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 71 don't direct means and methods to contractors. THE PUBLIC: But they would ask you to give recommendations on the optimum method? THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. And we have a report here that's -- that provides suggested or, you know, the universe of methods that can be used. THE PUBLIC: And a follow-up to my colleagues question about the toxicity that could emanate from whatever modalities that are used during the construction. For example, the air pollution, what is the developers responsibility to control or contain the potential toxicity to the air and to the soil? THE WITNESS: Well, I'm sure there are state if not federal air pollution regulations that have to be complied with, which as I understand there's a developers agreement in place to comply with. MR. PLOCKER: Just for the record. Right now there's a settlement agreement, there's no developers agreement at this time. That's something that would typically happen in post approval. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Come right up, ma'am. THE PUBLIC: Quick question. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: State your name for 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 72 record. THE PUBLIC: Susan Pannullo, I am still within the 200-foot notice line. When, in your experience, when there's a situation of two very different opinions, one being things are safe, one being things are not safe, when there are different risk benefit analysis done, how is that usually settled out? How is that usually adjudicated and managed. THE WITNESS: Well, I would say that's probably done at the level of this board in this case, for example. We have our position and I understand that there's a position, a different position that's taken by Princeton Hydro. THE PUBLIC: So going back to a liability issue then, does that put liability on any board, does it, is it the responsibility of the public to be asking good questions to help everybody make decisions. How is that managed in your experience? MR. PLOCKER: Again, he didn't testify as to liability. It's not his job. THE PUBLIC: In your experience how is the situation usually managed then? Just to clarify for me. THE WITNESS: I can't -- THE PUBLIC: Two completely different

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 opinions, safe versus not safe. THE WITNESS: Well honestly, I don't typically encounter this. I don't know how Princeton arrived at the values they did and the statements they made. We are confident in our analysis that it's safe and will be safe. MR. PLOCKER: And your September 15 report was designed to address Princeton Hydro's testimony and comments, right? THE WITNESS: That's correct. THE PUBLIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Any other member of the public have any questions for Mr. Seel on his testimony? Please raise your hand and be identified. Any member have a question for Mr. Seel on his testimony? Please raise your hand and be identified. Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Seel. We're going to take a ten-minute break. (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.) CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We will come back ladies and gentlemen on zoom and in town hall. Now we have Mr. Plocker and his next expert.

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 MR. PLOCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The applicant would like to call Karl Pehnke. Should say recall Karl Pehnke. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Sir, you realize that you are still under oath? THE WITNESS: Yes. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And your license is still active in the State of New Jersey? THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Go right head, Mr. Plocker. Q. Thank you, Mr. Pehnke. At the last most recent meeting, testimony was given by the objectors traffic expert Mr. Litwornia, are you aware of that? A. Yes, I am. Q. Were you able to review his testimony -- A. Yes. Q. -- prior to the last meeting? A. Yes, I was. Q. And did you review the report Mr. Litwornia provided to the board? A. Yes, I did. Q. And are you prepared to offer testimony 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 75 comment on that report? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Please go ahead. A. Certainly. So at the last meeting Mr. Litwornia presented his findings, a report and slides that proffered several assertions with regard to this application that I think require correction and/or clarification. There's several broad categories that he touched on, but I think the first one is probably, first and foremost the most important one and it is the characterization and the determination of the circulation system within the site and how it is derived. Mr. Litwornia -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: One second, sir. Go right ahead. Thank you. A. Thank you. Mr. Litwornia is correct that the Residential Site Improvement Standards that are published by and governed by the DCA are the governing standards for this site. Under those standards Mr. Litwornia made, offered the, or proffered the opinion that the site circulation roadways of this project and it's circulation system would be categorized as a cul-de-sac and as a result based upon the cul-de-sac standards, and he actually mixed and matched the standards between a standard

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 cul-de-sac and a multifamily cul-de-sac, which are two different standards, but regardless, under those standards it would suggest in his opinion that it would limit the number of units that could be developed on this site. So let me first be clear on the Residential Site Improvement Standards and how they are applied. With regard to site improvement standards, if you read through the standards, the application of those standards start at the property line. They're clear in the actual report and in fact that is such an important element of the Residential Site Improvement Standards that on of the four clarifications maintained by DCA -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: One second, sir. Go right a head. (Pause for sirens.) A. That one of the clarifications on the DCA website, actually clarification 3, and I'm going to read it, specifically says that "The Residential Site Improvement Standards do not require that the developments built before the rules be improved to meet the standards." This is even true when a proposed development relies on an existing development for its street network. And then further it goes on to say that, "The ADT" which is what we use to calculate and

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 determine whether it's a residential access, minor or major access, "should be limited based on the ADT of the street segment that serves the proposed development. Not the ADT of the proposed and existing development." Mr. Litwornia inferred that that is true, he actually pointed to those very specifics but then he went on -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Can you explain what RSIS and ADT is to the public so everyone has an understanding? THE WITNESS: Sure. A. So RSIS is, Residential Site Improvement Standards, it's the regulations for design standards for residential developments throughout the State of New Jersey. ADT is basically Average Daily Traffic. It's an estimated calculation of the traffic generated by a use. But Mr. Litwornia went on to infer that regardless of that clarification and the written language in the regulation itself that there was something in RSIS that said, yeah, but if it's a big project or something other that you have to take that into account and that's absolutely not true. The standards are direct, clear, in black and white and the clarifiers are black and white. So going back to my testimony last year, this

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 project under the Residential Site Improvement Standards has three points of access. It connects at Warner Road, it connects at Kuzik and it has -- and it connects at Howell. Those are three points of access. Two of them are proposed to be controlled as emergency access. One, Howell, fully emergency access. Two, at the determination of this board, would be emergency access. As such the internal roadway systems are not a cul-de-sac, they're classified as a minor collector. And the design standards that were used by Mr. Anderson in designing the site meet the requirements as defined in the RSIS for the design of a minor collector road system. I would go on to indicate that Mr. Litwornia further started to discuss that you should take both sites together, which clearly RSIS does not require, and inferred that the existing Highlands area is actually a cul-de-sac. And that's actually not the case either. Oval Road has two points of access. It has the connection to Eagle Rock Road, which is used on a daily basis, and it also has an emergency access connection into Essex Fells by the extension of the emergency access easement that's enjoyed between the connection of Warner and over to the private road section in the easement that exists. So there are two points of access

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 along Oval Road, and the Highlands has two points of access to Oval. It has Bongart Drive and there's Barnard Road, which interconnects inside with its other connecting roadway system, Davey Drive, Kuzik Drive, all of that starts to make a multiple grid of streets that connect. So the existing Highlands would not be classified as a cul-de-sac. So the project as it stands is a system of roads that are, are characterized as minor access. Now, go on to say that there has been discussion through the year about Howell Drive and the emergency access connection. If you recall my testimony from over a year ago, I indicated that I believe that's a good component of this project. It's certainly supported by the IH zone and it will benefit not only the people that live in this community, but it will benefit the remaining portion of the community by providing another point of access for emergency services. However, I would note that quite frankly we don't need it. If that went away the only cul-de-sac that would be classified one the internal system would be Road D. Road D extending from the roundabout back to Building D would then be come a multifamily cul-de-sac. A multifamily cul-de-sac has a required ADT of no more than 1000 vehicles per day. Building D of 166 units would

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 generate about 776 vehicles per day below that standard and could stand alone without that emergency access. I am not advocating for the elimination of that access, I'm just pointing it out that we could live without it if this board so determined, but I think it is an advantage to both the community that it is being built as well as the existing community to maintain that. And to be clear, it's an emergency access. The fact is it will probably see some pedestrians, it'll see a snowplow. The likelihood that it'll ever see an emergency vehicle or any kind of traffic is very, very small. Just as the likelihood as the existing emergency access connection that people in this room may or may not know exists on Oval Road probably hasn't seen much more than a snowplow through the years. And that's the purpose of an emergency access. It's there if it's needed and can be used by emergency services however they need to respond. So that larger segment being said, which is most important, there's certainly no restriction on the number of units based upon RSIS on this site. Mr. Litwornia also went on to assert a few other things. He indicated that in his review of the plans, and he wasn't clear which plans he reviewed, that Mr. Anderson had violated the RSIS standard designs for