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

23 of 59 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 149 11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM 89 again, I feel like that's a question better suited for1 the applicants traffic engineer. The one thing I will2 say is there's also, again, I don't want to speak for3 the applicant, but I believe they're requested a de4 minimis exception for not having -- for only having a5 sidewalk on one side of the roadway. So it's those two6 exceptions from the RSIS standards that would be7 required.8 THE PUBLIC: So how would you guide a9 Planning Board to look at this and evaluate it?10 THE WITNESS: Yes, I outlined what the11 standards are, the exceptions that the applicant is12 requesting and then I do not have a vote and I do not13 recommend or approve or deny, it's up to the board to14 hear the testimony specifically from the applicant. I15 will say, I never have given testimony as a board16 engineer, this is my first time in my career. It's not17 typical for a board engineer to provide testimony one18 way or the other on an application. I am not bias, I19 outline the standards, and their compliance with those20 standards. And it is on -- it is the burden of the21 applicant to provide the adequate testimony, not the22 board engineer.23 THE PUBLIC: Right. Could the engineer24 share his impression positive and also negative?25 90 THE WITNESS: So we outline what does and1 does not comply with the standards. It's the simplest2 way to put it.3 THE PUBLIC: My last question is, you said4 that this traffic signal on a county road has to be5 there to meet all these other standards. So what is the6 RSIS or what is the normal process in getting that7 approval? Is that done after the project is approved,8 is it done before a project is approved. What is the9 normal situation that would take place?10 THE WITNESS: I would say every project is11 different, right. Sometimes you have every single12 approval before going to a Planning Board, I have seen13 that before. A lot of times they are required, if the14 board did grant an approval as a condition of approval15 and if they did not get that county approval to do the16 signal then they can't proceed with construction and if17 they couldn't proceed with construction within the two18 year period that you have for a resolution approval,19 they could request up to three years of extensions per20 the MLUL and if they couldn't get the county approval21 within that time, then

the two18 year period that you have for a resolution approval,19 they could request up to three years of extensions per20 the MLUL and if they couldn't get the county approval21 within that time, then their resolution approval expires22 and they have to come bank to the board with a new23 application.24 MR. PLOCKER: Respectfully, I would disagree25 91 with Mr. MacNeill's interpretation. Under the Land Use1 Law I believe that the approval vests and gives2 protection from zoning changes and that's what the3 statute in the MLUL provides. In this case there were4 other restrictions regarding the amendment of the zone,5 namely the court approved affordable housing, so.6 THE WITNESS: So I'll defer to the attorneys7 on that situation.8 MR. PLOCKER: I didn't mean to say anything9 intentionally.10 THE PUBLIC: Okay. I'm confused by that.11 Well, I don't know where our attorney is. So, not our12 attorney --13 THE WITNESS: So to clarify my point. The14 county approval for this signal, if the board chose to15 provide an approval, would be required as a conditional16 approval and they would have to meet that condition17 before starting construction.18 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.20 Any other members of the public have any21 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?22 Please come up.23 THE PUBLIC: Jack McEvoy, Verona.24 For clarity on numbers, you said 2728 per25 92 day for the new development?1 THE WITNESS: Yes.2 THE PUBLIC: And did I hear a number of 51003 for the entire development?4 THE WITNESS: So that was what --5 THE PUBLIC: Going out Oval Road.6 THE WITNESS: That's what Mr. Litwornia7 calculated for the proposed development plus the8 existing development.9 THE PUBLIC: Okay.10 Now, if we look at Kuzik Road and Warner,11 they meet outside of the development area, there's two12 other roads that come into Kuzik and I don't believe13 there's any, I don't think any units on Kuzik Road, I14 think they're all on it's Lapis and Luft. So if there's15 2728 coming out and you need two egresses then where16 Kuzik and Warner meet aren't you adding more than the17 496 plus what the units are on the other two roads?18 THE WITNESS: I absolutely understand where19 you're coming from, but I can only review against the20 standards. The standards unfortunately stop at the21 property line.22 THE PUBLIC: So -- but if the standards stop23 at the property line

where19 you're coming from, but I can only review against the20 standards. The standards unfortunately stop at the21 property line.22 THE PUBLIC: So -- but if the standards stop23 at the property line then why is the developer putting a24 light on Eagle Rock Avenue and Homehill?25