Planning Board Meeting Minutes 20160609

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of September 6, 2016. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The following members were present: MAYOR KNUDSEN, Mr. Joel, Councilman Voigt, Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Torielli, Ms. McWilliams, MR. THURSTON, MR. REILLY, Ms. Patire, and Ms. Altano. Also present were: Christopher Martin, Esq., Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – No one came forward.       

Resolutions re: Appointment of Planning Board Counsel – The Board passed a Resolution appointing Mr. Christopher Martin as Planning Board Attorney, and Petry Traffic as the Board's Traffic consultant.

Riverside Medical Group Minor Site Plan and Variances, 74 Oak Street, Block 2009, Lot 6 – Andrew Fede, the applicant's attorney introduced the application for a freestanding sign and a sign on the applicant's building. He said changes were made to reflect recommendations in the Planners report. Mr. Guzman, the sign contractor was sworn and gave testimony about the design, scope, and size of the proposed signs. He discussed the revision to the freestanding sign. Board members questioned why the freestanding sign was not perpendicular and if the tree will block it. Board Members wanted to know if the building sign would be lighted, the hours of illumination, the size of the sign and building, if the lights would be on a timer. Mr. Guzman responded to the questions. Board members suggested the applicant redesign and relocate the freestanding sign, reduce the content on the sign, that they add vegetation and mulch, and change the white background to light grey. The application was carried to October 18, 2016.

Ridgewood Dayton, LLC Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 100 & 152 South Broad Street, Block 3707, Lot 5.01 and Block 3905, Lot 1.01- Following is the transcript of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:             

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I would like to call this Planning Board public meeting of Tuesday, September 6, 2016 to order. We're in the Village Courtroom. It's approximately 7:40 right now.

Statement of compliance please. Do we have any public comments on topics not pending before the board tonight? (No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing no one's coming forward.

Next item is, are there any committee/commission/professional updates on non‑agenda topics? To my right? 

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: To my left?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing that there are none we will move one.

(The Planning Board discusses other agenda items from 0:01:46 on the audio file to 1:43:11 at which time it begins the public meeting on Ridgewood Dayton, LLC.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We're going to take a five minute break and we'll be back at 9:30.

1. WELLS: Mr. Chair, we'll set up while you're...

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It's 9:34 right now. The next item on the agenda is the Ridgewood Dayton, LLC, preliminary and final major site plan, 100/152 South Broad Street, Block 3707, Lot 5.01, and Block 3905, Lot 1.01. And this is a development application.

Blais, is the application complete?

1. BRANCHEAU: Yes, it is.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And, Michael, has the notice requirements been complied with?

1. CAFARELLI: Yes, it has.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. And, MR. MARTIN, is there any open items on this that you know of? 

1. MARTIN: Notice was satisfactory.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay, let me just give you a little intro, for those of you that are new or unfamiliar to the Planning Board and the hearing process, there's a link posted on our website which has a handout on it that you can print out. It's entitled, "Planning Board Meetings and Hearings." So I encourage people to check that out. It goes through the process ‑‑ process, provides an overview of our meeting and hearing procedures.

And I also have copies at the table by the entranceway for people that don't have internet access or want a ‑‑ just interested in a regular copy. I'm going to just review quickly what the process is for our hearings. And basically it starts with a step one presentation of applicant witnesses and exhibits. The application is announced by the Chairman. The applicant or his or her attorney will come forward, explain the purpose of the hearing, make an opening statement if they chose. And then they'll call their first witness.

THE WITNESS will be sworn in by the board attorney and then that witness will give testimony at the direction of the applicant's attorney. There will also be an opportunity for cross‑examination following the testimony. The Board and its professionals will ask questions and seek clarifications so they have a well‑informed review of the application. And, finally, the Chairman will open it up to the public limited to ‑‑ limited at that time to questions only of that witness. And after that, then the applicant can present additional witnesses. And you go around again. We'll have the questioning by the attorney and then the board, board professionals and the public again.

When all the applicant's witnesses have presented and all the testimony and cross‑examination's completed, the Chairman will invite sworn testimony from the board's expert witnesses and expert witnesses from the objectors and other interested parties who have notified the board of such intent. And the procedures will, again, be repeated with direct examination and cross‑examination. And also, there's some ‑‑ also step that we have for public testimony, after the completion of testimony by the applicant and board's experts and the experts representing other parties, the general public will be invited to present testimony. All witnesses provided by the applicant and other expert witnesses and the general public must be sworn and their testimony (inaudible) either at least supported by the evidence. All presentation of witnesses and cross‑examination is subject to the Chairman's discretion as to reasonable limitations of available time, and number of witnesses. And as to cross‑examination of single or multiple witnesses at the same time. Irrelevant or unduly repetitious testimony will be excluded.

If requested and if determined appropriate by the Chairman, additional testimony that seeks to rebut other testimony will be permitted, subject to the same rules of cross‑examination. The next step will be summation. Summation step involves the completion of all testimony and cross‑examination. Only at this time, the Chairman will open the meeting to members of public for comments and opinions on the matter. The applicant or its attorney may also make a closing statement. Again, this step is subject to the Chairman's discretion and to reasonable limitations as to comment and/or duration of comments.

And after this is done, then it will be decision time. After all the parties who wish to be heard in the matter have been heard, the hearing will be formally closed. The board will then deliberate the matter in public, often at the same meeting, depending upon the length of it. This is a larger application, so it may take several meetings, depending. And then there'll be a motion and a vote.

The board's decision will be described in detail in a resolution adopted either at the meeting or a subsequent meeting. A brief notice of the final decision will be published in the Village official newspapers such as The Ridgewood News and The Bergen Record. With respect to public participation, in keeping ‑‑ keeping with the meeting and public hearing procedures described above, it's important to understand that questions and comments of all parties, including members of the public, are subject to various rules and procedures including the following: Questions of witnesses are to be asked following ‑‑ immediately following each witness' testimony. Questions are limited to that person's ‑‑ that witness' testimony.

Open public comments or opinions on the application are only permitted at the end of the hearing when directed by the Chairman. At the appropriate time, anyone wishing to ask questions or make comments should raise their hand and wait to be recognized by the Chairman, at which time they are to come to the podium. Persons are to speak clearly into the microphone so that their questions and comments will be recorded. All persons asking questions or making comments must state their names and address and spell their names before proceeding. When hearings involve numerous parties and persons wishing to speak, individual members of the public will be limited to a specific number of questions and to a limited time period for comments at the close of the hearing. In order to ensure adequate time for everyone to speak, individuals who have more questions or require more time will be asked to return after others have had the opportunity to speak. All witnesses, including members of the public offering testimony, are to be sworn under oath by the board's attorney.

Testimony must be supported by credible evidence and not based on hearsay. Hearsay is unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another person or source, not part of their direct knowledge or experience. Written statements or letters from individuals who are not present, petitions or individuals speaking on anyone's behalf are not permitted, since these are not able to be cross‑examined. However, the signer of a petition or the writer of a letter may appear and testify. A member of the public may provide the board's secretary with a written copy of his or her remarks after speaking during the public questions or public comments.

The applicant has the right to cross‑examine any person who presents testimony, including members of the public. Only the Chairman may decide who speaks at a given time. Comments called out from the audience are not condoned and will not be considered part of the record. The applicant's attorney or the board's attorney may object to statements, testimony, or questions. Such objections should not be perceived as disrespectful or rude, but rather as a means to maintain the proper record and procedures. The Chairman has the right to close the public portion of a hearing if he or she feels that the audience is unruly or is making comments that are not relevant to the application. The Chairman also has the right to have any member of the audience removed from the hearing room for the unruly display of meeting decorum.

When the procedures discussed above are followed, public input will have a maximum impact on the board's deliberations. Please note that all applications are judged on their individual merits. The board cannot predetermine the outcome of an application before all testimony and exhibits are presented and all questions are addressed. These guidelines are subject to any changes in law. They're subject to (inaudible) procedures (inaudible) established by the land use boards to implement the Municipal Land Use Law in effect at the time. These guidelines are for the purpose of assisting interested parties in understanding and participating in a Municipal Land Use process.

Each application is unique and deviations from its outline may be necessary ‑‑ may ‑‑ or such deviations should not be considered as a basis for argument and any appeals of the decision rendered by the court. And it's important to keep in mind that everything's said here might not be agreeable to everyone, but have patience, treat everyone with respect, and cooperate and keep decorum throughout the process. We need to follow the proper hearing procedure because it's important from a procedural standpoint and from a court of order. No one should shout out anything. No shouting, applause, insults or other disruptions.

Each of us has their turn and can be involved in the process. So we should work together and cooperate. My hope and expectations are that all the procedures will be followed and the hearing will proceed in a well manner. This concludes my opening remarks.

And, MR. MARTIN do you have any comments with respect to the hearing procedure at all? 

1. MARTIN: (Inaudible) well founded and (inaudible).

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

1. WELLS?
2. WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was particularly thorough and very informative. I've been doing this for a long time, and you really well described the process as it's supposed to work. For those of you who are new to the board, I see there's five new faces since I've been here, been in front of this board a whole lot in recent years. My name is Thomas Wells. I am a partner with the firm of Wells Jaworski and Liebman in Paramus. And just as a (inaudible), I wanted to tell you that when you sign applications going on (inaudible) while I thought back to myself that in 1982 I was a fairly young attorney, I know I don't look old enough to have been here in 1982, but that's 32 years ago. And I had what was supposed to be a very simple sign application in front of this board sitting one way or the other in this chamber. It was to redo the sign program on the Warner theater and ‑‑ most of you probably don't remember there were different signs there. And they sent me because it was going to simple. It took the whole night. And the board finally voted at about 11:20, and voted four to three. So it was ‑‑ so I know how sign applications can get more complicated than they sometimes appear to be.

Why am I here tonight? I'm here as the Chairman told you by introducing the matter, to represent the Ridgewood Dayton L.L.C., that is the name of the applicant on what you typically think of as the Brogan Cadillac Property. For those of you who have been here for a while, either on this board or just in this Village, you know that this property, together with three other properties, were subject to extensive discussion, in particularly by this board, for about four years, June 2011 to June 2015, in terms of an amendment to the Master Plan, which ultimately was adopted at that time. That began the process where the Mayor & Council considered an ordinance consistent with that Master Plan. That took some time, the first reading was not long after the Master Plan in July. And the final reading wasn't until the following March. During that time, the Mayor & Council brought in their own experts and restudied the matter. And, ultimately, the ordinance was passed. 

After the ordinances were passed, in March of this year, this applicant went back to the drawing board and drew up plans, essentially. And those were filed with this board on June 21st. And, ultimately, were deemed complete on July 1st. So what we're here before you now is not the bigger, broader issues that ‑‑ that we spent so much time on for the four years in terms of rezoning the property because the rezoning (inaudible) figures core issues including school children, traffic, and so many other issues you were concerned about. We can argue it was subsumed into the ordinance.

And once the ordinances are past, it is now incumbent upon us to come back to you and under that ordinance apply for the site plan. And I will tell you that this is ‑‑ despite the length and time this all would involve the site plan application that we're going to present to you is pretty straightforward. In fact, until today, we did get MR. BRANCHEAU's report and MR. RUTISHAUSER's reports today, I'm a little bit ‑‑ we'll talk a little bit about the substance of those, MR. BRANCHEAU's indicated there may be several variances until he presented that report we thought this was a completely variance‑free application. And it still probably is. And I'll explain that to you in a minute. But pretty straightforward in terms of what we want to do. And it's consistent with the ordinance. 

I'll present to you the evidence through four witnesses. The first witness will be MR. APPEL, who's the architect, who's already sitting down. He's poised and ready to be sworn in and talk to you.  And he has a bunch of exhibits. He'll show, tell you about what this building's going to look at and all its various components. And he will take some time because you have a carefully written ordinance that has some pretty definite requirements in terms of the way the building should look and its architectural detail and so forth. So we'll take you through how MR. APPEL has sought to design the building consistent with that ordinance. When MR. APPEL's finished his testimony, Al Lapatka of Lapatka Associates who's the site engineer, who will testify about the site, itself. Again, pretty straightforward in terms of what's being proposed with respect to a couple matters in which MR. BRANCHEAU indicated in his report today that there may be variances, I'll comment on those. One of them, and they're very minor and very technical ‑‑ one of them was that there's a retaining wall proposed at the back of the property between the rear parking lot and you would actually face the railroad tracks, the back of that wall right now is the cinderblock wall.

1. BRANCHEAU pointed out that even though that it was probably not a concern, technically speaking, a cinderblock wall's not permitted under the code. And it would need to be stuccoed. And the fact that on the plan right now does not show any stucco it would require a variance. So I can stipulate right now we'll stucco the back of the wall so that everybody riding in the train, if you can see it, we'll be happy to ‑‑ to solve that problem so that's easily solved.

The next matter that was raised was with respect to the slope ordinance. Since there is a ‑‑ there is a slope ordinance in the Village and it doesn't allow you to too radically change the slope. This particular slope is really not what was probably intended by the ordinance because it's manmade. It's basically the berm, again, by the railroad tracks. And it's being cut into there slightly with respect to the parking lot. I'm going to have Mr. Lapatka explain to you the detail and tell you why we really don't even believe there is a variance here with respect to that situation. 

But I'm going to have him, just because it's just easier to move the process along, argue but at the same time tell you why if you did think it was a variance, it's really minor and really technical. And it's really just an improvement on the property. So those two matters are raised. And then MR. BRANCHEAU also raised the fact that there are some parking spaces under the building that are ‑‑ was sometimes described as stacked parking and sometimes described at tandem parking. 

We will explain to you that that is permitted under RSIS. And the stacked parking ‑‑ and we'll also tell you which is not (inaudible) yet but you'll hear testimony that in the case ‑‑ the 19 cases where that exists, that in every one of those cases that will be a second car for somebody who has ‑‑ who has more than one car who lives in the project. So that it effectively becomes like a driveway, you know, there's two ‑‑ two people and one car's parked in further. So there are many, many units that don't have that. And there are a few that have stacked parking.

Again, permitted under RSIS. Mr. Lapatka can talk about that a little bit, but primarily Dan Disario ‑‑ and we can segue into our third witness, Dan Disario is a traffic and parking ‑‑ is a traffic engineer. And he will testify with respect to traffic and parking. And to the extent that you had any questions about how we configured those things, he'll be THE WITNESS to answer that. 

And then we have ‑‑ I have good fortune in this particular application because I have probably the ‑‑ one of the most thoroughly knowledgeable clients about everything to do with development that I've ever represented, and I've represented a lot of really good clients. But Mr. Loventhal, (inaudible) Scott Loventhal who is essentially the developer here, happens to be an attorney by training, but he has had years of experience here, and is really truly conversant with every aspect of the application. So I'm going to use him as clean up, but ‑‑ and he can really address all kinds of things that you might have for him. The specific reason I'm calling him is underneath a project like this is an operation. This is not ‑‑ this is not a condominium project. It's a rental project. So it will be managed. There'll be a management company managing it.

One of the reports ‑‑ MR. RUTISHAUSER, in his report queries at one point wether there will be a homeowners' association, I believe he mentioned. There's an answer to that for a new person, for everybody, no, there won't be. There's no homeowners' association. It will be managed by Mr. Loventhal's company. And Mr. Loventhal will be able to answer any operating questions you might have as to how ‑‑ how it will actually operate. And that goes to the issues like ‑‑ the issues that come up in some of the reports like, you know, how will the garbage be handled and so forth.  Those are not usually the kind of zoning questions where there's any specific broad requirement that a garbage can will be in a certain place. But it is a matter of some interest that garbage does find its way to ‑‑ to a garbage can and then to a dumpster and then, ultimately, to a ‑‑ to a service that removes the garbage. So that's the process. Those are the four witnesses we'll call. I think you'll find, you know, if you're asking a question that is probably better answered by a subsequent witness, it's usually my ‑‑ my tendency to say that they may answer it if they can, but ‑‑ but I would suggest sometimes, well, why don't you wait for the traffic expert because he knows more about that particular question because that's a traffic question. 

So let me review the application in a general way, you know that I've described it as the Brogan Cadillac property. There's also a small building right next door which was also acquired by the (inaudible) property. And that property together with the Brogan Cadillac property is 2.67 acres. Subject to so much discussion during the process of creating the ordinances, the density of development that will be permitted on the property, and ultimately, we're now asking for 93 units on that 2.67 acres which is the ‑‑ the 35 percent density.

The FAR is below the 1.35 of your code, it happens to be 1.29. The height is 50 feet, which is required. The setbacks in the ordinance are 15 feet in the front and 25 ‑‑ I'm sorry ‑‑ 25 feet on the side and the rear yard. And in both cases, you see the setback, 16 and 31. Parking that's required under RSIS, and that'll be explained to you in detail, the three‑unit apartment has a slightly different requirement than a two‑unit or a two‑bedroom or a one‑bedroom, obviously. And in any event that formula requires that you have 183 spaces. And we have 187. So more than is required. You may recollect the ordinance created a requirement for an exterior ‑‑ exterior amenity ‑‑ an exterior amenity area. We have some three to four times larger than is required.

There is an interior amenity area of (inaudible) square feet required, and we have that. I believe that the ‑‑ the total habitable space in the project is 150,880. And just in terms of mix of units that are proposed, it ‑‑ it's 15 one‑bedrooms that would be market rate. And it's 64 two‑bedrooms that would be market rate. All of you probably, I'm sure, remember that this has an affordable housing component as well, 15 percent set aside. Consequently we propose to have two one‑bedroom affordable units, nine two‑bedroom affordable units and three three‑bedroom affordable units. And ‑‑ and we can have ‑‑ if you want additional testimony on how the ‑‑ how those particular units will be sold (inaudible) site plan if you have questions about that I think Mr. Loventhal, again, would be a particularly good person to ask about those things. So that said in the way of kind of an introduction, I'm prepared to have MR. APPEL begin our testimony and start telling you all about it, unless there are questions of me. 

So we'll get him sworn in.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.

Anyone have questions?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No? Proceed.

1. MARTIN: Sir, raise your right hand. State your full name for the record and spell your last name.
2. APPEL: I'm Laurence, L‑A‑U‑R‑A‑N‑C‑E, Appel, A‑P‑P‑E‑L. I am principal of Appel Design and Architects located in Livingston, New Jersey.
3. MARTIN: Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?
4. APPEL: Yes, I do.

L A U R A N C E A P P E L,

Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WELLS:  

1. Again, I'll let you keep going a little bit, you told us that you're a principal with the firm.

Just tell us a little bit more about your educational background and your licenses and your ‑‑ and whether you've had the opportunity to appear before boards before.

1. Sure. I hold a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering as well as a master's degree in architecture. I've been licensed in architecture since 1992. I am principal and manage a firm called Appel Design Group Architects in Livingston, New Jersey. Our primary focus is multifamily residential development work, so this is kind of as real match for the type of projects.

1. And have you had an opportunity to appear before planning boards or boards of adjustment in that capacity?
2. Yes, I have appeared before numerous boards. I guess I've been here before this Planning Board while the ordinance was ‑‑
3. During the Master Plan meetings?
4. well, when the Master Plan ‑‑ I did, I think, at least two or three presentations.
5. WELLS: I'm trying to forget that.

So are probably the members of the board who are ‑‑ they're going to listen to you all the ‑‑ I'd like to propose MR. APPEL to testify as an expert in the field of architecture.  

1. MARTIN: MR. APPEL, you're New Jersey licensed?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me?

1. MARTIN: You're a New Jersey licensed architect?

THE WITNESS: New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania. I'm also an (inaudible) certified for recertification everywhere in the United States.

1. MARTIN: And you testified as an architect expert in superior court as well?

THE WITNESS: Not in superior court.

1. MARTIN: Okay. But mostly planning boards, zoning boards throughout New Jersey?

THE WITNESS: Planning boards, zoning boards. I also was a member of my local (inaudible) with my township board of adjustment for several years when I lived in Morris Township.

1. MARTIN: As to architecture I would recommend the board accept him.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone have any questions of MR. APPEL? 

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

1. WELLS: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Well, I just ‑‑

1. WELLS: You said you served on a board, I think that disqualifies you.

No, I appreciate you accepting his qualifications.

BY MR. WELLS:

1. Before we were going to kind of run through and get your exhibits all introduced, could you just tell the board ‑‑ and I told them a little bit about the history of the application, but the history of your involvement in this particular project?
2. Sure. I've been involved in this project, I believe, since inception. I'm thinking that was about five years or so. We were involved during the evolution of the Master Plan. We had the opportunity to see the project, you know, shape, itself. I've also had the opportunity to study the area in the Village and get, I think, a good understanding of what the town is about and ‑‑ and what I feel, professionally, would be appropriate. My understanding is that process that led us to here is complete and we've had a rather well‑drafted ordinance that we've worked very hard to work with, rather than against, in trying to make the project reflect the intent of this ordinance.
3. I know I know the answer because I've been here, but have you done more than one design on this particular site over the years?
4. Yes, yes. It's been a series of ‑‑ of steps in the process getting here. And I think, as a result, is the project has matured, and I am very proud of the way it has ‑‑
5. I was going to say, if you can't miss (inaudible) and you're now ‑‑ you're pleased with how it came out?
6. Yes, yes.
7. Okay.
8. Very well.
9. All right. What I want to do to make things easy, because I'm going to let you testify kind of on your own, but we've got eight exhibits ‑‑
10. Yes.
11. ‑‑ that you're going to use, so I'd like to do ‑‑
12. Do you want me to get them all ‑‑ all that out?
13. Yes, let's just get them all marked at once. So if you could go behind ‑‑
14. Do we have stickers or do you want me to ‑‑
15. No, they don't have stickers.
16. ‑‑ mark the back somewhere or ‑‑
17. So if your colleague could help ‑‑
18. Yes.
19. ‑ and just if ‑‑
20. WELLS: And, board, if it's okay ‑‑ and I don't know whether it's your policy, Chris, getting us ‑‑ we just kind of A‑1, A‑2 and so forth?
21. MARTIN: Absolutely. (Inaudible).
22. WELLS: Okay.
23. MARTIN: Identify them and (inaudible).
24. WELLS: Right, okay.

BY MR. WELLS:

1. So why don't you take the first one and ‑‑
2. And this ‑‑
3. ‑‑ tell us what it is.
4. Is this microphone live or do I have to turn ‑‑
5. You probably have to turn it on.
6. Is that on?
7. Yeah.
8. Is this good?
9. Open up. Put it closer to your mouth. Okay.
10. BRANCHEAU: Now it's good.

THE WITNESS: Is this good? 

1. BRANCHEAU: There you go.
2. WELLS: Okay. Good.

THE WITNESS: Okay. First exhibit wise, I'm just going to list these. Is it already if I refer to these as A‑1 and A‑2?

BY MR. WELLS: 

1. Well, no, we're going to do that. So you ‑‑ you tell us what it is.
2. I just wanted to make sure, are we good if we just started with A‑1?
3. MARTIN: Yes.
4. WELLS: Yes. BY MR. WELLS:
5. What is that?
6. So the first exhibit is a ‑‑
7. SCHEIBNER: Excuse me, could you move it around this way so I can see it as well?

THE WITNESS: Oh, sure. Just tell me when ‑‑

1. SCHEIBNER: Thank you, that's fine.

THE WITNESS: Is that good?

1. SCHEIBNER: That's fine. Yeah.

THE WITNESS: Very little.

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's fine.

1. WELLS: It's also tricky because now you've made it impossible for the public, all these people are related to us, so we don't care about them.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is everyone able to see the ‑‑ the exhibit?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: No.

1. MARTIN: Go back towards the (inaudible) I think everybody could see it.

THE WITNESS: So you want to just pull back a little farther?

1. MARTIN: Yes.
2. WELLS: I notice the sign application didn't want any of us to see it. Only the board got to see those signs (inaudible).

MALE BOARD MEMBER: Try to get it over to the side here, so other people can see it.

1. SCHEIBNER: If you can turn ‑‑ turn it, turn it in that way a little bit.
2. MARTIN: Tip it a little more towards the public.
3. SCHEIBNER: There you go.

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.  

1. WELLS: Are we good?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is that better, everybody?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.

1. WELLS: Okay.
2. MARTIN: A‑1 is a proposed final render.

THE WITNESS: Excuse me?

1. MARTIN: A‑1 is a proposed final render?

THE WITNESS: Yes. A‑1 is an artistic rendering. So this is basically a colored artistic rendering of the project that you see as architectural black and white drawings. So I'm going to refer to that as A‑1 and we'll date that today's date. (Whereupon, Colored Artistic Rendering is received and marked as Exhibit A‑1 for identification.)

BY MR. WELLS: 

1. Just move that. And we'll go on to the next one.
2. And I'm going to go through very quickly, but I'm come back and we'll talk about any of these. And if there's a ‑‑ we need to bring anything closer, if that's helpful for anyone, I'm happy to show you a little closer view of the rendering. You know, pulling it back over here is ‑‑ is a little farther than I'm used to people being away from the renderings. Second rendering, I will call it A‑2. This is the same rendering, but it's put in context. This is basically a photograph and we've superimposed on the photograph, the rendering. So some of the pieces in here have ‑‑ are existing features and existing trees and the existing bank, and some of it we've added a couple of people just for scale and to give some perspective, artistically. (Whereupon, Photograph with Rendering Superimposed is received and marked as Exhibit A‑2 for identification.)

BY MR. WELLS:

1. Just ‑‑ I'm going to ask you to be a little bit more specific, I think you did, but you started by saying it's basically a photograph. So tell us ‑‑
2. It is ‑‑ it actually ‑‑
3. Tell us it is a photograph.
4. It actually ‑‑
5. Tell us which part is a photograph and which part is not.
6. It actually is a photograph, so the context up here, the roadway, the ‑‑ the utility poles, the bank, the stone wall, and this is all ‑‑
7. How about the building closest to you?
8. The building in the foreground over here, the traffic sign, all of these are basically a photograph.

And we've basically ‑‑ basically took a photograph of a couple different places, stitched them together ‑‑ yes ‑‑

1. ALTANO: Do you have ‑‑ follow you tell us exactly what (inaudible) you put them in context.

THE WITNESS: This is actually South Broad and this cross street is ‑‑

MALE BOARD MEMBER: Passaic. 

THE WITNESS: You said?

MALE BOARD MEMBER: Passaic. 

THE WITNESS: Passaic. 

So this is the bank that stands just to the side of the property.

And this is the Brogan Cadillac property. This is the corner where the dealership building was.

BY MR. WELLS: 

1. All right. So you can testify about it more, but so let's just keep moving, A‑3 is ‑‑ is actually plans.
2. Okay. This is A‑2. So the next ‑‑ the next exhibit I'm going to do in two steps, we have ‑‑ I'm going to call, just for recordkeeping, A‑3 is ‑‑ are all the drawings that you have in your ‑‑ in your packages right now. (Whereupon Architectural Plans, Sheets C‑1, A‑1.1, A‑1.2, A‑1.3, A‑2.1, A‑2.2, A‑2.3, A‑2.4, A‑2.5 and A‑3.1, Last Revised 6/23/16 and 6/24/16 are received and marked as Exhibit A‑3 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: So I'll refer to them as A‑3, although I'm just tagging them. And, in addition to this, based on some ‑‑ BY MR. WELLS:

1. But I want you to go just a bit more on that.
2. Okay.
3. How many sheets are in that set?
4. The drawings consist of drawings number C‑1, A‑1.1, A‑1.2, A‑1.3, A‑2.1, A‑2.2, A‑2.3, A‑2.4, A‑2.5 and A‑3.1.
5. And that's exactly the set that the board has and it was submitted as part of this application.
6. And just for recordkeeping, all of these drawings are dated 6/23/16, except for drawing number C‑1 and drawing number A‑1.3, which are dated 6/24.
7. Okay.
8. Now, in addition, we had some questions raised by the Village Planner and these ‑‑

MALE BOARD MEMBER: One second, please.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MALE BOARD MEMBER: That's not the dates we have on ours.

FEMALE BOARD MEMBER: Yeah, mine is 2012. 

MALE BOARD MEMBER: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Let me ‑‑ let me remind everyone is that the ‑‑ the drawing dates that I'm reading from ‑‑ for are the latest revision dates of the drawings.

1. WELLS: Look at the corner and you'll see (inaudible) ‑‑

THE WITNESS: So if you look up at the upper corner of the page in here, where it says "revisions".

MALE BOARD MEMBER: Let me see the revisions section.

So it's going to ‑‑ it'll be the latest date.  

(Whereupon, an off‑the‑record discussion is held.)

1. WELLS: Yes, it's the very last date.

THE WITNESS: So, the most recent date on the revision is the date that I would be reading from.

MALE BOARD MEMBER: So, there's 6/23 and 6/24?

THE WITNESS: That is absolutely correct. Everyone good with their exhibits or ‑‑

1. WELLS: Don't study them too much we're going to give you some new ones.

THE WITNESS: So, we had some questions raised by the Village Planner and the questions in here, what we tried to do was jump on it quickly, and we prepared three updated drawings. Nothing changed materially to any of the dimensions of the buildings. There were also minor refinements, and I will go into all of those details specifically, but I wanted to ‑‑ to mark three exhibits as a newer date and these ‑‑

BY MR. WELLS: 

4. That's what we're going to call set A‑4.
5. We're going to call these A‑4.

And in addition to this is I have small copies to distribute to the board just so that you have these same drawings as well. (Whereupon, Sheets C‑1, A‑1.1, and A‑1.2, Last Revised 9/1/16, are received and marked as Exhibit A‑4 for identification.)

1. MARTIN: Just in case someone's listening A‑4 specifically?
2. WELLS: He's going to tell us now.

THE WITNESS: So A‑4 is drawing number.

Drawing ‑‑ Exhibit A‑4 is ‑‑ consists of drawing number C‑1, A‑1.1, and A‑1.2. Each of these are dated 9/1/16, and later on in my testimony, I'll explain why these are significant, why we reissued these drawings. And I think in each case, they were refinements to the ‑‑ either the design or basically to resolve and give your Village professionals additional information on which to understand and ‑‑ and help critique the project. (Whereupon, Colorized Floor Plan is received and marked as Exhibit A‑5 for identification.)

BY MR. WELLS: 

1. A‑5?
2. A‑5 is a colored floor plan exhibit. What this is, is two of the unit plans that are in your package, we've just blown them up a little bit, put some color on them. We thought they'd be a little nicer and easier to read as a presentation exhibit. The units themselves are not changed architecturally. They're just enhanced with some color. (Whereupon, Courtyard Photograph is received and marked as Exhibit A‑6 for identification.) BY MR. WELLS:
3. A‑6.
4. A‑6 is a courtyard photo. This is from another project I had designed ‑‑ my office has designed. We're calling this concept photos from other project illustrating similar design (inaudible) of courtyard.

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: We developed.

THE WITNESS: Excuse me?

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) we developed.

THE WITNESS: Yes.  And actually, this is a project that Mr. Loventhal's company was responsible for as well. Now, it's a project in Cranford. A project we're also quite proud of. And this had a very similar feel. And we thought this was a good photo exhibit to show what we were striving for and it's ‑‑

BY MR. WELLS: 

1. You're going ‑‑ you're doing your testimony now. Just do exhibits.
2. Okay.

(Whereupon, Exterior Building Color Material Board is received and marked as Exhibit A‑7 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: The next one, next exhibit, is A‑7. It's an exterior building color material board. And it's over here. BY MR. WELLS:  

1. This is one where they built the building in (inaudible) or showing materials.
2. And this is an exhibit where we're showing actual brick stucco and other materials so that you can see real life what the materials we're proposing are. This again is A‑7. And our last exhibit ‑‑ we'll keep this one off because it's a little...(Whereupon, Village of Ridgewood Design Examples Board is received and marked as Exhibit A‑8 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: And the last one that we're pulling up which is exhibit A‑8, is called "Village of Ridgewood Design Examples".

These are photographs right from the Central Business District of the Village, and it shows what the ‑‑ we'll give some testimony on is what we found to be very good examples of Ridgewood architecture which we were trying to latch onto and then... BY MR. WELLS:

1. Okay. Except for that one because we'll save that A‑8 for a little later testimony, use the other exhibits and tell the board what it is we propose to do here.
2. Well, first, I wanted to say, process‑wise, we spent a good deal of time reviewing, studying the existing downtown. We look for clues. We saw some very good examples of architecture and some that we believe were not so successful. But in the composite, they all seem to work together. And we were trying to get our ‑‑ get our fingers on the pulse of what was making good architecture in the Village.

You have a very successful downtown, both from the vehicular perspective as well as a pedestrian. It's pleasant to walk the streets, and ‑‑ and we were trying to achieve similar types of success here. 

We want to incorporate an architectural style that will draw upon some of these successful buildings in the Village. We felt that this Tudor architecture that we have latched onto was an excellent design reference. What was particularly important here is it allowed us to create varied roof lines in a very successful manner. These varied roof lines work very well with this architectural style.

And part of these sloped roofs that were strongly encouraged by the ordinance was something that we used to soften the building, provide some interest, and these features ‑‑ as I'll give testimony later ‑‑ were actually almost checklist items in the ‑‑ in the ordinance. And I am proud to say that these were some of the features that have been in the project from inception. So materials, we're using high‑quality durable materials. These are permanent materials. We believe these to be low maintenance materials, which is important because we want the building and the architecture not to feel tired. We want it to feel fresh and vibrant and to stay the way it looks at the beginning. 

We believe these are materials that relate well to the existing buildings in the Village. We are utilizing a combination of brick with cast‑stone accents. We're using traditional hard‑coat stucco and contrasting trim boards, and architectural roof shingles on all of the pitched roofs. We believe these details follow very familiar, traditional architectural forms, details. This is what we call vernacular architecture. And we're trying to use all of these elements in here in creating something that is new, but also familiar and has a strong relationship to the existing CBD.

BY MR. WELLS: 

1. So I told the board before that we've followed the ordinance, also you indicated that in your general opening there, but let's go and be very specific. So the floor area ‑‑ or I'm sorry ‑‑ the density requirement under the ordinance is 35 units per acre.

What is the density of this project?

2. Well, at 93 units proposed, which MR. WELLS had commented on, and 2.67 acres, that yields 34.83 dwelling units. That is below the 34 [sic] dwelling units per acre. And it includes a 15 percent set aside for affordable housing units as well.
3. Okay. How about floor area ratio, tell us how that, in terms of an ordinance requirement ‑‑
4. I don't ‑‑
5. ‑‑ one point or 135.
6. Again, our project is conforming. For the board members, does ‑‑ is everyone understanding how the floor area ratio works per the ordinance?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You might want to explain it.

THE WITNESS: The floor area ratio is a calculation where you take the ‑‑ and the ‑‑ the Village uses habitable ‑‑ habitable area. So they take ‑‑ not gross floor area, but they take the habitable floor area, which is defined as the area from the inside face of the exterior walls, including pretty much everything with the exception of things like mechanical spaces. And what we have done is we have, in our exhibit ‑‑ I'll switch back to our architectural exhibit. The new exhibit that we prepared on drawing number A‑1.2, basically took, at your planner's suggestion, and included both a better tabulation of areas, and we showed how each of these were calculated. So the floor area ration takes the entire habitable area, floor by floor, adds them up, divides them by the area of the site. When you do this, you get a percentage or ratio. The ordinance requires 135 percent. And our project is conforming. And again, what we did is to provide additional details in here, they're shaded in different manners. And we showed our area calculations. And we've added each of these up and then have tabulated that on the cover pages as well.

BY MR. WELLS: 

1. The ordinance, and I'm going to read the language because it's fairly specific:

"Requires that buildings incorporate high‑quality architectural features that are    characteristic of exemplary buildings reflecting the traditional architecture in the Central Business District. 

"The applicant, for any development, shall demonstrate such design for providing examples of comparisons to existing high‑quality buildings in the Central Business District."

So tell us, did we do this?

1. Absolutely.

And part of what we did is our process in studying the downtown, we located and ‑‑ both a vocabulary of design, as well as a vocabulary of materials, and took these, and I will show you some of the buildings. This was ‑‑

1. Now you're referring to A‑8, I think?
2. Exhibit A‑8 which shows various buildings that we've looked at. I've included six here for reference. They include the building on West Ridgewood Avenue, a building at Library Place in Garber Square, 5 Broad Street ‑‑ I'm sorry ‑‑ South Broad Street, the corner of South Broad and East Ridgewood, and at the corner of North Broad and East Ridgewood. And these are several buildings. They all had either Tudor architecture or dare I say Tudoresque architecture. But they had scaled materials. They utilized stucco, brick, in some cases, architectural roof lines. And these are all parts of the architecture and the materials that we were looking to create a relationship with. And we believe that these ‑‑ what we're doing creates very similar use of these same materials.
3. And I think you may have created a word of "Tudoresque". I'm not sure. But we'll go with it. The ordinance, but ‑‑ and there was lots of discussion on this in creating the ordinance ‑‑ has a building height requirement of 50 feet. Tell us how you calculated that under the ordinance and tell us whether or not you achieved that?
4. Again, we're conforming. The requirement for height is 50 feet. It's measured from average grade. This is a calculation that the site engineer makes for us and this average grade plane, we measure and established heights for the ‑‑ for the roof. In our particular case in here, the maximum building height is 50 feet. We're below this. However, the ordinance does allow for the height to with exceeded if certain conditions are met. And I think ‑‑
5. As the ordinance (inaudible) says if the building's over 40 feet, which we obviously are, that you're required to use architectural features such as pitched roofs or (inaudible) varied roof lines, decorative roof lines, pediments, varied parapet heights and other similar features designed to provide a variety of use of visual impact of the building height in order to accommodate such features any exceptions to the height are allowed. And that's the ‑‑ what you're talking about, so tell us how ‑‑ how ‑‑ how we did all that.
6. Yes.

So again, we are conforming. Our design utilizes, as I mentioned before, pitched roofs, varied roof lines. So we have pitched roof forms, various roof lines, various projections on here jukes and jogs of the building facade. All these are included in the ordinance as well as ‑‑ as decorative elements. We've included these decorative chimneys which we believe brings some brick and adds some extra interest. All of this provides a very varied facade. It's not a uniform, straight roof line, but it has some ups and downs which help soften the building and create the same type of diversity that you find in the CBD. 

1. And I know MR. BRANCHEAU knows as well because he created it, but just so everybody understands, if it wasn't for that component in the Village ordinance, you could simply just have a 50‑foot flat roof basically like a straight line across it, right?
2. Well, the ‑‑ you're ‑‑ you're correct. The ordinance allows you to even exceed the maximum height of 50 feet, and ‑‑ and exceed the height by 50 feet by an additional 8 feet if certain other provisions are met as well. So there's a provision of the building exceeding 50 that the ‑‑ that a portion of the building exceeding 50 feet cannot exceed 20 percent of the horizontal area of the building having a height greater than 40 feet.

So basically, what this is saying, kind of in a little simpler terms, it's a metric for stepping back the massing of the building. It's allowing a certain portion, and a very small portion of the building, to get a little bit taller, and the ordinance allows this. And I think the ‑‑ the ordinance embraces it and we embraced it because it allowed us to create more difference between the lows and the highs of the building. And we took advantage of this provision of the ordinance. Further, we've also used the design of the building to help conceal and hide the mechanical equipment, your heating and air conditioning. We're proposing to put these on the roof, and essentially, as the ordinance calls for in section 190‑124(P) is that we are ‑‑ to minimize the view of the equipment, we're ‑‑ we're pushing it back from the perimeter and screening it. We're using the actual roof line of the building to create almost parapets to screen the mechanical equipment. So rather than create screening, we're trying to use the architecture to do that work for us.

And, in addition, because all of this mechanical equipment is located towards the center of the building, it's located in a manner that you wouldn't be able to see it anyway because of the sight lines, if you were to put mechanical equipment right along the perimeter of the building, it's much more visible. But when you push it back towards the center of the building, it's much less visible.

1. Okay. So part of what you're telling us is ‑‑ members of the board may be familiar, but sometimes with the flat roof buildings, that you literally have to screen mechanical equipment with a screen or a fence?
2. That's correct.
3. Hence you don't need to do that here because you actually use the roofs themselves to cover it up?
4. That ‑‑ that was our intent and we're ‑‑ we're utilizing the architecture as the screens.
5. Another aspect of the ordinance, it's going to seem like the same thing, but I want to make sure the board understands that there is another requirement that I ‑‑ that I think we've met, and that says if you're over 40,000 feet, you're required to use architectural features that regard providing a reduce visual impact to the building ‑‑ to the building mass, itself. In other words, not just a straight wall across there, using varied facade, materials facade, projections, recesses, judicious use of windows and other openings on the facade.

So do we do that, too?

1. Absolutely. And I'm going to sound a little repetitive, we're going back to the same pitched roof lines. We're utilizing various facade materials, brick, stucco, cast stone, roof singles, as well as different fenestration.
2. But you're also ‑‑ basically, the building's going in and out, too, right?
3. Absolutely. We're using ‑‑ we have balconies with decorative architectural railings. And inside the ‑‑ it's not just having a roof line, but we've cut dormers into these roof lines, as I'll discuss later, is we utilize these pitched roofs to even create more diversity in the architecture by tucking some lofts up into these areas just like you would see in older buildings, that these are not stick‑on dormers. We tried to make these functional. And we've incorporated on the upper floor, some ‑‑ some lofts. And all these offsets, jogs, this is exactly what we believe the ordinance is suggesting for us to do. We've embraced it. And we believe we've met and exceeded the intent of the ordinance.
4. So you mentioned before that we've added a few new sheets, and the board saw those, because we've received some feedback from MR. BRANCHEAU actually before now, in the last few weeks. And we want to keep up to date with that. We also received his full report today. And we made you work extra hard just to make sure we met those concerns. And I've got some questions. This is the first of those that I want you to focus on literally out of his report today.
5. Okay.
6. And he has, in that report, whether or not we had appropriate screening, especially the parking lot area, so that the headlights and parked vehicles would be controlled and how that's handled in terms of a unified architectural design because we really do have a parking lot underneath the building so ‑‑
7. Got it.
8. So take us through that.
9. That's ‑‑ that's absolutely correct.

So what we've done with this building is we have designed full architectural facades at the front and sides. And the intent was both to create a cohesive, unified architecture, but also to conceal all of the parking below the building. The ground level of this building is essentially all parking. And we believe that this facade is doing that. Now, these openings in the base of the building are architectural screened openings, but will allow the garage to naturally ventilate. So we don't need to have fans running in the garage, it'll be able to be naturally ventilated. Now, the ‑‑ just to give just some idea, the ‑‑ the ‑‑ and this is one of the questions that was also asked is the height of the ground floor of this parking level is 11 feet 4 inches. That's indicated on the architectural drawings that you have. By the time you factor in structure, mechanical equipment, piping, and things like that, you will have ‑‑ the minimum height that you'll have in the garage is going to be 8 feet 4 inches.

Most of the garage will be greater than this, but that would be the minimum. This will permit an accessible van to come in and park in one of the accessible spaces, which require a height of 8 feet 2 inches. Now, when MR. WELLS was explaining part of this design in here was to include, with these openings is we ‑‑ I've designed these openings to help screen automobile headlights. So we've ‑‑ there's no dimension on the plans for these openings, but we propose that these openings at the bottom will be approximately 3 feet above grade. 

And this works particularly well, especially because more than half the site, the parking is dug into the site a little bit, so the parking will actually have more than 3 feet from the parking level to the bottom of these windows. Now, what does this mean? It means that a headlight for a car, for a typical automobile, is below 3 feet in height. And they aim slightly down. So cars parking in here, their lights will not be glaring out of these screened openings and will stay contained within the structure of the building. So, again, we're not using different screens. We're using the design of the building and the architecture to create natural screens for the headlights.

1. Moving along (inaudible) the ordinance requires that at least 40 square feet of the ‑‑ the project be devoted to ‑‑ to essentially exterior common areas and then also interior common areas. So talk to us about those. More so the interior (inaudible) the architect, but go ahead?
2. Correct. So for ‑‑ so first for the interior, we've provided recreational, social amenities per the ordinance. These are tabulated on cover page. And this is one of the reasons why we added the revised architectural exhibits because we wanted to provide additional breakdown and clarity for the amenity spaces. The ordinance requires 3,720 square feet of space. And we have provided 4,502 square feet of indoor amenity space. So we are in access of ‑‑ of the ordinance in ‑‑ in that provision.
3. Okay. Good. And just basically, we have exterior space as well?
4. The exterior space, and this would be ‑‑ there's 40 square feet of space per dwelling unit that would be devoted to exterior common area space that would be recreational area: Gardens, courtyards, plazas, decks, patios. So these outdoor amenity spaces are exactly those courtyards. And I will show you that ‑‑ that plan in one moment. We'll call ‑‑ this, again, is tabulated on the cover sheet. And we have included a little bit of a better breakdown on the revised exhibit. We are providing 12,420 square feet of outdoor amenity space where the ordinance only requires 3,720. And I will point, again, to our courtyard plan exhibit. And this is an example of the type and feel of the amenity space that is being planned for this project. Now, this would be the view from the back of the building. So this is not facing the front ‑‑ the front street, but actually facing the ‑‑ the train. And it's a courtyard meant to be a public outdoor amenity space.
5. What I'm going to do is I'm going to admit to the board that ‑‑ that your testimony's lacking just a little bit here and it will come when Mr. Lapatka testifies because he's telling you about the courtyard, but you're going to see where it is because we kind of need to see that on the site plan in order to ‑‑ the focus is out there in that area.
6. MARTIN: What exhibit is that, the last one, you were referring to?
7. WELLS: Exhibit, that number?
8. MARTIN: Yes.

THE WITNESS: That is exterior courtyard, A‑6.

1. MARTIN: Thank you.

BY MR. WELLS: 

1. Okay. Moving, if you would, to MR. BRANCHEAU's report of today, what I want to do is, he had several areas where he asked questions that were relevant to the area that you're ‑‑ that you testified about. The first was a section called "Ordinance Compliance Conformation". He asked that we kind of verify some of the numbers. Have you addressed the issues that he raised there?
2. I believe so. And, again, that was the reason why we had replaced those exhibits. What we did is rather than just give the number, we basically showed how the math was formulated to arrive floor by floor of the floor ‑‑ the habitable floor area used for the calculation of the floor area ratio. One of the things that was also questioned was how thick the walls are because we don't count ‑‑ for habitable floor area, we don't count the thickness of the walls. These walls are nominally 6 inches, which means that you're more like 6 3/4 inches actual, but for calculation purposes, we just use a nominal 6 inches.
3. There was also some questions with respect to access, circulation, and parking and traffic. I can point you to the specific things if you want or you can address the concerns that he had.
4. Yes. There was a specific question that was made to one of the areas having a conflict ‑‑
5. Are you referring to Exhibit A‑4 or A‑3 now?
6. I am on drawing number ‑‑ this is A‑4 drawing, A‑1.1.
7. Okay.
8. And the area of parking stalls that are in the second drive aisle from inside of the building, what we've basically done is moved these towards the rear of the ‑‑ the building. And in doing so, it created some additional space so that the ‑‑ the parking is separated from the exterior wall, which provides for enhanced maneuvering. And it provides for a full 9 foot dimension of the stall. The prior concept that we had, we had a little bit of an issue where one of the parking stalls kind of nipped the corner of one of the jogs of the building. And by swapping where the bikes are from one side of the row of parking to the other, it allowed for this to be corrected. And my understanding is that the traffic engineer and site engineer will probably elaborate a little bit more on this, but our exhibit here allowed that geometry to happen.
9. Okay. How about issues on ‑‑ with respect to lighting or concern with the respect to the lights that he raised?
10. One of the ‑‑ I guess, there was question on our architectural exhibit number ‑‑ our drawing number A‑1.3 which was part of the package A ‑‑ this would be A‑4. The existing fixtures are kind of squall squares. In the legend, on the luminaire schedule, it's shown specifically. What we've done is just on this exhibit, I've taken a highlighter and highlighted. It's very difficult to read where the light fixtures are, but we thought this would show them a little bit better clarity. Each of the little boxes that are not fully darkened, but are just outlined and open, are actually the light fixtures. The darkened squares are the columns and the structure of the building. So we did this just to provide a little bit better understanding. The fixtures are all shown. They're just difficult to read.
11. Okay. There are some other technical things where MR. BRANCHEAU's asked for some clarification. I think it's basically the kind of technical thing that's probably best done between the professionals (inaudible) themselves and the board's interest and so I'll leave that for you to work on with him, but I did want to take you back to one very basic thing the board needs to hear, and that is one of your exhibits showed particular units, if you could use that exhibit, and this will really be my last question, could you tell the board about what ‑‑ what the units are going to look like within the project.
12. Okay. And I'll ‑‑
13. Tell us which number this one is.
14. And I will use ‑‑ this is Exhibit A‑5, and this is our typical unit plans. And these are prototypical units that we've shown here. These units are identical to the ones you have in your package. These units are just colored to just show some materials and to make them easier to present with. These units are targeted at a luxury market. They'll be well‑appointed, quality finishes, cabinetry, private laundry equipment in each unit, high‑end appliances, central heating and air conditioning.

The market units range in size from approximately 880 square feet to 1600 square feet. I would like to note on the typical one‑bedroom prototypical unit, we're showing a loft. I mentioned earlier that these lofts were introduced on several of the units to take advantage of attic space that simply existed as part of the pitched roof in the architecture. So by utilizing this, it helped create some architectural diversity. Those dormered windows become real dormers on the elevation as opposed to fake dormers. And a ‑‑ the ‑‑ this prototypical loft illustrates how a typical unit can work like this. The affordable units range in size from approximately 720 square feet to 1,115 square feet. And in accordance with the ordinance, 15 percent of the total number of housing units shall be affordable.

1. Great.

I wanted to move you efficiently through, but it's a pretty large project. But before I turn you over to the board to see if they have any questions or their professionals, do you have anything else that you wanted to say in terms of, you know, just basically introducing the project?

1. Well, I guess that we've worked on many projects similar to this. We're especially proud of this project. We've felt that we've not only addressed the ordinance, but we created a building that was interesting and appropriate. And we're both very proud of the project and excited to be working here in the Village.
2. WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of MR. APPEL.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Are people ready to ask questions on the board? 

We'll start with David.

1. THURSTON: Let me start with your tandem parking issue that Blais had raised, are you going to have identified reserved spaces which will indicate that those are ‑‑ the tandem spaces are reserved for apartment 101, 101, and that sort of thing?

THE WITNESS: Well, I can touch a little bit on this. I'm going to say that the traffic engineer is the person that's going to be probably best equipped to answer this.  

1. THURSTON: Okay.  

THE WITNESS: But I can say just shortly is that they're ‑‑ these are typically reserved spaces. We have used them successfully on a number of other projects. And I know that they're successful because on ongoing projects they keep asking also to utilize them. So, operationally and functionally, they ‑‑ they seem to work pretty well.

1. THURSTON: Okay. Your mechanical equipment ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. THURSTON: ‑‑ are these central heated and air conditioned units, boilers, so that they're ‑‑ they're on the roof and then in a boiler room or does each individual unit have their own?

THE WITNESS: It's typically what's called ‑‑ the heating and air‑conditioning system is what's called a "split system". So very similar to what many of you would have in a single‑family home, just a little smaller version of it. So you'll have a ‑‑ basically a furnace and air handler on the inside and then a condensing unit on the outside. These condensing units are the equipment that I was mentioning would be on the roof. So rather have these on the ‑‑ in the yard space around the project on the ground, we're putting them out of the way up on the roof.

1. WELLS: And to MR. THURSTON's question, would each unit have its own system?

THE WITNESS: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely each

unit has its own independent system, it's own thermostat. Full ‑‑

1. THURSTON: So, yeah, the equipment is just a condenser. That's what would be on the roof, you're saying?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. THURSTON: Okay. Again, maybe for the traffic guy, I see a couple different entrances. How does the traffic move around with all the equipment? 
2. WELLS: Well, that would be ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's ‑‑

1. WELLS: That would be for (inaudible) ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's for his expertise.

1. THURSTON: Okay. Good.

Thank you.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: A couple questions. You said these are going to be rental units. Will that always be the case? Will this building always be a rental facility, never a purchased?

1. WELLS: Always is a very long time, so it's possible that somebody might, 50 years from now, try to ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm looking at your developer and he's saying it's always going to be rental.

1. WELLS: It always will be rental. We'll deed restrict it to that.

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's correct.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. You mentioned something about an average height of the building, but you never stated what that average height was. Could you tell me what that is?

THE WITNESS: Well, there's various levels of the building, so there's ‑‑ there's a maximum of 50 feet which is an ordinance limitation and then another height line of 58 feet. So the majority of our building is actually below the 50‑foot line, is 49 feet 10 inches. Then we go up to 58 feet, which is the ordinance limit, on a very small portion. And what I was talking about before is the metric that the ‑‑ the ordinance created was a metric to allow you to increase a very small portion of the building, provided that you met a whole bunch of requirements and rules, which we have met and, therefore, we go up that ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I understand. You ‑‑ you mentioned it was average grade to the ‑‑ to the height of the building. And is it 49 feet 10 inches, is that what you're saying or no?

THE WITNESS: Yes, 49'10", except for the small portion of the building that is 58 feet.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Got it.  Okay. 

You mentioned inside the garage that the height of the garage with all these pipes and whatever else underneath on the ceiling is 8 feet 4 inches; is that right?

THE WITNESS: That would be the ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: But that's the minimum.

THE WITNESS:  ‑‑ the minimum clearance.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah, okay. 

So. Just curious, what's the height of an ambulance? 

THE WITNESS: I don't know because there's so many different types of ambulances.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah.  I ‑‑

1. WELLS: Our traffic guy will ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah.  I've had ‑‑ this is a question I think Chris ‑‑ Chris brought up, is that any ‑‑ any emergency vehicles that need to go underneath the garage to ‑‑ for anybody who's there, I mean, there may be a height restriction.  So just ‑‑ I mean, can you answer that question for us as to what that ‑‑

1. WELLS: We can, but actually, to be honest with you, by design and I think operationally, we would suggest that emergency vehicles simply come to the front door which the (inaudible) ‑‑ right place where the elevators all go and everything.

THE WITNESS: Just ‑‑ just as a ‑‑ as a ‑‑

1. WELLS: It would not be the right place to go if you were trying to help someone in the building.

THE WITNESS: Typically ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I don't know if that's the case or not. I mean, if the fire department goes there or EMT ‑‑ yeah, I mean (inaudible) ‑‑

1. WELLS: Right, in that parking lot maybe, if you're injured in the parking lot maybe, but if you were anywhere in the building and you were calling an ambulance, you would really want them to come to the front door of that building. Again, there'll be testimony on this.

THE WITNESS: We ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I don't know if that's correct or not. I mean, if I'm an ambulance and I want to get to somebody as quickly as possible and I (inaudible) you know ‑‑

1. WELLS: (Inaudible) you'll get to them quicker ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Understood. Well, I ‑‑ I don't know if that's true or not. But that's okay. 

1. WELLS: (Inaudible) if they fell down in the back parking lot, maybe not. If they're in the building, you'll get to them quicker by getting right to the elevator.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah.  Okay.  Fair enough. 

So, you said on some of the luxury apartments that the one‑bedrooms are going to have a loft; is that correct?

1. WELLS: Larry, he's asking about the lofts.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: About the lofts.

Yeah, they ‑‑ I guess some of these one‑bedroom apartments are going to have a loft; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes. There's several ‑‑ several apartments are scheduled to have ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ lofts.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Did you include that in the FAR?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You did? Okay. The affordable units, you mentioned that the range was 750 square feet to 1,115 square feet. And they're supposed to be three bedrooms. You're going to have three bedrooms at 1,115 square feet? Well, that's going to be really squishy. 

THE WITNESS: Are you saying that looking at the ‑‑ at the drawings or –

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Well, no, you mentioned that the largest size of the affordable unit is 1,115 square feet. And you have three‑bedroom apartments in the affordable units, several of them are going to be three‑bedroom. So I'm just wondering how you're going to put three bedrooms in 1,115 square feet. It's a little bit squishy; isn't it? 

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: You know that is the dimension (inaudible). 

THE WITNESS: There it is, so ‑‑

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ our three‑bedroom ‑‑

1. MARTIN: Tell them what sheet you're reading from.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ affordable unit is shown on drawing number A‑3.1 which is part of everyone's package.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: And we are showing a three‑bedroom unit at 1,113 square feet. 

And I will tell you from doing other ones like this for the affordable units, that's not unusual.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Thank you.

1. MARTIN: Just clarification that's not unusual they're smaller there (inaudible) obviously the drop off (inaudible) is not usual?

THE WITNESS: No, that's not ‑‑ that ‑‑ that size is not unusual.  

1. MARTIN: Oh, unusual?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. MARTIN: I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(Whereupon, an off‑the‑record‑ discussion is held.)

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So I actually have the ‑‑ the same question as my colleague about the height of the enclosed garage at 8.4 ‑‑ 8 feet 4 inches, and you said an accessible van is 8.2‑inches high; is that what I heard you to say? 

THE WITNESS: We ‑‑ the design standard we use for a ‑‑ an accessible van is 8 feet 2 inches.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That's just a standard, but it may vary? 

THE WITNESS: Well, that's the ‑‑ those are the design criteria we use were ‑‑ to ‑‑ for an accessible van. So we're ‑‑ we basically took that design standard and added 2 inches to it.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Did I understand you to say that the garage is partially below grade and could you just elaborate on that? 

THE WITNESS: That may be something that the site engineer can talk a little bit more about the ‑‑ the actual, you know, grading and how the ‑‑ the building sits in the site. What I can tell you, just more generally, is from the ‑‑ from the ‑‑ looking at the rendering, the building, as planned, parking along the base, and we've essentially broken the building ‑‑ there's parking below the building, we've broken the building into two sides, the left side and a right side. 

We've done that ‑‑ a lot of this had to do with part of that evolution of the project and it was a suggestion by the Village Planner and how to take this building. And we've broken the building up into two pieces joined by a common lobby. Each of the buildings almost function independently. They have their own elevator, their own stairs. They do share the parking, which is below the building. So they do share the common amenity of a lobby. And other services for the building. But the building, itself, as planned they have two separate pieces, but that parking is contiguous below the entire building. And those amenity decks could ‑‑

1. WELLS: (Inaudible) just to answer the question that the Mayor is asking, and you're right to say the site engineer will explain it better, but does the slope ‑‑ site basically slope backward?

In other words, show ‑‑ tell her how part of it is underground.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. That's what I'm asking ‑‑

1. WELLS: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ is how ‑‑ you said it was under ‑‑ below grade, however the parking ‑‑

1. WELLS: It's not really a basement, just show us ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. And I just wanted you to elaborate on that. 

THE WITNESS: The ‑‑ so now we're referring to Exhibit A‑1.1. The building ‑‑ and this shows the entire building parking layout, so as we come off on the left side of the building, the ‑‑ the building is doved a little bit deeper into the site.  So what that means is that outside grade is a little bit higher than the floor level of the parking. 

And that has to do with the natural topography in getting the building and the grading and the site drainage and everything toward ‑‑

1. WELLS: (Inaudible) to say when you say a little bit, a couple feet? What ‑‑ what is what is a little bit?

THE WITNESS: I would have to look at the site plan to ‑‑

1. WELLS: Well ‑‑

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ to give you that ‑‑ to give you an actual number.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right. In terms of the tandem parking, what was the total number of parking spaces?

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's 187.

THE WITNESS: One‑hundred‑eighty‑seven. 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: One‑hundred‑eighty‑seven? 

THE WITNESS: One‑hundred‑eighty‑seven. 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And how many were tandem? 

THE WITNESS: Nineteen. Well, I'd say ‑‑ I apologize. There's 19 spaces times 2, is 38. So there's 19 spaces are behind an existing space, so depending on how you look at it, it's either 38 spaces total where 19 spaces are ‑‑ are tandem spaces.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. 

And so all of those tandem spaces, every single one of them would be assigned to someone who had two vehicles; is that what ‑‑ like in other words, you wouldn't leave that to share that tandem parking space with apartment 1‑A and 2‑A.

THE WITNESS: Oh, no, no, no. You're ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So that's ‑‑

THE WITNESS: You're ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN:  ‑‑ coming out of one unit, in other words?

THE WITNESS: Two assigned to a single unit; that's correct. 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then you're ‑‑ did you say that you did ‑‑ traffic somebody who's going to work on the wall inside the garage? Somebody else will be asked the questions.

THE WITNESS: Yes. 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right. 

THE WITNESS: And he can answer more about the parking spaces (inaudible). 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yeah, that's right. Okay.  I'm sorry. Oh, one more question. I'm sorry.  What were the amenities in the affordable units? 

THE WITNESS: So, you're ‑‑ you're ‑‑ still have a ‑‑ it's a three bedroom, two bathroom, kitchen, there's ‑‑ each of the bedrooms will have ‑‑

1. WELLS: Larry, let me help you a little bit. I think you may have created a visual of the way you did it. Do you mean the finishes, like ‑‑ yeah.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, the things like (inaudible).

1. WELLS: Tell us about that ‑‑ about the finishes. In other words, the counters and things like that. How will they different from the market rate units?

THE WITNESS: Typically, they're a little bit more common.

So, for instance, is a ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm sorry? More?

THE WITNESS: More common. 

So when I say a ‑‑ let's say, for instance, a countertop in a ‑‑ in a standard market unit would be granite and the countertop in a standard affordable unit would be plastic laminate. So it's not that it's a ‑‑ something that is ‑‑ I want to say it's a ‑‑ it's a little lower in luxury on finishes.

1. WELLS: But it ‑‑ again, it's good that he answered it, but this is a perfect question for Mr. Loventhal he can tell you exactly what's going to be used.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie?

1. McWILLIAMS: I'm sorry. You actually ‑‑ you do have 187 spots or it's actually 206 if you count the 19 additional spots that are tandem?

THE WITNESS: No, the ‑‑ the ‑‑ the parking includes those tandem spaces. 

1. McWILLIAMS: It includes them. Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. McWILLIAMS: And you have community rooms. I would assume they're for use, parties, stuff like that, so some of these people within a building can rent them or use them as their ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well, operationally, I would defer that to Mr. Loventhal about how those spaces would be used, you know, by the ‑‑ by the complex. 

1. McWILLIAMS: If ‑‑ if, you know, significant number ‑‑ I know there's never any way to tell, but where is there provided for guests of these apartments to park?

THE WITNESS: I think the traffic engineer will kind of tabulate and give the whole scenario of how all of those parking numbers and locations (inaudible)

1. WELLS: (Inaudible) will there be assigned spaces for units, but there's also free spaces and he'll go through all that. That's (inaudible).
2. McWILLIAMS: There's going to be free spaces?
3. WELLS: There are spaces that are not ‑‑ they're guest spaces.
4. McWILLIAMS: Okay.

I didn't see that ‑‑ that as possible use as tandem spaces.

1. WELLS: No, he'll take you through all the numbers on that.
2. McWILLIAMS: All right.
3. WELLS: Each ‑‑ how many spaces each unit will have and then how many extra spaces there will be.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie?

1. PATIRE: Yes, I think it was Exhibit A‑6 where you showed the other products that you're preparing or to use as an example ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. PATIRE: ‑‑ of luxury homes. Where was that project?

THE WITNESS: Are you talking about ‑‑

1. PATIRE: Where is that location?

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ A‑6 was ‑‑

1. PATIRE: Is that A‑6?

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ was my courtyard. 

1. PATIRE: Courtyard?

THE WITNESS: It was ‑‑ okay. I thought you were referring the ‑‑ from the CBD. 

1. PATIRE: Oh, I'm sorry. I was talking about (inaudible) ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No, this is on ‑‑ on ‑‑ in Cranford. It is just opposite the Cranford train station. 

1. PATIRE: And just out of curiosity, how many units were in that project?

This is your (inaudible) Mr. Loventhal.

THE WITNESS: I believe it's 127.

1. PATIRE: One‑hundred‑twenty‑seven. And how many acres is that project on?

THE WITNESS: I don't ‑‑ I don't have all the ‑‑ I don't have all the specs on it to refer to it.

1. PATIRE: Well, will Mr. Loventhal be able to answer that later?
2. LOVENTHAL: I'll be happy to.
3. WELLS: Sure.
4. PATIRE: Yes? Okay.

And as far as ‑‑ I don't know if I'm allowed to ask this question or not, so Counsel please direct me, have you started looking at pricing or ‑‑

1. WELLS: Mr. Loventhal will be able to answer that question.
2. PATIRE: Oh, he can answer that.

As far as your materials, are you using real brick or is that brick veneer, it's (inaudible) the use (inaudible).

THE WITNESS: It's what ‑‑ what we as architects call brick veneer ‑‑

1. PATIRE: Okay.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ is actually what you would call real brick. So this is 4‑inch‑thick brick that is typically used on ‑‑ on projects like this.

1. PATIRE: So it's not thin brick, that's cut and applied. It's an actual brick that will be put in, mortared around by a mason?

THE WITNESS: We've ‑‑ we've used both, but they're ‑‑ they're both installed by ‑‑ by masons in the same way, but we would be ‑‑

1. PATIRE: Well, not ‑‑ they're not necessarily installed the same way, because one is (inaudible).  

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's correct.

THE WITNESS: Correct. We ‑‑ we propose ‑‑ we propose ‑‑

1. PATIRE: Because some is EFIS (inaudible).  

(Simultaneous speaking.)

THE WITNESS: We're proposing ‑‑ we're proposing what I would ‑‑ I think you're talking about is conventional brick.

1. PATIRE: Okay. And how long do you anticipate from the beginning, day one, for construction to end on the project?

THE WITNESS: I would defer that to Mr. Loventhal. 

1. PATIRE: Mr. Loventhal? Okay.

Thank you very much.

1. ALTANO: I have some questions.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. ALTANO: When I look at these renderings, I assume it's right ‑‑ it appears to be right at the sidewalk. What's the setback? Is there a setback?

THE WITNESS: From the building, the ‑‑ the building is within the ‑‑ behind the front setback. I believe it's 1 foot behind the required setback. 

1. WELLS: We made a 16‑feet setback. It's 15 feet required.
2. ALTANO: Okay.

Because what I'm failing to see here and it's very difficult here in Ridgewood with all the naturals that we have green areas, we have landscaping. I would love to see this project to show that, you know, a greater setback and perhaps landscaping that would be in the spirit of what we're looking here for residential. I mean we see this, it's storefronts in the business district, but somehow this buildings that have the additional (inaudible) is something to look to as we discuss the final designs, that was ‑‑ how do you feel about that and have you given it any thought?

THE WITNESS: Well, the site engineer will have an exhibit that will show where landscaping is proposed. So I think you may not see these as part of the architectural drawings, but in the colored rendering, we show some of the proposed landscaping. And the site plan that the site engineer will show you will show you that they're ‑‑ there is landscaping and green space. So I think that you ‑‑

1. WELLS: Save it for the site engineer (inaudible).

THE WITNESS: You ‑‑ you ‑‑ I think you'll ‑‑ you'll see what you're looking for.

1. ALTANO: As you proceed with the design and you discuss having rooftop units, but yet they're usually pitched roofs, how do you plan to design that and ‑‑ when you have to worry about servicing those units. I mean I would imagine you wouldn't want that person walk on a pitched roofs. So are they going to be flat in the middle?

THE WITNESS: That you're absolutely correct, the ‑‑ the ‑‑ the drawings show this the edges are flat and I kind of mentioned the term that there's a ‑‑ kind of creating a parapet around the center section of the roof ‑‑ roof that will be flat. So you basically will not see this flat area of roof.  You will see the pitched areas of roof around the perimeter. And there's a number ‑‑ in the drawings, there's a number of sectional cuts that show basically how some of these spaces work in the ‑‑ in the ‑‑ around the building. In particular I will show you, as an example, drawing A‑2.2.  The sections at the front will show how some of those flat roof areas resolve themselves where you will have a pitched roof at the front, pitched roof at the back, and a flat roof in the center. So that the ‑‑ the concept in here is you will not see this flat area, but it will provide a reasonable place to ‑‑ to place mechanical equipment. And it also helps create ‑‑ we needed to do that in order to meet the ordinance requirement height‑wise. And the ‑‑ also creates not having an unusually large attic space for these folks. 

1. ALTANO: Okay. And one more question it's relative to your materials, are you going have real stucco or foam board (inaudible)?

THE WITNESS: What is ‑‑ what is proposed is hard‑coat stucco. So basically it's stucco that will go, get installed conventionally with metal lathe and stucco.

1. ALTANO: Okay.

THE WITNESS: There ‑‑ there will be built‑up trim boards, and those built‑up trim boards go on top of that stucco. And some of those could be foam board, but it's not the ‑‑ the body of the stucco. So it's basically a hard‑coat stucco and some of the trim and detailing is sometimes done with small foam built‑up boards.

1. ALTANO: So ‑‑

THE WITNESS: This is not ‑‑ this is not EIFS. This is conventional ‑‑

1. ALTANO: Okay.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ hard‑coat stucco.

1. ALTANO: Okay. So what percentage (inaudible) to that material. Would you say on the project?

THE WITNESS: You're talking about the ‑‑ you mean where the built‑up trim boards are?

1. ALTANO: Yes.

THE WITNESS: This would be a small portion creating the architectural round trim in the stucco.

So it's a relatively small portion of ‑‑ of that. This is a ‑‑ a very typical way of dealing with those type of architectural jutes and jogs. And hard‑coat stucco does not lend itself well to doing those kind of details. That's why we, you know, utilize the built‑up trim boards.

1. ALTANO: I have two more questions, you talk about potential shingles?

THE WITNESS: Yes.  

1. ALTANO: (Inaudible) the shingles that look like slate (inaudible) the same plan which has the Tudor?

THE WITNESS: Right now we're selecting what's ‑‑ what's called an architectural shingle so it's a shadow‑line shingle. We have not selected the slate‑line type of shingle. I ‑‑ my opinion is I think that the ‑‑ what's called the ‑‑ like the wood‑line or architectural shadow shingle is going to look the best with ‑‑ with this. They're similar types of product and I've never admitted the ‑‑ the testimony for this exhibit, but I do have actual material board that show you stucco colors, actual pieces of roofing, actual brick, cast stone, as well as a window cover. So these are kind of our palette of materials that we're proposing right now.

1. ALTANO: (Inaudible) saying for (inaudible) material for ‑‑ I mean, just I thought it would be really wonderful if you go to (inaudible) it would like very nice that ‑‑ that was just my opinion.

And I have one more question. And is there going to be ‑‑ I know people that are (inaudible), but do you ‑‑ you have really a freight elevator there because I only see two ‑‑ two passengers and what do you do when you have people moving in and out of, you know, this is a rental? Is there ‑‑ do you plan to have a freight elevator?

THE WITNESS: Typically ‑‑ typically those types of buildings would not have dedicated freight elevators. We do enlarge the elevators, so they're larger elevators. They're elevators that are designed to hold a stretcher. So they're a little bit larger than maybe what you are referring to and thinking about, because the building is broken down into two separate columns, we're ‑‑ we're sizing the elevators to be appropriate for each side of the building. So if we were to add freight elevators, it's kind of unusual for ‑‑ for this type of building to have a dedicated freight elevator. 

1. WELLS: Mr. Loventhal, operationally will explain exactly how they work.
2. ALTANO: Okay.
3. PATIRE: So how many elevators are there ‑‑
4. WELLS: Two.
5. PATIRE: ‑‑ since you're talking about the elevator, how many ‑‑
6. WELLS: Two.
7. PATIRE: ‑‑ elevators on each side? So if Susan's moving in between the hours of 9 to 9 (inaudible) there. I have one working elevator on that entire side of the building, (inaudible) since 9 to 5?
8. WELLS: You could actually go to the other elevator.
9. PATIRE: I'm sorry?
10. WELLS: You could go to the elevator. It would be possible to use the other elevator.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Will you give us the size of the elevators, too? I mean how ‑‑ how ‑‑ how deep they are ‑‑ 

1. PATIRE: (Inaudible).

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: ‑‑ that's going to be really helpful.

1. WELLS: Sure.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: May I ‑‑ I'm sorry. I have just one quick question on that ‑‑ that one. Just for the audience that isn't seeing all this up close. Can you just give me the footprint of the actual structure going to the...

THE WITNESS: You're talking about the perimeter dimensions of the building?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes. 

THE WITNESS: So, at the base of the building, because there's some jukes and jogs and overhangs, I'm just going to give you that dimension, at the ‑‑ at the base of the building, you're 404‑feet wide and 146 feet 8 inches on one side and 178 feet on the other side.

1. WELLS: There are actually areas cut out of that, but that's the outer box.

THE WITNESS: Those are the ‑‑ the largest dimensions ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Where is (inaudible). 

THE WITNESS: but as you mentioned, is that is created into left half and the right half. So the ‑‑when you get up to the larger side of the building, as you can see in the way of the building's mass, when you get up to the fourth story, you see in the respective area that's dotted in, you see just very little shade. So that means that there's very little up on the fourth floor.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, but I ‑‑ you answered it properly. I wanted to understand, to that point, about how far you'd actually have to run to get that elevator that ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yup.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ (inaudible) pertain.

1. WELLS: A little ways.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. (Inaudible). 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you anything else? 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That's it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Kevin? 

1. REILLY: I just have a couple questions. The parking area, is that at grade or below grade?

THE WITNESS: The ‑‑ the ‑‑ essentially, it's at grade.

But there's certain portions, based on the existing topography ‑‑

1. REILLY: Right.

THE WITNESS:  ‑‑ and the site engineer ‑‑

1. REILLY: It's (inaudible).

THE WITNESS:  ‑‑ there's a ‑‑ there's a little ‑‑ it's dug into the grade a little bit. I ‑‑ I ‑‑ I don't have that exact number, but the site engineer will explain what that exact number is. It's not very ‑‑ it's ‑‑ it's a small area. 

1. REILLY: (Inaudible) parking?

THE WITNESS: That's ‑‑ that's correct.

1. REILLY: That's coming from some of the reports and so forth (inaudible) I think we're (inaudible) 50‑feet deep, and indicates that that fluctuates and so (inaudible). And that also the subsurface soil is glacial till, sand, things of that nature, very permeable. Do you have the sense whether there's going to be any water problem at all, fairly (inaudible) building I assume, the ‑‑ you know, the structure (inaudible) ‑‑
2. WELLS: That's really for the site engineer.
3. REILLY: Okay. That's ‑‑
4. WELLS: There's no problem, but he's the one to tell you about that.
5. REILLY: Okay. Thank you. After that, of course there's a drain line there, do you have ‑‑ what are your protective features separating your site from the train tracks and is there anything you're doing in terms of sound? And I realize we're talking about a sound wall that's going up and any problems with that, but have you thought through sound issues and safety issues?

THE WITNESS: Well, as far as, you know, the safety and the perimeter and ‑‑ and that type, I'll defer that to the site engineer. As far as sound, it's something architecturally we look at, we will look into enhancing the windows. We will look at enhancing the facade of the building, especially facing the rear, to make sure that ‑‑ and this is not a matter of ‑‑ this is not in code. So code only requires a sound separation from apartment unit to apartment unit. It doesn't necessarily dictate what the outside perimeter needs to be sound‑wise. However, if you're marketing a luxury product, you have to do the right thing. And so we come ‑‑ are going to be looking into providing a ‑‑ an enhancement over normal construction, for sound purposes. 

1. REILLY: Those are all my questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

With that garage, will the fire department be able to access it if something happens under there and they need to get in?

THE WITNESS: You mean ‑‑ you mean to bring a fire truck underneath?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. Something if they need to for fire protection.

THE WITNESS: First ‑‑ first, the buildings fully sprinkled. 

So, typically, fire departments will address an emergency or a fire, they will typically not bring a truck near a burning building.

So the building ‑‑ the fire truck is kept away from the building. And they pull hose toward the building. Because the building's fully sprinkled, they fight the fire a certain, you know, way, knowing that it's a fully sprinklered building.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So no fire safety issues like that then? 

THE WITNESS: No, this is ‑‑

1. McWILLIAMS: What about a car fire? They're going to come into the lobby, take a hose and go out into the parking area?

Just ‑‑ again, I think the point is not necessarily about the ‑‑ an apartment fire, but if there's a car fire (inaudible).

1. WELLS: There are different types of fire apparatus and procedures ‑‑
2. McWILLIAMS: I'm sorry?
3. WELLS: Well, and ‑‑ and, you know, maybe Chris can (inaudible) if he has questions, there are different kinds of firefighting equipment that you use to fight a fire ‑‑
4. McWILLIAMS: But, again, I think we're just all asking questions ‑‑
5. WELLS: Yeah.
6. McWILLIAMS: ‑‑ about (inaudible) and car fire, we want to know that people above are safe in their apartments.

So, again, I understand there's sprinkler systems and all that, but I think your point about getting a truck under the building, they need to come in and turn just some other things logistically that's not going (inaudible).

THE WITNESS: The site ‑‑ the site engineer can explain ‑‑

1. McWILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ can explain how a fire vehicle comes onto the site and how ‑‑ how they can access around the perimeter of the site.  

1. McWILLIAMS: (Inaudible) I'll save it and ask the site engineer. I just want to make sure, sorry.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: For the materials, the finishes, will that be detailed in any plans that, you know, to the "T" like when you say "brick," is it going to be that brick or is it just conceptual?

1. WELLS: Well, I mean, this would be the time to be asked, but to be very honest, that is a little beyond the purview of this kind of review, you know, we're going to ‑‑ we're going to tell you what we're going to do. As to whether the color of the brick may change a little.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, I know. I guess, I like to know you know, contractor (inaudible) Home Depot ‑‑

1. WELLS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: ‑‑ for $5.00 (inaudible)?

1. WELLS: Yes. We can certainly tell you what we're going to do, but ‑‑ but to be very honest with you, that actually is a little beyond the jurisdiction of ‑‑ of a board. But...

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I thought I would ask. Yeah.

1. WELLS: Well...

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It affects the quality if it's, you know...

1. WELLS: Well, yeah, they ‑‑ and ‑‑ and that ‑‑ the best way you can get comfortable on that will ‑‑ Mr. Loventhal will explain because you ‑‑ you ‑‑ in terms of us telling you we want to do a luxury product, that's ‑‑ that's tied into the marketing. And, you know, we would ‑‑ if it's not nice it isn't just because the code doesn't require it to be certain brick, our customers require it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure. 

1. WELLS: And for that, okay. (Inaudible).

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And for affordable housing, is there any way that identify it on‑site either by location of the unit or anything on the exterior at all?

THE WITNESS: The exterior, when you walk in the hallway, there's no way to say this ‑‑ you know, it's ‑‑ it's the same doorways from the exterior. They're handled the same way. So the interior of the unit is ‑‑ is slightly different than the market units. But, essentially, from the exterior, they're ‑‑ they're not differentiated.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: How about location‑wise? They're not clustered, right?

1. WELLS: No. They're not clustered.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. That's it.

1. THURSTON: Richard, I have a follow up. I have a follow up.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Dave has a ‑‑

1. THURSTON: I have two questions, but let me ask you the first one because it's really the same question. Architecturally, why is the north side of the building shorter than the south side of the building?

THE WITNESS: You said architecturally why is ‑‑

1. THURSTON: On A‑1.2, you see that the right ‑‑ the right, which I assume is the north side, is not ‑‑ doesn't go as far back as the left side.

THE WITNESS: Right.

So when we were looking at the site geometry, this was an evolution. This was a single building at one point. Now, the legs of the building, the ‑‑ the site is not square, so that part of this had to address, basically, the geometry of the site. But in addition to that, when the building was broken up into two smaller pieces and differentiated, if you will look, is that most of the corridors are double loaded, one of the corridors is single loaded. And that that was just chosen to be on ‑‑ on that side, to be the single loaded side. That's the side we thought was most appropriate when we were laying out the units.

1. THURSTON: Okay. Then is there not more space behind that for more parking? And it would be outdoor parking, but could you add parking spaces out there?

THE WITNESS: The ‑‑ the site engineer can address that, and if ‑‑ if you were to look at the site plan, I think you would see how the relationship of the building is to the site.

1. THURSTON: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Where the site is (inaudible).

1. THURSTON: Okay. All right. I just ‑‑ I just thought maybe we could get three more parking spaces.
2. WELLS: Absolutely.
3. THURSTON: If it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.
4. WELLS: We're (inaudible).
5. THURSTON: You're better at that than me.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Kevin, you had a questions?

1. REILLY: (Inaudible) follow up (inaudible) something very brief about affordable housing. We obviously want to maximize the number of units and then you obviously want to match the marketability of the units. How will ‑‑ how are the affordable units divided up? Your one‑bedroom, two‑bedroom, has that been decided (inaudible) restriction?

THE WITNESS: There ‑‑ there's a requirement from COAH that dictates certain percentages.

So when you determine the number of ‑‑ of units that are required by the 15 percent, then you break these up. No more than 20 percent will be one‑bedroom, and a ‑‑ and then there's a similar cap on the three‑bedroom of ‑‑ that you don't have to do more than 20 percent three‑bedroom and the remainder becomes two bedrooms. So the requirements kind of give you a ratio, and the ratio is ‑‑ becomes an industry standard.

1. WELLS: As was pointed out before, that the three‑bedroom was, I think, 1,015 square feet. So it's not really, really large. The only three bedrooms are the affordable. There aren't market‑rate three bedrooms.
2. REILLY: Okay. It is kind of a formula there, that the (inaudible) I guess.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Dave Scheibner?

1. SCHEIBNER: I had a follow‑up question on the ‑‑ the flat roofs, with the mechanicals.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

2. SCHEIBNER: In looking at the sections, I see that one of the flat roofs is above the lobby which may be visible from some of the units, is ‑‑ is that the case? Are there some of these flat roofs that actually will be ‑‑ the mechanicals will be visible from the apartments? I'm looking at A‑2.2, section A‑2 and A‑1, the flat roof above the lobby.

THE WITNESS: So your question was that ‑‑

1. SCHEIBNER: Are there mechanicals there that would be visible from the apartments?

THE WITNESS: There possible ‑‑ there probably will be one or two condensing units up on that roof.

1. SCHEIBNER: And the other question about these ‑‑ these flat roofs and mechanicals, what is the access to those ‑‑ those areas? Is there staired access to those areas?

THE WITNESS: Typically, there's either a ‑‑ a partial ladder or ship ladder that goes up to a hatch that sits above the stairs where we can get a full stair up onto the roof that is conforming to height and which will be a challenge in here, we will try to put a real stair going up to any of the roofs. So anywhere we can, we'll try and get a real stair. But most of these projects end up having basically hatches with either a ladder of ship ladder going up to them. 

1. SCHEIBNER: So are these hatches big enough that these ‑‑ these ‑‑ say a replacement condenser would fit through it or would it have to be craned in?

THE WITNESS: Could be either or depending on what they were doing and what they were replacing.

1. SCHEIBNER: When they're ‑‑ when they're initially installed, they're probably going to be craned?

THE WITNESS: They usually either use ‑‑ for these type of load things, they will either have lolls or scissor lifts. So sometimes it's not as drastic as a crane. They're these small devices, scissor lifts and platforms and lolls that lift construction materials and ‑‑ and equipment up to these kind of low roofs. These are really not the kind of both loads weight‑wise, you know, these condensing units are typically things that you will see two guys carrying along to the back of your house.

1. SCHEIBNER: Uh‑huh.

THE WITNESS: So these are not like the commercial‑type of equipment where these are significant weight loads. So they're small. They're really small pieces of equipment. And usually, you know, whatever you have in your house, it's even smaller than that. And every year, they get smaller and smaller.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone else have questions? It's 11:30.

1. McWILLIAMS: I'm sorry. I have one more question, sorry.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Go ahead.

1. McWILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. McWILLIAMS: So, the average height of the building is 50 feet, take away 8 by 4 feet for the parking structure on grade. We're talking about 42 feet, how's that divided by four floors each has a little over 10 feet tall?

THE WITNESS: So there's ‑‑ the heights, floor by floor, are shown on the architectural plans.

So if you look ‑‑ look at one of the ones that's ‑‑ that is shown a little bit larger. So if you look at drawing A‑2.3 it will show you have 11.4 feet for the base and then 10 feet 4 inches for each of the floors respectively. So that is to accommodate ‑‑ that's floor to floor. So that accommodates the height of the ‑‑ the floor as well as the thickness of the structure. Did that ‑‑ did that address your question or...(Whereupon, off‑the‑record discussion is held.)

1. McWILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Yes, Blais?

1. BRANCHEAU: Could I be indulged with a couple questions?

I understand (inaudible) I only want to ask because one of my questions may involve additional plans. And I'd rather have him working on them between now and ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

1. BRANCHEAU: ‑‑ the next meeting.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That would be fair.

1. BRANCHEAU: Rather than wait to ask at the next meeting. Would it be possible to give us a rooftop plans to show ‑‑ to address what Mr. Schreiber's question was and, frankly, what I was going to ask, as to the location of the screen of the rooftop units. I had the same question on the access so he kind of stole my thunder there a little bit, but my last question related to this is, Are there any rooftop penthouses for, like, the elevators or stairwells or anything like that, that are not apparent in the plan?

THE WITNESS: Well, what I mentioned before is that if we can do the ‑‑ have a stair go up to the roof level and to be conforming height‑wise where we can, we would do that. But right now, what we were looking at, because of the limitations of the height and being that we have used up the extra 8‑foot grade within the ordinance for ‑‑ for the actual building and pitched roofs and things like that, we are looking to do hatches. As far as the roof plan that we can prepare an exhibit that would have the equipment ‑‑ the screening from ‑‑ with the ‑‑ with the exception of what you were saying is that there will be some limited sight from a couple of the units that would be able to see the flat roof above the lobby. It's a small number of units. 

1. BRANCHEAU: I also had a concern that the units could be visible not only from ‑‑ the rooftop units could be visible from apartments, but also that they ‑‑ depending upon your angle, the view could be viewed from the rear of the property. And the elevation drawings don't quite allow you to make that determination based upon what I'm seeing.

THE WITNESS: Well, any unit that would have any issue where they were ‑‑ where the architecture was not completely screening them, then we would be happy to put a ‑‑ a screen on that portion.

1. WELLS: I was ‑‑ I want to ‑‑ I want to ask you a question and try to resolve your issue, am I wrong or maybe you haven't actually figured out where the actual units are being placed yet ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Right.

1. WELLS: ‑‑ that's probably further along in the design process ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well ‑‑

1. WELLS: ‑‑ or do you know where these double units are going to go?

THE WITNESS: This is a schematic design. One thing we know is that there will be one unit for every apartment.

1. WELLS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So that's ‑‑ that's pretty much it. The act of finding exactly the placement of all these is usually a process that involves engineering and mechanical engineering, the level of development that you typically would not do in a ‑‑ in a Planning Board submittal ‑‑

1. WELLS: Yes.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ but ‑‑

1. BRANCHEAU: I'm not looking for location of individual units, I assume you want to group these near the (inaudible).

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. WELLS: And I was going to say that we certainly can provide a plan that shows how they're not going to be visible from the street. And just one distinction, however, I will make will ‑‑ I agree MR. SCHEIBNER, you know, I understand his concern, but that's not actual ‑‑ the ordinance doesn't require screening from other ‑‑ other units upstairs. It actually requires screening (inaudible) ‑‑
2. BRANCHEAU: Well, I think it's ‑‑ it's the street and ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And other buildings.

1. WELLS: That is what it is.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: (Inaudible).

1. WELLS: Otherwise the intent (inaudible) look out and see it.
2. BRANCHEAU: Well, of course. I mean the same area ‑‑
3. WELLS: It's not ‑‑
4. BRANCHEAU: ‑‑ (inaudible) you know ‑‑ you know, I'm not suggesting that (inaudible) on the properties. So I realize it doesn't require that units not be able to see that. At the same time, it seems to be a better design that residents don't have to look out their window and look at an air‑conditioning unit.
5. WELLS: Well, I mean we certainly want things to be aesthetically pleasing (inaudible). We can't make a code up (inaudible).
6. BRANCHEAU: I understand. I'm not trying to suggest you have a variance on that. What is ‑‑ (inaudible).
7. MARTIN: Well, Blais, what's ‑‑ you already same thing that the architect was testifying to that it makes it allowed to go above (inaudible) that they will certainly design that is appropriate, tasteful, and in the spirit of the ordinance. Maybe that's what you're looking for.
8. BRANCHEAU: Yes.

Second question is you stated a few times for the record that the average height of the building is just under 50 feet. Did you mean maximum height of the building is 700 (inaudible)?

THE WITNESS: What I was ‑‑ what I was referencing is that the ‑‑ the maximum height to the principal portion that doesn't have the additional height allowances from average grades ‑‑

1. BRANCHEAU: Right.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ so not the average height, but the average grade.

1. BRANCHEAU: The average ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The height from average grade is, to that point, is 49 feet 10 inches where 50 feet the permitted.

1. BRANCHEAU: Okay. So the average height of the building is less than that?
2. WELLS: Forty‑nine feet.
3. BRANCHEAU: Well, no, the average height of the building above the average grade is less than 49.10?
4. WELLS: Right.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. BRANCHEAU: That's the maximum.
2. WELLS: Yes.
3. BRANCHEAU: Except for that provision ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That permitted and there are portions that are ‑‑

1. BRANCHEAU: But you have other portions that are lower.

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

1. BRANCHEAU: So your average is actually less than that 49 feet?
2. WELLS: What was that (inaudible)?
3. BRANCHEAU: No, I just ‑‑ you know, I know what it is, it's just the records seems to reflect that the average is 49 (inaudible).
4. WELLS: (Inaudible).

THE WITNESS: The average grade you're referring to.

1. BRANCHEAU: Okay.

The amenity areas that are outside the building ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. BRANCHEAU: ‑‑ the illustration you gave us, showed plantings.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. BRANCHEAU: Are there going to be planting on these areas of this building as well? Either on top of the parking or the driveway, on the roof?

THE WITNESS: That's ‑‑ that's correct. The ‑‑ the exact design and scope of this had not been fully engineered or designed, but the intent is going to be similar to what was proposed which was going to have a combination of what's called hardscape and landscaped areas. So what we're indicating here is that this is an intent. This is what we're looking to achieve. There will be landscaping. There will be hardscaping. We don't have the exact breakdown ‑‑

1. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I'm not asking for a detailed plan, where I'm going with that is I wanted to know how achievable that illustration you gave the board is, is there ‑‑ when we talk about landscaping, are we talking about landscaping in planters or are we talking about landscaping actually ‑‑
2. WELLS: Mr. Loventhal will do it, but I guess it is planters, but it ‑‑
3. BRANCHEAU: Okay. I just wanted to know the whole ‑‑ the height and everything else is going to be (inaudible) conditions how we're going to irrigate? Are you going to drain? Those types of things.

THE WITNESS: Those are all achievable and we've done them on several other projects including the ones that we've ‑‑ we've shown you.

There's ‑‑ they're raised planting beds that to accommodate landscaping and this is all readily achievable.

1. BRANCHEAU: Okay. The last question, the amenity decks that you show, they're open at the rear that I can see.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. BRANCHEAU: So just confirm that what I saw on the elevation was some type of railing (inaudible) in the rear of those units ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's right.

1. BRANCHEAU:  ‑‑ that, essentially, is 6 feet to keep people from falling off.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. BRANCHEAU: And that's the only function of that?

THE WITNESS: Well, it's a ‑‑ it's both decorative as well as any ‑‑

1. BRANCHEAU: To prevent falls.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ any for functional purposes as a guardrail.

1. BRANCHEAU: But you're not proposing any other panels or other materials in that area to separate those amenity decks from either the rear driveway or the railroad?
2. WELLS: No.

THE WITNESS: It's not proposed at this point.

1. BRANCHEAU: Okay.

THE WITNESS: One other ‑‑ one of the things I wanted to just read ‑‑ and just make sure that I understand, the ordinance that you are quoting before, item (P)(3): "The equipment shall be located so as to minimize the view of the same from any street or adjoining property and may be required, when appropriate, to be screened by materials that are the same or compatible with the building facade or roof materials, as determined by the board or site plan exemption committee as applicable." I believe that we can accommodate and meet every requirement of that.

1. BRANCHEAU: Okay. And how about the noise levels? The ‑‑ particularly the state noise levels, taken are they ‑‑
2. WELLS: (Inaudible) our submitted.
3. BRANCHEAU: They'll be able to meet code standards?

THE WITNESS: For ‑‑ are you talking about state noise ‑‑

1. BRANCHEAU: Yes. That will be done?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. WELLS: We don't have a choice.
2. BRANCHEAU: Well, I just wanted to know whether it's ‑‑ been factored. (Inaudible).

That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, do you have any questions?

1. RUTISHAUSER: Nothing at this time, no.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. It's getting very late now ‑‑

1. WELLS: I guess we're not going to finish tonight.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No.

How many members of the public want to ask questions? All right. (Whereupon, off‑the‑record discussion is held.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is the architect going to be available on other days, Tom?

1. WELLS: Yes, he can be available. If it's just a couple questions, it's just easier for them.
2. MARTIN: Yeah.
3. WELLS: So they don't forget. But ‑‑ so if you want, we can go, but (inaudible).
4. MARTIN: Okay. Does anyone definitely want to come up or (inaudible) ‑‑ okay. It's going to be three questions. Just ask them in sequence and then he'll answer. Yes, sir.
5. FELDSOTT: Ed Feldsott, 67 Heights Road. So my question is ‑‑ and it's kind of a combination question, is how many apartment buildings has your company built and how many town homes or ‑‑
6. WELLS: That ‑‑ that would be for Mr. Loventhal. He ‑‑
7. FELDSOTT: Okay.
8. WELLS: He wouldn't know.
9. FELDSOTT: Well, I don't know. I'm curious ‑‑
10. WELLS: The developer would know.
11. FELDSOTT: I'm curious about that, how many developments, how many ‑‑ and in how many towns and villages ‑‑
12. WELLS: And he can answer that.
13. FELDSOTT: And then if you ‑‑ if he can provide images verses renderings of these units to our committee here because I've passed some of these units before and they are not (inaudible).

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You got to direct it as a question to the architect ‑‑

1. FELDSOTT: So my question is ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: ‑‑ regarding his testimony.

1. FELDSOTT: So my question is how many apartment buildings and in what towns and villages?
2. MARTIN: So, sir, is it how many buildings has this architect, his firm built, that ‑‑
3. FELDSOTT: Has the developer (inaudible).
4. MARTIN: Well, no, that's not the question to the architect would be how many has his company done. If you're not interested in that, it's for another night ‑‑
5. FELDSOTT: I guess that would be to the developer.
6. MARTIN: Yes, and that would be for the developer ‑‑
7. FELDSOTT: For the developer is how many ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: When he testifies ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: When he ‑‑ he's going to testify on a different night, Ed. So when ‑‑ on the night that he testifies, then you can present that question.

1. FELDSOTT: Okay. So I withdraw my question until...
2. MARTIN: For now.
3. FELDSOTT: For now.

So on the architect side is, this is for the architect now ‑‑

1. WELLS: Okay.
2. FELDSOTT: ‑‑ is so these units, you have ‑‑ have three‑bedroom units on ‑‑
3. WELLS: Just three.
4. FELDSOTT: Just three.
5. WELLS: Yes, three out of 93, we have three.
6. FELDSOTT: Okay. So is there a way to limit the amount of people in any of these units so it doesn't overcrowd our school systems? Who would that be?  
7. WELLS: That's not the ‑‑ that's not a requirement.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It's got to be limited to his testimony. If it's regarding architecture and the plans.

1. MARTIN: And I'm sure the lease agreements will have some occupancy language in it.
2. FELDSOTT: What's that?
3. MARTIN: I'm sure the lease agreement will have something in it, but, again, that's for another night with the developer.
4. FELDSOTT: So that's not for tonight either?
5. MARTIN: Correct.
6. FELDSOTT: Okay. So that's it. I'm just, you know, I'm concerned as a resident. We just had an election here in town ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. That'll be for public comment period.

If you have a question for the architect, you can ask it. But, you know, you can reserve ‑‑

1. FELDSOTT: Okay. So my question would be, for the architect is, I guess, as he designs these units, I lived on (inaudible) in Scarsdale in an apartment and it was extremely noisy. And I promised myself I would never buy an apartment on a main road or by facing a train tracks. They were ‑‑ so are you providing extra‑thick paned windows, would that be an architect question?
2. MARTIN: Yes.
3. FELDSOTT: Because I'll tell you I would never buy a unit by a railroad track. I don't know if we can (inaudible) ‑‑
4. WELLS: He did answer that, but maybe you could elaborate.

THE WITNESS: I did answer that. We are going to enhance what is conventionally done construction‑wise to help control sound.

1. FELDSOTT: Make them soundproof?

THE WITNESS: There's no such thing as soundproof.

1. FELDSOTT: All right. That's it.

I just ‑‑ I was wondering because I had my own experience in these other high‑end units, so I was wondering how they were planning on dealing with sound.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That's a fair question. He answered it.

1. FELDSOTT: That's it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone else want to ask a question? Okay.

Approach and state your name.

1. SCHMIDT: Kathryn Schmidt, 123 South Irving Street.

So, I had three questions. You partially answered one. Three three‑bedroom units and how many one‑ and how many two‑bedrooms, is my first question. My second question was: Are you incorporating any green or environmentally friendly elements into the plan? And my third one, it was very interesting to hear you say that ‑‑ you said you have a very successful downtown and I was wondering what was some of the criteria that you used in order to draw that conclusion?

THE WITNESS: So the first question that you were asking about was unit breakdown currently proposed. You were asking about one bedrooms?

1. SCHMIDT: How many one‑ and how many two‑?

THE WITNESS: There are two one‑bedroom affordables and 75 ‑‑ I'm sorry, 15 one‑bedroom market. And on two bedrooms, there's 64 two‑bedroom and on the affordable nine two‑bedroom.

And was indicated before, the three‑bedroom, they're affordable, there are three of them, for a total of 93 units collectively.

1. SCHMIDT: Thank you.
2. WELLS: Any the other question?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Green elements.

1. SCHMIDT: Green elements? (Inaudible).
2. WELLS: The green elements which you actually talked about, but ‑‑ and the landscape are for the architect ‑‑ the site engineer would know more about it.

THE WITNESS: Well, ‑ are you referring to green as in landscaping or green as the environmental ‑‑

1. SCHMIDT: More environmentally friendly.

THE WITNESS: Okay. The code dictates some of this, and so to the extent that this is enumerated by code, we will be doing ‑‑ doing all of the green features that are dictated by code. So there are a number of those.

1. SCHMIDT: And then my last question was your comment you have a very successful downtown, I was wondering what were some of the criteria that you used in order to come to that conclusion?

THE WITNESS: I didn't prepare a checklist. It was ‑‑ I think the opportunity to drive around and walk around and park in different places, and I walked around the (inaudible) and that consists of pleasant, pedestrian experience. And so what this was, was not a checklist. It was a (inaudible). It was a feeling. And I could probably, you know, break that down if I really thought about it, but it was really (inaudible) and it was ‑‑

1. SCHMIDT: The look and the feel?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. SCHMIDT: All right. Thank you.
2. MARTIN: Anyone else?
3. REYNOLDS: Hi, Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue. I don't really have any questions, just I'm basically brain dead right now. First day of school. I just want to make sure we will be able to ask questions of this expert at another time because I know I do, I know there's many people that couldn't get here tonight. And they will. And I just want it on the record that I'm sure there will be many more questions.
4. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, will you make the architect available?
5. WELLS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We're brain dead, too.  

(Laughter.)

1. REYNOLDS: All right.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That's completely understandable, we're trying to balance fitting it in and, you know ‑‑

1. REYNOLDS: I know. I know.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: ‑‑ so we sympathize. And ‑‑

1. REYNOLDS: Okay.  
2. WELLS: We're brain dead, too (inaudible).

(Laughter.)

1. REYNOLDS: And we said we were going to end these meetings like at 11 now we're going to ‑‑
2. CAFARELLI: It was early tonight. (Inaudible).  
3. WELLS: What we were trying to see where was a logical ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, I was thinking of doing a hard stop and then, you know, things are complicated ‑‑

1. REYNOLDS: Right.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: ‑‑ and it's very choppy. So at least they offered to bring him back ‑‑

1. REYNOLDS: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: ‑‑ at another time so (inaudible).

1. REYNOLDS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you for being so candid.

1. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, do you agree to continue the application for members of the board?
2. WELLS: Do I what?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Agree to continue the application to another night ‑‑

1. WELLS: Oh, yes.
2. MARTIN: ‑‑ before the board. No need to re‑notice.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: (Inaudible).

1. WELLS: I have no problem. We're not agreeing to an extension at this point. We'd certainly (inaudible) the statute.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, yes.

We're extending it to another date.

1. WELLS: Oh, yes, sure.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. Okay.

1. WELLS: Again, at the end of the statutory period we'll (inaudible) but...
2. BRANCHEAU: Well, there needs to be a determination of what the statutory period is. And that would be, I guess ‑‑
3. WELLS: We understand ‑‑
4. BRANCHEAU: ‑‑ The question in my mind ‑‑
5. WELLS: ‑‑ does change the statutory period.
6. BRANCHEAU: Well (inaudible).

CHAIRMAN JOEL: (Inaudible) extend that time. (Inaudible).

1. WELLS: And I know about the (inaudible). We'll agree to that 120‑day period. I don't want to split hairs there.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. We just want it on the record.

1. WELLS: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So...

1. MARTIN: We need to pick a date.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, is there any date that's pretty much open to the public meeting that ‑‑

1. CAFARELLI: No, it would be the next Planning Board meeting which is ‑‑ what's this scheduled for.
2. WELLS: Well, I believe (inaudible) application. So I don't think that's available.
3. BRANCHEAU: Without an extension, we would have to act at the second meeting in October, (inaudible) 120 days.
4. WELLS: That's fine.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: We're going to do the second meeting in October?

1. MARTIN: We're going to do the second meeting in October, right?
2. BRANCHEAU: Well, right now the plan was to (inaudible) each (inaudible) of the four applications. So on the next meeting, the third one ‑‑ the first meeting October 4th one would be the second meeting in October. So without an extension, the board's either going to have to have a special meeting or it's going to have an extension in order to split the board. (Inaudible) so to split the two (inaudible) but I think what ‑‑ what I'm seeing is that given the time these are going to start snowballing. And we're going to be running out of time on multiple applications because I don't see any (inaudible).
3. MARTIN: Would you agree to an extension at this point (inaudible) how much additional time do you (inaudible)?
4. WELLS: We're not going to ‑‑ we're not going to agree to an extension. Not at this point. No.

While I'll concede to the 120 days which is a change that was literally made today, but beyond that, no. We're going to ‑‑ we need the board to keep moving. We ‑‑ we filed this application several months ago. It took a couple months to get it on. We've only got ‑‑

1. MARTIN: I agree ‑‑
2. WELLS:  ‑‑ today. We're moving as fast as we can.
3. MARTIN: Just so the time ‑‑ I don't want to get confused, could we agree just to 120 from today?
4. WELLS: No, no, no. The statute ‑‑ (inaudible).
5. BRANCHEAU: It was determined complete on July 1st.
6. WELLS: July 1st. So this board has taken over two months to bring it on for discussion.

And as I said, and ‑‑ and even though the application was filed three months ago, you got us on the board today. So we're ‑‑ we're ready to move. We want to keep moving but...

MAYOR KNUDSEN: (Inaudible) scheduled prior before, wasn't this scheduled to come in August at one point?

1. MARTIN: It's 120 days from July 1st.
2. BRANCHEAU: Yes, and that would be by October 29th would be 120 days.
3. MARTIN: October 29th.
4. WELLS: No.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So we're going to have to split it ‑‑

MALE BOARD MEMBER: Or have a special meeting.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, we can split it.

1. MARTIN: (Inaudible).
2. BRANCHEAU: We could also put the ‑‑ this ‑‑ remind the board to carry the sign application to the 2nd October meeting. So we now have three applications. (Whereupon, off‑the‑record discussion is held.)
3. BRANCHEAU: Unless we can get the sign applicant to (inaudible).

MALE BOARD MEMBER: We already did that.

1. BRANCHEAU: The 18th.
2. WELLS: We should check see I who's available that day. Everybody is good except for MR. APPEL. He's just ‑‑ he is not available that day. Everybody else is available that date.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Which date?

1. WELLS: On the 18th.

(Whereupon, off‑the‑record discussion is held.)

1. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, do you have everybody on the 4th of October?
2. WELLS: Yes, everybody's good.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: What if it was September 20th because you have Chestnut Village on that day also?

1. WELLS: Well, except that you're going to start running into a problem with that one, too.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, I know.

1. WELLS: But ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We're going to run into problems ‑‑

1. WELLS: Yeah, I understand. I understand.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah, I'm trying to accommodate it, too because (inaudible) ‑‑

1. WELLS: Yeah. If you want to start splitting up meetings, we can do that, too. We can do that, we're going to run into a problem.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

1. McWILLIAMS: We're trying, we're making an effort.
2. WELLS: Beg your pardon?

Yeah. Well ‑‑

MALE BOARD MEMBER: (Inaudible) run into problems with the ‑‑

1. WELLS: Yeah. (Simultaneous speaking.)
2. McWILLIAMS: ‑‑ my house I don't know.
3. WELLS: My sense is that this one will move along pretty efficiently now, we can just, you know, move on with the testimony, but you never know.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, you're here for Chestnut Village on the 20th. Let's put this one on for that, too.

1. McWILLIAMS: But if Chestnut Village goes to midnight, are you going to have ‑‑ will there be an extension then for Chestnut Village? I mean, I know we haven't discussed that, but...

(Simultaneous speaking.)

1. MARTIN: This is an open application. This is an open application this should go first.
2. McWILLIAMS: This would be ‑‑ I mean we're dealing with the same problem with them.
3. BRANCHEAU: I agree with you.
4. MARTIN: Blais, do you want 20 days?
5. BRANCHEAU: I'm sorry.
6. MARTIN: Would you want 20 days? Do you want it first or you just haven't calculated it.
7. BRANCHEAU: No. I'm pretty sure it's October 29.
8. MARTIN: All right. Tom, we'll continue and then we'll see how things go and if we need an extension we'll revisit it. Okay?
9. WELLS: Okay. So October 4th ‑‑ or September 20th?
10. MARTIN: September 20th.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: September 20th.

1. MARTIN: We'll (inaudible) this applicant and then if it gets tot the next one (inaudible).
2. WELLS: Yes.
3. MARTIN: How's everybody?
4. WELLS: Just out of curiosity, October 4th is an open date?
5. MARTIN: No. There is no open date.
6. CAFARELLI: There are no open dates.
7. WELLS: Okay.
8. CAFARELLI: Tomorrow's an open date.
9. WELLS: Joel, thank you.

(Whereupon, that concluded the audio file of this matter. This matter will be continuing at a future date.)  

Approval of Minutes – The minutes from August 23, 2016 were adopted as drafted.

Executive Session – The Board moved to executive session at 12:05 a.m. At the conclusion of the executive session, the Board reconvened the public session and adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                       

Michael Cafarelli

                                                                        Board Secretary

Approved: August 15, 2017