October 29, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 93 to 96 of 149 24 of 59 sheets 93 THE WITNESS: Maybe the applicants attorney1 can address that, but I believe that was part of2 potentially this settlement agreement condition.3 MR. PLOCKER: I can certainly address it.4 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker.5 MR. PLOCKER: I think it was, it certainly6 is a requirement of the settlement agreement, because at7 the time the Township and Lehigh settled the case it was8 recognized that the proposed development would meet9 warrants for a traffic light at that intersection and I10 believe Mr. Pehnke testified extensively that the11 proposed development does meet, give warrant for a12 traffic light, which is why the light is required. It13 would be required. And we recognized that back in 201514 when we first got involved in the towns third round15 affordable housing litigation.16 THE PUBLIC: So is there a traffic study17 that shows that already or do you wait for a development18 to go in to do the traffic study to see if that19 intersection warrants a traffic light?20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Mr. Plocker, have you21 presented to the county a request for a traffic signal?22 MR. PLOCKER: I don't know the status. I am23 not involved with that.24 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. We'll find out.25 94 THE PUBLIC: And lastly, the plan presented1 has an access road on Howell Drive?2 THE WITNESS: Yes.3 THE PUBLIC: Access only, for emergency4 access. In your opinion, if that access road is denied5 for whatever reason is this plan doable or how would it6 affect this plan?7 THE WITNESS: I am not going to provide8 testimony on that. Again, I am the board engineer, I9 have, if testimony's required it should be provided by10 the applicants traffic engineer.11 THE PUBLIC: Thank you.12 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other member of the13 public have any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his14 testimony? Please come up and be identified.15 THE PUBLIC: Mr. Chairman, Micaela Bennett,16 just your average everyday taxpayer.17 So just a point of clarification. You're18 providing expert testimony here tonight?19 THE WITNESS: So what I am doing as the board20 engineer is outlining the objectors traffic engineers21 report against the applicants traffic impact study for22 five -- sorry, seven points brought up by the objectors23 traffic engineer.24 THE PUBLIC: And are you --25 95 THE WITNESS: So my testimony was related to1 that only and, again, even

impact study for22 five -- sorry, seven points brought up by the objectors23 traffic engineer.24 THE PUBLIC: And are you --25 95 THE WITNESS: So my testimony was related to1 that only and, again, even saying board engineer2 provided testimony is atypical in planning board3 meetings.4 THE PUBLIC: Are you providing expert5 testimony or lay testimony?6 THE WITNESS: So I believe I answered that7 question. I am providing -- even calling it testimony,8 I don't really agree with. I am the board engineer9 outlining what the applicants engineer submitted and10 what the objectors engineer submitted.11 THE PUBLIC: This evening were you sworn in12 as the expert, an expert?13 THE WITNESS: Yeah, as the board engineer,14 not an expert providing testimony for or against the15 application.16 THE PUBLIC: Are you familiar with the17 concept of a net opinion?18 THE WITNESS: I am not.19 THE PUBLIC: You're an expert in the field20 of engineering and you're unfamiliar with the concept of21 net opinions?22 THE WITNESS: Net opinions?23 THE PUBLIC: Yes.24 THE WITNESS: I haven't heard that, no.25 96 THE PUBLIC: When you deferred answering1 questions that were presented by the objectors attorney2 stating that the expert for the applicant is who should3 be answering the questions --4 THE WITNESS: Again, I did not --5 THE PUBLIC: I didn't ask the question.6 THE WITNESS: Okay. Go ahead.7 THE PUBLIC: When you did that -- well, I8 guess when you say you don't know what a net opinion is9 --10 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Would you ask him a11 question about his testimony, please.12 THE PUBLIC: I am asking him questions about13 testimony. He stated he doesn't testify, I am trying to14 get to the point of is he providing facts as a lay15 witness or is he providing expert opinions and16 testimony.17 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: His opinion is based on18 reviewing the applicants traffic engineer and the19 objectors traffic engineer. He's looking at both sides20 and saying, RSIS says this. So it's not objective21 information, he's not offering his opinion, he's just22 telling the board what RSIS says in relation to these23 experts.24 THE PUBLIC: As an expert he has been asked,25