stress something.23 Regardless of whether the exception is granted, the road24 connecting Kuzak Drive to the rest of the development25 104 will be constructed as provided for on the site plan1 which shows Kuzak as open. You will first need to vote2 on the granting of the exception, if granted, then the3 road will be built and granted for -- gated for4 emergency access only. If the exception is not granted,5 then the project would be approved with Kuzak open to6 regular traffic. In other words, the granting or denial7 of the de minimis exception has no effect on the project8 one way or another.9 Emergency access. Ingress and egress shall10 be

h Kuzak open to6 regular traffic. In other words, the granting or denial7 of the de minimis exception has no effect on the project8 one way or another.9 Emergency access. Ingress and egress shall10 be permitted to Block 179.17, Lots 8 and 9 to the north11 and Bayowski Road to the south. We comply. There is no12 access proposed to Bayowski Road, but as the board is13 aware, this site proposes emergency access only via the14 two single family lots on Howell Drive located in the15 R-3 zoning district. Those lots are owned by an entity16 having a common ownership interest with the applicant.17 Someday there will be single family homes built on those18 lots and nothing else. Any argument that emergency19 access is a use which requires a use variance and20 violates the zoning code, Verona's site plan approval,21 West Orange's site plan approval for those homes, is22 wholly unsupported by the facts of the law. Emergency23 access isn't even defined in West Orange's ordinances,24 so you won't find it as a permitted or prohibited use,25