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

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

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