September 17, 2025, Planning Board Special 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 25 101 as the Mayor of Essex Fells I can answer directly the question -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir. THE PUBLIC: -- the question, the testimony -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir. THE PUBLIC: -- to Mr. Plocker. MR. PLOCKER: No question. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Before disagreeing with the presentation, let's be presented with the documentation. Let's see the documentation first. THE PUBLIC: He made a statement before the board that I'm aware of personally, so I can testify to it. I could wait. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do you have the documentation with you, sir? THE PUBLIC: It's a matter of public record. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: When we see the public record you can testify. THE PUBLIC: Who's going to put that into the record? It's been misstated right here in front of you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, the documentation it's objective information. It either exists or it doesn't. If it does exist the board attorney will

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 evaluate it and then come to a conclusion based on the recorded documentation and then you can object to it or you can say your peace. But the board doesn't have any documentation to look at. It's like an expert testifying saying I didn't do a report, but I'm going to testify to something you don't have. THE PUBLIC: Mr. Plocker just testified to a legal matter to you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Correct. Mr. Plocker will provide that document. THE PUBLIC: He didn't say to you that basically we'll look at the record and we'll sort it out. He said this is a fact. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He said he's going to provide the documentation. THE PUBLIC: After he testified to the facts. MR. PLOCKER: All right. Mayor, if you have any issue with what I said, my phone line is open, my e-mail is open, tell me what I misstated for the record. I wasn't reading the document verbatim. I was giving a general characterization. It's a recorded document on file with the Essex County clerk and we will rely on its terms as stated. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Is there any objection to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 what he just said? THE PUBLIC: I'm happy to talk to Mr. Plocker off line, but we're also going to have conversations in front of the Planning Board so they understand the facts, both because he's referencing two different things. There's Oval Road obviously in West Orange. Right. Then from Howell Drive -- from Howell Drive to Eagle Rock Avenue. Second section. From Howell Drive to the border of Essex Fells, which has the fencing. Then there's Howell Drive and Essex Fells from the border of Essex Fells to Oval Lane in Essex Fells precisely. Easements governing them are not universal, they're different. So what he's referring to, which I take no issue with, it's not my issue, is he's talking about easements among private parties in West Orange. In addition he's not referencing the easement, the only easement that exists in Essex Fells is based on emergency access easement for fire and emergency vehicles. So to the board members point, the answer is, you can not have residential traffic go through there without the consent of Essex Fells. Yes, with the emergency access that's the only easement we have as a town. It's not, it's a private road, it's practically a driveway. So, again, it's an important point to understand. I'm talking about the Essex Fells side of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 West Orange. You guys are talking about something else. It's an important distinction. I don't know the witnesses point how that affects RSIS, but it absolutely legally clear you can confirm in the written record at the Essex County registers office that basically there is no residential access on Oval Road from West Orange and Essex Fells. Full stop. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So let's get the documentation and we'll have the board attorney evaluate it and then we'll have -- then you can present anything you want to present based on the documentation. MR. PLOCKER: And I don't necessarily disagree with Mayor Davis. I'm going to rely on the document itself and I agree that it is in writing, there may be different interpretations and if I was conflating the portion of Oval Road in West Orange and then the portion that goes into the Essex Fells, which is gated off, I did not mean to conflate them. But I believe that certain easements do reference both sides. They reference the private agreement the Mayor referred to, but it doesn't make sense for us to hash it out now if nobody can look at the document. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let's get the documentation. THE PUBLIC: Documentation is one thing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 105 Perhaps I can wait until the comment period, but what the board should be interested in, and I don't know the answer to it, but in the experts testimony he's talking about RSIS. It's unclear to me based on his testimony whether it's the fact that, if based on what we see, if what I'm saying is true, and residents can not access it, does it change his analysis of the cul-de-sac? THE WITNESS: It does not. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Say it again. What you're basically saying, in your opinion based on what you know, residents can't access that, it's only for emergency vehicles, is that correct? THE PUBLIC: Absolutely. MR. PLOCKER: And I just want to be clear for the record. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're asking the question, provide the documentation and our board attorney will evaluate it. Then we can have a reasonable discussion. MR. PLOCKER: And we will do that, but I just want to make crystal clear for the record, that if no resident access is allowed through the Essex Fells gate for emergency purposes, if that is both strictly prohibited, as the Mayor says, does the proposed project still comply with RSIS? THE WITNESS: It does because it provides 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 25 106 emergency access RSIS is seeking. MR. KLEIN: On Howell? THE WITNESS: On Howell and at Oval. MR. AFRAN: Howell and what? CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sir, gentlemen, ladies. Okay. So we're going to get documentation and then we're going to have more of a discussion. Thank you very much. MR. PLOCKER: Thank you Mayor. MR. AFRAN: Could I just ask -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. You just said it does permit emergency access at Howell and I couldn't hear the next name and I'm not sure it was transcribed on the record. THE WITNESS: So for the project itself we're RSIS compliant whether or not we have the Howell Road access, as I testified to. Because we have two points of access to Kuzik and Warner. So we are RSIS compliant with or without Howell. With regard to, you know, if you were to consider the existing Highlands against RSIS, which as I indicated the clarification does not require to do that, but the use of the emergency vehicles, of the emergency access for Essex Fells also obviates any

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 characterization as a cul-de-sac. So the same difference. It doesn't have to be open to public traffic. MR. AFRAN: I was just asking a question, you said there's emergency access at Howell and another road and I couldn't hear what you said. I'm just asking for the name of the other street. THE WITNESS: I said Oval. MR. AFRAN: Oval. Okay. Thank you. That's all I wanted. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alper. MR. ALPER: No, I'm done. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Wilkes. MR. WILKES: No questions. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Council Person Scarpa. COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah, just a quick question. Thank you for your testimony. Given that, given that affordable housing typically is built with accessibility to streets and amenities and the center of town, you said that the adjacent community has no sidewalks, no connecting sidewalks and you would want a de minimus exception. What is your rational for getting that exception? THE WITNESS: We are not asking for an

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 exception for anything off-site. We are not building anything off-site because it's not our property. So from that standpoint we are not looking for any exception for any off-site improvements. With regard to that connection down between the two properties, we have three sidewalks, so we have adequate sidewalks. There's three routes to connect down to the property line, which connect to the road system in the adjacent community. COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: And I just want to understand a little bit about the safety of the slope where the sidewalks are. I think you said the slope can run up to ten percent and is that a really steep slope? I have no concept of what that is. Is that dangerous for someone in a wheelchair? THE WITNESS: So a handicapped ramp runs at 8.3 percent. We've all seen a handicap ramp, so ten percent is a little steeper than that. But ADA basically says, and it reflects the fact that this country is ADA is nationwide. As mountainous areas have flat areas and so forth and it reflects that we build sidewalks like this adjacent to roads. So that's why it's considered ADA compatible. When you build a sidewalk that parallels and runs along a roadway, whether or not somebody can negotiate it with a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 wheelchair is really not the metrics. Where the wheelchair metrics come in is turning spaces at crosswalk areas. We made sure that there's a flat area where somebody can stop and wait to cross. There's the design of the handicapped ramp itself, which is exacting, it has to be at 8.3 percent of less and then there's the crossing itself. So those elements are where we pay particular attention, but in terms of connectivity along roadways, it can be running slope of the roadways. And then there's -- and that's not to say everything's ten percent. If you look at Mr. Anderson's plans it varies. We've got locations that are flat, we got depressed curbs, he's got five percent in some places and he's got flatter and obviously as you get into the parking lots and the buildings themselves, he has accessible routes and a traversable area. So the site has a lot of different features to it. COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: All right. I was just concerned because it seems like the site is not in place for the average person, especially a handicapped person, to navigate and get out to the various -- THE WITNESS: They certainly can navigate their day to day chores as per ADA requirements between parking spaces between buildings. And I would say there's really nothing here that's stopping the average

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 person from enjoying the environment that's being created without, as I indicated. One of the things Mr. Anderson chose to do is take the second sidewalk on Road D and run it directly between with a flatter slope so that both direct connection and something that wasn't running slope, but was more flat and enjoyable. So those features are present throughout the site for typical people that would live here. COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Mr. Cardoza, do you have any questions? MR. CARDOZA: No questions, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeill, do you have any questions? MR. MacNEILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one quick question. I do realize the plans are compliant with ADA requirements due to the roadway slope. But would, I guess maybe not your office, but the applicant be willing to work with our office to install additional handicapped ramps along some of the sidewalk areas that have higher slope? THE WITNESS: I think we indicated at the last meeting that there was some locations along Kuzik between the buildings that we thought would be