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

ructure 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 a project appropriate. Our role is17 not to rubber stamp, right. It's to evaluate whether a18 proposal aligns with the Master Plan, the neighborhood,19 and the long-term capacity of what we have. So the20 technical compliance seems to me it should be the floor,21 you know, not the ceiling. So that's something that I'm22 very, very concerned about. In fact I know Millburn, a23 Millburn Fair Share Housing development just was24 rejected because of poor infrastructure. So I am very,25

03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM Page 53 to 56 of 136 14 of 54 sheets 53 very concerned about that.1 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, so all valid concerns.2 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. MacNeill, why don't3 you start with stormwater management because, and we'll4 take it piece by piece. I think that would be the best5 way to do this.6 MR. MacNEILL: So for stormwater7 management, so for stormwater management the controlling8 regulations NJAC 78, New Jersey administrative code 78.9 In that they outline the requirements to control10 quantity, stormwater quality, stormwater quality11 treatment, groundwater recharge and having green12 infrastructure. Using more items that are more BMP's,13 they're called, or basin stormwater systems that will14 facilitate infiltration of runoff right to the subsoil15 and groundwater below.16 So in this case DEP did review and approve17 it and indicate it complies with NJAC 78. That doesn't18 remove the burden from the board engineer to also review19 and comment on the stormwater, which we do have open20 stormwater comments that the applicants engineer21 previously indicated they can address.22 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: I mean, I found the23 Princeton Hydro testimony, which is really an unbiased,24 it was very, very credible.25 54 MR. MacNEILL: And as a board member I won't1 comment on how you should weigh different testimony,2 that's really on you to weigh what you think is credible3 testimony or not. My role as the board engineer is to4 try to facilitate and help guide you through.5 COUNCIL WOMAN SCARPA: You're kind of -- the6 engineering calculations to me appear to be something7 like the trades statistics. The government statistics.8 You can massage them, depending on who you're working9 for to be whatever you need them to be. Princeton Hydro10 is the gold standard and they don't have any bias, other11 than to look at, you know, what's best. So they were12 the most credible to me.13 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. And, again, no comment14 on credibility. That's how you see it, I won't have any15 comment on that. I will say that DEP does prepare and16 outlines those requirements down to municipalities for17 them to adopt in their code. So always my opinion that18 DEP created these regulations, when you have a project19 that DEP is reviewing, they're reviewing approval it's a20 very important component for that project.21 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah. And the other22 thing was,

ese regulations, when you have a project19 that DEP is reviewing, they're reviewing approval it's a20 very important component for that project.21 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah. And the other22 thing was, you know, a lot of what we heard from Mr.23 Weislander, you know, the flooding and the stench from24 the sewer line that runs through Howell Drive. I mean,25 55 this is lived experience of our residents. And, you1 know they told us they've been reporting this for ten2 years. So, and, you know, instead of really addressing3 it, I kind of heard well, okay, it's not really a4 problem. You know, we'll do various different privacy5 issues, it didn't really address that point. And the6 developer really hasn't shown us that they have an7 interest in maintaining this infrastructure once they8 put it in place and that is my concern. It's the lived9 experience of the residents that to me, you know, it's10 outweighing technical analysis that can be massaged to11 meet, you know, many different standards.12 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. And, again, if that's13 how you want to weigh the testimony that was provided14 that would really be your prerogative as a board member.15 Every testimony, everyone that provided testimony with a16 license, obviously obtained that license by getting the17 necessary experience and education. Obviously you hear18 a lot of different testimony from licensed individuals,19 so, again, it's kind of, it is up to you to weigh that20 testimony and determine which you -- which appears to be21 more credible in you opinion.22 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Well, we teach the23 kids look at the primary source. Always do that. Look24 at the source. Look at the source and motivation of25 56 whoever's writing something or giving the information1 and I think that's an important way to evaluate2 information.3 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Chairman. This is a4 discussion can we do this at a discussion.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mayor McCartney.6 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Okay. About the stench.7 We did hear about that public comment. I would like to8 find out from our engineer, because I believe that that9 was taken care of years ago, and we should get a10 confirmation on that.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. We will hear our12 engineer as to that. I believe she -- there was13 testimony about that and it was remedied. Does the14 zoning official have any comment on that?15 MS. GARY-ADAMS: On the stench,

ay. We will hear our12 engineer as to that. I believe she -- there was13 testimony about that and it was remedied. Does the14 zoning official have any comment on that?15 MS. GARY-ADAMS: On the stench, that's16 engineering.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. So we'll get that.18 Ms. McGovern.19 MS. McGOVERN: I did ask, I'm not giving20 testimony on this but I did ask Dr. Beth about this and21 she was out during, I guess when those complaints were22 made, she was out on disability and apparently the23 individual who dealt with that is no longer with the24 town. So I don't know that there is someone currently25

15 of 54 sheets Page 57 to 60 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 57 that can speak to that. Whatever went on in the past1 that addressed it in the township, because I did try to2 make an effort to locate people within the town that3 might have had that information to come here, but was4 unable to.5 MAYOR McCARTNEY: We can still follow up and6 find out.7 MS. McGOVERN: You had -- right. But I just8 want to let you know that that was attempted at least.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, it's the building10 department, I think that's the place to go, and we will11 have them report back to us within two weeks if -- when12 the issue, if they have a documentation of it and has it13 been resolved. That's fair. Okay. Good.14 Anything else?15 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah. Well, you want16 me to go on, I was going to wait my turn.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Absolutely. You got your18 turn.19 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: The other, I think20 more important concern of mine, is the safety aspects.21 The primary responsibility of government is to keep our22 citizens safe, right. I have a fiduciary responsibility23 as a council person, elected council person is to24 support the health, the welfare and the safety of the25 58 residents that put me here. I'm deeply concerned about1 the fire safety, emergency ingress and egress. We heard2 testimony from Marea, who was trapped inside her3 development and was unable to get out to deal with an4 emergency crises with her elderly mother and that5 testimony was riveting to me. You know, I urge all my6 colleagues to think about the responsibility we have for7 the decisions we make. You know, sometimes, like I8 said, the metrics that we use can be questionable. You9 know, in -- on April 27, 2025, this is a very real10 concern, the big windstorm took down the tree, it hit a11 power line in the country club, there were live wires,12 our fire department closed Oval Road, right. Blocking13 out our residents from entering and this is real14 experience and in Mr. Pehnke, the developers traffic15 engineer, said that nothing in the plan would really be16 any different. So adding 500 more homes behind that17 fire line, that's a total of 900 residents, to me makes18 no sense when there's only one way in and out more19 people are going to be trapped. I just feel like this20 application presents some really unresolved emergency21 access and public safety risks, including the

hen there's only one way in and out more19 people are going to be trapped. I just feel like this20 application presents some really unresolved emergency21 access and public safety risks, including the ingress22 and the egress. The increased congestion affecting23 first responders response time and stormwater conditions24 that might impede emergency routes and, you know, also25 59 the impact on our neighboring towns.1 MR. KLEIN: Can we do one at a time.2 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah, we'll do one at3 time.4 MR. KLEIN: Yeah, so Mr. Chairman.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Klein.6 MR. KLEIN: Ryan, can you talk a little bit7 about, to me as a traffic engineer unfortunately, Oval8 Road to me is the only way in and out of this whole9 development, whether you say Kuzak's open, close it,10 it's the only way in and out. I asked Mr. Pehnke when11 he testified, don't you need a Boulevard from at least12 Eagle Rock to I guess it's either Bomgart or Warner, so13 that when there is some kind of an incident on Oval it's14 only on one side of the road, it's contained and you can15 still have traffic going on the other side, but16 technically it's not necessary. Now, it might be the17 right thing to do, but they don't have to do it. Can18 you address that a little bit and help enlighten, at19 least me.20 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. So technically, or not21 technically speaking. If you take a step back, and I22 believe I provided testimony on this. If this23 development goes in all at the same time under current24 regulations it is a cul-de-sac based off Oval Road.25 60 There's no contesting that.1 MR. KLEIN: Right.2 MR. MacNEILL: NJAC 7 -- or, sorry. NJAC3 521, Residential Site Improvement Standards, issues4 clarifications, again, it clarifies their standards. So5 clarification number 3, which is what I indicated in my6 traffic review letter dated October 29, 2025, is one of7 the most important clarifications for this project, so I8 think it is worth reading for all board members to9 understand that. But essentially, I have it right here,10 I'll -- "RSIS does not require that a development build11 before the rules become in place on June 3, 1997 to be12 improved to meet the standards. This is true even when13 a proposed development relies on an existing development14 for its street network, sanitary sewer system, water15 supply system or stormwater management system." So16 essentially what it's

even when13 a proposed development relies on an existing development14 for its street network, sanitary sewer system, water15 supply system or stormwater management system." So16 essentially what it's saying is, if you are in before17 1997 the standards don't apply to you. Whether I agree18 with that or not is a separate conversation, but it is19 my role to just outline the standards and that is what20 the applicant needs to follow. So in this case, whether21 I agree with it or not, they are following the standards22 of RSIS.23 MR. KLEIN: Right.24 And Mr. Chairman, you mentioned before, Oval25

03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM Page 61 to 64 of 136 16 of 54 sheets 61 Road is a private road, correct?1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Right.2 MR. KLEIN: So it's not -- if it was a3 township road, at least we could say, the right thing to4 do is make it a boulevard all the way to Bomgart or to5 Warner.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Correct.7 MR. KLEIN: But we can't even do that.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Correct.9 MR. KLEIN: So I don't know what we can do,10 Council President, when it comes to this. There's11 nothing legally they have to do to make it -- even12 though it might be the right thing to do, they don't13 have to do it.14 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: So it's not safe.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer.16 MR. KLEIN: I mean, I live on Walker, after17 Hurricane Sandy, I have three ways out of my18 neighborhood. All three had trees. We were stuck for a19 week. I went out with my bow saw, my neighbor came out20 with his chain saw, we started cutting until finally the21 fire department came and took it away, the tree. At22 least one. So it happens. It hasn't happened that23 often, we do have other ways out depending on where the24 crash is. So maybe we need to look at that alternative25 62 route to get through, I guess, Essex Fells and that1 direction. And then we've got Howell, the other end, to2 be able to get out and I think there's another one, you3 said to Marie Terrace, yeah. So there are other ways4 out. Maybe that's not the best, but it's still, now I'd5 say technically they do have alternative ways out.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer, Mr. Alper,7 Mayor McCartney.8 MS. KAPFERER: Just a quick question. Can9 someone clarify, who owns Oval Road? I believe in on --10 MR. KLEIN: It's the homeowners association,11 right?12 MS. KAPFERER: I thought this came up at13 some point during testimony.14 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: It did.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: It did and it wasn't the16 applicant.17 MR. KLEIN: No, it's the homeowners18 association I would think.19 MS. McGOVERN: There is some kind of20 arrangement with the Pleasantdale Chateau has some kind21 of interest in.22 MR. KLEIN: Oh, okay.23 MS. McGOVERN: I don't remember, there was24 commentary on it, but it's not, it's not the townships,25 63 as I understand it. I think there's a, there's a1 agreement between Pleasantdale Chateau and easements or2 something.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: But it's is not the4 applicant. It's not the township.5 MR. KLEIN: Right.6 CHAIRMAN

I think there's a, there's a1 agreement between Pleasantdale Chateau and easements or2 something.3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: But it's is not the4 applicant. It's not the township.5 MR. KLEIN: Right.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We had testimony to that7 effect.8 Mr. Alper.9 MR. ALPER: I'll hold off until it's my10 turn.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Well, go for it.12 MR. ALPER: I've got a few things on a few13 different topics.14 First, the matter of the sanitary sewer line15 moving through the stormwater basin, I think it's not16 supposed to be. We had Jordan Rizzo from CME and Sean17 Walsh from Princeton Hydro both twice raised this, that18 it needs to be fixed and the correction of it and I19 think this was from Mr. Walsh's testimony, might have20 been Rizzo's, that the correction would need to be shown21 on the plans and there was a claim that if the wetlands22 were impacted by that change that DEP would then need to23 approve it. If that's all still being worked out, I24 want to make sure we get over our own skis and move on25 64 this before we're supposed to.1 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, so my understanding the2 applicants or applicant already agreed to comply with3 that requirement, which we have in our stormwater review4 letter. So, and 100 percent agree, your sewer line5 should not be in your stormwater management system, so6 100 percent agree with Princeton Hydro on that fact and7 for them they will have to adjust that while avoiding8 the wetlands area, additional disturbance of the9 wetlands area. It does appear feasible based on my10 review, but if they cannot make that happen without11 disturbing additional wetlands then they would have to12 go back to DEP for additional permit. So keeping that,13 if we get to a point of an approval, keeping that as a14 condition to relocate that sewer line and it's just15 shifting it out of the driving area off, really below16 the sidewalk would be my understanding of the design.17 So that would have to be a condition of approval for if18 we got to that point.19 MR. ALPER: So does it seem like that's20 something we should wait on until we have it or it21 something that we would ordinary wait for approval,22 because the sewer line was already shown, it's was23 something we would want to see before approval?24 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, knowing that there is a25

17 of 54 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 65 feasible solution to relocating that line without1 disturbing wetlands, it, not in my opinion that it needs2 to be seen before a decision is made. But, again, I'll3 defer to the board on how you feel on that, knowing that4 if, for whatever reason, they couldn't make it work5 they're back at the board anyway for an amended approval6 or even going to DEP for an addition approval before7 being allowed to start any construction.8 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: That's a very9 reasonable concern.10 MR. ALPER: Yeah. Something to think about.11 Next on water. The letter from New Jersey12 American that they they're willing to provide service13 not withstanding, I don't think we heard rebuttal on the14 objector testimony that a water tower would be necessary15 for pressure. That was Bill Green from Litwornia on16 July 30. So that's a health and welfare concern for me17 that there could be inadequate water at the site.18 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. So --19 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: That's a fire safety,20 fire pressure. That helps. It's a fire safety issue as21 well.22 MR. ALPER: That too.23 MR. MacNEILL: I don't want to make any24 comments for the applicant, so I'll maybe defer on, I25 66 don't know if applicants attorney has an answer to that.1 My understanding though is New Jersey American Water2 provided the will serve without the inclusion of the3 water tower.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: There are other complexes5 in the township of West Orange that are similar in grade6 that have water service, such as Clarken Drive, which is7 over 30 degrees, on a similar neighborhood that was8 totally forested. So the water pressure is a function9 of the New Jersey American Water providing service, the10 Township of West Orange fire department ensuring that11 all fire service apparatus are up to snuff and to flush12 a toilet. So that's also the building department in13 town. So those groups have to identify that the water14 is up to snuff and if it's deficient New Jersey American15 Water will identify to town and say, we can't do this,16 we'll have to have an alternative method, which maybe17 the water tower, whatever that maybe, this is way beyond18 my pay rate. So it is up to them, but they will have to19 provide service and the applicant will have to show that20 service is provided to the degree of safety on a regular21 basis. And the fire