October 29, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

13 of 59 sheets Page 49 to 52 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 49 different or the mounding, right? That it would fill up1 and I'm just trying to clarify. You said you can't go2 deeper, you have to go wider, correct?3 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if the seasonal high4 water table is higher then you can't go into the water,5 into the ground water table, so you have to go wider to6 get the volume.7 THE PUBLIC: And what would be the impact of8 going wider?9 THE WITNESS: Depends on how much volume you10 have to make up, but as I said before, I think the site11 is designed very efficiently, very tightly, they're12 trying to limit the disturbance. It could lead to13 greater amounts of disturbance. But that can trigger a14 lot of changes. The sites a very big site, so it ends15 up being hypothetical, but I think you're going to have16 significant impacts to the way the sites laid out.17 THE PUBLIC: Okay.18 You talked about the, I guess, that also19 impacting I think or the sanitary piping, is that what20 it is?21 THE WITNESS: There's a sanitary line.22 THE PUBLIC: Line.23 THE WITNESS: Yeah.24 THE PUBLIC: That is currently planned to go25 50 through the basin, one of the basins?1 THE WITNESS: It's a underground stormwater2 basin. It is, but CME's requiring them to move it out.3 THE PUBLIC: CME is requiring them to move4 it out. But it would still, you said, then have to go5 within additional areas of wetlands?6 THE WITNESS: Yes, it would. More analysis7 would require an additional permit.8 THE PUBLIC: Is there a risk to that?9 THE WITNESS: I don't know what you mean by,10 risk.11 THE PUBLIC: So if you're going into12 additional areas of wetlands and you're putting sanitary13 piping in additional areas of wetlands and the piping14 fails or is that something that could have happened if15 it was within the basins itself?16 THE WITNESS: There is a --17 THE PUBLIC: If you don't know, you don't18 know.19 THE PUBLIC: -- standard permit for putting20 utility lines through wetlands.21 THE PUBLIC: Okay. So that's something DEP22 approved?23 THE WITNESS: Yeah, you have to follow24 protocol. You can get that approval if you follow the25 51 guidelines.1 THE PUBLIC: They would need additional2 permitting for that?3 THE WITNESS: I think it's a general permit.4 I don't remember the number.5 THE PUBLIC: You mentioned that it could6 somehow like be tucked under roads because they're7 already

l2 permitting for that?3 THE WITNESS: I think it's a general permit.4 I don't remember the number.5 THE PUBLIC: You mentioned that it could6 somehow like be tucked under roads because they're7 already --8 THE WITNESS: I was just calling it out. The9 reason it's under the road is probably to minimize the10 permit requirements they had to pull out from under the11 roads so that would require an additional permit.12 THE PUBLIC: You may not know the answer to13 this, but would that in any way potentially effect the14 integrity of the road system?15 THE WITNESS: No, I don't think so at all.16 THE PUBLIC: Okay.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you very18 much.19 THE PUBLIC: Could I ask one more question.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: One more question, sure.21 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.22 You were talking about pods and you said you23 weren't a gambler.24 THE WITNESS: Bad joke.25 52 THE PUBLIC: No, that's fine. I do gamble.1 So I live not far from Warner Road in the Highlands and2 you say that, that your four tests were done just off3 Warner Road?4 THE WITNESS: Near that area. We have a5 map.6 THE PUBLIC: Is there anything about7 mottling itself that I should understand that's done in8 my, when I'm looking at it in a relatively flat area off9 Warner Road versus what I would think the mottling would10 be done on the 100 test pits on the hilly areas of the11 slopes, that we should know about in your experience?12 You tend to see more mottling in areas like that or that13 doesn't affect it, I'm really just curious?14 THE WITNESS: I don't think the slope has a15 major impact. It's soil types. So there's a bunch of16 factors.17 THE PUBLIC: But all being equal slopes or18 no slopes, I don't want to use the word odds, I don't19 want to use the word suspicion, how unlikely is it in20 your experience having done this around the state, as21 you said, that four versus 100 would show zero versus22 100 percent?23 THE WITNESS: I think it feels like it's low24 odds.25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 53 to 56 of 149 14 of 59 sheets 53 THE PUBLIC: Okay. Thank you.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank very much.2 Anyone else from the public have any3 questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony? Please come4 up and be identified.5 Hi, Danielle DePalma, 200-foot area.6 Good evening Mr. Walsh. Thank you for being7 here. Did your study show what would happen when you8 have a 100-year storm or rainstorm? You have this9 current proposal that satisfies DEP in those situations10 or other situations?11 THE WITNESS: So in the stormwater report12 they show, according to the calculation, that they would13 need flow reduction to hold water back. It's in our14 comment letter where we think some of their calculations15 are incorrect and they're undercounting how much.16 They're not counting the volume or how fast waters going17 to come down and we think the basins may be undersized.18 THE PUBLIC: So you have two19 conflicting findings?20 THE WITNESS: Yeah, we disagree with their21 analysis. I think that's what I said, yes.22 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.24 Anyone else from the audience with questions25 54 for Mr. Walsh on his testimony?1 Seeing nothing, thank you very much Mr.2 Walsh.3 Okay. Go right ahead.4 THE PUBLIC: Jack McEvoy, M-C-E-V-O-Y.5 Mr. Walsh, you keep talking about a sanitary6 sewer line going through the stormwater basin. Where7 exactly is that?8 THE WITNESS: It's in the development on the9 main thoroughfare. The basin under the road.10 THE PUBLIC: Did you see plans of this11 sanitary sewer line coming out of this development?12 Because it's my understanding that no one knows where13 this sanitary sewer is going right now.14 THE WITNESS: It's an internal line.15 THE PUBLIC: But you saw a plan of it.16 THE WITNESS: Yeah, the plan has sanitary17 sewer lines on it.18 THE PUBLIC: Okay. We haven't seen it.19 You talked about an undersized, I believe a20 stormwater management system that's created or was given21 to us is undersized, correct?22 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Yes.23 THE PUBLIC: So my question is --24 THE WITNESS: Portions of it, yes.25 55 THE PUBLIC: Okay.1 My question is, does an undersized2 stormwater management system create additional or can it3 create additional hydrostatic pressure on the4 subsurface, like the rock that is underneath the area?5 THE WITNESS: To what end do you mean?6 THE PUBLIC: To the end where you're

additional or can it3 create additional hydrostatic pressure on the4 subsurface, like the rock that is underneath the area?5 THE WITNESS: To what end do you mean?6 THE PUBLIC: To the end where you're putting7 a building on the ridge, like Building D, and there's8 additional stormwater collecting above and around the9 building, does that put additional pressure on the10 foundation of the building? And when I say foundation,11 I mean the rock below.12 THE WITNESS: That's a geotechnical question13 that I don't feel like I have the expertise to answer.14 THE PUBLIC: And in your --15 THE WITNESS: I'm stormwater. I am not16 geotechnical.17 THE PUBLIC: In your experience has that18 ever happened? You get into like --19 THE WITNESS: No, I haven't worked on a site20 like this with steep slopes in this specific scenario.21 But, yeah, it is really kind of beyond me to answer that22 question. I don't want to give -- I understand what23 you're asking, a different engineer would have to give24 you that answer.25 56 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.2 Any other members of the public have any3 questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony? Seeing none.4 Thank you very much, Mr. Walsh.5 Mr. Afran.6 MR. AFRAN: We have nothing more this7 evening. Obviously subject to cross of the ultimate8 testimony by CME on the geotechnical issues.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You have no more10 witnesses, objector is done?11 MR. AFRAN: No, I said subject to ultimate12 testimony by CME on geotechnical issues and also CME's13 report, as we read it but it' not yet published and14 discussion indicates it wants more from the applicant.15 So there may very well be information or reports or16 surveys from the applicant that prompt additional17 responses from the objector. I have no idea at this18 point. It's purely hypothetical.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We're going to take a20 ten-minute break.21 (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Welcome back ladies and23 gentlemen on zoom and in council chambers.24 At this time I'm going to ask Mr. MacNeill25

15 of 59 sheets Page 57 to 60 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 57 from CME to discuss traffic.1 Mr. MacNeil.2 MR. MacNEILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3 I'll start off, again, with reiterating, this memo is4 neither in support or -- in support of either the5 applicant or the objectors in this case. It's strictly6 to outline the facts as CME sees it based on the7 regulations.8 So the first point -- so this is all9 regarding, first couple points are regarding the10 classifications of the roadways as it relates to RSIS.11 So the average daily traffic for a 496 unit mid-rise12 apartment project is approximately 2728 trips. Since13 you have that many trips you do require the second means14 of ingress and egress. The development is proposing15 that through Warner Road and Kuzik Drive as well as16 emergency access via Howell Drive. Therefore it's17 indicated within the applicants traffic engineers18 testimony and traffic impact study, the roadways should19 be classified as minor collector roadways with total20 traffic volume that should not exceed 3500 trips.21 The applicant did request a de minimis22 exception from RSIS to allow the closure of Kuzik Drive,23 except for emergency vehicles. If that exception was24 granted by the Planning Board, which as the board you25 58 either can grant or deny that exception. If that road1 is closed to meet standard traffic then it would be2 classified as a multifamily cul-de-sac with the maximum3 of 1000 average daily trips, which would be exceeded by4 the proposed development which thereby requires the de5 minimis exception. This is all detailed within the6 applicants request for the de minimis exception.7 So, again, it's up for board consideration8 whether to grant or deny that de minimis exception.9 The second point -- so, again, the second10 point in this -- let me backtrack a bit.11 This is all in reference to the traffic12 engineers review prepared by Alexander Litwornia, who is13 a PE and professional planner with Litwornia Associates14 dated August 22, 2025.15 So his second conclusion was amount of16 traffic to be utilized by Warner Road from the proposed17 development would be way in excess of the 1000 trips per18 day that RSIS allows. It would be approximately 272819 trips or 2.7 times allowed volume, if classified as a20 multi unit cul-de-sac and quadruple the amount of21 traffic at a looped roadway. So this is directly

IS allows. It would be approximately 272819 trips or 2.7 times allowed volume, if classified as a20 multi unit cul-de-sac and quadruple the amount of21 traffic at a looped roadway. So this is directly from22 Mr. Litwornia's report. Just as indicated the applicant23 has submitted a de minimis exception request for the24 closure of Kuzik Drive except for emergency vehicles up25 59 for Planning Board consideration. The applicants1 request for de minimis exception indicates that the2 opening of Kuzik Drive to the normal flow of traffic to3 and from the proposed residential community will exact4 an unnecessary and undue hardship on the existing5 residents of the West Essex Highlands Condominium along6 Kuzik Drive.7 Further that request indicates that public8 safety is not compromised because Kuzik Drive will9 accommodate emergency access. So, again, this is10 directly from the applicants de minimis exception11 request that has been filed to the board.12 The third point in Mr. Litwornia's report13 was regarding the intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and14 Oval Road must be signalized. So as indicated within15 the applicants traffic impact study a traffic signal is16 proposed at the intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and17 Oval Road, which is expected to operate at a level of18 service A. Level of service A represents the best19 operating conditions, whereas level of service F20 represents the worst. So if the board did come to a21 decision and grant the applicant approval for this22 development, the installation of the traffic signal at23 Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road will be required.24 Point 4 in Mr. Litwornia's report is, a25 60 left-turn lane should be installed on Eagle Rock Avenue1 at Oval Road. So, again, as indicated within the2 applicants traffic impact study Eagle Rock Avenue3 eastbound will be widened to provide a left turn lane4 into Oval Road, a through lane and a through right-turn5 lane into Crestmont County Club.6 Further as indicated above, if the7 development is granted approval by the Planning Board8 the installation of the signal and it's improvements at9 Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road will be required.10 Point 5 is regarding the roadway width11 should be improved at the divided section to a minimum12 of 20 feet on each side of the medium. So this is13 directly from the applicants traffic engineers testimony14 and our office does agree that

1 should be improved at the divided section to a minimum12 of 20 feet on each side of the medium. So this is13 directly from the applicants traffic engineers testimony14 and our office does agree that RSIS clarification number15 3 does not require a development to improve adjacent16 roadways.17 Number 6 of Mr. Litwornia's letter is18 regarding, road slopes are higher than RSIS allows. So19 essentially RSIS Table 4.6 is very clear, the maximum20 allowable grade for minor collector road is ten percent.21 The applicant has proposed roads up to ten percent, but22 has not exceeded that standard. And I will add to that,23 that if the de minimis exception is granted by the24 Planning Board and it will be considered multifamily25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 61 to 64 of 149 16 of 59 sheets 61 cul-de-sac, in that case you have actually higher1 standards for maximum grade up to 12 percent. So2 whether the de minimis exception is granted or not, does3 not affect the maximum roadway slope. So it's either,4 right now it's currently at a maximum of ten because5 they're minor collector roadways. But if the exception6 is granted that maximum grade would go up to 12 percent7 and the plans would still confirm compliance with that8 standard.9 Last point is ADA requirements must be met.10 I absolutely agree. Every development must comply with11 ADA requirements. Again, if the development is granted12 by the Planning Board the applicant will be required to13 provide revised plans verifying compliance with those14 ADA requirements and will also be responsible to ensure15 the installed infrastructure maintains ADA compliance at16 the completion of the construction phase. So this is17 verified typically through an as-built survey that is a18 requirement of all developments to verify they have the19 adequate slopes. If they don't have the adequate slopes20 they will be required to remediate and ensure that they21 are ADA compliant.22 So that really ends the conclusions that Mr.23 Litwornia had in his review letter. Again, a lot of the24 points I would say are correct on if the de minimis25 62 exception is granted it would be considered a1 multifamily cul-de-sac, which is why you need the2 exception. If the board did not grant that exception3 then they would remain as minor collector roadways with4 the adequate, or under the maximum average daily trips.5 Further, the intersection at Eagle Rock and6 Oval will absolutely be required if the board granted7 approval and, again, ADA compliance will have to be8 maintained and reviewed at the end of construction.9 All right. That's all I have on traffic10 RSIS compliance.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.12 Mayor McCartney, do you have any questions13 on Mr. MacNeill's testimony?14 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you, Mr. MacNeill.15 Working backwards, number 7, the ADA requirements, what16 are they related to traffic?17 THE WITNESS: That's a good question. So18 really, so typically you have curb ramps really that are19 required to be 8.3 percent maximum, with really flat20 areas, landing areas, as well as turning areas that have21 a maximum requirement of 2 percent.

so typically you have curb ramps really that are19 required to be 8.3 percent maximum, with really flat20 areas, landing areas, as well as turning areas that have21 a maximum requirement of 2 percent. So as far we're22 aware they do comply with those requirements. As -- the23 last meeting where the traffic -- applicants traffic24 engineer provided testimony, they did agree to work with25 63 our office to provide even additional ramping throughout1 the project and potentially raised crosswalks just to2 make the site more walkable for ADA compliance. ADA3 compliance also outlines a number of required spaces you4 need based on the units and total parking spaces. Based5 on our review it appears that they comply with that6 requirement.7 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Okay.8 And number 5, you mentioned about how9 widening the roads -- that it would be a good idea to10 widen the road, but explain that again?11 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. So, again, from an12 engineering standpoint I absolutely do agree it would be13 a good idea to improve Warner Road, but it is not the14 applicants requirement to do so based on the RSIS15 standards, Residential Site Improvement Standards.16 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Also seems impossible to17 do?18 MR. MacNEILL: I will let the applicant19 address that one.20 MAYOR McCARTNEY: That's my observation.21 And I think I'm still not clear about number22 1, about Warner Road and Kuzik. If you keep Kuzik23 closed what is that option?24 MR. MacNEILL: So if the board does grant25 64 that exception and allows it to only require emergency1 access then it would be a multifamily cul-de-sac, which2 is why they need the exception. But I believe that the3 applicants traffic engineer provided testimony that4 essentially said if the board did not grant it that they5 would move forward with keeping Kuzik Drive open, which6 then in turn still -- it would still comply with the7 standards due to the average daily trips of 2728 being8 below the 3500 trips for a minor collector roadway.9 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Sounds like an awful lot10 of trips, but I'm curious even what that would, you11 know, hypothetically, what the number would be? What's12 the current number for the development or --13 MR. MacNEILL: As you said, I can't answer14 that. Thank you.15 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer, do have any17 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?18 MS. KAPFERER: I don't

cNEILL: As you said, I can't answer14 that. Thank you.15 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer, do have any17 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?18 MS. KAPFERER: I don't have any questions.19 Thank you.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino, do21 you have any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his22 testimony?23 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Yes, I do. Thank24 you, Mr. Chairman.25