February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

21 of 68 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 154 03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM 81 crap, because you got thousands of extra rides, it1 doesn't help them. Because if you open Kuzak it's still2 going into the same way in and out, Warner to Oval.3 There's no way around this problem. The law does not4 allow this project. Period.5 Now, I'm not an expert, so I'm going to6 recite the calculations and I may have, I believe I'm7 correct. Give me one moment, please. I'm sorry.8 Mr. Chairman, I just need one more moment. I'm sorry.9 A street -- a cul-de -- a development10 system, a cul-de-sac under the RSIS -- I'm wrapping up11 actually. This is fundamentally legally. Under the12 RSIS the maximum ADT, average daily trips, into and out13 of a cul-de-sac is 1000 for multifamily developments.14 Mr. Litwornia calculates, and no one disputes the15 figure, I think it's the applicants figure, 2228 trips16 per day for ADT. All right. That's almost three times17 the maximum permitted in a cul-de-sac. They don't have18 a second road in and out. Kuzak, even if you open it,19 is not a second way in and out. Simply goes right back20 into the only way in and out. It's not going to get21 them around the RSIS. There's almost three times more22 trips permitted from this development alone. Then Mr.23 Litwornia adds in the trips from the existing24 developments. We're about five times in excess of the25 82 maximum permitted average daily trips under RSIS for a1 cul-de-sac.2 Now, this is much more serious than mere3 aesthetics. It's a safety issue and quality of life4 issue. We're going to literally have 5000 average daily5 trips or more, in a place where the law says only 10006 are allowed. And the reason for that is the quality of7 life and safety of the people who live here. We're8 adding more than five times the average daily trips by9 the sheer fiction of claiming it's not a cul-de-sac,10 because you could open Kuzak, but all Kuzak does is loop11 right around to the same way in and out. It's no12 different than juggling the books when you're trying to13 evade your taxes. It's exactly what it is. You can't14 approve it. It's illegal, and there's not a single15 shred of authority offered by anybody. By your engineer16 who analyzed it or by the applicants very qualified17 engineers or their planner or their attorney to show how18 RSIS is not being violated. The only argument they have19 is well, if you

ur engineer16 who analyzed it or by the applicants very qualified17 engineers or their planner or their attorney to show how18 RSIS is not being violated. The only argument they have19 is well, if you theoretically open Kuzak you got two20 roads, but you don't, as we all know. RSIS is being21 violated.22 Now, there is one other area I want to23 address very briefly on. It's a discrete issue but it's24 important. Do you have feasibility of utility25 83 connections shown on this plan? Well, we don't. Take1 the sewer issue for example. There's a conduit built in2 somewhere. Doesn't go anywhere. Doesn't connect3 anywhere on these plans to any sewer line, and doesn't4 do that for very -- and you heard Bill Greene's5 testimony very clearly stating, did you hear any witness6 explain that it does connect up with a sewer line? Did7 you get any witness to testify as to the feasibility of8 adding this rather large amount of waste into the9 existing sewer lines and conduits. You heard no10 evidence of that. What was the answer? The answer was,11 we'll go to the authorities and get permission. Can't12 do that. And you can't do it for a very good reason.13 The law says you can't. There's a case, and it's been14 upheld repeatedly by the Appellate Division, known as15 Field v. Franklin. Franklin Township. It's actually16 Jack Field, give him credit, versus the Mayor and17 Council of The Township of Franklin. And in this18 decision the Appellate Division states reported decision19 at 190 New Jersey Super 326, and it's a 1983 Appellate20 Division decision. It has been repeatedly cited as21 recently as, I think, 2013 by the Appellate Division and22 it is good law in the state, and it says very simply, "A23 municipality cannot guide the use and development of24 lands in this state if fundamental elements of the25 84 development plan are left unresolved before preliminary1 approval, leaving them instead for an unspecified later2 day." And the court cites some cases and I'll go on3 with the text of the decision. "Certain elements, for4 example, drainage, sewage disposal and water supply, may5 have such a pervasive impact on the public health and6 welfare in the community that they must be resolved at7 least as to feasibility of specific proposals or8 solutions before preliminary approval is granted. If9 the Applicant fails to provide sufficient information on10 the fundamental

must be resolved at7 least as to feasibility of specific proposals or8 solutions before preliminary approval is granted. If9 the Applicant fails to provide sufficient information on10 the fundamental elements of this plan, preliminary11 approval should be denied." It doesn't say, the12 applicant should be allowed to come back later and give13 you a certificate that such and such sewage authority14 granted them connectivity. It says, "Preliminary15 approval must be denied." Meaning they cannot do it16 later. This is preliminary approval. Field v. Franklin17 is the binding law of the state. It's been recognized18 repeatedly in other cases. We don't have any evidence19 of feasibility of utilities. We don't even have pumping20 stations in the plans to show how the waters going to21 get up there. You heard Bill Greene testify we don't22 even have a water tower that's necessary in order to23 supply water for firefighting purposes. Where is it24 going to go? Can the water get up the ridge? There's25