May 6, 2026 Planning Board Regular Meeting - WEHI Transcript

06/04/2026 06:19:47 AM Page 5 to 8 of 38 2 of 18 sheets 5 communities.1 The objectors, through their attorney Mr.2 Afran, have brought numerous issues to light that the3 Planning Board has evaluated, the applicant has heard4 and conditions were recorded.5 At one of our previous meetings the Planning6 Board -- I'm sorry. At one of our previous -- hold it.7 Lost it again. I tell you, I'm trying. At one of our8 previous meetings the Planning Board attorney, Ms.9 McGovern, has enumerated the conditions to be resolved10 by the applicant if the application moves forward11 At our last meeting the Board dispensed with12 the questions of two de minimus exceptions and one C13 variance14 I want to take this opportunity to thank the15 applicants attorney, Mr. Bryan Plocker, and the16 objectors attorney, Mr. Afran, for the time they have17 spent guiding us through the myriad of issues brought to18 light to bring us to this moment19 I want to thank the public whose energized20 interest in participating in the public process.21 It is the goal of tonight's meeting that the22 Board discuss and decide if application PB 24-01 West23 Essex Highlands, Inc., and it's conditions, de minimus24 exceptions and C variance enumerated fulfill the25 6 requirements of the IH-1 zone. Has the applicant met1 the burden of proof required in this application. This2 is the same method that we have used in the past or use3 in the future for every application that comes before4 us. We are not a legislative body, the Township Council5 has, through it's legislative power, created the IH-16 zone.7 With that, I open the floor to the board8 members to discuss the application. At any time during9 our deliberation a motion may be introduced and once10 seconded on the motion we will progress to a vote.11 So we'll start with the board members. Does12 anybody have any questions, discussion, things that you13 still have open in your minds?14 I will go around the board.15 THE PUBLIC: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a16 procedural question, please?17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: One moment.18 THE PUBLIC: Procedural19 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Come up to the mic.20 THE PUBLIC: Real quick. Pardon my21 interruption, but just a procedural question. If22 correspondence was submitted to the board attorney but23 not entered into the record, should the board consider24 whether to reopen or supplement the record before voting25 7 and

edural question. If22 correspondence was submitted to the board attorney but23 not entered into the record, should the board consider24 whether to reopen or supplement the record before voting25 7 and discussion?1 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Who sent this letter to2 the board attorney?3 THE PUBLIC: This letter was sent to the4 board attorney on March 23rd from James Bannon on behalf5 of the Township of Verona and Planning Board to Ms.6 Diana McGovern on March 23, 2026 regarding the emergency7 road access and access to the site.8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Great. The application --9 the information to add to the board's information, the10 application was closed. No, will not be introduced.11 Thank you.12 THE PUBLIC: Okay.13 But other correspondence has been14 introduced, so I think it's relevant.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you.16 THE PUBLIC: And it was not shared.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: No. Thank you.18 Okay. So we'll start with Ms. Kapferer, do19 you have any questions, thoughts on the application?20 Deliberations.21 Go right ahead.22 MS. KAPFERER: Should we have somebody else23 first.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.25 8 Mr. Klein.1 MR. KLEIN: No, I think you start with,2 like, Mr. Alper because that's --3 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay.4 Mr. Alper.5 MR. ALPER: You know, stop me if you've6 heard this before.7 So, you know, I don't think much has changed8 for me. I had a few issues last time, I think five.9 Some were at least partially resolved for me by10 responses by Mr. MacNeill. Others, including sewer11 capacity and the potential water tower, maybe less, but12 my major focus last time was traffic circulation and13 safety. My belief remains that the RSIS street14 hierarchy section is about usable access points to roads15 and the answers as to whether we have a multifamily16 cul-de-sac or a minor collector road depends entirely on17 how usable those access points are for the vehicles18 making up the average daily traffic on those roads.19 Emergency vehicle access for life safety is a separate20 issue outside of the street hierarchy which aims at21 regular traffic and the average daily trips. You know,22 as was established, Howell is definitely not an access23 point under RSIS. There was testimony on that. And24 that residents would be impeded until it was cleared if25