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 91 It's more of a layout issue. And there's two standards for a cul-de-sac. There's one where you're doing a residential subdivision serving single family homes and the ADT limitation on that is 250 trips for one point of access. The other is what they call a multifamily cul-de-sac, which I just described Road D would be if limited it to Howell. And in that, for some reason, RSIS allows up to a 1000 trips. Same issue, same number of units in there, same number of people or more people obviously, just two different standards. But RSIS does say that what obviates a cul-de-sac is if you have another means of access for the free movement of emergency vehicles and one of the options that they offer, which is often done, not ideally, but often done, is what they call a Boulevard. You separate the inbound and the outbound, you make both wide and the theory is if a tree falls across one side emergency vehicles can still go up and down the other side. What's been done over the years is, as an alternative to that and better design, is just an emergency access connection some place else in the site. In this site you have the Oval Road emergency access that connects into Essex Fells. You have the emergency access that's proposed to Howell Drive. All of that provides the ability for your

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 92 emergency services to get to this site and in fact in terms of the access, the emergency access for Howell, your emergency services actually in an easement would have the right to open to traffic. They have the right to open it to emergency vehicles as they see fit, which my opinion would mean if there were some extreme event that shutdown this community from getting down Eagle Rock, they could actually open that and it actually exists. It's -- there's a 20-foot paved path there, it could flow traffic. MAYOR McCARTNEY: So we heard your testimony about an emergency, we had talked about it and we did hear testimony about and public comment about emergency situations. But how would a resident, if this happened to a resident, if there was an emergency, how would a resident be able to use the emergency access? THE WITNESS: It would be controlled by emergency services within the towns purview as it should be to make that decision. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Okay. We have different points here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Mr. Klein. MR. KLEIN: No questions. 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 93 Ms. Kapferer, do you have a question? MS. KAPFERER: Thank you, Mr. Pehnke. Same question related to the emergency access. So when you say we're going to have access, emergency access, that's just for emergency vehicles or can you clarify, is that also for residents who can use it? THE WITNESS: It's really for controlled emergency services. It's a road, it's improved, and the emergency -- primarily the intent is for emergency vehicles. But if there was some reason, some need to do it, emergency services could control that in a different manner. It's a traversable road. MS. KAPFERER: Okay. And you said it's fully controlled by emergency services? THE WITNESS: Correct. So the homeowners association can't make the option to open it. The existing homeowners association can't do that. The future homeowners management can't do it. It is within the control of emergency services and the municipality. MS. KAPFERER: What design is there for emergency access? THE WITNESS: Basically it is an improved road, something that the emergency services should be

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 94 comfortable with to handle their equipment. In the case of Oval Road, it's a 20-foot easement that connects into Essex Fells. In the case of the Howell Road design, it's basically a 16 foot paved road down to Howell. MS. KAPFERER: And are there any -- is there a criteria for slopes? I think -- THE WITNESS: You basically follow the same slopes of the road. So in terms of the slope down to Howell, that's ten percent. Same as it's following the max, so it's traversable. Just to give some sense, a handicapped ramp is 8.3 percent. So while it is a slope, it is not a nonnegotiable slope. MS. KAPFERER: My other questions are about sidewalks. I am not sure that you testified to all of this tonight, so this may be back to last year. THE WITNESS: Most of it is. MS. KAPFERER: Yeah. Answer what you can, I guess. Was there consideration of a sidewalk on Warner Road and Oval Road and outside of the immediate West Highlands to gain access to the sidewalk on Eagle Rock Avenue? THE WITNESS: Not outside our property bounds. MS. KAPFERER: Okay. And I believe this was asked, in your

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 95 opinion, just for clarification, who owns -- do you know who owns this? THE WITNESS: I'm going to defer. MR. PLOCKER: Yeah, I can answer it. The roadway is owned by the property owners who front Oval Road. However, my client, going back in connection, I believe even prior to the approval of the West Highland Condominiums, there was an easement granted in Oval Road and there was certain agreements which are recorded which require my client to maintain and repair Oval Road, but gives my client, and I believe the general public, the right to use it as a public -- as if it was a public road. But it is private. MS. KAPFERER: Okay. MR. PLOCKER: I hear comments that it's private property. It is 100 percent private property. All the property owners going back to the 1980s entered into an agreement, and there are recorded easements, that give the right to use Oval Road, all of it, up until the entrance of the condominium on Warner. The right, and I can get the specific language, to be used for public use. And all the property owners agreed to that. Those agreements run with the land and if you own property now or own property, which is subject to any easement, then my client and the public have the right

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 96 to use those roads. MR. AFRAN: To that last point -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran. MR. AFRAN: To that last point, I don't think we have anything in the record at this point identifying those easements or as Mr. Plocker said, the actual language. Does the applicant intend to provide those easements? MR. PLOCKER: Yes, we will -- MR. AFRAN: Or the documents comprised of those provisions? MR. PLOCKER: 100 percent. MR. AFRAN: They go back 40 years perhaps. MR. PLOCKER: 100 percent. Absolutely. MR. AFRAN: I would ask that be done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you. MS. KAPFERER: That's it for me. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino, do you have any questions? VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, I have a question for you. Looking at the roadways and understanding the roadways and basically pedestrian safety, you know, what our need 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 97 -- put your hand down, I hear you. What our need is, you know, when people are walking going through and coming through the development, will this include calming infrastructure into the roadways to reduce the speed and control the speed throughout the development? THE WITNESS: We can. Mr. Anderson is open to working with your engineer to institute, where applicable, any additional safety. We would like this to be what we're designing it for, a low speed community road, self contained. So we do have some stretches of road that probably should have a traffic calming feature or two to it. Particularly maybe raised crosswalks. I think we talked to that last time I was here. There was a few things, there were a few suggestions that you had made at each of the garage entrances and we've agreed to those. Again, we have no problem adding a few features. It's certainly to our benefit and to our future residents benefit. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay. I have one other question. Is there any possibility, are the roadways wide enough to accommodate bike lanes? THE WITNESS: They are not. They are -- Residential Site Improvement Standards actually set the standard for a minor access. A minor, minor collector

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 98 roads actually 20 feet wide. If you recall my testimony Mr. Anderson actually chose to do a little wider, he went to 22 feet. But that doesn't create bike lanes. These are share the road roadways. And part of the reason is to keep them low speed. You start going wider, the reason why you have high speeds on a road like Oval Road is they're 40 feet wide and you feel like you're on a race track. So the purpose of RSIS, one of the reasons why it was established, those are issues that were being faced state wide, so that the roadways were selected to fit the environment, to fit the ADT and to create residential places. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have a question? MR. ALPER: Sure. There was something in the Litwornia report suggesting that Verona would need to consent to allow the Howell emergency access, something about it being, because it was a municipal border, it was like a one sentence line, did you see that? THE WITNESS: I did see that. That's not my area of expertise. It does fall within West Orange. There is your IH zone which calls for the 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 99 be made. It's a road connection that's typical, but I will have to defer to the legal interpretation. I don't know why they would have to consent. There's no site plan application to them, there is no regulatory provision for those lots that fall within West Orange. MR. PLOCKER: And Mr. Alper, if I may add, that allegation has been made, there are old approvals being referenced. We have never seen any documents to the contrary. If anybody has any we would love to look at them and certainly address them. MR. ALPER: Similarly, are there deed restrictions on this property that would prevent, even if you owned them, that would prevent them from being used for emergency roadways? MR. PLOCKER: Not to our knowledge. MR. ALPER: Okay. This is probably too hypothetical, but in an emergency, in an emergency where West Orange conditions determined it's necessary to evacuate or the weather forced everyone to leave or just to allow as an option to leave, you know, a tree is down on Oval with power out, could Essex Fells or Verona say, no, that West Orange can't open one of those two access points to allow people, I wouldn't imagine it would every be a problem for fire trucks, I'm wondering specifically, 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 25 100 know, about there's a tree down like Sandy and it's days before it's cleared and, no, we don't want people on our roads. Can they do that? MR. PLOCKER: I will address that because it is kind of a legal issue. First, otherwise then not being a good neighbor, there is, like I said, there is a recorded agreement and easement document which I do not have with me here tonight but I reviewed it, we certainly can provide it to the board, that leaves it to the discretion, as with all emergency access, that leaves it up to the officials, but I will rely on the recorded document before Mr. Afran objects to my characterization of the document. MR. AFRAN: I wasn't objecting. I was just saying we just don't have it in front of us. I wouldn't say it's an objection, just noting it on this point. MR. PLOCKER: I'm impressed with my peripheral vision, it's still good. MR. ALPER: I think you see where I'm at. I want to be certain that any emergency access is actually two-way emergency access in an emergency and it can't be stopped. That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: No, sorry. Let the board -- THE PUBLIC: I know it's not commentary but