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

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 and to act with integrity. I'm just,22 you know, we can't forget we have to be good neighbors23 and we can't destroy or negatively impact our neighbors24 properties. I think about that all the time. You know,25 95 about community. Putting a capital C back in community,1 instead of just thinking from our own selfish points of2 view, we need to think about the impact we have on the3 world around us, on our neighbors, and I am still not4 sure that this won't negatively impact our neighbors,5 particularly with the Canoe Brook and the water quality6 concerns and all those things we've heard and all the7 environmental groups that testified.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.9 So I'd like to speak last -- oh, I'm sorry.10 Mayor, go right ahead and then Ms. Kapferer.11 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I feel like I'm playing12 jeopardy now, I want to go to a new category. And this13 one is about landscaping. So this in the ordinance that14 we're asking, the ordinance reads, "A developer shall15 plant new trees and landscaping along the near southern16 border of the tract for the purpose of supplementing and17 buffering the nearest residential units to the north."18 However, I don't know if this is for Mr. MacNeill. What19 we talked about there are 212 -- again, in the ordinance20 in says 212 trees, the number of trees that are coming21 down, where did we talk about the replacement of those22 trees, not just in this one provision, that said there23 would be additional trees. So, you know, so many trees24 are coming down how many are being replaced?25 96 MR. MacNEILL: So I will say the tree1 replacement was outside say CME's purview with Wayne2 DeFeo is handling that, so I don't want to comment on3 tree replacement. Yeah, I don't want to comment on4 something that I'm not an expert in.5 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: We had testimony, I just6 don't recall.7 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I just wanted to find out.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: There is a tree9 replacement plan.10 MAYOR McCARTNEY: I, all right. I need to11 know.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And we can condition it,13 we can condition it based on whatever we found in the --14 okay. While Ms. McGovern looks, let's go on.15 Ms. Kapferer.16 MS. KAPFERER: One other question,

CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And we can condition it,13 we can condition it based on whatever we found in the --14 okay. While Ms. McGovern looks, let's go on.15 Ms. Kapferer.16 MS. KAPFERER: One other question, Mr.17 MacNeill, for you. I think, is there any concern where18 the development will come out on Oval Road, there's a19 culvert there. Is there any concern about like the20 capacity of the culvert, condition of the culvert,21 anything like that or if that was looked at?22 MR. MacNEILL: So it was -- it' off-site23 improvement. So it's currently not on this site. What24 they are required to do is reduce the flow to that point25

25 of 54 sheets Page 97 to 100 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 97 per the NJDEP regulations, which they have complied1 with. There is, to my knowledge, hasn't been any2 capacity analysis currently done on that culvert, at3 least that I'm aware by the applicant, but again, they4 met their reductions at that point of analysis, so5 they're essentially reducing their flow to that point.6 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Yeah, I don't recall7 anyone testify or, you know, suggesting that it's an8 issue. I'm just curious, you know, if it's like a sole9 access point, typically you would ensure that it's above10 the flood elevation, it may be not an issue but just was11 curious.12 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah, so in that case if it13 is undersized or under capacity right now the only thing14 this development would be doing would be reducing that15 flow. So a lot of times you see, if we're making a16 situation that's already noncompliant a little bit17 better by reducing that flow.18 MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Thank you.19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the20 board?21 Ms. McGovern.22 MS. McGOVERN: I have some information from23 -- Mr. DeFeo wrote a report dated July 2024, where he24 makes reference to plantings -- planting species where25 98 he reviewed a plan. "Planting species appear to be all1 requirements, as only native species are proposed.2 Applicant may wish to substitute certain species to3 respond to changes in the USDA planting zone map found:4 And it gives the site. "Updated planting plan to be5 reviewed for consistency with proposed planting numbers.6 There appears to be a discrepancy of 69 plants of two7 sheets." Confirm -- then it went into porous pavements8 and other environmental issues. So there was a planting9 plan reviewed by Mr. DeFeo and is commented on his10 report.11 There's another report dated July 2024 where12 he reviews, "Implemented tree preservation or13 replacement plan in accordance that the following14 parameters, and he provides tree density equals 21215 trees per acre as per the tree study." And he says,16 "Applicant is proposing LOD of 27.5 acres" and goes into17 details there. I believe the conditions, one of the18 conditions that was proposed was to comply with Mr.19 DeFeo's report. I can double check that. Other than20 that, I don't know -- I mean, he gave two days of21 testimony, so I don't remember anything more specific.22 MS. McCARTNEY: It's okay. I

ith Mr.19 DeFeo's report. I can double check that. Other than20 that, I don't know -- I mean, he gave two days of21 testimony, so I don't remember anything more specific.22 MS. McCARTNEY: It's okay. I don't need23 that.24 MS. McGOVERN: If we look at the agenda, I25 99 don't know, maybe there's a, if it's just a part of1 their site plan, I don't know that we can break it out2 by looking at the agenda at this point without going3 through it.4 COUNCIL WOMAN SCARPA: Now that we bring it5 up, I have one other condition.6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Council Person Scarpa.7 Council President Scarpa.8 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: I wasn't going to9 bring up the whole deer fencing thing, but since we're10 on it. The deer fencing is unlikely to regrow the11 forest, you know, so like why do it. I can't wrap my12 hand around this whole plan and the Duke Forest Study,13 you know, came back with replanting as the way to do14 that. I think letting the developer take down all these15 trees and, you know, all the wildlife that's there, the16 deer, the coyotes, the foxes and the other wildlife, you17 know, where -- they're out of their natural habitat,18 where are they going. You know, we got a deer on every19 avenue. They roam the streets. It just doesn't make20 sense to me.21 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.22 So I didn't want to taint anybody's view, so23 I'll speak last.24 We saw the Vermule survey of the 1880,25 100 Roseland, Maplewood, Essex Fells were all trees. Howell1 Drive was all trees. People cut them down. They2 weren't good neighbors to us or they followed what our3 country has been doing, is building, so people can live4 in those areas. So if we use your concept, they5 shouldn't have built there. They shouldn't have cut6 those trees down. They weren't good neighbors to us.7 Being that this is the last piece of land another thing8 under the law is zoning inutility. So it is the plan,9 but if we say, you can't do it, and why, because10 everybody else did it first. They cut the waterway,11 they cut the wetlands, they cut the trees down, they12 built houses. There was testimony about the topography13 of the land and things over 30 degrees by someone I14 think was from the College Of New Jersey. And a small15 area of this applications over 30 degrees, but16 everything on Howell Drive is over 30 degrees. A golf17 course was built, they cut down a whole bunch of trees,18 all the trees, they built

d a small15 area of this applications over 30 degrees, but16 everything on Howell Drive is over 30 degrees. A golf17 course was built, they cut down a whole bunch of trees,18 all the trees, they built a golf course. They didn't19 put back all those trees. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm20 saying, as I said if before, the nature of our country21 is we build so people can live. So if we extrapolate22 and say, well, you, you can't do this because everybody23 else did it first, that violates the Municipal Land Use24 Law of the State of New Jersey. You have to be careful25

03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM Page 101 to 104 of 136 26 of 54 sheets 101 when we do this. So everybody has the right.1 Somebody's paying taxes on this land, it's private2 property, whether an offer to purchase that land was3 made or not, there's an application before us, so we4 have to, again, follow the law. It's for superior legal5 minds to work these things out. Our job is that. Okay.6 Stormwater management, we've heard about the7 stormwater management, I believe that CME, because8 they're our independent engineers, reviewed it and they9 have made comments about the stormwater management.10 They're a licensed firm in the State of New Jersey and11 New York. I trust what they've done for us and I12 understand that the stormwater management would be13 mitigated and there are stopgaps in the system that will14 be evaluated along the way, that's set up in the15 conditioning.16 The sewer system has to be evaluated, not17 only by the applicant but by the township. If there's18 not enough capacity in the township then the application19 may not go forward. I don't know, that is beyond what20 we are here to talk about. We can condition the21 applicant to make sure that every five years they comes22 back to the town and say the sewer system has been23 evaluated and maintained.24 The water is by New Jersey American Water,25 102 they have an obligation to provide water to certain1 pressure that's set by statute. The fire department2 will, at their appropriate intervals, evaluate the fire3 suppression system, both in the buildings and because4 the buildings are sprinklered, and on the fire5 suppression apparatus in the area.6 Oval Road is the main collector road. This7 is an application within an application, and that's what8 the issue is. The -- if possible, I would like to see9 the wetlands maintained. I'm sure something can be done10 that may not cause the applicant to go back to the DE.11 The applicant on the other hand has been, I12 think, in my estimation from all the time I've sat on13 the Planning Board, they have given us everything we've14 asked for and just about every condition that was on15 their property and things even not on their property,16 they're providing a traffic light, they're mitigating17 traffic flow. They are upgrading and advancing and they18 are consistent with our Master Plan. They're consistent19 with the Master Plan of the State of New Jersey.

traffic light, they're mitigating17 traffic flow. They are upgrading and advancing and they18 are consistent with our Master Plan. They're consistent19 with the Master Plan of the State of New Jersey. They20 are maintaining over 90 plus acres of this land. Again,21 their land, last guys on the block to build on it, you22 have to remember that government is not allowed to take23 without reason. We can't apply and say, you can do24 anything but you can't build there. That's not fair and25 103 that's not what we're about. We have to come up with1 the middle ground, and make sure that our neighbors are2 happy, but they built first. We have to make sure our3 people in town are safe. So the issue that I have, I4 think this is a good application. I think my major5 issue is, I can't see, I can't get over the amount of6 cars that will be coming down Oval Road. I can't see7 it. It is, I don't know that it's a cul-de-sac, but I8 think that if you put 500 units you're going to have9 over a 1000 trips a day plus you have three other10 communities that empty out into that collector road, and11 if Howell Drive was a full road and the road into the12 opposite end of Oval Road was a road into Essex Fells,13 and I would say my thought is to ask the applicant to14 find one more roadway. That's me. You don't you have15 to agree with me, I understand that. I think that our16 experts have shown that this can be a good application.17 If we look at the first part of West Essex Highlands it18 was flatter but a similar, similar forest and they built19 a beautiful community, beautiful, thriving community.20 There's a waterway that goes through it, there's a21 retention pond, every house is owned. They're22 upgrading, they're doing exactly what our Master Plan23 says. We may not like that as a community saying we're24 going to lose some more forested land, I understand25 104 that. However, we're also adding new people in town and1 we have to look at it and say, if you control that or2 you lose control of that. Things to think about.3 I'm going to ask for five-minute break and4 we're going to come back and see where we go.5 (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Welcome back.7 So I think we've deliberated and --8 MAYOR McCARTNEY: And what are you saying?9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: There's three options. I10 didn't mean to distract. There's three options, and11 each

u. Welcome back.7 So I think we've deliberated and --8 MAYOR McCARTNEY: And what are you saying?9 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: There's three options. I10 didn't mean to distract. There's three options, and11 each board member should say their peace, my peace, you12 either vote it up, you vote it down or give the13 applicant time to come back and say, we need another14 means of egress. And give them two months and come back15 and if they so no, then we're back to where we were.16 There are a number of additional conditions that we have17 discussed that are safety conditions and one is18 stormwater management and the wetlands, and it may not19 be possible to move anything to hydrate the upper20 portion of the wetlands, I understand that. But the21 thing that, again, I want to drive home is we have a22 zone plan, the IH-1 zone. This is an application within23 another area that was an application. So as Mr.24 MacNeill said, the RSIS is satisfied with the flow of25

27 of 54 sheets Page 105 to 108 of 136 03/11/2026 06:15:33 AM 105 traffic in there. However, my concern is the flow of1 traffic with three other, three other groups coming into2 that Oval Road, and it's the only major ingress and3 egress and we can't do anything about that, it is not a4 road that we have any sway over. Again, the applicant5 has been very, very kind and listening to change, and6 move and help the public -- and they've listened to the7 public comment and they've done a lot of things to8 ameliorate, mitigate issues and there are certain things9 that we can't do. This is the way it is, and staying10 away from the wetlands maintaining as many trees as11 possible and keeping that environment. They have12 condensed the application to 27 acres, which I think is13 commendable.14 Again, we have to consider building. So for15 me I would -- well, the board has to vote on this one16 way or the other. My recommendation is we say to the17 applicant, we will give you two months, come back, you18 need a second means of egress, a real roadway. However19 you do it, you need a real roadway.20 MR. KLEIN: You're talking full-time21 roadway?22 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Full time roadway.23 Regular roadway where cars can go.24 Mr. Klein.25 106 MR. KLEIN: I don't know if I agree with1 that. I just think that we need a better emergency2 plan, let's say. So if that woman came out and saw3 there was a fire, the road was closed, was she supposed4 to go talk to a police officer and say, how do I get out5 of here. Was she supposed to ask the fire chief who was6 on the scene. Like maybe she didn't ask the right7 question. They didn't realize that they have Oval Road.8 I mean, maybe they just need an update on the plans to9 say, yeah, you can go out Oval, I guess Howell would be10 the second choice, right. Because Howell's got the11 steepness of it.12 MR. CARDOZA: Well, then they can -- we13 could say everything up to and including the additional14 access points, you know, and up to and including would15 be those types of plans. Those considerations.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: And maybe the people don't17 know that is an emergency road that they could get out18 of.19 MR. KLEIN: Right. And that's what I'm20 saying. For whatever reason the guy who was on duty21 didn't realize that it was. You know, it's just --22 maybe bad communication, because it hadn't been used in23 30 years, so.24 MAYOR

's what I'm20 saying. For whatever reason the guy who was on duty21 didn't realize that it was. You know, it's just --22 maybe bad communication, because it hadn't been used in23 30 years, so.24 MAYOR McCARTNEY: That's what they said.25 107 But the would never deny someone if they had an1 emergency. They would always, right.2 MR. CARDOZA: But signals get crossed in a3 moments of --4 MR. KLEIN: Right. Sure, sure, sure.5 MR. ALPER: But for me --6 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper.7 MR. ALPER: For it's a circulation issue8 even more so. I think emergencies can be figured out9 during the emergency, especially if there's a good plan,10 but I think that the circulation problem is going to be11 a daily situation problem without a second real means of12 ingress and egress.13 MR. KLEIN: See, I don't have a problem with14 -- Oval Road on a beautiful sunny day, no emergencies,15 the signal, operation of the signal at Eagle Rock, it's16 going to be a level of service of C.17 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: How about at rush18 hour?19 MR. KLEIN: What's that?20 COUNCILWOMAN SCARPA: How about at rush21 hour?22 MR. KLEIN: Yeah, that's what they analyzed,23 the AM peak hour, and the PM peak hour. I don't know if24 they did Saturday. I think they just did weekday AM and25 108 PM peak hour.1 MR. CARDOZA: Well, I agree with Mr. Alper,2 but if we were to say, you have two months, then I would3 also want to put a time line or a stopwatch on the, you4 know, some of those other conditions or unanswered5 questions, such as the sewer pipe line or the stormwater6 basin. I would want, you know, to see that because we7 brought that up kind of, I don't want to say midway,8 maybe late into, you know, mid into --9 MR. ALPER: In the teens.10 MR. CARDOZA: Yeah, yeah. And so it's been11 some time and I'm surprised that we haven't seen that12 revision. So, you know, if we're going to extend the13 time for this one specific aspect that I know we're all14 very focussed on then we should also put a stopwatch on15 anything else that's left unresolved.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: So let's make a list of17 the unresolved issues you have now and then, remember,18 this is up to the applicant. We still have to offer the19 applicant an up or down vote or this time. So let's20 come up with now the issues that we have and then we'll,21 the applicants right here, we'll speak to the applicant.22 That's part of the public