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 25 121 THE WITNESS: For the site specifically the connection at the end of D, Building D to Howell would be emergency access gated controlled, and subject to the approval of this board, Kuzik would be emergency access gated and controlled. MR. AFRAN: And what point would Kuzik -- I mean Kuzik seems to on the plan basically connect through and swings around through B, C, H, D, what point would Kuzik be gated when you have the boards decision? THE WITNESS: You'd basically gate it at driveway A by the, by the animal shelter. MR. AFRAN: Okay. So right near the animal shelter, that'd probably be gated? THE WITNESS: It would be gated there, right. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Do any members of the public have any questions of Mr. Pehnke on his testimony? Please come up and be identified. You have three minutes, sir. THE PUBLIC: Victor Misarti, Mayfair Drive. I have a question, I really don't understand why this is not a whole development cul-de-sac. Okay. So you're saying, could I borrow that site plan. So I'm just

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 122 looking at the site plan that Mr. Anderson put together, and my question is this, that the, you know, this whole development goes into Warner Road and then goes into Oval Road and then to Eagle Rock and there's that one entrance and exit. So my question is that access, emergency access point that goes into Essex Fells is so close to Eagle Rock, I mean it's not like it's on the far end, it's right there. So it's still, you know, even from the point of the access road it seems like the whole things a cul-de-sac. So my question is, I don't understand? THE WITNESS: Yeah, I respect that and the fact is the way RSIS has chosen to establish these standards recognizes and -- recognizes that emergency vehicle access is required at a certain level and there was some selectivity in that decision making but the fact that, that an emergency access is provided to Howell, the emergency access exists out to Essex Fells under the standards that are developed obviate the definition of the site being a cul-de-sac, because there's more than one point of access for the freedom of emergency vehicle movement. That's just the definition that's been chosen and established in the Residential Site Improvements Standards. So with that, as I said, while it's not applicable because in terms of this site

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 and its design, our measurement against RSIS starts at our property line and we clearly have three points of access. We have Kuzik, we have Warner and we have Howell and RSIS applies to our track. If you were to say for some reason, as Mr. Litwornia supposed that the Highlands project was being built today under RSIS it also wouldn't be characterized as a cul-de-sac because of the emergency access that exists. So that basically is how RSIS is established. THE PUBLIC: Okay. So like you're saying it doesn't matter if Oval Road and then an access road into Essex Fells are right next to each other, it doesn't matter, they would meet the requirement? THE WITNESS: That's correct. THE PUBLIC: Okay. And then the question is, you said that if Oval Road, where it comes out to Eagle Rock, if it needs a traffic signal it does not need to be interconnected with Laurel Avenue? THE WITNESS: No, so let's be clear. There's to if involved. There will be a traffic signal there and there will be intersection improvements there constructed by this developer associated with this project. That is our obligation. Associated with that

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 124 the signal will be coordinated with the signal at Laurel and we've analyzed for that. And in fact it'll actually be some improvements at Laurel too, because we'll be extending the length of the left turn lane there. So there's a section of widening at Eagle Rock Avenue, there's the traffic signal and the signal will operate as an offset to the traffic signal at Laurel Avenue. THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other members of the public have questions? Please come up and be identified. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Good evening. Seth Weisleder, Howell Drive. I know we focus a lot on Oval and the other side coming back to Howell and that emergency access. Were the interconnecting roads to the emergency access evaluated and could that support emergency vehicles? So we're talking about Howell not going straight down Howell, because that goes into Verona, but Howell cuts over to Slayback and down to Cunningham. So while the agreement or whatever was done with Oval and supporting those roadways, we have a neighborhood here in its current condition, could emergency, could that road support heavy emergency vehicles over and over again depending on what emergency it might or might not

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 be? THE WITNESS: Absolutely. The existing residential community is designed to accommodate the types of vehicles that may go in there, which include emergency vehicles. You know, as any residential community is. Again, this is a very infrequent scenario. THE PUBLIC: Well, correct. But did you evaluate those roads and its current condition today and could it support it? THE WITNESS: Yes, the community exists. It already has service by emergency vehicles and it's just extending into this site. So there's a design for that. Residential communities -- this community is being serviced by the same emergency vehicles that the existing communities are being serviced by. THE PUBLIC: Correct. But you're talking about a bigger development and a high-rise building now, four stories, where this is a single family unit home, so wouldn't you need more additional emergency vehicles to tend to an emergency? THE WITNESS: No. I mean, emergency vehicle activity on a site like this is a rarity, if it occurs at all. Again, you're not talking about daily activity. You're talking about providing the connection that is

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 there in case the main route is not available. So the fact is for the most part it will probably never get used. THE PUBLIC: Fair enough. You mentioned in your testimony tonight that it was going to be a 16 foot paved road or were there other plans to make it more neighborhood friendly, maybe a permeable grass paver system, a grass feed, as they call it, or is that going to be a paved road? THE WITNESS: It's a -- THE PUBLIC: I thought I heard different things throughout different testimony, maybe it's my imagination. THE WITNESS: It's a paved road, stabilized to handle the emergency vehicles. THE PUBLIC: Could a grass street handle emergency vehicles and look more friendly in the neighborhood? THE WITNESS: It's been done, but the proposal is for it to be a properly designed and stabilized so that it can be maintained correctly over time. So while that is always an option that is not the proposal. THE PUBLIC: Okay. And my last question is, which I don't know

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 127 because you're an expert, does RSIS have standards in terms of the amount of time emergency vehicles need to reach a community? Are there any kind of like time standards that RSIS has for emergency vehicles to reach certain destinations. THE WITNESS: There are not. THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Do any other members of the community have a question? MR. AFRAN: I have a follow-up question. Mr. Pehnke, I just want to clarify your view as to whether this is or is not a cul-de-sac. The plan your clients proposing tied into the existing development. Now, is it your view that as proposed, assuming you get the access road you want, is this or is this not a cul-de-sac under RSIS? THE WITNESS: It is not a cul-de-sac. MR. AFRAN: Now, in your judgment what would turn it into a cul-de-sac under RSIS? THE WITNESS: For it to be a cul-de-sac you wouldn't physically construct the Kuzik Road connection and you wouldn't physically construct Howell Road. So if you had only Warner Road coming into the site then it would be a multifamily cul-de-sac subject to the 1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 128 vehicle per day limitation as I just described for Road D. MR. AFRAN: So in other words, if you don't have the right of emergency access ultimately then this is a cul-de-sac under RSIS, is that correct? MR. PLOCKER: Objection. THE WITNESS: That's not what's proposed. MR. AFRAN: I didn't ask what's proposed, I asked a simple question. THE WITNESS: But we're not proposing -- MR. AFRAN: Why don't you follow my question, please. Not your question, my question. THE WITNESS: Because the plan before this board -- MR. AFRAN: Why don't you listen to the question and answer a straight question. If you don't have the right to the emergency access roads that you propose, isn't it true that this project would be a cul-de-sac under RSIS? MR. PLOCKER: I want to clarify the question. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker. MR. PLOCKER: Because Mr. Pehnke testified to two emergency access points if the board grants the RSIS exception for Kuzik. Is your question, if there's

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 -- if Kuzik is open and there's no emergency access at Howell? Can you clarify, just so we have a clear record. When you say, emergency access if it wasn't allowed or it was not permitted. Can you just be clear which points you were referring to when you asked your question. MR. AFRAN: With respect, my question was crystal clear. I simply said, if you do not get the emergency access at right that you propose in this current development, would this development be a cul-de-sac under RSIS? MR. PLOCKER: Which road are you referring to, Bruce? MR. AFRAN: My question is -- MR. PLOCKER: It's a very easy question. MR. AFRAN: My question stands. I think the witness is experienced enough to understand what I'm asking. THE WITNESS: The answer is, not necessarily. Because your other alternative, if your only access is Warner Road, would be to build Warner Road as a Boulevard, which is an RSIS option which provides the emergency access. It just provides it on the other side of a median island. So you can provide what in effect what you're providing with connection 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 25 130 Kuzik and Howell right at Warner Road starting at our property line and develop it as a Boulevard. So that is an option. MR. AFRAN: Developing a Boulevard on what property? THE WITNESS: On our property. The characterization starts at our property line. MR. AFRAN: Why haven't you done that? THE WITNESS: The plan is as proposed. MR. AFRAN: I asked a question. Why hasn't it been done to avoid this entire question? THE WITNESS: That's a supposition. I don't have an answer for that. MR. PLOCKER: Why hasn't what been done? Can you just clarify. MR. AFRAN: Mr. Plocker, my questions are -- MR. PLOCKER: Bruce. MR. AFRAN: -- not habitually unclear. MR. PLOCKER: Bruce, I did not hear the question. Can you please repeat the question as a curtesy. MR. AFRAN: That is a different issue. MR. PLOCKER: Thank you. MR. AFRAN: Why haven't you built Warner Road on your segment of this property as a Boulevard and