March 4, 2026, Planning Board Regular Meeting - WEHI Transcript

is that20 under the sewer review with the township will have to be21 completed by the applicant before the township engineer,22 I don't want to speak for her, but before she will sign23 off on the TWA application.24 MAYOR McCARTNEY: And that the sole cost and25 35 expense of all of that would be on the developer?1 MR. MacNEILL: That is outside of my2 understanding currently.3 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Is that a condition?4 MR. MacNEILL: I'm not sure if that's in the5 agreement, that needs to be taken place between the6 applicant and the township.7 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Right. I believe that is8 in the agreement. So is that a condition or is that --9 MS. McGOVERN: Is it in the conditions that10 we have with the sewer?11 MAYOR McCARTNEY: It's not. Well, you12 didn't mention it so can we add it or that this13 particular project is at the sole expense and cost --14 MS. McGOVERN: Okay.15 MAYOR McCARTNEY: It is in the agreement.16 It is. On Page 6.17 MS. McGOVERN: In the ordinance it is or in18 the --19 MAYOR McCARTNEY: That was in the agreement.20 MS. McGOVERN: In the settlement agreement21 you're referencing?22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The ordinance. In the23 ordinance.24 MS. McGOVERN: What's the -- Mayor, can you25 36 point out the ordinance you're taking about?1 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I don't see anything.2 Okay. I don't see anything about the sewer in there.3 MS. McGOVERN: No, it's not in the4 ordinance. That wouldn't be -- that would part of, you5 know, your site plan or requirements within the township6 and then if there's a side agreement with it, we're not7 reviewing that. We don't have any say over that. But8 we, meaning the Planning Board, does not have any say9 over that. That's not part of your review.10 MR. KLEIN: But they have to be able to11 provide sewer?12 MS. McGOVERN: Exactly.13 MR. KLEIN: Right.14 MS. McGOVERN: Right. Who pays for it --15 MR. KLEIN: Right. Not our issue.16 MR. MacNEILL: And just to answer your17 initial question, I apologize Mayor, the slope is about18 40 feet at the closest point to 120 feet from the ridge19 line.20 MR. KLEIN: Can you put that picture back21 up, Joe.22 Mr. MacNeill: Minimum 40 feet from the23 ridge line to the steep slope area.24 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Okay. So wait, but let's25

03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM Page 37 to 40 of 136 10 of 54 sheets 37 add that together then. Is that what you're saying, we1 can add --2 MR. MacNEILL: No. Sorry. So it's -- yeah3 so I guess, I guess at your highest or the minimum would4 be the 40 plus the seven. So you're seven feet from the5 ridge line and then at the minimum from where the ridge6 line before the slope it's 40 feet. So if you're adding7 them together the minimum would be 47.8 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Okay. And yet 120 at some9 of the other points.10 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, you can see like in11 this area you have more of a flat point. Here really is12 the pinch, right.13 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Well, all right. Thank14 you for that.15 We heard so much testimony and even letters16 from the outlining communities about preservation. I17 feel like out of 120 acres what we have heard as18 testimony out of the 120 acres, 61 were developable and19 this basically was clustered like our Master Plan20 suggests on only 27.9 being disturbed. And the land is21 not for sale. It's never been for sale. So all the22 testimony that we heard about preservation, that's not23 really our purview. We're preserving as much as we can.24 So I'm just -- right. Every letter was all about25 38 preservation, every letter I read was about preservation1 and I don't want to discount that or minimize that, but2 we're not here to buy this property. That's it for now.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.4 Mr. Klein.5 MR. KLEIN: I'm going to pass for now.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.7 Ms. Kapferer.8 MS. KAPFERER: Still thinking. One question9 I do have, maybe for others who have been on the board10 longer than I is about our Master Plan and the11 circulation element and the way that, maybe the way that12 it's interpreted and when I read it, I read that there's13 an emphasis on connecting neighborhoods and an emphasis14 on providing facilities for those who want to bike and15 walk. Just curious if that's, if that is some of the16 same things that stand out to others from the Master17 Plan. Or other additional interpretations of things to18 keep in mind.19 MAYOR McCARTNEY: So are you asking then is20 this a private community or can anyone go through there21 to bike?22 MS. KAPFERER: No, I'm asking about like the23 Master Plan itself and what are the priorities when it24 comes to circulation as others understand it. What are25 39 the priorities.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, it

APFERER: No, I'm asking about like the23 Master Plan itself and what are the priorities when it24 comes to circulation as others understand it. What are25 39 the priorities.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, it is definitely a2 priority. There are sidewalks. The board has to decide3 does it connect to the other community that it's4 contiguous with and if so can you get out to Eagle Rock5 Avenue walking through the community. Is it possible.6 It is possible to walk now to Eagle Rock Avenue through7 the community and then does this impede that, add to it.8 That's what the board has to look at. Okay.9 Any other questions.10 MS. KAPFERER: And I guess I can add some11 commentary.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sure. Go right ahead.13 MS. KAPFERER: If that's okay. I like to14 walk and run. I do try, Eagle Rock is tough because15 it's, you know, hilly. I have managed to get up to Oval16 Road and it's, you know, there are definite, obviously17 missing sidewalk, I don't know if I want to try to run,18 you know, from Pleasantdale up into the Highlands, you19 know, there's not connectivity. Like there's not a20 sidewalk the whole way. So that's a comment that I21 have. And, you know, even I think the snow, you know,22 makes it even more obvious like where you can go, where23 you can't. So, you know, right now if you tried to walk24 from Pleasantdale the Highlands you would be in the25 40 street unless you wanted to go into kind of deep snow.1 So just a comment that I think that that's something for2 me that's important and I think will be to approve this3 are some additional, maybe conditions that we would want4 to consider.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We had asked the applicant6 if they could put a sidewalk on Oval Road, the applicant7 spoke to people that owned Oval Road and they don't want8 to change it. So that's something we had asked already9 because the applicant doesn't own that road.10 MS. KAPFERER: Yeah. I think thing I'm11 still a little unclear of the ownership of that road. I12 think, you know, that, I know it's challenging because,13 you know, I think the other great concern that I have14 is, you know, emergency access and I know that15 sometimes, you know, creating an environment that's more16 friendly to walkers and bikers can also slow traffic,17 so, you know, feels like those priorities are competing.18 So I'm personally struggling a bit with that on this and19 I would guess, I mean

re16 friendly to walkers and bikers can also slow traffic,17 so, you know, feels like those priorities are competing.18 So I'm personally struggling a bit with that on this and19 I would guess, I mean --20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: You may see if they can21 stripe a bike line.22 MS. KAPFERER: Yeah, perhaps.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We'll have to see. But if24 there's some middle ground we could achieve where a bike25

11 of 54 sheets Page 41 to 44 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 41 lane could be striped that would be helpful. If you1 can't have a sidewalk, maybe a bike land and pedestrian2 lane.3 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I just wanted to pick up4 on what Lori's saying that, because we've always been5 told that when an application opens like this, and we6 are discussing these conditions, and if it is sidewalks,7 this is the time to, you know, you saw with it the zoo8 how many times.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I just have to focus you.10 This is not the applicants. This is not the application11 before us. It is a contiguous property that the12 applicant has testified they don't own. So we can see13 if it's possible, I have no problem with that. We'll14 have to speak to Ms. McGovern if we can come up with all15 of this, but I would not mind putting that as a16 condition, if you can't have a sidewalk, stripe it and17 -- I'm sorry.18 MR. KLEIN: Inside --19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: But you're fine.20 MR. KLEIN: Inside the site plane you're21 talking.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Correct.23 MR. KLEIN: Right. I don't know. I think24 the width is not enough to get a bike lane but we could25 42 maybe put shadows to be able to --1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yeah. There's gonna be2 something that is possible. Smart minds can do amazing3 things. Okay.4 Mayor McCartney.5 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Again another thing that6 Lori just mentioned about the emergency egress. We7 concentrated on Howell, which I think is necessary just8 for emergencies. But we also have Oval Road that we've9 been told by the fire department hasn't been used in 3010 years, but it is there and there's also connectivity to11 The Grand. So there's an emergency exit, I believe,12 that it would be a connection there. So that's one13 more, one more avenue. No pun intended.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.15 Ms. Kapferer. More to come?16 MS. KAPFERER: Yeah, probably.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.18 MS. KAPFERER: I'm really struggling with19 the emergency exits.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's good. Good. Good.21 Think about it. Okay.22 Vice Chairman Guarino.23 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you, Mr.24 Chairman.25 43 I don't know if I could put this in, but1 during conversations particularly with the members of2 the Lenape Tribe who to our meetings expressing their3 concerns about artifacts, preserving and things like4 that. I wonder if this the point in time we can make a5 condition that the

the members of2 the Lenape Tribe who to our meetings expressing their3 concerns about artifacts, preserving and things like4 that. I wonder if this the point in time we can make a5 condition that the developer, the applicant, supply6 enough valuation of how the soil is disturbed that7 things in construction is going on if artifacts are8 found, significant artifacts that pertain to the first9 Americans and everything else, could that something made10 a condition?11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We actually have a12 condition in there.13 MS. McGovern, would you --14 MS. McCARTNEY: There was a condition to15 that effect.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let her read it in the17 record again so we all can hear it.18 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Yeah, because I19 didn't hear it last time, but it's --20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let her read it in the21 record.22 MS. McGOVERN: The -- after we had the23 testimony, this was brought to my attention, so maybe24 you didn't hear me when I was reading the list, or --25 44 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yeah, after Chief Mann of1 the Ramapough Lenape family spoke.2 MS. McGOVERN: Should Native American3 artifacts be uncovered during any phase of construction4 of the project those artifacts must preserved and/or5 reported to the New Jersey Commission on Indian Affairs6 with a copy of that notice to the Planning Board.7 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Okay.8 MS. McGOVERN: Is that sufficient?9 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Yep.10 MS. McGOVERN: Preserved and reported.11 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: And reported. Okay.12 Thank you.13 My next question is that, you know, we talk14 about all the reporting that's going on. All these15 evaluations, you know, from pre-construction,16 construction as the period in the project move on. Will17 there be times when these recordings and all these18 findings will be available to the general public so19 people can go to specific areas and say, okay, they have20 done this demolition, they've done this excavation, what21 has changed or what has not changed. Is there a22 significant intervals of when these recordings so the23 general public and the residents of the township and24 surrounding areas can evaluate these reports and see25

03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM Page 45 to 48 of 136 12 of 54 sheets 45 what's going on?1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, any document that's2 brought to the township is available through an OPRA.3 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Right. But I'm4 saying is there an intimate -- is there gonna be -- it's5 gonna done this time it's gonna be that time or it'll be6 intimate every month, or every so many weeks, these7 reports will be available in planning so the residents8 can come in, people from the general public can come in9 and see what the status of the project is?10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Good question. If there's11 a pre-blasting report -- I'm sorry. Mr. Klein.12 MR. KLEIN: Yeah. So would it be13 overburdensome to ask the applicant to put up some sort14 of website that gives some milestones of when they d15 certain things so that people can sign up for16 notifications, there's going to be blasting next week.17 Things like -- I don't know, I've never seen that18 before.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We'll ask the applicant is20 that a reasonable condition.21 MR. KLEIN: Right. Just to be able to keep22 the public informed.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: It would also be supplied24 to the township but we'll ask the applicant to put up a25 46 website.1 MR. KLEIN: Oh okay. So if the applicants2 going to be providing it to the township then we just3 have to have the township some how --4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: As you said, it may be5 easier and more expeditious to have the applicant who6 has the document in hand as opposed to moving through7 the process of it getting, going to the Planning Board8 secretary, getting it read, posted. It'll go that9 process but it'll also be placed by the applicant online10 on a site that will be available to the public.11 Mayor McCartney.12 MAYOR McCARTNEY: So there have been other13 applications where we have, whether acquisitions where14 we have monthly reports generated and maybe not15 necessarily monthly, but quarterly to ask the applicant16 to do that quarterly.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That could be worked with18 the building department, because it'll be in their19 purview when they feel that reports are reasonably due.20 That the building department will work with the21 applicant to set up those times when reports will be due22 and posted.23 Mayor McCartney.24 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I'm going back to Mr.25 47 Kleinberg and I have a list of the things that, the 111 conditions that --2 CHAIRMAN

those times when reports will be due22 and posted.23 Mayor McCartney.24 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I'm going back to Mr.25 47 Kleinberg and I have a list of the things that, the 111 conditions that --2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead.3 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Well, I'm not going to4 read them. I wanted to know can we read them Diana, if5 you have them in your, I think it would be important to6 hear those.7 MS. McGOVERN: Okay. Let me find the8 report.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yeah. If it's in his10 report, let's pull his report and see.11 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Oh, we could do it that12 way.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: This way it's available as14 it was cited in the overall --15 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I think it makes so much16 sense and I think they were very important.17 MR. MacNEILL: I have the report up.18 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Oh, great. Okay.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeill.20 MS. McGOVERN: You have it at you21 fingertips. Thank you.22 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, I have it.23 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you, Ryan.24 MR. MacNEILL: So the 11 conditions, or25 48 recommended requirements in Sam Kleinberg's report;1 First one, clearing the site the limits --2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Could you say the date of3 that report.4 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. Sorry. That is the5 October 28, 2025.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Go right7 ahead.8 MR. MacNEILL: So it starts on Page 19 and9 goes to Page 20 of that report dated October 28, 2025.10 So the first recommended requirement would11 be for clearing sites, the limits of earth work and12 disturbance should be strictly adhered to, to maintain13 the stability of the slope.14 2. Long-term measures should be required to15 maintain that health of the forestry on the slope. The16 health of the root systems provides reenforcement to the17 shallow topsoil layer on the slope.18 3. The provisions of the soil erosion plan19 shall -- should provide details for protection of the20 ridge and slope. Discharge of water from dewatering21 during construction should not be permitted.22 4. Surcharges resulting from the23 stockpiling of materials and heavy equipment should not24 be permitted on the ridge immediately above the slope to25

13 of 54 sheets Page 49 to 52 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 49 avoid a reduction of the stability of the slope.1 5. The requirements for construction should2 include an excavation and dewatering work plan3 addressing the stability of the slope during the4 construction. This work plan should prepared by a5 licensed professional engineer currently registered in6 the State of New Jersey.7 6. Support of the excavation should be8 required along the ridge. Cutting back the slope beyond9 the limits of the earth work should not be permitted.10 Rock excavation should be controlled to11 minimize vibrations and disturbance of the ridge. The12 design of blasting charges if required should consider13 the controlling distance to the distance -- to be the14 distance to the top of the slope, which is in the15 maximum range of 40 to 100 feet.16 Dewatering and control of runoff should be17 required. Ponding of water in the excavation could18 surcharge the joints in the rock and should not be19 permitted.20 Slope indicators -- number 9. Slope21 indicators should be installed on the slope to monitor22 for movement during construction.23 10. Installation of groundwater monitoring24 wells should be considered at infiltration basins25 50 located along the ridge.1 And finally number 11. Final grading and2 landscaping should be strictly performed to ensure that3 runoff is intercepted and prevented from runoff over the4 slope.5 So to add that, I do think we will, our6 recommendation would be to have a separate condition, if7 it gets to that point, of requiring the blasting plan,8 the pre-survey as well as the post-survey as a separate9 condition, just to clarify, make sure that is included.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mayor McCartney.11 Oh, I'm sorry. Council President Scarpa.12 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: I wanted to say --13 yeah, what would have happen if some of those things are14 not done? Because, you know, there's always15 construction people that are not maybe paying attention16 to detail. What would happen, and what recourse do we17 have to ensure that those things are done? Or how is18 the accountability.19 MR. MacNEILL: For a project this scale20 on-site inspections is going to be the most important21 phase. Construction phase is the most important for22 this type of project. So you're going to need full-time23 on-site inspections. You will have your inspector, or24 working side by side

important21 phase. Construction phase is the most important for22 this type of project. So you're going to need full-time23 on-site inspections. You will have your inspector, or24 working side by side with the contractor to ensure all25 51 the conditions, on top of this one, all the conditions1 of approval are complied with and if this townships2 inspector identifies a violation they would immediately3 contact the construction official, the township engineer4 and then they could put a stop work order on the5 project, for them to remediate that problem before they6 could then proceed with the construction.7 COUNCIL WOMAN SCARPA: Do we have the8 personnel to be able to do that kind of oversight?9 MS. McGOVERN: I think that the applicant10 pays for our consulting engineer.11 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, so if they approve, one12 of the standard conditions, is they have put up a13 performance guarantee, an inspection fee escrow. So for14 performance guarantee they're required to put up 12015 percent of the bondable improvements. And then on top16 of that, 15 percent of that is your inspection fee17 escrow and if determined if we need additional you18 always replenish through the applicant.19 COUNCIL WOMAN SCARPA: Okay. While I have20 the floor, I have some questions and concerns about the21 December 8 that we referenced. Particularly under the22 general comments B and some of the things concerned on23 the on-site sanitary sewer comments.24 I still have a concern that, you know, it25 52 was just in December a few months ago that a capacity1 analysis of this site sewer was never done. The2 developer did not show that the existing streams and3 pipes and ditches or the stormwater drains downstream4 can handle the extra water. Shouldn't we be taking this5 into consideration, serious consideration, at that time?6 At this time and it just seems that the scale and the7 intensity of the proposal are a little out of proportion8 with what the site could support. I mean, we've heard9 consistent credible concerns about traffic volume,10 stormwater management, the environmental impact, and11 like these are not abstract worries, they're rooted in12 real limitations of our existing infrastructure and the13 lived experience of people who rely on it every day, who14 we've heard had real flooding and such. You know, like15 meeting minimal technical thresholds does not16 automatically make