February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM Page 125 to 128 of 154 32 of 68 sheets 125 testified that he did not see any sewer infrastructure1 on the plans, including the manhole in Bakley Terrace.2 It is just demonstrative the lack of credibility on this3 issue by the objector.4 Water. Water is serviced by New Jersey5 American Water. As testified to by Mr. Anderson, we're6 proposing to create a loop water system tying into the7 waterlines coming from the condominium under Warner Road8 and Kuzak Drive. If you look closely at the utility9 plan sheets I previously referenced, you'll see that the10 waterlines on the site plan are marked with a W, for11 water. Those lines end at the property boundary at12 Warner Road and Kuzak Drive. As we advised the board,13 an easement agreement exists pursuant to which the14 applicant has the full right to connect in all the15 condominium utility systems, including water. The16 connection to water requires an agreement with New17 Jersey American Water. They're obviously not going to18 allow us to hook up to the water system if sufficient19 capacity doesn't exist for potable water, fire hydrants20 and the sprinkler systems in the buildings. So they21 obviously need to review the plans, issue a Will Serve22 letter and require an agreement and an escrow with the23 applicant for the required improvements. Like off-site24 sewer and other utilities, the ability to obtain water25 126 from the sewer company, or the water company, is a1 typical condition of approval, which my client would2 need to satisfy. It is not a reason to withhold an3 approval.4 However, I am happy to report that New5 Jersey American has in fact issued a Will Serve letter6 and has agreed to provide water service to the7 development. New Jersey American and my client signed8 an agreement on February 13, 2026 for the installation9 of the waterline extensions from Warner Road and Kuzak10 Drive. This agreement was recently provided to your11 engineering and planning departments, so we would've12 already satisfied that condition of approval if the13 board was to vote favorably on this application. Again,14 there is a water plan and any allegation to the contrary15 is just disingenuous.16 Another required third-party approval is17 approval of our soil erosion and sediment control plan.18 Again, I'm happy to report that the Essex-Hudson,19 Passaic Soil Conservation granted that approval,

nother required third-party approval is17 approval of our soil erosion and sediment control plan.18 Again, I'm happy to report that the Essex-Hudson,19 Passaic Soil Conservation granted that approval, which20 we also recently provided to the township engineering21 and planning departments. As with water service, we're22 already able to satisfy that customary third-party23 approval condition.24 Traffic. If you recall Mr. Pehnke testified25 127 twice, once was on September 11, 2024, and then on1 September 17, 2025, in response to Mr. Litwornia's2 report and testimony. As the board is aware it may not3 consider or base a denial on off-site traffic impact, if4 the proposed use is permitted by the zoning ordinance.5 That case is the infamous Dunkin Donuts of New Jersey,6 Inc., v. North Brunswick Township Planning Board, 193 NJ7 Super 513, Appellate Division 1984. In that case, the8 applicant was a retail bakery shop seeking site plan9 approval at the busy intersection of State Highways 110 and l30. The use was permitted by the zoning ordinance.11 In denying the application for site plan approval the12 North Brunswick Planning Board relied, "Solely upon the13 anticipated detrimental impact of the proposed use on14 traffic congestion and safety." The resolution of15 denial noted that the intersection was a traffic circle16 having a high accident rate, which was apparently the17 fourth most dangerous intersection in the state.18 Patrons would be prone to making illegal turns or19 dangerous maneuvers and that it was difficult to police,20 and that the Dunkin peak business hours coincided with21 the peak morning traffic. The Appellate Division was22 clear in holding, that where a proposed use is permitted23 by a zoning ordinance, a planning board, "Is without24 authority to deny such site plan approval because25 128 off-site traffic conditions." All though the court1 confirmed that "A planning board should consider2 off-site traffic flow and safety in reviewing proposals3 for vehicular ingress to and egress from the site and4 that a planning board could condition the site plan5 approval upon necessary off-site contributions, the6 Appellate Division was clear, "The authority to prohibit7 or limit uses generating traffic into already congested8 streets or streets with a high rate of accidents, is an9 exercise of the zoning power vested in the municipal10 governing

uthority to prohibit7 or limit uses generating traffic into already congested8 streets or streets with a high rate of accidents, is an9 exercise of the zoning power vested in the municipal10 governing body." Here we know that the proposed use and11 density is fully permitted by the zoning ordinance as12 adopt by the council. Accordingly the board cannot13 consider off site traffic impact in it's decision.14 Regarding safe ingress and egress.15 Installation of the traffic light at the intersection of16 Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue, which is under stop17 sign control today, will provide a fairly substantial18 safety and operational movement as testified to by Mr.19 Pehnke on September 11. It will operate at an overall A20 level of service. This sites proposed internal roadways21 are minor collector roads under RSIS, which would22 require a 20-foot cartway. That standard is met.23 Finally, Oval Road and Warner Road have 4024 foot wide cartways and provide safe ingress and egress.25