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

nimus 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 collector and the average daily traffic18 volume is more than RSIS allows on the road. I think19 the Litwornia report was very credible on these points,20 even with the acknowledgement that clarification three21 says, we're not allowed to consider the other 2400 trips22 in the existing developments. Except that we're also23 supposed to, ahead of even RSIS, be focused on public24 safety and having no second way to exit this site25

21 of 54 sheets Page 81 to 84 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 81 violates that principle. I think this project needs a1 second actual access point. If the applicant had2 proposed to purchase land and extend Walter Street off3 of Cunningham which connects the PBW or to get approvals4 to connect to Devon Road in Essex Falls, which leads to5 Bloomfield Avenue, I think that would be another story,6 or and I acknowledge that none of these ideas are good7 for the woods or the wetlands or for the neighborhoods8 and the residents, but they'd at least make a difference9 in making the project safe from an egress and emergency10 perspective. An extension from Blakely combined with an11 opening of the cul-de-sac on Blakely and Marie, which12 has already been mentioned, where there's already a13 small change separating them to provide a way out14 through Schmidt and Marmon back to Pleasant Valley, or15 an agreement with Essex Fells to open and maybe improve16 Oval in the other direction. But when only Warner or17 only Warner and this hand waive of an idea of wink,18 wink, Kuzak, it's unsafe. Not for emergency access to19 get in, not necessarily, though I'm not convinced about20 access through Howell, more because of the steepness and21 the possibility of it being unplowed in the winter, than22 because of the use variance question which maybe doesn't23 resolve before we make a decision, because without24 Howell there is no secondary emergency vehicle entrance25 82 and that has to exist. But my point here is that I'm1 really focused on the emergency egress of residents.2 Egress is a required element under RSIS as well as under3 our more general charges of the public safety and I4 don't think that we have it without a true second road.5 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, I don't disagree with6 anything you outlined there and not to put it back on7 you, but that is now your role as a board member to8 weigh what the applicant has presented and whether you9 feel, one, if you already denied the de minimus10 exception, but feel if the application is restricting or11 would harm public safety and welfare.12 MR. ALPER: Thank you.13 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza.14 Mayor McCartney.15 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Well, I just -- sorry. I16 wanted to follow what Kim was saying. So this sounds17 like this could be another condition that we just had 2418 inches of snow, that there has to be a condition that19 the

Well, I just -- sorry. I16 wanted to follow what Kim was saying. So this sounds17 like this could be another condition that we just had 2418 inches of snow, that there has to be a condition that19 the Oval Road egress, Howell Drive and even the one, at20 The Grand, would have to be cleared. Would have to be21 cleared for emergency. Any emergency incident. Has to22 be a condition.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.24 MR. KLEIN: The hydrants.25 83 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other1 comments/questions?2 Oh, Mr. Cardoza.3 MR. CARDOZA: Yeah, no, thank you Mr.4 Chairman.5 Much of what I want to discuss already been6 covered. We discussed the ongoing issues with the smell7 effecting several residences and how we're going to8 follow up on that. That was during Council Person9 Scarpa's questioning. Or comments, I should say. And10 then the original plan showing sewer lines connecting to11 the stormwater basin, Mr. Alper brought that up, so I'm12 left with two questions for our board attorney,13 basically to help me focus in or conceptualize some of14 the thinking here. So the one road aspect, which Mr.15 Alper just did a great job summarizing, Ms. McGovern,16 when you brought us through our -- your opening and you17 laid out how we should think about things, you mentioned18 feasibility and assessing probability versus19 possibility, and when we consider that there was already20 a fire or maybe two of them if I'm recalling correctly,21 how should we weigh the fact that this is, again, a22 contiguous property, so -- I mean, we have had Dr.23 Bagoff or Chairman Bagoff layout how, you know, we could24 only assess traffic flow on the property as opposed to25 84 the extent, you know, where it extends, where that1 traffic flow ends up and we're assessing public safety.2 So I'm just probability versus possibly, and how we're3 supposed to look at that?4 MS. McGOVERN: When you listen to experts5 speak you listen to whether they're giving you an6 opinion to a reasonable degree of probability or are we7 just hearing this might be possible, this might be8 possible. Now, you're indicating you've seen some9 examples of road closures, so that's within your in10 experience of a person, not necessarily just living11 something in this town, but you know the area, of what12 things that you find are potential probable hazards that13 have to be considered. A meteorite hitting this site is14 a possibility,

st living11 something in this town, but you know the area, of what12 things that you find are potential probable hazards that13 have to be considered. A meteorite hitting this site is14 a possibility, that you can't concern. But something15 less than that you would have to --16 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: A tree falling,17 certainly within the realm --18 MS. McGOVERN: Potentially, but you also19 have to weigh it and you have to weigh the20 reasonableness of what can be done in that situation.21 Temporary restraints versus a problem that would create22 a danger to peoples lives.23 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Well, we heard the24 resident testimony from Marea and we're concerned about25

03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM Page 85 to 88 of 136 22 of 54 sheets 85 fire safety and you could only must think in a fire, it1 could be life or death.2 MR. CARDOZA: Well, we know that one point3 of ingress for the fire department is actually only for4 Essex Fells, if I'm recalling correctly.5 MS. McGOVERN: Well, Oval Road, they have an6 agreement which was provided that in the event of an7 emergency that would be opened up. What has not been8 defined is what rises to the level of an emergency and I9 believe it's your, your services, your police department10 and your fire department in connection with their fire11 and police that make that decision because they're the12 excerpts in those cases.13 MR. CARDOZA: Okay.14 MS. McGOVERN: Similarly you heard that15 there's that emergency access out through Howell.16 Again, that would be a decision made by those experts,17 what constitutes an emergency to allow people to utilize18 that or is it just emergency access for fire, police and19 ambulance, if that's necessary. These are the things20 that you consider in terms of your own experience in21 life and what would be necessary.22 MR. CARDOZA: Appreciate that.23 So my next question would be, the extent to24 which we can consider environmental impacts, because,25 86 you know, you laid out our charge in stormwater1 management and drainage, sewage disposal, water supply,2 traffic circulation safety and the additional3 geotechnical stability. We heard a lot of testimony4 from, I should say our, the objectors experts regarding5 environmental impacts but then, you know, juxtapose that6 with Mayor McCartney brought us through how7 preservation, as she stated, is really not within the8 purview of the board being that this is private9 property. So the extent to which we consider it,10 because we've also, over 29 meetings we've done this,11 we're getting into the weeds in the law and we've had12 some dueling attorney, how should I say, dialogue back13 and forth, and so are we to consider, the extent that we14 can consider environmental impacts as a matter of law is15 it so, is it shoehorned into this narrow expense of the16 public's health and welfare or can it be, if we're to,17 you know, do to the letter of the law it can be broader18 in any capacity?19 MS. McGOVERN: I'm going to direct you to20 two things. I'm going to direct you to the ordinance21 which allows this area to be

know, do to the letter of the law it can be broader18 in any capacity?19 MS. McGOVERN: I'm going to direct you to20 two things. I'm going to direct you to the ordinance21 which allows this area to be developed, and that was a22 decision made a while ago. So you're being handed an23 ordinance for you to review to see if this site plan24 matches up with that. And I do not find anything in any25 87 case that that specifically speaks to the effect of the1 environment on the environment, other than those2 categories that we mentioned, stormwater management,3 sewer disposal, water supply, traffic circulation,4 safety. Now, because you can't get into the position5 where you are second guessing the passing of this6 ordinance, that was done. So your decision has to be7 based on, you're looking at the site plan, does it meet8 the definition of the site plan requirements under our9 ordinance and does it meet the feasibility qualities10 required for stormwater management and drainage, sewer11 disposal, water supply, traffic circulation, and I threw12 in geotechnical stability. That's all I can answer to13 you. If you feel as though it rises to the level over14 and above based upon the ordinance and whether they've15 supplied site plan information that takes it out of the16 realm of what the ordinance requires somehow, then that17 would be your decision.18 MR. CARDOZA: So thank you. That was19 clarified. That's really all I had. I just wanted to20 better contextualize everything that we heard and follow21 up on my fellow board members problems with that.22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.23 Go around the board again.24 Mayor McCartney, do you have any questions25 88 or comments?1 MAYOR McCARTNEY: So, we just raised that2 question about what constitutes an emergency. How do we3 define that? Is this --4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Police department. We've5 had testimony, police department and the fire department6 are the two agencies that determine that. The ambulance7 is a function of the fire department, so that's who8 would determine emergency.9 MR. KLEIN: So who will decide whether to10 open up the access to Howell Drive or not?11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Apparently that's the way12 it works from previous testimony. Or Essex Fells.13 MR. KLEIN: Oh, the other one.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And there'll be a Knox Box15 box. Supposed to be a Knox Box on both sites.16 MR. KLEIN: What about the Marie

from previous testimony. Or Essex Fells.13 MR. KLEIN: Oh, the other one.14 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And there'll be a Knox Box15 box. Supposed to be a Knox Box on both sites.16 MR. KLEIN: What about the Marie Terrace17 one?18 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: I'm sorry.19 MR. KLEIN: The other, Marie Terrace, that20 was always a part of this?21 MS. McCARTNEY: I don't remember Marie22 Terrace. I don't remember that.23 MR. KLEIN: It's not, right?24 MR. ALPER: I suggested it because I've seen25

23 of 54 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 89 it.1 MR. KLEIN: Yeah, no, I know. I don't know2 why we never talked about it.3 MAYOR McCARTNEY: That's a conversation with4 the fire department that that is there.5 MR. KLEIN: Okay. Again, never used it.6 Not that we know of.7 MR. ALPER: And there's curbs there, so it8 could be used, Marie and Blakely, it could be used for9 fire trucks that come in, but that's in any way suitable10 to be an emergency evacuation in an egress situation11 where a building is on fire, God forbid, and people need12 to leave. I mean, maybe --13 MR. KLEIN: You're saying only a fire truck14 can come in? Cars can't leave?15 MR. ALPER: I don't think it's designed for16 that, I mean, there's --17 MR. KLEIN: It's designed for a fire truck?18 MS. KAPFERER: It has curbs. You have to19 know, I'm sorry, it has mountable curbs.20 MR. KLEIN: Oh, oh, it's one with separate21 --22 MR. ALPER: Like, we're across from NJPAC,23 not NJPAC, OzPAK, where there's the --24 MR. KLEIN: Oh, okay.25 90 MR. ALPER: The post in the road that could1 be lifted off and anything could run through, it's not2 like that.3 MR. KLEIN: Well, they'd have to take them4 out to get the fire truck in and then when they're out5 people could drive away.6 MS. KAPFERER: You have to -- there's no --7 there's a mountable curb there.8 MR. KLEIN: Oh, okay.9 MR. BAGOFF: Mr. Klein.10 MR. KLEIN: No, I'm good.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.12 Ms. Kapferer.13 MS. KAPFERER: I just have a couple14 questions on stormwater.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Go ahead.16 MS. KAPFERER: So if Mr. MacNeill, if we did17 go back and ask the applicant to revisit directing, you18 know, roof runoff to the wetlands, would they need to go19 back to DEP for permit approval?20 MR. MacNEILL: In most cases, yes. That21 would change their design which would require a new22 permit. So knowing that, again, I don't want to speak23 for the applicant, I'm not sure how far down that path24 they would want to go, it would be up to the board,25 91 knowing they would have to get an additional DEP permit.1 MR. KLEIN: Can I -- are you finished?2 MS. KAPFERER: I have one more.3 MR. KLEIN: Same subject, I'm going to4 follow up on that.5 So can I follow up own that. All right. So6 without the buildings and the parking lots there, water7 is flowing into the wetlands?8 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. It's sheet flowing in.9 MR. KLEIN: Right.

that.5 So can I follow up own that. All right. So6 without the buildings and the parking lots there, water7 is flowing into the wetlands?8 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. It's sheet flowing in.9 MR. KLEIN: Right. When you put in the10 buildings --11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Can you point out where12 that is right now, so we can see.13 MR. KLEIN: Yeah, I got my pointer.14 MAYOR McCARTNEY: He's going to do it.15 MR. KLEIN: So, when these aren't here. I16 guess the high point is still way over, right. So it's17 going to, all this is going to flow into this and we're18 talking about this area of the wetlands?19 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. Yeah.20 MR. KLEIN: So when you put the buildings in21 you're cutting off this amount of water, this amount of22 water, right? You still have all this water that's23 still going to go in?24 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. You will still have25 92 the majority of that open space area that's disturbed,1 but, yeah, the building areas, the parking areas is2 what's piped down to the basins.3 MR. KLEIN: Right. And that's going to4 reduce the flow into the wetlands and over time they5 could dry up.6 MR. MacNEILL: That was the testimony7 provided. Yeah.8 MR. KLEIN: Yeah. Okay.9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.10 Ms. Kapferer.11 MS. KAPFERER: Yeah, my other stormwater12 question, I just can't remember if this was ever13 resolved. I think Mr. Walsh brought up a concern about14 the case of conditions, time of concentration being to15 fast or faster than what he thought it should be which16 would result in the higher existing conditions. Do you17 remember if that was resolved? I can look into it if,18 if not.19 MR. MacNEILL: So we do have those open20 comments as well that applicants engineer would have to21 address. Yeah.22 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Great. Thank you.23 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino?24 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: No, I'm okay.25

03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM Page 93 to 96 of 136 24 of 54 sheets 93 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper.1 MR. ALPER: I don't want to get too far into2 geotechnical because there was so much on but I think3 it's worth asking if there are unresolved geotechnical4 controversies, or if there are unresolved geotechnical5 comments that you think need to be resolved, one or the6 other, before we make a decision as opposed to things7 that would have to be dealt with in, you know, like8 blasting plans, would obviously be a post approval thin,9 sort of things that we need to deal with before10 approval?11 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, so just to clarify, I'm12 not an expert in geotechnical engineering. But in13 consultation with Sam Kleinberg of my office, he is14 comfortable with the board going to a decision with what15 was currently presented. However, the project should16 be, we recommend those conditions that I outlined17 previously. Nothing currently open prior to a decision,18 but obviously additional reviews that would be needed19 prior to any construction on-site.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Cardoza.21 MR. CARDOZA: Yeah. So to my mind22 everything -- well, all questions that I've had,23 whether, you know, I asked them or another member of the24 board did and there was discussion, there's been either25 94 a resolution of some sort, or someway to address them,1 or they require further investigation. Everything2 except for the one road aspect of Oval and Kuzak, which,3 again, Mr. Alper did such a great job summarizing it, so4 I would say personally that I would benefit from hearing5 that again, not necessarily now, but at some point6 today, you know, tonight before we conclude, because I7 just want to hear that again. And that's it for me.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.9 Council President Scarpa.10 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: Yeah. The other area11 that I had difficulty with was all of the testimony we12 heard from our surrounding communities about the impact13 on them, you know, everything from the flooding, the14 Canoe Brook and the water quality and all of these15 issues, you know, we have a responsibility to our16 neighboring communities and to maintain the public17 trust. Residents have shown up, they've done their18 homework. They raised legitimate, well documented19 concerns and when a community engages at this level I20 think it's our duty to actively listen and synthesis21 this information