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

nd18 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 department checks. So there's22 backup in the checking incentive.23 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Is that something that24 can be planned out prior?25 67 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We'll have talk to talk to1 the fire department and find out what their regular2 checking is.3 COUNCIL WOMAN SCARPA: I feel very4 uncomfortable with this.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, I understand that,6 but again, we have other complexes in town that have a7 similar topography, so I would say that this is up to8 New Jersey American Water to certify to the town and the9 fire department would have to check to make sure10 whatever their intervals are and if not we will11 condition an interval to ensure the safety. We can do12 that, it's our fire department.13 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Right. I know. I get14 concerned because, you know, we all know there's a lot15 of legal loop holes in the law that don't always lead up16 to the interest of the public good and we all know that17 lobbyists in Washington write legislation --18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Well, nobody's lobbying us19 and if you make a condition they're going to have to20 live by the condition because the building department21 will ensure and the fire department will ensure it would22 be a condition of their requirement to do. And they'll23 have to report back to the building department. And I'm24 sure the applicant would want to make that the water25 68 service is appropriate.1 Mr. Klein.2 MR. KLEIN: I would think that if it's not3 safe from a fire standpoint they wouldn't get a4 certificate of occupancy. Well, makes sense. If the5 sprinklers won't work because there's not enough water6 pressure, they can't give them a CO. And if they need a7 pump or some kind of a tower then they have -- I mean,8 if it's a tower they have to come back here. If it's a9 physical feature, if it's just a pump to get the10 pressure up.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: They're going to do12 whatever they need to do to satisfy the requirements of13 the state because the buildings are sprinklered, so it14 has to be by code. Okay.15 Mr. Alper.16 MR. ALPER: Sewer and carrying capacity, I17 think that's been covered. I have the same concerns. I18 think there was testimony from town engineer on

ed, so it14 has to be by code. Okay.15 Mr. Alper.16 MR. ALPER: Sewer and carrying capacity, I17 think that's been covered. I have the same concerns. I18 think there was testimony from town engineer on that,19 but I think it was in affordable housing.20 MR. KLEIN: Yeah.21 MR. ALPER: I think. I don't remember, I22 think I asked about it earlier, I don't remember for23 sure, but that's a separate proceeding but I think there24 may be something there still. So I don't think it was25

03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM Page 69 to 72 of 136 18 of 54 sheets 69 resolved, at least not as of that meeting.1 Stormwater management and slope stability, I2 don't think I want to get into to much of that right3 now, I assume that's coming from more engineering4 people, maybe. But it does stick in my mind that we had5 the testimony of Geoffrey Goff from Princeton Hydro all6 the way back in July last year, saying he would not live7 in Building D. Not to say that, you know, Princeton8 Hydro is not a biased source, because obviously they're9 the objectors, but that is a qualified engineer making10 that statement and I give that some credibility.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So just everybody remember12 that the objector and the applicant have both sides, but13 our expert, our independent expert, is CME. So after14 everything we've done, CME reviews things that we ask15 them to review and they came up with their opinions. So16 that is our townships independent engineering firm. And17 our independent planner is Ms. Apte, so if you have18 questions about either report, what one says this way19 and one says that way, that goes to Mr. MacNeill or Ms.20 Apte, and they're going to give us their view on, as you21 see, what they feel is reasonable to condition the22 application on for safety and health and welfare.23 Mr. Alper.24 MR. ALPER: The destruction of the wetlands25 70 at the top of the Canoe Brook. I don't see how we can1 permit the treated water to be dropped lower in the2 stream, which after all grading is obviously going to3 dry up what's at the top of the stream. That seems like4 a bad idea and something DEP should have caught and I5 understand it might outside our power to address but it6 should look at that to whatever extent we can.7 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Mr. MacNeill, can8 you find a solution or is that for the applicant to9 solve?10 MR. MacNEILL: The problem is for, and I11 understand the -- it's a valid point, but there's no12 specific regulation about moving -- so stormwater13 management they look at the point of analysis for the14 site. Where ultimately does all this runoff go. So in15 that case they are meeting the runoff quantity to the16 point of analysis. There is no specific regulation that17 I'm aware of that you need to have the exact same flow18 to your wetland area at every point within that site.19 The problem on top of that is the township does

There is no specific regulation that17 I'm aware of that you need to have the exact same flow18 to your wetland area at every point within that site.19 The problem on top of that is the township does not20 regulate wetland areas. That is for NJDEP. So if21 there's any noncompliance that's where DEP would bring22 that up, under that review. And I will say this project23 did receive flood hazard area permits, as well as24 freshwater wetland permits. So in some cases maybe you25 71 skirt by the rules of freshwater wetlands if you're just1 getting a flood water hazard permit, but both, different2 departments had a hand in reviewing this which is why3 they have multiple permits. So flood hazard area as4 well as freshwater wetland general permits for the5 project.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: But it stands to reason7 that if you decrease the flow of water to the superior8 aspect area of the wetlands and direct it to the9 inferior area of the wetlands the superior area may dry10 up and you may change the topography of the wetlands.11 So it may be a condition, you'll have to decide of the12 board. To have the applicant go back and review this13 how they can redirect the flow back to superior area of14 the wetlands, which would be within keeping of the DEP's15 concept, to keep the wetlands flowing, and they may have16 go back to the DEP if they have to -- if you have flow17 of X and you cutting flow down by half, and the DEP18 agrees that it's a wetland, I don't see that the DEP,19 and I'm not them, that the DEP would say, no, don't do20 that. It would maintain the wetlands in the condition21 it is pre-application.22 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, so it --23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Does that make sense?24 MR. MacNEILL: It does make sense from a25 72 practical standpoint, right. But I don't disagree with1 anything you're saying or even Princeton Hydro's saying2 from a practical standpoint. It will be less water to3 the northern area of the wetlands, but DEP's regulation4 essentially, one, they don't, to my knowledge, they5 don't regulate to every specific area of runoff volume6 to a wetlands area.7 And two, they want you to reduce flow.8 Every development and how this development complied with9 the stormwater regulations is reducing flow to your10 point of analysis. So it's almost, it's contradicting11 itself by wanting to put the same exact flow back when12 the site is required to reduce the

he stormwater regulations is reducing flow to your10 point of analysis. So it's almost, it's contradicting11 itself by wanting to put the same exact flow back when12 the site is required to reduce the flow to comply with13 the stormwater management regulations. So you have two14 contradicting aspects of this project of, you want more15 flow or the same flow to your wetlands but you need to16 reduce your flow in order to comply with NJAC 78.17 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: And this is the18 problem I still struggle with. I mean, meeting the19 minimum technical threshold does not automatically make20 a project appropriate for the site.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So I'm not saying reduce22 the flow, I'm saying, move it to where it started, which23 is -- - if you're going to reduce the flow it's going to24 be lower down by other stormwater management systems.25

19 of 54 sheets Page 73 to 76 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 73 So I want to go out on a ledge and I'm going to suggest1 to the board that we ask the applicant to review that2 and see if they can redirect the stormwater to that3 superior aspect where it starts now and in the lower4 aspect is where we have stormwater management, where you5 have different percolation and it is reclaimed so you6 will decrease the overall amount of stormwater7 management, but you keep the wetlands the wetlands. So8 -- and the board may not vote that way. I'm just9 throwing it out there.10 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, I don't want to push11 back on that request.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead, push back.13 MR. MacNEILL: But one -- so any motor14 vehicle surface, right. Every pavement area you see15 beside building needs to be treated, right. So that's16 another DEP requirement. You have to meet 80 percent,17 it's called, Total Suspended Solids Removal for your18 motor vehicle surface areas. So everywhere where a car19 could drive they have to send it to a basin. And in20 this case they're sending, in most stormwater designs,21 your basin is at your low point of the site to avoid you22 raising the site with additional fill and having a23 disturbed additional area. So in this case their basin24 is at the low point of the site right before discharging25 74 to the wetlands and they built their whole site, all the1 finished floors for the building, it's based really off2 that discharge elevation, that basin bottom and that top3 of basin. So one, the only thing that you can send to4 the northern areas without treatment would be some5 potentially roof area which is clean, but then you get6 into a situation where now you're not going to comply7 with the runoff quantity requirements. So it, again,8 it's two different aspects that is a contradiction in9 the regulations.10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Maybe rainwater from the11 roof that's clean, can feed that basin starting upwards12 and I understand the topography of the land, it's easier13 to go down to the bottom of the basin, decreasing the14 amount of flow at the top of the basin. However, the15 buildings that are up there may in some way drain and16 provide clear water in rainwater to the top of the17 basin. So it's going to be something the engineers have18 to look at to see if we can keep the upper area wet.19 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. And, again, I don't20 have

r water in rainwater to the top of the17 basin. So it's going to be something the engineers have18 to look at to see if we can keep the upper area wet.19 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. And, again, I don't20 have any issue asking the applicant to take another21 look. I do feel though there is some, the major22 challenge is to juggle that with your compliance with23 the stormwater regulations. Specifically like, when24 you're not controlling impervious coverage runoff with a25 75 basin you're going to very quickly not comply with the1 runoff quantity standards. If you're just allowing it2 to go detained without holding it back. Because really3 in stormwater, any site, this is a wooded site, you're4 adding impervious, you're increasing in your overall5 stormwater volume, right. So this site is going to6 generate more stormwater volume. What stormwater basins7 do is they control that runoff, like a bathtub they have8 outlet controls that you have to hit the 2, 10 and9 100-year storm cutbacks. So you're just controlling10 your flow. You're letting out your flow slower to meet11 50 percent reduction in flow in your 2-year storm. 7512 percent reduction in your 10-year storm event. And 8013 percent reduction in your -- or, I'm sorry, not14 reduction, but 80 percent of those existing storm15 events.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: But if you have a longer17 area for the water to dissipate into the ground because18 you're emptying higher up, you'll have greater19 percolation further up, so you still may have, you may20 still come up with the same total number, but it may21 percolate and keep the upper wetlands wet, which seems22 to be what we're taking away.23 MR. MacNEILL: I, I understand your point.24 I do just think technically speaking it will be a tough25 76 engineering task to accomplish that. But, again, I1 don't think there's any reason why you can't push that2 back on the applicant to try his best to come up with a3 solution that appeases the board.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We can ask.5 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Ans still complies.6 You should be an engineer coming up with all these,7 outside of the buttons.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Sorry. I work in small9 areas. I build very small bridges.10 MR. KLEIN: The only bridges you should work11 on are in the mouth.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: They would have let me do13 the Verrizzano. No.14 Mr. Alper.15 MR. ALPER: So I do have a bit on traffic16 circulation and

IN: The only bridges you should work11 on are in the mouth.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: They would have let me do13 the Verrizzano. No.14 Mr. Alper.15 MR. ALPER: So I do have a bit on traffic16 circulation and safety.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Let me just say one thing.18 MR. ALPER: Yeah.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: The traffic circulation,20 you all have to understand is in the area of the21 application based on the way the IH-1 zone is written.22 It is not in the other part of West Essex Highlands. It23 is not on Oval Road, that's not part of this24 application. However we look at it, flow will come out25

03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM Page 77 to 80 of 136 20 of 54 sheets 77 that way, but the application is in the superior aspect1 of West Essex Highlands. So that's what we have to look2 at. That is, we have to follow the IH-1 zone and that's3 where the area starts. Even though it comes out and4 eventually ends up on Oval Road road. So we have5 limited abilities for conditioning as you move away from6 the area of the application. So just keep that in mind.7 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: This is continues to8 be my concern.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Council Person Scarpa.10 Council President Scarpa, I'm sorry.11 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: This continues to be12 my concern. Where does the technical analysis meet13 reality?14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Reality is something that15 we have to deal with as a board, but you have to16 understand what our limitations are as a board. So we17 have to work within those parameters. And Mr. Ryan --18 Mr. MacNeill can give us a little idea, but I believe19 that the application is within West Essex Highlands too,20 and that' we have to identify. Traffic flow that comes21 out of there is at this time not in our purview, but in22 reality it is.23 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: I know. This is so24 hard for me because as a business woman I always looked25 78 at everything as a whole and very strategically.1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I agree, and that's part2 of the --3 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: And I'm struggling4 with it.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: That's part of the6 constraints of the land use. So when we look at it as7 law we're constrained by the application. That's what8 we have to look at. There are other portions that we9 have to address, Eagle Rock Avenue, Oval Road,10 absolutely, but that's not part of our application. It11 doesn't mean that you can't ask and present issues.12 Okay. But we have to be careful how far you go. Okay.13 So then if we have a question we'll go to Ms. McGovern.14 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Okay. Sorry to15 interrupt.16 MR. ALPER: So I want to start kind of going17 into the RSIS a little there. You know, the idea that18 there's two maybe three access points and that makes our19 roads --20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ladies and gentlemen, RSIS21 is the Residential Site Improvement Standards. It has22 to do with roadways, how wide, sidewalks, topography of23 the land, slope of the land. I just want everyone to24 understand what we're talking about.25 79 Mr. Alper.1 MR. ALPER: Thank

ndards. It has22 to do with roadways, how wide, sidewalks, topography of23 the land, slope of the land. I just want everyone to24 understand what we're talking about.25 79 Mr. Alper.1 MR. ALPER: Thank you.2 So under RSIS if, as I understand it, if a3 road serving a community like proposed here has only one4 access point coming in from one place and it's a5 multifamily cul-de-sac and RSIS limits you to a 10006 average daily trips per day, if you have multiple access7 points to the road it becomes a minor collector and it8 allows 3500 trips a day. So it's been claimed variously9 that there are either two access points, Kuzak being --10 and Kuzak and Warner, or possibly three with Howell11 Drive being the third, Mr. Pehnke made that claim in his12 September appearance here for rebuttal. You know, my13 opinion is that the RSIS street hierarchy section is14 about usable access points to roads for regular road15 users and the determination of which it is depends on16 the usability of those access roads for the vehicles17 that make up the average daily traffic on the roads.18 You know, you and me and the people who live in the19 community, not whether or not there's emergency access20 points for life safety, which is a separate issue21 outside of this part of RSIS. Howell obviously not an22 access point, the original testimony from Mr. Pehnke in23 September of 2024 when Mr. Klein was questioning him24 made it clear that it's "not in approve connection.25 80 It's a stabilized emergency gate." The Mr. Klein asked1 how residents would get out in a longer emergency. Mr.2 Pehnke said, they would be impeded until it was cleared.3 That, I think, is a dangerous lack of emergency egress4 because that's the only way out of West Essex Highlands5 that does not go back to Oval Road.6 You know, moving on to Kuzak, like I said7 before, I think it's a legal fiction that Kuzak's a8 separate access point. It's only a block and a half9 long, it connects to Warner, only a block and half10 outside the site. It's not separate access point, it's11 a stub of Warner. They're the same road for all honest12 realistic purposes. Obviously we've already decided13 we're not going to grant the de minimus exception, but I14 still maintain that this is a multifamily cul-de-sac15 with a 1000 daily trips. And I'd argue as to the16 Litwornia report that this is a multifamily cul-de-sac,17 not a minor