Planning Board Public Meeting Minutes 20161018
Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016
The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of October 18, 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. Following members were present: Mr. Joel, Mayor Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Melanie McWilliams, and David Scheibner. Also present were Christopher Martin, Esq., Board Attorney; Village Planner Blais Brancheau; Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Altano, Mr. Rielly, and Ms. Patire were not present.
The Board selected a Conflict Traffic Consultant from the three in the pool, TRC, RBC, and Shropshire. The Board moved to appoint Shropshire as Conflict Traffic Consultants.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – Dana Gazer said the motion should not be bundled with current litigation. He said if bundled with current litigation it opens the Board to further litigation. He cited "public trust." He said, "don't play chicken" and cited the bylaws. Kevin Halloran commented on Valley Hospital's expansion and concern about the settlement. He cited a 2013 decision Kane Properties vs City of Hoboken. Jaqueline Hone said the lawsuit is independent of civilian complaint.
Mr. Martin said there is no jurisdiction for the Planning Board to hear it and that it is for the courts to resolve.
Chairman Joel read a statement 2.13, 7.21 of the by-laws that said:
- Lack of jurisdiction
- No subpoena power
- By-laws not statutorily binding and
- The Board had no jurisdiction for injunction relief
Councilman Voigt said the Council can investigate and Mayor Knudsen agreed.
Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Cafarelli reported none was received.
Continuation of Riverside Pediatric Group d/b/a Riverside Medical Group Minor Site Plan and Variance Application, 74 Oak Street, Block 2009, Lot 6 – Mr. Fede, the attorney for the applicant presented the applicant's revised plan shoeing the freestanding sign relocated and reduced, and the reduced building sign. Mr. Guzman, the sign designer, explained the exhibits and revisions, and said the freestanding sign would be on a timer.
Mr. Brancheau provided his testimony and discussed the variance required, the difficulty justifying two signs, and said the tree would obstruct the view of freestanding sign. Mr. Fede provided his summation and recapped the justification for the variances.
Board members discussed the application, some were concerned with the setback, the difficulty of multiple signs, building sign was too large, and others were in favor of both signs. Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 2
The Board voted to approve the wall sign and not the freestanding sign.
Two Forty Associates, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 150-174 Chestnut Street, Block 2005, Lot 3- - Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:
CHAIRMAN JOEL: The next item on the agenda is Two Forty Associates, Preliminary and Major Site Plan, 150-174 Chestnut Street, Block 2005, Lot 3.
This is a development application by the applicant, Two Forty Associates.
Blais, is the application complete?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
And, Michael, has the applicant complied with the notice requirements?
MR. CAFARELLI: Yes, they have.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: And, MR. MARTIN, have you confirmed the notice and if there are any open items?
MR. MARTIN: Satisfactory.
VICE-CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Mr. Chairman, I'm recusing myself from this application.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Sure.
(At this point in the proceeding Vice-Chairman Torielli steps off the dais and is recused.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Let the record reflect that Joel Torielli is recusing himself.
For those that are new or unfamiliar with the Planning Board hearing process, there's a link posted on our website, Planning Board meetings and hearings' procedures. This will provide an overview to you of our meeting and hearing procedures. Also, I believe you can obtain a copy from Michael, our Board Secretary, if you want a copy of that, but it will go through the whole process for you, if you're unfamiliar. Do you have any comments before we begin, Chris?
MR. MARTIN: I do not.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. MR. WELLS, you have the floor.
MR. WELLS: Okay. The board knows who I am. Let me state for the record, my name is Thomas Wells; law firm of Wells Jaworski Liebman in Paramus. I am here this evening, as the Chairman announced, on behalf of Two Forty Associates. Two Forty Associates is a partnership. The general partner, the managing partner, is J.T. Bolger, and the property we're talking about has been owned by the Bolger family for a number of years, it's Block 2005, Lot 3, it carries the address of 150-174 Chestnut Street, and it's well known to us, who have been around for a while, as the former inspection site. Most of us got our car inspected there somewhere along the line. It was also, just to remind you, more than just an inspection station, there was a muffler shop, a furniture refinishing retail, it was a hodgepodge of different uses. And I point that out also, because, even though it has brand new zoning, this area had been the closest that Ridgewood has to kind of an industrial zone running down that street. This board participated in a process that ultimately resulted in the Mayor and Council rezoning this property to what is now called the C-R zone. And the particulars of that will come out during the course of the hearing, but essentially it allows for multi-family housing, in particular it has an affordable housing component to that. So we're here this evening on site plan. You've heard me say before, but I'll say for the record, the site plan is not the same as zoning. So the long process that the board went through over a four and a half year period, we participated in that, Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 3
included some 50 hearings, which dealt with issues, including potential for schoolchildren, off-site traffic, parking, and a lot of other issues of those types. They're no longer really before the board. We're before the board to speak solely about this particular application on this particular site and all of the aspects of that. One thing that is relevant, and I will confess to some confusion even in our filing, so I want to straighten it out right now, is with respect to the COAH obligation.
The C-R zone, as to do all of the four zones that were created by ordinance in the village, requires a 15 percent set aside. That simply means that you have to have affordable housing equal to about 15 percent of the overall units. In this case, the project proposes to have 43 rental units, and 15 percent of that works out to 6.8 something, and, by convention, you always round up, so that becomes seven units.
Those of you who have been on the board for a while have heard me say in the past that the Bolger family has a strong connection with West Bergen Mental Health, has for many years, has tried to assist them, has owned group homes for them in the past, and, therefore, if possible, would like to provide for special needs housing. So there was some discussion back and forth on that, and we continue to be anxious to do that.
What I've learned, Mr. Brancheau helped me understand that and then we were able to confirm, there is typically, and you will learn, if you don't know already, that the affordable housing laws in New Jersey are in a state of confusion, I think is the best way to describe it. We have regulations that came out in the first round more than ten years ago. We have some other regulations. We have court action. The whole matter is in the courts, and the Village of Ridgewood is a defendant in one of those actions right now, has a stay so that it's permitted to move forward and try to come up with its plan for affordable housing.
But the part that I wanted to mention to you is some confusion about exactly how alternative housing or special needs housing is handled. There is a bonus, if you will, when you provide special needs housing. What I've learned is that that bonus is given to the village but not necessarily to the developer, which doesn't seem terribly fair, because the developer is the one who has to build it and deal with the expense of that, but, in reality, if we end up doing special needs housing, it may well allow for a reduction in the number of units required for the village in a multiple as many as two for one, but our requirement, it continues to be the seven units. So as much as we would like to lower the requirement, that appears to be the best reading of the confused law. So what we're proposing is to deed build seven units of affordable housing as part of this. To elaborate just a little more on that, under COAH regulations, again, confused, but as best we can tell, the requirement would require two of the units to be consistent with three bedroom units, four of the units to be two-bedroom units, and one to be a one-bedroom unit, and we would do that. So that's how we would comply with it.
I will tell you that we've had some discussions with Blais and with others about the possibility of taking a group home that Two Forty Associates already owns on Chestnut Street, farther down the block, actually kind of surrounded, I guess, by another site that you're hearing an application on, and the possibility of taking that from market rate housing, which it is right now, and turning it into affordable housing, which would allow for a credit for both the developer and for the village. And if we did that, it's possible that we would ask to have that be four of the seven units and only include Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 4
the three units within the project. So it could be three inclusionary units and four units elsewhere, but that's a detail that we'll resolve later. It really doesn't deal with site plan, other than for us to say we understand there is a 50 percent set-aside obligation, and we will certainly meet that obligation.
The other thing, and there is one little variation, it will seem funny, but I'll explain it to you. You probably know, because you've heard other applications on this, that the parking requirements in your ordinance now require that parking be provided in accordance with RSIS, which is the state law, and it actually has a formula, it allows for a certain number of parking spaces for a one-bedroom unit, a certain amount of spaces for two-bedroom units, a certain amount of spaces for three-bedroom units. When we did our calculation that is shown on the plans, we calculated based on not having any three-bedroom units, having only two-bedroom units, that we were required under RSIS to have 80.6 spaces. We rounded up to 81, and that's what's proposed on the plan. If we changed to three-bedrooms, which we now anticipate doing in order to meet the affordable housing requirement, it goes from 80.6 to 80.8. Not a big change, still less than 81, but there will be a slight change in what was shown, for example, on the site engineer's plan. It's really not a site change, it's just in his block.
In terms of the rest of the application, it's a very clean site plan application. No surprise. The application was prepared with the ordinance in mind, and the applicant certainly only wanted to propose something that could be approved. So the density, for example, is 34.5 units, less than the 35 required. The FAR is quite a bit lower than the 141 that's permitted, it's 113.2. The impervious coverage is allowed to be 92.5 percent; it's only 81.8 percent. Interestingly, on this particular property, it's a reduction, it was 96.9. And then the rest of the key bulk requirements that you're always familiar with, front, side, and rear yard setbacks are all conforming, actually considerably better than conforming, and the height is conforming with the ordinance. And you've heard other applicants, so you know it's a little bit complicated, you have a 50-foot requirement, and then there's a small portion of it that's allowed to be a little higher tied into architectural style, and it conforms, and the architect will explain that to you as well. And then there's a requirement for amenity areas, both inside and outside. We are conforming on that.
There is one area that creates several variances, and that is to do with the retaining walls in the back of the property. If you're at all familiar with the railroad tracks, now that virtually all of the properties, certainly on Chestnut Street, but elsewhere in the community, have retaining walls along there. There is a retaining wall right now. And we basically could leave the existing retaining walls pretty much the way they are, but what is being proposed is an improvement of those retaining walls, and the engineer will take you through it in some detail why we're doing that. And it does include a fairly material change that actually creates the variance that we don't have to do if the board ultimately tells us they don't want to grant it, but we think it makes tons of sense, and that is in the back left-hand corner as you would look into the site, there is a playground area, that's one of our amenities, and it's placed back farther than the existing retaining wall, so it requires some new retaining walls. And that's most of the condition that's creating the variance, and the engineer will explain that to you. When I say we don't have to do that, we do need to provide the amenity area, but we don't have to put it there, we can simply put it in the front yard. But we'd rather not do that. We just think it's a better place for it. We think it's good planning, and since it's good planning, we're Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 5
going to propose a change that does require this board to give us variance relief.
There's a couple other minor kind of site specific site issues that don't rise to the level of a variance, but the engineer will take you through all that. And so let me tell you just a little bit more about what we're going to do. We have four witnesses. The first is Peter Wells. Yes, he's related. He's the architect, I always tell people I'm the black sheep, I couldn't do straight lines, so they made me a lawyer. And my two brothers and my dad are architects, and Peter is one of those architect Wellses. He'll be your first witness. The second witness will be Al Lapatka, who's the site engineer, will tell you all about the site. The third witness, and I may change the order on this depending on how we do and so forth, but the third witness is Jay Trautman (phonetic), who is the traffic engineer.
And the final witness is Joe Burgis, if he comes, or it might be Steve Lydon, either of those two gentlemen from the Burgis office may be testifying, we'll see who's here and if we get to them. I'm always optimistic. So I have all four of them here and ready to go. I would very much like to move us through, if possible. Just for the record, because, as you know, I am concerned about moving this along, I want to point out to you that we are already long in the tooth of this application. It was complete way back on July 1st. We did our submissions of final plans on July 8th. I'm disappointed, but not surprised that we got our reports in from the department heads, we got water in in July, but we got from engineering and planning this afternoon. So that's somewhat of a hardship. And we never received a report on traffic. So notwithstanding that, what we've done is, as soon as we got those reports, I went right to work with MR. BRANCHEAU and gave them a chance to look at those reports, because, as always, you find some new comments and issues that have been raised by your professionals. And what I've done is asked MR. BRANCHEAU to be prepared to answer all of the questions that were raised only this afternoon, so that we can give you very complete testimony on that.
And both MR. WELLS, Mr. Lapatka, who will deal with most of that, are prepared to answer those questions. If we miss any, I don't think we will, because they're pretty careful about that, feel free to ask us about that, or Mr. Brancheau, who's here, or MR. RUTISHAUSER, who may be up a little later, can us ask us, if we missed anything, but we think we've got that all covered. So that's what we're going to do. That's the order we're going to do it in. I would propose, unless there are questions of me, to call Peter Wells.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Go ahead.
MR. WELLS: Okay. Peter, let me get you sworn in.
MR. MARTIN: Good evening, MR. WELLS. Raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. P. WELLS: I do.
PETER RAYMOND WELLS, 251 Park Avenue, Park Ridge, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN: Your full name and business address, please.
MR. P. WELLS: Peter Raymond Wells, 251 Park Avenue, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
MR. WELLS: MR. MARTIN, I know you like to kind of voir dire, do you want to do that or should I do that, getting background information?
MR. MARTIN: You can do it in half the time. Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 6
MR. WELLS: Indulge me, if you will, because MR. WELLS has had an opportunity to appear here. I'll go through his background a little bit more.
MR. MARTIN: Just lead concisely.
MR. WELLS: Okay. Well, with all due respect, as there is some prospect, in view of the political environment that we're in, that this matter may be before the courts, so I'm going to make sure that we establish his background on the record, for obvious reasons.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WELLS:
Q. So, MR. WELLS, if you could, can you tell us your professional background, in particular with respect to your licenses, where you're licensed, hopefully in New Jersey, right, yes, I know that, I knew the answer to that already.
A. (Shakes head.)
Q. And then also your educational background, and then your experience in testifying in the past.
A. Okay. Thank you.
I am a licensed architect. I went to Rhode Island School of Design, and I graduated in 1980. I became a licensed architect in 1983. I also became a licensed Professional Planner. I went on to also receive my Construction Code Official license, and also served in that capacity in the last 30 years. And in 30 years, I've served as an architect, as well as running a building department and a zoning department.
Q. You even had some time to sit on the Planning Board, didn't you?
A. Served some time on the Planning Board.
Q. And the council?
A. And a councilman. Only a little bit.
Q. As an architect, have you had an opportunity to testify before this board before?
A. Yes, I have.
MR. WELLS: I would propose that MR. WELLS be qualified to testify in the area of architecture.
MR. MARTIN: So granted.
MR. WELLS: He indicated he has a planning license, but we're not going to ask him planning questions.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Thank you. BY MR. WELLS:
Q. So what I'd like to do is, MR. WELLS did something that I think is going to be really helpful to the board, he took all 12 of his exhibits that will be on the boards that I'll be showing, and he put them in a smaller version. So you're each going to have your own copy. So that even if you're not bored to tears tonight, when you're home watching a baseball game or anything you're doing later tonight, you can page through this. So, MR. WELLS, if you could just look at that and identify what you have there. And I'm going to take a few more questions to make sure we get all the exhibits set.
A. Okay. Well, this is a handout, as Tom just pointed out, it is a reproduction of the exhibits that are on boards. The boards even, other than the color renderings and the samples, all other boards are just a repeat of the nine drawings that were submitted by my office. Now, in some places, we actually just blew up like a section of the building. It's in nine drawings, but we blew it up so it's a little bit larger for us to use as a board and also in this packet. In some other cases, we blew up an apartment floor plan, so that you could actually see a floor plan on a bigger scale and really Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 7
understand it, as opposed to the floor plans that you would see in the drawings that were submitted and the apartments are tiny, tiny, and difficult to understand and see. So this packet includes the 12 boards, and that's about it.
Q. But I want you to do a little bit more so we lay a foundation actually for each one of those exhibits, and it will be a lot faster if we do it right now.
A. Okay.
Q. If you could just go through and say what A-1 is, what A-2 is, and so forth.
Before you do that, I want to ask you some basic questions so we lay a foundation.
What specifically has been your involvement in this project and the preparation of the various materials that are going to be those exhibits? A. Well, as you did point out, I'm a licensed architect and I do own my own firm. There are other people that work with me. But this job was designed by my office under my direction, and then all the details are worked out, again, under my direction. So I am the licensed architect that accepts responsibility for the design.
Q. So if you could go through specifically A-1, A-2, say what's there, and what you've already told us is what's in front of the board members, but then also on the boards.
A. Okay.
And I'll ask my son, third generation architect, another architect, I'll ask him to please --
: Mark them.
MR. BRANCHEAU: If you can go over the boards, and as I talk through, I'll just ask him to point out the boards. But the first one is exhibit A-1, and that's the architectural drawings, it's the eight sheets that I signed and sealed and submitted to the board in full size and --
MR. WELLS: Can I ask, Mr. Chairman, these have not been identified yet, so usually what I do is have the expert identify it, and then I hand them to the board. But it might be easier for the board, if I gave them to you now, and you can look at them at the same time he's doing. So then we'll mark them all at the end, but I'd like to give you copies now.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.
MR. WELLS: I should also leave some for board members who are not here.
MR. CAFARELLI: Exactly.
MR. WELLS: So I'll take care of that as well. BY MR. WELLS:
Q. Okay. I interrupted, so now you go through them as you do one-by-one.
A. Okay.
The first eight sheets are the architectural drawings that I gave to you signed and sealed in full size. They're called Exhibit 1, and Phil is pointing that out right now, that's those eight sheets. The second exhibit is on page 10, and is called exhibit A-2, and it's a building section of the building. Again, as I mentioned before, this is taken from those drawings, I just blew it up and made it larger, so that when I do talk to the height of the building, it might be easier for you to understand and follow. And Philip has a board that illustrates that.
The next exhibit is called A-3. A-3 is on page 11, and that is, again Philip will point that out, physical samples of the materials that we used on the outside of the building. It includes an asphalt shingle, a brick sample, and color samples, siding sample, and then even the aluminum railing colors too. Q. And this one does differ, they only have a photographic reproduction? Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 8
A. They have photographic reproduction, right. Okay. The next exhibit is on the elevations, and there are four sheets. And as I talk through, you'll see it's a reproduction of the same drawing over and over, and it's so that I can talk to you about the layering of the building and the different recesses and projections of the front elevation, and how we accomplish some of the architectural details and aesthetics that the ordinance looks for. And that is exhibit A-4, and it's on sheets 12, 13, 14 and 15.
The next is exhibit A-5. That's on page 16. And this is a streetscape. It's as if it was possible to step back far enough to actually see a full street. It shows our building in context to the neighboring buildings on Chestnut and then the neighboring buildings on Robinson. It shows the grading and how the building is situated up against the railroad tracks. The next is A-6, and it's on page 17, and it's an aerial view. This is just a perspective rendering of the building, but it's placed in a setting that shows the neighboring buildings, and then you get the scale and the massing and a view from the downtown, if you were able to get high enough to actually look over. Okay. The next is A-7, and it's on page 18, and that's four pages are color renderings of the proposed building from different angles, one is Chestnut Street, a downtown approach, and that's exhibits A-7 on page 18. There is Chestnut and Robinson Lane, which is a corner view, if you're standing on the corner looking at the building, and that's exhibit A-8, and it's on page 19.
The next is a sky view, kind of a bird's eye view, and you're looking at the front of the building, and this makes the point of how we're able to actually hide the HVAC units even from a sky view there, you can barely see it, but that's exhibit A-9, and that's on page 20. And then the last is if you were standing almost on the railroad tracks looking at the rear of the building, a rear perspective, that's exhibit A-10, and that's on page 21. Okay. Now we're up to exhibit A-11, and it's on pages 22 through 24. And they are basically the plans of the building. That shows the ground floor plan, on page 22. And then the second, third and fourth floor plans on page 23. And then the roof plan on page 24. And then the last is exhibit A-12, and it's on pages 25 all the way through 31, because it's each one of the different units. The units are: One-bedroom with a den, one-bedroom, one-bedroom with a den again, and then the two-bedroom, and then a two-bedroom with a den.
And then the last plate is where, if I can jump ahead and just make a point, we will come back to this and talk about it a little bit later, because this is a floor plan that's easily changed so that it could become a three-bedroom. It is a two-bedroom with a den, and, we're able to, within that same square foot, accomplish a three-bedroom unit. So this is exhibit A-12. They're the apartment floor plans, and they're on pages 25 to 31. And that's the exhibits.
MR. WELLS: So, MR. MARTIN, we cheated and marked the boards ahead with those numbers, and you now have them, so I'd like to enter these into evidence -- at least for identification, and have MR. WELLS continue to testify on these.
MR. MARTIN: Definitely for identification.
MR. WELLS: Okay. Good.
(Whereupon, Exhibits A-1 through A-12 are marked for identification.) BY MR. WELLS: Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 9
Q. So, having a whole host of exhibits that you can use, why don't we start, if you can just generally introduce the project, tell us what's been proposed.
A. Okay.
As Tom mentioned also in the preamble, this project has been in my office on the drawing board for a number of years, almost five years. It's a unique property in that it's somewhat transitional. It is surrounded by business, but then a block away is residential. So that proposes some unique opportunities and challenges as far as creating a neighborhood scale. And we accomplish that with pitched roofs and varied roof lines, large windows, wall projection and recesses, and you can see that on the elevations, but I'll talk us through that as I answer some other questions as we go through.
What we propose to do is to create an attractive building that is residential in character, and then is surrounded by beautiful landscaping and even hides its parking so that you're not actually to see the parking from the street. The challenging part is to actually do this with no variances, and that's exactly the way we propose it, is a building that meets all the requirements of the ordinances and that will ask for no variances.
Q. So the million dollar question is, because it's important for the record, how many units do we have and do we meet the density requirement?
A. Well, the exact acreage, I believe, is 1.23, I don't know the exact number, but it's right about that, 1.23. And if you divide that by the 35 units per acre, that we're allowed 43.8, I want to say, and so that we've proposed 43 units. The 43 units of the drawings did propose 27 one-bedrooms and then 16 two-bedrooms. But tonight in testimony I will change and say that we will propose 43 units total, 27 one-bedroom, 14 two-bedroom and 2 two-bedroom units. That's able to be accomplished in the footprint exactly as proposed, is able to be accomplished in the square foot exactly as proposed. And instead it will just be a change to two units inside the unit itself.
Q. We have, as I mentioned in the introduction, an affordable housing requirement. The planner is going to talk a little bit more the legalities of it, but, in particular, especially since we're doing more than we originally talked about, we need to talk about it in terms of the building itself.
A. Right. And I did just touch on, again, before Tom mentioned, the calculations, and I know the planner will put that into testimony, but, you know, the 15 percent of the 43 units, and that turns out to be the 6.7, and that rounds up and that's seven units. Then you note that the requirement is that 20 percent are three-bedroom units. So that's rounded up again, so that's two. And they're the two that I already spoke to.
But then there's also 20 percent must be one-bedroom. But, for some reason, and the planner can explain why, the number's then rounded down instead of rounded up. So the 1.4, 20 percent of seven is 1.4, but that is rounded down to just one one-bedroom unit, and that's easily accomplished in anyone of the 27. Because the unique thing about this building is that the developer proposes to finish every single unit the same. Every single unit the same. There will be no difference in materials, there will be no difference in square foot, there will be no difference. The only thing that we would Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 10
do is potentially add amenities to those apparatuses and special equipment to the units. If a special needs unit was awarded and we're allowed to do that, then obviously we would adapt the unit that way. Other than that, you won't know where that unit is in the building and you won't be able to see the difference, if you walked in. So the one one-bedroom unit will be one of the 27 units.
Then the ordinance calculation has the remaining are two-bedrooms, so there's 4 two-bedroom units. Well, there's 14 two-bedroom units in the building, so that easily then is accomplished within those 14 units. We will satisfy that. So the bottom line here is that we acknowledge the need to have 15 percent of the 43 units to be affordable units, and that we tell you that they will be mixed in the building and throughout, and we will honor and meet the requirements as far as the calculation.
Q. What specific calculation, because we have a set of plans that have been submitted, has been carefully reviewed by the professionals, and we're now talking about maybe slightly changing a couple of bedrooms outside. Will the outside footprint of the building or the height or the bulk of this building in any way change as a result of that?
A. Okay. Yes. Worth mentioning again, because that is a very important point for you to know here tonight, is that I propose no change to the building in order to change two-bedrooms to three-bedroom. On the outside, no change. No change to the footprint. No change to the square foot. Two of the two-bedroom units with a den inside the unit, I'll make a change. So there is no change other than an accommodation in the unit.
Q. Well, you said there will be no change on the outside, and I asked you about height, and you said there will be no change, so that's a good segue to my next question, which is: Tell the board how high the building is going to be and how you calculate it.
A. Okay. And here's the first time that we'll refer to our booklet, is that because basically what we've done in the testimony that already has been given, is right from the drawings, the 1 through 8, and there was really no need for me to talk to a special board, but now I'll go to exhibit A-2. And that's on page 10 in your booklet, and my son will put that up.
MR. MARTIN: Peter, just so I have the overall from 43, 27 one-bedroom, 14 two-bedroom and 2 three-bedroom units?
MR. WELLS: Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, you have the number correct. Okay. If we were to look at the drawing on page 10 in this exhibit A-2, and you know that the height ordinance says that the building needs to be 50 feet, unless you have architectural details, a pitched roof, varied roof lines, pendants, parapets, that type of thing. And we do propose to take advantage of that, because, aesthetically it makes the building very pleasing. Aesthetically, it breaks up the mass of the building in order to have a pitched roof. So that you see in the renderings that are on pages 18, 19, 20, and 21, you see the pitched roofs and the varied roof lines. So we do take advantage of that.
And then the calculation asks for you to go through a little bit of math, and you figure out the square foot at the 40-foot mark, and then you can go above the 20 percent of that, once you go above the Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 11
50-foot line. And that's exactly what we propose to do, is to increase the height of the building, but still less than the 20 percent. We're allowed to go all the way up to 20 percent, we only go up to 12.84, so almost 13 percent. And we only go to a height of, instead of 58 feet, we go to a height of 53 foot 10 inches. So we actually could go higher by your ordinance, but we find that what works for our building is that a height of 53 foot 10 inches works for our building and works for our zoning.
BY MR. WELLS:
Q. MR. WELLS, I just want to interrupt you for a minute, because I have had the dubious distinction of doing more than one of these applications before the board, and I know when we did an earlier application, there started to be some confusion from what point do you measure when you're talking about being up 40 feet or being up 50 feet, or, in this case, 53 feet, what are you measuring from?
A. Okay. If you were to look at my drawing and you looked to the far right, it says "AG," and that's the starting point for all the dimensions, it's the starting point for the 40 feet going up, the 40 foot is where you do your calculation; so, the starting point for the 50, where you go up to the maximum height of the building that would be potentially flat roofed; and then it shows the starting point for going all the way up to the 58 feet, the maximum permitted. And then it gives a calculation of 53 foot 10 inches showing the maximum height.
You can see on below the maximum, and I work off the percentages, that what Tom just asked about is: What's the starting point? That's called "average grade." That's per your code. So what you do is they take the perimeter of the building, and then they do a calculation, and then they define a starting point, and that, in our case, is 126.3, that's the average grade. The engineer can speak more specifically to this on the more technical way that that is calculated, but for you and for me, it's important just to note that my starting point is average grade, and then I move up from there.
Q. The board may know this, but I want to make our record real clear, 126.3 is what above sea level?
A. It's an elevation, and it's a base elevation, it's above sea level, and, again, the engineer will speak to that.
Q. He'll explain exactly how it's calculated?
A. Right. Right.
Q. Okay. So we've talked about height. What I want to do is, we had a really quite creative ordinance that was the work of the Planning Board and your planner, and it did incorporate a lot of design provisions into the building and design requirements, so I want to quote a little bit from the code. It requires that the building incorporate high quality architectural features that are characteristic of exemplary buildings reflecting the traditional architecture in the Central Business District. It also requires that the architectural features provide a variety and reduce the visual impact of the building mass through the use of varied facade materials, facade projections and recesses, judicious use of windows, other openings in the facade and other similar features.
So, did we do this?
A. Yes. And if I can, I think I'm going to try to turn this on (indicating). I'm just going to come over here, because I'm going to use the renderings to make the point, and then you're just going to follow along in the book, you know where those four renderings are. I already spoke to it a little bit before, Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 12
but, again, about the roof lines and the varied roof lines, and then if you were to follow there, if you follow along the roof line of the building, you obviously can see the gutter lines, up, down, around, and then it breaks up the front facade. That is one of the goals of the ordinance when it talks to architectural details and how you would break up the mass of the building.
Another way that we do that is just in the change of materials. There's brick on the front facade. You can see that spread throughout the front elevation. But then there's also siding, and that's a Hardie Plank board, and then there's large trim details. And I have a trim detail for you, you can pass that down, everybody. This is a typical trim that would be around a window (indicating).
Q. You know what, we're going to need to mark that as an exhibit, if you're going to show it to the board.
MR. MARTIN: A-13.
(Whereupon, trim detail material is marked as exhibit A-13 for identification.)
MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay. So, through a change of materials, brick, cement siding, and then large trim details, very large windows, we're able to again add architectural detail and architectural excitement to the front of the building that helps add not only aesthetics but then again breaks up the mass of the building. And that's what the ordinance looks to accomplish. BY MR. WELLS:
Q. Great. FAR, tell us how we did on that.
A. Okay.
FAR is required, it cannot exceed 1.45, and we propose it to be 1.13, so we're actually well below the FAR calculation, and that's something that the engineer can speak to the exact calculation of.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes.
Q. Why don't you move to your floor plans and take a little time to explain how those work, and, you know, take us a little bit more into the building?
A. Okay. Now we're going to go to the plate on page 22. The way the building is worked out is, there's a staircase towards either end of the building, and both those staircases dump out onto the front. They're there for emergency, but they're also there for convenience, because the neat thing about them is that actually you can go down the stairs and then exit the building and be on the sidewalk and for the downtown or maybe on the sidewalk heading across the street to the YMCA. And then in the center of the building, there is another staircase that goes the full height of the building that goes to the parking.
So there's easy ways to get from any one of the apartments and into one of those staircases and go out the front of the building or down into the parking. Also, in the center of the building is an elevator. Now, the building is 253-feet long. It's in the center of the building, so that really nobody has to walk farther than about 116 feet from their front door to the elevator. So that's pretty convenient. The elevator goes not only the three floors of apartments, but obviously then down to the parking level, and it's a front/back elevator. That means that the door opens in the front or the back, so it's able to go down that extra half level and bring you right down to the grade at the front of the building. So it's fully accessible, barrier-free from the sidewalk right out front, you can walk right in the front door, go up the elevator to anyone of the floors or even to the parking level, and then Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 13
you can circulate that way.
Q. Before you go away from the elevator, I know there has been a concern in the past about how large the elevators are, so just tell us that, if you would.
A. Thank you. That's a good question.
Obviously, the elevator's actually a little bit oversized, because it has the front and the back. So it is barrier-free dimensions, it is of the stretcher dimension, it actually exceeds that a little bit. So it's a very nice, large elevator.
Q. Okay. You can continue.
A. Okay.
The other points that I would make about the floor plan is, first, on this one, is that there are parking spaces underneath the building, 45 parking spaces, four of which are barrier-free. Also on that parking is bike storage, and then you can see ways into the staircases, as well as even ways into what we call "storage areas." If you were so inclined to need additional storage in which to rent, that's also on that floor plan. Then there's trash compaction. We'll talk about that a little bit as we go to the next floor plan up, but just know that on every floor there will be two trash chutes, one is for household garbage and then the other is for recyclables. They'll go down to the trash compaction room, and it's basically a sorting room for an employee to sort the garbage, and then it would go either to a private hauler for the recycling or it would go out to the Dumpster as just household garbage.
Q. Before you go off this floor, you mentioned the parking. Do you know what the owner plans to do with respect to assigning or not assigning spaces?
A. Yes.
Well, there's 81 spaces total, there's 41 under the building, and that he intends to make available to anybody that so wishes a covered spot. There will be a little bit of an additional charge for that, so that might be something that not everybody wishes to have or that might be something that many people wish to have, but the 41 could accomplish that fourth building --
Q. There's 43 units total, so 43 units --
A. Yes, but then there's some additional that are barrier-free, you know, so we think that that will suffice to say that it would be on a first come first served basis and sign up, but if you so wished a covered space, you most probably can have one, and then instead, if you just wished one out in the lot, you could have it.
Q. Other than the 43 assigned spaces, what about the rest?
A. There would only be 43 assigned spaces.
Q. So the rest anybody can park anywhere they want?
A. Thank you, said better that way.
Q. Okay.
MR. MARTIN: Just to clarify that. There are 45 parking spaces under the building?
MR. BRANCHEAU: There's 45 parking spaces under the building.
MR. MARTIN: Four barrier-free?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Four of which are barrier-free.
The important point that my brother just had me summarize better than I was saying, is that the 43 will be assigned spaces and the others will not. BY MR. WELLS: Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 14
Q. So, for example, I'm just speculating now, if somebody happened to be handicapped, they might end up with a handicapped assigned space?
A. Exactly.
Q. But, otherwise, then those would be free spaces?
A. Exactly right.
Q. It's also possible, because there will be a slight additional charge for underground, you could end up with maybe 30 spaces underground for their assigned spaces?
A. Exactly right, but because of the numbers that we proposed, the 45 and then the 81 total, we believe anybody could have the space of their choice.
Q. Okay. You can go on to the other floors.
A. Okay. And that's exactly what I'll do now, is I'll go up to the next page, page 23. Page 23 is, the second and third floor plan are identical. Now, this is an important point for me to stop and just make a correction, because the planner's report that we got today mentioned that there's a discrepancy in the site plan and the architectural drawings.
The architectural drawings, as you will see in here, it does not propose an overhang into the front yard. The second floor wall, the third floor wall align with the first floor wall. So there is no -- he had questioned a dotted line on the drawing and then a shaded portion on the site plan and thought maybe that represented additional square foot, a second floor overhanging into the front yard setback. It was just a discrepancy and a problem with the drawing. Instead, it was trying to illustrate a roof overhang a little bit, and you see that on the elevations and the rendering. So, anyway, the second and third floor plan are identical. You can see there's a mix of the one-bedroom and the two-bedroom units; mostly two-bedrooms units in the front, and one-bedrooms in the back.
And then you go up to the fourth floor, and there is only four floors, and there is no lofts or anything, this is only a four-story building, and you see on that fourth floor at either end of the building, you see that large unit that I was mentioning, and that's the one that can easily accommodate a three-bedroom floor plan design. Then the last floor plan is on page 24, and this is your roof plan. And it makes that point before, that I already claimed about the height, when I was explaining the percentages. The way your height ordinance reads is that if you go above the 50 foot, then above the 50 foot can't be more than 20 percent of that footprint down to 40 foot. Well, this gray area illustrates the only portion that goes above the 50 foot, and you can see that that's only 12.84 percent, and, therefore, the height is less, actually, than you're allowed to go.
Q. I'm going to ask you next about amenities, and you plan to put it in there, but since I see it on this panel, and I know there's been concern expressed by the board in the past about being close to the train tracks.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Can you talk to them about any noise abatement or how you handle that from an architectural point of view?
A. Okay.
Well, this is a little bit of a different building than you've heard on some of the more typical multi-story apartment buildings in that it will actually be built of steel frame and poured concrete floors. And so just the mass of the building itself is already going to make a quieter building. The other unique thing that we're going to do is we're actually going to build it out of noncombustibles, Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 15
that's more than metal stud, and then between units they'll actually be staggered studs. You know what that means? Every other stud is in or out, in or out, and then you take your insulation and you grab it right through your wall. What does that do? Makes a really nice soundproof wall between units. And then the last is what my brother just spoke to is the exterior walls. This is a brick building. There was one question about brick veneers in another application. This is a full-sized brick, a real brick building, and that in itself already offers a lot of sound attenuation. In addition to that, we will insulate the exterior walls with the highest of insulations. And then we will have a high grade window on the rear of the wall. So that becomes an amenity for the building, but it's really there as an added feature for a building that is close to the railroad.
Q. So I'm going to ask you specifically about the amenity space and if you could describe that, and that was the subject of a question by Mr. Brancheau.
A. Okay. I'm going to use a floor plan to -- I'm going to go back to page 22. And I'll resist the temptation to tell you about outdoor amenities, although I think they're a special part of this interior of the building, especially the garden in the front of the building, I think that's somewhat unique in that you'll have a community space and then you'll have the opportunity to actually go right out some nice French doors and then right into a nice garden area. But you do that from a rec room on the lower level, and that is a community room, that is open to anybody in the building. It will be a first come first served kind of basis worked out. It works out to be fair for the building, but it's basically open for all the tenants and their families.
And then, if I can, I'll go to the next page, page 23, and this is the part that came up for question is, if you look at the fourth floor plan, even with the second and third, as you go up in the center of the building, as you open the elevator doors, you open into obviously what is a circulation space, you circulate back to the main hallway, but we have off to the right is recreation space. So we did not include in our recreation calculation what would be the circulation in front of the elevators that bring you back to the hallway, and we only included then what would be the recreation space that is open. And why do we want to leave it open instead of making a dedicated room?
We believe that really actually introduces a lounge on each floor that's very residential, very comfortable, very inviting for the building people to use, and it actually makes the hallway look a little less than a hallway, it makes it a little bit more residential. So that was very intentional that we made our recreation rooms per floor actually part of what we'll call the "common space."
Q. So let me be devil's advocate here for a minute so that we understand it.
Although it wouldn't necessarily be desirable, if you put a hall right down from the elevator out to the main hall and made that a hall thing --
A. Right.
Q. -- and the recreation area was separate, it's there, it just wouldn't be as nice, so --
A. It might be more industrial, like you described the zone to be.
Q. Okay.
A. It would not be attractive at all. So we're trying to make an attractive lounge space. And the important point is that on the ground floor, we made that private community room, and then on the upper floors we just made the community space part of the common area, but we did not include the common area in that calculation. The code requires that you have 40-square-feet per unit. So there's 43 units, so that we would have to have 1,720 square feet. But we actually have 1,863 square feet, so Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 16
we're over in the calculation, and then the nice thing is that I've done it in such a way that those spaces, they'll even feel bigger than that and they'll be more inviting and hopefully more used by the residents, and then in adding to the residential character of the building.
Q. So really as my final question, you've indicated already that this developer intends to make all of the units basically alike, but notwithstanding that, and adding an affordable component, basically the building has upscale features?
A. Right.
Q. So why don't you take us through the features that this building is going to have.
A. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. The upscale features, and I'm going to bring you to a typical floor plan, so we'll just go to the first apartment floor plan, and that's on page 25. And then at your leisure you can look through each one of these, if you so wished, but I'll make the points on this first one and then you'll see how it is similar to each. Every apartment has a front door. Every apartment has a closet. Every apartment has an open kitchen area. Some of the upscale is that they'll be 9-foot ceilings throughout on every one of the floors. They'll be nice trim details and coved moldings, and then finished ceiling, finished floors, all with upgraded surfaces and finishes.
There's a walk-in closet, you can see is very typical, where the walk-in closet from the bedroom, it goes right into the bathroom. So that you have a second way into the bathroom, so then there's the privacy that you have as a unit as well as then still for your guest, a door out into the living room and the dining room. It's very typical that we've added a den. That we've also in some of the other plans that you'll see, maybe on page 28 you will see an open kitchen area that opens into space, or on another one, might be page 29, you see a large kitchen, and the kitchenette area opens to dining and living room spaces. So some of the nice features that we add obviously are the large windows, they're very large, 3 1/2-feet wide and they're 6-feet tall. And then there's the 9-foot ceilings, the walkthrough closets, and then the dens, the additional space. High-end kitchen and bathroom finishes, as well as there will be a personal washer and dryer in every unit. So it is upgraded in the finishes.
Now, to the point of what I said before, you can look at this at your leisure, you'll see over on the right-hand side, and this is typical of every sheet, it tells you that it's a one-bedroom unit, it tells you that this unit is 1,036 square feet, and that 21/43 means there's 21 of these units out of the 43. The rental price, that's the range of the proposed rental price, 24 to $2,600. I think it's important to note, when we're talking about upscale, is that the smallest unit that we have is one-bedroom, and it's 1,000 square foot. That's a very generous one-bedroom unit, if you were to look at the marketplace.
As far as two-bedrooms, they're always over 1,300 square feet, they're even larger than that. So that the apartment, just the size of them, is an upscale. Before I talked about the sound separation of not only the floor construction, the wall construction, interior as well as exterior, but then I also just spoke about the extra square foot that creates entrance foyers, dens, open kitchens, and countertop pass-throughs. And that's about it, as far as upscale. One of the other amenities I just saw in my notes that I wanted to mention is something that's unique to this building. Across the street is the YMCA, and that in itself makes that a possible amenity to a person that would live there, right across the street is a full gym and pool, and better than we ever could replicate in the building.
Q. So I have only one last final question, that's just sort of catchall. Anything else you need to tell the Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 17
board about this project and what the building is going to look like and architectural aspects?
A. No. I think that I've had an opportunity to speak to all issues that were raised of concern by the engineer and the planner. I think that I've also had an opportunity to speak to the uniqueness of this building, not only on its property but then the uniqueness to the design that we've tried to create, the special features that we've tried to offer as far as aesthetics, but then also what we've tried to do for luxury apartments, so, no, I wouldn't have anything further to add.
MR. WELLS: I have no further questions of this witness.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Well, questions from the board?
Dave, do you have any questions to propose?
MR. SCHEIBNER: I don't have any questions for the architect.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. So, you mentioned there's going to be potentially special needs residents. Is that correct?
MR. BRANCHEAU: The original design intent of the building was that it be potentially special need, but it really didn't matter to me, because I was given more of an instruction that every apartment could accommodate any resident, a fair market or affordable unit or even a special need. The only thing that we did keep in mind is that if there was a special need, then the unit could be adapted with special apparatus, if there was such a thing required.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So my question is: What is the special apparatus that will be required for the special needs, do you know, and how is that going to be jerry-rigged in the apartment?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay. Good question. Because the barrier-free requirements of the State of New Jersey and what is required of a rental unit, there is no physical change to the unit, but sometimes you may add an additional railing in order to help somebody in the tub or around a toilet. You might change some of the door hardware so it's more than a lever, it's just like a push.
So you may change those type of things, but basically there's no physical change to the space as far as the walls are concerned or even the fixtures are concerned, and that's why I really had such flexibility, because I could tell to the owner, if, if you do propose to build a building where all 43 units are of the same finishes, the same design, the same standards, then if I have seven affordable units or if I have four special needs, it doesn't matter, there's no change, it's easy and I can accommodate it anywhere in the building.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So another question I have related to special needs people. It's not just necessarily inside the apartment but outside the apartment, for instance, potential need for them being mobile, if they have problems with that, in an elevator. I mean, so how is that going to work? Help me understand that.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay. Again, good question. But the answer lies in that it's a rental unit building, and because it's a rental unit building, it must be barrier-free.
MR. WELLS: It's all accessible already.
MR. BRANCHEAU: It's already.
If there was a special needs apartment user or not, that's a barrier-free building. So we have barrier-free right from the sidewalk out front right into the building. We have barrier-free right from the parking lot into the building. And then the stairs, the elevators, the everything, the hallway dimensions, the front door unit of the doors going into the units, the doors throughout the unit, Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 18
everything accommodates a barrier-free.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
MR. WELLS: I need to make an important point for you, Mr. Voigt, and maybe other members of the board too. Special needs isn't always necessarily physically handicapped. I mentioned that there's been a long connection between the developer and his family and West Bergen Mental Health. Sometimes these group homes are people that, you know, have some issues that cause them to need some additional assistance and so forth, but not necessarily to be physically handicapped. Again, this particular developer is very welcoming to that and understands that those people should be able to live in apartments, just like everybody else.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Thank you. So the size of the elevator, help me understand what the size dimensions of the elevator are, do you know?
MR. BRANCHEAU: They're 6-foot wide, 7-foot-4 in length is the interior cab dimension.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So one of the things that people are moving in and out, I mean, how are they going to go up and down the stairs, is that kind of the thinking or are they have to stuff everything in the elevator?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, they can put it in the elevator, it's front to back, so that they actually could use the elevator. The stairs are of a generous width, they're not just worked out as the minimum. The minimum requires it to be 44 inches from rail-to-rail. Our stairs are 48. The center stairs is 54. So we have a wide, open staircase, and then we have three of them, so that's one way to move in. It's probably the easiest, unless you had a van or a carload come right in the back door and right into the elevator and up you go. And because the elevator is a larger size, you know, it could accommodate that.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. How close is the building to the train tracks, the edge of the building in the back, how close is it, do you know?
MR. BRANCHEAU: That would be a site dimension, so if you don't mind, I could refer that to the site engineer, he's the next witness, and he easily can tell you that dimension.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. And I'm guessing that you would probably be able to help me with any kind of vibrations from the train and whether that may affect the building or not and the integrity of the building?
MR. BRANCHEAU: I think I can speak to that a little bit, because the vibration from a train wouldn't work its way down a hall through a retaining wall across the parking lot and into the building to a point where it would be of at all a danger. Could you feel that? You would feel just even the train going by and the wind difference, you could maybe even sense that. So will you be able to know that a train goes by? Oh, yes. But is it at all of a concern to the structural integrity of the building? No, it's not.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. You said you have, I guess, a rec space in kind of the southwest corner of the building, is that closer to the train tracks, is that right, it's kind of an elevated thing?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Right.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm having a tough time understanding why somebody would want to be sitting there as trains are zipping by? I don't find that to be very soothing, and I'm just wondering why you would even consider building something there? It's just doesn't make sense to me.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Not to be a wise guy, I have to tell you, I have a friend that would love to sit there Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 19
all day long.
MR. WELLS: Also, the frequency of trains on that track is not particularly high.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I'll leave that to others, maybe the engineer and the planner, to speak to that a little bit.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU: But it is a space that what we tried to do is shelter it into the space with a retaining wall. You could see that on --
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I saw kind of your illustration of it, but it's just so close to the train tracks I just wouldn't find it very appealing to be sitting there. I'm sorry.
MR. BRANCHEAU: But do you see in the sky view or even the perspective, at least what we tried to do is create a backdrop to it, so it wouldn't feel as if you were right at the same level as the train going by, you are actually sheltered a little bit by it. So we're trying to make the best of existing conditions and trying to still bring in outdoor space.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So you have 81 spaces for parking, 43 are called for and the rest are kind of free-for-all. So what about visitor parking, they'll park there?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yeah. When you calculate 81, that's what it includes. The RSIS --
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Includes visitors?
MR. BRANCHEAU: That includes visitors in their calculations.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: All right. So I'm assuming that the parking lot next to you at the Y is not going to be used at all for anybody. So what happens if it is? Do they get a ticket? I mean, do we need police enforcement of that?
MR. WELLS: I can help on that, because I'm actually the YMCA's attorney. Yes, that happens every once in a while and people are notified, not for this building I don't think it would ever happen here, but people have been known to park in that lot, be it commuters.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So you're the YMCA's attorney. Is that correct?
MR. WELLS: I am, yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm talking to, right now we are trying to rent some spaces, because we have no more parking downtown.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I can tell you that they're not likely to be able to do it, because they really do need the spaces.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Well, there's actually a space in the corner where they put Christmas trees. I have driven by there every hour of the day, there's plenty of spaces there. I'm sorry. There's like 30 or 40 spaces that we could potentially rent. When I come by, are you going to be favorable --
MR. WELLS: I'm their attorney, I don't get to make the decision, but they've always told me that they feel at least occasionally they fully need the lot. And your observations are maybe more accurate than what I've been told. That's always what I've been told.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU: That was a pretty bold question for an architect.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Oh, okay. So you mentioned that you tried to make the building consistent with the look and feel of the village. Is that correct?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So can you give me some other buildings that kind of look like that, I mean, in downtown? Is there something, maybe at a later date just kind of show me, here is your building Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 20
how it looks with other things that are downtown.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay. I could, at a later time, pass that back. But it's similar in not only in downtown buildings, in some of your Tudor buildings with their pitched roofs and their varied roof lines, some of the projections, the overhangs, it is very similar, and you see that throughout the downtown area. But really what we tried to do also is to work off of the architectural details of a craftsman-style home, and that is the home that you see in much of Ridgewood is the craftsman details. That's the large overhangs at the front doors, that's some of the larger trim detail. The trim detail that I passed around, that's a craftsman detail. The archways and then the extra band of trim up there, all craftsman details. They come really from, if you were to go to the neighborhood just a block away, two blocks away, three blocks in, you'll see a lot of homes built in the craftsman style. So what we tried to do is actually incorporate that, the wrought iron railing, some of the trellis work, all craftsman details. So what we did was we took craftsman details and brought it into the mass of an apartment building, and then we introduced the varied roof lines, again craftsman details with the roof lines and the doghouse dormers, and so you have a little bit of a mix. You have some of the varied roof lines in order to break up the mass, but then you have the craftsman details from the houses that make it a little harmonious with what you would see in the neighborhoods.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. If you can show me some examples, that would be helpful. I'm happy to walk around.
MR. BRANCHEAU: No problem.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So you mentioned that, is it, your rec areas is your common areas, is that what you are calling them? You have a requirement of 1,700 square feet, you have 1,863 square feet, does that sound right in common area, rec area?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, it's not common areas, it's called --
MR. WELLS: Amenity spaces.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Amenity spaces.
MR. BRANCHEAU: So on my plan -- I just want to make sure I have the right page. In mine, on page 22, I call it the "rec room."
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So, the elevator just kind of opens up into the rec room, right?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Right. It opens up into a lobby, and then the lobby has double doors that open to a rec room. So the rec room is separate, it's a private room.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Got it.All right. I believe I'm okay for now, I might ask to come back at some point, but, Sue.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Thank you. Just following up on the question regarding the amenities, basically. Which amenity spaces are included in that 1,800, in the total square footage?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay. What I just pointed out is on page 22, and then you see off the lobby, the center lobby, there's a rec room. That's included. Now, if you go to the next page, page 23, and then you see the three floor plans that are above, the second and third are identical, and then the fourth floor plan, in the center is called "rec room" again, and that's the portion of it is obviously dedicated for the circulation to the elevator. The remaining part of that space is what will be like a lounge, basically unopened rec space. And then --
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Will that be enclosed -- I'm sorry -- or is that just the first floor?
MR. BRANCHEAU: No, I propose not to enclose it, because, one, I'm trying to add to the residential character to the building, so I'm trying to create a lounge that is actually part of the common area, Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 21
that's where you got that word "common area" before. The rec is not the common area, it's a dedicated space, but it's a dedicated space within the floor plan. It could be a perfect space for a couch and a couple of arm chairs, a card table, maybe even a little library setting kind of right there, so it becomes part of your recreation space that way.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So were there any other spaces or that's it?
MR. BRANCHEAU: No, those three spaces.
If you multiply those three spaces and then you add it to the first floor, that adds up to be the 1,863.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So included in that rec space, that amenity space, when you exit the elevator, there's that landing. Did you include that into the --
MR. BRANCHEAU: No, I did not.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So then we have that -- so I'm just drawing an imaginary line.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Right, you can.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So really the rec room is kind of that long, narrow --
MR. BRANCHEAU: Right.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: -- corridor. Do you know the dimension of that?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Off the top of my head, I want to say 7 feet by 15.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So 7-feet wide by 15-feet long. Okay. So then I want to go to the fourth floor plan, and I want to go to the 7-foot wide by 15-feet long amenity space. Now, I see it appears to be a door. Is that a door going out onto that -- is that what I see there?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Right, that technically would be called a recreation space, because that's open to everybody. That is on, if you look at my -- and I didn't include that, so I just left that as kind of a bonus outdoor space for everybody to use, but if you were to look at the -- let me just point you to the right -- if you were to look at page 20, the sky view, you're looking straight down at that porch, and the center of the porch is open for everybody's use in the entire building.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Anybody could go out to that space.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: But then there's no door space. There are two other balconies to the left and right of that, but there are no --
MR. BRANCHEAU: The two other balconies to either side are for the apartments.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Those have windows, not doors?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, those have windows, not doors.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So I want to ask the next question relative to the one-bedrooms and two-bedrooms with den, because, with the exception of what appears to be maybe 4 one-bedroom units, all of the rest of the one-bedroom units have a den. So maybe I'm wrong?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Have a what?
MAYOR KNUDSEN: A den.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Oh, a den. Right. The most common unit, and that's why I even brought you to that one on page 25, most of the units, 21 of the 43 units are a one-bedroom with a den.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. So do those dens, however -- I'm looking at the one-bedroom with the den floor plan, that den is on page 25, am I seeing a closet there, what appears to be a closet?
MR. BRANCHEAU: No, that's the mechanical room towards the back, and then it's a closet as you enter. If you're concerned that that could potentially be a bedroom, you'll note that it's open, so that it's a large archway, there is no door into the space, so that the den becomes an open room. Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 22
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Nothing would really prohibit somebody from using it as a bedroom, I mean, right? No? I mean, nothing would prohibit anyone from using it.
MR. WELLS: People could put a bed in a living room, in theory. Anything is possible, but it's not designed that way.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Then I really couldn't stop them from doing that to any room.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, I understand.
MR. WELLS: One of the things that we learned actually from a lot of the residents as well, the empty-nesters, and we learned this from a marketing perspective as well, they said we want a little more space, we would like dens and other kinds of spaces.
MR. BRANCHEAU: What we commonly heard is it's nice to have a living room, but then is there a second space for somebody else, let's say a husband and wife are to live in this one-bedroom, and there is somebody in the living room, there's still a quiet space for somebody to go, and that's the den. It was purposely designed as a den.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then on the two-bedroom on page 30.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Page 30?
MAYOR KNUDSEN: That den does have a closet, it appears to me, correct?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, that actually does have a closet. It doesn't have to be. Actually, there's a possibility that that will even be changed. We're still, you know, it's just like all the floor plans, a floor plan of a unit isn't subject to site plan approval, so I still have an opportunity to work on them a little bit. But there's a chance that we still will change that den so that we're able to add a second bathroom, because, if you notice, there's only one bathroom in this one unit, and that has come back as a shortfall. So if there's a concern that a den would have a closet, this is probably one of the only ones that does, and it doesn't have to be there.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Then I'm not sure if that answers the question or not, but actually it's not, it's going to be a traffic question. So I'm willing to finish right there for the moment. Thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any questions?
MS. McWILLIAMS: Sure. I'll try to go in order, but I'm a little out. What protects the staircases from the outside sidewalk from anybody entering in? Is there a key, is there a pass code, a card that swipes to come in?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. The exact security of the building hasn't been worked out, but it will be a Fob type of system.
MS. McWILLIAMS: So it will be a gate or something to it?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. Absolutely.
MS. McWILLIAMS: So same thing, I guess with the elevator, will there --
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Enter the driveway through the parking lot around back where you can come into the elevator area?
MR. BRANCHEAU: But you actually wouldn't be able to come into the elevator area.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Without the same thing?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Without the same thing. It would be security.
MS. McWILLIAMS: That is the only elevator for moving in and out, as Jeff has brought up?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 23
MS. McWILLIAMS: I sort of think -- you said if somebody had a van or a truck or something. Everybody moving in, I would think, especially if it's empty-nesters or whomever, they're going to have furniture and their belongings, they're going to have vans and trucks, and probably not having people going up the stairs. Is there any concession made or any thought at all about what to do when the elevators are tied up with people moving in and out?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, you know, I think you just have to recognize the scale of the building, as many as 43 might sound -- 43 is not a lot in a building, so the chance that you would have, let's say, three people moving into a building of only 43 units all at the same time, same weekend, probably pretty remote.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Where will the moving truck pull up into the back, through the parking lot into the back loading and unloading zone?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Are you going to speak to that?
MR. WELLS: Yes, the site engineer.
MR. BRANCHEAU: The site engineer will talk to parking spaces.
MR. WELLS: But there is no separate spot for moving vans or anything like that.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. Is there any way to block off the parking lot from the public, from any commuter coming in and just parking there?
MR. BRANCHEAU: No.
MR. WELLS: No. I don't know how that would be desirable, but, no, there's no way to do that.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Possibly there's a train.
MR. WELLS: You're afraid they would be hurt by a train?
MS. McWILLIAMS: It would be desirable because of its proximity to the train.
MR. WELLS: If you're talking about the same problem that the YMCA had when people would park there, management would take care of that. Same as the YMCA does, if it starts to happen, they'll find a way to have those people --
MS. McWILLIAMS: Is it management or is it the Ridgewood police coming in and ticketing or is there a management company?
MR. WELLS: I can let your code official speak to that differently, because there is a procedure under which you can essentially, through the ordinances, make it the police responsibility, but that's typically not done. Maybe Chris can speak to this better than I can. Go ahead.
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, the village in the past has adopted Title 39 Ordinance, which gives the police department the right to enforce the provisions of Title 39 motor vehicle statutes on private property. The village has been getting away from adopting those ordinances. We haven't adopted one for, I think, about six years now. Most facilities are dealing with those matters internally, you can see that by the signs posted at Kings, Stop & Shop, basically telling you if you park here, your car will be towed, and it seems to be working.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. WELLS: The developer of this property actually has their own office building farther down Chestnut Street. It's happened -- I'm obviously their attorney as well -- where somebody parked there and they have to be told they can't do that. In a situation like Ridgewood where parking spaces are at a premium, you know, sometimes that happens. This is pretty far from the downtown, so I don't think it's going to happen there so much, but it will be dealt with, if it does. I know, for example, when I can't find a restaurant place, because I'm allowed to, I go over and park in Bolger's lot Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 24
sometimes, but I would never go that far down Chestnut Street because I would be too tired by the time I got back to the restaurant.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It does happen, though, by the way. It does happen that the commuters park on private lots.
MR. WELLS: In the YMCA, I told you --
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And they also park behind Arthur Groom. There are a whole bunch of commuters that are paying nothing to park there, FYI.
MR. WELLS: Well, I know you guys are working on the parking, so fix it, guys.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: We fixed it, actually.
MS. McWILLIAMS: I can never find a spot at the Y ever, just so you know.
MR. WELLS: Tell it to Jeff.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. So the special needs housing, you brought that up, and it's already been addressed a little bit, but will there be a way for you to determine what level of special needs you're talking about? Because, I mean, you can't discriminate, nor would you, nor would the owner or the developer discriminate against who or what type of special needs person might live there, but you would require lower countertops, you would require taller toilets. You would require many, many, many different amenities.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, but --
MS. McWILLIAMS: To say you would have one uniform height of countertop in every apartment would not accommodate every person of special needs.
MR. BRANCHEAU: That wasn't the intent, to have a special needs that are physically challenged that way.
MS. McWILLIAMS: So you would not allow anybody with a physical special needs to live in this building?
MR. WELLS: Not to that extent. They wouldn't find it a comfortable environment, no.
MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm not 100 percent sure, is that legal?
MR. WELLS: Well, first off, you have to know that we're under no legal obligation to even provide any special needs housing. I've explained to you that this client would like to do it, it's not a requirement, it's not a requirement of your ordinance, there's really, you know --
MS. McWILLIAMS: But since you brought it up, and since, you know, special needs housing, I mean, if you're going to label it as such and ask for concessions from anybody because it is --
MR. WELLS: We're not asking for any concessions.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. WELLS: We're doing it just because we want to.
What was required is to provide affordable housing, and in that there is a concession, if you will, built into this ordinance to allow us higher density because of that, that's the whole idea behind affordable housing, but we're not asking for any concessions to have special needs.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Can I just jump in a minute here, because necessarily someone that has a physical handicap isn't special needs and subsequently might not necessarily need affordable housing. I think just to be clear what you were speaking to earlier was more likely a cognitive impairment.
MR. WELLS: Probably, yes, because of our relationship with West Bergen.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: A physical, any of those, whether a cognitive or physical necessarily doesn't mean Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 25
affordable housing, but somebody could be actually physically handicapped in a wheelchair but not necessarily require affordable housing.
MR. WELLS: You're absolutely right, and maybe we're over-thinking it a little bit.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. I agree.
MR. WELLS: But the affordable housing, you mandate that, in other words, and the state does. So, in this case, they would have to be both special needs and affordable. It's possible, on a market rate basis, you could customize a unit, just like you said, completely customize it, if the developer wanted to do that and the person wanted to rent it, but the affordable component, that we have to do.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. I'm just saying those kinds of accommodations that you're talking about, like the lower level countertops and barrier-free or handicapped restrooms, are not necessarily relevant for the cognitively impaired individual.
MR. WELLS: Exactly.
MS. McWILLIAMS: I guess I have questions about the terminology in general, but I was clear what he meant, I just didn't know you were delineating which type of or -- either way, I get it, it's something different than I had assumed you meant.
MR. WELLS: Well, the best way to look at it is, it's almost more for information than something that's specifically within the jurisdiction of this board. This particular developer would like to do that. They'll work together with the appropriate agencies and so fork. This part is mandated, they're going to do the affordable housing in conjunction with the village requirement, but there's a lot more than the village requirement, there's the state law and the whole selection of people and who fits that. There's a lot behind that, and we're going to meet the law.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Would the residents in the home that you're talking about down the street, would they be candidates to move into this building or were you discussing that?
MR. WELLS: I don't know, because, again, you got the affordable component. Maybe. I don't know. That's a detail that would have to be worked out.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: You know what, because actually I would thank you and say that this is a really great conversation to have. It's something we really should explore. It's something that we certainly need in the village, and we've made no accommodation or availability, because it's an area that we necessarily fail at. So I believe it's a conversation that's necessary, and I'm glad you raised it, and this is an opportunity. Can I ask another question? I'm sorry to jump in on something else. The 43 units, how many total parking spaces were there?
MR. BRANCHEAU: There's 81 parking spaces.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So something I believe COUNCILMAN VOIGT raised earlier was the assignment of spaces and then visitor parking. But what happens if, and I'm confident not 43 tenants will all bring two cars, but I don't care where I am, I am a two car person, sometimes I'm even a three car. What happens if 50 percent of the people at the site they're going to have two cars by hook or by crook?
MR. WELLS: Let the traffic expert, because he's going to tell you it's built into the RSIS, but he's the guy.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Not me.
MS. McWILLIAMS: I just had two more quick questions.
The lounge on the floors, is there any concern about noise or what might go on within that area, since it's open to the hallways?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, that's exactly why we've created a private space, so that there is a private Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 26
lounge, which is on the lowest level, and then the open ones on the other three.
MS. McWILLIAMS: There wouldn't be like TVs or anything, it would be books or games or something?
MR. BRANCHEAU: We would see those as more of a lounge, a quiet setting, and then the noisier opportunity or possibilities would be in the closed room.
MR. WELLS: We provide the amenity space, because we think it's good and it's in your code as well. Remember, these are pretty comfortable apartments so that the people are probably going to do most of their relaxing within their apartments.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Right. I would think so.
MR. WELLS: It's nice to have the other things, but it's not probably where the dominant activity is going to go on in the building.
MS. McWILLIAMS: And then where is the playground that you mentioned? You mentioned a playground or play area.
MR. WELLS: It happens to be in the left rear corner, but the site engineer will speak directly to that.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Is it on here?
MR. WELLS: It's not in the building, it's outside the building.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Is it in any of the pictures?
MR. WELLS: No, it's not, it's in the site engineer's drawing you're going to see next.
MS. McWILLIAMS: It's in the back corner of like, say, the parking lot area, in the back?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN: Actually, Peter, would it be on page 21? It would be offered as a picture but in the foreground.
MR. WELLS: Yes, in the aerial, rear perspective, yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. The site engineer will speak to that more, here it's just graphically shown.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Actually, a lot of my questions that I had were answered.
For the concept for that back corner for the patio area, is it envisioned that people have cookouts there, maybe picnic tables, things like that?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: So fresh air?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: I totally get the concept with the rec rooms with elevators. I have seen that in other buildings. It does work well. Sometimes a person sits there with a computer and coffee and they interact. So is that your concept?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: No further questions, I guess.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have a couple more. Peter, just to better understand how this structure fits into the surrounding streetscape, I just wanted to ask a couple of questions, and you might not have it available, but maybe you can come back with this information. I believe it's a medical building to the south. Do you know the height of that building? Just south of this structure.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I can give an approximate, and could you help with that with the streetscape.
The one drawing -- let me see if I can refer you to it.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I see on page 19, there's -- Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 27
MR. BRANCHEAU: If you see on drawing, on sheet, page 16, exhibit A-5, that's a streetscape, and to the side you'll see the building graphically shown.
MR. WELLS: Some of that is difference in elevation as well, but the salient point is we meet code, and, so, regardless of whatever the height is.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I understand. I got that.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Right, but the height of that building, that's three stories, it's just two stories above parking, 36 feet approximately.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then do you have a question?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I do have one. So I'm just a little curious, this seems to be a fairly nice building and you're plopping it in an area that's not terribly desirable. I mean, if you go to the north, you've got an auto body shop there, and you go a little north of that, you've got some very dilapidated municipal buildings.
MR. WELLS: Well, hopefully you'll do something about that, one of these days, guys.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Just theoretically, let's play theoretical here, and you can comment on that, let's assume the village decides to put a garage there, a municipal garage -- I'm sorry, a parking garage for, say, the train station. Okay. How is that going to affect the people who live in this building? Because you're going to have cars going back and forth down that street, and it's not going to make it terribly desirable. I'm just curious what you guys are thinking?
MR. WELLS: That's a marketing question, and basically I can tell you, we recognize that this location is maybe somewhat less desirable and it reflects even a little bit in the market rents, but we're very confident that we won't have any trouble renting the units. They're very desirable and the community is desirable. It's in close proximity to downtown. It may not be perfect, but we think it will be fine. The applicant's allowed to make that call.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I know they are, but I'm giving you some potential foreboding --
MR. WELLS: I understand you have some skepticism about it.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: -- that may happen, that may be of concern to these people who live there.
MR. WELLS: Well, in the highly unlikely event that somebody wanted to do something that was very negative and nonconforming maybe they would, just like anybody else, would say we don't like that, but I don't anticipate anything there -- right now it's a municipal use that's not the world's best but it's okay. You can also see the way this building is set up, we tried to maximize the landscaping and so forth. It's kind of an island unto itself, kind of a special place.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Dilapidated municipal building, that's a great landscape for the kids? Just kidding.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Are we finished with the board questions?
Blais, do you have questions?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Just two questions. Do you know what the height of the doorway is to the underground parking, the clearance, vehicle clearance?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Eight foot nine. And is there any kind of warning, like a bar, to tell somebody who has a vehicle taller than that?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, the appropriate precautionary warnings would be put up.
MR. BRANCHEAU: And then the second question is: Could you provide the calculations of the amenity area in the building minus those passageways from the elevator?
MR. WELLS: Sure. Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 28
MR. BRANCHEAU: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris?
MR. RUTISHAUSER: No questions at this time, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Next will be questions from the public. Anyone from the public want to ask questions of MR. WELLS?
MR. WELLS: They're mostly ours and your recused board member in the audience. In fact, they're all ours and your recused board member.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: He can ask questions, right? If there's no questions from the public, it's 10:45 now, we're going to stop at this point, because we do have other business to do.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Oh, Mr. Jahr, did you have any questions?
MR. JAHR: Not at this time.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: So we'll stop at this point.
MR. WELLS: We should probably get out the calendar then, because we're not done.
MR. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, when do you return on the other matter, the 15th of November?
MR. WELLS: Yes, yes, we do. I would also renew, and I would like to do it on the record as well, this applicant has indicated a willingness to pay the additional cost for a Special Meeting, should the board determine that in order to get through its rather busy calendar that it would like to schedule one of those.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: We'll take that under advisement.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You mean you're going to pay us?
MR. WELLS: No, we don't get to pay you, in fact, that gets you in all kinds of problems.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I was about to say that.
MR. WELLS: But we already pay your professionals for what they do, but there's an additional cost.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I understand.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, what slot would there be for a next meeting?
MR. CAFARELLI: It looks like December 6th, we have.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I thought the next meeting is going to be 257 Ridgewood, that's November 1st. November 15th is going to go back to The Dayton, and then K&S will be December 6th, and then I think the next one is December 20th, that's open.
MR. MARTIN: That's the last available, you want the last available?
MR. WELLS: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: December 20th.
MR. WELLS: Well, no, I'm not delighted with it, but I understand your schedule. Again, we offer the Special Meeting, if you want to do it. December 20th, we can do it, if we need to. It would be very nice if we could have the whole night, it seems like you're trying to do that.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.
MR. WELLS: I, quite frankly, believe we can move through the other three witnesses, if we have an all-night, without any trouble.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: You know, I'll see. Sometimes other things crop up. It cropped up tonight. And we'd like to have it packaged as one full night, so we'll take note of that.
MR. WELLS: Understood.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: So I guess we'll continue, without further notice, on this application to December 20th. Do you consent to an extension of time for the decision through the December 20th Ridgewood Planning Board October 18, 2016 Page 29
date?
MR. WELLS: We do.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.
MR. WELLS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, MR. WELLS.
Whereupon, this matter is continued to December 20, 2016.
Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from May 3, 2016 were approved as written.
Executive Session – the Board moved to Executive Session at 10:55 p.m. and returned to open session at 11:40 p.m. and adjourned the meeting.
Michael Cafarelli
Board Secretary
Date Approved: September 5, 2017
- Hits: 2755