February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

27 of 68 sheets Page 105 to 108 of 154 03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM 105 accessory or otherwise, in the code book. Does that1 mean there is no emergency access in town? Of course2 not. The Governing Body may determine it needs3 emergency access anywhere in town and can take the4 necessary steps to make that happen, including the use5 of it's condemnation powers. Also the emergency access6 proposed here, it may never even be used. It is there7 for emergencies, and the use of the access will be8 determined by West Orange's emergency personnel, if9 necessary. It is simply not a use. There will of10 course need to be emergency access, even recorded for an11 potential purchasers of those two lots, but this issue12 is nothing but red herring that several people are13 trying to use to just say, you can't build anything on14 this site.15 To put things in perspective, let's assume16 you have a residential subdivision behind a commercially17 zoned property, and the relevant zoning ordinances and18 approved subdivision and site plans don't mention19 emergency access at all. Are you telling me that if the20 police or fire department needed access to the21 commercial property through one or more of those22 residential properties in an extreme emergency, is23 someone from the neighborhood going to run out in front24 of an emergency vehicle, shake their finger and say, no25 106 way. This property is only zoned for single family1 homes. Mr. Firefighter or Mr. Policeman, you're not2 allowed to cut through here to help the man having a3 heart attack in the convenience store behind my house.4 It just shows you how much of a nonissue this is.5 Furthermore the proposed Howell Drive6 emergency access will also benefit the residents of the7 condominium.8 Finally, there is one more important thing9 to note about the emergency access to Howell Drive. It10 is not required, as Mr. Pehnke testified, we think it's11 a great idea to have that access for an extreme12 emergency. It could only serve to benefit the general13 welfare of the residents, including those living in the14 condominium. However, neither RSIS, nor the zoning15 ordinance, nor any other regulation requires it. Mr.16 Pehnke made clear that the development complies with17 RSIS, because there is access via Warner Road and Kuzak18 Drive. If this board was to grant the de minimis19 exception and permit the closure of Kuzak Drive

clear that the development complies with17 RSIS, because there is access via Warner Road and Kuzak18 Drive. If this board was to grant the de minimis19 exception and permit the closure of Kuzak Drive to20 regular traffic and if it was determined in the future21 that the Howell Drive emergency access was not22 permitted, the development would still comply with RSIS.23 If that scenario occurred, we would want to retain the24 option of opening Kuzak to regular traffic in the25 107 future, so if this board were to act favorably on the1 application we will respectfully ask that that be2 recognized in the resolution.3 Next ordinance provision. The affordable4 units shall consist of moderate, low income, units in5 accordance with the requirements of the settlement6 agreement, which actually models the UHAC regulations in7 affect at the time, and establishes minimum size units8 for one-bedrooms at 650 square feet, two-bedrooms at9 875, and three-bedrooms at 1150 square feet. We comply.10 Maximum building height shall be 75 feet, subject to the11 specific standards in this particular ordinance. We12 come in at 47.5 feet. We comply. Maximum building13 height, four stories. Same thing, we comply. The14 maximum exposure of perimeter walls for basements,15 cellars or building foundations shall not exceed 5016 percent total surface area of such walls, which shall be17 based on the aggregate area of all perimeter walls.18 This is the one ordinance provision for which we are19 seeking the bulk variance. Our engineer, Paul Anderson,20 testified on July 30, 2024, on Pages 28 and 29 of the21 transcript that the proposed foundation exposure22 percentages are as follows, 76.5 for Building A. 76.423 for Building B. 69.1 for Building C, and 54.8 for24 Building D. As Mr. Anderson explained, because the25 108 property undulates he used the existing topography to1 build the buildings into the slope in order to minimize2 disturbance and to reduce the amount of clearing3 required around each building, which was of course4 consistent with the townships goal of limiting5 disturbance as much as possible. He confirmed that due6 to the distance from adjoining properties, our neighbors7 would be seeing the portions of the exposed foundations.8 Our architect, Larry Appel, added on July 31, 2024 on9 Page 132 and 202, that the increased foundation exposure10 eliminated the need to disturb more

e seeing the portions of the exposed foundations.8 Our architect, Larry Appel, added on July 31, 2024 on9 Page 132 and 202, that the increased foundation exposure10 eliminated the need to disturb more of the property, use11 additional retaining walls and add more mechanical12 ventilation, which would have also required grading of13 the property, he said, in an awkward manner. We agreed14 to screen those exposed portions with landscaping, green15 wall technology, and similar mechanisms. The record16 confirms that this was an aesthetics issue and that the17 granting of the Bulk C variance would be appropriate.18 The boards planner, Ms. Apte, in her testimony on19 October 29 of this year, noted that the settlement20 agreement recognizes at the time of settlement the21 project was not fully engineered and that it may become22 necessary to seek variance or other relief upon the full23 engineering of the site plan, except for use variances24 of course.25