September 3, 2025 Planning Board Regular Meeting Transcript - WEHI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 traffic engineer testified, did you review all of his testimony? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that Mr. Pehnke testified that these roads and maybe even our engineer, Mr. Anderson, testified that these roads were designed as minor collector roads? A. I don't recall right now. Q. Okay. MR. AFRAN: Could you repeat that. Q. I'm sorry. Did you say you don't recall? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Do you know what the maximum grading permit is for a minor collector road under RSIS? A. I believe it's five percent. Q. I would disagree. I would submit that it's ten percent but that's -- CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Q. We can -- we will bring Mr. Pehnke back the next meeting. MR. AFRAN: Just for the record, I couldn't quite hear, could the witness repeat his answer. I know Mr. Plocker disagrees. I couldn't hear the answer.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 MR. PLOCKER: He said five percent. MR. AFRAN: That's what I thought. Thank you. Q. Do you know what the grading of the road on Howell Drive is? A. Excuse me. Q. Do you know what the grading of the road on Howell Drive is? A. No. I remember looking it up. Q. You mentioned something about tandem parking, how RSIS doesn't address it, correct? A. Yes. Q. Does RSIS prohibit tandem parking? A. It only allows 9 by 18 spaces and tandem space was not -- Q. So your testimony is that RSIS does not allow tandem parking? It's okay, we can disagree. I just want to get your testimony clear for the record. A. So there's nowhere that it's allowed and nowhere does it allow a different size. So by inference it doesn't allow any other different size. It wouldn't be allowed. Q. So is your testimony that RSIS does not permit tandem parking? A. Yes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 Q. Okay. A. It does not by inference allow it. And I think I misspoke previously. Q. You said you reviewed Mr. Pehnke's testimony, correct? A. I did read it. Q. And what was his conclusion as to the level of service at the intersection of Eagle Rock and Oval Road once the traffic improvement is installed? A. Basically level service C or better. Q. Mr. Pehnke said that? A. What? Q. Mr. Pehnke said that it was a level of service of C? A. His report. Q. All right. We'll bring him back. I would beg to differ. His testimony says something else, but that's okay. Did you review the settlement agreement between the Township and my client? A. No. Q. Did you review the stormwater plan? A. No. Q. But you did testify that you thought there would be flooding?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 A. There would be what? Q. I thought you said you were concerned that there would be a stormwater runoff issue? A. Yeah. Q. Because of the roads. Well, how can you make that conclusion if you didn't review the stormwater plan? A. I looked at the plans. Q. My first question was, did you review the stormwater plan that's part of this? A. I didn't review it, I just looked at them to see certain parts of it. I didn't review them. Q. Okay. You didn't review the whole thing? A. I didn't review the whole thing in detail. Q. Okay. Which parts did you review? A. The slopes and cross slopes. Q. Of the roads? A. Of what? Q. Of the roads? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you review any detention basins, catch basins, anything of that nature where the stormwater is

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 designed to go under the plan. Did you review any of those items? MR. AFRAN: You know, I would raise an objection. The witness didn't speak to those issues. He spoke to a very limited question in terms of one component of the road structure. He wasn't speaking of the whole stormwater. MR. PLOCKER: He said the road was going to flood. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He did say flooding of the roads and he specifically said that the water was going to come down and go past the retention basin. That was his direct testimony. So I'm going to allow this. Q. Okay. And are you aware my client obtained DEP approval for the stormwater design? A. No. Q. You aren't aware of that. Okay. MR. AFRAN: Just to remind the board that matter is under appeal. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes, so noted. MR. PLOCKER: Good luck. MR. AFRAN: Did I just hear a good luck. Q. And just one more question. Does the ADA allow sidewalks on a street to follow the road grade? Is that

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 permitted by the ADA? A. Either that or it would require ramping in cases. Q. Can you point to a particular section of the ADA to support that statement? That's okay. That's okay. MR. PLOCKER: I have nothing further at this time. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Klein. MR. KLEIN: Good evening, Mr. Litwornia. Sir, you said that the traffic signal at Oval Road is not warranted or what -- I wrote down a bunch of notes about, you didn't think it was warranted or it wasn't designed. That's where your main contention is, that they don't have an actual plan that shows the design? THE WITNESS: It's not designed, it's not included in -- could you repeat the question. MR. KLEIN: So when you were talking about the traffic signal at Oval Road -- THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. KLEIN: -- in the Langan report dated June 19, 2024, they did a warrant study. They met the eight-hour warrant, the four-hour warrant and the peak-hour warrant. Are you contesting that that's not accurate? That the signal is not warranted.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't say it's not warranted. MR. KLEIN: Okay. THE WITNESS: I said it should be shown and warranted and a warrant analysis wasn't provided as part of this application, is what I said. MR. KLEIN: It was provided in the June 19, 2024 traffic report. Did you review that report? The Langan traffic report for this application. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that's the one I saw. It was in -- it wasn't in the Pehnke one, it was in the previous report. MR. KLEIN: Previous report from 2006 or for this application? THE WITNESS: I believe it was prior to this. Prior report I don't believe shows it met the warrant allowance. MR. KLEIN: It does. Page 12 it talks about the warrants. It's in there. All right. So are you saying that the whole development from Oval Road in is one giant cul-de-sac? THE WITNESS: It is. MR. KLEIN: And what's -- how do you define -- how do you come up with that? THE WITNESS: One way in and out.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 MR. KLEIN: That's different. That's a -- Oval Road should be a boulevard. Divided road, so that there's an emergency on Oval Road it's divided and people could still get in the out and out the in if they have to. Is that what you meant? THE WITNESS: No, it should be designed as a boulevard but in addition to that there should be more than one in and out. Right now there's only one way in and out. MR. KLEIN: All right. So you're saying the RSIS there's a limitation on how many roads you need to get in and out of a development as opposed to one road with a boulevard design? THE WITNESS: I'm saying it needs more than one way in and out. MR. KLEIN: I mean, we have -- there's emergency access that doesn't -- it's for an emergency or you just talking generalities to operate every day two ways more than one way? THE WITNESS: Open every day. MR. KLEIN: Every day. Would you be able to tell me where in the RSIS it says that? MR. AFRAN: Is the question, does the RSIS say there has to be more than one way for every day use?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 MR. KLEIN: Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to know where it says that. THE WITNESS: It says it by inference more than by statement. It says it in an inference where it says you have to have -- MR. KLEIN: Is there a limitation on the number of units or the number of trips, daily, hourly? THE WITNESS: There's limitations on number of trips not by length. MR. KLEIN: Not by -- THE WITNESS: Length of roadway. MR. KLEIN: Okay. THE WITNESS: But in some places they have the length of roadway like a thousand feet maximum. MR. KLEIN: Right. I mean a cul-de-sac longer then 300 feet needs a bulb, things like that you're talking about? THE WITNESS: Well, something like that. In addition to that there's a thousand foot requirement for a -- thousand foot requirement for a cul-de-sac for small size residence -- multifamily residences. MR. KLEIN: So you reviewed the site plan, are there lengths of road that have no intersecting roads that are longer than a thousand feet within the development? One single stem of a road that's greater

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 than a thousand feet with no intersecting roadways, are there? THE WITNESS: That would be the maximum length of cul-de-sac and there would have to be another lane. MR. KLEIN: Like for instance, I'm looking at what they're proposing, they've got, I mean, I don't know what I'm looking at here. But, all right. And -- all right. So MUTCD says that traffic signals should not be spaced at a thousand feet. They should be -- what's the minimum spacing of two traffic signals? THE WITNESS: What is it? MR. KLEIN: What does MUTCD say about the spacing of the existing signal at Laurel, what's the closest you can have another signal on Eagle Rock? THE WITNESS: A thousand feet. MR. KLEIN: And we're at 750? THE WITNESS: Yeah. MR. KLEIN: So it says that it's not permitted or discourages it? THE WITNESS: It says that you can not use -- you can not use certain things in your justification. One of the things you can't use in justification is that it will provide a coordination of signals and if you're using a coordination of signals as part of your