February 25, 2026 Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

33 of 68 sheets Page 129 to 132 of 154 03/20/2026 06:14:03 AM 129 This becomes even safer with the installation of the1 traffic signal.2 As previously stated the site proposes3 regular vehicular access via Warner Road and Kuzak4 Drive. This job does not present a cul-de-sac, as the5 ultimate goal is getting to Oval and Eagle Rock to get6 out. Oval and 100 percent. But Mr. Afran is right, you7 need to look at RSIS. And under RSIS these are looped8 minor collector roads, not a multifamily cul-de-sac,9 like Mr. Pehnke testified to and which your engineer10 agreed with.11 As loop minor collector roads, like the12 application proposes, the total traffic volume conveyed13 on the loop should not exceed 3500 ADT. That's NJAC14 5:21-4.1 and Table 4.2. Accordingly, the 2728 trips per15 day falls well within what's permitted by RSIS. The16 board's engineer in the CME memo dated October 29, 2025,17 agreed. This is not a cul-de-sac under RSIS. Trips18 generated by the condominium are not to be counted. The19 DCA RSIS, clarification number 3, plainly states that,20 "The ADT should be limited solely to the proposed21 development. Not the ADT generated for both the22 proposed development and an adjacent existing23 development built prior to the adoption of RSIS, which24 happened to be June 3, 1997, like the comment made.25 130 As the board is aware the road connecting to1 Kuzak Drive is proposed and will be built regardless2 whether the board grants our request for a de minimis3 exception to have Kuzak gated and serve as emergency4 access only. As Mr. Pehnke explained his opinion and5 RSIS exception is not even required to close Kuzak to6 regular access, because the road will exist and will7 still provide its access to emergency vehicles.8 However, we filed the site plan with Kuzak open and9 requested the de minimis exception because we agreed to10 do so in the settlement agreement in response to a11 request made by our neighbors at the condominium12 association. We feel that there is substantial evidence13 in the record to satisfy the RSIS criteria for the14 exception by allowing Kuzak to serve as a emergency15 access only. The intent of RSIS is still met. It's16 reasonably limited and not unduly burdensome. It meets17 the needs of the public health and safety, because one,18 it will eliminate the traffic on Kuzak and the19 condominium to address any hardship to the

ably limited and not unduly burdensome. It meets17 the needs of the public health and safety, because one,18 it will eliminate the traffic on Kuzak and the19 condominium to address any hardship to the residents who20 live in that area of the condo. And two, Kuzak will21 remain open to emergency access.22 Finally, the exception request takes into23 account the existing infrastructure and the adjacent24 condominium development. However, if the board doesn't25 131 feel comfortable granting the exception, that's okay,1 Kuzak will remain open to regular traffic. It would2 have no effect on the development.3 As Mr. Pehnke went over, we are also seeking4 a de minimis exception from the RSIS standard regarding5 sidewalks on both sides of the high intensity minor6 collector streets with off street parking. That7 requirement is contained in NJAC5:21-4.2, Table 4.3.8 The plan proposes two sidewalks everywhere,9 except for the eastern side of Warner Road from the10 property boundary by the condominium up to the traffic11 circle and then on one side of Road D, which is the road12 that goes from the circle to access Building D. The13 condominium doesn't have sidewalks at all, so even the14 one sidewalk on Warner Road would be a sidewalk to15 nowhere, so to speak. That one sidewalk is located on16 the side of Warner Road that pedestrians would want to17 use because it's on the side of the clubhouse.18 Also the plan proposes a more direct walking19 boardwalk from Building D to the clubhouse and other20 amenities located in the center of the site. You can21 see that on sheet SP-4, the overall site plan. And of22 course there are compliant crosswalks provided in two23 locations where a single sidewalk ends in order to24 access the sidewalk on the other side of the street.25 132 This allowed us to avoid the practical difficulty1 regarding environmental limits from wetlands and2 floodplain crossings. It'll also further limit the3 overall disturbance of the site.4 Mr. Pehnke testified in detail that the5 sidewalk system/boardwalk from Building D to the6 clubhouse and robust walking paths will properly and7 safely serve the residents of the community.8 Finally, Mr. Pehnke in his testimony on9 September 17, 2025, validly and completely refuted Mr.10 Litwornia's conclusion that the road system constitutes11 a cul-de-sac. That testimony is on Pages 74 through 8912 of the transcript

timony on9 September 17, 2025, validly and completely refuted Mr.10 Litwornia's conclusion that the road system constitutes11 a cul-de-sac. That testimony is on Pages 74 through 8912 of the transcript and it's supported by the law. Mr.13 Litwornia's conclusions regarding the road14 characterization as a cul-de-sac, the counting of ADT,15 the slopes of the roads, 10 percent maximum is16 permitted, and the ADA guidelines, were simply wrong and17 not supported by the governing regulations. Even his18 comments about the proposed signal at Oval Road and19 Eagle Rock, like the alleged lack of a left-turn lane on20 Eagle Rock Avenue and the widening of the road that21 would be required. It was quite a apparent from Mr.22 Litwornia's testimony he simply didn't carefully review23 the documents submitted by the applicant. The boards24 own engineering expert had the chance to review Mr.25