March 4, 2026, Planning Board Regular Meeting - WEHI Transcript

3 of 54 sheets Page 9 to 12 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 9 board can either grant approval on the condition that1 the site plans be revised or the application changed2 prior to signing the site plan to comply with the3 ordinance provisions. Or the board can adjourn the4 hearing to permit the applicant the opportunity to5 revise the plans or change the application to comply6 with the ordinance provisions at issue prior to the7 board granting approval.8 Fundamental elements of a development plan9 must be feasible for preliminary approval. While10 N.J.S.A.40:55D-46a allows site plan engineering,11 architectural plans required to be submitted for12 preliminary approval to be in tentative form for13 discussion purposes. The board cannot grant preliminary14 approval subject to the latter submission of additional15 information which is fundamental to an essential element16 of a development plan. The reason is, because of the17 time of preliminary review the board is under an18 obligation to deal with matters vital to the public19 health and welfare and the four fundamental and20 essential elements of a development plan which may be21 found to be feasible prior to the grant of preliminary22 approval are; stormwater management and drainage, sewage23 disposal, water supply and traffic circulation. And24 that is cited in the case of D'Anna v. Washington25 10 Township Planning Board, 256 NJ Super 78. Appellate1 Division 1992. Certification denied l30 NJ18-1992,2 which cited Field v. Franklin Township 190 NJ Super 326.3 Field was subsequently cited with approval by another4 case Ten Stary Dom v. Mauro 216 NJ16. If information5 and or plans related to the fundamental and essential6 elements of the development plan have not been submitted7 to the board in sufficient detail for the board to find8 them feasible as part of the preliminary site plan9 review period process, approval must be denied.10 Final approval. The board cannot grant11 final approval subject to later submission of the12 required detailed drawings and specifications because13 they are required to be submitted ahead of time pursuant14 to N.J.S.A.40:55D-50a, see also N.J.S.A.40:55D-4, which15 defines final approval.16 As the action of the board taken after all17 conditions, engineering plans and other requirements18 have been completed or fulfilled, if the board is19 comfortable with delegating review and

proval.16 As the action of the board taken after all17 conditions, engineering plans and other requirements18 have been completed or fulfilled, if the board is19 comfortable with delegating review and approval20 authority over revisions to plans to it's engineering21 expert, the board can grant final approval subject to22 the conditions requiring provisions of the plans to be23 reviewed and approved by the board engineering expert.24 Provided however delegation of authority for review and25 11 approval is not a grant of unbridle power to the expert1 to approve or deny an approval. And that's cited in2 Lionel Appliance Center v. Citta 156 NJ Super 257, which3 is a law division case.4 Also as held by the court in Shakoor Markets5 v. Old Bridge Planning Board 420 NJ Super 193, "The MLUL6 contemplates that a land use board will retain7 professional consultants to assist in reviewing and8 evaluating development applications. And using such9 professional consultants to review and evaluate revised10 plans was well within the scope of service anticipated11 by the applicable statutes. Significantly it must be12 the board and not any consultant that exercise the13 authority to approve the application.14 Findings and conclusions as to the essential15 elements of the proposed plan.16 As noted in case law that I already cited17 there are four specific areas in the case law that have18 been cited as areas that you have to review and be19 satisfied that the plans submitted are feasible. I'm20 going to add a fifth category because there was21 questions about the geotechnical situation here, which22 is unique to this piece of property.23 So first, the board has to look at24 stormwater management and the drainage. In addition to25 12 the plans submitted and the expert reports that have1 been submitted, there was also testimony from the2 applicants engineer, Paul Anderson, on July 30, 2024.3 With respect to the objector, they submitted an4 engineering expert report and they had testimony from5 their expert, Sean Walsh, on February 26, 2025. And6 then the boards engineer, John Rizzo -- oh, Jordan Rizzo7 of CME gave testimony on October 22, 2025. I only point8 out these dates in the transcripts because it's a lot of9 dates. We had a lot of meetings, just to help the board10 if you want to go back and look at a transcript if this11 helps you to locate something that you want to

he transcripts because it's a lot of9 dates. We had a lot of meetings, just to help the board10 if you want to go back and look at a transcript if this11 helps you to locate something that you want to take a12 look at.13 Sewage disposal. The applicant provided14 testimony from Paul Anderson on July 30, 2024. The15 objectors provided expert testimony from Sean Walsh on16 February 26, 2026 and William Green, PE, on July 30,17 2025. Board engineer, Ryan MacNeill of CME provided18 testimony on October 22, 2025.19 Water supply. Applicants expert Paul20 Anderson, provided testimony, and this is all in21 addition to the plans that were submitted in the expert22 reports, on July 30, 2024. The objectors engineer,23 William Green, provided testimony on July 30, 2025.24 Traffic circulation and safety. Applicants25