February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 109 to 112 of 154 28 of 68 sheets 109 Moreover, the township agreed that the1 applicant would be entitled to such minor relief as may2 be necessary to develop the subject property, that's at3 the settlement agreement Pages 11 and 12, Paragraph 3.1.4 In addition to bulk variance standards set5 forth in the land use law, testified to by our planner,6 John McDonough, on January 28, 2025, the applicable7 regulations require a towns cooperation with granting8 variance relief. Specifically, "Municipalities shall9 cooperate with developers of affordable housing10 developments in granting reasonable variances and11 waivers necessary to construct the affordable housing12 development. That's NJAC 597-10.3b.13 Again, this condition is aesthetic in nature14 and the applicant is committed to installing the15 appropriate screening.16 There's no substantial detriment resulting17 from this variance condition and it allows us to limit18 the disturbance and clearance of the property.19 The minimum buffer is 100 feet. We comply.20 The east face of the Watchung Mountain shall remain21 undisturbed from the peak of the ridge line, except that22 utility construction shall be permitted east of the23 ridge line. I'm not going to use any demonstrative24 exhibits, but I think I have an explanation that25 110 explains it quite carefully. I will give the board an1 opportunity to go back in the next week and review the2 site plan.3 First, the building layout for all4 buildings, including Building D, is substantially5 consistent with the location of the buildings shown on6 the concept plan attached to the settlement agreement,7 which is what was required. Obviously, the plan as I8 said was not fully engineered at the time of the concept9 plan, that's the definition. Concept plans are not10 fully engineered. The settlement agreement recognized11 that, so the precise layout, orientation, shape of the12 buildings have changed. That is not unusual for those13 differences to happen between concept phase and a fully14 engineered site plan. They're all in the same area of15 disturbance contemplated by the site plan and neither16 the board nor the boards professionals during the past17 two years since the application was filed, have called18 the building placement into question.19 With respect to Building D. As required by20 the ordinance it's not located on the

ls during the past17 two years since the application was filed, have called18 the building placement into question.19 With respect to Building D. As required by20 the ordinance it's not located on the eastern slope and21 the application complies with the ordinance. Again,22 neither the board nor it's professionals throughout this23 entire public process questioned whether the building24 placement violated the requirement that we stay west of25 111 the Lenny Line. Mr. Kleinberg confirmed numerous times1 in his testimony that the building is not proposed to be2 on the slope. He was clear. The concept plan attached3 to the settlement agreement and the site plan both show4 that line, the Lenny Line, that we need to stay west of.5 The line is shown on the overall grading plan, which is6 sheet SP-11. It's not hard to find and follow. It's a7 hashed line, it's a bit darker than the topographic8 lines that it traverses. It starts along the northern9 property boundary to the north of the roundabout by10 Building D, and just west of the emergency access to11 Howell Drive. It initially travels in an east-southeast12 direction north of the building, after which it turns to13 the south and generally follows the eastern face of the14 building before heading in a southerly direction where15 it ends at our property line just to the north of the16 Bakley Terrace cul-de-sac. To see a blown up image of17 that line as it runs along Building D, which I encourage18 you to do, look at Sheet SP-17 for the northern portion19 of the building and Sheet SP-16 for the southern20 portion. The blowups are important, they more clearly21 show Building D in fact complies with the ordinance22 requirement by staying west of the line, but they do23 something else. They show the flatter ground to the24 east of the line but prior to the actual slope, which25 112 you could see further to the east where the topographic1 lines all kind of start to crowd together. They get2 extremely close indicating the steep slope over to the3 east. By taking a close look it's not -- it is obvious4 that this was not some arbitrary line. It meanders from5 north to south and you can see that it basically follows6 the midpoint of this generally flat area, so that there7 is relatively flat ground to the east, which we're not8 permitted to build on. The equivalent of a buffer9 between the Lenny Line and the actual

he midpoint of this generally flat area, so that there7 is relatively flat ground to the east, which we're not8 permitted to build on. The equivalent of a buffer9 between the Lenny Line and the actual slope. Even where10 the pinch point, which has been referred to several11 times is located, where it's about 7 feet from the line,12 it is not 7 feet from the slope. There is still13 approximately 20 to 30 feet where the ground actually14 ascends a bit before the topo lines get very close15 together and the slope starts. This was also recognized16 by Mr. Kleinberg during his testimony. Whether it was17 intentional or not, there was a clear misconception by18 many people who attended these hearings by claiming we19 were building only 7 feet from the slope. That is20 clearly not the case. The line was a negotiated line,21 the requirement was that we needed to stay west of it,22 which we do. And there's no development or disturbance23 proposed on the eastern slope. We comply with that24 ordinance requirement.25