Crestmont Country Club proposes new traffic signal and parking changes; residents press for counts, alternatives and tree mitigation

Crestmont Country Club’s site‑plan application (PB26‑03) returned to the West Orange Planning Board on July 1 for testimony and extensive public comment on a proposed traffic signal, driveway realignment and expanded parking at 750 Eagle Rock Avenue.

What the applicant proposes: Applicant counsel Richard S. Schkolnick introduced traffic testimony from engineer Karl Pehnke and civil testimony from John Cote. The package before the board includes relocating the Country Club’s existing egress to align opposite Oval Road, widening the roadway approaches, a new traffic signal with full pedestrian crossings at Eagle Rock and Oval, and reconfigured upper and lower parking areas that add a net 32 physical parking spaces (plus four EV credit spaces counted toward compliance). The design also includes two on‑site bioretention basins to meet water‑quality and quantity requirements, and retaining walls in places where the grade change requires them.

Engineers’ summary: Traffic engineer Karl Pehnke said he discussed the plan at a county pre‑application meeting and that county staff “agree that this is an appropriate improvement at this location. They like the traffic signal, they think it's needed today” (board testimony). Pehnke said the proposal addresses multiple issues: the driveway’s acute angle, limited sight lines, separation of left‑turn and through movements on Eagle Rock Avenue, pedestrian crossing gaps and coordination with nearby signals.

Civil engineer John Cote described grading, drainage and tree mitigation measures. Cote testified the plan would reconfigure upper and lower parking, provide a 24‑foot egress drive to the new intersection and construct two bioretention basins. He said the project will remove 313 trees within the limits of disturbance and that the applicant proposes extensive replanting across the property (including a planned off‑site component). Cote said the replacement program will include roughly 586 trees under the original plan and that the team agreed to add 11 more trees, bringing the proposed total to 597 replacement plantings to meet town calculations.

Public concerns and exchanges: Dozens of residents and property representatives questioned the traffic analysis, alternatives and community impacts. Frequent points: - Pedestrian counts and crash history: Several speakers asked for pedestrian and crash counts specific to the proposed crosswalk; Pehnke acknowledged the county cited a countywide pedestrian incident total over five years but said there was not a specific, recent pedestrian count at the immediate crossing. - Alternatives: Members of the public asked whether right‑in/right‑out access, restricting left turns, or converting Laurel Avenue access to two‑way circulation had been studied. Pehnke and Cote said those options were not advanced as part of this application and that the proposed solution responds to a broader set of safety and circulation issues. - Who benefits and funding: Residents asked why a private applicant is funding a signal the county considers appropriate; Pehnke said county agencies often welcome developer‑funded installations when they are a capital priority but lack current funding. "Why isn't the county doing it? Why is a private entity doing it?" asked Rachel Klein, a resident. Pehnke answered that county priorities and funding availability are limiting factors. - Impacts to neighboring properties: Pleasantale Chateau’s representative, Keith Sly, asked whether the proposed median markings, left‑turn lane geometry and possible queuing would make access to the Chateau more difficult; Pehnke said the design meets recognized spacing and sight‑distance standards and that the signal would be coordinated so the main Eagle Rock flow remains prioritized. - Trees, walls and grading: Cote answered questions about walls and grading and said walls were used in places to reduce the overall disturbance footprint and thereby limit additional tree removals. He confirmed wall heights in some locations will exceed the town’s normal 4‑foot limit (the plan asks variances for taller retaining walls), and that one wall near the lower basin would reach about 21.5 feet.

Board process and disposition: No vote was taken on the merits. The applicant and board agreed to carry the hearing to the Planning Board’s August 12, 2026 regular meeting (6:30 p.m. via Zoom) to preserve notice and to allow time for the county and town review letters to be addressed. The applicant’s team said it will coordinate with county reviewers, the town’s professionals and the public on outstanding questions, including utility and sight‑distance details, final signal design and landscaping plans.

What to watch next: The board will resume PB26‑03 with additional testimony and cross‑examination, including the applicant’s planner and responses to professional review letters. The hearing’s workpapers include the applicant’s January 2026 traffic study, design plans and the tree‑removal/replanting calculations.