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

17 of 59 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 65 Sir, when you talk about that public safety1 for the development would not be compromised, what2 conditions or situations would be employed in your view3 to that make that statement that public safety would not4 be compromised?5 MR. MacNEILL: So I would say, I am not6 making that statement. That is a word for word quote7 from the applicants de minimis exception request. So I8 believe that question is better suited for the9 applicant.10 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you, Mr.11 Chairman. That's all I have.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have any13 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?14 MR. ALPER: I do, thank you.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Could we have quiet,16 please.17 MR. ALPER: Thank you.18 The Litwornia report says in number 1 that19 there is an estimated daily traffic of over 5100 trips20 per day when the existing development is taken into21 account. Are we not able to take that into account when22 we are talking about the minor collector roadway that23 shouldn't exceed 3500 or are we only allowed to consider24 the 2700 from the new development?25 66 MR. MacNEILL: So you're supposed to look at1 the proposed development stopping at the boundary lines2 of that proposed development.3 MR. ALPER: So the existing traffic is4 not --5 MR. MacNEILL: Based on the standards.6 Whether we agree with that or not, that's what the7 standards indicate.8 MR. ALPER: And when you talk about closing9 Kuzik, the phrase de minimis exception suggests that10 it's minimal, but we're -- it's closed then you got 270011 trips when you're only supposed to have a 1000, which is12 almost three times as many, which to me is a minimum?13 MR. MacNEILL: I absolutely agree with the14 phrasing is not in line with maybe the severity of that15 request, but, again, at least based on the applicants16 testimony, if the board decided to deny that request17 they would allow Kuzik Drive to open, which would then18 make them compliant with the number of trips based on19 the roadway classification.20 MR. ALPER: Which would then create21 different problems?22 MR. MacNEILL: Exactly. Which I believe is23 the reason for the requesting the de minimis exception.24 MR. ALPER: Understood.25 67 MR. MacNEILL: To avoid the additional1 traffic on Kuzik.2 MR. ALPER: Thank you.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza, do you have4 any questions for Mr.

he de minimis exception.24 MR. ALPER: Understood.25 67 MR. MacNEILL: To avoid the additional1 traffic on Kuzik.2 MR. ALPER: Thank you.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza, do you have4 any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?5 MR. CARDOZA: Yes, thank you.6 Mr. MacNeill, following up on Mr. Alper's7 question. So the question of closing Kuzik, I8 apologize, it's been a little while since we heard the9 original testimony on traffic, so you're saying that,10 and I wouldn't want to characterize it if you can't, but11 the applicants intention was to alleviate the problems12 if those minor collecting roads, because I mean they13 empty out to the same point, you're saying that the14 intention was to avoid problems at that point?15 MR. MacNEILL: Yes. So I believe, and again16 I do feel like that question may be is better served for17 by the applicant, but based on their de minimis18 exception request it is my understanding that they did19 not want to put additional traffic onto Kuzik Drive.20 MR. CARDOZA: Okay. So what I'm trying to21 get at is the benefits of traffic flow closing off Kuzik22 Drive, like there's the benefits versus, I mean, I guess23 you're going to have problems in one area, where I'm24 trying to sus that out. You know, how is that supposed25 68 to be more beneficial. The idea of closing Kuzik Drive1 to the, you know, only allowing emergency access, how is2 that supposed to be more beneficial?3 MR. MacNEILL: In my opinion it really helps4 just the residents on Kuzik Drive.5 MR. CARDOZA: But not necessarily the6 residents on Warner?7 MR. MacNEILL: No. No.8 MR. CARDOZA: Okay.9 The -- so if we're just putting all the10 traffic on Warner we have a much more, I don't know,11 backed up potentially roadway than, I don't know, you're12 going to have. I guess you're going to have that13 problem at any point but --14 MR. MacNEILL: So you would have additional15 trips on Warner.16 MR. CARDOZA: I'm going to go around in17 circles, so thank you Mr. MacNeill.18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Counsel Person Scarpa, do19 you have any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his20 testimony?21 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah, just a little on22 the same topic. I have concerns about safety. The23 traffic engineer, wouldn't they typically look at24 current traffic that's there, because seems like25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 69 to 72 of 149 18 of 59 sheets 69 existing traffic would be a vital part to understand the1 safety issues. You know, vital to understand the total2 picture.3 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, so whether we agree4 with it or not this is a permitted use. So when a use5 is permitted it's included in the Master Plan and in6 that case they do not have to dive into the traffic7 volume counts.8 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: But shouldn't they?9 Maybe they don't have or it might not be the standard,10 but shouldn't they do it.11 MR. MacNEILL: I'm just outlining what is12 the standard. It's not my role to opine one way or the13 other. It's simply these are what the standards are in14 black and white, it is not my role to, again, have an15 opinion one way or another on the application.16 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Would it be best17 practices to look at this a little bit more accurately?18 MR. MacNEILL: I can't comment on that. I'm19 sorry.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.21 Malvika, do you have any questions for Mr.22 MacNeill on his testimony?23 MS. APTE: Not at this time.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker, do you have25 70 any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?1 MR. PLOCKER: I don't have any questions but2 I would just like to clear up, since it was addressed by3 the applicant previously during these hearings, is that4 as Mr. MacNeill said, the site plan application that's5 pending before the board has Kuzik Drive open. We are6 seeking a de minimis exception, I think it may have been7 a misnomer and it wasn't intentional on anyone's part,8 it's not really because there would be problems, it was9 because we have a specific obligation as a result of the10 settlement agreement to which the condominium11 association is a party and we agreed to seek that12 exception. It's understood that it's either granted or13 it's not. If it's not, as Mr. MacNeill said, it's open.14 So it's not, and it was done as a accomodation to -- for15 the residents of Kuzik Drive and that was a product of16 the negotiations which led to the settlement agreement.17 MR. CARDOZA: Thank you, Mr. Plocker.18 MR. PLOCKER: Thank you.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.20 Do any members of the public have any21 questions?22 MR. AFRAN: I have some questions.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.24 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.25 71 Mr. MacNeill, what's your understanding of1 the peculiar conditions that attach to this

any21 questions?22 MR. AFRAN: I have some questions.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Afran.24 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.25 71 Mr. MacNeill, what's your understanding of1 the peculiar conditions that attach to this property2 that give rise to de minimis exception?3 MR. MacNEILL: What peculiar conditions?4 MR. AFRAN: That's the requirement.5 MR. MacNEILL: So I'm not the applicants6 traffic engineer, that is a question for the applicants7 traffic engineer.8 MR. AFRAN: You reviewed their application?9 MR. MacNEILL: Yes, I did.10 MR. AFRAN: You commented on it for the11 board?12 MR. MacNEILL: Yes, I did.13 MR. AFRAN: My question to you is, to your14 knowledge what are the peculiar conditions?15 MR. MacNEILL: And my answer is that is a16 question that needs to be answered by the applicants17 traffic engineer.18 MR. AFRAN: Have you seen any evidence of19 peculiar conditions in this application that would meet20 the definition of the RSIS?21 MR. MacNEILL: I will reiterate my same22 response --23 MR. AFRAN: All right.24 MR. MacNEILL: -- that's a question for the25 72 applicants traffic engineer.1 MR. AFRAN: I'm going to reiterate my2 question and I'll ask it be answered. You read the3 application, you studied it, correct?4 Mr. MacNeill, I asked you a question.5 MR. MacNEILL: Correct.6 MR. AFRAN: Now that you've read the7 application and studied it and offered your8 clarification of the law and the rules, I'm asking you a9 very simple question. In your review have you seen10 evidence of a "peculiar" condition that RSIS requires in11 a property in order to grant a de minimis exception.12 Have you seen that in this file?13 MR. MacNEILL: My response does not change.14 MR. AFRAN: I couldn't hear you.15 MR. MacNEILL: My response does not change.16 MR. AFRAN: Okay.17 Now, you would agree a de minimis exception18 in the RSIS rules is described by several examples,19 correct? And those examples consist of -- let me just20 get that here. A. Reducing the minimum number of21 parking spaces and minimum number size of parking22 stalls.23 B. Reducing the -- well, I'll paraphrase,24 certain geometrics distinct design, "such as curbed25

19 of 59 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 73 radii, horizontal and vertical curbs, etc. Reducing1 cartway width and changes in design standards necessary2 to implement traffic calming devises." So the examples3 that are given, and you agree those are examples given4 in the RSIS?5 MR. MacNEILL: I believe so.6 MR. AFRAN: You would agree those examples7 are very small and minor matters that occasionally could8 be corrected without real burden to anybody, fair to9 say?10 MR. MacNEILL: Fair to say.11 MR. AFRAN: Now, would you say a extra,12 forgetting 5100 and the totality of the traffic in this13 gigantic cul-de-sac, when you look at all two14 developments plus the new one, looking at only the 2728,15 which is in excess of 1000, is it fair to say in your16 opinion as someone familiar with RSIS, that an17 additional 1728 rides or trips per day is not de18 minimis?19 MR. MacNEILL: That is not what I'm saying.20 MR. AFRAN: I'm asking you in your opinion21 as an engineer who studies this work. You're a22 municipal engineer, correct?23 MR. MacNEILL: So the de minimis exception24 request was submitted by the applicant and should be,25 74 any testimony regarding the de minimis exception request1 should be answered by the applicant, not by the board2 engineer. I am not supporting or denying this3 application in any way. I am not going to recommend4 this to be approved, it is up to the board to make that5 decision based on the de minimis exception request6 submitted by the applicant.7 MR. AFRAN: It's a simple question. I mean,8 are you prepared to say as a professional municipal9 engineer who is familiar with RSIS and has studied it,10 has worked with it, that an additional 1728 rides per11 day, trips per day on the ADT, is it de minimis?12 MR. MacNEILL: I will have the same13 response. That is not up to me to decide as the board14 engineer, not the applicants traffic engineer, and not15 the board that is going to be making that decision.16 MR. AFRAN: That's your answer, correct?17 MR. MacNEILL: That is my answer.18 MR. AFRAN: I have asked my question. I19 preserve it. You answered. That's fair.20 MR. MacNEILL: Exactly.21 MR. AFRAN: Now, let's assume for the sake22 of argument Kuzik was open, as the applicant originally23 proposed.24 MR. PLOCKER: Objection. It is proposed as25 75 opened.1 MR. AFRAN: Fair enough. As is proposed by2 the applicants

e for the sake22 of argument Kuzik was open, as the applicant originally23 proposed.24 MR. PLOCKER: Objection. It is proposed as25 75 opened.1 MR. AFRAN: Fair enough. As is proposed by2 the applicants suggestion de minimis exception to deal3 with terms of their prior settlement. Now, let's assume4 Kuzik is open, you understand Kuzik to be a short loop5 road that loops right back to Warner, is that correct?6 MR. MacNEILL: Yes.7 MR. AFRAN: Would you agree it's8 approximately one tenth of a mile in length?9 MR. MacNEILL: I don't know the exact10 length.11 MR. AFRAN: But it's a relatively short12 road?13 MR. MacNEILL: Yes, I would agree with that.14 MR. AFRAN: So if you leave the development15 and go through Kuzik you go right onto Warner, correct?16 MR. MacNEILL: There's no denying that.17 MR. AFRAN: Right. And if you leave through18 the Building D road that goes right onto Warner,19 correct?20 MR. MacNEILL: Yes.21 MR. AFRAN: Okay.22 So these residents who will live in these23 496 units are all going to feed right into Warner, just24 like the residents of the other two developments do25 76 today, is that correct?1 MR. MacNEILL: That's correct.2 MR. AFRAN: And all those people will leave3 through Oval, correct?4 MR. MacNEILL: Yes.5 MR. AFRAN: And there's no other way of6 ingress or egress from his large complex of three7 developments except through Oval, is that correct?8 MR. MacNEILL: So are you talking about the9 proposed development on-site or West Essex Highlands as10 it exits today?11 MR. AFRAN: I said to you there are -- well,12 I'm not sure why are you doubting my question. I asked13 you --14 MR. MacNEILL: I'm asking you to clarify the15 question. I'm asking are you talking about the proposed16 development which stops at the property line or are you17 asking about the proposed development plus the existing18 development.19 MR. AFRAN: I said --20 MR. MacNEILL: Because my answer would be21 the proposed development ends at the connections to22 Warner and Kuzik Drive, which is outlined in RSIS, which23 is the only way as a professional engineer I could24 review this project.25

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 77 to 80 of 149 20 of 59 sheets 77 MR. AFRAN: It's a factual question.1 Assuming there's two existing developments and a third2 one proposed, if that is ever built, you would agree3 that all of the residents of these three developments4 could only go in through Oval and can only go out5 through Oval, isn't that correct?6 MR. MacNEILL: Yes.7 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.8 You would also agree that if the applicant,9 which built the other developments, had built this10 development at the same time as those, this would be one11 gigantic cul-de-sac without question, isn't that true?12 MR. MacNEILL: Yes, in that hypothetical13 situation that is correct.14 MR. AFRAN: Thank you.15 I have no further questions.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mayor McCartney.17 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you, Chairman. I18 have a question for Mr. Plocker about the status on the19 Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road light I believe that was20 approved?21 MR. PLOCKER: No, I don't believe that was22 and I don't know what the current status is. Thank you,23 Mayor.24 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you.25 78 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Do any other members of1 the public have any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his2 testimony? Come up and be identified. On his testimony3 this evening. Come right up, state your name for the4 record.5 THE PUBLIC: Donald Gershow, Holmhill Lane,6 Roseland.7 Regarding the traffic light on Oval Road, is8 that designed to have any impact on the traffic9 congestion that backs up at Pleasant Valley Way and10 Eagle Rock Avenue?11 MR. MacNEILL: I'm not designing the traffic12 signal. I can't answer that question.13 THE PUBLIC: All right.14 MR. MacNEILL: The questions I can answer is15 what was written in my October 29 dated today report16 that outlines the report prepared by Alexander J.17 Litwornia.18 THE PUBLIC: Okay.19 So, my numbers may be incorrect, so the 172820 additional vehicle trips that are proposed --21 MR. MacNEILL: I'll actually clarify that.22 It' actually 1728 additional trips that if the exception23 is approved would be in addition to the maximum average24 daily trips of 1000 when it's classified as a25 79 multifamily cul-de-sac.1 THE PUBLIC: Okay.2 I'm just going to use the word a lot. So a3 lot of the additional trips are going to be added onto4 Oval Road coming out of Oval Road every day,5 irrespective of whether or not we add the traffic light6 and a whole bunch of

he word a lot. So a3 lot of the additional trips are going to be added onto4 Oval Road coming out of Oval Road every day,5 irrespective of whether or not we add the traffic light6 and a whole bunch of them are going to go eastbound,7 some go westbound and right now vehicles can't go8 eastbound into Pleasantdale into West Orange. So to me9 as a Planning Board and, so, okay. I don't have to say10 anything else, I don't know where they're going to go11 but I don't how that's going to be dealt with. Okay.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you, sir.13 Any other members of the public have a14 question for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony? Please come15 up and be identified.16 THE PUBLIC: Rachel Klein, Howell Drive.17 Mr. MacNeill, when you were reviewing this18 were you reviewing, also keeping in mind the proposed19 business, up to four businesses in support of this20 project, but definitely one business proposed in the21 settlement. When you reviewed it did you have that in22 mind is my question?23 MR. MacNEILL: No, so what I reviewed in my24 letter on October 29 is Alexander J. Litwornia's report25 80 against the traffic engineers report and outlined what1 Alexander said and what the traffic engineer and the2 applicant said. It's as simple as that. Again, I do3 not have an opinion one way or the other on the board.4 I do not -- I did not design anything as far as --5 THE PUBLIC: No, I'm not asking you that.6 Yes, I know. But I think there's a perception, not just7 for the condominiums but the settlement specifically8 talks to a business being back there. So that was just9 my question, whether or not you had --10 MR. MacNEILL: No, I did not.11 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the13 public have any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his14 testimony? Please come up and be identified.15 THE PUBLIC: Hi. Kevin again. Kevin16 Millman, I live at 27 Bayowski Road, West Highlands.17 So I haven't read the traffic study done by18 Alex, I forgot his last name, sorry.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Litwornia.20 MR. MacNEILL: Litwornia.21 THE PUBLIC: Okay. I trust you.22 Does it talk about -- so as I understand23 what you're saying, a little over 1700 more trips will24 be allowed, even through Kuzik with, even with the de25

21 of 59 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 81 minimis exception, is that right?1 MR. MacNEILL: So The total trips based on2 RSIS for the number of units that are proposed are 2728.3 THE PUBLIC: Right. The thousand that are4 allowable plus the de minimis exception?5 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. So they're requesting6 that exception for the additional 1728.7 THE PUBLIC: Through Kuzik and the rest of8 the development?9 MR. MacNEILL: It would be through Warner.10 THE PUBLIC: Through Warner?11 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah.12 THE PUBLIC: But they could go through13 Kuzik?14 MR. MacNEILL: No.15 THE PUBLIC: They could travel around,16 there's not going to be any gates or anything?17 MR. MacNEILL: So the exception they're18 requesting is to close Kuzik to only allow emergency19 vehicles.20 THE PUBLIC: What about the rest of the21 neighborhood that lives there?22 MR. MacNEILL: So, I'm sorry. Close Kuzik23 to the development.24 THE PUBLIC: To the other development?25 82 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah.1 THE PUBLIC: That wouldn't stop them coming2 down Warner and going around. Let's say Warner's3 congested because triple the amount are now allowed,4 right?5 THE WITNESS: Yeah, so they're proposing a6 gate --7 THE PUBLIC: There's nothing in the plan8 that prevents --9 THE WITNESS: They're proposing a gate at10 Kuzik to the development as part of the emergency access11 and the de minimis exception.12 THE PUBLIC: You could still get in there13 through Warner. I get that there would be a gate from14 where the woods are now, but there's not going to be a15 gate that say prevents them from going to Kuzik to Reger16 Lane and all that area?17 THE WITNESS: So I mean, you can go up, yeah.18 THE PUBLIC: Sorry. Is there?19 THE WITNESS: You are correct, that you can20 go into Warner and then go to both sides of Kuzik, but21 you wouldn't be able to go from the development through22 Kuzik to the other side.23 THE PUBLIC: Understood. Understood that.24 And -- okay. So 2700, almost triple, in the traffic25 83 study a light that is now proposed and that you say1 should be required.2 THE WITNESS: Yeah, it has to be required.3 THE PUBLIC: It has to be required.4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, it is a requirement.5 THE PUBLIC: Okay.6 So let's say there's 300 units, right? In7 the Highlands currently and there's The Grand, I don't8 know how many units that is, but, okay, so let's just9 say 600 cars for the Highlands

PUBLIC: Okay.6 So let's say there's 300 units, right? In7 the Highlands currently and there's The Grand, I don't8 know how many units that is, but, okay, so let's just9 say 600 cars for the Highlands and another 140 cars for10 that, that's 740 cars going back and forth. I guess a11 trip is like one way? In other words, if I go out onto12 Eagle Rock and come back that's two trips, right?13 THE WITNESS: Yeah, you would have an in and14 out trip.15 THE PUBLIC: Will you say, let's say16 potentially another thousand for the 496?17 THE WITNESS: You lost me. How much are we18 up to?19 THE PUBLIC: Well, on the proposed20 development there's 496 proposed units, right?21 THE WITNESS: Correct.22 THE PUBLIC: Let's split the baby and say23 750, right. Let's say at least every unit has a car and24 half those units have two cars.25 84 THE WITNESS: Okay.1 THE PUBLIC: All right. Did the traffic2 study talk about to the light that's proposed that3 already takes me sometimes ten minutes to make a left4 turn onto Eagle Rock, because people whiz back and5 forth, did the traffic study talk about even if it was6 just for the additional cars, let's say 750, just7 ignoring that The Grand and the Highlands exist, how8 long at a level A light, assuming it operates at level A9 100 percent of the time, would it take the flow of cars10 each way? Like how many cars, how many minutes, did the11 traffic study account for that.12 THE WITNESS: I apologize, you lost me.13 THE PUBLIC: I lost you.14 THE WITNESS: I will have to say though --15 THE PUBLIC: In other words, let's say16 there's ten cars waiting to make a left or a right,17 let's say there's no right turn, I don't know if that's18 proposed or not, but let's say you've got cars lined up19 to turn onto Eagle Rock, they got to wait for a green20 light, does the traffic study talk about the time it21 would take on both ends, Eagle Rock comes from both ways22 and, you know, coming out of the development to turn23 onto Eagle Rock, is there a time component to the24 traffic study is my question?25