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 61 justification then you can't do it. You have to find another justification. MR. KLEIN: So I don't know if you're aware of a lot of traffic signals just in West Orange, in front of the zoo there's three or four maybe five that are within less than a thousand feet of each other. There's others on Northfield that are also close together. Are they illegal signals or they somehow skirted the MUTCD and were able to sneak it in there? THE WITNESS: Well, they said -- the FHWA said in the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices that, that the justification for warrant for signals using coordination would not be acceptable if the signals were closer than a thousand feet because they found coordination doesn't operate well at that distance. MR. KLEIN: Okay. They're not putting the signal in for coordination, they're putting in the signal to operate the intersection of Oval Road and Eagle Rock Avenue. They met three of the warrants. So they're putting it in 750 feet away from Laurel Avenue, but there's a way to coordinate those two signals so they operate properly? THE WITNESS: No, if they use that for a

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 62 design and for a warrant approval -- MR. KLEIN: No. No. They met the peak-hour, the four-hour, the eight-hour. They didn't, they didn't put -- I know what you're talking about. There's the coordination, I forget what number it is, seven or eight on something on the list. THE WITNESS: But they're not -- MR. KLEIN: They're not putting it in to get spacing to coordinate two traffic signals. THE WITNESS: Well, the numbers vary according to which warrant you use, so if it doesn't meet the volume warrant -- MR. KLEIN: It did. THE WITNESS: -- and if it meets the volume warrant then it -- one of the reasons that you're using the warrant for under coordination signals then that wouldn't operate. It wouldn't count. The warrant analysis wouldn't be good if in fact it's been a ruling on coordination in the law. MR. KLEIN: But if they can coordinate the existing signal at Laurel with the proposed signal at Oval Road and it doesn't impede the operation at Eagle Rock Avenue then they could make it work? THE WITNESS: They'd have to prove it can work, because you don't know. Basically the manual says

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 63 you can use it for your justification in the warrant analysis. So you can't use coordination as the volume in everything under that for your approval in the warrant. Because that close proximity of two streets will cause a problem with coordination in the next signal down. Well, that's what the book says. MR. KLEIN: That's it for me. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Mayor McCartney, do you have any questions for Mr. Litwornia on his testimony. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Good evening, sir. My question is about RSIS on the ADA sidewalks. You mentioned the sidewalks. RSIS states that they have to be on both sides of the road? THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that, I'm sorry. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Yes. In RSIS, do they state the sidewalks have to be on both sides of the road? You mentioned it a few times about sidewalks. Do they have to be on both sides of the road? THE WITNESS: I couldn't hear that. MAYOR McCARTNEY: The sidewalks themselves, do they have to be, according to RSIS, do they have to be on both sides of the road? THE WITNESS: What have to be on both sides?

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 64 MR. KLEIN: Sidewalks. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Sidewalks. Sorry. Sidewalks. THE WITNESS: Yes. MAYOR McCARTNEY: According to RSIS? THE WITNESS: Because it's a medium density road you need sidewalks on both sides. And you need sidewalks on both sides because they changed the signal requirements, now the signal requirement have to meet ADA as well as FHWA, as well as some other regulations as well. So you're going to have signals that have push buttons that are audible and verbal and the newest and best and everything has to be accessible with sidewalks on all -- on every side and every corner and it's a real pain. It's geared toward everyone and the newest regulations came out in December of last year and they're not finalized yet, but the government says, federal government says to follow those regulations because we're going to institute them all for the push button and verbal and for sidewalk sizes and for location of -- for location of push buttons. MAYOR McCARTNEY: So another question, according to RSIS in this particular application are the roads 18 feet or 20 feet? MR. AFRAN: Could you repeat the whole

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 65 question, I couldn't hear the first part. MAYOR McCARTNEY: In this report it talks about the road width, I'm asking whether they're 18 feet or 20 feet, do you know? THE WITNESS: I believe I was looking with -- my report was predicting the use of 24. MAYOR McCARTNEY: And what should they be? And what do you -- what are you saying they should be? THE WITNESS: Should be -- MAYOR McCARTNEY: The road width. THE WITNESS: I think in the applicable locations where they have buildings located for, close to where a forest fire might come over the hill, those places I think should have a 32 foot, 32 foot width roadway. Because they -- the fire department has to put outriggers out and I think they were 28 feet, requirement is 28 feet for that, you have a 12, 14 foot pass by, so. MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer, do you have any questions for Mr. Litwornia on his testimony. MS. KAPFERER: I do. Thank you, Mr. Litwornia. I do have a question about, did you look at the Howell Drive access plan?

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 66 THE WITNESS: The what? MS. KAPFERER: At Howell Drive, the -- THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. KAPFERER: -- emergency access? THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. KAPFERER: Did you look at -- do you know what the width of that access is or the slope, did you look at either of those? THE WITNESS: I walked it but I didn't remember -- I didn't measure it. MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Just curious about that. One other question. Did you say that Warner Road was a minor collector? I'm sorry, I'm not sure, I'm sorry. MR. AFRAN: Hang on one second. THE WITNESS: I don't recall. MR. AFRAN: Thank you. MS. KAPFERER: I'm sorry, I asked you, it might have been someone else who stated this, so I apologize. I thought -- did someone say that, that Warner Road is a minor collector? Did I -- did you -- MR. PLOCKER: I can make the representation that I was characterizing previous testimony by either Mr. Pehnke or Mr. Anderson. I did say we will bring Mr.

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 67 Pehnke back to clarify. But that the roads that are proposed on the subject property were designed and classified as minor collector roads. MS. KAPFERER: Okay. Then that would be my question for Mr. Pehnke. I think that's it for me. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Thank you. Vice Chairman Guarino, do you have any questions for Mr. Litwornia on his testimony. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Yes, I do Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here tonight and thank you for your expert testimony. I have a couple of questions for you, sir. One, my one question is, and I ask this of a lot of the people making testimony, have you visited the site and walked the site? I know it's private property but have you been anywhere within the development zone, the current development zone when one, you made your assumptions, you made your calculations, have you been to the site, sir? THE WITNESS: Yes. I walked the site and I've driven it a couple of times. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Well, the site we're talking about sir, you know, the current development

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 68 where the current, you know, condominiums and housing, the roadways in the area, I know you can't go onto the part where the applicant has because it's private property, but have you seen the way the development currently exists in its current conditions and its current roadway conditions and traffic movements and such, I just have ask that one question? THE WITNESS: Yeah, I've seen it in operation. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: You've been there, sir? THE WITNESS: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: So if you have, sir, if I could just assume you haven't been to the development site, the current, what's there now, your assumptions here, can I say your testimony here is based upon information received from third-party sources other than yourself? MR. AFRAN: With respect, Mr. Chairman. He was analyzing the report submitted by the applicant. So naturally those calculations are from a third-party. Now there's expert -- VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you, Mr. Afran. I just wanted to get an idea where the information came from and how his conclusions were

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 69 arrived at. So, and that's why I'm asking was he at the site, has he walked the site and he got an eyeball idea of how the traffic flows, what's going on. That's all I'm trying to figure out, so. MR. AFRAN: I appreciate that. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: So I mean, I don't know has he -- have you been to the site? MR. AFRAN: He said he did -- the forest or -- does Mr. Guarino mean the forest itself or the development next to it? VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Well, he can't go on it. MR. AFRAN: Right. So we're talking about the development -- the question was, has he been to the development and gone through it? VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: The current development that's there. MR. AFRAN: Perhaps the witness could clarify that answer. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Yes. MR. AFRAN: Have you been to the development, the association, gone through it, looked at it, observed its, its current conditions, etc.? THE WITNESS: The existing? MR. AFRAN: Yes, the existing development.

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 70 THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. AFRAN: And how did you do that? Did you walk it, did you drive it, did you do a combination of both. How did you go through the development? THE WITNESS: I drove it a couple of times. I was either a passenger or I drove it. MR. AFRAN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Thank you, Mr. Afran. Thank you sir, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Alper, do you have any questions for Mr. Litwornia on his testimony. MR. ALPER: Sure. First Mr. Chairman, can we get CME maybe to issue a response to the claims written in the written report and the power point because there's a lot, a lot on there. CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Yes. MR. ALPER: Okay. Good. On Page 13 of your written report where you talked about the emergency access roadways, specifically Howell Drive, regardless of the ownership of those lots on Howell, can you talk a little bit about your specific