Traffic Testimony Takes Center Stage at Vista Expansion Hearing

Traffic testimony took center stage at Monday night’s Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting where two engineers testified to the traffic impact of the Christian Care Health Center's proposed 258-unit expansion on approximately 20 acres of woodlands that straddle the Wyckoff/Hawthorne border.

Prior to testimony Planning Board Chairman Doug Christie told all interested parties to hunker down for what was likely to be a  “long, long process.” 

“It’s going to be a minimum of 12 to perhaps a maximum of 18 months," Christie said. "It’s a process that takes time,” he said. “It’s going to be a long ride and there’s going to be a lot of discussion.”

The three hour meeting started with continued cross examination of engineer Kenneth Karle on the property’s drainage system by Dan Melfi, founder of Save the Woods, a Hawthorne-based organization that is questioning the merits of the project. S.A.V.E Wyckoff (Stop Aggressive Vista Expansion) was also born this fall as the Vista project got underway. Another Wyckoff-based organization, Friends of Wyckoff, has members which have been trying to draw attention to the project via the organization's website and e-mail newsletters.

During cross Melfi questioned Karle on the approximate number of trees that would be removed during the expansion project. “We are taking down probably upwards of 2000 trees of different diameter and different condition, Karle said. “Some are dead already.”

Also testifying Monday was Louis Luglio, a senior principal with Stantec Consulting in Rochelle Park, who conducted a traffic impact study at the site on behalf of CCHC. Luglio concluded the proposed development would generate 36 new trips during AM peak hours of 7:30 -8:30 and 46 new trips during PM peak hours of 5:00-6:00; that the installation of a new traffic signal at Sicomac Ave and Cedar Hill Ave intersection was already needed at the location because of existing traffic congestion, and that the proposed development would not significantly impact traffic operations at the nearby intersections.

Albert Roughgarden, a senior associate with Stantec and an expert on roadway design, said he wanted to avoid the “misperception” that the Vista project is the reason why the intersection needs to have a traffic light added. 

“There’s a set standard that needs to be followed to determine if a traffic signal is warranted at a particular intersection. There’s a list of nine warrants and you look at whether the traffic conditions satisfy any of those warrants,” he said. “You should not install a traffic signal unless at least one of those warrants are met. In July 2006 Stantec submitted traffic analysis to Bergen County for the existing three leg intersection. That report showed that we satisfied two of the nine warrants. Warrant one which was eight hour vehicle volume that threshold was exceeded; and the second warrant for four hour vehicle volume.”

The board is expected to hear continued testimony at the next special session on May 23.