The tone of open-minded cooperation between representatives of the 15,000 square-foot "Nanno’s Place" mixed-use development proposal and the East Rutherford Zoning Board of Adjustments shifted last week, with board members taking exception to what they perceived as an inadequate impact report presented by the project’s traffic expert at the March 6 meeting.
The friction began when William Lothian, a traffic engineer at Langan Engineering in Elmwood Park, testified that the proposed development of 23-residential units and more than 8,000 square feet of retail space would increase automotive trips in the area by about 50 trips during peak hours. That number works out to less than one trip per minute around the acute four-way intersection of Paterson Avenue, Hoboken Road, Poplar Street and Garden Street in East Rutherford.
Several skeptical board officials, led by chairman Phil Alberta, felt that those numbers were conservative, and didn’t accurately reflect the severity of the traffic situation at the busy intersection, which is further exacerbated by the presence of a railroad crossing.
"Did you actually go down there?" Alberta asked Lothian several times during his testimony.
Other board members echoed the concern, noting from experience that during rush hours, cars routinely wait through several light cycles to make turns or proceed through the intersection.
"By 7:45 [a.m.], there is a huge backup there," said borough attorney Beverly Wurth.
"No offense," Alberta added, holding a copy of the report submitted to the Board by Lothian. "But I would have guessed that this was written in an office."
Though Lothian responded that he had spent many hours at the site, he based his findings on a hypothetical comparison between traffic increases expected by mixed-use development and those that would accompany continued industrial development in line with how the site is currently zoned. His firm did not actually count the cars moving through the intersection at any given time.
"I am pretty put off that you didn’t do a count," said an agitated Alberta.
Lothian defended his approach, noting that that the relevant point of comparison was between the proposed development and any potential industrial development that could have proceeded without approval from the Board.
"We didn’t do a count because another industrial building could go in there by right, with no variances," said Lothian.
The Board’s displeasure was enough that the project’s attorney, David Crook, agreed preemptively to do morning and evening peak hour counts at the site, and to take a closer look at how automobiles move through traffic lights there.
The traffic issue is only one of several challenges standing between the project’s developers—GFM Builders—and potential approval. Perhaps most significantly, the board is concerned with the nature and operating hours of businesses that would occupy the ground-floor retail space, and is exploring options for making certain occupancy restrictions a condition of approval. Additionally, the board remains dissatisfied with the proposed site and design of the building’s trash collection area, and is seeking assurances that developers would take steps to minimize the effect of the nearby railway on potential residents.
