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 25 131 avoid the whole issue? THE WITNESS: I can't answer that question. This plans developed over many years with the input of the municipality, various agreements that have been developed. So there's a lot that has gone into developing this plan that is outside of my involvement. MR. AFRAN: That's a fair answer. Let me clarify, in your judgment if you do have the emergency access roads that you're seeking you could avoid the RSIS cul-de-sac problem in your judgment by making Warner Road a Boulevard, is that correct? THE WITNESS: That would be an option, yes. MR. AFRAN: Okay. And if that were not done and you don't have the emergency access that you're proposing you are in a cul-de-sac under RSIS, isn't that correct? THE WITNESS: If you have a singular point of access, that would be correct. MR. AFRAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. MR. PLOCKER: Would that include -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Would that include if Kuzik was open to traffic? THE WITNESS: No, that would be a second

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 132 means of access. MR. PLOCKER: Thank you. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any other member of the public have any questions for Mr. Pehnke on his testimony? Please come up and be identified. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive. And I just have two questions. The first one is, you - oh, you said that it's not an if, that there definitely will be impacted on Oval, my question was, does, does the developer own Oval Road and Eagle Rock and the land on either side because it seems like it's still an end unless somethings changed and we're not aware of? THE WITNESS: The requirement is for the developer to build the signal and improvements at Oval and Eagle. It's in the agreements. It's the intent to do it. It falls within the jurisdiction of Essex County and it's part of the application -- part of an application in Essex County. THE PUBLIC: Okay. But yet as far as you know that deal hasn't been granted yet, so it's still an if? THE WITNESS: It's not an if because it's 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 25 133 requirement. THE PUBLIC: For Essex County to -- THE WITNESS: For this developer to develop this property. THE PUBLIC: Okay. And then my other question was, you keep -- you said a couple times that in the very, very rare event of an emergency, very, very rare event of an emergency, so then I guess you would be unaware that quite a few years now we've had major multiple alarm emergencies up in that very area that has actually closed it down and required the emergency access to be opened. So maybe it isn't such a rare occurrence like you stated? THE WITNESS: It happens and I've heard that before, yes. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. I'm sorry. MR. AFRAN: I have a follow-up question. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran. MR. AFRAN: If opening -- if using Kuzik as a proper road would it also be a way to avoid the RSIS cul-de-sac problem, then why isn't that being proposed as part of this development, do you know? THE WITNESS: Well, it is. Kuzik Road 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 25 134 proposed as part of this development. MR. AFRAN: Well, if it's an emergency access road and you don't get -- you don't get the rights of that, you're suggesting Kuzik is being proposed as part of this development? CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker. MR. PLOCKER: For the record, Mr. Chairman and everybody. The site plan that is on file, the site plan for which we're seeking approval, has Kuzik open for regular use for normal traffic. We have asked for an RSIS exception at the request of the West Essex Highlands Condominium Association as reflected in the settlement agreement. As Mr. Pehnke testified and as was recognized at the time we made the agreement, if that exception is granted, great. If not our development works both ways for traffic purposes as per Mr. Pehnke's testimony. It really is at the -- up to this board whether to grant it. Does it affect the overall site plan, the development of the project whether it is granted or not. No. MR. AFRAN: What does the settlement -- THE WITNESS: I would like to clarify one thing. While we filed for the agreement for an exception, this board does not really need to process an exception. You have a right as a planning body 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 25 135 control the access, RSIS does not control the format and I think the example I gave when I testified last is this board and this applicant could've proposed to make it a gated community with car access for residents and emergency vehicles and a call in button. So putting a gate across Kuzik really does not rise to the need for a de minimus exception. We have filed for it but the board can just make a finding of fact that they can -- so I just wanted to clarify that for the record. MR. AFRAN: Is there a right of the developer to actually open Kuzik as a road and access the condos? MS. MCGOVERN: Yes. I'm looking at the ordinance. MR. AFRAN: I'm not asking about the ordinance. I'm asking about the question of -- MS. MCGOVERN: 25-19 Section E, bulk regulations number 5. Unrestricted site access. Egress and ingress shall be permitted from Warner Drive and Kuzik Drive. MR. AFRAN: I'm not asking that. I understand that. What in the settlement agreement was Mr. Plocker referring to when he was referring to the granting of trying to grant the request of the development?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 136 MR. PLOCKER: And thank you for the clarification and I have a clarification for you in connection with your question, but I was referring to the settlement agreement in that we will seek Kuzik to be open, which is what the site plan, to normal traffic, which is what is proposed on the site plan. I was referring to the settlement agreement our obligation vis-a-vis the Condominium Association to seek the closure of Kuzik to regular traffic and to have it available for emergency access only. MR. AFRAN: So you're saying you're obligated not to have an open road at Kuzik? CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: No, that's not what he said. MR. PLOCKER: That's not what I said. MR. AFRAN: Well, you're obligated to seek the closure you said. MR. PLOCKER: Well, right. But if the board doesn't grant it then Kuzik is open, which is what the site plan proposes. MR. AFRAN: So your position then is if Kuzik is open, you have no cul-de-sac under RSIS? MR. PLOCKER: That's Mr. Pehnke's area. THE WITNESS: Under either condition, whether it's open or closed, it's a point of access for

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 137 emergency vehicles regardless. MR. AFRAN: So in other words, that's the basis in which you say it's not regulated by RSIS? THE WITNESS: That's correct. MR. AFRAN: Okay. THE WITNESS: Or is regulated by RSIS -- MR. AFRAN: No, I don't mean that. I mean as a cul-de-sac. THE WITNESS: Correct. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. I thought this was important to clarify, I don't know I agree, but I thought we never had a clear statement of these issues and I think it was important to clarify. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other member of the public have any question for Mr. Pehnke? Please come up, identify yourself. You have three minutes. THE PUBLIC: Gilda Paul, Howell Drive. So at an earlier meeting I asked the question about what emergency access meant to Howell Drive and did it mean, you know, ambulance and fire trucks or did it mean 800 or 900 cars that are coming out of that development going, you know, past my house and I was told, I thought by one of the board members but I could be wrong, 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 25 138 that had not been determined and it would be determined at a later date and was some how under the impression, and this could be on me, that there would be discussion in open forum about it before that was determined. So my question is, when was this decided? MS. MCGOVERN: About Kuzik? THE PUBLIC: You know, about Howell Drive and the -- and it being open to traffic. MS. MCGOVERN: It's in the ordinance that was adopted in 2020. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: It's open to emergency vehicles. THE PUBLIC: Right. No, emergency vehicles I understood. But he's talking about using it as an access road if needed for the development, which is 800 or 900 cars going past my house, not emergency vehicles. MS. MCGOVERN: The ordinance allows Kuzik Road -- THE PUBLIC: I don't know what you're talking about, Kuzik Road, I live on Howell. MS. MCGOVERN: Howell Drive is also in the ordinance as an option for an emergency entrance. THE PUBLIC: I understand that, but I asked -- MS. McGOVERN: And that was adopted in 2020.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139 THE PUBLIC: I asked what emergency entrance meant, that was my question. And I was told that, that had not been determined. So somewhere between then and now I guess it was determined, and I am curious what happened? CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ma'am, we haven't gotten there yet. We haven't heard testimony to that. You're talking about this as an emergency exit. The testimony was, correct me if I'm wrong, fire, ambulance. THE PUBLIC: Am I wrong, I'm sorry. Let's ask him. THE WITNESS: It's available for emergency services, which generally means fire, ambulances, police. But it is an emergency access and if there's something that occurs that the termination of the emergency services needs to use it for emergency purposes that includes some other evacuation route, they have that option. Will that happen, I don't know. It certainly is not something you're going to see on a -- it would have to be something extreme. THE PUBLIC: So if a tree falls along Oval like it did before -- THE PUBLIC: Not necessarily. It would not necessarily be that type of an event. THE PUBLIC: Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 140 THE WITNESS: I mean, a tree can be cleared within on an hour, two hours, so no. I would say, no. I would say the type of event that would truly need the emergency services would be an involvement of the decision of the administration would only result if there was some closure of the route for an extended period of time being days, not a period of hours. THE PUBLIC: So is it, I want to make sure, is that the final word or -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Final word is up to emergency services of the Township of West Orange. THE PUBLIC: Okay. So the impression I got last time, I guess -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Not going to be regular traffic. In the case of a catastrophic threat, and they would have to define what that means, we talked about definitions, so leave that to the emergency services department, police, fire and ambulance for the Township of West Orange. THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You're welcome. Any other questions? Please come up. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. Deborah Butensky, The Grande, West Orange.