September 3, 2025 Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript - WEHI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 concerns about the emergency access that you outlined in your report? THE WITNESS: Well, my specific concern about the lots are that subconnection can be reviewed without counting the existing traffic, which is an interesting point. So if that can happen the question is what volume would you limit it to and you limit it then to the cul-de-sac with a -- a cul-de-sac with a single way in or out and multifamily unit and you have a thousand feet length that you can use as a maximum. MR. ALPER: So can these -- is the cul-de-sac, the 15 feet also defined as a -- is a cul-de-sac also a minor collector or are those separate categories of roads? THE WITNESS: I call it a separate category. And the reason being is that you can have that -- it has to have one way in and out. And a collector can have two -- has two ways. One on either side of the road. Either end. You come to a T-intersection you can make a right or a left on the collector. So you go a thousand feet down, you come to a stop sign and then you can make a left or a right. Now, that theoretically is basically like a loop roadway which is what the applicant has done. But when you loop -- all the loops you do, all the loops you have, when you finish the loops you still

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 come out to the one location and one big cul-de-sac, no matter how you look at it. And the one road gets blocked nobody can get in or out. MR. ALPER: And if it's a cul-de-sac it has a lower number of units that it can support? THE WITNESS: Well, that cul-de-sac may have -- usually they have units on it. I don't know if it does not have units, if it doesn't have any units, it could be a thousand -- a thousand foot limitation. MR. ALPER: Right. I'm asking about on your slides, on Page 9 of your slides, you talk about the RSIS limits and number of units that a cul-de-sac can support, which I don't know if you spoke about, but it's in your prepared materials. MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, I just note that we didn't use the slides at the Chairs request because you wanted to avoid duplication. However, it may be useful to use this one slide if the board member believes there's information that should be addressed. MR. ALPER: I think I can ask the question if the witness can refer to the information on it. The slide is saying that RSIS, according to RSIS and the math that you produced here, that 496 units is more than a cul-de-sac can support? CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do you have a copy of the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 slide so we can have it? MS. McGOVERN: Number 11. Page 11. Right? MR. AFRAN: It's Page 9. It's in front of the witness. MS. McGOVERN: Thank you. MR. ALPER: So I guess I'm curious if you can explain A, the numbers you're showing here and based on that what you think can be supported. And B, if it's not a cul-de-sac and it is a minor collector, what the numbers would be? MR. AFRAN: Could we, just since we're addressing the slide and nobody can see it except us, could we please put that one page on the screen. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Can you put that one slide up? MR. AFRAN: Okay. For the record then, the slide is now on the screen. That's Page 9 of the PDF. That's Page 9 of Exhibit O-28A. I'm sorry Mr. Alper, could you repeat your question. I interrupted you to get the slide up. MR. ALPER: Sure. I guess what I'm getting at is the slide is saying that if Warner Road is considered a cul-de-sac that only 188 units would be supported by a cul-de-sac and there are already more

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 than 188 units in that location. So I guess I'm hoping A, you can explain that a little bit better. And B, if it's not a cul-de-sac, if it is considered a minor collector by whoever the ultimate authority is that decides if it is a cul-de-sac or it is a collector, what number of allowable units would be in that case? Because it seems to be important. THE WITNESS: Well, what happens is no matter which way you do it, whatever you call it, it's still a cul-de-sac because all the buildings together still come out of the cul-de-sac. There's only way out and in. MR. ALPER: So even if it were a much bigger road, if it were much wider and had a divider in the middle and could carry many more vehicles, because there's no second exit it would still be a cul-de-sac and would still be limited to 188 units or am I not understanding that? THE WITNESS: So basically you can hold more units if you make it a higher scale roadway. But the thing is, no matter how big you make it, the roadway, you have to make it big scale roadway. If you made it a big boulevard all the way from the, the end of the existing road all the way out that would work. Except that you'd have to demolish a lot of homes to form the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 boulevard, so you couldn't do it. If you were doing this because you had a planned development and you planned on putting a boulevard through then you could be able -- you'd be able to work it out the way you said. MR. ALPER: Okay. THE WITNESS: But now -- it's past the point of no return. MR. ALPER: And I think that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. THE WITNESS: And I think I can -- one other thing. MR. AFRAN: Well, wait. The witness was saying something. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry, Mr. Litwornia. Go right ahead, sir. THE WITNESS: The other thing is, if in fact, if in fact you had a planned development and you put the road in before that you'd be able to have all -- have -- most of the plan points revolve, the problems, revolve around the cul-de-sac and the one access and entrance point. The whole project could be redesigned, you know, it occurred in the first planned development, so that when the developer was finishing it off or beginning it, it would be able to say he's going to use

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 the back or use dividing access points or right-of-way for the municipality or for himself, the private road, so that the roads could be designed according to the normal planning book. But by leaving out the design and leaving out the connectivity and creating one big cul-de-sac, he created the necessity for going through other properties to, whether they're his or the condominiums, there's no argument about it. Because the Residential Site Improvement Standards call for the identification of all the right-of-ways and other things as part of the survey map. Or a Township map and we asked for a Township map to see what -- where they stand and there is no Township map. So it's supposed to be located on the Township map and it's not there. It's supposed to have a survey that lists all the ownerships to know if the ownership agree with the project or a part of it or not. And there's no specificity. So there's just so many things missing that I didn't go into the exact detailing you normally go in the finished plan. I didn't look for guide rails around detention basins. Guide rails next to slopes that are over three to one. I didn't look at a lot of those things because there's so many of them that it just didn't make sense. MR. ALPER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 Mr. Cardoza, do you have any questions for Mr. Litwornia on his testimony. MR. CARDOZA: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Litwornia for your expert testimony, for your presentation and submissions to the board. I guess the first thing is it's been some time since we discussed the specifics of the site plan. In the beginning, and I don't have the benefit of my previous notes here, you made allusions to, or said several times a lot of things are missing from the site plan. Did you evaluate -- do you know what that was dated, the site plan that you worked off of? Because I believe we discussed some of those elements in prior meetings, so I'm just wondering. THE WITNESS: That show up on -- I didn't really look at that, normally I do, sorry. MR. CARDOZA: Okay. MR. AFRAN: You need the microphone. THE WITNESS: Okay. We used the one that was on the electronic website from the municipality. MR. CARDOZA: What website would that be? THE WITNESS: We used the ones that were on file from the municipality. MR. AFRAN: I think he's referring to -- MR. CARDOZA: Filed from the municipality?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 MR. AFRAN: I think he's referring to the Planning Board website. MR. PLOCKER: There are two on file with the board, just for the record. One originally and then I believe the last revision date was this past October, to reflect the improvements. MR. AFRAN: Mr. Chairman, I would say that maybe a factual question could resolve, if there were changes that addressed what Mr. Litwornia said would be resolved by that at a later time. It may not be fruitful to try do that, I'm not criticizing the question. THE WITNESS: Well, I could clarify that. We just looked at the slope. Mr. Green looked at it and he said he used the -- there are two on file from the municipality, he said he looked at both of them. MR. CARDOZA: He looked both. Okay. So, you know, my concern is when you're stating things on this end are you basing that off the last recently updated plans, which I believe Mr. Plocker you can confirm are issued with several suggestions from the board. MR. PLOCKER: From the board. Obviously we've been through several hearings by October and we were also on the precipice of or had received the DEP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 permits, it might have been before, slightly, but because of the change in certain designs of the stormwater system which wound up ultimately getting approved by the DEP, we thought that the correct plans that were with the DEP that the site plan for this application should reflect it so the board would have the most up to date information. MR. CARDOZA: Okay. Thank you. So, again, to confirm, I'm sorry Mr. Litwornia, I want to drill down on this. So many of the, all of the numbers you presented here, your evaluation is based off of the most recent site plan dated October or -- THE WITNESS: Most recent one on file. MR. CARDOZA: Most recent one on file. So -- but I just want to make certain that any representations in your submission to the board did not -- were not based off the previous if -- well, they could be based off previously submitted site plans but if those, if anything that's commented on subsequently updated, I want to know if that's the case, that you evaluated the most up to date site plan? THE WITNESS: I understand what you're saying, but I dont have the dates. MR. CARDOZA: Okay.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 THE WITNESS: They're in the report. MR. CARDOZA: Okay. Perhaps when the boards experts evaluate it they could make adjustments. Okay. Thank you. Specifically when it comes to trip generation, those numbers, I believe the representation from Mr. Afran was, those numbers were initially presented by the applicant and you evaluated based on that? THE WITNESS: We used the last one. MR. CARDOZA: Okay. THE WITNESS: And the latest ones that are on file show that we xeroxed and put it attached to the report, which shows the steep slopes that occur and some of the sight triangle distances that are problematic. MR. CARDOZA: I'm sorry, I lost -- what was xeroxed? MR. AFRAN: No. We can see it on here you can't actually. I think the question you're asking was whether or not the trip calculation numbers, where did they come from. Is that -- MR. CARDOZA: To a certain extent, yes. MR. AFRAN: Okay. I'm just trying to help. MR. CARDOZA: Another way to state it. MR. AFRAN: So in other words --