Residents question plan for road’s construction
Hovbilt proposes new ‘connector road’ to handle traffic
BY DAVE BENJAMIN
Staff Writer

JACKSON — Additional testimony regarding traffic and a proposed new connector road near a planned adult community was offered by traffic engineer John H. Rea at the Planning Board’s Dec. 18 meeting.

Some residents who live near the location in the Cassville section of Jackson where the connector road is proposed to be built expressed their dissatisfaction with the idea.

Rea was testifying in support of an application put forth by Hovbilt that proposes the construction of 965 age-restricted condominium homes to be known as Jackson Valley.

The development site is in the vicinity of and bordered by Perrineville Road, Cassville Road (Route 571), West Veterans High-way, Prospertown Road and Inter-state 195.

Rea reviewed traffic calculations related to the construction of Jackson Valley and discussed how his estimates had been arrived at.

Attorney Donald Daines, representing Hovbilt, asked Rea about directional assigned project related traffic.

“At the last meeting there was a discussion as to whether improvements should be made to Perrine-ville Road north of the site access,” Rea said. “There is an unpaved, unimproved section (of Perrine-ville Road) and I was asked if that section were to be improved and paved what percent [of people] would use that section.”

Rea said 100 percent of the traffic coming from the north (Inter-state 195 and Route 537) would use Perrineville Road if it was paved. He said the exiting traffic going back out to Route 571 north would be split, 50-50.

“Many of the senior citizens would find the unsignalized left turn at the Reed Road intersection out to Route 571 north to be somewhat problematic and would prefer to go down to the (proposed) connector road and use the traffic signal,” Rea said. “But I believe 100 percent of the traffic coming from the north would enter using that path and 50 percent of the exiting traffic would use that road.”

Board member Dan Burke questioned the costs that would be associated with infrastructure improvements to be paid for by the developer and by the public. He said he was having trouble dealing with the anticipated cost to the public.

Daines said he believed Planning Board attorney Gregory P. McGuckin could advise the board as well as the applicant of the obligations, under the law, regarding the proportionate fair share impact of traffic payments.

During the public portion of the meeting, resident Felicia Lane asked how residents of the area could prevent the new connector road from being built.

Daines said it would be a public road and a public improvement.

“As residents, what can we do to prevent this road from going through our back yards?” Lane asked.

“I believe Mr. Rea testified that this proposed bypass (connector road) is to address the existing problem at a (nearby) five-way intersection,” Daines said. “The applicant has been working closely with the county on the location of the bypass.”

Lane wanted to know if any of her property would have to be acquired in order for the connector road to be built.

Daines said Route 571 is under county jurisdiction and the design of the road improvement would be determined by the county.

Rea said in order for a traffic light to be installed at the inter-section of the new connector road and Route 571, slivers of property may have to be obtained from properties along Route 571.

Resident Peter Layton asked if it was correct to say that if Jackson Valley is approved by the board, it will force the road changes immediately. He was told that was a correct statement.

Resident Louis Rogacki said the proposed connector road will be 80 feet behind his Andrews Road property and in essence he will have two front yards. He asked if there was any legal standard or basis for what the applicant needs to meet in order to put the connector road through the two pieces of property that are behind his house.

McGuckin said the applicant has the legal right to put the road in.

“When they purchased the lot they proposed putting the road there to alleviate the traffic conditions,” McGuckin explained to the members of the public.

Rogacki was told that Peter Laird purchased the property for Hovbilt as a contract purchase.

Resident Mark Lesko asked why more houses could not be moved from the northern portion of the Jackson Valley project to the southern portion of the development site in order to ease the anticipated traffic impact.

Daines said the application had to comply with zoning regarding open space, recreation space and density.

Testimony on the Hovbilt application will continue at 9:30 p.m. at the board’s meeting on Jan. 8.