Planning Board Public Meeting Minutes 20161004

Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of October 4, 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, Isabella Altano, Debbie Patire, 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. Mr. Reilly was not present.

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

Correspondence received by the Board – MR. CAFARELLI reported none was received.

KS Broad Street, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 80 - 7 Chestnut Street & 25-27, 4-17 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11,12,13,14,15 - Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I would like to call this Planning Board public meeting to order. It's Tuesday, October 4, 2016. We're in the Village Hall courtroom. It's approximately 7:40 p.m.

Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: In accordance with the provisions of Section 10:4-8(d) of the Open Public Meetings Act, the date, location and time of the commencement of this meeting is reflected in a meeting notice, a copy of which schedule has been filed with the Village Manager and the Village Clerk, The Ridgewood News and The Record newspapers, and posted on the bulletin board in the entry lobby of the Village Municipal Offices at 131 North Maple Avenue, and on the Village website. All in accordance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, Joel.

Flag salute.

(Whereupon, everyone stands for a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, roll call?

MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MR. SCHEIBNER?

MR. SCHEIBNER: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MR. TORIELLI?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Reilly?

(No response.)

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE?

(No response.)

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE?

MS. PATIRE: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. ALTANO?

MS. ALTANO: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. McWILLIAMS? Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 2

MS. McWILLIAMS: Here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, Michael.

All right. Now the second item on the agenda is public comments on topics not pending before the board.

Is there anyone from the public that wants to make a comment?

MR. GLAZER: Let me just ask you, is this when you talk about before the board, like is this regarding the complaint, so is this --

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That would be before the board. It's something that's not an application that we have --

MR. GLAZER: So, can I just ask, will there be opportunity to speak at that point in the meeting?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: With respect to the motion?

MR. GLAZER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We're going to make a statement for it.

MR. GLAZER: Okay. So -- but there's no other point for me to speak other than right now, is what you're saying.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay, but it's a discussion item for the board.

MR. GLAZER: Right, so then I'm going to speak. Then I'll speak now, because there's no other time.

MR. MARTIN: It's actually on the agenda, sir. So, it's any items that are not on the agenda. Is that correct?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

MR. MARTIN: So, that -- that is the item so this is not your time to speak on that.

MR. GLAZER: This is my time to speak.

MR. MARTIN: No, it's not.

MR. GLAZER: It is not? But there will be?

MR. MARTIN: There may be, but that's something that the Chair will bring up. Okay.

MR. GLAZER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We're going to make a statement, but anything that's not on the agenda.

MR. MARTIN: If it's not on the agenda that's a different issue.

MR. GLAZER: All right. Okay, because I want to make sure that -- that this is put into record, so...

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

MR. GLAZER: Okay. So --

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

MR. GLAZER: All right. Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: This is not the time to discuss it.

MS. REYNOLDS: Hi.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Hi.

MS. REYNOLDS: Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Windermere Avenue.

I kind of just have a procedural question, last time when The Dayton presented, it's very hard for the audience members to kind of follow along we have no papers, no information, you know, I know they had posters up. It's very difficult for the audience to see. Is there any way there could be something for the residents to look at while it's being presented and -- you know, even the questions that you guys were asking, it was hard to follow along, because where did you -- where did you see this information to even ask the question? So, it's also difficult for residents to formulate questions without any information.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure. I understand.

MS. REYNOLDS: So, is that even possible?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: The applications are on file with the secretary and, Michael, they're available for --

MR. CAFARELLI: Well, it is. I have my copy and, you know, you can call or you can just come over. I mean you can come and look at the application. But I don't know how it's -- it's a rather complicated application. You're welcome to come over and come look at it and try to pull some questions.

MS. REYNOLDS: Yeah, it kind of --

MR. CAFARELLI: But I don't know that that's going to really give you what you're looking for. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 3

MS. REYNOLDS: Yes, it kind of -- it kind of puts the public at a disadvantage.

I mean, you know, Richard, you were here years ago when, I guess, the developers used to make little packets --

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

MS. REYNOLDS: -- for the residents to look at. Is that possible to do that again?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, can you make a request for any of the developers to provide digital format for the applications and exhibits so that they can be posted?

MR. CAFARELLI: Okay.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Hi, state your name.

MR. SLOMIN: Dave Slomin, 36 Heights Road.

I just wanted to comment on the exchange that just happened. I guess what I heard puts this board kind of back where we were with the last board. I think we are in a place in Ridgewood where we should really be seeking out comment from the public and hearing the public, especially, when it comes to planning. There was just some type of Master Plan review that didn't poll or reach out to any of the residents as far as getting real feedback, that should be part and parcel of a meaningful and real Master Plan review. There are important issues right now before Ridgewood. And what I just heard was a resident wanted to make a comment on something before the board that is very important regarding some ordinances and the passage thereof. That's very important. And what I heard was he asked, will I be able to speak later? And the response was, we -- you may. You either know if he's going to speak or not. But that puts us right where we were for so many years that I thought we worked so hard the get past that. And I hope you guys recognize that. And I hope -- I would like to I gather we'll hear from CHAIRMAN JOEL, you know, where you stand on that, that he may be able to speak. I would hope to have other planning board members chime in. And I hope that MR. GLAZER will have the opportunity to speak along with any other members of the public who would like to speak tonight.

Thank you.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Can I just ask a question, just a point of clarification, I was actually waiting for all the public comments to be done, but what is the -- is there a rule that states that a member of the public can't make a public comment on something -- a matter that's on the agenda? Is there a legal ruling? Why would we not -- if a member of public wants to come to the microphone and basically say anything it is public comment, I'm just wondering, is there some legal reason that someone can't simply come to the microphone and make public comment?

MR. MARTIN: Well, it would be a point of order. I mean, basically the problem is we would get into an application, you're taking it out of turn. And then things would just get bumbled. You're dealing with an application that's on the agenda, all of the questions should be within that application at that time. Because if you're drawing from different parts of the meeting, you really wreak havoc on an agenda.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: But it is just public comment. It's not necessarily relevant to an application. I mean, you know, we hear public comment and I recognize we hear public comment at the Village Council all the time. We hear all sorts of public comment and, you know, some interesting to say the least. So, what I'm asking is, anybody can come to the microphone and speak about pending ordinance decisions. They can come up and say we don't like this ordinance in public comment. And then it goes to public hearing. And then they can come back to the microphone and similarly comment. Is there any legal rule that states there's a reason somebody can't come to the microphone and just say, I think we should have more multifamily downtown or this should be bigger or smaller, is there any legal reason we don't have that?

MR. MARTIN: I could --

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. That would be helpful -- but that would be helpful for the board and for members of the public.

MR. MARTIN: It goes to what CHAIRMAN JOEL said. It goes to a point of order issue. If it's on the agenda, if there is commentary we had, it would be under that. It's as simple as that. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 4

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So -- so can we at least allow them to comment? These issues are really important for our residents. And I mean a lot of them have been here for a number of years. And this is top of mind for them. And I'm hoping we can at least, as a board, allow that to happen. I mean, I'm in favor of that. I don't know how anybody else feels, so.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So going just back to the agenda, just so I understand this, because we have public comments now. And then we have our agenda items. And during hearings when there is expert testimony, members of the public can come and ask questions of the expert witness. But if there is, say, an item, committee, commission, professional update, somebody has a comment about that, they cannot make the comment before the meeting. And then there is no public comment at the close of the meeting. So, when does somebody have the opportunity to comment on a discussion item? Again, that's not also for the purpose of being informative to the public as MR. SLOMIN pointed out, it seems contrary to what would be public, you know, public comment.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Are you talking about an application or --

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, no, I'm talking about -- I just -- well, let's say it's a discussion item. We'll take public comments on topics not pending before the board. So, we have committee, commission, professional updates that are pending before the board. So, when does somebody have an opportunity to comment on that?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, they can make comments on items not pending before the board, they should come up and talk about it. If it's not on the agenda pertaining to a certain item or an application, then they'll have to wait when it's appropriate to make public comments on an application.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So now let's go to item number four, statement by the Planning Board as to a motion of the board, when would somebody have an opportunity -- do they have an opportunity to comment on that at all?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, it depends --

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Or is that -- should they make comments now or comments after?

MR. MARTIN: Well, that's an agenda item.

If you want to change the agenda, items that didn't make the agenda.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, I know.

MR. MARTIN: I am fairly new at this board, this Village's, but usually your public comment comes at a different time not the beginning so --

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. That's why -- that's why I'm asking this.

MR. MARTIN: But if it's on the agenda, if the area is not pending before the board, it's not pending before the board. Should you take it off the agenda then it would not be pending before the board. It's just how we -- reasonable organization of the meetings.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, I understand that we don't have a public comment at the end of the meeting. The question being posed, I believe, unless I am misunderstanding something; the question being posed is, if there's no public comment at the end, when does somebody have the option, unless it's an application and they're asking questions of an expert and asking questions, but other than that, when will they -- that's the question being raised. I think I have it. So, when do they get to comment on items that are before the board, but that don't garner an interaction or a discussion.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, it depends on the item. I don't think could you take it in a vacuum.

So I mean for the Item Number 4, we're going make a statement on that. There might be an opportunity for public comment at a later date, but you know, I'm making a statement with respect to it.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, I am just wondering if we might be able to make an exception for this, especially how important this is to the public. And we don't have to do this on a regular basis, but things like this, I think it would important to hear from the public. Even though you make a statement. The hope is they would be able to allow the public to make comments as related to that. Can we do that tonight at least?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Provided it doesn't -- you know for the agenda, there's like ten minutes for that item and if it prevents us -- presents a situation where it's going to foul up having the application, adjusting the time, you Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 5

know, there is a point of order on it.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Understood.

But there may be some time. I hear what you're saying, let's --let's see how the thing goes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. All right.

We will see how it goes. Thank you.

MR. MATTESSICH: Kevin Mattessich, 836 Morningside Road. Just speaking to that point there's no prohibition in the law, regulations, bylaws, against discussion of any item whatsoever. To the extent it's a point of order, are you going to follow Roberts Rules Of Order, whatever accepted public meeting rules you want to follow. It's totally appropriate at this time for the board to say, okay, there is nobody else standing on line with other issues that they what to bring to your attention, we have allotted 30 minutes. The subject, itself, was in the notice of the agenda that was read into the record. It's been published. So, anybody who wanted to come speak on this subject would have the opportunity to do so. And if is there no other items on the agenda, no one is bringing up any other subjects, why not simply call for a point of order and say, Mr. Chairman, do you propose to allow discussion on this topic tonight on the remaining 20 minutes. The public discourse -- and you can have a discourse. If there's no prohibition for doing that, no rules are violated, no laws are violated. Everybody has a fair chance. You don't have to react to what anybody says. But it can help formulate decisions. And I think it was very important, the point that Dave Slomin brought up, folks are really sick and tired of the last board and the way it was run. And I think a lot of times it was out of order. I would like to see and end to that. So, if there aren't other issues that have to be brought up to anybody's attention and there's time now. Why not do it?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.

Anyone else.

MR. FELDSOTT: Ed Feldsott, 67 Heights Road.

I was reiterating what previous people have said. I think you're being very dismissive of residents. I think it -- I resent it as a resident and a taxpayer. I think that we should be able to voice our opinion and not have you say you might allow us to do that. I mean, we're the taxpayers. You guys work for us. Anyway, I resent it. I want you to know that. I think it was wrong. You didn't give a clear answer. Either he could speak or he can't speak. I think we have a right to speak as residents, don't you? I'm asking a question. As residents and taxpayers, do I have a right to speak to you and ask you a question and get an answer?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, it's public comment. So, it's not a question and answer.

MR. FELDSOTT: Okay. Well, you can answer it later. I know the Mayor and other member of the Village Council answered it, but I want to just go on record saying that Dave should be allowed to speak. You've wasted so much time now. He could have said what he had to say and been done with it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Do we have any committee, commission or professional updates on the agenda item, on my right?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: To my left?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any correspondence received by the board, Michael?

MR. CAFARELLI: Yes. We received a letter from Wells Jaworski and Liebman regarding the site plan application for Ridgewood building and Two Forty Associates. An e-mail, but in letter form, from Prime Law regarding the motion to stay the Village of Ridgewood Planning Board review of the site plan application, and civil action from Kates, Nussman, Rapone, Ellis & Farhi.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay, thank you, Michael. All right, next item is the statement by the Planning Board, a motion to the board. We've received the motion. And we're receiving other submissions coming in. And Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 6

there's still other items coming in. So, we're going be considering everything and analyzing it and providing a response at a later date on it. So, we're kind in a holding pattern. We want to consider everything coming in. And so, we do value public opinion. And that's part of the reason why we want to have everything before us for it.

MR. GLAZER: Good, can I speak now? Is that possible? Is that -- is that possible, sir.

MS. McWILLIAMS: I, personally, would like to hear from the residents that are here to speak on this subject. We wasted 11 minutes talking about how they couldn't talk or why.

MR. GLAZER: And to just give you one opinion we want to --

MS. McWILLIAMS: At this point I'd like to hear a couple of them who have statements. If it's not too much out of order.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I mean also -- no, I mean part of the reason was because I gave that statement that we are in a holding pattern. So, that you know, you would probably have time, so we have to consult counsel. I mean you could see all of the submissions that are coming in and making --

MR. GLAZER: Well, make this part of the process.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, Richard, and here's my concern is we have bunch of -- we have a bunch of residents here who thought this was an opportunity to speak tonight and that it kind of just -- the comment you made, unfortunately, just kind of -- if I was in audience I would be -- I would be rather ticked off.

And I'm hoping -- I'm hoping we're able to allow the residents to speak tonight about this issue. They're all here. This is an important topic for this town. And I think they have a right to speak. So, I'm -- I'm in agreement with Melanie. I don't know -- is it worthwhile just polling the Planning Board and asking if we can allow this? I'm -- I'm in favor of it.

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Voigt, if I may?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, sir.

MR. MARTIN: There's been submissions in the form of a motion.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can you pull your microphone please?

MR. MARTIN: There's been submissions in the form of a motion. There's been some submissions in the form of correspondence from counsel for applicants. I believe there'll be some discussion in terms of the board on a limited basis, but if there's additional comments from the public, I would recommend in terms of a limit, in terms of the time, that the Chairman entertain the public on those additional comments.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay, say 15 minutes? Everyone be in agreement on that?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, that's fine. Yeah.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Everyone okay? Yeah.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, yes, that is fine.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. We'll make it two-minute per person. We have 15-minutes. If anyone wants to make a comment, they can line up.

MR. GLAZER: Sir.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

MR. GLAZER: Usually it's five minutes for public comment. And I timed this properly so that it would fit within that parameter. Two minutes is not going to be sufficient for what I have to speak on. But five minutes is -- you know will do it. And I -- you know, I'm asking you to make it five minutes, would that be reasonable?

MR. MATTESSICH: I'll keep my mouth shut and he can have my two minutes if that saves you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, okay. Well, I jut don't want to do five minutes for everybody and then it keeps continuing that way. You know I'm trying to accommodate here. And --

MS. McWILLIAMS: Is there anyway to determine how many people want to speak on the subject?

(Audience Members indicating.)

MS. McWILLIAMS: So three, that's 15 minutes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So, three. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 7

MS. McWILLIAMS: All right. Well, now there's four.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Four? All right.

MR. CAFARELLI: How much time?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: He said five minutes.

MR. GLAZER: Thank you. David Glazer, 61 Clinton Avenue. MAYOR KNUDSEN and members of the Planning Board as you know it is your duty to represent the interests of the residents of Ridgewood. As such, you have an obligation to put the brakes on the current high-density site plan review and begin an investigation based, on the complaint that was signed by myself and other residents, dated September 16th. Within your bylaws you have the ability to do so and to investigate the conflicts of interest and mistakes alleged in our motion. If you find they are true, you can seek to overturn a vote that there may have wrongly obtained and created -- which created so much discord in Ridgewood. These are some of the questions we demand investigated. Number one: Why didn't our former Deputy Mayor and Planning Board Member recuse himself from all the Planning Board Work Sessions leading up to the formal hearing? The same conflict existed then. How could he advocate so fervently for the ordinances during work sessions and then suddenly find a conflict of interest when the hearing started. Number Two, why was un-vetted and unsubstantiated letter from the Housing Advocacy Group Fair Share Housing Center written into the record as fact, when there's evidence by the former Planning Board attorney for the high-density housing vote in June 2015. Under the Planning Board attorney's own guidelines, it was clearly hearsay. And why wasn't the public or planning board members given the opportunity to question the Fair Share Housing rep Kevin Walsh? Number Three, contiguous with the timing of the filing of our motion of complaint, one of your members who is mentioned as having a conflict of interest in the complaint, strangely resigned his planning board seat. Is this just a mere coincidence? Why did he wait so long and step down long after the votes? Members of the Planning Board, your attorney may advise you to bundle this complaint with the pending lawsuit by RCRD. However, to do so would be a disservice to the residents of the Village, as this complaint is completely separate from that lawsuit and should be handled as such. This is not at this time a legal matter. It is a matter of proper and fair governing process for Ridgewood and the grounds for our motion are very strong. Your attorney might argue that residents should have made the motion within some type of limited window or the current land use law may be in conflict with some of our Planning Board's bylaws. But, one, the Village never gave residents access to bylaws, nor made residents aware of the remedies available hereunder, despite all the clear-cut opposition and complaint and conflict with this. Number Two, the bylaws definitely do not clearly command the board to adhere to a 45-day limit. Rather the bylaws state and this I quote: "Any motions to rehear an application or portion thereof made after the 45 days following the publication of decision, shall be considered strictly by discretion of the board in consideration of the protected interests of the applicant as balanced against the public interest". We, the residents, believe the public interest here is greater. Your attorney would have to argue that the developers have a greater interest here than the Village or its residents. That's the criteria. And that would be dangerous. furthermore, at this time the residents are not yet asking for a rehearing or anything that might be argued as to conflict with land use law. We are asking, as is defined right under your own bylaws, 2.13 and 7.22, for an investigation and public hearings to investigate some very material conflicts and mistakes that tainted the process and harmed the "public interest". The Planning Board can decide if an application "rehearing" is necessary later, after hearings regarding the Planning Board process. Allowing these conflicts and mistakes to stand uninvestigated creates a dangerous new precedence for Ridgewood, where Village changing decisions maybe in danger due to improper influence and/or error. It is in the public interest to review this. And if issues are found, to set the right precedent to make sure it doesn't happen again. Thank you very much for your time.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, MR. GLAZER.

MR. GLAZER: I got it in under five minutes, right?

MR. CAFARELLI: You were three seconds under.

MS. CHRISTENSON: Hi, Laura Christenson, 421 Ponfield Place. I'm a 20 years resident. And I fell in love with Ridgewood when I drove down Ridgewood Avenue 20 years ago. And I am totally in support of the complaint Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 8

that MR. GLAZER just mentioned. And I ask the board and the Planning Board to really consider and investigate all the allegations before moving forward. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, Mrs. Christenson.

MR. DANI: Saurabh Dani, 390 Bedford Road. I am here in support of the complaint. And I just wanted to state that the rule 2.13 stands on its own. It deals with the very serious circumstances where a planning board Member had a conflict of interest and nonetheless conducted planning board business aware there has been mistakes, conflicts in particular present a sort of unforgivable situation where the codes, self-rules and penalty really allow affirmative action even after the passage of time.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.

Anyone else? Go ahead, state your name and address.

MR. TUVEL: Sure. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Jason Tuvel from Prime Law. I'm the attorney for K&S Broad Street LLC. My address 141 Pious Court, Teaneck, New Jersey. Thank you for letting me speak. I'll try to be brief. I did submit a letter today, once I found out the motion was filed. I don't know if everyone got a chance to read it, but I did submit it to both your board secretary and counsel. So there's various issues as to why this motion is procedurally improper. I'll try to hit all the highlights that I mentioned in my letter. The first and foremost issue is that the complaints that are alleged in the motion and that are seeking took be investigated by the residents are already up with the Superior Court. There's already been a complaint filed. So, what case law says about issues like that is once the matter goes up to the Superior Court, which is an appellate body of the municipal review, is that the board is divested of jurisdiction. Meaning that whatever interested party or parties has proceeded with that matter has preserved its rights to litigate the case. So, none of the residents are being deprived any rights to the litigation. They're already in Superior Court. They've alleged, from my understanding, many of these conflicts that they speak of now. Whether they're meritorious or not, I'm not going talk about today. But they've alleged these issues with the court. Therefore, it's out of the hands of this board. And that's clear within the case law. That's within the State of New Jersey. So that's number one. Number Two, in terms enjoining site plan reviews by the board, you know, I've read the motion papers that pending an investigation what the residents wanted was a stay of site plan review. If you read the Municipal Land Use Law there's absolutely no statutory authority for staying a site plan review by this Planning Board. Once an Ordinance or a Master Plan is adopted, whether it's challenged or not, this board cannot seek a -- cannot stay any proceedings. The applicant, which I know not only my client, but others are doing, are proceeding at their own risk with these application, assuming any of these claims are meritorious. As I said we're not going there at this point. But they preserved all their rights and we're proceedings under the current law which is permissible at this time. So, again, no deprivation of rights for anyone here. Applicant gets to proceed with its site plan review. Litigants get to proceed with their court case; very straight forward. So, that's another issue. The issue concerning the bylaws, if you read your bylaws and I have seen similar bylaws like this in other municipalities and dealt with them, they don't deal with master plan amendments and rezoning issues. What they deal with are applications for development. And those are specific terms in the Municipal Land Use Law. They deal with site plan review, subdivision, things of that nature. They don't deal with acts of the board, itself. Master plan amendments are done by the board, they're not done by applicants. Applicants can request them, but they're really acts of the board, as opposed to applications that are brought forward under the Municipal Land Use Law by way of a statutory procedure. Okay? So, your bylaws do not address, and really shouldn't address, Master Plan or Zoning Ordinances as part of this process. And, last, but not least, even if the bylaws did address those issues, which they clearly don't, public notice to all residents would be required. And no public notification -- you can't just file a motion with the board open something up and not do a public notification. Now, what's interesting about your bylaws is that -- and this goes to my point that it doesn't apply to master plan or zoning amendments is that your bylaws specifically state that notice of any rehearing's should be done in accordance with Section 12 of the Municipal Land Use Law. Section 12 of the Municipal Land Use Law is the public notice provision that Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 9

governs site plan applications, variance applications, subdivision applications. The notice you're supposed give to people within 200 feet, published in a newspaper and given to other governmental agencies that have rights to receive them. So by referencing that statutory section, it's clear that the bylaws are intended to cover applications for development in terms of these rehearing issue. But, again, that's really a secondary issue. The main point is that this board is divested of all jurisdiction based on the fact that a complaint has been filed in Superior Court that specifically deals with the issues that are being alleged. So, again, I know and I have heard a lot since I've been here about the public process. The public process is actually playing out exactly as it should. The litigants are being able to proceed with their rights, preserving all their rights in connection with the ordinance and the master plan amendments. They're doing that. While in parallel the applicant can proceed with its rights. No one is deprived of anything. So, I would ask the board and I know you're not going to deal with this tonight, based on what the Chairman has said in the beginning, and if we have to -- if I have to come back and re-argue these points, I will, or if the board requires additional submission items, we'll provide them, but I would ask the board to deny that motion and just let the litigants and the applicants proceed with their respective rights. Thank you very much for letting me speak.

MR. MATTESSICH: I would just like one minute to rebut. I know –

Kevin Mattessich, 836 Morningside Road, that attorney made two serious mistakes I want to point out. First of all the allegations raised by Mr. Dani and his group is a separate group of citizens than those involved in the RCRD group. I happen to represent the latter group. I don't represent MR. GLAZER and his group, and that group is proceeding separately. So to the extent that there's an allegation that these are being covered in the lawsuit, they're not. More importantly, the -- one of the central issues is the involvement of Mr. Thurston. Mr. Thurston, of course, continued until last week or two weeks ago. And he is not mentioned at all in the complaint that the separate group filed. So you have two separate things going on. This board is charged under its bylaws to proceed with its own hearings. They don't have to interfere with what the Superior Court has done. Superior Court does not usurp the functions of this board. And the board should proceed to take care of these very serious charges and allegations now without further delay.

Thank you.

MR. KOHUT: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mayor, Andy Kohut of Wells, Jaworski and Liebman on behalf of The Dayton Ridgewood LLC and Two-Forty Associates. And I will be brief, MR. TUVEL pretty much covered everything that was included in my -- in our correspondence to the board dated September 30, 2016. I do strongly agree that once an appeal has been filed, this board is divested of jurisdiction over the matter, whether it's -- whether a new party is now coming in and raising other claims, the bottom line is the board, under case law, both Cramer (phonetic) and Tashini (phonetic) which was cited in my letter, a board is divested of jurisdiction when an appeal is filed, no matter what their bylaws. No matter what their bylaws state. The other thing I would point out is with regard to notice, in accordance with your bylaws as cited by the motion, I think it's Section 7.21, not only is notice required for the rehearing, notice is required also for the consideration of the motion. If the board were to consider this motion on today's date, I don't believe any notice was sent out with regard to considering the motion. So as far as a procedural issue, which was also cited in our letter brief, we believe that proper notice needs to be served by the movant of the motion.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.

Anyone else?

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chair, just some points for the record. In terms of the submission to the board, that's a motion it's not a complaint. I believe one of the members of the public referred to it as a complaint. I believe another member of the public referenced that the volunteer board was being paid. My understanding that there all volunteers. I am being paid. My client is the Planning Board. The Planning Board represents all of the citizens and residents of Ridgewood. And that is a concern that they're charged with and their duties. In terms of one of the Counsel, I believe there was a statement as to going forward at the peril of their client or developer or the applicant. The board also could go forward in its peril in terms of the volunteer hours and Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 10

time and for the professionals that are being paid on this issue. So, these issues are important issues and they should be discussed at this time with public input. There's numerous, numerous legal concerns that I have as to many, many doctrines, laws, cases, present and prior, that question and enabling -- under amended laws enabling this board to have any jurisdiction whatsoever. And that's something that we need to discuss, you know at a time when the board wants to review it.

Mr. Chair, if there is any discussion before public by the board I believe this would be the time.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Anyone else from the public who wants to speak?

(No response.)

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Chris, I'm hoping you can elaborate on that a little bit just as an example, okay. And this is a theoretical example, supposing we went forward with the issues as it relates to the conflicts of interest being that there's -- we had public hearing on that, where would that put us as it relates to legal footing? And whether we have the right to do that or whether it would hurt anything moving forward on either side of the -- of this argument. So, could you help me understand that a little bit?

MR. MARTIN: Sure. Under prior and present litigation, conflicts that are raised by the public, you know whether they're substantively viable or not I don't know and I'm not commenting on. But they have been and are in the Superior Court. So, with that, under the jurisdictional and the entire controversy, those items should be considered in the Superior Court. In terms of injunctive relief, if what I just said about the volunteer board and the board and the residents having to pay professionals and, you know, other costs related to the hearings, that's a concern. Can the board injunctively stop something? The answer is they do not have jurisdiction to do so. So that's the second concern. The third concern is that the bylaws are no more than guidelines and they're not laws. And they're not supported by anything more than what they're enabled by, and that's the Municipal Land Use Law, which preempts anything that is inconsistent with the statute, itself. So much so that if individuals out in the public want to get to the bottom of potential conflicts, and feel they have a right to do that and may very well have that. How are we going to have a hearing that holds any muster anywhere if they can't formally bring people in, and drag them in by subpoena and say, wait a minute, I need you to testify what did you say? What did you do? When did you do it? I need five other people that said I heard differently than what you're testifying under oath. How are you going to get those people? So, unfortunately, this board isn't built like that. It's not supposed to do things that are requested under the non-complaint motion. And all though I understand that there are significant issues, it just doesn't have the jurisdiction, the statutory power or the overall controversial issues to get the relief that the citizens are seeking, whether they're rights or wrong.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, what you're saying is if we went down that path it would be a mistake. Is that what you're saying?

MR. MARTIN: It wouldn't have any footing, if the residents found something that is substantively strong enough to do something, the board doesn't have the power to take advantage of that in their favor or if there's no issue the interested party that are before the board have no remedy as to why were things held up. So, it's a very dangerous aspect. There's actually no risk tonight. There's actually a board that deals local governmental conflicts, this is not it. So, I happen -- I think it was MR. SLOMIN, I happen to agree that the public should be heard, but it needs to be in the proper from for the redress that they're seeking. And if they're right, they can't get it through here. If they're wrong, then there's exposure to numerous different issues that I think would cost the Village. And that's not what I would be looking to have done.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Did you want a couple of minutes?

MR. SLOMIN: Briefly.

Thank you for hearing the public tonight, this is fantastic.

However, you know we'll continue to have comment, as we go through this, Dave Slomin, 36 Heights Road.

I am not -- was not a signer of this motion or letter or complaint. I have read it. I share concerns that are contained in it. I have shared those concerns since -- for a long time and I you know, after reading it, I Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 11

support it. Part of the reason is, you know, going back in this process that they have complained of, the residents felt that they were so many denied rights here, especially that setting of the proper process. And what we're talking about here, a couple of the attorneys for the applicants have said -- mentioned Land Use Law and well they quoted Land Use Law and setting a rehearing. Nobody at this point is asking for a rehearing of the applicants -- of the ordinance. At this point, what I read in the letter, was a request to, under the bylaws -- specific elements of the bylaws, sections of the bylaws, to be heard and to investigate some issues with the process that happened. We had conflicts of interest. We have some material mistakes that were made that influenced this process, and thus created a defective process by which some huge decisions in our town were made. And I think we need to look at that going forward because if that's allowed to stand, we've now set a horrible precedent for Ridgewood that says, all right, if you get the right people in here possibly, if that's what happened -- and I don't know that happened, but if you able to do that or influence those -- or people who are on various boards had conflicts, well then that's how you get business done here. And I think we need to tell the world that that's not what Ridgewood is about. And I know I've been part and parcel of this process exactly for that reason, because I don't think that's what Ridgewood is about. And I think what it is about is what's going on right now, us talking about it, us being open about it. And I think we need to look at what some of those allegations were. And if there's nothing there, well, then that's great too. If they do find that there were issues of conflict or material mistake under those, at point we do look for a rehearing. And then that's what the legal aspects -- but I also feel that the letter, if it's called a motion or a complaint that those residents have made is wholly separate from the RCRD. I am not a part of that letter. I am proudly a part of RCRD. And to best my knowledge the appeal is against the Village Council. The actions taken by the Village Council. I don't think any part of that right now engages in the Planning Board, except if there is, I don't know an injunction or something that is what it is.

MR. MATTESSICH: Just, yeah.

MR. SCHULMAN: So, it's against different entity. In any case, I will just leave that at that. But I do believe that they are separate issues and should be treated as such; so, thank you.

MR. MARTIN: Just in terms of MR. SLOMIN said something about going forward. That's actually a different mechanism and I believe that's also on the agenda tonight.

So, there's different things that need to be addressed individually.

MR. MATTESSICH, if there's no action against the Planning Board I'll take a stipulation right now.

MR. MATTESSICH: No, there's there's --

MR. MARTIN: I am fine with that. I think it helps the board.

MR. MATTESSICH: I think what he was saying is that -- that complaint as it's geared against the Planning Board is only for an injunction. And Ms. Price has filed a motion to dismiss. I don't know, if you're going drop that, because I think it's improper. What we're asking for at the end of the day is that there's a ruling against the Village as to the ordinances. Of course, the Planning Board is not going to be able to go forward. We may at some point, maybe at that point we assume file a motion for a temporary restraining order that will prevent you from going further. At this time, though, there's nothing in our complaint that per se stops you from going further. You're on notice that what you're doing is incorrect because these ordinances were passed incorrectly. You're on notice from what the citizens have said that you shouldn't go forward, because it there were severe conflicts up through a week ago with respect to the involvement of Mr. Thurston. You're on notice that the conflicts that were created by Mr. Pucciarelli and Mr. Aronsohn permeated the entire process. And you shouldn't go forward on that basis. And so, I think what we're trying to say is -- and it's inline, Chris, with what you're saying, don't waste the money on the wrong fights. Right now, you know this was the Price Meese approach, it was to squelch the citizens' complaint and to go after them, file the motion to dismiss. I think that was wrong. I think that was a waste of time. I think you all are going to lose that motion. I think the developers are going to lose their motion against us as well. I think time would be better spent trying to move forward collectively. And that's why, in fact, we reached out to the Village Council attorney to see if, you know, there was some way to reach a settlement of some of these issues, if that's possible. If it's not then, fine, we'll go Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 12

ahead and litigate. But, you know, to answer your question, no, I think there's been a misunderstanding as to what the lawsuit was against the Planning Board. I know you just have gotten into that. If, in fact, the Planning Board were to win the motion next week, the lawsuit against the Village still goes forward. So, again, in that sense it was a complete waste of money and time. We could win the lawsuit against the Village. Then come back against Planning Board and get an injunction and, of course, we'd get it at that point in time. So, you know we do need to straighten these things out. There's been a lot of development over the last several years. There has been a lot of, you know, I've sat here for the wrong decision, for the wrong pronouncement of the wrong decision, and these have been brought up to the board time and time again by myself and other, you know, much more qualified attorneys, who have pointed out these conflicts and have pointed out these problems with you time and time again. I said what was wrong with this whole process. And I guess what we're trying to do is stop the farce from going forward with these applications at this point this time and move the Village forward. So, that's what we're asking.

MR. MARTIN: Well, I enjoyed speaking with you today and to continue our dialogue to try to get it right. And a win for me, would be trying to do what is best for my clients, as well as what's best for the citizens.

MR. MATTESSICH: No, we totally agree.

MR. MARTIN: That's what we're looking for.

MR. MATTESSICH: Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I am going to close the comment on the motion issue. Next item is letter and resolution from Village Council for reexamination of Master Plan. Fellow Board Members, we received a letter dated September 22, 2016 from the Village Clerk with a resolution for a request for the Planning Board to reexamine the Master Plan and work more particularly Ordinances 3489 through 3492 and to examine the issues with respect to density parking and other considerations. I guess, did you want to fill in anything on that Mayor, or, COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, what I'll just say is that COUNCILMAN VOIGT had worked diligently on this and we had a very spirited discussion with Council colleagues and the Council was unanimously supportive by resolution. We adopted a resolution to move forward with this. So, Council is very supportive of COUNCILMAN VOIGT's efforts and we would like to see this happen.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Is there a possibility of at least polling the board that we could move forward on this or we're not there?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Let's run down that line and take some comments --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: -- and then if there's a motion on it then proceed like that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Can the rest of the board see the letter?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I have a copy.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: While everybody is looking at it, do you want Jeff to just read it?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It's very short.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: It is short.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: No, I'm done. I -- my inclination or my hope is that we would be able to at least decide tonight whether we want to move forward with this or not and hence then somehow move forward.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. But, Dave, do you have any comments.

: I don't have any comments.

Melanie, do you have any comments?

MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm seeing this for the very first time right now. So, no, as of now.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Joel, do you have a comment?

MR. TORIELLI: Do you want us to -- I'm going to read the letter.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I'll start with my comment. I believe as the Planning Board we can continually reexamine any time. And we should be and doing it continuously for it. So, I do not have a problem with that. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 13

So, I think we got some direction from Village Council, we're receptive and our job is to redo the Master Plan and keep reexamining it and see if there could be improvements or other corrections. And I'm all for that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you, Richard.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Just another quick question, was a copy of that e-mailed to everyone? I forget?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It was. It was, yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie, you're fine with that?

MS. McWILLIAMS: I don't have any comment right now.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Debbie?

MS. PATIRE: No comments.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella?

MS. ALTANO: I have no comments.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

MR. TORIELLI: I think we should constantly be looking to improve and elevate. And I support definitely having an open discussion about it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Do we hear a motion on this?

MR. MARTIN: From a legal perspective it will be a reexamination of the Master Plan overall, not just limited areas, because they're all integrated.

And if that's the case then the board should move forward to decide whether they're going to have a hearing.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So, we just need a motion?

So, I would make a motion, actually, that the Planning Board moves forward on the Village Council's referral letter requesting a reevaluation amendment to the Master Plan.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I second.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Just a question, should it say "reexamination" instead of reevaluation?

MR. MARTIN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That would be the correct term of art? I know I did say reevaluation and --

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, do you want me to amend my motion to say "reexamination"?

So amended.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, a Master Plan review to reexamine the Master Plan.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: To the entire Master Plan, not just the amendments to the Master Plan.

MR. MARTIN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: To reexamine the Master Plan.

MR. MARTIN: As it fits together with everything and as certain areas that need to be amended they -- they are addressed. It has to be an examination of the entire Master Plan.

The next thing is that where does that --

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Chris, I'm sorry -- -

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mic please.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mic please.

MR. MARTIN: Oh, I'm sorry.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't hear you.

MR. MARTIN: I'm pretty good on the ball field.

It needs to be a reexamination of the Master Plan overall, not just bits and pieces. So i is all and then any amendments deemed appropriate would go up to the Village governing body. I would recommend to the Chair that the motion and any second of the motion be done not by people who are not going to vote on the process, because they have to get it after the amendments are sent up. So, that would be something I ask the Chair to consider a new motion.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Do you want to withdraw your motion?

MR. MARTIN: We don't want to do it incorrectly.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I withdraw my motion. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 14

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone want to make the motion on this?

MR. TORIELLI: I make a motion that the Planning Board reexamine the Master Plan.

MS. ALTANO: Second.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. So, the motion's been made by Joel and seconded by Isabella to move forward with the reexamination of the Master Plan.

Any further discussions?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing there's nothing.

Michael, call the roll for a vote.

MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

(No response.)

MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. I'm just thinking here for a moment.

MR. CAFARELLI: Okay.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I am going to abstain.

MR. MARTIN: You will get to see it again.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.

MR. CAFARELLI: MR. SCHEIBNER?

MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes.

MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Voigt?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Abstain.

MR. CAFARELLI: MR. TORIELLI?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Yes.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE?

MS. PATIRE: Yes.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. ALTANO?

MS. ALTANO: Yes.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. McWILLIAMS?

MS. McWILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

Okay. The motion is carried and approved to reexamine the Master Plan. And, I guess, there'll be scheduling issues we'll have to do it when we have time for that, so, that's approved.

MR. MARTIN: And, Mr. Chair, just generally there has to be proper notice to joint municipalities, neighboring municipalities, newspaper, County Planning Board, you've all been through this before.

And then the hearing will be set. And then there has to be proper preparation by professionals that need to review it also.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right, thank you.

All right. The next item is KS Broad Street, preliminary and final major site plan, 80-7 Chestnut Street and 25-27 and 4-17 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

MR. TUVEL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again for the record Jason Tuvel from Prime Law, attorney for the applicant.

Before we get started, I just want to make sure that the board secretary has my original affidavit of service and publication, so I'll just submit that up so you have it for the file.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

Okay, I just want to make one comment before we start --

MR. TUVEL: Sure.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: -- just for anyone that's unfamiliar with the -- the hearing process for the Planning Board, Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 15

you can check on line, there has been previous meetings where I have given an outline of the hearing process. So, if you're unsure on anything, you can wither check online, and they'll be a brochure there which indicates what the public hearing procedure is. Okay.

MR. TUVEL: Thank you.

MR. MARTIN: MR. TUVEL, just a quick housekeeping item.

MR. TUVEL: Sure.

MR. MARTIN: One, I believe I saw a copy of the substitution, but you have substituted and you have provided that to the --

MR. TUVEL: Yes, what I did was I sent an e-mail to the board secretary advising that I was substituting as Counsel for the applicant; that's correct.

MR. MARTIN: And, number two, I was contacted just before the meeting by MR. JAHR.

MR. TUVEL: Yes.

MR. MARTIN: And I believe before we get rolling --

MR. TUVEL: Sure.

MR. MARTIN: -- he wanted to just approach the mic and have a statement made that relates to the commencement of this process.

MR. TUVEL: Sure. That's fine.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: MR. JAHR.

MR. JAHR: Good evening, John Jahr, traffic reviewer. It's good to see you all this evening.

Board, it has come to my attention, through discussions with the applicant's attorney and the board's attorney that there is a potential conflict of interest with my reviewing this application. Albeit, a questionable one, I think in the case -- in this case it would be best to err on the side of extreme caution. Therefore, I am asking the board to allow me step aside as the traffic reviewer for this application and allow the board to select another traffic consultant.

MR. MARTIN: MR. JAHR, I have not reviewed whether there is a conflict in the form of a legal opinion on that, however based upon your coming forth and your conscious, you believe to avoid any appearance it would be best for you to step away from this application?

MR. JAHR: I believe so, sir.

MR. MARTIN: In that regard, if you will, subject to the Chair and the board, obtain a person in your steed.

MR. JAHR: Indeed.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Thank you, MR. JAHR.

MR. JAHR: Thank you. Thank you, board.

MR. TUVEL: Thank you very much.

And, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, again before I get into the application, we weren't planning on getting to traffic engineering this evening anyway.

So, I'm sure the board will have enough time to retain a conflict traffic expert who can give an opinion in connection with this application. So, I think it will work out fine.

MR. MARTIN: And just for the edification of the public the escrow would be paying for that individual. So, that's not a board expense.

MR. TUVEL: Sure, it's part of the applicant's escrow for the project and it would be in the normal course to. That's correct.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

MR. TUVEL: So, again KS Broad Street, LLC, Block 2005; Lots 11 through 15, this is an application for a preliminary and final major site plan approval for a mixed-use development of the property in the B-3-R Zoning District. We propose 66 residential units, some of them being affordable, with retail space on the ground level, along with 150 parking spaces that are associated with the site. As the board is well aware, this property was rezoned as part of a Master Plan Amendment and subsequent rezoning, therefore, this application is tailored to the zoning requirements that are in effect right now. And because of that, we have a very clean application. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 16

So as a land use attorney, typically I have a multitude of variances in connection with my cases. Here, we are seeking hardly any relief in connection with this matter. So, what that means is we meet the requirements in terms of setbacks, coverages, floor area ratio, density, all the major or higher tier bulk standards that are typically associated with a site plan application. So what you'll hear from THE WITNESSes that are going to be testifying on behalf of the applicant, I'm sure we won't get to all of them this evening, but you'll hear about the architectural guidelines that we followed in connection with the ordinance and the Master Plan Amendment. The building will reflect the architectural guidelines that are set forth therein. That will deal with the roof, the facade, and the breakup of the building so it fits in with the character of the surrounding buildings, for which some of the inspiration was taken. There will also be some site amenities with both the public and residents of the building in connection with the application. And that's part of your ordinance. And we'll get into that when we talks about the building. And some of the further highlights of the site plan are a reduction in impervious coverage from what's there now. An overall beautification of the area, obviously the site is in dire need of a facelift. There's no question about that. There will be new curbing, new sidewalk constructed along all frontages of the site. And that's important because right now the access to the property especially along Franklin, is kind of open-ended with no specific curb cuts directing traffic in any efficient and safe manner. And that's all going to be cleaned up as part of this application. And in addition to that, as I mentioned before, we will be providing the required number of an affordable housing units, that will mixed and scattered throughout the building. Just by way of an update, we did file with the ancillary agencies that have jurisdiction over this application, that would be the Bergen County Planning Board, Soil Conservation District and obviously, we are subject to their review and approval as well. This evening I plan to -- well, in connection with the application I plan on calling four witnesses total. I don't know if we'll get to all of them this evening, but I'll just state who they are. So, we have Dave Nicholson from SBLM Architects who's the project architect. Mike Gallagher from Maser Consulting who will be our site engineer. Eric Keller from Omland will be our traffic engineer. And Joe Burgis from Burgis Associates will be -- what I call -- the clean up area, the professional planner, who will go last in connection with the application. So, unless there's any procedural questions for me from that Chairman or from counsel, I would respectfully ask the board for permission to call my first witness.

MR. MARTIN: Just a procedural issue, if there's going to any kind of amended notice probably should just call the architect tonight is that how -- okay.

MR. TUVEL: Yes, I mean I did receive MR. BRANCHEAU's review letter late this evening. There were some additional -- there were some variances noted in MR. BRANCHEAU's letter. Rather than discussing them this evening, I prefer to discuss them with Blais offline to discuss whether or not we agree with them or not, we can get -- we can discuss them at the next hearing, but I think in an abundance of caution, what I would like to do is notice to for MR. BRANCHEAU's variances that he put in his letter, that way the public is on notice in the event we do need them. And everyone can see which ones we do need. We can provide site testimony in connection with that at the next hearing and they're all site related anyway.

MR. MARTIN: Okay.

MR. TUVEL: Sure.

So first witness I would like to call is David Nicholson who will be our project architect.

MR. MARTIN: If you raise your right hand to be sworn in please.

MR. TUVEL: Do you prefer we use the microphone?

MR. MARTIN: Only because the public should be able to see the application maybe turn the easel maybe over here (indicating).

Is there a free mic there?

MR. CAFARELLI: There's a hand microphone.

MR. TUVEL: Where is that?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Right there by Blais.

MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Nicholson, do you have a card.

MR. NICHOLSON: Yes, I do. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 17

MR. CAFARELLI: Please give me one.

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Nicholson, please raise your right hand.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. NICHOLSON: I do.

D A V I D N I C H O L S O N, 545 West 45th Street, New York, New York, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

MR. MARTIN: Please state your full name and your business address.

MR. NICHOLSON: David Nicholson, SBLM Architects, 545 West 45th Street in New York City.

MR. MARTIN: Voir dire?

MR. TUVEL: Thank you, Counsel.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. Mr. Nicholson if could you provide the board with the benefit of your educational background, licenses held, work experience and experience testifying before similar planning boards and zoning boards throughout the State of New Jersey?

A. Certainly, I was awarded a Bachelor of Architecture from Syracuse University in 1976.

I was initially licensed in the State of New York as a Registered Architect in 1981. I was subsequently licensed in the State of New Jersey in 2001. Currently hold licenses to practice architecture in 14 states, including New Jersey. My license here is active and current. I have appeared before many boards in New Jersey. Most recently Evesham Township, Jersey City, and Metuchen. Two of those relative to mixed-use projects like this one. Q. And you have experience in connection with mixed-use projects like this, correct? A. Over the last 40 years, across the country, several mixed-use projects, many similar to this.

MR. TUVEL: I would respectfully ask the board that they accept Mr. Nicholson as an expert in architecture.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Nicholson?

(No response.)

MR. MARTIN: Your license is in good standing in all 14 states?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

MR. MARTIN: Have you ever been suspended or anything like that?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. MARTIN: I would recommend to the board that he be deemed qualified to testify in architecture.

MR. TUVEL: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. TUVEL: Thank you, very much.

BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. Mr. Nicholson, in connection with this application let me just ask you a few quick questions relating to your preparation.

Have you visited the site and the surrounding area?

A. I have.

Have you inspected the structures that are currently on the property?

A. I have.

Q. Have you reviewed all the application materials, specifically to site plan and survey?

A. I have.

Q. Have you reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan for the Village of Ridgewood?

A. I have.

Q. Let's start by first doing an overview of the site in terms of existing conditions.

MR. TUVEL: So let's, I guess, mark our first exhibit which will be an aerial of the property and the surrounding areas.

THE WITNESS: A-1. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 18

(Whereupon, Aerial Photograph is marked as Exhibit A-1 for identification.)

MR. TUVEL: Okay. So, Counsel, we'll mark that as A-1 that will be the aerial of the site?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, and adjust it, so I know it helps the board --

MR. TUVEL: Yes, can everybody see it?

THE WITNESS: Turn it more?

Michael, can you hear me?

MR. CAFARELLI: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. TUVEL: Can everybody see it. BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. Okay. So, we're going to mark that A-1, David. And this exhibit was prepared by your office, under your supervision, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

A. It is entitled "Area Map" and it is an aerial view of the central portion of Ridgewood. In the darker shade is showing the Ridgewood Village Central Business District as was defined by the Historic Preservation Commission when the district was first established (indicating). And in red is our project location. You can see that it is in the northwest corner of the Central Business District at the critical junction of North Broad Street and Franklin Avenue, just as Franklin Avenue plunges underneath the railroad tracks (indicating). Its neighbors are the New Jersey Transit Railroad to the west, the Bergen Health -- West Bergen Health -- Mental Health facility to the north. And several commercial properties to the east (indicating). To the south, across Franklin Avenue, other commercial buildings (indicating). So, it is surrounded by commercial properties on all sides.

Q. And what is currently on the physical property, itself?

A. It is currently occupied by a building that for 62 years was Ken Smith Motors, an automobile dealership, here in Ridgewood. They closed in 2012. After that closure it was vacant for some time. It's currently occupied by a seasonal furniture business and the parking lot is used as the commercial parking lot.

Q. Okay. You Have reviewed the Master Plan in connection with this application and can you just give -- you're not testifying as a planner, but from an architectural standpoint what guidelines, specifically, came out at you?

A. Well, the Master Plan for many years has talked about the transformation of Franklin Avenue from something that was very automotive related, as you all know there are several thriving banks, there's a gas station. There were, at one time, several gas stations. As the Master Plan had always talked about transforming Franklin Avenue, through policies of the Planning Board in the Village, to be more like Ridgewood Avenue. And over time some ordinances have been adopted to promote that, some other things have happened along the way that have converted automotive buildings to other uses. Ben & Jerry's, of course, one of my favorites. And so, this project, when we looked at it, we initially thought, well, this is an opportunity to actually change a big, physical piece of Franklin Avenue and foster the goals of that Master Plan.

Q. Okay. And in connection with your preparation for this application, did you look at other buildings and structures within the Village of Ridgewood that facilitated your design of the proposed building?

A. Well, specifically the B-3-R Zone requires the architecture of this development to respond to the historic buildings of the Village of Ridgewood downtown. So, we took a very close look at several buildings downtown that we thought were good examples of large buildings the Village already has, and we also consulted with the manual that was written by the Historic Preservation Commission for new buildings within the historic district, because we thought that was a really good reference for us to use in creating a design for this project. So, some of the things that we looked at, so specifically --

Q. So, let's, David, before you start discussing that exhibit, let's mark that as A-2.

(Whereupon, Architectural Reference Board containing Two Photographs is marked as Exhibit A-2 for identification.) BY MR. TUVEL: Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 19

Q. And just describe to the board and for the record and to the public what that exhibit is and just confirm that, again, it was prepared by you, by your office, under your supervision?

A. It was prepared by my office under my supervision. This board entitled "Architectural References" contains two photographs of the existing building here in the center (indicating), which you can see is a fairly nondescript 1940s building.

And around it what we thought some of the most -- more significant buildings in downtown and ones from which we drew specific reference.

Q. And, David, just again, I don't want to break the rhythm, but I am just trying to -- that's an accurate depiction of what those buildings look like today; is that correct?

A. They are direct photographs.

Q. Great. Thank you very much.

A. We have the Archibald-Vroom House, which is one of the few houses on Main -- buildings on Main Street that started its life as a residence (indicating).

We have the Wilsey Building at the corner of Broad and Ridgewood Avenue (indicating).

We have the Ridgewood Education Center, the original elementary school for the Village (indicating).

We have the Moore Building which is -- I always think of it as opposite the Catholic Church (indicating).

The Ridgewood Train Station and the HSBC Building on Main Street (indicating).

Q. What are some of the attributes of those buildings that stood out to you in connection of your design of the proposal?

A. Well, not only attributes of these buildings, but things that the Historic Perseveration Commission had noted as really the significant pieces of these buildings that contributed to the architecture of downtown Ridgewood.

And if you please give me a moment.

Q. Sure.

A. The roof shape the Wilsey Building, for example, marking the very significant corner with the tower element. The same thing happens on the Moore Building (indicating), that the emphasize on the corner. The roof shape, sloped gables, pitched roofs, steeples. In other words not a straight line. Even a building that has a flat roof, the HSBC building, has a varied parapet wall. Street wall continuity. And this is a big topic for conversation in the historic preservation documents. And an important topic for -- for the Master Plan. And that is that Ridgewood Avenue has a streetscape. It is an urban environment. It's framed on two sides by building walls; not parking lots, not landscaped parking lot, but buildings. And so that was a key element when we looked at our project as well, creating some kind of street wall on Franklin Avenue. Cornices and pediments, of course classical architectural elements that you see in all these buildings (indicating). The Ridgewood Education Center has several tiers of cornice, as does the Ridgewood Train Center (indicating). Windows, you can see that windows in historic buildings, now on the Moore Building, unfortunately that's a modern store window. They have patterns of muntins and mullions that break the glass up into smaller pieces. And that's an important part of an historic building, particularly the kind that are present here in Ridgewood. So, we wanted our windows to reflect the kind of proportion that -- that you find in historic windows. And then the proportion of facades. So we wanted to be very careful to create proportion and a facade that has a base. That is to say when a corner element comes down to the ground it carries all the way through, in a pilaster or a structural element. So, visually, the building is anchored on the ground. Some modern buildings you find there's no anchor. The roof seems to float on glass or there's an asymmetry that is contrary to what historic architecture is all about. The last two items relate to signage and awnings. The Historic Preservation Commission talks about signage integrated into the architecture. Having a place on the architecture, rather than being slapped on a building facade in any old, random fashion. And they promoted the use of awnings and, of course, there are great examples up and down Ridgewood Avenue of commercial awnings. And it creates at wonderful pedestrian experience up and down Ridgewood Avenue. So those are the things that we took from the historic buildings in Ridgewood to -- to heart. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 20

Q. Right. And this will be a softball-type question, but does the current building have any of these architectural features that you mentioned?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Let's talk about the site, itself, and some of the features and conditions of the site that were important in connection with your design of the building.

A. For that question I would like to put up our civil engineer's site plan.

MR. TUVEL: So let's mark that as A-3.

(Whereupon, Colorized Site Plan with Landscaping Plan Superimposed prepared by the Civil Engineer is received and marked as Exhibit A-3.)

BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. So, this is just a colorized version of the site plan with the landscaping plan superimposed; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right.

A. And --

MR. MARTIN: For the record that's Maser's plan.

MR. TUVEL: Correct. That was submitted in connection with the application. And all it is, is a colorized version. Our site engineer can authenticate that as well.

THE WITNESS: I have oriented this site plan in the same manner that my architectural plans are oriented, so later on you can make the connection. BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. So, David, would you just let the board know which direction is at the top of that plan versus everywhere else?

A. North is pointing up. Franklin Avenue is along the bottom of the sheet. Chestnut Street is along the right-hand side. The railroad right-of-way is along the left (indicating).

Q. Thank you.

A. So the first thing you notice about the site is that it's L-shaped. And most of it's lot area is actually well to the rear, to the north of the site, and relatively narrow. You'll also notice and you know from your experience that there are only two places to get into this site. One is at the signalized intersection of Broad and Franklin. And the other is somewhere along Chestnut Street (indicating). Well, traffic engineers and the Village were quick the point out that the Chestnut driveway needed to be as far away from the intersection of Chestnut and Franklin as possible. So when we started to consider how this site might be organized, we had a couple of problems that we needed to be addressed. One was we had a very narrow piece of the lot that wasn't very suitable for a building. We had only two-points of vehicular entry. We had a setback required from Chestnut of 15 feet. And since Chestnut is a substandard street, according to Ridgewood rules, it only 40-feet wide instead of 50-feet wide, we had to setback another 5 feet for the eventuality of Ridgewood widening Franklin Avenue. So we had the narrowing front across Franklin Avenue. We had a 25-foot setback from the railroad. And, so -- and then on top of that, we had the desire to have a street wall and to create a streetscape along Franklin. And we came up with a solution where the building is an L-shape. It fronts on the two streets Franklin and Chestnut. Access to the rear parking is at a signalized intersection and as far up Chestnut as we could possibly get it. And in order to fit the development our driveways pass through the building. You'll see that later on when I talk about the floor plans and the elevations. This has several benefits. The primary one being that the parking is now concealed from the public streets, which was a goal of the ordinance. And the second is that we end up with a very efficient building shape.

Q. So, from what you're telling me and you're telling the board, is that the shape of the property, along with obviously the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, dictated a significant amount of your design in connection with the building?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 21

A. At this point I would like to put up my first floor plan and talk about the project in detail.

Q. Let's do that.

A. I'll put this over here (indicating).

What I am putting up now is a colorized version the architectural floor plans that were included in our application.

Q. This is A-4, once again, prepared by your office, correct?

A. Yes, it is indeed. (Whereupon, Colorized Architectural Floor Plans are marked as Exhibit A-4 for identification.) BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. And this is a colorized version of the floor plans that were submitted to the board superimposed on the site plan.

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

A. We've shown the site plan, because I do want to talk about some operational issues as I present you this plan. Basically, this is a five-story building. Its largest footprint is 24,000 square feet plus or minus. It has a 240-foot frontage on Franklin Avenue, taking in account the Chestnut Street setback and the railroad setback that I spoke about before. And 178-foot frontage on Chestnut.That is property corner to property corner. We have, in this buildings, 66 apartments proposed. That is five apartments fewer than permitted by the ordinance. So, we have less density according to the code. And 15 percent of those apartments or ten, will be affordable. And the mix of the affordable units is also dictated by code, we'll have two 3-bedroom apartments, fewer 1-bedrooms and the majority 2s. The mix throughout the entire building, including the affordable apartments, is 23 1-bedrooms, 41 2-bedrooms and two 3-bedrooms. Our floor area ratio is 1.18, where 1.45 is permitted by the ordinance. We have 150 parking spaces provided, including five handicap spots that are located along the building and underneath the building (indicating). I would like to point out that not only do the driveways pass through the building to get to the rear parking lot, but the building overhangs the parking in the rear. This provided several things. It provided several parking spaces that are sheltered. It also provided retail spaces that we think are a more suitable depth.

Q. And, David, the handicap spaces are sheltered as well, correct?

A. That is correct. And some other ones as well.

Q. Okay.

A. The building overall on the Franklin Avenue arm is 70-feet deep. The retail is only 50-feet deep. The 50-feet, we felt a more suitable depth for retail space in this location.

We comply with the ordinance with respect to parking. And I'm sure our civil engineer and traffic engineer will talk more about that later, with 22 provide for the retail and the balance provided for the residents. We plan on marking most of the -- marking the residential parking spaces "for resident use only", with the ones closest to the building reserved for visitors and customers of the retailers.

Q. So, I know that a traffic engineer will get into thi, and the site engineer in more detail, but there are certain spaces that will be reserved for resident marking, but the rest will be a mixture of basically on a first-come-first-serve basis; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And could you just set forth, I'm sorry, David, the exact square footage of the retail space?

A. Well, the retail space is 5,500 square feet.

Q. Okay.

A. We're currently showing it as two different spaces, but that is, at this point, conjecture. There are no tenants selected by our client. The building has not been marketed yet to perspective tenants. It could be one. It could be five. But the square footage is 5,500 in total.

Q. And the retail use, as permitted by ordinance, and the square footage will not change?

A. That's correct. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 22

Q. Okay.

A. The retail is along Franklin. And it turns the corner on Chestnut. But we consider the corner retail the most significant retail space.

And, you know, it fronts the other retail on the opposite side of the intersection.

The western most space on the ground level is an amenity space for the residents. We see that as a combination of storage, community room, and amenity like that (indicating).

The utility services are located at the very western end (indicating). There is no basement in this building proposed. And a retail trash room is located also at the western end, facing the rear (indicating). The other block on the western end is an egress stair. The Chestnut wing is occupied by the residential entry. Apartment dwellers can approach the building from either Chestnut or the parking lot, with the elevators to the five floors located at the intersection of the two wings. The residential mail room and package room and another community space on the Chestnut Avenue side (indicating). And a residential trash room also accessed from the parking lot side of the building. Q. Did you design both the retail and the residential trash rooms to certain specifications? And could you just describe them with just a little bit more detail?

A. We did. This room, the retail trash room will accommodate several rolling containers for trash. The scenario that we have anticipated is that the commercial tenants will bring their trash to this room as they generate it. There will be several containers. One for recycling, one for garbage. We anticipate, given the area of the retail an average generation of trash by retailers, that there will two commercial pickups a week, for their trash. The trash containers will be roll out. This sidewalk has the dropped curb to accommodate the handicap spaces. So that drop curb will also serve as the pathway for the traffic containers to the truck. Our client anticipates this to be a commercial cartage company with pickups occurring in the early morning as they usually -- as they usually do. Residential trash is handled by a chute that will serve all floors of the building. And it will lead to a combination compactor and recycling sorter. A very ingenious device that we've been using on projects for a couple of years now, where you're a resident and you approach the trash chute, you select whether you're throwing away a recyclable or a piece of garbage. And the system, when the stuff reaches the bottom, uses an arm to dump the trash in the appropriate bin. It's very, very clever. And it locks out everybody else. So, nobody inadvertently adds trash to the recycling bin. Residences of this kind generate about 1 1/5 cubic yards of trash a week. But it's going to be compacted. These compaction devices give you about 4-to-1 compaction ratio. So, this room will accommodate also several rolling containers. And we anticipate one residential trash pick up per week.

Q. So, in total, we have two trash pick ups with recycling for the retail. And one for the residential, for a total of three per week?

A. That is correct.

Q. And that would occur likely during off-peak hours as to not conflict with the retail spaces?

A. As anyone who lives close to a commercial property knows, commercial cartage companies love to come out early in the morning before the traffic comes out.

Q. Okay.

A. I mentioned the mail room and the second means of egress is in the -- is in the northern part of the Franklin wing (indicating). The residential buildings is going to be secured with an electronic lock system. Their residences will be given either cards or fobs to access the doors. And the building will also be equipped with what's called a Virtual Doorman which is a video/intercom interface with a central office that provides doormen functions for the building. There will be a management person on site during the day. That management person will be responsible for policing the parking lot, maintaining the landscaping, making sure that everything stays in the condition that we give it to them when we finish constructing the building. Obviously, there's a concern that a parking lot this close to the railroad station might be used by -- might be used illegally by commuters and one of his jobs, of course, will be to make sure that that doesn't happen. We anticipate that -- and like in many commercial parking lots the retail parking will be limited to 2-hour durations. And the residents' cars will be stickers, so the management personnel will know which cars belong to the Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 23

residents. If you don't have any other questions, I'd like the move up to the second floor.

Q. Surprisingly you've covered everything. You left me speechless with questions on the first floor.

MR. TUVEL: So, the next exhibit that you're going to use, we'll mark as A-5.

THE WITNESS: A-5, this is a second floor plan as you noted this is a colorized version of the plans that were submitted with our application. (Whereupon, Colorized Architectural Second Floor Plan is marked as Exhibit A-5 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: This floor contains 13 apartments. It is smaller than the other floors. It's footprint is identical to that of the first floor, except for that vehicular overhang that I spoke of before. And that's because as you can see that the vehicular passages come through the building are double height (indicating). That is to make sure that we provide suitable access to the parking lot by fire apparatus, certainly, first and foremost. And then also delivery trucks. We'll have 14 feet, which is the highway clearance required for trucks. I'm sure our civil engineer will talk more about truck circulation later on. BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. Right. And they'll do that, but just in connection with your architectural design of those passageways, you did that then so that emergency vehicles such as fire trucks as well as deliveries could easily pass through with no issue, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

A. That's correct.

You can see the residential floors are organized quite conventionally. There's a center corridor, elevator as I mentioned before in the junction of the two wings, with egress stairs at the end of each wing. And the center also includes all of our riser locations, our electrical closets, our telephone closets and the trash room (indicating). You will also see on the inset on the upper left (indicating) that we've indicated which units we, at this point, anticipate to be the affordable units. In this design the affordable units are scattered throughout the building. They are not concentrated in any one spot, with the exception of the three bedrooms due to the unique layout, and they're located at the end on top of one another. One on the third floor, one on the fourth. The units, next I mentioned already, but that has been noted on our plan. We'd like to see how they're organizes per floor.

I would like to move up to the third floor now.

MR. TUVEL: So now we're up to A-6, correct?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

(Whereupon, Colorized Architectural)

Third Floor Plan is marked as Exhibit A-6 for identification.) (Whereupon, Colorized Architectural

Fourth Floor Plan Fourth Floor Plan is marked as Exhibit A-7 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: This is the third and fourth floor plan.

The third and fourth floors are identical.

BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. And again, A-5 and A-6 are just colorized version of what we submitted the board previously, right.

A. That is correct. Eighteen apartments on this typical floor. And organized like the one underneath.

You'll notice -- I'm sorry. I already mentioned that the affordable units are scattered throughout the floors. These two floors contain the 3-bedroom units (indicating). And then the fifth floor, we'll call this A-7. This is a colorized version of the floor plan submitted with our application. It was prepared by my office, under my supervision. So you didn't have to ask.

Q. There you go.

A. You'll notice that this floor is slightly smaller, that is because our top floor, over a large length, is equipped with a mansard roof. And I'll talk more about that later when I get to the elevations, but a mansard roof is also a common element downtown. And it is one of the architectural treatments that are mentioned in the ordinance to -- to mitigate the apparent height of the buildings built under this ordinance. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 24

This floor contains 17 apartments and a fitness center. This fitness center will also be card accessed. It will only be for the use of the residents. And then, lastly, I have the roof plan.

Q. David, before you get to the roof plan there is an ordinance requirement for amenity space within the building, do we comply with that ordinance requirement? And what is the square footage?

A. We do comply. And if bear with me here for a moment, I have -- I have the space. The ordinance requires two kinds of amenity spaces one interior and one exterior. We're providing 5,425 square feet of amenity space interior, where 2640 is required, almost twice as much. And I'm sorry I don't seem to have the exterior.

Q. Well, we could cover that with the site engineer. That's okay. I just was asking you specifically within the building.

A. And I seem to have misplaced my roof plan. My apologies. The roof plan was included in our application packet. The roof plan is not accessible to anyone other than maintenance personnel. It will house the elevator bulkheads, stair bulkhead as required by the New Jersey Construction Code. And all the HVAC equipment will be located centrally and then placed behind a screen. With that placement and the screen, we're confident that none of the air conditioning equipment will be seen from the public streets, that includes Chestnut, which has you know, climbs in elevation quite a bit as it proceeds north from the intersection with Franklin Avenue.

Q. So, again, no recreational activity on the roof?

A. None.

Q. Access for maintenance only?

A. That is correct. The door to the roof, although it's required by construction code to be operable in case of a fire, will be alarmed.

So, that Virtual Doorman will know if someone has opened the door and gone out on the roof.

Q. Okay. And we did talk about the Virtual Doorman, but there will be on-site security and cameras as well, right?

A. Virtual Doorman relies on video surveillance. So there will be cameras outside monitoring the exterior and on the interior monitoring the public spaces.

Q. Thank you.

A. There's a couple of other things I wanted to mention about the building. The size of the retail spaces suggests that the delivery of retail -- for retail on this site will be by box truck. After set up typically, FedEx and UPS. And we would anticipate given 5,500 square feet it will have three deliveries a day, which can be well accommodated by the circulation in the parking lot. Chris raised, in one of his letters, a concern about snow removal. You will note that there is some limited area for snowplows to stack snow at the very northerly end of the site, but we would anticipate on this -- in this location that if we have a really heavy snow like we've had in some years past, that the snow will be carted off, just as the Village had to do when we were overpowered by some of those storms a couple of winters ago. I do want to mention that obviously this building is going to be completely code not only with New Jersey construction code, but the Americans With Disabilities Act and the standards that have come down from that act. It will be sprinklered throughout to the commercial standard, not the residential standard, which we think is very important. It will incorporate sustainable technologies, high efficiency HVAC equipment, which is essentially a split system. One for each apartment. Low water consumption plumbing fixtures, this is actually a very important issue for Northern New Jersey and is recognized as a regional requirement by the United States GBC; the LEED organization. It will have a white roof. And we will also be very careful in selecting interior materials for indoor air-quality measures?

Q. And just very briefly, why is a white roof important or significant?

A. Well, a white roof reflects the energy of the sun, many times more than a black roof. And all sustainable architecture at this point is either white or green. But in making a choice between white and green, white is actually more energy efficient and in the long run has a better environmental benefit than the green.

Q. Ready for the elevations?

A. Well, should we talk about the cross section next?

Q. That's fine. So, I think we're up to A-8? Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 25

A. Correct.

(Whereupon, Colorized Architectural.

Cross-Section of Building is received and marked as Exhibit A-8 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: This is a cross section of the building. Again. A colorized version of the cross section which was included in our application packet. The residential floors are shown in the same beige color that they were shown on the floor plan. The blue is the retail space. The orangish or salmon color is the amenity space I spoke of. Yellow is utility or common space (indicating). The building is 50-feet tall, in compliance with the ordinance, as measured from the average grade. Our civil engineer has calculated average grade on this location to be elevation 128, which is relative to sea level. And our ground floor varies from that elevation both below and above it. So, depending on where you measure the building it is either slightly above or slightly less than 50 feet, but the way we calculated the height of the building is in full compliance with the Ridgewood Ordinance. The ordinance is very explicit about how to treat buildings in excess of 40 feet. And it calls for several things to happen at the 40-foot mark, which I'll discuss and demonstrate a little bit further when we get to the elevations, but at above 40 feet there has to be architectural elements to mitigate the effect of the height of the roof. I talked about the mansard roof, that is one of the techniques we used. The absolute cutoff is 50 feet. But the code also allows that a certain percentage of the facades of the building can be up 58 feet. And we have taken advantage of that to create some of those tower elements that I talked about earlier that we see in historic buildings downtown. So with that, why don't we go to the elevations.

Q. Sure.

David, just one more question before you go over that. You reviewed the property survey and grading plan to determine that the average grade was 128 before you designed the height of this building?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

A. Maser and SBLM worked actually tirelessly for many days to make sure that we had it right.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. We're up to A-9.

MR. TUVEL: Yes, A-9.

(Whereupon, Colorized Architectural Site Plan Elevations is marked as Exhibit A-9 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: This is a colorized version of the elevations that were included in our packet. There have been some slight adjustments made in the preparation of this exhibit that I can note, but they are very minor in nature. Like I said this is the south elevation, the Franklin elevation (indicating). On the left-hand side is the railroad tracks. On the right-hand side is Chestnut Street. And you can see both at the corner of Franklin and Chestnut here on the right-hand side (indicating) we've created the tower element to accentuate the corner, to accentuate not only the architecture of the building at that corner but also to accentuate the retail entrance, which at the corner includes an arched element that is unique to the other store fronts. We incorporated in this tower element some of those things that you see in the historic buildings downtown, cast stone quoins in the corners, symmetrical windows and a pediment top. The pediment is camped with the standing seam metal roof. We have, as we move to the west, a series of elevation breaks. The Historic Preservation Commission talked about the rhythm of downtown and how the historic fronts vary as you move down the street. And they encourage, when you have a building that was this long, to incorporate that design into yours. And we've done that. We've had varying widths, tower element, then a smaller element, another smaller element with a different material, a larger center element (indicating). And then again repeating the smaller elements until we get to, also a very significant piece of the elevation, which is the entry off of Broad (indicating). So, this will be the -- this tower element on the left-hand side of the elevation is what you'll see as you approach the building coming down Broad from Ridgewood Avenue (indicating). You see that the opening in a building, the passage to the parking lot is arched (indicating). You recall that's a common element used in the Ridgewood Education Center Building. This tower does not use the same materials as the eastern tower. This is cast stone and stucco. Again, with the pediment roof, but slightly different proportion, and also standing seam. The other parts of the elevation have a variety of materials: Stucco, Hardie Plank, wood siding material Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 26

and two different shades of brick (indicating). You'll note as I discussed the windows are six-over-six, very classic colonial window style and to accentuate certain parts of the elevation, to make certain sections unique, we've included what I'll call Juliette balconies, which is essentially a rail at the building face in front of a full height window or a French door (indicating). And then you'll see that for the predominant stretch of the elevation at the 40-foot mark, we've included a cornice. Again, an historic element that refers back to the buildings in the historic district and downtown, and a mansard roof. You'll see on the fifth floor those windows in the titled mansard roof are really small dormers, which is reflected in the fifth floor plan of being slightly smaller to account for the slope of that mansard roof. I do have a material board that I would like to bring out at this point. Bear with me. The material board --

MR. TUVEL: I think we should mark the exhibit [sic] board. Is that okay?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry?

MR. TUVEL: We'll mark the exhibit [sic] board. Even though it's not a typical plan, I still think it should be a part of the record.

MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry. What exhibit was that?

MR. TUVEL: I'm sorry. We're up to A-10.

(Whereupon, Material Board is marked as Exhibit A-10 for identification.)

MR. MARTIN: Just while your witness is getting A-10 together --

MR. TUVEL: And hopefully that doesn't collapse. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Yes, It's pretty heavy. These are the actual materials.

MR. MARTIN: I think the Chair was looking to break around 9:30; is there time to break now or --

MR. TUVEL: Yes, sure, whatever the board's preference. That's fine.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Let's break for like five minutes.

MR. TUVEL: That's fine thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess is taken.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Back on the record. Do you want to call the roll, Michael.

MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MR. SCHEIBNER?

MR. SCHEIBNER: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MR. TORIELLI?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE?

MS. PATIRE: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. ALTANO?

MS. ALTANO: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. McWILLIAMS?

MS. McWILLIAMS: Here.

MR. TUVEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back on the record. BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. Mr. Nicholson, let's go, I guess we were at the material board, you were going to describe the materials that are going to be used for the facade.

A. Yes, this is the material board.

Q. Oh, did we marked that one? That was going to be A-10, right?

A. We marked it A-10. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 27

Q. Thank you.

A. This material board was prepared by my office. In the center you'll see a proportion of the facade with references to the materials. And along each side those materials, starting at the top left, composite roof tile, basically it's synthetic slate tile. As I mentioned the material that you see frequently in the Village, particularly for mansard roofs. There are stucco, a yellowish color, that you see around the Village (indicating). And, I'm sorry, the specific reference escapes me for the moment. Cornices and lintels and out of the cast stone and stucco of a more beige color (indicating). Two kinds of brick one here on the right, one here on the left (indicating), all the way around. And that's, again, to accentuate that rhythm of different elevations as we mark down -- we've marked down the elevation. Store fronts and windows we see in a dark anodized aluminum with sun-guard glass, which is one of our high efficiency envelope sustainability objectives. Dark standing seam metal roof here on the right-hand side (indicating). The residential windows will have white frames. At the base of the building we use a cast stone, it's really a cast concrete architectural of block, to give the facade a lot of durability at the street level. Hardie Plank where we see certain portions of the building will be clad in this cementitious plank board. And various paint finishes that we use throughout, the darker one for the railing. The lighter one for certain accents on the facade. And, last but not least, here on the lower right the type of signage we envision for the building entrance, its address, and things like that. I should note that we did show on our elevations a place for the retail signage. So, I'm going to take the material board down for a minute and go back for the Franklin Avenue elevation. We did --

Q. Just what exhibit are you referring to, sorry to interrupt?

A. This is Exhibit A-9.

Q. Thanks.

A. We did provide in the elevation, a specific place for the retailer signs. This is something that Historic Commission has always been very adamant about, quite rightly. So, we've provided -- we've integrated that retail signage into our elevation. Signage is not part of our application formally. We did show, on our civil engineering drawings, what might be a typical sign, but we're not making any of the signage -- a part of the retail signage part of our application tonight. I would like to run through the other elevations of the building.

THE WITNESS: This will be A-11?

MR. TUVEL: Yes.

(Whereupon Chestnut Street Elevation is marked as Exhibit A-11 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: This is the Chestnut Street elevation (indicating). And -- and you can see that on this elevation we used the same elements organized in a slightly different way to create the same kind of variation that's called for in the ordinance. We do have a section of mansard roof on this elevation. We have a section of cornice. Sections of brick and stone and Hardie Plank. On the very right-hand side, you see the arched opening again reminiscent of the education center, that is the secondary entrance to the parking lot off of Franklin. I also brought with me elevations of the other sides of the building. The ordinance requires, and we have provided for the building to be designed on all four sides, in a compatible way.

THE WITNESS: This is A-12.

MR. TUVEL: Yes.

(Whereupon, West Elevation is marked as Exhibit A-12 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: This is the west elevations. And, again, so you're seeing now the other side of the Chestnut Street entrance. The windows up here (indicating) in the center and that's the exercise room for the residents. This is the tower element at the Broad Street entrance location (indicating). These are openings in here that you see on the lower right, are openings into that vehicular passage. And last, but not least, is the north elevation we'll mark this A-13. (Whereupon, North Elevation is marked as Exhibit A-13 for identification.) BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. And that's the side closer to the parking lot?

A. This is -- this is the face of the building looking from the north.

Q. Okay. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 28

A. So, you're seeing the other side of the Franklin Street elevation. On the right-hand side you'll see vehicular passage from the Broad Street intersection. And you see the sheltered parking here (indicating) in the center that I spoke of earlier. These are primarily the handicap spots, and a couple of other spots, for residents. And that brings me to the end of my boards. I would like to put up an artist's rendering that we prepared of the building that gives you what we consider to be the significant corner, which is the southeast corner of the building, where our premier retail will be. And off to the left -- I'm sorry -- the right up Chestnut the residential entry.

Q. David, that will be A-14, right?

A. Right.

(Whereupon, Southeast Elevation is marked as Exhibit A-14 for identification.)

MR. MARTIN: Jason, that's A-14 or 13?

MR. TUVEL: Yes, 14. A-13 was the --

MR. MARTIN: North elevation?

THE WITNESS: -- north elevation.

MR. TUVEL: Yes, I know there were a lot of exhibits. At the end if you'd like, we can just go through them all so we can count them and correct them just for the record.

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. TUVEL: We can do that.

MR. MARTIN: This is the southeast corner proposed?

THE WITNESS: This is a rendering of the southeast corner -- well, it's a view of entire building from the southeast corner.

MR. TUVEL: The intersection of the two roadways.

THE WITNESS: And I think that gets me to a place where I can summarize.

MR. TUVEL: Sure. Why don't you do that?

THE WITNESS: With respect to architectural component of this project, which is my capacity, I believe that I presented to you an architectural design for the building that's in full compliance with the ordinance in all regards, not only the provision of the proper number of affordable housing units, but also in compliance with all those sections of the ordinance that talk about architecture, specifically the treatment of the facade across this length (indicating). The reference to the Central Business District and the historic nature of downtown. The treatment of the higher portions of the building above 40 feet, 50 feet, and in all regards I think it's a project that furthers the goals of the Master Plan and meets the objectives of the B-3-R District. BY MR. TUVEL:

Q. Okay. And just to reiterate the building complies with the 50-foot height requirement, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the building complies with the 20 percent overage requirement that you go beyond 50 feet in certain respects; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay. And from a density standpoint, we are below the density that's permitted?

A. That's correct. We're below the density permitted by five apartments.

Q. And we're also below the floor area ratio that's permitted?

A. We're below the floor area ratio by .35.

Q. In your professional opinion, as I think that you stated before, this building emulates and takes the architectural features from other historic buildings within an area and puts them in a redevelopment area, basically?

A. That's correct.

MR. TUVEL: Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.

Now, next would be cross examination by the board. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 29

David?

MR. SCHEIBNER: Thank you.

My principal interest is in the driveway off of Chestnut. There's a significant slope from the parking lot in the back up to the street level there, correct?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

MR. SCHEIBNER: So, that the clearance in that archway is quite a bit less than on the Broad Street side.

THE WITNESS: It still meets the requirement of 14 feet, remember that --

MR. SCHEIBNER: The center?

THE WITNESS: -- that the building is set back from Chestnut Street 20 feet.

MR. SCHEIBNER: Twenty?

THE WITNESS: So, in that 20 feet we do have enough room to get the driveway down to the point where we have clearance.

MR. SCHEIBNER: So, that -- so that it's actually -- the driveway is actually more or less flat up ar the top where a vehicle would stop --

THE WITNESS: Well, it's --

MR. SCHEIBNER: -- to see the traffic coming?

THE WITNESS: It's -- I am sure our civil engineer can talk more to the grade there.

There is a requirement to be flat for a certain piece when you come up off the street and then go down.

MR. SCHEIBNER: So, the north elevation essentially shows the section of that area then?

THE WITNESS: Let me...

MR. TUVEL: Yes, let's go back to that, David.

THE WITNESS: The north elevation --

MR. TUVEL: And you're referring to the exhibit that shows the parking lot -- that shows the building if you were looking at it from the parking lot in the rear?

MR. SCHEIBNER: Yeah, the north elevation --

THE WITNESS: This -- this --

MR. SCHEIBNER: So the north elevation is actually looking south?

MR. TUVEL: Correct, exactly.

MR. SCHEIBNER: So, on the left-hand side of that, what you see is a section of that wing?

THE WITNESS: Well --

MR. SCHEIBNER: Along Chestnut?

THE WITNESS: This is the north elevation (indicating).

MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes. So the section on the left there is actually the section of the Chestnut wing of the building?

THE WITNESS: That's correct. It's behind this wall (indicating). Yes, the driveway comes off here and then down.

MR. SCHEIBNER: Okay. That's all.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Jeff?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

So you mentioned that you were five units less per acre than what's required. So, you're saying 30-units per acre is that what the number is? If you just reconfirm that?

MR. TUVEL: I believe that it's 35.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. That's the limit, but you said that it's five less, so it's 30-units per acre; is that correct, that you're going to --

THE WITNESS: I'd have to do the math.

MS. McWILLIAMS: It would be like 32.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It would be 32, all right. So it's five units less overall than -- so it's 32-units per acre, you don't have to give me the answer now, but if you can get back to me on that -- Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 30

THE WITNESS: Okay.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: -- that would be helpful.

MR. TUVEL: Then you just want the exact ratio or percentage that it is.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

MR. TUVEL: It's less than what's required, but you want the exact amount.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

MR. TUVEL: That's fine.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, is this site contaminated in any way from the -- I guess the dealership that was there before? And in other words, if there's any recent cleanup from a contamination standpoint, oil tanks and all that kind of stuff?

MR. TUVEL: Yes, I think the civil engineer will look into that, but just representing developers constantly throughout the years, typically as part of any redevelopment, that would be part of the process. Asbestos abatement in any buildings that come down, any oil tanks that are in the ground those would come out. I mean it would usually be typical procedure, but if you want we can have a civil engineer address that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, give us more details on how that would work. And then -- and what the process would be as far as getting those things cleaned out, if they need to be --

MR. TUVEL: Yes, usually --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: -- that would be helpful.

MR. TUVEL: Yes. Usually, that's part of DEP's jurisdiction.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Right.

MR. TUVEL: The DEP governs how that works.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Right.

MR. TUVEL: But if the board wants to create overview on how that will happen, that is fine.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. That would be very helpful. Thank you.

So, is it the intention of the development to sell spaces for commuter parking?

MR. TUVEL: No. I don't believe so, no.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: At any time, ever?

MR. TUVEL: I don't believe so, I think based on to RSIS Standard and your ordinance standards, we have to comply with the retail parking requirement and with the residential parking requirement, which is governed by RSIS. So, based on what we're proposing right now, I don't think we'd be able to do that at all actually.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

And so with the retail space that you have, can you tell me the types of tenants you're looking to put in there?

THE WITNESS: Well, I -- I think the market will probably drive the tenants that end up in there. I'm not sure I can represent that my clients are looking for particular kinds of tenants. But I do know through my experience with retail tenants that this kind of space, its depth, its width, its overall size, will attract the kind of tenants we already have in the downtown.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, for instance restaurants, is that the type of tenant?

MR. TUVEL: The bottom line is that when you do applications like this where the use is permitted and you have retail at the bottom, the tenants aren't typically picked out at the time. So, what we can tell you is we look at the use and we look at the parking requirement. So, the determination, the driving factor is tenants that fit within the uses that are permitted and within the parking requirement are what would be proposed. So, I know that's not the exact answer you were probably looking for, but that's typical for projects like this where you go within the permitted use --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Right.

MR. TUVEL: -- and parking ratio.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So here's a concern I have, we have a parking issue in this area. Okay? We have a lot of -- it's a very high occupancy area. You put a restaurant there, you're looking at a number of cars that would be wanting to go there or park there. So the question I have for you guys is if you put restaurant there, Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 31

where -- how are the people going to pull up to that restaurant? Where are they going to get out? And where are they going to park? So, I'm hoping you can provide some edification on that at some point so we understand where they're going to go, because you'd just be exacerbating a huge issue we already have. And if you guys can enlighten us on that over the next couple of weeks, you don't have to give me an answer now, but we need to understand if a restaurant goes there and on average in that particular are it's about 60 seats per restaurant, so you're looking at, you know -- and, again, the numbers that people have, 60 seats, you're probably looking at 40 percent of those seats are going to need a car. So you're looking at 25 cars. Okay? So 25 cars in that area would make that -- would make this area really much more difficult than it is now. So, we need to understand what would happen with those cars.

MR. TUVEL: Again, let me just say this, that's a fair question, maybe the traffic expert would be the best person to talk about circulation and how we function in connection with any development. So, he can testify to that. But as I said before, we designed the development based on the parking ratio, your parking ratio in your ordinance, the retail ratio is a nonresidential parking standard. So, the nonresidential parking standard is 1 per 250. So, that is all encompassing with respect to all nonresidential development. So, we could have the traffic engineer talk about circulation and how it would be proper in the event that a restaurant would go in there, and you also have to remember too we only have 5500 square feet. It's not that much, in terms -- it's not as if we're proposing, you know, a huge shopping center with 40,000 square feet of retail. So there's a limited amount of space. So -- but we'll have the traffic engineer go through it.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

So, I mean the other question I have, if a restaurant goes in there, you're typically going to have more people working in that restaurant than if you had just like a dress shop there, okay, which would have one or two cars at the most. If you have a restaurant you're probably going to have seven, eight or nine people who are working in the restaurant that need to park somewhere. So, the question I have again is where would those people park? And, again, if you can help me with that, you don't have to answer it now. We just need to figure that out. So, you mentioned you have 66 apartments. And then you went the through these rather quickly and I apologize, you had 23 1-bedroom, 41 2-bedroom and 2 3-bedroom. But you didn't go through the square footage. Can you tell me what the square footage is going to be for each of those particular units and if there's a range?

THE WITNESS: There is a range. The range is not very great, and so, bear with me here while I get the plan up.

Well, a typical 2-bedroom apartment is running about 1285 square feet, plus or minus.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: A 1-bedroom apartment is about 930 square feet, plus or minus.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Will this be the same for both -- affordable housing will have the same sizes, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. All right.

And then the 3-bedroom, how big are they going to be?

THE WITNESS: Now I do have to find my other plan. And it seems to have -- here we go.

The 3-bedrooms are 1400 square feet -- 1415 to be exact.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay, 1415?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you.

Oh, the other concern I have is if it's a restaurant. Okay.

And, I'm assuming they probably have more garbage than usual from a commercial standpoint is -- so you had mentioned twice a week for commercial pickups, my guess is it would probably be more than that, if it's a --

THE WITNESS: Well, there are --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: -- a restaurant?

THE WITNESS: There are a couple of things I would like to mention about the restaurant trash. What we Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 32

always do, and I'd recommend it to our client that he does, if he does get a restaurant, to require the restaurant to have their own refrigerator trash room within their premises, because wet trash, you don't want mixing with the other retail trash.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Right.

THE WITNESS: For example, if we had a restaurant in one corner and a soft goods in the other, yes, there would probably be an additional pickup.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So, emergency vehicles, it looks like on the Chestnut Street you have that kind of that bridge thing to get in, right? So --

THE WITNESS: Both -- both --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Do you want any --

THE WITNESS: -- both entrances pass underneath the building.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And how tall are they?

THE WITNESS: Fourteen feet.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

So, if a fire truck needs to go underneath that would it fit?

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I mean a ladder truck, 14 feet would fit?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Do you know what the size -- do you know what the height of the ladder truck --

THE WITNESS: Yes. But I'd actually like to defer that question to our civil engineering who's worked with the fire apparatus clearances and turning radii in detail. He can answer that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. So, if -- so I guess -- all right, Chris or Blais, if we could find out the height of one of our ladder trucks that would be really helpful.

MR. RUTISHAUSER: Just as a point of reference, the trestle underneath the train station that's posted 11 feet.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

MR. RUTISHAUSER: And if I recall the fire truck will clear that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It will clear that? All right. But --

MR. RUTISHAUSER: I can check with the chief to confirm the heights.

MR. TUVEL: Yes, we're going to provide testimony to make sure that it works.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: All right. How many elevators are you going to have?

THE WITNESS: Two.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Two? Where are they going to be?

THE WITNESS: They're located in the center of the building at the intersection of the two wings.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. All right.

So, if people need to move there, if they're further away, it's going to -- is that going to be an issue? I don't know. I mean if they're living on one end or the other, I mean, if they're going to be moving stuff in, is that going to be relatively easy to do or...

THE WITNESS: Not -- not really. I mean it is --it -- from the elevators to the furthest door is 125 feet. I don't think that's too onerous.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Certainly not unusual in a multiple dwelling.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Thank you.

So, you went through the apartments. I didn't get the number of apartments on the fourth floor, how many are on the fourth floor?

THE WITNESS: The third and fourth floor are identical, 18 apartments.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Thank you.

So, as it relates to security, you talked about a Virtual Doorman, is that the -- kind of the security that would Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 33

work on this?

MR. TUVEL: Well --

THE WITNESS: Yes, virtual --

MR. TUVEL: -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Virtual Doorman is actually a trade name for --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: -- for one of the entities that offers the service.

And it provides for a human being monitoring the entrances and the lobby and the hallways of the building remotely. And through telecommunication and the wonder of the internet it can open doors. It can talk to the residents. It can talk to the visitors, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. TUVEL: I'm sorry just to add to that, because I want to make sure that the security is clear.

So, we talked about the Virtual Doorman. We also talked about having on-site security cameras, so that the entire site is surveillanced at all times so that there's no issues there.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Where does the surveillance go to?

MR. TUVEL: It would go to the alarm system or some type of company that would obviously monitor the site like most projects.

THE WITNESS: It is similar to an alarm company in that there's a central location where someone is monitoring the building.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: All right. I think that -- oh, the AC units that are on the roof, they're not going to be -- it looks like they're not, but they're not going to be higher than the -- kind of the gable you have there, which is, it looks like 57 and 58-feet deep. ACs will be more than that, is that right?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Do you know what height --

THE WITNESS: The AC -- the AC units actually you might be familiar with Daikin and Mitsubishi are the two major manufacturers and -- and they're in the residential market, in single families in a big way. But they also provide units for this kind of a building. So the units are actually quite small, about the size of a large suitcase.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

I think that's it. Thank you.

MR. TUVEL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, I have a couple of questions.

Just for a point of reference how high is the -- let me start again.

You referred repeatedly to the HPC manual. Do you know the name of the actual document or --

THE WITNESS: The document --

MAYOR KNUDSEN: -- or the date of that document?

THE WITNESS: -- I have -- I actually have it with me tonight.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Just for the board's information.

THE WITNESS: Called the Design Guidelines for the Village Center Historic District.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm actually familiar with the document. Could you also just give us the date on that?

THE WITNESS: May 2006. It's available on the website.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just wanted the board to have the information.

THE WITNESS: It's

MR. MARTIN: Can you mark that A-15, just for the record, because you're referring to it.

MR. TUVEL: Oh, you mean the HPC document?

MR. MARTIN: Yes.

MR. TUVEL: Yes, we can mark it. Sure. I thought it was something you could take judicial notice of, but that's fine.

THE WITNESS: You want to mark it A -- what are we up to? Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 34

MR. TUVEL: A-16.

MR. MARTIN: A-16 or 15.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: A-15.

MR. TUVEL: A-15.

THE WITNESS: What are we up to?

MR. TUVEL: A-15.

THE WITNESS: A-15. Fine.

(Whereupon, Design Guidelines for the Village Center Historic District is marked as Exhibit A-15 for identification.)

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. And then just because we have this 58-foot corner tower, can you give us the height of the building at the northeast corner of Ridgewood Avenue and Broad, that would be the Wilsey Building, I believe. Do you know the height of that --

THE WITNESS: The northeast corner, you mean here at the end of Chestnut Street (indicating).

MAYOR KNUDSEN: The northeast corner of actually the building that you refer to as your historic structures.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. I don't have to heights of those buildings.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, I think that's like some critical information and so then presumably you don't have the height of the building that you have on the southwest corner of Broad and Ridgewood Avenue?

THE WITNESS: No.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Those are all -- but all of those buildings that I used as reference are either three or four stories. So I can tell you that they're not as tall as the building I'm proposing.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, I actually -- because you raised those, I would like you to actually provide us with the height of both of those particular specific towers, if you don't mind. If we can get that information?

THE WITNESS: You're talking about the Moore Building and the Wilsey Building.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That's correct so they --

THE WITNESS: Each one with the two with the towers.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: The northeast corner of Broad and Ridgewood Avenue and the southwest corner, the same. Okay. Going back to the actual length -- property width on Franklin Avenue, what is the actual property width on Franklin Avenue please?

THE WITNESS: I'm going to go to the survey to answer that question.

The property dimension is -- I'm having trouble finding it, I'm going to turn to this one. There's a radius -- there's a radius at the corner of -- at the corner of Franklin and Chestnut. So I'm going to ask our civil engineer to give me the number from it. But in -- in essence the building is -- I believe I -- the building is 246 feet and some odd inches, all the way to this corner (indicating). It is 25 feet away from the railroad right-of-way at the -- this rear corner (indicating).

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, I am going to get that in just a minute, once we get the audio fixed. Hang one. I don't know what it is. Must be the magic touch with the audio. I don't know.

Okay. Let me try this again. So, I understood you to say that the actual length of the building on Franklin is 246 feet. Is that --

THE WITNESS: That is -- that is correct.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then we have the width of the building. I'm glad you guys are struggling with that, because I was struggling and that's why I'm glad to see that you're doing the same thing I did.

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Two-hundred and ninety-nine.

THE WITNESS: Two-hundred and ninety-nine feet. Thank you.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So 299 feet.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Is that before or after the widening dedication?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: That would be before. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 35

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear Blais' question.

MR. BRANCHEAU: They're proposing that widening dedication on Chestnut it's 5 feet. So, it's knocking it down after dedication of the 5 feet.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

MS. McWILLIAMS: So the answer to the question is 299 feet.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Today.

MS. McWILLIAMS: So it's going to go to 294 at one point or another?

MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

So, then the actual building at the point, the most westerly point of the building, to the railroad tracks, what is the distance of the corner point to the --

THE WITNESS: The closest point that the building comes to the railroad track, is this northwest corner (indicating). It's 25 feet as the setback required in the ordinance.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And that's to the actual property line of the --

THE WITNESS: Correct, the property line.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: The property line? Okay.

So, then I wanted to go to the affordable units, and I believe, if I'm not mistaken, it went the second, third and fourth floor the 3-bedroom?

THE WITNESS: The 3-bedrooms are on the second -- excuse me, the third and the fourth floors.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Did you say there were three of those stacked?

THE WITNESS: Two.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Two stacked.

THE WITNESS: There are two 3-bedroom apartments. One on three and one on four. They are over one another.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

So, then those units and the other units above all of those, are those affordable or those are regular-priced units.

THE WITNESS: Actually, that's the only place in the building where affordable units are stacked over one another. And that's because of the nature of the unit.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I understood.

THE WITNESS: All the other ones are random throughout the floors. So, for example, this affordable 1-bedroom that's on the fifth floor plan, there's not an affordable unit underneath.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So, but those are -- would be in closest proximity to the railroad tracks, the affordable units, would that be accurate?

THE WITNESS: The 3-bedrooms are at the end with the railroad track, correct.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So the 3-bedroom affordable units are the ones that are closest to the railroad tracks approximately 25-feet; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: We would -- I would like to amplify on that question though. We have designed that apartment so all the principal rooms have windows that face either the street or the rear of the property, and don't face the railroad tracks.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Good.

Just bear with me. I just want to go back to the garbage pickup. The garbage pickup, you had two commercial pickups per week, was that accurate?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. And then you said you had a regular pickup and was that also twice a week?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 36

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Regular trash collection?

MR. TUVEL: For the residential units.

THE WITNESS: Residential pickup?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Residential pickup, I'm sorry, if I said --

THE WITNESS: Once a week.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Residential pickup.

THE WITNESS: And by virtue of the fact that we're compacting the trash.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I know it's amazing to see that little cube of garbage. That's amazing.

Okay. And then was that also -- what about recycling? Is that also, again, once a week?

THE WITNESS: That, right.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So --

MR. TUVEL: It was part of -- but it was part of the one, we --

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. TUVEL: It's a good question. We should clarify, just to be sure.

So, the recycling and trash pickup is one pickup, right?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Right. Exactly.

MR. TUVEL: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Dual pickup.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So one vehicle, one truck comes in --

THE WITNESS: Handle Both.

MR. TUVEL: Thank you for clarifying that.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

I wanted to ask a question about the retail space, box delivery trucks, you said roughly three deliveries per day? Could you explain to me how -- where do they go for their box truck delivery?

THE WITNESS: I am going to use the -- I beg your pardon. I'm going to use the civil engineer's colored site plan which is marked Exhibit A-3. There is a loading zone located here (indicating) at the interior corner of the L-shaped lot, which is accessed from either direction, but we think principally off the Chestnut Street drive, allowing for that truck to park and unload its merchandise and take it across the parking lot into the sidewalk and into the retail space.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So -- and there's enough clearance there for vehicles coming in and out of the driveway?

Well, you have a driveway with vehicles coming in and out; is that accurate?

THE WITNESS: It's a two-way drive.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. And then -- so the box truck is on the opposite side and that's across the -- in the traffic along, going in and out of Chestnut, is that accurate to --

THE WITNESS: No, no, the truck -- the truck would come in off of Chestnut, which is the a two-way drive on the right-hand side, pull up adjacent to the loading zone, back into it, as if you were backing into a parallel parking space on the street. And once he was finished with his delivery, pull back into the traffic lane and exit through the Broad Street signalized intersection.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: But he has -- presumably he's pushing a hand truck. Is he pushing his hand truck through the parking lot?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So, he has to cross through the parking lot?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: He has to cross traffic get to the building?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I thought you meant in his truck. No, when he is out with his handcart, he crosses the incoming traffic.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. It's late, maybe I didn't explain that clearly. Okay.

MR. TUVEL: And, David, just to reiterate on that point, that would just be like anyone else getting out of their Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 37

car and walking to the retail space, eight?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

MR. TUVEL: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Anybody who -- anybody who parks in the parking lot will also be crossing those aisles.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. And a box truck is how tall?

THE WITNESS: The box truck is --

MR. TUVEL: You know what, David, why don't you let the traffic expert answer that, because I don't want you to guess. It's just better that you don't guess.

THE WITNESS: I would be guessing so...

MR. TUVEL: So we have the traffic engineer, he could give you exact dimensions. That way there's no -- there's no issues.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

The exterior insulation finish systems, what is that, have you -- your exterior finishes on your insulation, those are, like, architectural details, is that accurate?

THE WITNESS: Where are you seeing the notification.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Well, I'm not seeing it, but sometimes you have those exterior finishes that are, like, architectural, but they're intended to be -- what is it called? EIFS?

THE WITNESS: Oh, EIFS, Exterior Insulating Finish Systems.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.

THE WITNESS: An interesting acronym. We're not proposing any on this building.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Oh, you're not doing that at all. Okay. All right. I'm done. Let the next person -- all right. I'm good for now. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie.

MS. McWILLIAMS: I don't really know where to start.

I guess, let's go back here, so the handicap parking spots are covered. And that's also where the garbage truck pickup is supposed to go?

THE WITNESS: That's the they will both use the same dropped curb.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. And they come bright and early in the morning, you said they like to come first thing in the morning.

THE WITNESS: Typically, yes.

MS. McWILLIAMS: That area in the morning is generally extremely crowded and trafficky. There's a school right up under the railroad tracks and all the commuter traffic. Is there any concern about the truck and any additional garbage pickup traffic there?

MR. TUVEL: Again, that would be more, I guess, a better question for the traffic engineer to answer. But I think the testimony regarding trash pickup would be during off-peak times of the roadway, so your concern, which is a valid one, about conflicts with schools and things of that nature, when the road is most busy, so typically what we would do in a development application that requires any type of delivery, whether it be garbage or retail, et cetera, is that we would schedule those things during off-peak times when the roadway did not have its highest volume of traffic, therefore, to not interfere and to avoid the situation you're thinking. So we would be happy to stipulate to doing that, that wouldn't be a problem.

MS. McWILLIAMS: I think in that area you would be looking at what, 5 or 6 in the morning?

MR. TUVEL: Yes, but that's something that's very typical.

MS. McWILLIAMS: The security person, where's the -- where are they? They will not be -- there's nobody on the site for security? It's all telecommunications?

MR. TUVEL: No. I apologize if that wasn't clear. So, yes, there will be a security -- there will be a person from the property management company on-site patrolling the site for improperly parked vehicles, you know, if debris is on the site there will be somebody walking it to make sure it's kept clean at all times, make sure the landscaping, make sure there's -- nobody's seen around that shouldn't be there. So, during your normal Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 38

business day -- and I can give you exact times if you want so we can, you know, be sure everybody's comfortable, there will be somebody there from the management company.

MS. McWILLIAMS: If he finds or she finds an improperly parked vehicle or they then call the Ridgewood Police or would they -- how would they go about ticketing or handling the improperly parked vehicle?

MR. TUVEL: So, typically how you would handle something like that in any site plan application is one of two ways, either the board can impose that the developer basically contract with a towing company to do that, in the event that there's a problem; or, number two is you could give Title 39 to the municipality where their police trucks -- police cars -- sorry -- could patrol the site or both. It's -- so there's plenty of mechanisms for enforcement to those type of issues.

MS. McWILLIAMS: So, it would be adding -- if we did that it would be adding -- so tow trucks -- either tow trucks into the situation or asking our police force to monitor additional...

MR. TUVEL: They wouldn't have to because the property management company could do it.

So, if the board didn't want that, the property management company could monitor, as they should, manage the parking lot.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.

Just give me a second. The trash compactor, they're more green -- they're typically sort of a greener option than just dumping the trash, the compacting of the trash into the -- whatever you said, the cube of garbage, that's something you can sort of have as a cleaner option?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.

MR. TUVEL: I think -- I think the question was --

MS. McWILLIAMS: Environmentally friendly.

MR. TUVEL: Yes, the trash compactor is environmentally friendly because you're not creating as much garbage. You're compacting the garbage.

THE WITNESS: And you're taking up less space in a landfill.

Presumably, of course, the first step is you're using recycling and you're putting even less than you should have had normally into the garbage stream, yes.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: The garbage stays compact.

MS. McWILLIAMS: The roof, the white roof, I have just a question, is there any option -- I mean that's something that anybody would want to be concerned about how any glare from that, you know --

THE WITNESS: It's

MS. McWILLIAMS: there are -- right above that, you're saying you're 25 feet from the railroad tracks where, you know, the corner of the building is, right beyond those railroad tracks are garden apartments all up in there. And there's Ridgecrest, I believe, Senior Housing. Is there any concern at all --

THE WITNESS: No, the white roof material is not -- is not glossy. It does not reflective. It doesn't pass a spectrum or reflection. It does reflect sunlight. But it's not specular reflection like you're talking about.

MS. Mc WILLIAMS: I mean I'm not as -- you know, I'm just wondering if it is going to be something that would be something detrimental to their way of life, you know, their quality of life looking out their windows over -- it's right -- they're right there.

THE WITNESS: I've specified lots of white roofs. I've never heard that as a concern in any of our finished products.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. I don't really think right now I have too much more. Say I have been given the height of the box truck height can be, I want to say, 11 feet, some of the smaller ones you have for a business so, 11-feet. There was nothing you needed to clear, when they go through -- in and out of there.

MR. TUVEL: Again, I think the traffic engineer would be a better person, but based on what the architect testified to, we have that 14-foot clearance so --

MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay, I will ask him that.

MR. TUVEL: Yes, so the passageways that David described were designed by our site engineering method that Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 39

would accommodate all emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, the largest fire truck and other delivery vehicles so there wouldn't be a clearance problem.

MS. McWILLIAMS: And then am I to believe that when people move in -- so the box truck, pulls up into that one corner and crosses across the two driveways to go -- to make a delivery, that's where people would also be expected to be unloading and moving in and out when they move in and out of the building.

MR. TUVEL: That's correct. Yes.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. So, if somebody moving couches and --

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

MS. McWILLIAMS: -- isn't there some freight elevator for any of that?

THE WITNESS: No, one of the elevators will have a higher ceiling to accommodate sofas on their end. This is typical of -- in multiple homes, you pick one to be the move-in elevator. It'll be equipped with pegs. So the mats and protective pads can go on the sides.

MS. McWILLIAMS: And you know I mean that could be an issue, I guess, if that's the only place for something like and somebody's moving in, is there -- there's a lot of people probably in and out at different times, moving in and out during the day, you know, and a box truck needs to come in there to unload their -- that's the only option.

MR. TUVEL: So I like the questions because these are the exact same questions I asked my client before we prepared for these meetings, because you have to know how this stuff is going to work. So, what we talked about is scheduling deliveries and scheduling move-ins with the property management company so there's no conflict. So, yes, it's a valid question. And we are sure to address that.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. I think that's all I have for now.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie?

MS. PATIRE: Could you tell us of a project that you did, sir, that resembles this in a town with the character and the architecture, something that you've done in the State of New Jersey that resembles what you're proposing here --

THE WITNESS: There's no --

MS. PATIRE: -- in the Village of Ridgewood?

THE WITNESS: There's no project that I could tell you that has a similar siting, no.

MS. PATIRE: How about --

THE WITNESS: The other -- the other -- the other projects were more not at the center of town, would have been projects that were more similar to the apartments further out East Ridgewood Avenue where there's a front lawn. None like this in Ridgewood, but we have designed apartments like this in New York City in the five boroughs, very much like this.

MS. PATIRE: Right. I guess -- I'm sorry. I guess what I'm asking is, you know, in a downtown and I think my fellow folks on the Council and board have stated, you know, downtown you looked at the character, you brought up some of the buildings, the historic buildings, et cetera. And I was wondering if there's anything that you've done in New Jersey or even in any of the boroughs that take that into account --

THE WITNESS: No, there are -- there are other examples up and down the railroad suburbs on the Main Bergen Line. I have not been the architect for them.

MS. PATIRE: Okay. So, just a couple of things from a -- from a public perspective, the parking spaces that you have total, right, in the downtown that you came out with is 153 spaces you have total --

MR. TUVEL: No --

MS. PATIRE: -- what is the total amount of parking spaces you have on this site.

MR. TUVEL: So, currently, as the plan is, it was filed as 150 parking spaces.

MS. PATIRE: One-hundred and fifty. And those are -- 25 of them was for the retail and the rest was for --

MR. TUVEL: Right, so basically how it works in the ordinance and throughout the state is we have to give your ordinance, one per 250. So whatever the retail is, I think it was 550 square feet -- I'm sorry -- 5,500 square feet, Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 40

that was on the plan. We have to comply 1 per 250 with that. And then the rest is governed by state law. The Residential Site Improvement Standards. So combining that, we comply with -- with the standards.

MS. PATIRE: Understood. So if I lived in apartment 3B or whether it's 3D. Do I have an assigned spots so I know that I have my little sticker, because we have stickers on the cars, so I go to spot 121. Do I have an assigned spot or is that a first come first serve?

MR. TUVEL: The way that the plan is laid out right now is that there's a section in the rear of the site, I guess at the northern end, that is reserved for residential parking. And the reason for that is because, you know, you want the retail people to park closer so they don't have to walk as far to get to the stores. So those are the only reserved spaces. And then I think as David testified to earlier, the other residents would get parking decals to ensure that they were properly parked there. And those would be on a first-come-first-serve basis. So, there are a portion of the -- of the parking spaces right now that are specifically reserved for residential. And then the rest would be on a first-come-first-serve basis. But overall the parking complies with the state standards.

MS. PATIRE: How many extra spots do you have then for residents or if I'm having a party --

MR. TUVEL: Right.

MS. PATIRE: -- and I invite 10 of my friends over.

MR. TUVEL: So -- okay. So, that's a good question, again, it's probably better for the traffic engineer if you'd ask that question. But, typically, the RSIS standards and your retail standards incorporate, for example, I think somebody talked about employees with the retail, that standard includes patrons and employees. So, you get to your 1 per 250, including employees and patrons. The same thing with the RSIS for residential, your people who are living there and your visitor parking is included in those ratios.

So, that's why you have to have --

MS. PATIRE: So, in the 1.8 spaces per unit --

MR. TUVEL: Right.

MS. PATIRE: -- that included -- so I may have a 1-bedroom, my husband and I live there. We both drive into work.

MR. TUVEL: Uh-huh.

MS. PATIRE: So, there goes the 1.8. And now I'm having a party. I'm going to invite my in-laws. I'm going to invite my parents over. Now I have another two cars coming. Where are they going to park?

MR. TUVEL: Right, so I think that that's included as part of the standard which is why we comply. Obviously people visit one another. So those are typically, you know, how it works.

MS. PATIRE: And, again, I --

MR. TUVEL: But I think it's -- honestly it's not good for me to keep on going with this. Let's just wait for the traffic engineer.

MS. PATIRE: Yes, I mean it's a valid point considering what's going in our Village with parking. I think that's why COUNCILMAN VOIGT brought up if you were going to have a restaurant, you know, it's a very different ball game. I challenge both of you, all of you, to go out on a Friday night, come and -- come there during rush house because everyone from your apartment who's going to be working, if they're not going to be taking mass transit or the train station into the City, I don't know how many people in the building are or aren't, but as those cars are coming out you've got people commuting. It's a very busy intersection there. You've got kids walking to school. You got other kids on bikes. It's a really, really busy intersection. So that goes to one of my other questions, where you have an entrance and exit on Chestnut and then you have the entrance and exit on Franklin. They're not swiping into anything, right? You're not -- it's not gated. You're not showing that.

MR. TUVEL: No, there's no gates proposed.

MS. PATIRE: They're just pulling in and pulling out.

MR. TUVEL: That's correct.

MS. PATIRE: Okay. And then -- what was my last question?

So, I'm in there, I hurt myself and I call an ambulance. And an ambulance needs to come. Is the ambulance pulling up on Chestnut Street, am I coming out that entrance, is that where that ambulance is waiting for me Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 41

or as you going to angle -- or this might be for the traffic engineer?

MR. TUVEL: Yeah, don't kill me if I keep deferring to the traffic engineer on that.

MS. PATIRE: All right.

MR. TUVEL: But I promise that we will get to that.

MS. PATIRE: Again, I am trying --

MR. TUVEL: I understand.

MS. PATIRE: It's late. And we're all volunteers. This is one of our discussions --

THE WITNESS: No, no, you're allowing me to take notes. So we're prepared to answer your questions. That's okay.

MS. PATIRE: I'm good for right now.

Thank you.

MR. TUVEL: Okay.

MS. PATIRE: Thank you.

MS. ALTANO: Hi, thank you very much for the presentation.

I am going to ask you questions going from the outside in. Have you done a study on fire truck circulation? It's very important as far as, I mean this is one of the things you're going to provide eventually when the plan's done and finalized, where is the truck, fire truck, going to come to? What is the circulation that is going to be in place.

THE WITNESS: Our civil engineer has actually prepared a study on fire truck circulation on the site. So, I would suggest that your hold your question until he comes up.

MR. TUVEL: Yes, I promise in connection with the site engineering and the traffic engineering testimony we will address all those items. I promise you.

MS. ALTANO: Well, I do have some questions.

MR. TUVEL: And if you still have questions, we'll be happy to answer them.

MS. PATIRE: So, confirming, you know what our concerns are, right? The way of Village functions, and the way people in the Village utilize our downtown.

MS. ALTANO: Then talking about parking, I am concerned as well. Right now we have this general retail space and we know the allocated space based on what you have and the square footage and all the uses of the buildings. When do we know for sure when -- what those spaces are going to be, who's going to occupy the spaces? If there's going to be a revision probably of what you need for parking spaces are we -- do you enough room there to allow for that?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear enough, what?

MS. ALTANO: Enough area in other words, would we have enough parking spaces to allow when dealing with a bank or dealing with a restaurant or dealing with, like, just a regular store, there's different need for parking spaces.

MR. TUVEL: No. So your ordinance is -- basically has -- all of those -- most of those uses that you just referenced are incorporated in your zoning ordinance and permitted in the zone. And then the parking standard, in connection with all of those ordinances -- with all of those uses, which is all encompassing of nonresidential uses and retail covers all those items. So, yes, we do comply with that. And if you -- again, the traffic engineer can also give an opinion on the parking if you still have questions.

MS. ALTANO: Okay. Thank you.

My next question has to do with sound attenuation and how -- have you done any study on that at all, what is required for a residential structure, because of the proximity to the railroad station.

MR. TUVEL: Okay.

MS. ALTANO: And I -- so I -- I am asking if that can be done.

MR. TUVEL: So I'll let him -- I'll let the engineer answer the question, just from a practical standpoint when it comes to noise, the DEP regulates the decibels levels, the dBAs at the property line.

So, we have no choice but to design a building that is going to be comply with DEP regulations at the property Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 42

line, at the effected property lines. So, we have to comply with the state regs.

But, David, do you want to give anything further on noise?

THE WITNESS: Well, I would -- I would like to say that we have always been very conscious of the fact that we're building next to railroad tracks. It's something that actually my firm has done many times. And we specify windows designed specifically to attenuate that type of noise. You know that noise is characterized by a wide range of frequencies.

MS. ALTANO: Vibrations as well.

THE WITNESS: Right. So we're practiced in dealing with that. We did a high school in Queens right next to the railroad tracks and noise was a big concern there. A teacher can't be interrupted by a passing railroad. The windows perform beautifully. You can't hear the train at all. So, we're well practiced in it. We're aware it's an issue and we have to address it. The products are available. And we're going to use them.

MS. ALTANO: Okay.

Looking at the facade is it -- why -- what was the reasoning behind picking different bricks and -- and different materials? I mean is this -- I am trying to understand as far as the design is concerned. What were you going for?

THE WITNESS: The -- Actually, both the ordinance for the B-3-R Zone and the historic design guidelines talk about breaking up a long facade into parts, to -- to give visual variation to the elevation.

And in the downtown, in the -- in the older part of downtown you get that automatically because when downtown was developed those lots were relatively narrow, right? So you had a different building every 50 feet, every 25 feet. And they varied in width. So, in downtown you get, particularly the northern -- I'm sorry, the western end of East Ridgewood Avenue, when you're closest to the railroad station, you get a nice rhythm of different facades as you -- as you go down the street. And both the ordinance and the design guidelines encourage architects to essentially replicate that rhythm and differences as you proceed down the facade. And that's what we've attempted to do with this design.

MS. ALTANO: Understood.

However you can -- you can take that argument when you're changing from one material to the other. If I'm going from one brick to another brick, it's a small variation. As far as I'm concerned, I would say for design purposes you're not changing the material. I would feel more comfortable to have the same brick, if you change the material again as I said before, stone, from brick to stone. Then we agree on as far as maintaining the rhyme, that would be recommended. That's just my opinion.

THE WITNESS: No, I -- I understand that.

I think -- and I understand exactly what you're saying. We never put the two bricks right next to one another. There's always an intervening material. This -- this gray tone you see here (indicating) is not brick, it's metal panel. So, I'm sensitive to the issue you're talking about. Yes, you don't want to put those two bricks right next to one another. They're always separated by another material.

MS. ALTANO: I'm sorry. I still feel that -- even though they're not next to each other, I still feel that it should be more uniform because it's the same material. You're not going to stone, it's something to think about. Okay. Next, let's see, one of the comments regarding -- I'm looking at the layout of the -- what was the plan of each of the apartments. And when I lived in the city they had, you know, original apartments just like that, entry through the kitchen and have the living room and your bedroom. Is there any way -- I know it would have to be completely redesigned, but it seems to me that you're doing an enormous amount of span from one set of windows to the back to the other windows and the living room/dining room seems to be quite narrow in comparative proportion. How -- what were the criteria and is this something that is typically done still now in 2016 with these spaces being narrow?

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure how to answer your question.

MS. ALTANO: In other words, can you -- can you -- I feel -- I feel that the -- that it is too narrow, the people are going to no place to put a dining room table. It just seems that -- it seems very narrow.

And in terms of light, you have light in front and light way in back where the kitchen is. And it's seems to be Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 43

almost like -- I'll joke about it, a railroad apartment. I mean not to be funny, because you have so much -- excuse me -- but it is just give me that feeling. It's small span of narrow spaces something that used to be built in America a while ago. And I wonder if we could minimize, remove maybe a couple of apartments and then make the space a bit bigger. I know I'm completely redesigning, but I'm just throwing it out there.

THE WITNESS: It would be. You know, typically apartment buildings range in depth from a narrow of 55 and a maximum of 70. On the Franklin Street wing we are at 70. On the Chestnut wing we're at 60. And you're right in observing that apartments on the Franklin wing are deeper, and that means that we have to carefully arrange the spaces you immediately walk into, so the apartment doesn't seem like a railroad flat. But, you know, my drawings didn't include...So this -- this living room is 13-feet wide (indicating). As an apartment standard, that's fine. In luxury condominiums in -- they're selling them at 50 feet. This is a rental building. So I think, you know, we fit the apartment size right on. We had a lot of conversations with our client, and our client's marketing people. The people who will be responsible for renting these apartments. And -- and they are right in -- right in the marketplace so...

MS. ALTANO: Okay. Just wanted to throw it out there.

Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So I'll be pretty brief because I know it's getting late.

The bricks you had on your sample board, you're proposing full modular bricks or thin bricks, the size.

THE WITNESS: These are full brick.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Full brick.

And you have 5500 square feet labeled for retail, do you intend that to be only mercantile space or could it be assembly space?

THE WITNESS: Well, I suppose it could be an assembly space.

The -- we were very careful to add a provision for a door -- this is the wrong plan, but add a door on the Chestnut Street elevation for that retail, anticipating that a user might need two means of egress.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So a restaurant would be assembly space, obviously.

THE WITNESS: Of a certain size.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Yes.

And the last question, on these corners elements, you're calling towers. Those photographs you had, one of your earlier exhibits, were really helpful. Did you compare the roof pitch of your -- I'll call your inspiration photos to the roof pitch that you're showing on your towers? Did you compare those?

THE WITNESS: We did. The sample towers have a steeper pitch.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So would you say significantly steeper?

THE WITNESS: Somewhat steeper. The key is that those towers are not used. The space in them is quite small.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: All right.

THE WITNESS: We have a residential building where we had the need to create habitable space underneath our towers -- our roofs.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So the reason these -- your towers are -- what is your proposed roof pitch on these towers?

THE WITNESS: I -- I don't know it off the top of my head.

They're probably very similar to the pitch we have on the Ridgewood Education Center, but not on the Moore and the Wilsey towers.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I guess one of my concern is, it starts to look less like a tower and I don't know what you'd call it but you kind of lose the character of that steep-pitched tower that you had in all those other images. So I'm a little concerned about the aesthetics of that. That was only questions I had on the towers. That's all my questions. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 44

CHAIRMAN JOEL: For that mansard roof, that composite, does that wear well the -- because it's kind of plastic --

THE WITNESS: The synthetic slate?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes, better than real slate.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And it will not turn color or --

THE WITNESS: No.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No further questions.

Our professionals, Blais, you have a question?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have just a couple of follow-up questions, sorry.

Just the elevation of the railroad tracks, the track, relative to the building, so where does the track actually measure to?

THE WITNESS: You guys still have the survey?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TUVEL: You know what, Mayor, rather than measuring it on the fly like this, why don't we just get you that answer --

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. TUVEL: -- for the next meeting?

THE WITNESS: I'll --

MR. TUVEL: So we can do a follow-up letter or something like that to get you the exact information.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Sure. Great.

Are any of those parking spaces shared? I know -- I don't think that it worked that way, but I'm just interested knowing, because I know that was a --

THE WITNESS: They're calculated -- they're calculated entirely separately. If I had a lot --

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I thought so, but that's why I just wanted to confirm that.

MR. TUVEL: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And just for the board's information, where exactly have you and/or your firm built similar-type apartment structures near railroad tracks, you referenced earlier.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall the address in Queens, but I can get you that information.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm sorry?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall the exact address. So I'll get that to you.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And that would be in Queens, New York?

THE WITNESS: It is in Queens. Yes.

The other residential projects that we did in Metuchen, for example, and in Evesham Township are not close to railroad tracks.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No. Specifically, you stated that your firm has built several --

THE WITNESS: Yes. Those locations are in Queens, and I'll get you that information.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That would be very helpful to better understand. Okay. That was my follow up.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Blais, do you have questions?

MR. MARTIN: MR. BRANCHEAU, could you raise your right hand?

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I do.

B L A I S B R A N C H E A U, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

MR. MARTIN: And just state your full name and your business address for the record.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Blais Brancheau, Village of Ridgewood, 131 North Maple Avenue.

MR. MARTIN: Counsel, you stipulate to MR. BRANCHEAU as a professional planner.

MR. TUVEL: Yes, that's fine. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 45

MR. MARTIN: Go ahead, Blais.

MR. BRANCHEAU: I'll try to be brief given the hour and it may be simpler if I just ask you, Dave, if you had the opportunity to look at the comments in my report concerning the architectural design?

THE WITNESS: I -- I have very briefly before this meeting, but not in depth.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay. Item 12 in my report, I believe you've already addressed in testimony.

Item 13 spoke to a number of discrepancies. Do you intend to address those in testimony with revised plans? How do you intend to respond?

THE WITNESS: Well, I intend to very carefully review your comments, verify those discrepancies exist and fix them and resubmit drawings.

MR. BRANCHEAU: During the hearing?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay. Thank you.

I raised a potential question of encroachments beyond the property line, given the building is right on the property line and there's a number of recesses, projections, window grates, cornices and other things.

Do you intend to look at that --

THE WITNESS: I intend to address that by -- by slightly altering the position and depth of my building by the several inches it will take.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I have no intention of violating the Village ordinance or a concern relative to things overhanging the property line.

MR. BRANCHEAU: All right.

I made a comment about the north wing, if you could put the north elevation up?

MR. TUVEL: MR. BRANCHEAU, what number, I just want to follow along.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Dealing with item 15, I'm just going through my report.

MR. TUVEL: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: A-13.

MR. BRANCHEAU: On Page 8 of my report, item 15.

MR. TUVEL: Got it, thank you.

THE WITNESS: You made a notation about this blank wall (indicating).

MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. Is there a way that you could provide a little more variation in that building wall there, it's -- as you're coming down Chestnut you see that sort of an -- I know there's some horizontal banding going on there, but is there a way that we could provide a little more relief?

THE WITNESS: That's a very good comment. And, yes, we'll take another look at that and resubmit.

MR. BRANCHEAU: All right. Thank you.

I think most of my questions probably would be for the site engineer. Just a question since you did testify about parking, are any spaces reserved for the retail customers or employees or are the only spaces reserved are the ones for the residential spaces.

THE WITNESS: We are only contemplating reserved spots for the residential users.

MR. BRANCHEAU: So if a resident -- I mean everybody likes to park closest to the door, it's human nature.

If residents were to park closest to the building, forcing the retail customers to park further out, would the applicant do something to make the businesses more attractive by reserving parking for the customers.

MR. TUVEL: I think that's something we should -- it's a fair point. I think it's something we should talk with the client about. I don't think it's something that Mr. Nicholson can answer. I think that's a client question. But it's a fair comment.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Fair enough.

That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, Blais.

Chris? Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 46

MR. MARTIN: MR. RUTISHAUSER, could you raise your right hand?

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, I do.

C H R I S T O P H E R R U T I S H A U S E R, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

MR. MARTIN: And just for the record your full name and your title --

MR. RUTISHAUSER: Christopher J. Rutishauser, Village Engineer, 131 North Maple, Village of Ridgewood.

MR. MARTIN: Counsel, you stipulate to MR. RUTISHAUSER being a professional engineer?

MR. TUVEL: Yes. And I forgot to add in my opening remarks that we had no issues complying with all the comments that were set forth in his report. I should have said that at the beginning. But we found all his comments to be acceptable.

MR. RUTISHAUSER: The only comment I believe I had for the architect was answered by them and that related to the refuse collection area. So no further questions at this time. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just have one more question, sorry.

So I just want to go back to the parking issue because what we've learned is that you have X number of spaces for residences and we have X number of spaces for the use -- for retail use.

But with 66 apartments, inevitably people have cleaning people coming in and out, different services, painters, where would those people be parking?

MR. TUVEL: All we can -- again, I'll have the traffic engineer address that, all I can say is we're guided with respect to state standards relating to RSIS. So those govern the application. And the parking standards that govern the nonresidential space govern the application. So those are what we use in connection with those -- with the parking spaces.

But any questions related to parking, the traffic engineer will be happy to answer.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Great.

Thanks.

MR. TUVEL: Yes, I don't mean to keep deferring the parking and the traffic, but it's unfair for the architect --

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.

MR. TUVEL: -- to be answering.

MS. PATIRE: Can I ask one more question? Maybe I didn't ask it right before, so we have 150-something parking spaces. We'll have 150 and the 25 for the retail.

MR. TUVEL: Right.

MS. PATIRE: Are there extra parking spaces for guests or is that just -- is that the total amount of parking spaces on this property?

MR. TUVEL: Okay. So --

MS. PATIRE: I assume -- I'm just asking a question.

MR. TUVEL: Correct. So the parking ratio for the best way I can answer it is the parking ratio for the retail that includes patrons, employees and all of the services associated with retail is met.

And the parking ratio for residences which includes all activities associated with the residences are met.

MS. PATIRE: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Next is cross by the public. Whoever wants to ask questions, you can line up, you can come to the microphone, state your name and address. And you can ask three questions. Ask all three at once. And then Mr. Nicholson will answer the questions. And then if you have further questions, you got to go back to the line, just to give everyone an opportunity for pending questions.

MS. PERFECT: Jastrzebeska Perfect, J-a-s-t-r-z-e-b-e-s-k-a, 215 Walton Street.

I heard that the design of the building was emulated from other historical building in the town.

THE WITNESS: Yes, inspired --

MS. PERFECT: This is true -- Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 47

THE WITNESS: -- inspired from.

MS. PERFECT: Yes.

May I see that plan -- the picture with all the buildings?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That would be A-7.

THE WITNESS: This is exhibit A-2.

MS. PERFECT: You know it would be nice to have it -- well, first of all I don't think they have the same scale, the buildings. They're not -- they're not the same scale.

I mean I know that building, and I can see the size. The one on the bottom, which is this house in the town, it's small, little house --

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

MS. PERFECT: -- same space, right? They're not to the same scale.

Then it would be nice to include, in the same scale, the new building so we can see, you know, what's the proportion.

THE WITNESS: They don't -- they don't match the existing buildings in scale.

They are --

MS. PERFECT: Well, they're --

THE WITNESS: -- they are only inspired by the architectural detailing --

MS. PERFECT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: -- portions that are representative.

MS. PERFECT: Yes.

The towers, the five point towers has the 58-feet tall. And it's quite wide. What's the width of that tower?

THE WITNESS: Bear with me here. About 35 feet. I don't have it scaled in my drawing --

MS. PERFECT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: -- but it's about 35 feet.

MS. PERFECT: Thrift-five feet. So the one of the buildings, existing one, what is the building, an old building, they small, the width of the building really only has one room which is, you know, the size of the tower. The Moore building maybe just one apartment so -- it's proportionately huge. The -- how you say, plus, you know, 58 feet, do we have -- now when I try to compare the building, Board of Education and HSBC buildings, they, like, two-story buildings. And I don't know 50-feet wide or something. Look like your complex, like five times bigger, five times in the length of one side and three times on another side with the L-shape. So it's a huge -- I don't think that resident of the Ridgewood would like to see building which is, you know, 246-feet long on one side and 170 feet on the one side and five-story high. We don't have such buildings in the town. But that's the...

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What's the question?

MS. PERFECT: The question is that -- I understand that the building is designed with the ordinance, but ordinance allows to -- to have them much, huge building, which is not that sizable. There's no such building in the town. This is -- this is my comment.

THE WITNESS: Well, it's a comment, but I think -- you know, I'm sure -- I'm sure Jason will reiterate that we have been very careful to comply with the ordinance.

MS. PERFECT: Yes, I understand.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any further questions?

MS. REYNOLDS: Hi, Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere.

The delivery area on Chestnut, where you showed -- can you put up, I think -- was that A-1?

MR. TUVEL: That was A-3.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. Whatever.

THE WITNESS: That was A-3 the civil engineer's colored plan, yes.

MS. REYNOLDS: So show where the trucks are going to come in and park. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 48

THE WITNESS: They come up Chestnut from Franklin, they make a left into the site.

They travel down a two-way driveway and back into the loading zone here (indicating), which is located at the inside corner of the L-shaped lot.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. So on the property that it's adjacent to, what is that property?

THE WITNESS: It's a commercial building. I don't remember the exact use.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. All right.

Oh, so 25 spaces are going to be allowed for the retail, but is there any way -- I mean what if 40 cars come in and park there? There's no way to know once the 25th car comes in that nobody else can park, correct?

MR. TUVEL: Yes, I apologize for interrupting, just hold onto the question. I did that to a lot of the board members, I know it gets aggravating when I keep on saying that --

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

MR. TUVEL: But if you hold that question for the traffic expert --

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

MR. TUVEL: -- he'd be happy to go over it with you.

MS. REYNOLDS: All right.

The entire facade, like, say from Franklin, if you're looking at it, is completely straight? Like, if you're standing on the sidewalk and you're looking down, there is no -- is there any dimension at all?

THE WITNESS: There's architectural variation of the planes, of slight, probably no more than a foot along the length.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. But there is some.

I mean is there any outdoor anything? Seating? Benches?

THE WITNESS: Well, there is -- there is -- there is and I -- I failed to mention it as I went through my testimony. Thank you for bringing it up.

The -- the ordinance calls for amenities -- exterior amenity spaces for the residents.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And we've provided that in two places, here along, what I'll call the front yard of the building along Chestnut (indicating). And in this area here (indicating) at the other end of the building. And those, we envision, as outside patios, tables, chairs, umbrellas, other kinds of street furniture and opportunity for the residents to sit.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. So the second one that you pointed out is literally right underneath the train track?

THE WITNESS: It is near the train tracks, but it is a spot where somebody can watch all the activity and --

MS. McWILLIAMS: And the other one -- the other one is right along one of the busiest corners in the Village?

THE WITNESS: Well, I -- I wouldn't characterize Chestnut as one of the busiest corners --

MS. McWILLIAMS: You wouldn't?

THE WITNESS: -- I bet our traffic engineer can cite --

MS. McWILLIAMS: I would. Okay.

THE WITNESS: -- traffic counts --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So are you designating that as a romantic spot right underneath the train tracks? Is that what you're thinking?

THE WITNESS: I wouldn't call it a romantic spot, but it's -- but for those people who like to watch all the activity in town, and I know there are people like that, this is primo plus.

MS. REYNOLDS: I'll call my mother-in-law, she'd like to sit there.

THE WITNESS: There you go.

MS. McWILLIAMS: In these areas.

MS. REYNOLDS: Is there any landscaping at all?

THE WITNESS: There is landscaping throughout the parking lot. And -- and it's -- it's very roughly illustrated here (indicating). You might want to reserve that question for the --

MS. REYNOLDS: I like flowers. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 49

THE WITNESS: -- for the civil engineer.

I am not a landscape architect.

MS. REYNOLDS: Come to my house. Okay.

And then -- oh, the area where the four affordable housing units are stacked.

THE WITNESS: No, there are -- there are only two affordable housing units that are on top of one another.

MS. REYNOLDS: Oh, I thought you said there were two 3-bedrooms and then there were two 2-bedroom -- the second, third, fourth and fifth floor were all stacked in the corner?

THE WITNESS: No, I'm sorry if you --

MS. REYNOLDS: All right.

THE WITNESS: -- if you -- I misconstrued what I said.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: This is -- this is the third and fourth floor plan (indicating).

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: There's a 3-bedroom affordable housing unit here in the southwest corner (indicating) and the other 3-bedroom is right underneath it.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Three and four.

The other affordable units are -- there's one over here (indicating).

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Right? And there's another one on the -- below it on -- on -- on three or four.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I believe it was a common --

MS. REYNOLDS: So that's the third and the fourth floor, but what about what's on the second floor right below that?

THE WITNESS: On the second floor the affordable housing unit is underneath this 2-bedroom (indicating) as you could see here. And the other affordable housing unit is in the middle of the frontage here underneath this (indicating) regular 2-bedroom.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. So there's only two stacked?

THE WITNESS: Right.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. And then you said all principal rooms do not face railroad tracks.

What is a principal room?

THE WITNESS: The living room, the dining room and the two larger bedrooms.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. So what's left that faces the tracks?

THE WITNESS: The smaller -- the smaller bedroom.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: The smallest bedroom.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. All right.

And then -- oh, okay, I know COUNCILMAN VOIGT asked about, you know, moving in, with the elevators right in center and that, you know, too far of a walk and you said the furthest would be 125 feet?

THE WITNESS: About.

MS. REYNOLDS: But -- so if -- if one side is 246 feet to the corner, right? One side is 246 feet. And the other is 178 feet, and the elevators are in the corner?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MS. REYNOLDS: So wouldn't it be 245 feet?

THE WITNESS: No, the -- the -- well, remember that the elevators being in -- I'm running out of hands.

The elevator is -- is not -- is in the corner. It's actually quite a long distance away from the eastern face of the building. And on most floors, this floor -- the third and fourth typical floor, the hallway doesn't go all the way to the end. The apartment's at the end. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 50

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. But the elevator -- point to the elevator on that.

THE WITNESS: Here (indicating).

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. But that whole facade is 246 feet. And you're saying that that part is 125?

THE WITNESS: I might have been short. It -- really, you know, move-ins have to be managed.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. No, I'm just -- I mean to me --

THE WITNESS: I think it's --

MS. REYNOLDS: -- the math really didn't make any sense. So that's why I was...

THE WITNESS: Yes. You're right.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

And then the last question, can you enter the retail shops from the rear of the building.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. For every all of them?

THE WITNESS: Right.

MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. All right.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any more questions?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We're going to stop for the night. And I guess we'll continue this without further notice.

MR. TUVEL: Yes. What date do you have?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, what dates do we have available?

MR. MARTIN: Counsel, you consent to carry it with no prejudice to the board?

MR. TUVEL: Yes, we'll carry to the next date, whether it's -- the timing, I guess, what I typically do, based on where we are on the timeframes, is that we'll just keep carrying through the next date. And if we're proceeding and working then we'll just -- we can keep carrying it. That's fine, so long as we're proceeding. That's fine.

MR. MARTIN: The extension could go beyond a point so...

MR. TUVEL: Yes. So what I would do is I would extend through the next date, whatever that is.

And, like I said, if we're not finished and we need to extend again, we'll talk about it at that meeting. That's fine.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I think we're in December, aren't we?

MR. BRANCHEAU: This is the second application.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

MR. BRANCHEAU: There are two after this one. And then the first one, again.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We've got --

MR. BRANCHEAU: So you've got at least three meetings before this one. So this would be the fourth -- the next time this will be heard, unless somebody cancels, will be the fourth meeting from tonight. So you got -- this is the first meeting where we have one meeting in October, two in November. So it would be December. The first meeting in December would be -- and I don't know if the board is -- if its meeting schedule is affected by the League of Municipalities and whether any of the applicants are affected by that.

MR. MARTIN: December 6th would be the date so that's --

MR. BRANCHEAU: Would be the date --

MR. MARTIN: -- our normal meeting date, unless it's beyond that point.

MR. TUVEL: December 6th?

MR. MARTIN: Yes.

MR. TUVEL: Hold on, let me just -- let me just check my calendar --

MR. MARTIN: Is that correct? Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 51

MR. TUVEL: -- hold on one second.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, sure.

MR. MARTIN: The November was --

MR. BRANCHEAU: I'm sorry.

MR. MARTIN: End of November would be in your time.

MR. TUVEL: Does the board, just out of curiosity, does the board do special meetings or...

MR. MARTIN: We try to -- the board tries to --

MR. TUVEL: I understand it's hard to do them. I understand that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We meet twice a month.

MR. TUVEL: Right. You meet -- yes, you meet twice a month already, I get it.

Hold on one second, let me just check with my professionals.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. Sure.

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

MR. TUVEL: We're good on that date. I just wanted to mention one thing about carrying, and I didn't want to bring this up during this application, I really didn't want to deal with it. But it's kind of related to the state issue that was -- that motion that was brought up at the beginning, you know, we oppose that. And I think it's -- I mentioned before, I'm not going to reiterate why I think it's improper, but in the event that there is a -- that the board does do that, which I'm hoping is not the case, then my stipulation is I'm only consenting to an extension in the event that it goes -- the board carries it in the normal course, there's no stay, site plan reviews, and we just procedurally and properly move forward with the application. So that's my stipulation in connection with any extension. If the board entertains that motion and, in what I view it would be completely improper, stay the proceedings then I would not consent to an extension. And I just wanted to get that on the record.

MR. MARTIN: Couple of things on -- one, there's going to have to be renotice anyhow. And second of all --

MR. TUVEL: Well, I will renotice only if the variances noted -- if we agree that there are variances required in connection with MR. Brancheau's letter. If they're not or we eliminate them, then I may not renotice. So we'll carry tonight without notice. But if in the event I feel as though a variance or two pops up based on MR. Brancheau's letter and us meeting with him to discuss those, I will renotice and put those variances on -- on notice to the public, yes.

MR. MARTIN: If -- to be fair to the applicant, I would assume MR. Brancheau's correspondence and report do address variances. So not to sandbag you, in that light, unless there's some change, we'll assume that you will renotice.

MR. TUVEL: Well, what I would like to do, like I said, is we'll carry without further notice right now.

And in the event we can eliminate variances because we tweak the plan to get rid of them or he agrees with our interpretation of something, I would just want to reserve the right not to in the event that I covered everything in my current notice. I'm very conservative so in the event that something comes up I will do it.

MR. MARTIN: With that stipulation and with no prejudice to the board and an extension granted to December 6th, and the statement that the Planning Board will not hold hearings as to the motion that was addressed earlier this evening, fine.

But the Planning Board does not control the superior court. If any action is taken up there --

MR. TUVEL: Oh, of course not. That I completely understand.

MR. MARTIN: -- the stipulations that we have. Okay?

MR. TUVEL: Yes. Listen, the litigants have every right to go to court to do something. And if a court does something we have to abide by that court order. There's no question about that. I'm not...

MR. MARTIN: Very good.

MR. TUVEL: All right.

So can we just make an announcement, carrying it to December 6th, 7:30 in this room.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. We're going to carry this application to December 6th, 2016, 7:30 p.m. in this Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 52

courtroom.

MR. TUVEL: Without further notice.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Without further notice.

MR. MARTIN: With extension and no prejudice to the board, very good.

MR. TUVEL: Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you.

MR. TUVEL: Sorry to sound like a broken record on all those traffic questions.

MR. MARTIN: Well, that issue we'll hope to resolve by that time.

MR. TUVEL: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do we have any other --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You better have a very good traffic engineer. That's all I can say.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Next item is minutes, we don't have them drafted so we'll pick up next time.

As for unfinished business, we have an opening in the open space committee liaison, Joel checked his schedule and he's not going to be able to accommodate that.

Is anyone able to throw their hat in the ring for it?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Joel, you bum.

MS. PATIRE: You could pick it up.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I can't do it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah.

MS. McWILLIAMS: I don't know what you mean by checked his schedule.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone want to do it? They meet on the third Thursday of every month except September, July and August, 7:30 p.m. at the stable.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing that there's no one, we'll just have to table that one. All right. Add it on the calendar for next meeting. All right. We have another issue come before us it was COUNCILMAN VOIGT received some requests that we live stream our proceedings and -- with video so he -- he was looking into it. I guess he's checking with the finance department on the budgeting for that, but I just wanted to get input from you guys how you feel about it?

MS. McWILLIAMS: I think it's so important to do it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone object to it?

MS. McWILLIAMS: No.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you, Richard.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And with respect to a traffic expert we have to pick out a -- because John's conflicted. And there was a recommendation for David Shropshire.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Who was Debbie's recommendation, TRC?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And you --

MR. MARTIN: The one I'm familiar with is from Essex County is good.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: He was saying -- and also, Chris, Gordon Meth you mentioned.

MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, Gordon Meth was one of the respondents to the RFP.

He had worked for the Village in the past. He was the alternate the last time, go-round on the RFP.

(Whereupon, side bar discussion is held.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Well, we have a little time if -- if --

MR. MARTIN: We have to make a decision at the next meeting.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Maybe, Michael, do you think you can get TRC? We have their RFQ. And then we'll get one for David Shropshire. And take Gordon Meth's. Just sent out the three to everybody so that they can review it --

MR. CAFARELLI: I'm sorry. I wasn't involved in it. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 53

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Oh, the traffic engineer because John Jahr is conflicted out on this application.

MR. CAFARELLI: There are three?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, there was Gordon Meth and then MAYOR KNUDSEN mentioned Debbie person's TRC. And then there was mention of Dave Shropshire. So I guess we can put the three RFQs together and sent them out. And then have everyone review it, you know, have a little dialogue --

MR. CAFARELLI: So TRC, David Shropshire and the third?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Gordon Meth. Well --

MR. CAFARELLI: Gordon Meth?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah, he's -- so you'll have RFQs for two of them, TRC and Gordon Meth, I forget which outfit he's with. And then Shropshire I guess Chris can provide the contact information for him, to sent the RFQ information. And I guess scheduling for our next application I guess October 18th will be Two Forty Associates, Chestnut Village.

MR. CAFARELLI: And also 373 Oak.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Oh, okay. And then November 1st will be 257 Ridgewood Avenue, right? And then November 15th will be The Dayton.

MR. CAFARELLI: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. So that's --

MR. MARTIN: Riverside, what about that?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, that's the 730 that is it.

Okay. We might want to just give some thought to maybe having a -- a planner or a traffic engineer doing a global view of all the applications, how they -- the net effect of the development, so that's something to give a thought to.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Could you explain that again, how --

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, we have experts on each of the applications, but all the applications together will have a net effect.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Oh, okay. Got it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So maybe we might have --

MR. MARTIN: It's a series of short stories in the novel.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. So we want to be on top of them, so to speak.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Go ahead.

MR. MARTIN: And I think that should probably finish with some discussion.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. Yes. All right, so I guess we could just address it now or at other times?

Blais, do you have any input? You know if you want to probably have someone review the -- because we're going to have the net effect of all the applications together. Would it be prudent to have another planner review it as to the net effect to give input.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Net effect of what?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All the applications together so, you know, we have input on each one, but to do a global thing.

MR. BRANCHEAU: When you say "effect", traffic effect? What -- what do you mean --

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All effects, planning, one -- well, we need probably a traffic person to do, you know, all the traffic and the parking and everything.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Right.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: The whole group and maybe a planner --

MR. BRANCHEAU: But most of the other effects were dealt with at the time of both the Master Plan and the ordinance amendment. And they're not really going to entertain that as a basis for a decision at this time.

MS. McWILLIAMS: No.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. BRANCHEAU: For example, you can't deny a permitted use because it generates traffic that that Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 54

permitted use generates. The courts say if you didn't like the traffic that the use generated why'd you permit the use? All right. So they're saying you should have thought of that when you zoned it. I'm not saying that the traffic is bad. I'm just saying is that there's no -- the only point in looking at the comprehensive traffic, in my opinion, is not whether to approve or deny, it's whether you need off-tract improvements to address the traffic impact, not whether the use generates too much traffic. That's not a valid basis for a decision by this board or the site plan. We can say the same thing a fiscal impact, on the school impact, on utility impact, all those things. What the board can properly consider, in my opinion at this time, is whether they need to upgrade the mains, whether the location and the design of their utility is appropriate. But not the capacity issue, not the -- same thing with the school capacity, that's not something that this board -- that can be a basis for the board's decision. Same with fiscal impact. It can't be a basis for the board's decision unless it's related to -- let's say, to a variance that if the variance were not granted, the fiscal impact would be a negative one, that could be a valid consideration. But not the uses, themselves. So I'm not sure I understand the question. I do think there's a valid basis for looking at a comprehensive traffic impact. And perhaps a comprehensive utility impact. But not to the point of approving or denying, only to a point of whether mitigation schemes are needed to address that. That's all.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. I'm just seeing if there's some benefit to having that done. I mean definitely the traffic I could see that --

MR. BRANCHEAU: Absolutely.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, because, you know, with each application it's more localized and then if you take the whole thing and kind of tie into everybody for improvements, and things like that.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. For example, if you're looking at the accident of Broad and Franklin, you may want to look at more than just this development. You may want to look at Chestnut Village's traffic because it's going to come down that same direction. You may want to look at The Dayton's traffic which is going to come north on Broad and look at that intersection. And when you add them all together, does that change the level of service? Does that result in the need for a different signal timing or different lane configuration? It may or may not. That's up to the traffic consultant to advise you on. But that's the reason why you would do that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So you run into a problem where the applicant's going, hey, that's not me. You know mine is just localized.

MR. BRANCHEAU: You'll know --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Well, I have -- I have a problem with that, I mean to add on to Richard's point, if these developments are affecting capacity issues in our downtown and they're not paying for it, you know, and we -- and we're footing the bill on this? That's a huge issue. And so there has to be some kind of an understanding that, you know, if and when these things are approved that they have some skin in the game. In other words they're going to pay for some of these adjustments that need to be made downtown.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Right.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: That's a huge issue.

MR. BRANCHEAU: And we can require that a proportioned share of the costs, but basically the law says they're required to pay for necessary improvements in proportion to which they contribute to the problem. If the problem is 99 percent caused by other traffic not related to these developers, you can't make them pay for a problem that somebody else is causing.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: But -- so to Richard's point having an analysis like that is really important because it's not only traffic, it's safety, it's parking. I mean --

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Well, we shouldn't --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, so all those things, I think, need to be wrapped up into -- to what you're suggesting because they're going to effect, you know, I think from a monetary standpoint what they're paying out in taxes here so...

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I guess another point if you have that expert, I'm sure the applicants aren't going to kick in for that, are they? Would that be part of escrow? Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 55

MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, they can bill to the escrow account. Certainly this board has no budget --

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

MR. BRANCHEAU: -- to pay for it on its own.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

MR. BRANCHEAU: So as long as it's rationally and reasonably related to the development application, yes, we can bill the cost of such consultant to the applicant's escrow account.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

MR. BRANCHEAU: But I would just caution that it has be reasonable and rationally related to the application. There reaches a point where an intersection a mile away is a bit of a stretch to charge the applicant to study when he may be generating one trip out of 1,000 towards that intersection.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, Blais, I have another issue here is I mean we're going to be -- we're going to be either approving or denying these applications in isolation, okay?

MR. BRANCHEAU: Right.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And we can't do that. I just -- based on what you're suggesting, I mean, sure, we'll look at these but then we have to look at them on an aggregate and say what's going on here. And --

MR. BRANCHEAU: Of course.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: -- and before we even approve them I mean --

MR. BRANCHEAU: But, I think as long as this -- as long as this is to look at an issue that is a valid basis for a decision.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

MR. BRANCHEAU: Some issues are -- have been dealt with by the actual rezoning.

But traffic design, the design of how the traffic is accommodated, is a valid basis for your decision.

MS. McWILLIAMS: What did you just say? I'm sorry the traffic what?

MR. BRANCHEAU: The design and the cost of mitigating traffic from permitted uses is a valid basis for a study and decision. So, for example, if it were determined that, okay, we need to upgrade a signal at an intersection because of the traffic added to the intersection by these developments, the cost of that signal upgrade, both according the our ordinance and according to the state law, is to be paid by the developer in proportion to how many he creates the problem. If he's merely the tip of the iceberg all you can make him pay for is the tip. It's you can't retroactively make the last guy in pay that full cost for a problem that he didn't make. So that's -- but you can study and determine how much he is making towards that problem and make him pay for that proportionate share of that cost to fix that problem.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Is the traffic expert -- I mean not the -- you can't say what he's going to find, but is he going to be able to look or is she going to be able to look at this, what we have now, what's surrounds it, say it's just a specific corner of Broad and Franklin near where that -- where the underpass is, are they going to be able to look at that and really give us a decent gauge of what's actually going to happen at 7:15 in the morning when people are going to GW and the high school and the madness that's there now, and add in all of the commuters and the people coming in and out, the garbage truck, and the box trucks and then this -- I mean how?

MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, they're going to be assuming, you know, you select somebody with the right capabilities, they're going to be able to give you the best answer that you can get. Will it be 100 percent accurate? No. They never are.

But it is -- will it be reasonably accurate? I believe it will be.

MS. McWILLIAMS: And then are we permitted to weigh in your knowledge of what it means to live here and what really --

MR. BRANCHEAU: Of course.

MS. McWILLIAMS: -- is going on?

MR. BRANCHEAU: Absolutely.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Say somebody took that and then also weighed in Chestnut Village's proximity to this Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 56

and --

MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. Yes. You can look at their -- the intersections that are proximate. I mean I raised an issue in my report, does Chestnut Street need to be widened along the frontage or not. I think the traffic consultant should look at that. There's other things that, you know, because they're giving us a 5-foot widening easement --

MS. McWILLIAMS: And then putting --

MR. BRANCHEAU: -- do we want to take advantage of that easement and actually widen the road or not.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Right.

MS. PATIRE: I guess I have another question that was raised like what Jeff said, like, how are we supposed to make a decision on the -- looking at them separate? Because, again, you know, you're in a vacuum here. You're looking at this one and you're looking at -- okay. Here's what's going to be here, what's going to here --

MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, they're generally -- well, when a traffic consultant is generating traffic projections towards the future, usually they do two things -- at least one, hopefully they'll do two, and that's what your consultant should be reviewing and advising you on, is there's usually a background traffic growth. When they do it they look at long term traffic trends in an area and say, okay, there's 1 or 2 percent traffic increase per year. We're going to apply that. That's under the no-build scenario. That increase is going to be happen if nothing else happens. But then the second thing you would add in traffic -- in looking at your traffic projection is how much traffic is being added, not only under the no-build scenario, but how much traffic is being added because of these four developments that are occurring to this intersection. And once you do that, what type of traffic flow are we looking at then? That's what should be done for each of these projects, not just this one.

MS. PATIRE: Yeah, yeah.

MR. BRANCHEAU: But that should be all a part of the background traffic analysis. Okay.

When I add my traffic to the increase in background -- in other traffic, I'm taking into account the larger region as well as these individual developments. And then I'm adding this project to that to find out what will the resulting traffic scenario be. And if it's unacceptable traffic, what can be done to mitigate signal timing, turning restrictions, turning lanes, things like that, widening.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And for the comprehensive utilities, Chris, is that something that you would be able to do or is that something that we need to reach out --

MR. RUTISHAUSER: Well, I mean Ridgewood Water, Rich Calbi has already, I think, provided an analysis of -- I think all -- I think of all the multifamily housings projects. I wrote a memo on sewerage and sewer capacity, I think it was back in 2013. I quoted that in my recent review. Gas and electric, that's up to PSE&G. PSE&G is currently doing a number of gas and electric upgrades throughout the village. They will be working on North Broad Street and Franklin heading down towards Hudson Street in January.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is there anything that you could think of that these projects would cause a need for an upgrade on anything?

MR. RUTISHAUSER: Well, regarding sewage I asked for load values that they propose for their project. And I would like to have them carefully look at what the receiving pipe's capacity is to see how it all fits in. We do have and in-flow infiltration problem in the Village, affectionately known as INI. So they may have an obligation to widen the pipes in Franklin. A couple of blocks away from the Ken Smith site we did have a litigation a number of years ago where someone claimed that ex-filtration from our sewer pipe caused the loss of value on their property. It's a pretty hokey claim. And the court agreed. And they lost.

But we do have an INI problem. Ken Smith may have to address it with some lining or pipe rehabilitation.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

MR. RUTISHAUSER: And I think similar comments were voiced in the review memo by your water department.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, can you think of any other experts that we would need? I mean it seems that the traffic would be the thing. The utility was addressed.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Education? Schools? Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 57

MS. ALTANO: Well, yeah, that's the -- that's very important.

MS. McWILLIAMS: Parks, schools?

MS. ALTANO: But that's one. Isn't there something that the Board of Education should do, the Board of Education should do a study because now, it's a real thing that this apartment building I going to be built to include for the projected enrollment of the projects.

MS. McWILLIAMS: I thought we got one that was flawed --

MS. ALTANO: What?

MS. McWILLIAMS: -- I thousand the projection were flawed. I think they said 15 kids or 23 kids from all of these units --

MS. ALTANO: Right, But I'm --

MS. McWILLIAMS: -- so it was --

MS. ALTANO: Right.

MS. McWILLIAMS: -- which is totally ridiculous.

MS. ALTANO: Right. But I think at this point the Board of Education should really invest into that study. I don't think it should be us. It should be the Board of Education.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: But, Chris, is --

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Chris, can we even use that as grounds for a decision? The cumulative impact on the school system?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It's site plan, I mean you know --

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: We're going to --

MR. BRANCHEAU: Even zoning is limited as to --

MR. MARTIN: It's a Board of Education issue, it's not your issue.

MS. ALTANO: Right, right, so that's what I just said.

MS. McWILLIAMS: It's a taxpayer issue.

MS. ALTANO: Yes. Yes. But it's necessary --

MR. MARTIN: But it's not for this board. That's the issue.

MS. ALTANO: Yes. Yes.

MR. MARTIN: That's the issue. I'm sorry I wasn't here for five years, but somebody must have done something. I don't know what was done. And the question is --

MR. BRANCHEAU: Those studies were done.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is there anything else you can think of, Blais?

MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't know about the environmental cleanup, it's pretty -- I think there should at least be some preliminary assessment of what it is, if it's something that is relatively innocuous, what you would typically do is impose a condition because they have to do that under the state law anyway.

MR. MARTIN: Yes.

MR. BRANCHEAU: It's only if the environmental cleanup is of a nature that raises abnormal risks or problems that you wouldn't typically expect. But I think you should have a preliminary assessment on that to make that decision, you know I have not seen that so -- but both Chris and I asked for that in our reports.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So -- so do we need somebody from the DEP to look at this? I mean what are we doing?

MR. BRANCHEAU: I -- well, I think -- I don't think you're going to get any, unless you get something in writing from the DEP, a report. But typically what's done is a licensed site remediation professional --

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

MR. BRANCHEAU: -- is somebody who would prepare what's called a remedial action work plan and is going to certify that that plan complies with all state requirements and that the clean up is something that is not going to create any issues of -- of, you know, for example, if you were looking at years of soil stockpiles on the property that was going to affect surrounding areas, that's what I'm talking about. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 58

As long as, you know, you feel that this LSRP can convey you that the clean up is of a nature that's short-term duration or very innocuous and not likely to create any negative detriments to the surrounding properties, then you would impose a condition saying that prior to the issuance of any permits or COs that it has to be cleaned up to the satisfaction of state regulations as certified by an LSRP. But I think at least a preliminary analysis, you could ask for at this point in time, if you get that and you feel you want it reviewed by your own expert, I suppose you could hire your own LSRP to review the work of the other guy and say, yes, I agree or I don't agree.

MR. MARTIN: My resolution -- we haven't had the pleasure of having anything approved, that I could show you my resolutions, but generally they all require DEP compliance and acceptance and remediation, if there's any requirement by the state and all those issues. Chris, these things seem to be in the -- I think you used the term "railroad" and it was exactly what I was thinking and what we were all thinking. You're right along -- you're right along an easement at least the two buildings we looked at in the have last 30 days. Is there a foundational issue?

MR. RUTISHAUSER: I did raise in my review memo that about 10 -- 10, 12 years ago the railroad rebuilt the former coal cribs that had existed at the railroad abutment and the Ken Smith property. They constructed what you see there presently. The gate structure. The survey submitted with this applicant shows those structures crossing over the property line. I asked if there's any kind of encroachment agreement and whose responsibility is the maintenance. We discussed that briefly tonight with the applicant's professional. They're going to look into that and probably provide testimony to that effect.

MR. MARTIN: Well, I mean I'm going to footings, things, there's not a basement apparently?

MR. RUTISHAUSER: They're all slab on grade.

MR. MARTIN: Is there sufficient something to bite in that it wouldn't create an erosion situation. I don't know. But it's something I thought maybe that they should put some proof on.

MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yeah, I'd like the -- when they cleaned up the old coal cribs they did do some remedial effort. I don't quite recall how extensive it was. I would recommend that any Planning Board approval resolution have a condition in it that they provide a "No Further Action" letter on any environmental issues on the property. That would be the -- it's considered the gold standard, as you well know, for site cleanup.

MS. ALTANO: There should also be a geotechnical report that also -- they should do some borings.

MR. RUTISHAUSER: They have done borings.

MS. ALTANO: They have done borings?

MR. RUTISHAUSER: I also provided them with a map from approximately 1850 or '60 that showed an underground stream running through their property. So they're fully aware of the groundwater issues.

MS. ALTANO: So the foundation is an issue. If we had a geotechnical look at that foundation, they can design it.

MR. RUTISHAUSER: What? I can't hear you.

MS. ALTANO: If you did the geo -- geotech report, they would design the foundation accordingly.

MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes. These -- most likely the soils out there are glacial till. As I said the property has a high groundwater elevation, standard strip footings, shallow footings would suffice for this type of structure. No piers. No piles. Nothing extensive like that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thanks.

Do we need an executive session?

MR. MARTIN: Very briefly.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. We'll move into the other room. Do we have a motion for executive session?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Executive session, motion.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Second?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I'll make the second.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Second. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 59

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Oh, Sue made the second -- Susan made the second.

All in favor?

(Whereupon, all board Members respond in the affirmative.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Opposed?

(No response.)

MR. MARTIN: Announce the executive session.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Oh, I could read the resolution. Whereas the Open Public Meetings Act N.J.S.A. 10:4-6, permits the exclusion of the public for a portion of the meeting in certain circumstances and whereas this board is such circumstances presently exist. Now therefore be it resolved by the Planning Board of the Village of Ridgewood, County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, set forth and goes to closed session in which the public shall be excluded for the purposes of discussion of pending and/or anticipated litigation from immediate all TAEUR and attorney/client privilege where the confidentiality requires the attorney exercise the technical duties as the lawyer and that such discussions be made available to the public as soon as possible following is board to deem say same if and when appropriate. And that this resolution shall take effect immediately. Whereupon, an Executive Session was held from 11:49 p.m. to 12:17 a.m.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Back on.

All right. We have a motion to emerge out of executive session?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So moved.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. And do we have a second?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Second.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All in favor?

(Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We're back in public.

Do we have any further business -- well, let's take a roll call just so we...

We just have to do a quick roll call.

MS. ALTANO: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, call the roll.

MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MR. SCHEIBNER?

(No response.)

MR. CAFARELLI: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MR. TORIELLI?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: CHAIRMAN JOEL?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE?

MS. PATIRE: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. ALTANO?

MS. ALTANO: Here.

MR. CAFARELLI: MS. McWILLIAMS?

MS. McWILLIAMS: Here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Is there any further business?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing no further business, the meeting is adjourned.

Whereupon, this meeting is adjourned. Time noted: 12:18 a.m. Ridgewood Planning Board October 4, 2016 Page 60

Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from May 3, 2016 were approved as written.

The Board went into Executive Session at 11:49 p.m., returned to open session at 12:18 p.m. and the meeting was adjourned.

Michael Cafarelli

Board Secretary

Date Approved: September 5, 2017