Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents say removing 'No Turn 4–6 p.m.' sign would endanger neighborhood; council tables traffic ordinance tied to McDonald’s plan
Summary
Public commenters and some council members raised safety and traffic concerns after engineers identified that the McDonald’s redevelopment plan would require removing a 'No Turn 4–6 p.m.' sign on Community Road; council voted to table the traffic ordinance to allow staff and engineers to propose alternatives.
Residents and a planning‑board member told the borough council that planned removal of a 'No Turn 4–6 p.m.' sign on Community Road — required by the developer’s site plan — would increase cut‑through traffic near Brooklawn’s school and park.
A planning‑board member identifying himself as Patone said the developer’s lawyer requested additional procedural steps (a resolution and readoption) to avoid later challenges, and then urged the council not to remove the traffic sign because of safety risks. “I wanted it to be on record that we're planning on making it unsafe for the children by taking that sign down,” the speaker said, emphasizing concerns about cut‑through drivers and a 14‑year‑old pedestrian risk in the area.
Several residents and council members pressed for more traffic‑study detail, signal‑timing coordination, and alternatives that would allow restaurant patrons to access the site without encouraging neighborhood cut‑throughs. Sarah Burnhard asked whether the Dec. 11 schedule would bring the lawyer back to the planning board and sought clarity on public‑notice procedures; council staff said the planning board had already memorialized its approval and that the ordinance before council would include that memorialization.
Mayor Granstrom and council members acknowledged an engineering oversight: the site plan as submitted will, in its current wording, require removing the existing 'No Turn' restriction. Council members said they did not want to vote for a change without seeing alternative wording or engineering solutions that preserve neighborhood safety while allowing legitimate access to the proposed restaurant.
After discussion, the council moved to table Ordinance No. 25‑2024 (an amendment to Chapter 141, Vehicles and Traffic, tied to removing the sign) until the next year to give staff time to develop alternatives. Several members said they prefer to scan for a compromise — for example, exempting deliveries or emergency/authorized vehicles during restricted hours — rather than remove the restriction outright.
Why it matters: The conflict illustrates how site‑plan language and traffic controls can have direct neighborhood safety consequences. Council members said they want engineering alternatives or site‑plan edits before approving any ordinance that changes posted traffic controls.
Next steps: Staff and engineers will return with options for revised ordinance language or alternative traffic management measures; the ordinance remains tabled pending those proposals.
