Planning Board Meeting Minutes 20170117

Ridgewood Planning Board

January 17, 2017

Page 1

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of January 17, 2017. 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 7:35 p.m. Following members were present: Mayor Knudsen, Richard Joel, Joel Torielli, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Melanie McWilliams, Isabela Altano, David Scheibner, and Debbie Patire. Also present were Christopher Martin, Esq., Board Attorney; Village Planner Blais Brancheau, Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser, and Michael Cafarelli Secretary. Ms. Barto was not present.

 

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

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics, Correspondence -There was none.

    Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci,

C.C.R., R.P.R.:

               PLANNING BOARD HEARING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL

                    MAJOR SITE PLAN, (PUBLIC HEARING) 76 & 80 CHESTNUT STREET

                   AND 25-27 FRANKLIN AVENUE, BLOCK 2005, LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

BEFORE: VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD PLANNING BOARD

RICHARD JOEL, Chairman SUSAN KNUDSEN, Mayor

CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, Board Attorney

DAVID SCHEIBNER

JEFF VOIGT

JOEL TORIELLI

DEBBIE PATIRE

ISABELLA ALTANO

MELANIE MCWILLIAMS

ALSO PRESENT:

               BLAIS L. BRANCHEAU, Planner

                                             CHRISTOPHER J. RUTISHAUSER, Engineer

                                                MICHAEL CAFARELLI, Secretary

                 DAVID R. SHROPSHIRE, Traffic Engineer

      

Page 2

1            T R A N S C R I P T of the VILLAGE OF

2  RIDGEWOOD PLANNING BOARD HEARING taken by and

3  before Jane E. Clancy, C.C.R., a Notary Public

4  and Certified Court Reporter of the State of New

5  Jersey, at the VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE HALL,

6  January 17, 2017, commencing at 7:30 p.m. 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 4

1                        I N D E X

2   WITNESS       DIRECT                         PAGE

3   DAVID NICHOLSON, AIA                      9

4   DANIEL W. BUSCH, P.E. P.P., C.M.E.         37

5   CHRISTOPHER J. RUTISHAUSER, P.E. C.P.W.M. 86

6   BLAIS BRANCHEAU, P.P.                     91

7   DAVID R. SHROPSHIRE, P.E., P.P.           103

8

9

10

11                        E X H I B I T S

12   EXHIBITS      DESCRIPTION                     PAGE

13   A-17          Revised Plans to A-11        12

14   A-18          Revised Plans to A-13        14

15   A-19          Color Rendering              38

16

17 EXHIBITS RETAINED BY COUNSEL 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 3

1   A P P E A R A N C E S:

2   PRIME LAW

3   141 Ayer Court, Suite LLA-1

4   Teaneck, New Jersey 07666

5 (201)371-1026

6   BY:   JASON R. TUVEL, ESQ.

7   Attorneys for the Applicant, KS Broad Street 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 5

1                  THE CHAIRMAN: Our next item will 2 be KS Broad Street, Preliminary and Final Major 3 Site Plans, 76 & 80 Chestnut Street and 25-27

4 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14,

5 15.

6                           This is a Public Hearing continued

7   from December 6, which was also heard on October 8 4, 2016.

9                  The attorney was Jason Tuvel and on 10 October 4th, he gave an overview of his

11   presentation.

12                           There was the architect, David

13   Nicholson, that they had testified and presented 14 Exhibits A-1 through A-15.

15                           The witness was also cross-examined

16   by the Board and Board experts and the Public and 17 so Mr. Tuvel will be continuing with his

18   presentation at this point.

19                           Mr. Tuvel?

20                           MR. TUVEL:   Good evening, Mr.

21   Chairman, Members of the Board. Happy New Year, 22 everybody. I'm Jason Tuvel, Attorney for the

23   Applicant.

24      Where we left off as Mr. Chairman 25 noted at the last meeting which was back in

Page 6

1 October is, we presented to you our architectural

2 testimony from David Nicholson. We stopped at

3 that point and we did receive review letters from

4 your Board's professionals then.

5   What we did in the meantime since

6   6 we've had a few months since that time is we

7 submitted revised plans that addressed hopefully

8 all the items set forth in your Village Planner's

9 review letter, as well as your Village Engineer's 10 review letter, so that's where we are now and 11 those revised plans were submitted earlier this 12 month.

13       The game plan I guess for this 14 evening is as follows:  I would like our

15 architect to come back and explain some of the 16 revisions that he made to his plans based on

17   those review letters.

18                             I don't think that should take too

19   long. I'm anticipating about a half hour, maybe 20 a little bit less for his testimony, but you

21   never know.

22              And then following that, I'll have 23 our site Engineer, Dan Busch, from Maser

24   Consulting, go through civil and site testimony.

25                             We did receive this evening a

Page 8

1   detailed, but I do think it would be helpful both

2 to the Applicant and the Board if there's an

3   opinion on some of the site circulation.

4                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: I think it deals

5   with foundational issues for his multiple

6   opinions, so I think it's okay.

7                           MR. TUVEL:   Okay. I'm just being

8   courteous to you. No, I understand. Okay.

9                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Proceed.

10                           MR. TUVEL:   So the first witness I

11   would like to recall is our architect, David

12   Nicholson.

13                           David Nicholson was previously

14   sworn.   So I'm assuming he's still under oath and

15   he was qualified by the Board at the previous

16   meeting as an expert in architecture, so I'm

17   assuming the Board will still qualify him as an

18   expert.

19                           MR. MARTIN:   Mr. Nicholson, you

20   remain qualified in the Statute I guess from

21   October 4th.

22                           MR. NICHOLSON: That is correct.

23                           MR. MARTIN:   You remain qualified.

24                           DAVID NICHOLSON, AIA

25   545 West 45 Street, New York, NY 10036, having

Page 7

1 Traffic Report from your Board Traffic Engineer 2 as well as an updated report from your Board

3 Planner, so we'll do our best to try to address 4 those items as well.

5              So I would like to stop at that 6 point if we do get through both of those

7 witnesses as our Traffic Engineer had a conflict 8 and wasn't able to be here this evening, so

9 hopefully, we will finish with site and then at 10 the next meeting, we'll start off with traffic.

11 That would be the game plan, if that's okay with 12 the Board.

13              CHAIRMAN JOEL: With that being 14 said, do you think there's a need for our traffic 15 engineer to stick around, Mr. Martin?

16                             MR. TUVEL: Well, can I just

17   mention, I just think it's a good idea for the 18 following reason:

19              There were some site circulation 20 comments set forth in your Board Traffic

21 Engineer's review letter and our engineer will 22 testify as to onsite circulation.

23                             If we do get into the nitty-gritty

24   of it, I'll probably defer those comments to our 25 traffic engineer in the event they get really

Page 9

1   been previously sworn, testified as follows:

2   EXAMINATION BY MR. TUVEL: (CONTINUING)

3                        MR. TUVEL: You are still a

4   licensed architect in the State of New Jersey?

5                        MR. NICHOLSON: I am.   We didn't

6   have the cameras the last time. Where would you

7   like to set up the easels tonight, this side or

8   that side? I would like to set up a couple of

9   easels.

10                        MR. TUVEL: So, Mr. Nicholson, as I

11   mentioned before, what I would like you to do is

12   explain to the Board what revisions you made to

13   your plans between the October 4th meeting and

14   today and if there's any comments in the Board

15   Planner's review letter that you would like to

16   address, I would like you to address that during

17   this testimony.

18                        MR. NICHOLSON: Certainly.   One of

19   the first comments in Mr. Brancheau's letter last

20   month in October was concerning the retail square

21   footage of our project, and it is our intention

22   to have 5,500 square feet of retail space and no

23   more.

24                        There was some question about on

25   our previous plan what that square footage was

Page 10

1   and what we should count for retail square

2   footage.

3                           What I have on the Board here is a

4   revised exhibit, Exhibit 4. You saw Exhibit 4

5   last time.

6                           The blue shaded area is the retail

7   space. It's showing divided up into two retail

8   stores, the yellow to the west and that is to

9   your left on the plan, which are utility spaces.

10                           One is a retail trash room and one

11   is an allocation for floor space for all the

12   incoming utilities and meters for the building

13   and we were advised that we should not only count

14   the retail spaces themselves, but the retail

15   trash room and a pro rata share of the utility

16   room when calculating our retail square footage,

17   so that's what we have done.

18                           We have adjusted the wall's

19   position between the retail and the community

20   facility space to the west of that last retail to

21   make sure that we are, in fact, 5,500 square feet

22   of retail space on the project.

23                           Mr. Brancheau noted in his letter

24   today that there is a typographical error on my

25   last plan and I apologize for that.

Page 12

1                  MR. TUVEL: Yeah, I think that's a 2 better idea.

3          (Document is marked A-16 in 4 Evidence)

5                  MR. NICHOLSON: Another comment was 6 that there was a small section of parking

7 adjacent to the Chestnut entrance to the project 8 that was visible from the street and that's

9 contrary to the Village's ordinances, that we 10 have modified the north end of that elevation 11 that you see here on the right-hand side of my

12 drawing to include a brick wall within the stone 13 arch that we had previously designed so that that 14 parking immediately behind that wall is not

15 visible from the street and in compliance then 16 with your Ordinance.

17                  Another comment was with respect to 18 the building height and specifically, the

19 calculation of that height relative to average 20 grade.

21                           Average grade has been recalculated

22   by our civil engineer and my elevations have been 23 modified to account for that very small revision 24 in average grade, and I can tell you that at this

25 point our design complies with the Village's

Page 11

1                           A number read for 5,488. It should

2   have read 68, but it is my testimony that this

3   project will have 5,558 square feet of retail

4   when it's all said and done.

5                           MR. TUVEL:   So based on the square

6   footage calculation, and I know our site engineer

7   and traffic engineer will speak more to parking,

8   but specifically on the square footage, you

9   believe that we comply with the parking

10   requirements?

11                           MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct.

12                           MR. TUVEL:   Okay. Please continue.

13                           MR. NICHOLSON: The other comment

14   noted in the letter of October was the screening

15   of --

16                           MR. MARTIN:   Mr. Nicholson, just

17   before you continue, could we mark that as A-16

18   as the revised --

19                           MR. NICHOLSON: Yeah, sure.   We can

20   mark that.

21                           MR. TUVEL:   Should we mark that?

22                           MR. NICHOLSON: Should we mark that

23   as 16 or revised A-4?

24                           MR. MARTIN:   Continue with 16, 25 A-16.

Page 13

1   requirements relative to building height in this

2   zone.

3                           This would be a revision to our

4   Exhibit A-11, so I'll mark that, A-17?

5                           MR. TUVEL:   Correct.

6   (Document is marked Exhibit A-17 in Evidence)

7                           MR. NICHOLSON: Another comment

8   that I wanted to address were some concerns about

9   discrepancies between the floor plans and the

10   elevations of our design, as well as its position

11   on the site.

12                           As you can see, our design includes

13   a lot of architectural embellishments. Cornices,

14   stone bands, other design features of the

15   windows, and of course, those are included as

16   part of our design to address the historic

17   character of the downtown, but Mr. Brancheau's

18   concern, of course ,was that those might encroach

19   over the property line.

20                           We've looked at that very carefully

21   and we have adjusted the position of the building

22   relative to the street line by several inches to

23   make sure that we have the space required to do

24   all the embellishments you see on our elevation

25   and still not encroach over the street line.

Page 14

1                           And the last exhibit I would like

2   to show you is the one I left over here in the 3 corner. I beg your pardon.

4                  The north wall of our building is 5 on the property line and abuts commercial, 6 currently ,residential.

7                           MR. TUVEL:   Mark that as A-18.

8                           (Document is marked A-18 for in 9 Evidence)

10                  MR. TUVEL: Did you have a 11 question, Mr. Chairman?

12                  CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, can you 13 shift just a teeny bit for her? She's having a 14 hard time.

15                  MAYOR KNUDSEN: I was having a hard 16 time.   Actually, it was just visual which was

17   okay but --

18                           MR. NICHOLSON: This is a revised 19 north elevation. This was previously Exhibit 20 A-13.

21                  We have re-designed the north wall 22 of the building. This faces the property line 23 for the next property north on Chestnut.

24                  We have incorporated and wrapped 25 the bands and treatment of the corners from the

Page 16

1                           MR. NICHOLSON: Board members had

2   asked me two questions that I wanted to answer

3   tonight.

4                           One was relative to windows and the

5   concern about train noise, and I had mentioned in

6   my testimony last time I was before you that we

7   had done several projects where the acoustical

8   concerns were very great, and you had asked me

9   for specific information about that.

10                           We are doing a residential project

11   in West Chelsea which was a very industrial area

12   of Manhattan up until several years ago when it

13   was rezoned to permit residential, but only

14   partly so, and part of that rezoning, the City

15   required a very high acoustical performance for

16   windows in residential buildings, and that is one

17   of the projects that I was thinking about when I

18   mentioned to you our experience in that regard.

19                           The windows on that project have an

20   STC rating between 37 and 40. I don't know if

21   that means anything to you, but that's a pretty

22   high standard of noise blocking ability to use in

23   lay terminology.

24                           The other project was a public

25   school in Queens that was a conversion of an old

Page 15

1   other elevations around this elevation to

2   mitigate some of the concerns that were expressed

3   by Mr. Brancheau in his letter.

4                           That concludes the revisions that

5   we made.

6                           MR. TUVEL:   So, Dave, before you

7   move on to the next issue in terms of Mr.

8   Brancheau's letter, building height from the last

9   memo that was issued before the October meeting

10   the building height discrepancies have been

11   clarified in height and complying. Is that

12   correct?

13                           MR. NICHOLSON: That is correct.

14                           MR. TUVEL:   Okay. In connection

15   with the parking and the square footage, that has

16   also been rectified or will be rectified to

17   comply?

18                           MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct.

19                           MR. TUVEL:   All the other

20   dimensional comments that were made by Mr.

21   Brancheau, we either comply with or will comply

22   with.   Is that accurate?

23                           MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct.

24                           MR. TUVEL:   Okay. If you can

25   continue, that would be great.

Page 17

1   factory building very close to the Lyle Railroads

2   main line out of Manhattan, and not only was it

3   impacted by railroad noise, but it was impacted

4   by plane noise because it was on the path to land

5   at La Guardia.

6                           The school construction authority

7   was very concerned about that, as was the DOE.

8                           Those windows have an STC rating of

9   45, so my message to you is the technology is

10   there to mitigate the train noise at this

11   location, and we know how to do it.

12                           And then the last comment was some

13   questions about the existing towers in town and

14   how they compare to our proposed corner element,

15   which you see in this elevation here on the

16   left-hand side of my board.

17                           My research comes from a report

18   complied for the Village when they were

19   considering one of the parking garages in town.

20                           49 Cottage Place, the Board of

21   Education Building, its central element is 58

22   feet above the sidewalk.

23                           One East Ridgewood Avenue had its

24   eve 44 feet above the sidewalk and the spire tops

25   out at 61 feet and at 18 East Ridgewood Avenue,

Page 18

1 the eve is at 44 feet and the spire tops out at 2   60.

3                           Our design here has an eve at 52

4   feet above the sidewalk and tops out at 61 feet,

5   two inches, so compared to these other towers in

6   town, it's comparable.

7                           And that's all I had for tonight.

8                           MR. TUVEL:   Okay. Now, I know that

9   there were other questions that were related to

10   some issues that I stated would be handled by

11   other experts, so I would just ask that you keep

12   those questions for either the site engineer or

13   for our traffic engineer when they come in at a

14   later date or any other witness which they would

15   be appropriate.

16                           We really just try to deal with the

17   questions from the Board that related to Mr.

18   Nicholson's testimony as to his expertise of

19   architecture, but I, obviously, welcome the

20   Board's questions on his testimony this evening.

21                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Dave, do you have

22   any questions?

23                           MR. SCHEIBNER: I don't have any

24   questions at this time.

25                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Councilman Voigt?

Page 20

1                  MR. NICHOLSON: I think that the 2 civil engineer will make a clarification. I

3 think it's 22 for the retail and the balance for 4 residential.

5                  COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Blais, I have a 6 question for you, and it relates to -- I think

7 there's something in the Ordinance that relates 8 to restaurant space and the number of parking 9 spaces you need for a restaurant, and then I

10 don't know whether or not that's addressed in 11 this particular analysis.

12                  MR. BRANCHEAU: It's not and we 13 discussed this part of our reexamination, the 14 fact that the Village regulates non-residential

15 parking by zone, not by use, and we had discussed 16 particularly in the case of restaurants and other

17 high occupancy uses how that can exacerbate the 18 parking shortages in the downtown.

19                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah.

20                           MR. BRANCHEAU: What I would 21 suggest now is what I suggested then, is that we 22 amend the regulations in the Village for parking 23 for non-residential uses to provide more use

24   specific standards particularly for those that

25   are placing the most highest demand on parking to

Page 19

1                  COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You mentioned 2 the retail space is 5,500 square feet. Is that

3   correct?

4                           MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct.

5                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And it's for 6 two retail spaces. Is that right?

7                  MR. NICHOLSON: We are currently 8 showing it as two spaces. Whether it's two or 9 three is yet to be determined.

10                  COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Could it be 11 collapsed into one?

12                  MR. NICHOLSON: The current design 13 has a change in floor elevation because the

14   sidewalk moves up, but it is possible, yes.

15                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It is possible. 16 At some point it might be one space?

17                           MR. NICHOLSON: It could be.

18                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.   And it 19 sounds like you complied with the parking

20 requirements. You talked about the parking 21 requirements. That's why I'm asking the

22   questions.

23                           There were 23 reserved spots for 24 the retail space which complied with the 25 Ordinances. Is that correct?

Page 21

1   avoid exacerbating those problems.

2                           The residential is set by the

3   state.   There's nothing we can do about that, but

4   for the non-residential, that's up to our

5   discretion as to what that can be and right now,

6   we don't really address that, and it wasn't

7   really a problem until recent years where we've

8   seen an influx of restaurant uses in the downtown

9   area that have really particularly at certain

10   times, Friday nights and on weekends, but

11   sometimes and other times as well, where there's

12   a strain placed on the parking supply,

13   particularly, the public parking supply and

14   because our Ordinance -- if there's a change in

15   use say from a retail store to a restaurant use,

16   at meal-time, that can result in a much

17   significantly higher parking demand that we have

18   experienced otherwise.

19                           But our Ordinance does not deal

20   with that. And so it's allowed to happen today

21   and it would be allowed to happen here unless the

22   Ordinance were amended, so I'm suggesting that

23   that's a solution that we should be looking at

24   to provide more appropriate use basis standards

25   as opposed to one size fits all, which is the

Page 22

1   current code requirement.

2                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Let me make 3 sure I'm clear on this.   If we amended the

4 Ordinance, would it apply to this particular 5 site?

6                  MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. Changes of 7 use anywhere in the Village.

8                  COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And the reason 9 I ask is because I think there's some

10 municipalities around our area that say for every 11 three seats in a restaurant you should have one 12 parking place, and my concern is if this ended up 13 being a hundred seat restaurant, then you are

14 looking at 33 parking places that we just don't 15 have.

16                           And then you are also looking at

17   the employees who may have a higher demand on the 18 spaces that are in that area as well, so we would

19   address that. Could we address that?

20                           MR. BRANCHEAU: We could absolutely 21 address that.

22                  COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. All 23 right. Thank you.

24                           MR. TUVEL:   I mean, the only thing

25   I would say from a legal perspective is you could

Page 24

1   I want to put that on the record.

2                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I understand.

3   I guess one of the concerns we have at least in

4   on the Council is that based on the parking

5   shortage, and you know, potentially looking to

6   build a garage, and that garage per space is

7   relatively steep, we would hope that

8   maybe the developer might consider assisting in

9   paying for some of those spaces that they are

10   going to use if it's a restaurant, just as a

11   thought.

12                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anything further?

13   Any more questions? Mayor Knudsen?

14                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.   I just wanted

15   to walk through the different towers again, the

16   different architectural details.

17                           You went through, for instance, the

18   Board of Ed building, so, first, would you just

19   mind going through those one more time?

20                           MR. NICHOLSON: 49 Cottage Place,

21   the Board of Ed building tops out at 58 feet.

22   One Ridgewood Avenue -- I'm sorry -- I can't

23   remember the name of that building at the corner

24   of Broad and Ridgewood.

25                           MR. BRANCHEAU: Is this the Wilsey

Page 23

1   address it going forward in an Ordinance that

2   could apply to other sections of town and could 3 apply in the zone. But based on the time of the 4 application, the rule, it wouldn't apply to this

5   project or to this application.

6                           MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, I think that 7 there's a distinction here.   The Applicant has

8 not requested approval for any particular uses, 9 just on residential retail in general, and if the

10 Ordinance were written to apply to all changes of 11 use, then I think it would apply.

12                           MR. TUVEL:   All right, so, I'll

13   just put on the record that I disagree with that 14 position. If it's a development regulation, the 15 time of application applies to any development 16 regulation, whether that's site plan zoning or 17 storm water, anything regarding development.

18                           So when you file, and especially

19   here where we've been deemed complete and we are 20 moving forward to a public hearing, the zoning is 21 set in stone forever.

22                  Even if you change something not 23 even zone specific but town-wide, it wouldn't 24 apply if it was a development regulation.

25                  I know we can agree or disagree but

Page 25

1   Building we are talking about?

2                           MR. NICHOLSON: Yes.   Thank you 3 very much. It has an eve 44 feet and tops out at

4 61. 18 East Ridgewood Avenue has the same eve 5 height at 44 and tops out at 60.

6                  CHAIRMAN JOEL: 49 Cottage. 18 7 East Ridgewood Avenue.

8                  MR. NICHOLSON: The upper most 9 limits of all those towers in the order that I

10   read them are 58, 61 and 60.

11                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Right.   The address 12 is 49 Cottage Place.

13                  MR. NICHOLSON: One East Ridgewood 14 Avenue and 18 East Ridgewood Avenue.

15                  MAYOR KNUDSEN: So my next question 16 then is, what is the maximum width of that tower

17   on your structure?

18                           MR. NICHOLSON: The Ordinance says 19 that a certain -- and I'm sorry, I can't quote it

20 precisely, I'm sure Blais can, that the width of 21 this tower on each elevation, the width of the 22 towers on each elevation can only be a certain

23 percentage of that elevation and we comply with 24 that standard.

25                  MAYOR KNUDSEN:   That wasn't my

Page 26

1   question.   I said, how wide is it?

2                           MR. NICHOLSON: How wide are they?

3   Give me a moment, please. I don't have that

4   precise dimension on any of the plans I have here

5   with me right now. It's about 32 feet.

6                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay, so

7   presumably, you wouldn't have the width of the

8   tower at One East Ridgewood Avenue, 18 East

9   Ridgewood Avenue?

10                           MR. NICHOLSON: No, I'm sorry, I

11   don't.

12                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.   That would

13   be helpful because, you know, when we talk about

14   towers as an architectural detail, there's

15   something about when we talk about One East

16   Ridgewood Avenue, it has like an entirely

17   different roof pitch, so the whole visual

18   aesthetic is quite different.

19                           MR. NICHOLSON: The two towers I

20   quoted on Ridgewood Avenue do have different

21   proportions.   The Board has practically the same

22   proportion.

23                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: So if you wouldn't

24   mind -- I mean, if it wouldn't be too much

25   trouble to have the specific details -- when you

Page 28

1   none that matched this specific location type.

2                           MS. KNUDSEN:   Okay. I don't have 3 any other questions right now.

4                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie?

5                           MS. MCWILLIAMS: Maybe come back to 6 me. I'm still reviewing some notes from last

7 time that I wanted to double-check questions on 8 to make sure I don't ask them twice.

9                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie?

10                           MS. PATIRE:   No questions from me.

11                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella?

12                           MS. ALTANO:   The shingles, the roof 13 shingles, right now the legend shows that you 14 have blue shingles?

15                  MR. NICHOLSON: No, the dark shade 16 that you see on this elevation for the fifth

17 floor mansard roof, those are shingles. Those 18 are the slate shingles.

19                           It runs here.

20                           MS. ALTANO: So you have the area, 21 okay, so two separate --

22                  NICHOLSON: I'm sorry, I'm having a 23 hard time hearing you.

24                  MS. ALTANO: So we are going to 25 keep two different shingles?

Page 27

1 are comparing the towers, it's good to say, well, 2 the height, but that height is mitigated by the

3 width and the architectural detail so on one it 4 has like a spire type thing at the top, another 5 one is a little embellishment shape.

6                           MR. NICHOLSON: Understood.

7                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: If we can get as 8 much information about those towers, it would be 9 really helpful.

10                           I think that when I had asked the

11   question pertaining to West Chelsea and the other 12 projects that you had worked on nearer to train 13 stations, I believe, my recollection is that you

14 stated that you had done a number of residential 15 projects near train stations, and I think I had

16 asked specifically for those locations and 17 projects.

18                  MR. NICHOLSON: I think my 19 testimony was that we have never done a

20 combination like this project, residential, very 21 close to railroads.

22                  MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Combination. 23 Go ahead.

24                  MR. NICHOLSON: We have done 25 several residential projects over the years but

Page 29

1                  MR. NICHOLSON: There's a standing 2 seam on the corner element and there are shingles

3 on the mansards. So wherever you have a mansard 4 roof, it's slate and then our corner elements

5 here on this corner and then where you pass 6 through the building right next to the train

7 station, the tops of those towers are standing 8 seam metal.

9                  MS. ALTANO: You will be behind, 10 keeping it separate and different?

11                  MR. NICHOLSON: We hadn't really -- 12 we had a number of things to address since our 13 last meeting. We really didn't tackle that one.

14                  I acknowledge you did raise that as 15 a question last time, but we hadn't really

16 considered the design issues at this stage. We 17 were focusing on the technical.

18                  MS. ALTANO: Right. I understand. 19 Okay. Thank you.

20                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

21                           MR. TORIELLI:   Just to reiterate

22   what Mayor Knudsen was saying about the towers, I 23 think the comment last time I may have had, it's

24 really about the slope, the pitch of the roof, so 25 it would be helpful next time just giving us the

Page 30

1   delta between the top of the roof and the eve

2   without giving us the width. Is it a fair

3   comparison?

4                           If I could ask you next time, the

5   apparent exhibit, you just took a photograph, I

6   know it's difficult, if you can estimate the

7   slope of these properties that you mentioned, 49

8   Cottage, One East Ridgewood and 18 East

9   Ridgewood, and then compare the slope of your

10   towers, that would be helpful. Thank you.

11                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: I have no

12   questions.   The Board of Professionals, Blais, do

13   you have any questions?

14                           MR. BRANCHEAU: They've stipulated

15   to address the comments in my report. They are

16   fairly minor, so I will take them afterward.

17                           I have no further questions with

18   the proviso that the comments in the report be

19   made a condition if the Board approves the

20   application, so it's just dealing with some

21   technical discrepancies, a couple of dimensional

22   things that I raised. The rest of the items were

23   repeats from my prior report.

24                           Mr. Nicholson mentioned one of the

25   discrepancies. It's a typographical error. I

Page 32

1   that right?

2                           MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct.

3                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, do you have

4   any questions?

5                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: Not at this time.

6   Thank you.

7                           MR. TUVEL:   I would just note that

8   Mr. Brancheau also has some comments other than

9   architecture that our other experts can address.

10                           MR. BRANCHEAU: And I'll be raising

11   those if they are not addressed in testimony.

12                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Very good. At this

13   time there will be cross-examination by the

14   public. Does anyone want to come forth and ask

15   questions?   All right. Just come up to the

16   podium, state your name and address and spell

17   your last name and you can ask questions of the

18   architect.

19                           MR. LACKS:   Good afternoon. My

20   name is Mike Lacks. I'm a representative of 104

21   C Ridgewood LLC located at 104 Chestnut Street,

22   Ridgewood, New Jersey.

23                           My question for the architect and

24   this is kind of maybe not an architectural

25   question right now, but it did come up in the

Page 31

1 raised a minor discrepancy of an inch and a half 2 in a building wall dimension. It sounds minor, 3 but when you multiply it over a certain distance, 4 it can have an effect on floor area calculations

5 as well as setbacks and encroachment issues.   And 6 the rest of it was addressing the testimony on

7   the architecture.

8                           MR. TUVEL:   The reports. I feel as

9   though the reports are always part of the record 10 just like the application materials, but it's up

11 to you if you prefer them. Then we should mark 12 each one. We should mark each report then.

13                           I would stipulate they are into

14   evidence and part of the record because they were 15 submitted ahead of time and typically, the Board 16 of Professionals, it's up to the Board.

17                  MR. MARTIN: Of course, there are a 18 number of reports. Let's refer to the 2017

19 report from the Village Planner. You agree with 20 the representations made by the Planner as to the 21 stipulations?

22                  MR. TUVEL: Correct. I'll have Mr. 23 Nicholson just confirm that as our expert, but 24 yes, in terms of architecture, we stipulate that

25 we can accommodate Mr. Brancheau's comments. Is

Page 33

1   earlier testimony concerning the parking and

2   restaurants, et cetera, and one of the issues

3   here is that there are a string of properties

4   along Chestnut Street that all access the same

5   easement area and there is traffic that flows in

6   and out through that easement through our parking

7   lots into the rear parking lot of this property

8   and there is a concern when you talk about

9   restaurants and things and only having 23 spots

10   for them, so my question is first, is there any

11   way that the town can restrict access in and out

12   of the parking lot?

13                           MR. TUVEL:   So I guess my point to

14   you would be ask that to either our sited traffic

15   engineer --

16                           MR. LACKS:   No, because these

17   questions came up and you gave answers to them

18   concerning the law and what you thought, so I'm

19   asking that question now because it was asked of

20   the architect and it was brought up here and I

21   would like to have the answer to the question

22   whether access in and out of the parking lot

23   because of planning type issues can be done?

24                           MR. TUVEL:   Sir, respectfully, we

25   didn't talk about access with respect to Mr.

Page 34

1 Nicholson's testimony, but I would ask that the 2 Chairman --

3                           MR. LACKS:   I'll ask the next

4   question because you don't have a planner --

5                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Direct your 6 comments to the Chair.

7                  MR. LACKS: Are they going to be 8 having a planner testify?

9                  CHAIRMAN JOEL: You asked a 10 question. Mr. Nicholson, can you answer it?

11                           MR. NICHOLSON: I really can't. I

12   mean, I can address compliance with the Ordinance 13 with respect to parking count, but the gentleman

14   is asking the question really about operations,

15   about how you control access across the easement. 16 I think it's out of my --

17                           MR. LACKS:   My next question is,

18   Mr. Chairman, has this building been designed to 19 have venting for restaurants to the roof?

20                           MR. NICHOLSON: No, it has not.

21                           MR. LACKS:   Is it possible given 22 the design of this building that heavy

23 ventilation for restaurants with grills and deep 24 fryers, et cetera, could be installed into this 25 building and turned into restaurants that have,

Page 36

1                           MR. LACKS:   And is there a planner

2   going to be testifying on this case?

3                           MR. TUVEL:   Yes, the professional

4   planner is typically the last witness that the

5   Applicant puts forth to summarize and take in all

6   the testimony, so yes, we will be providing one.

7                           MR. LACKS:   Thanks. That's all the

8   questions I have.

9                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else from

10   the public who wants to ask questions? Seeing

11   that there's none, thank you, Mr. Nicholson.

12                           MR. TUVEL:   So, Mr. Chairman, the

13   next witness that I would like to call, assuming

14   we are done with architecture at this time, is

15   our professional site engineer, civil engineer,

16   Dan Busch, from Maser Consulting, so he has not

17   been sworn or qualified. So we'll go through

18   that right now.

19                           Dan, could you provide a card for

20   the court reporter? Would you like one as well

21   just for your notes?

22                           MR. BRANCHEAU: Thank you.

23                           MR. MARTIN:   Mr. Busch, raise your

24   right hand.

25                           DANIEL W. BUSCH, P.E., P.P., C.M.E.

Page 35

1   you know, any restaurant?

2                           MR. NICHOLSON: It is possible to

3   incorporate that into the design before the

4   building is built. I would tell you after the

5   building is built, that it would be very

6   difficult.

7                           MR. LACKS:   So as an architect, you

8   are also, essentially, a person who is a planer.

9                           Do you understand the area of

10   Ridgewood and the parking issues that are here?

11                           MR. NICHOLSON: Well, I'm not a

12   planner as the State of New Jersey defines a

13   planner.

14                           MR. LACKS:   As an architect there

15   are sound principles of use of buildings and

16   design of buildings that all kind of circulate

17   together and things like that. Correct?

18                           MR. NICHOLSON: I'm familiar with

19   the design of restaurants.

20                           MR. LACKS: Do you think it's sound

21   planning principles to have 23 parking spaces for

22   a location that could have 5,000 square feet of

23   restaurant space?

24                           MR. NICHOLSON: I'm not qualified

25   to answer that question. I'm not a planner.

Page 37

1   having been first duly sworn, testified as

2   follows:

3                           MR. MARTIN:   State your name and

4   your professional title and your business?

5                           MR. BUSCH:   I'm a Licensed

6   Professional Engineer. I'm a Principal of Maser

7   Consulting.

8                           I have a Bachelor of Civil

9   Engineering from the University of Delaware.

10   I've been practicing in the field of civil

11   engineering for over 20 years.

12                           I have testified before Boards

13   throughout the State of New Jersey. I've not had

14   the pleasure of appearing before this Board.

15                           I look forward to speaking to you

16   this evening.

17                           MR. TUVEL:   He pretty much went

18   through his qualifications right there. Unless

19   the Board has any other questions, I would ask

20   they accept Mr. Busch as an expert in civil

21   engineering.

22                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any other questions

23   of the Board?   Have you ever not been accepted as

24   a professional engineer at a hearing?

25                           MR. BUSCH:   No.

 
 

Page 38

1              MR. MARTIN:  Have you ever 2 testified in the Superior Court?

3                             MR. BUSCH: I have not.

4                             MR. MARTIN: You are licensed in 5 New Jersey?

6                             MR. BUSCH: Yes.

7                             MR. MARTIN: Anywhere else?

8                             MR. BUSCH: No.

9                             MR. MARTIN: In terms of being

10   accepted as a civil engineer for the purposes of 11 this hearing on behalf of the Applicant, we'll 12 accept you.

13              MR. TUVEL: Okay. Great. Thank 14 you very much.

15   DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. TUVEL:

16                             MR. TUVEL: Okay. So, Mr. Busch, 17 what I would like to do, let's put up the first 18 exhibit that you would like to reference and all 19 the plans that you are referencing here were 20 prepared by your office, Maser Consulting.  Is 21 that correct?

22                             MR. BUSCH: That's correct.

23                             MR. TUVEL: Okay. So, Mr. 24 Chairman, I believe we're up to A-19.

25              (Document is marked A-19 in

Page 40

1 management detention facility associated with 2 this site.

3                             There is a series of inlets that

4   collects storm water that discharge into Franklin 5 Avenue.  There's no landscaping.

6                             Frankly, what's been out there,

7   the existing pavement is in very poor condition. 8 It needs to be repaired as well as the sidewalk

9 along Franklin Avenue.

10                             The existing access to Lot 15 is

11   only at the traffic signal and then there is the

12   access easement that also enters and exits out on 13 to Franklin Avenue that was described briefly.

14              There is existing lighting out 15 there.  It is fairly dark.  Most of the

16 illumination that is out there currently is from 17 the train platform.  There's not much on-site 18 lighting right now.

19              MR. TUVEL:  Is the site one hundred 20 percent impervious surface?

21              MR. BUSCH:  It's effectively one 22 hundred percent impervious.

23              MR. TUVEL: Okay. Anything else 24 regarding existing conditions?

25              MR. BUSCH:  No.

Page 39

1   Evidence)

2                             MR. TUVEL: Dan, if you could,

3   before we get into testimony, just describe to 4 the Board what A-19 is?

5              MR. BUSCH:  A-19 is a color 6 rendering of the current site plan.

7              MR. TUVEL: Okay, the site plan 8 that was submitted to the Board earlier this 9 month.  Is that correct?

10              MR. BUSCH:  It's the December 30th, 11 2016, plans.

12                             MR. TUVEL: Okay. Just colorized?

13                             MR. BUSCH: Correct.

14                             MR. TUVEL: If you could, just give 15 the Board a brief overview without going over 16 what Mr. Nicholson did at the first hearing,

17 existing conditions that would implicate some of 18 the site design issues that you would deal with.

19              MR. BUSCH:  Sure.  I did listen to 20 the last tape, so I'm not going to regurgitate 21 things that Mr. Nicholson testified to at the 22 last hearing.

23                             Just specifically related to

24   engineering type of issues with respect to the 25 existing conditions, there's no storm water

Page 41

1              MR. TUVEL:  So let's go to the 2 proposed site plan. I guess let's first start 3 with the building orientation.

4              MR. BUSCH:  Sure.  The building 5 complies with all the setbacks.  One of the 6 specific questions that I heard from the last

7 hearing was specifically regarding the setback to 8 the rail.

9              The zoning requirements is 25. 10 We're at 2579.  The balance of the setback

11 requirements for the building are all complied 12 with.

13                             There's a little nuance to the

14   setback along Chestnut Avenue. It's technically 15 from the right-of-way. It is 20 feet but there

16 is a five foot wide road widening easement that 17 is being provided, so we are sending the buildin 18 back 15 feet, which is consistent with what the 19 Ordinance requires from that easement.

20                             Two areas that I want to cover are

21   the amenity spaces, the exterior amenity spaces.

22                             I know there was testimony 23 regarding the internal ones previously.

24              The Ordinance requires 2640 square 25 feet.  We have two amenity areas totaling

 

 

g

Page 42

1   3,317 square feet and they are located in the

2   southwest corner as well as the southeast corner.

3   Those are basically a decorative paver area.

4                           One of the comments from your

5   planner, and quite frankly, when I looked at the

6   plans, was to add some seating and some benches

7   to those areas.

8                           I do have planters around the

9   perimeter of them to kind of provide some

10   buffering.

11                           With respect to parking, I know

12   there was a lot of testimony at the last hearing

13   with respect to parking. We have as noted in

14   your planner's letter there is, in fact, 23 that

15   are identified as retail spaces.

16                           We are going to eliminate one of

17   those and we will only have 22 designated for

18   retail space and we then do have 128 for

19   residential.

20                           One thing that I want to clarify is

21   there was a lot of discussion about visitor

22   parking.

23                           For this in the residential Site

24   Improvement Standards, part of the standard for

25   whatever size unit, one half of a stall is

Page 44

1                           That is a significant improvement

2   for pedestrian safety and the handicapped ramps

3   have all been redone at that intersection as

4   well.

5                           With respect to improvements along

6   the frontage, the entire frontage of Franklin

7   Avenue gets a new sidewalk. The appropriate

8   Village street lights, street trees and the

9   sidewalk improvements continue along Chestnut.

10                           One of the other comments that came

11   up in one of the letters today, and you see this

12   obviously throughout the Village, is that

13   these crosswalks that change the pavement color

14   or pavement type to accentuate that it is, in

15   fact, a pedestrian crosswalk, so we will agree to

16   incorporate that.

17                           MR. TUVEL:   And let's just

18   reference what letter is that. For the record,

19   that's the letter from Shropshire Associates

20   dated January 17, 2017, so that's the Board's

21   traffic consultant with respect to this project?

22                           MR. BUSCH: Yes, that's correct.

23                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does the witness

24   concur with that?

25                           MR. TUVEL:   Yes, we agree that the

Page 43

1 designated for visitor parking, so for 66 units, 2 according to the Residential Site Improvement 3 Standards, there are 33 visitor parking stalls

4   for this site.

5                             MR. TUVEL: I know our traffic 6 engineer will get more into the details of

7 parking and how the retail and the residential 8 work together, but just from a code standpoint 9 and how you lay out the site, the site plan

10 complies with the Statewide Residential Site 11 Improvement Standards.  Is that correct?

12                             MR. BUSCH: Yes.

13                             MR. TUVEL: As well as the Village 14 of Ridgewood Code as to the retail or

15   non-residential component?

16                             MR. BUSCH: Correct.  Just a couple 17 of identifying some of the improvements that are 18 off-site or immediately adjacent to the site.

19              The existing handicapped access and 20 ramping at the intersection of Chestnut and 21 Franklin Avenue is going to be redone.

22                             There will be basically a

23   pedestrian area of refuge which would be on the 24 easterly side of the intersection for providing

25 pedestrian access across Franklin Avenue.

Page 45

1   change in color with respect to pedestrian

2   crossing would be acceptable. Is that correct?

3                           MR. BUSCH:   That's correct. With 4 respect to the access, obviously, there are two 5 access points, one at the traffic signal on

6 Franklin, and then a second one on the north end 7 of the frontage on Chestnut.

8                  MR. TUVEL: Dan, so the Franklin 9 Avenue access is under County jurisdiction?

10 Chestnut is under the Village's jurisdiction?   Is 11 that correct?

12                  MR. BUSCH: That is correct. The 13 corresponding site triangles per the different

14 standards, whether they be AASHTO, County or the 15 Village standards, and are identified on the plan

16   and complied with on the plan.

17                           The access provides, as you are

18   aware from the architectural testimony, that they 19 basically both enter and go under the building. 20 The building will have clearance to allow for a 21 fire truck.

22                           We did submit in conjunction with

23   the application, truck turning movements for the 24 Ridgewood fire truck. It's about a 39-foot long 25 truck and demonstrated that that vehicle can

Page 46

1   enter from either driveway and then circulate

2   through the site.

3                           Just as a point of reference, our

4   hydrant is located near the entrance from

5   Franklin Avenue.

6                           The onsite circulation is pretty

7   basic.   We have 9 by 18 parking stalls, 24-foot

8   wide drive aisles.

9                           There was a comment discussing the

10   northern most drive aisle which just as a matter

11   of clarification is incorrectly identified on

12   this exhibit, but is correctly identified in the

13   plans as being one way 20 feet wide.

14                           We're going to reconfigure that and

15   basically eliminate that aisle, so the question

16   with respect to widening it out to 24 feet to get

17   it to be two ways, it's going to go away. The

18   aisle itself is going to go away.

19                           The existing easement that has

20   direct access to Franklin Avenue roughly in the

21   middle of the site is going to be located to the

22   Chestnut Street driveway and then basically, form

23   an L along the rear of those properties, the

24   adjacent properties that front on Chestnut and it

25   will remain the same width.

Page 48

1   aisles.

2                           We're going to stipulate that the 3 largest vehicle will fit within the loading

4 space, will be a single unit truck. It would not 5 be a WD 40 because it would obstruct that drive 6 aisle.

7                  MR. TUVEL: Dan, some of the other 8 comments, just to knock them out, in Mr.

9   Shropshire' s letter here, the site triangles

10   should be dimensioned? No issues with that?

11                           MR. BUSCH:   Correct.

12                           MR. TUVEL:   That was commented on 13 Page 2 of his letter and all site distances as

14   far as you are concerned are appropriate?

15                           MR. BUSCH:   Yes, obviously, at the 16 signalized intersection looking to the right, you 17 have obstructions, but it is a signalized

18   intersection.

19                           MR. TUVEL:   Comment 4 details the 20 details specified 24 inches. Is that fine?

21                           MR. BUSCH: Yes.

22                           MR. TUVEL:   And then Comment Number 23 5 talks about the turning analysis for the fire

24 truck. We did provide that connection with the 25 submission?

Page 47

1                           With respect to loading, there is a

2   12 by 40 loading space located to the north side

3   of the Chestnut Street entrance.

4                           For reference, a single unit truck

5   which would be basically the largest truck that

6   would do deliveries here, 30 feet long, so this

7   actually is 10 feet longer than the longest

8   truck.

9                           In fact, it would actually

10   accommodate the fire truck, if it were to park

11   there.

12                           MR. TUVEL:   Just for context, Dan,

13   that basically means there would be no tractor

14   trailer deliveries on site?

15                           MR. BUSCH:   That's correct. We

16   did, in fact, prepare a truck turning movement

17   for a WD 40, which is basically a small tractor

18   trailer and it can circulate through the site.

19                           The issue would be that vehicle is

20   50 feet long.   Obviously, the loading space is 40

21   feet long, so the cab would overhang this drive

22   aisle.

23                           There were some concerns with

24   respect to making sure whatever vehicle loaded on

25   the site did not obstruct any of the drive

Page 49

1                             MR. BUSCH: Correct, there is a

2   second part to that comment with respect to the 3 vertical clearance question and we're going to 4 provide clearer documentation that the vertical 5 clearance is complied with.

6                             MR. TUVEL: Okay. And then with

7   respect to other vehicles such as you mentioned, 8 the SU 30's and trash trucks, those can navigate 9 and circulate the site safely and efficiently?

10                             MR. BUSCH: Correct.

11                             MR. TUVEL:   So those were just the 12 access comments that Mr. Shropshire

13 had in connection with his report, so keep going, 14 Dan, I'm sorry.

15                    CHAIRMAN JOEL:   Is that 1 through 16 6?

17                             MR. TUVEL: That is correct.

18                             MR. BUSCH:   1 through 7. 7 is the 19 one about the crosswalk.

20                    MR. TUVEL:   We already testified as 21 to that one.

22                    MR. MARTIN:   1 through 7 at this 23 juncture, they would be stipulated to?

24                    MR. TUVEL:   Dan, that's acceptable. 25 Is that correct?

Page 50

1                           MR. BUSCH:   That's correct. I'm

2   going to just briefly touch on utilities. The

3   utility connections are to Franklin.

4                           There is a stipulation that we are

5   going to sleeve the existing sanitary sewer along

6   the frontage of the site on Franklin Avenue

7                           With respect to storm water

8   management, we have a reduction in impervious

9   coverage and by definition at any point in time

10   the rate of runoff from the site will be less

11   than the existing condition because there's

12   simply less impervious coverage.

13                           With respect to water quality, we

14   do not increase by more than a quarter of an acre

15   of impervious coverage, therefore, we do not need

16   to provide for water quality.

17                           What I would just say to you is a

18   reduction in impervious coverage is, in fact, an

19   improvement in water quality. Admittedly, five

20   percent reduction in impervious coverage is not a

21   lot.   But it is, in fact, an improvement.

22                           MR. TUVEL:   And Chris, just for the

23   record, the circulation comments as well as 1

24   through 5 I believe are also acceptable. Is that

25   right, Dan? I just want to be clear on that. I

Page 52

1                             With respect to lighting, you have

2   the standard Village Street lights that will be 3 located on Franklin Avenue.  Those are metal 4 Howell light fixtures.

5              Everything else within the site or 6 on the building is an LED fixture.

7              There is decorative pole mounted 8 fixtures located throughout the parking lot

9 as well as ceiling mounted fixtures under both of 10 the breezeways, if you want to call them that,

11 and there is also some decorative light fixtures 12 located on the building on the Franklin Avenue 13 frontage.

14                             For those that are not familiar

15   with LED fixtures, you may have both in your 16 house, they are far more efficient. The quality 17 of the light that they produce is much better. 18 It's a white light and it's much more controlled 19 and with respect to the cutoff nature of the

20 fixture, it means the light source is recessed 21 into the box per se and that the light does not 22 go above the horizon, so it's all directed

23   downward.

24                             The lighting levels that are

25   provided here are consistent with this type of

Page 51

1   think we testified as to most of them, but just

2   for the record?

3                           MR. BUSCH: Yes.

4                           MR. TUVEL:   Okay. And with respect

5   to the parking and traffic, which is really the

6   trip generation aspect of Mr. Shropshire' s

7   Report, our traffic engineer will hit on those

8   items when he testifies. Sorry to interrupt you,

9   Dan, go ahead.

10                           MR. BUSCH:   No problem. With

11   respect to ground water recharge, this is

12   redevelopment in a PA 1. Ground water recharge

13   is not required, so we do not intend to provide

14   ground water recharge.

15                           With respect to soil movement in

16   your Ordinance, this will require a minor soil

17   movement permit for less than 2,000 cubic yards

18   of soil movement.

19                           Just touching on the landscape in

20   which I kind of touched on already, but you do

21   have the street trees across the two frontages

22   and shade trees located in the internal portions

23   of the site in the different parking lot islands,

24   and then we do have shrubs as I noted earlier

25   adjacent to the amenity spaces as well.

Page 53

1   use. The ratios of the max to mins and average

2   mins numbers are typical and consistent with the

3   standards.

4                           MR. TUVEL:   Dan, in your

5   professional opinion, will the lighting that is

6   proposed have any adverse impacts on any

7   neighboring properties?

8                           MR. BUSCH: No. I do want to just

9   note, there's noted on the plans there's

10   identification.

11                           If you look at the lighting, you

12   will note that there is a box called, that says

13   MS next to several of the fixtures at the rear.

14   Those are identified to have motion sensors.

15                           We are going to change that just a

16   little bit in that the three lights in the

17   internal, in the center of the parking lot will

18   remain on dusk to dawn and the motion sensor will

19   apply to the other lights within the parking lot

20   after 11 p.m. and that's just to maintain a level

21   of security lighting throughout the parking lot

22   whether there's somebody there or not.

23                           MR. MARTIN:   I don't know if you

24   can answer the question, but with the proximity

25   to New Jersey Transit, do the lights have to

Page 54

1   comply with any regulations as to the running of

2   the trains?

3                           MR. TUVEL: That's a question for

4   the engineer.   I'm not aware.

5                           MR. BUSCH: I'm not aware and

6   in reality, just as the simple reality of it,

7   the rail is roughly -- it's not quite 15 feet

8   higher, but it's close to that. Our lights are

9   at 17 and a half. So in reality, our light is

10   not going to reach the rail in any way because

11   they are so much higher than us.

12                           Their light does, in fact, spill on

13   to our site and they have the old high pressure

14   sodium, the yellow light which is personally not

15   as comfortable as the whiter LED light that we're

16   going to provide.

17                           I don't think I have anything else.

18                           MR. TUVEL:   So I guess we're

19   finished with direct with respect to Mr. Busch's

20   testimony, so I welcome the Board to ask

21   questions, if you have any.

22                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.   Sure. Dave,

23   do you have questions?

24                           MR. SCHEIBNER: Yeah, we heard the

25   testimony that the siding of the building was

Page 56

1 -- you are responsible to talk about remediation 2 at all, if there's any cleanup? Is that your

3   word?

4                           MR. BUSCH:   I mean, I can speak to 5 it in a general sense. I have quite a bit of

6   familiarity with Brownfield sites.

7                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm assuming 8 this probably wouldn't be a Brownfield site

9 because it's a residential use? You would have 10 to clean up more than Brownfield. Is that right?

11                  MR. BUSCH: Brownfield is basically 12 a contaminated site.

13                  COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So that 14 would be part of the process. You do an

15 assessment and then you do a cleanup if that was 16 necessary?

17                  MR. BUSCH: That's correct. So 18 this would fall under the LSRP, the License 19 Remediation Program by the State where the 20 Applicant or the owner would hire a licensed

21 remediation professional to implement whatever 22 site remediation may or may not be required.

23                           Ultimately, any of those reports,

24   actions, what have you that that LSRP would 25 produce are all subject to audit by N.J. DEP, so

Page 55

1 adjusted because of the decoration on the 2 building going into the public right-of-way 3 space.

4                           Does that mean that all of the

5   elements were shifted those few inches or was

6   just the building moved and the other elements of 7 the site plan were not moved?

8                           MR. BUSCH:   Certainly, the other

9   elements of the site plan were not moved. I do 10 not know the order of magnitude of the shifting 11 as you described.

12                  MR. SCHEIBNER: Wouldn't that have 13 an impact on the size of the parking spaces?

14                  MR. BUSCH: What it would impact is 15 the sidewalk might go from 6 feet to, for the

16 sake of argument, you know, 5 feet 9 inches, 17 which is relatively insignificant.

18                  MR. SCHEIBNER: On another subject. 19 Do I understand correctly that the retaining wall 20 for the railroad is encroached on the property?

21                           MR. BUSCH:   That is correct.

22                           MR. SCHEIBNER: I don't have any 23 other questions.

24                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Councilman VOIGT?

25                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You didn't talk

Page 57

1   they can't go off and do anything they want.

2   They still have to file the technical

3   regulations.

4                           What it does and what my experience

5   has been, that the process moves along much

6   faster, that the site will get cleaned up in a

7   more efficient, quicker manner than when it was

8   directly through N.J. DEP.

9                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I guess my

10   question is, you anticipate that if there is

11   cleanup as needed, it would occur relatively

12   quickly. Is that right?

13                           I don't know how long it would take

14   to assess and clean up. The concern I would have

15   it would be sitting there for quite a while as

16   you are cleaning it up and kind of a mess.

17                           MR. BUSCH:   Obviously, I can't

18   speak to the nature of what the cleanup may or

19   may not be because I just simply don't know and

20   nobody here knows what that would be.

21                           For obvious reasons, the developer,

22   just to be honest, is not in the cleanup

23   business. They are in the development business,

24   so it's in their interest for obvious reasons to

25   get it cleaned up as quickly as possible and move

Page 58

1   forward with the development.

2                        COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay, thank

3   you.   And then you mentioned the lights, the

4   traffic lights. I guess there's one on Franklin

5   and Broad and then there's one on Franklin and

6   Chestnut. Is that right? One is municipal?

7                        MR. BUSCH:   It's just at Franklin

8   and Broad.   It's stop control at Chestnut.

9                        COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So that is a

10   County light?

11                        MR. BUSCH: Yes, that's correct.

12                        COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And so how does

13   that work as far as who pays for what for that?

14                        Are you responsible for some of it?

15   How does that work?

16                        MR. TUVEL:   Typically, the County,

17   if we were dealing with the County light, they

18   would assess the developer with their pro rata

19   share of any -- I'll call them off-track

20   improvements associated with the project, so when

21   you apply to Bergen County, this happens, they

22   will let you know if off-track improvement is

23   required based upon the development you are

24   proposing, and yes, you would pay your pro rata

25   share of that off-track improvement, so if we

Page 60

1                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: I would like to

2   just come back after everyone else.

3                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie?

4                           MS. MCWILLIAMS: Could you just

5   quickly talk again about the handicapped ramp on

6   Franklin and Chestnut and what exactly is being

7   done to it or modified?

8                           MR. BUSCH:   Sure. So, currently,

9   first of all, at the immediate site corner

10   there's an inlet located directly at that corner,

11   so first of all, that just obstructs the handicap

12   access at the corner itself, so that's going to

13   be moved adjacent to right on the turning radius

14   on Chestnut, so they'll then be a new handicapped

15   ramp at the southeast corner of our site.

16                           Then immediately across Chestnut,

17   there's going to be a new handicapped ramp on the

18   sidewalk and then as you move in an easterly

19   direction, they'll be a new crosswalk handicapped

20   ramp on Franklin crossing to the south and in the

21   middle of that, of the street there, they'll be

22   an island as an area, what's called an area of

23   refuge for the pedestrian and there's new ramps

24   on what would be the southeast corner of the

25   intersection of Chestnut and Franklin.

Page 59

1 impact it X percent, we would pay that percent 2 and then possibly people across the street or

3   whatever.

4                           I'm just giving you an example 5 that's how it would work.

6                  COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Then you 7 mentioned this particular development, the

8 sewerage line would hook into the existing I 9 guess municipal sewerage line. Is that right?

10                           MR. BUSCH:   That's correct, yes.

11                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: A question for 12 you, Chris, do we have the capacity to take

13   additional stuff into our system?

14                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: I don't have the 15 memo with me. If we did do an analysis of the 16 existing system, we do have an I&I issue.   That 17 stands for Inflo & Infiltration in that length.

18                           I requested that the Applicant

19   could either consider replacing the line which 20 could be disruptive or to line it.

21                           The engineer did mention slip

22   lining or I would prefer a curative place by 23 lining. That is still to be worked out.

24                           COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you.

25                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mayor Knudsen?

Page 61

1                           MS. MCWILLIAMS: All right.   Thank

2   you.   The end aisle at the top, yes, the 24 foot

3   one, if you are going to eliminate it, it will

4   just end against, at the end of the property and

5   somebody would have to turn around to come back

6   out?

7                           MR. BUSCH: It's a little

8   confusing, but what will happen is the last

9   parking bay, which I'm pointing to, is towards

10   the north end, this parking bay, and what you

11   will be able to do is you drive and circulate

12   here.   There will be no need to go past here.

13                           What you would have is, you'll have

14   these last four parking stalls will be dead-end

15   stalls, but everything else you are going to have

16   a full circulation around.

17                           MS. MCWILLIAMS: Will those be

18   allotted to specific units?

19                           MR. BUSCH:   No.

20                           MS. MCWILLIAMS: So it would be --

21   say somebody pulling in there as a visitor or a

22   guest or somebody to the retail space who might

23   then have to back up or turn around, is there

24   turn around room in that aisle?

25                           MR. BUSCH:   Well, what would happen

Page 62

1 is if they got to this point, quite frankly, they 2 are going to see whether there's a stall there or 3 not and they are going to make that right turn 4 and circulate back to the site.

5                           Keep in mind these are the most

6   remote stalls on the site. There's literally 33 7 visitor stalls. That's the location. These

8   stalls are going to be used fairly infrequently.

9                           MR. TUVEL:   And Dan, just to

10   ducktail off that question, what would be in that 11 area if we eliminated that access aisle?

12                           MR. BUSCH:   It's going to be

13   landscaped in some manner or otherwise impervious 14 material.

15                  MS. MCWILLIAMS: Okay. For the 16 truck length and truck capability of the loading 17 zone there, if you had a business, and I was

18 under the impression it had not ruled out a 19 restaurant could go there, I thought Jeff had

20 asked that, I'm just asking, but would there be 21 any way to eliminate or rule out or disallow or

22 stop somebody from coming in there with a truck 23 that was too big or would they just pull in and

24   block the area?

25                           MR. BUSCH:   It is going to be

Page 64

1                  MS. MCWILLIAMS: Okay, and just the 2 further out ones are going to be --

3                  MR. BUSCH: There's a series of 4 lights that are in these islands here. Those

5 would be the ones on that would be on the motion 6 sensor.

7                           MS. MCWILLIAMS: Thank you.

8                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie?

9                           MS. PATIRE:   Yeah, to piggyback a

10   few things my fellow Board members are saying, 11 have you thought about all the lights doing what 12 the Smart City Technology does with the LED so

13 it's dimmed and then when someone walks toward it 14 on a motion sensor, they all light up, so instead

15   of having the group of lights right in the

16   center, they are all dimly lit and as someone 17 walks towards it, they go brighter?

18                  MR. BUSCH: We could certainly do 19 that.   Just in my mind, what I was preferring is 20 that we have lights that simply remain on dusk to 21 dawn just to provide a basic background lighting 22 for security and then exactly that, that you

23 would have to have the remaining on motion 24 sensors, so the way I see it, it's kind of a

25 hybrid of what you are describing to maintain

Page 63

1   written into the leases for the retail tenant as

2   well as the residential tenant, so they will know 3 the biggest truck you could have is a box truck 4 effectively.

5              MS. MCWILLIAMS:  So if they had a 6 business that had a longer truck for a delivery, 7 for a delivery for a restaurant business, where

8 would they suggest that they park or what would 9 be there?

10              MR. BUSCH:  The alternative is they 11 have to bring it in a different truck or they are 12 not going to come to the site.

13              MR. TUVEL:  The goal would be 14 eliminate the issue that you are raising so that 15 the lease clearly addressed the size of trucks 16 that can come in and that there would be

17 penalties for violating so that way, cut that off 18 right from the beginning.

19              MS. MCWILLIAMS: Okay. And the 20 last question I have was with the motion sensor 21 lights, those were dusk to dawn?

22              MR. BUSCH:  They would go on to a 23 motion sensor like 11 p.m. The internal poles 24 that are in the middle of the parking lot, those 25 would remain on dusk to dawn.

Page 65

1   some basic light level.

2                           MS. PATIRE:   Yeah, again, I'm not

3   an expert in this, but for parking structures

4   that are enclosed and open, a lot of people like

5   the whole thing sort of dimly lit for security

6   versus making it black in one back area, so it's

7   all dimly lit and then as you walk towards them,

8   the level of light goes up?

9                           MR. BUSCH:   I think what I'm

10   describing probably would look very similar to

11   what you are describing because you would have

12   that background lighting level that would be

13   lower than what it would be if all the lights

14   came on and then as you approached, those lights

15   would come on.

16                           MS. PATIRE:   Then I think this is a

17   question for Chris, so on the Franklin exit,

18   understanding that's a County road, so when they

19   apply and there's an analysis done on what that

20   traffic light needs to be, do they speak to

21   anyone at the town who understands traffic flows

22   and the reason I ask that is because if you park

23   in Citizens Park and you are trying to come out

24   of Citizen Park which is just up the street from

25   here, the road is a similar situation, it's not

Page 66

1   exactly aligned but they are both green at the

2   same time, so if you are coming out and trying to

3   make a left, because it doesn't say "no left

4   turn," the cars coming at you, typically, you

5   sort of have a right-of-way to go that way versus

6   them coming to make the other way and it's a very

7   similar situation from there and during certain

8   hours, there are lots of kids that walk down

9   that way and walk in the town after school

10   or they do whatever they want to do.

11                           That to me is a very dangerous

12   place to have an ingress and egress.

13                           MR. MARTIN:   Any effect on the

14   County road would have to have County --

15                           MS. PATIRE:   Right, but do they ask

16   us anything about that intersection or how does

17   that work from a County perspective?

18                           MR. MARTIN:   Due diligence in terms

19   of coordinating with the Village.

20                           MS. PATIRE:   They would? So they

21   would come to us?

22                           MR. MARTIN:   I would hope so.

23                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you want to add

24   to that, Chris.

25                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: Sure.   First off,

Page 68

1   can only park one vehicle in that spot?

2                           MR. TUVEL: So, I mean, this would 3 be more of Traffic Engineering but just to give 4 you a preview, we can set forth through the

5   property management company times that the

6   residents can come and go if they have to move in 7 or move out. We can work that through the

8 property management company. They just won't be 9 able to do it on their own volition.

10                           With respect to the retail, there's

11   not that much retail space here. This isn't some 12 big box type of development. It's only 5,500 13 square feet.

14                  So, again, the property management 15 company can set forth rules and regulations 16 within the lease that makes sure to your point

17 that you don't have multiple deliveries occurring 18 at one time, and quite frankly, the developer

19   wouldn't want that either.

20                           MS. PATIRE:   Okay. Do we as a

21   Village have any regulations as far as, you know, 22 move in and move out dates are between weekdays 23 and they are between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. They do 24 that in Manhattan all the time.

25                  Do we have anything like that here

Page 67

1   the traffic light is not the County's. It's the

2   Villages.   It's ours, so any improvements that

3   will be done will be reviewed by my staff and the

4   Village in conjunction with the County because

5   they own Franklin Avenue.

6                           It's one of the interactions that

7   we are currently studying for improving Franklin

8   and North Broad. That is correct.

9                           If this development were to be

10   approved, I would look at making sure that the

11   driveway is as centered as possible because the

12   concern you raise with your example over by

13   Godwin and Lincoln is a valid one and this does

14   have a lot of traffic.

15                           MS. PATIRE:   Again, that's kind of

16   my obsession on this whole site plan, quite

17   frankly, is making that left coming out, people

18   wanting to go straight especially during rush

19   hour.   You've got school. Again, there's a lot

20   of things going on. So, thank you, Chris.

21                           The next thing is, I'm assuming

22   because you have one bay to load in and load out,

23   if there's a bunch people that are coming in or

24   moving in and out, or you have restaurants and

25   things, things will be timed, right, because you

Page 69

1   that designates since weekend traffic is busier

2   downtown?

3                           MR. TUVEL:   I didn't see anything

4   in the Ordinance unless somebody else is aware of

5   it.

6                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Blais, can that be

7   a condition of approval?

8                           MR. BRANCHEAU: Regulating the

9   timing?

10                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah.

11                           MS. PATIRE:   Load in and load out?

12                           MR. BRANCHEAU: You know, I need to

13   know more information before I could evaluate

14   that.   I don't see why not, as long as it was

15   reasonable, and a valid purpose, but with

16   particular times and so forth, I need more

17   information to be able to advise.

18                           MR. MARTIN:   The lease.

19                           MR. TUVEL:   I agree with your

20   comments.   It should be completely organized so

21   that there's no issues and so does the developer.

22                           MS. PATIRE:   I'm assuming that's

23   on the operations side, is going to say, this one

24   is moving in at ten o'clock. You can't come

25   until the following day or whatever it is just

 
 

Page 70

1   because again there's one day.

       CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I guess the

2   question would be, have you done work with thi 4 developer before? Are you aware if their leases 5 have provisions in it for certain move outs?

6              MR. TUVEL:  There would be as part 7 of this project.  But we can talk more about that 8 during traffic or operational testimony if

9 needed.

10                             MS. PATIRE: Thank you.

11                             MR. TUVEL: We are not adverse to 12 what you are suggesting.

13                             CHAIRMAN JOEL: Ms. Altano?

14                             MS. ALTANO: Thank you for your 15 presentation.  I have a couple of questions.

16                             Has the soil been tested yet?

17                             MR. BUSCH: I think my mic is dead.

18                             There was a Phase 1 that was done

19   and there was some work done out there. I don't 20 have the specifics of exactly what was tested and 21 what came back, but the simple answer to your 22 question is, yes, there was testing.

23              MS. ALTANO:  So, because this is a 24 Brownfield, I'm concerned about what kind of 25 material and because it's New Jersey, what kind

Page 72

1 that can be done by the County as well as the 2 DEP.

s 3              There's multiple layers, and

4 believe me, I understand the concern.  There's 5 multiple layers of jurisdiction that will

6 oversee this process of removing the soil from 7 this property.

8                             I don't think it's within the

9   purview of the Planning Board unless it affects 10 the site plan and that's why I asked Mr. Busch if 11 anything regarding the cleanup affects the site 12 plan, it does not, but we would stipulate again 13 to comply with all those other governmental

14 agency rules and regulations with respect to any 15 soil removal.

16                             MS. ALTANO:  Thank you.

17                             The next question is, because this

18   is a Brownfield, LEED loves Brownfield. LEE 19 loves revolving Brownfield.

20                             How much thought has this project

21   been given to LEED into developing this into a 22 LEED project?

23              MR. TUVEL: I think that's more of 24 an architectural question because typically, that

25 deals with the building, so if you want, we could

Page 71

1   of material was found in the soil and how that

2   would, that particular finding would actually

3   affect the timing of the construction so that was

4   one of the concerns.

5                           MR. TUVEL: What we can do, which

6   is fine, is just stipulate that we're going to

7   comply -- I mean, this is typically a condition

8   of any approval, that you comply with all other

9   governmental agency regulations and as part of

10   the cleanup here, we are going to have to comply

11   with all of the DEP's rules and regulations.

12                           I think as to Mr. Busch's

13   testimony, the cleanup as far as you are

14   concerned will not impact the way you've designed

15   the site?

16                           MR. BUSCH: That's correct.

17                           MR. TUVEL: I understand your

18   concern with respect to how long cleanup will

19   take and what would be out there. I think that

20   is governed and Chris or someone else can correct

21   me if I'm wrong, but number one, your

22   Construction Department, they would probably

23   regulate how long these things can take place,

24   what can be there.

25                           Soil erosion, sediment control,

Page 73

1   finish with Mr. Busch and I could ask Mr.

2   Nicholson to come back up and answer that.

3                           MS. ALTANO: But I believe it's

4   done in tandem. Whenever you develop anything in 5 LEED, you look both at the site plan and the

6   architectural design.

7                           MR. TUVEL: We can ask Mr. Busch. 8 Go ahead.

9                  MR. BUSCH: I mean, I can't say

10 I've done a LEED analysis as to how many points, 11 site points you would get here.

12                           Obviously, that would be, I believe

13   actually on point surprisingly enough, but mass 14 transits, also a LEED type of lighting, things of 15 that nature, would all generate LEED points.

16                  MS. ALTANO: So the thought has 17 been given to that?

18                           MR. TUVEL: The testimony at the

19   last meeting was that because LEED is a targeted 20 -- they certify your building.

21                           The goal here is just to have

22   multiple sustainable features associated with the 23 project, so I wouldn't say it's going to be a

24 LEED building but we will incorporate sustainable 25 features as part of the application as part of

 

 

Page 74

1   the construction.

2                           MS. ALTANO:   Because I think it

3   would be a wonderful project for Ridgewood to

4   have.

5                           And one more question. We have

6   retail allocated, however, we don't know who is

7   going to lease the retail space.

8                           MR. TUVEL:   That's correct.

9                           MS. ALTANO:   How do we, for

10   instance, as one example, is a dry cleaning

11   business where you have certain parameters where

12   you are going to put your exhaust and the toxic

13   nature of the exhaust. I believe it's like 15

14   feet from the next window. I'm not sure. I just

15   want to go back into that information.

16                           So do we deter those particular

17   businesses from applying, only because the

18   building is done. How do you retrofit the

19   building to include an exhaust particularly when

20   you have residential units over there?

21                           MR. TUVEL:   Mr. Busch mentioned

22   what I was going to say. One, it's more of an

23   architectural question, but also, it's governed

24   by building code regulations, so, if for example,

25   the building code wouldn't allow for a dry

Page 76

1   see what the elevation is. That's roughly, and

2   if you look at Sheet 2 of the plans, it's roughly

3   Elevation 140 and we're down -- you know, our

4   parking lot grades there are 127, 126, near the

5   intersection, so it's 13,14.

6                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Have you ever

7   walked the lot at night to see the ambient

8   lights come on?

9                           MR. BUSCH:   Literally, before I

10   came here, I wanted to for that exact reason, to

11   get a sense of what the lighting is. The ambient

12   light is clearly coming from the platform and

13   it's that high pressure sodium kind of yellowish

14   light.

15                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does that make it

16   so that you can turn down the light that you have

17   on your lot just to get a certain level?

18                           MR. BUSCH:   I mean, I would much

19   rather see the LED white light within the site.

20   That's more appropriate and most people prefer

21   that.

22                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: But you wouldn't be

23   adding to any more light pollution in a sense or

24   overspill?   It would be pretty contained?

25                           MR. BUSCH:   Correct. We basically

Page 75

1   cleaner based on certain parameters, then we

2   couldn't do one. It would almost be self

3   policing in that respect.

4                           MS. ALTANO:   Thank you. Thank you

5   very much.

6                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

7                           MR. TORIELLI:   I have no questions

8   at this time.

9                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: With respect to

10   those lights in the lot, can they be seen by the

11   residences around the area?

12                           MR. BUSCH:   They can certainly be

13   seen by the properties that are on Chestnut.

14                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Do you

15   know -- I guess the train platform has the lights

16   on all night.   Is that correct?

17                           MR. BUSCH:   I couldn't tell you. I

18   would suspect that that is, in fact, the case,

19   but I couldn't tell you for certain.

20                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: And I would assume

21   those lights would be higher than what the lot

22   lights would be?

23                           MR. BUSCH:   Yeah, just quickly,

24   because I know that that was a question that came

25   up at the last hearing, I just quickly looked to

Page 77

1   cut off roughly at the property line. There's

2   some small amounts. I think it's a half or

3   something along those lines which is pretty

4   minor.

5                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: These lights are in

6   a box, so it's more directional that it sprays

7   down?

8                           MR. BUSCH:   Correct. So the actual

9   light source is recessed into the fixture so you

10   know, on the horizontal, you don't see it. You

11   have to be below the fixture to see the light

12   source.

13                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks.   Blais, do

14   you have any questions?

15                           MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I do.   But I

16   promised Chris he could go first.

17                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: Am I still under

18   oath?

19                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Hold on.   Mayor, do

20   you have any questions?

21                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: Actually, the

22   questions I had were exactly yours, the spillage

23   of light into the adjacent residences.

24                           I actually will ask Blais, does

25   anyone know the adjacent properties along

Page 78

1 Chestnut, do those have any housing in those, 2 apartments?

3                           MR. BRANCHEAU: There is some.

4                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.   So this dusk 5 to dawn lighting does impact those residences.   I

6 mean, you can't control light pollution. I mean, 7 light is light, so when you are in the dark and

8   suddenly you have light dusk to dawn, it's light?

9                           MR. BUSCH:   Correct. The control 10 is to keep the light source more internal to the 11 site such that you don't eliminate the amount of 12 spillage that could take place.

13                           MS. PATIRE:   Just to be clear,

14   that's why I'm suggesting the dim and then have 15 people walk towards it because it is relatively 16 low, but it does provide that sense of safety and 17 security.

18                  MR. TUVEL: Dan, just to be clear, 19 there's no spillage on to any residential

20   properties.   Correct?

21                           MR. BUSCH:   There is some light

22   along the easterly side that does extend because 23 we have a drive aisle that is immediately at the 24 property line, so there is some light that

25 extends up to that property line just to maintain

Page 80

1   satisfaction.

2                           We believe it works now, but if

3   they have any additional comments based on what

4   the Board has said, we are happy to work with

5   them on the lighting.

6                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: One last question.

7   The size of the box truck again, what was the

8   size of the box truck?

9                           MR. BUSCH: It's 30 feet long. A

10   single unit truck by definition is 30 feet long.

11                           MR. TUVEL:   Can you give an example

12   to the Board?

13                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: I did not hear what

14   you just asked.

15                           MR. BUSCH:   He asked for an

16   example.   A trash truck is a single unit truck.

17                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: A garbage truck.

18                           MR. BUSCH:   A garbage truck, yes.

19                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: So on your biggest

20   unit apartment square footage wide, how big of a

21   truck would it take -- I mean, just talking to

22   somebody who is not really thinking that through,

23   what is the truck size required to the apartment,

24   the largest apartment you have? A 30 foot box

25   truck?

Page 79

1   good lighting.

2                           I'm not sure whether that's

3   residential there or not, but it's a drive aisle

4   circulation for pedestrian vehicular safety. You 5 need to illuminate it.

6                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

7                           MR. TORIELLI:   Along the east

8   property line, where you have your foot candle 9 and your spots, it looks like there's -- and on

10 your sheet seven of 10, it looks like you are 11 showing some light?

12                           MR. BUSCH: On that easterly side.

13                           MR. TORIELLI:   Are these

14   photometrics done when the site is fully lit or 15 just the minimal lighting?

16                  MR. BUSCH: Yes. It's fully 17 illuminated.

18                  MAYOR KNUDSEN: So you always have 19 to rely on the worst case scenario, obviously.

20 I mean, that would be something of a 21 concern.

22                  MR. TUVEL: We would be willing to 23 work with your Board of professionals in

24 connection with the comments that were made to 25 ensure that the lighting was to their

Page 81

1                           MR. BUSCH:   That's a pretty big

2   truck in a relative sense. It's been a long time

3   since I moved some place. I'm not going to

4   profess and say what size truck, but certainly,

5   it's going to be identified in an applicant's

6   lease for, you know, for one of the apartments.

7   They are going to know that they can use certain

8   trucks.

9                           I would also suggest that a lot of

10   people for an apartment of that nature probably

11   move themselves.

12                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: But, you know,

13   sometimes somebody calls a furniture store -- I'm

14   trying to think -- like Levitts or a furniture

15   store and they order a sofa and the truck is not

16   just delivering one sofa, it's delivering like 30

17   sofas and so it happens along the way and it has

18   to deliver that sofa and it's not a box truck so

19   if somebody ordered a new sofa, how do you

20   accommodate for a truck that might be delivering

21   furniture to a store?

22                           I'm trying to think what's that

23   furniture store that's on the highway -- I don't

24   know a store -- pick a store from somebody --

25   Ethan Allen is delivering furniture. Somebody is

Page 82

1 delivering furniture and you know, not everything 2 is always going to be this scenario where the 30

3   foot box truck is coming along down the roadway.

4                           There will be times that somebody

5   orders furniture and the furniture company isn't 6 delivering just to one place. It sometimes

7   delivers to 10 and it comes with a big truck.

8                           How do we accommodate that? That's 9 a real life scenario.

10                  MR. TUVEL: Okay. So let's talk 11 about it for one second. Number one, it's not

12 going to be something -- even if it were to occur 13 if there was a mistake, a truck would come that's 14 larger, it wouldn't be that often.

15                  The second point I would make is 16 the deliveries would have to be scheduled for 17 something like that through the property

18 management company. Any delivery would have to 19 be scheduled through them.

20                           The property management company

21   would be aware and would also tell the tenant at 22 the property they can't have trucks of a certain 23 size, and that they would need to look into that 24 to ensure that they complied with the lease and 25 the rules and regulations of the development.

Page 84

1   it might not be all the time, but things are

2   going to happen and you know what, if it happens 3 at a bad time when there's a ton of kids or it

4 happens on the weekend because we are a busy 5 downtown, it's a problem for us. That's what

6   we're trying to say.

7                           MR. TUVEL:   No, I understand the 8 point that's being raised. But it's a very

9 similar point to a lot of comments that I 10 received on retail projects and the typical

11 answer from a professional standpoint is you 12 don't design things for Black Friday.

13                           You're sort of projecting a

14   Doomsday scenario like this might happen a couple 15 of times a year, but you don't design a site for

16   those specific instances.

17                           I mean, there is human error that 18 occurs.

19                           MS. PATIRE:   For our Village

20   knowing our current situation with parking and 21 lack of space or whatever, so that's not

22   Doomsday.

23                           MR. TUVEL:   No, I understand. 24 That's why I think even your code does not

25 provide for timeframes or rules and regulations

Page 83

1                           So it's all going to be controlled

2   through property management.

3                           MS. PATIRE:   Let's give another

4   real life scenario. Ethan Allen is going to come

5   and deliver and that could be a four hour window

6   between 10 and 1.

7                           I got someone moving in that day so

8   you can't tell people they can't move in that

9   day?

10                           MR. TUVEL:   It would have to all be

11   scheduled accordingly. It would all have to be

12   coordinated.

13                           MS. PATIRE:   So you can't move in

14   that day because somebody in 13 is having

15   furniture delivered so they can't move in until

16   tomorrow.

17                           MR. TUVEL:   We can bring up a lot

18   of different scenarios. The point I'm trying to

19   make, put across, is that it's all going to have

20   to be coordinated so there is no duplication or

21   overlap.

22                           MS. PATIRE:   But I think what we

23   have been saying from the Planning Board is that

24   you got one day and this is a big building. So

25   if things are going to happen to your point and

Page 85

1 with respect to deliveries and things of that 2 nature, that this is all permitted, that we're

3 still willing to work with the Board and with the 4 municipality to ensure that all this stuff is

5 coordinated properly and that there are no issues 6 based on what you said and that's why we thought 7 about that.

8                           MS. PATIRE:   In all fairness,

9   we also haven't had something like this in the

10   Borough of Ridgewood, so again, we are giving you 11 all scenarios.

12                  MR. TUVEL: Everybody's input is 13 helpful and a lot of comments that were made 14 tonight are helpful in connection with how this 15 project develops.

16                  MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, I mean, I'm 17 just saying it's 66 units and it's two retail

18 locations, possibly, three retail locations, 19 maybe one big retail location and I'm just 20 unclear as to -- I just think it's a real life 21 scenario and I don't think this is really

22 answering the question by suggesting it's a 23 Doomsday scenario.

24                  I mean, there will be times 25 multiple people could be moving in.

Page 86

1   That's 66 units and two three retail units

2   establishments which is quite significant or 3 actually for that particular location for that

4 particular congestion and I guess the roadway 5 network that was not intended.

6                             You know, I'm just saying I think

7   the real life scenario is the potential for much 8 larger trucks and I think the suggestion that

9   that's entirely controllable, I see it happening

10   more frequently than you are suggesting that it's 11 one time in a million.  Thank you.

12                             CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris?

13                             CHRISTOPHER J. RUTISHAUSER 14 Village Engineer, having been first duly sworn, 15 testified as follows:

16              MR. MARTIN:  You are the village 17 engineer?

18                             MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, I am.

19                             MR. MARTIN: Jason, do you

20   stipulate to his credentials as a professional 21 engineer?

22                             MR. TUVEL: Yes.

23                             MR. RUTISHAUSER: Refresh my

24   memory. Did you say these plans were prepared 25 under your oversight?

Page 88

1                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: So that's not

2   your client's fence?

3                           MR. BUSCH: I do not believe so.

4                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: The basis of that

5   line of questioning is in speaking with the fire

6   inspector, Lieutenant Young, he had made a

7   suggestion if it was possible on the fence to

8   have a gate to provide emergency egress from the

9   properties to the north because I think we can

10   have a multi-use facility just off of there. I

11   forgot the name of it. West Bergen Mental

12   Health.

13                           MR. BUSCH:   There's a significant

14   grade difference there because you have a wall

15   and then the fence on top of it so there's -- I

16   didn't measure the wall. The wall is three or

17   four feet high.

18                           You couldn't put a gate in that

19   fence because you would fall off the wall.

20                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay.   Traffic

21   signal we touched base on. It is owned by the

22   Village.   You will have to work with us for any

23   improvements.   I look forward to the suggestions

24   from your Traffic Engineer and in conjunction

25   with our traffic engineer.

Page 87

1                           MR. BUSCH: I did not.

2                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay, I thought

3   you had said -- because I notice that there's a

4   different engineer that designed these plans.

5   Could you explain that?

6                           MR. BUSCH:   Yes, Mr. Haney signed

7   the plans.   I did not and they were not prepared

8   under my supervision.

9                           I've had an opportunity to review

10   the plans thoroughly and offer my opinion to the

11   Board from a professional engineering standpoint.

12                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay.   I'll leave

13   that up to the Board's consideration.

14                           MS. PATIRE:   I'm sorry, may I ask a

15   question on that? I don't mean to interrupt.

16                           Does he work with you or is this a

17   different engineer?

18                           MR. BUSCH:   Yes.

19                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: On the north end

20   of the property, the narrow section in the

21   northern most section, there's a fence shown. Is

22   that fence on your client's property or on the

23   adjacent property? It's unclear on the drawings.

24                           MR. BUSCH:   I believe the wall and

25   the fence are on the adjoining property.

Page 89

1                           For the storm water run-off, you

2   had indicated you felt that this was not a major

3   development?

4                           MR. BUSCH:   No, I did not say that.

5   It is a major development.

6                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay, because

7   we're looking for ground water recharge in

8   accordance with our storm water regulations.

9                           MR. BUSCH:   There's two comments

10   where you do not do ground water recharge, one,

11   PA 1, planning area one, metropolitan planning

12   area which is what we are in and redevelopment.

13                           We meet both those criteria. On

14   top of that, what I would submit to you is

15   something that we discussed briefly which is

16   ultimately there will be what's called a Remedial

17   Action Work Plan associated with cleanup of the

18   site.

19                           Ground water recharge where you

20   have circumstances like that is not desirable and

21   there's language specifically in the code with

22   respect to where ground water recharge would be

23   contrary to an approved Remedial Action Work

24   Plan.

25                           I would also suggest that that

Page 90

1 circumstance will, although it technically 2 doesn't arise today, will ultimately arise as 3 well.

4                  MR. RUTISHAUSER: Looking at it 5 from another perspective, once we clean up the

6 site, your LSRP has done that, you shouldn't have 7 a contaminant loading unless you're capping

8   contaminants in place.

9                           MR. BUSCH: It could be.

10   Ultimately, if it is contrary to a Remedial

11   Action Work Plan, that criteria would apply.

12                           But beyond that, before we even get 13 to that point, we are PA one. We're

14   redevelopment, no ground water recharge.

15                           That is in the State's Storm Water 16 Management Rules.

17                  MR. RUTISHAUSER: Do you know where 18 the LSRP is for the site?

19                  MR. BUSCH: I do not. I'm not even 20 sure there is one.

21                  MR. RUTISHAUSER: Regarding the 22 soil movement, you had indicated you would be 23 below a major soil removal permit. Is that

24   correct?

25                           MR. BUSCH: Correct.

Page 92

1   Professional Planner?

2                           MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I am.

3                           MR. MARTIN:   Do you stipulate to 4 Mr. Brancheau as the Village's Professional 5 Planner?

6                           MR. TUVEL:   Yes.

7                           MR. BRANCHEAU: You spoke about the 8 amenity areas in my comment asking if benches

9 were being planned for those areas, but I don't 10 remember what your response was. Could you 11 restate that?

12                  MR. BUSCH: The short answer is 13 yes.

14                  MR. BRANCHEAU: You indicated that 15 the site triangles on the plans that had been

16   identified and are compliant.

17                           There was a comment in my report 18 from today that noted that the site triangle on 19 the plan is not drawn in accordance with our 20 Ordinance, specifically, Section 190.

21                           MR. BUSCH: I know specifically

22   what you are referring to, the 25 by 25 which is

23   drawn from the right-of-way, whereas, on our plan 24 it's drawn from the street line and my

25 understanding is there's a small sliver or corner

Page 91

1                  MR. RUTISHAUSER: Would that be 2 taking anything into account, any remedial

3   excavation required by a site cleanup?

4                           MR. BUSCH: No.

5                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: All right, 6 because if the site cleanup requires

7   evacuation in conjunction with the proposed

8   development's excavation and that goes over 2000, 9 you would still need a major soil permit and you

10 will have to come back to the Planning Board and 11 subsequently, the Village Council.

12                           MR. BUSCH:   We acknowledge that.

13                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: As long as you 14 are aware of that.   That's it. Thank you.

15                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Blais?

16                           MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes.   A couple of 17 questions.

18                           MR. MARTIN:   Actually, we are

19   beyond stipulations at this point. We will have

20   some questions and comments from the public. Why 21 don't you raise your right hand.

22                           BLAIS L. BRANCHEAU,

23   Village Planner, having been first duly sworn, 24 testified as follows:

25                  MR. MARTIN:   You are the Village

Page 93

1   of the building that actually falls within that

2   area and it's my understanding that that building

3   is chaffered to comply with that requirement.

4                           MR. BRANCHEAU: So that the

5   Applicant is not seeking relief from that?

6                           MR. BUSCH:   That is correct.

7                           MR. BRANCHEAU: I raised an issue

8   about the crosswalk that's being eliminated in

9   Franklin Avenue and the report from your firm

10   indicated that that was done to the request of

11   Bergen County.

12                           I know you are putting a refuge

13   area on the east side of the intersection but on

14   the west side I'm talking about the intersection

15   of Franklin and Chestnut. On the west side of

16   the intersection there's an existing crosswalk

17   that's proposed to be eliminated?

18                           MR. BUSCH:   Yes, if I may.

19                           MR. BRANCHEAU: Could you address

20   that?

21                           MR. BUSCH:   There is the need to

22   add some additional signage to identify the

23   people that are on the west side. I'm just going

24   to point to it. It's just easier.

25                           So on the west side of the

Page 94

1   intersection, this crosswalk is eliminated.

2   There needs to be signage added on the south side 3 and north side at the intersection. To tell

4 people to cross Franklin, you need to move across 5 the east side of the intersection.

6                  MR. BRANCHEAU: Humans being humans 7 and wanting to take the shortest path possible,

8 have you assessed the possibility that someone 9 would cross there, notwithstanding the

10 elimination of the painted striping and that 11 could create a safety concern?

12                  MR. BUSCH: Well, we are providing 13 for a path that is the safest route to cross

14   there.

15                           We're not providing a handicapped 16 ramp. So there is no visual cue that this is a 17 place to cross and they are being provided a 18 close place to cross that is much safer than the 19 current condition and is actually in the area 20 that it crosses Franklin. It's a shorter

21 distance that you are actually in the street of 22 Franklin Avenue.

23                  MR. BRANCHEAU: Let's say I am 24 coming from the west and I want to go to the 25 restaurant down the street and I got on to a

Page 96

1                             At least the driver today sees a

2   painted crosswalk to think, okay, there could be 3 a pedestrian here, whereas, if that paint is

4 gone, now, he's probably more relaxed.  He sees 5 one a little further ahead and he doesn't think

6 that a pedestrian could be crossing here, and 7 although, it may not be legal to cross there, 8 it's too late.

9              I'm sure the State will have to 10 deal with it if there's a fatality there and 11 that's the concern that I have.

12                             I want to know whether that was

13   done at the direction of the County or whether 14 there was an analysis done to evaluate the safety 15 concern that the elimination of that striping

16   could have.

17                             MR. BUSCH: I just have two

18   comments. One is the visual cue to the driver 19 that there could be a pedestrian crosswalk and 20 would it be eliminated there.

21                             That obviously goes away if the

22   crosswalk is gone. But it also works the same 23 way as a pedestrian.  There's no crosswalk there. 24 The visual cue that that's the place I'm supposed 25 to cross goes away and I clearly have identified

Page 95

1   circuitous route to get there and I want to go

2   across.

3                           I guess I want you to advise the

4   Board as to what the likelihood is in your

5   professional opinion someone is actually going to

6   do that instead of just saying, this is shorter,

7   I'm going this way, and this is an intersection

8   where we have had pedestrian/vehicle accidents.

9   And it's a question that I have as to the safety

10   of elimination of that crosswalk.

11                           MR. BUSCH:   My short answer to your

12   question is, that movement that you are

13   describing is no different than what occurs

14   today.

15                           What we are providing and creating

16   is a much safer way for somebody to cross, quite

17   frankly.

18                           MR. BRANCHEAU: One way it's

19   different is that by eliminating the painted

20   striping, you have now eliminated in the driver's

21   mind that this is a pedestrian cross area and

22   therefore, it seems to me there is a greater

23   chance of pedestrian/vehicular conflict there

24   because the stripe is eliminated, whereas, the

25   movement may be occurring there today.

Page 97

1   paths that are immediately adjacent while I'm

2   standing there and make that decision to cross

3   here, I have a crosswalk right adjacent to me.

4                           I'm going to be able to see this

5   one and let's be honest, people learn by habit,

6   behavior.   They are going to know to make that

7   movement, so the visual cue goes away both to the

8   driver and to the pedestrian.

9                           I don't think there's any question

10   that this is a safer way to cross Franklin Avenue

11   here.

12                           MR. BRANCHEAU: It's less

13   convenient and that's the concern, if someone may

14   choose convenience over safety to their

15   detriment.

16                           MR. BUSCH:   I don't want to dwell

17   on this any further but who is saying everybody

18   that walks down Chestnut is walking on the west

19   side, that they are not walking on the east side.

20                           If I'm some place further up in

21   this neighborhood and I know on Franklin Avenue

22   this crosswalk is here, I'm going to walk down

23   the east side of the street, go right across the

24   crosswalk.

25                           MS. PATIRE:   Every one in your

Page 98

1   building is on that side of Chestnut.

2                           MR. BUSCH:   Well, if they are

3   coming out our building --

4                           MS. PATIRE:   You just said how many

5   people are walking down that street. Everyone in

6   your building is on the opposite side of

7   Chestnut.

8                           MR. BUSCH:   Correct, so they are

9   going to cross right here at the intersection.

10                           MS. PATIRE:   They would take the

11   path of least resistance to Blais's point and

12   cross the crosswalk.

13                           MS. MCWILLIAMS: He's arguing that

14   it's the safest route. I would not give that for

15   a second, but we struggle with the people who

16   don't want to walk an extra three minutes to get

17   to the train which is what this building is going

18   to be used for. Obviously, you hope a lot of

19   commuters will live there.

20                           People will go the fastest route.

21   They are late. They are whatever. You got

22   school kids.   This is going to be in the ridge I

23   would assume catchment zone and --

24                           MS. PATIRE:   They are going to want

25   to get a cup of coffee on that side of the street

Page 100

1                           MR. TUVEL:   We'll take a look at

2   that between now and the next time.

3                           MR. BRANCHEAU: That's all I have

4   on engineering.

5                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks, Blais. Mr.

6   Shropshire?

7                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: I had a question

8   too. Do you mind? Just a couple of questions.

9                           I thought I heard Blais say

10   something that the County or somebody said that

11   the County determined that that was --

12                           MR. BRANCHEAU: The letter from

13   Maser dated December 30th on the crosswalk

14   indicated that it was done at the direction of

15   the County.

16                           That's why I was asking what the

17   County based that on.

18                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: I don't know if

19   Chris might comment.

20                           MR. BRANCHEAU: C-5 in that letter,

21   "the existing crosswalk referenced on the west

22   side of the Franklin Avenue and Chestnut Street

23   Intersection has been removed at the direction of

24   the County to consolidate the pedestrian

25   crossings."

Page 99

1   before they cross the train station.

2                           MS. MCWILLIAMS: The safest is not

3   disputed whether or not they are going to use it.

4   We're saying as the people that live here and

5   witness this and use that street every day, that

6   they are not going to do it. I'm just telling

7   you they are not going to do it.

8                           MS. PATIRE:   Has the County seen

9   the proposed plans?

10                           MR. BUSCH: Yes.

11                           MR. BRANCHEAU: Last question, you

12   indicated you are moving the northern most pile

13   and that some impervious material would be put

14   there.

15                           You didn't specifically identify.

16   I take this because you didn't really have a lot

17   to think about what's going to go there.

18                           I'm wondering if that could be made

19   into an amenity area. Some comments have been

20   made about the amenity area in the south west

21   corner, particularly, its proximity to the

22   intersection into the railroad which may be kind

23   of busy.

24                           The northern area quite obviously

25   still has somewhat of a railroad.

Page 101

1                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right.   The

2   other question then is on the east side of

3   Chestnut, and Chris might be able to answer this

4   question, do you know roughly how far up the east

5   side sidewalk runs and where it ends because it

6   says sidewalk all the way up.

7                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: On Chestnut?

8                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.

9                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: I know on the

10   west side it goes up most of the way because we

11   have it up to the PSE&G substation.

12                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: Exactly.

13                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: Then usually on

14   the east side it stops -- I think the house just

15   before that because then it gets very steep to

16   the back side of the YMCA.

17                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.   Okay.

18                           MR. BRANCHEAU: I have some

19   additional questions.

20                           Are you done, Susan?

21                           MAYOR KNUDSEN: Go ahead, Blais,

22   it's all yours.

23                           MR. BRANCHEAU: I guess I don't

24   know who to ask questions so since they are site

25   plan related, I'm going to ask them now and if

 
 

Page 102

1   someone else is going to address it, just let me

2   know.

3                           I assume you are going to change

4   that to a standard detail?

5                           MR. BUSCH: Yes.

6                           MR. BRANCHEAU: The landscaping,

7   who is addressing the landscaping comments in my

8   report?

9                           MR. BUSCH: Just bear with me here.

10                           MR. BRANCHEAU: They start on Page 11 4.

12                           MR. BUSCH: 16.

13                           MR. TUVEL: This is referring back

14   to the January 17th report prepared by Mr.

15   Brancheau.

16                           MR. BRANCHEAU: I'm suggesting the

17   use of a different species.

18                           MR. BUSCH: We concur with all --

19   I'll just stipulate we will comply with 16

20   through 19 which are the landscaping and lighting

21   comments.

22                           MR. BRANCHEAU: Then I am done.

23                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mr. Shropshire?

24                           MR. SHROPSHIRE: Yes.

25                           MR. MARTIN: Raise your right hand.

Page 104

1              MR. SHROPSHIRE:  I know that on th 2 circulation items, it sounded like they were all

3   going to be revised or agreed to.

4                             Related to the trash location, was 5 there any specifics about that?

6                             MR. TUVEL: I'm sorry. That was

7   dealt with at the first meeting. We should have 8 just brought you up to speed on that.

9              The trash is located on the inside.

10 There was testimony from Mr. Nicholson that it 11 would be taken from the inside trash room into 12 the truck.

13              There's no enclosure on the site, 14 to answer your question.

15                             MR. SHROPSHIRE: Okay.

16                             MR. BUSCH: There's a trash room 17 located here and there's also another one here 18 that have doors.

19              MR. TUVEL: The retail trash and 20 the residential trash are separated.

21              MR. SHROPSHIRE:  The only other 22 comment that I had related to the right-of-way 23 and the properties and I think it's Lots 10, 9 24 and 7, have parking that feeds off of that

25 right-of-way.

Page 103

1                           DAVID R. SHROPSHIRE, P.E., P.P.

2   having been first duly sworn, testified as

3   follows:

4                           MR. MARTIN: Jason, do you agree to

5   Mr. Shropshire's qualifications?

6                           MR. TUVEL: Yes.

7                           MR. SHROPSHIRE: Thank you.

8   Related to my review letter, the second page,

9   there was two comments on the access that really

10   dealt with the traffic signal, which I assume is

11   going to be handled by the traffic engineer?

12                           MR. TUVEL: Yes.       Mr. Keller

13   will go over your comments about signal timing

14   and improvements in the signal.

15                           MR. SHROPSHIRE: And just as a

16   note, and I think the concerns of the Board that

17   were raised and maybe Chris's concern, the near

18   side arm and signal head given the height of the

19   drive through, that needs to be considered in the

20   design and I'm sure as I see --

21                           MR. BUSCH: That's an excellent

22   point.

23                           MR. SHROPSHIRE: That angle for the

24   Village's benefit needs to be addressed.

25                           MR. BUSCH: Absolutely.

Page 105

1                           I noticed on the western sides

2   where there is parking that backs out into the

3   drive aisle, there's protection raised, curb

4   islands, but there aren't any raised curb islands

5   on facing Lots 10, 9 and 7?

6                           I believe that there is no parking

7   that directly backs out into the right-of-way but

8   I would just like that be confirmed, which would

9   alleviate the need for any raised curb or

10   protection.

11                           MR. BUSCH: I believe that that's

12   the case because right now that area is fenced

13   off purely for ingress and egress.

14                           MR. SHROPSHIRE: Great.       Other than

15   that, no other comments.

16                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, do you have

17   any questions?

18                           MR. RUTISHAUSER: No.

19                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone from

20   the public have any questions? Please approach.

21   State your name and address and spell your name.

22                           MR. LACKS: Mike Lacks from 104 C

23   Ridgewood LLC, 104 Chestnut Street, Ridgewood.

24                           Just to make something clear, our

25   ownership entity is not against this project.

 

 

e

Page 106

1 The property is an eye sore and something needs 2 to be done and it's up to the developers and the

3 town to figure out what the right things are to 4 put there, and that's not our business.

5 We only care about what impacts our property. 6 And right now, there is an issue.

7                             In your testimony, sir, you

8   indicated that there were only two ways in and 9 out of the property.  That's not true.

10              According to the plan that's shown 11 there, our parking lot, which is along the

12   easement way, there is no fence in that plan.

13                             So if you were to look right here, 14 which is our parking lot, this is open.

15                             I sent a letter to the Board a

16   while back I believe in September talking about 17 this issue and we have no problem -- they can do 18 whatever they want over here, but this is a

19   serious problem for us.

20                             The first floor of our building, we

21   have physical therapy. A lot of people are older 22 people. If they are moving slow across the

23 parking lot, this is going to become an issue and 24 the real issue is here is that anybody who is in 25 the town a lot knows that anybody going out of

Page 108

1   that.

2                           MR. LACKS:   Just for the record, we

3   did approach them asking that question.

4                           I mean, obviously, we are using the

5   easement areas for parking right now. We would

6   like to retain that. But we know it's not our

7   right.

8                           That being said, something needs to

9   be done here because we know that this will not

10   be the primary ingress and egress going into this

11   property, and logically, I know you're not a

12   traffic guy, I don't know if you know this town

13   very well, but if you were moving north on

14   Chestnut, does it seem logical that anybody

15   would use this entrance and exit.

16                           If you were coming from going south

17   down Chestnut, would you make the right turn, the

18   first right turn, the last right turn?

19                           Would you make the right turn where

20   the parking lot is wider or narrower if you were

21   a trucker and you were making a delivery?

22                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.   You can keep

23   asking him questions.

24                           MR. LACKS:   It's in the form of a

25   question.   It's more like Jeopardy.

Page 107

1 town towards 17, they are all going to take 2 Linwood Avenue.

3                  You take Linwood Avenue. What's 4 the most natural way to leave that site is

5 through our parking lot, and this ingress and 6 egress point that he referred to is their's, is a 7 very interesting place to get in and out of.

8                  The traffic backs up there. We all 9 know that. There are a lot of issues there.

10                           MR. TUVEL:   So I'm going to be the

11   bad guy. Right now you will have time to comment 12 on the application. Just ask a question.

13                  MR. LACKS: Sir, we're not against 14 you.   We just want safety here. You know, you 15 had stated there was no other way in and out of 16 the property. Is that the case?

17                  MR. BUSCH: So we have two site 18 driveways. There is pavement that there is 19 connectivity just as you described here.

20                           Is there a way to make some

21   physical barrier, what have you, that would 22 prevent people from crossing that, sure.

23                           I don't think the Applicant, my

24   client, would disagree or not. We are willing to 25 work with you to come up with a way to address

Page 109

1                           Actually, I thought your point was

2   well-taken.

3                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Martin?

4                           MR. MARTIN:   If you are interested

5   in a demarcation line that you just discussed or

6   set forth, could you give him your card?

7                           MR. LACKS: We tried starting a

8   dialogue and the dialogue was cut off.

9                           MR. MARTIN:   End the dialogue and

10   get back on track.

11                           MR. TUVEL:   The questions and the

12   real estate issues are really outside the Board's

13   purview in terms of the terms of any relationship

14   between the parties.

15                           MR. MARTIN: In terms of blending

16   areas that are for the parking lot, it would be

17   beneficial to discuss that.

18                           MR. LACKS:   I do have one question

19   along those lines, which is you stated that it

20   met AASHTO to make a left turn out of Chestnut

21   Street towards -- and this is really more of a

22   traffic thing but you did say it met AASHTO and

23   make looking left, what's the distance to the top

24   of the crest of the hill from the northern most

25   point of the parking area because that's probably

Page 110

1   not 300 feet.   You would need at least 300 feet

2   to the crest of that hill. I don't know if you

3   can see above that hill and meet AASHTO. Maybe

4   I'm wrong.   I'm just eyeballing it.

5                           MR. BUSCH:   The site plan on Sheet

6   4 identifies a 335 foot AASHTO sight distance.

7   It does not factor in a great elevation change.

8                           MR. LACKS: It should.

9                           MR. BUSCH:   I don't disagree with

10   you.   We could certainly look at that as to what

11   that is taking that into account.

12                           MR. LACKS:   That's the only

13   questions I have. I would only again ask the

14   question of the Applicant to work with us on this

15   and then we will probably go away, but if it is

16   not, we implore the Board to do something because

17   this is a true safety issue.

18                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: What are you

19   looking for specifically, a fence, or a wall?

20                           MR. LACKS:   It's got to be -- we

21   think probably the best thing is in looking at

22   this thing, is something for the Chestnut Street

23   people where there's some kind of gated access in

24   and out of there.

25                           If we fence that off completely,

Page 112

1                           Before you walk out, if you want

2   counsel's card --

3                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else from

4   the public have questions? State your name,

5   address and spell your last name.

6                           MS. REYNOLDS:   Lorraine Reynolds,

7   550 Windermere Avenue. The first question. Mr.

8   Busch, you said that there were 128 residents'

9   total spaces total?

10                           MR. BUSCH:   Yes.

11                           MS. REYNOLDS:   And then 33 for

12   visitors.   Is the 33 within the 128?

13                           MR. BUSCH: Correct.

14                           MS. REYNOLDS:   Okay. So it's not

15   additional?

16                           MR. BUSCH: 33 is a sub-set of 128.

17                           MS. REYNOLDS:   All right, and then

18   with the crosswalk, I couldn't really see because

19   your body was in the way.

20                           MR. BUSCH:   This is the new

21   crosswalk location with the area of refuge in the

22   middle.

23                           MS. REYNOLDS:   Okay. So they are

24   eliminating this crosswalk?

25                           MR. BUSCH: That is correct.

Page 111

1   it's not fair to the people next to us who have

2   been using that for years.

3                           MR. TUVEL:   We'll work something

4   out.

5                           MR. LACKS:   Again, we have no issue

6   with this.   I don't care. They could put all

7   restaurants in there as long as nobody is pulling

8   in and out of parking lot. We're afraid of

9   getting sued and people getting hurt because it

10   is a real issue. I can't tell you, but we

11   probably spend more on salt than anybody on the

12   planet.

13                           MR. TUVEL:   I'm trying to be polite

14   but we really have to keep it to questions. I

15   know you have issues and concerns.

16                           MR. LACKS:   You are correct, sir.

17   I apologize.   I'm not following the rules.

18                           MR. TUVEL:   I'm trying to be

19   polite.

20                           CHAIRMAN JOEL: Your point is well

21   taken.   Did you have any more questions?

22                           MR. LACKS:   No, sir.

23                           MR. MARTIN:   Or course, the Police

24   and Fire have to be involved in any kind of

25   analysis of that as well.

Page 113

1                           MS. REYNOLDS:   If somebody from

2   this building comes out on the sidewalk and wants

3   to cross along the shops here, do you think they

4   are going to go here, here and here?

5                           MR. BUSCH:   Yes.

6                           MS. REYNOLDS:   So the question is,

7   it doesn't sound like that was your idea, this

8   came from the County to eliminate that crosswalk?

9                           MR. BUSCH:   The short answer is, I

10   don't know.

11                           MS. REYNOLDS:   Okay. But it didn't

12   come from you?

13                           MR. BUSCH:   That is correct.

14                           MR. MARTIN:   You being the

15   Applicant.

16                           MS. REYNOLDS:   Right. So do you

17   have any idea what the reasoning was to eliminate

18   that crosswalk or whoever decided to eliminate

19   that crosswalk?

20                           MR. BUSCH:   I'm just going to

21   reiterate, I just said I don't know.

22                           MS. REYNOLDS:   You don't know. We

23   don't know the reasoning.

24                           I think that would be a good idea

25   to find that out.

 
 

Page 114

1                  MR. BUSCH: We will come back and 2 have a direct answer.

3                  MS. REYNOLDS:       Okay. Because, 4 also, this is the street where Chestnut Village 5 will be? Correct? Further down and the same

6 side, so you may have all of those people coming 7 to go to the train in the morning.

8   I just don't see them doing the thing. Okay.

9                           The last question is actually for

10   Mr. Nicholson. I was wondering if there was 11 going to be any kind of visuals, any kind of 3D 12 if you are driving up Franklin to see what the 13 building would look like or if you are driving 14 down Broad, see what it would look like.

15                  MR. NICHOLSON: We only prepared 16 the one rendering that I showed last time that 17 was from the opposite side of the Chestnut

18   Franklin intersection.

19                           MS. REYNOLDS:       Could you do -- Like 20 I know they have computer programs where you can 21 literally picture yourself driving up the street

22   to see what it looks like.

23                           Could you do something like that?

24                           MR. BUSCH: Well, I could.

25                           MR. TUVEL: We'll look at it.

Page 116

1                             MS. PATIRE: Okay.

2                             CHAIRMAN JOEL:  That's it for him I 3 guess.

4                   MR. TUVEL:  Yes, we should discuss 5 scheduling.

6                   CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sure.  Let's look 7 through our calendar for open dates.

8                             (Matter off the record)

9                             CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay, so for KS 10 Broad Street, we are going to continue without 11 further notice.  The next date is going to be

12 March 21st, 2017.  What witnesses will be at 13 that?

14                    MR. TUVEL: We will start with 15 traffic at that meeting unless there is any

16 planned revisions that we just need to go over 17 based on some comments we heard, but my plan 18 right now would be to start with traffic.

19                             CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.

20                             MR. MARTIN: That makes sense.

21                             MR. TUVEL:  We will extend the time 22 through that date.  It's just for clarification,

23 7:30 in this room, March 21st, 2017.  No

24 further notice will be provided?

25                    CHAIRMAN JOEL:  That's correct.

Page 115

1                           MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.  That was it.

2   Thank you.

3                           CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Anyone else from

4   the public with questions?

5                           MS. PATIRE: I have one question.

6   Based on what the gentleman said with the blue

7   shirt standing up for that, are there any other

8   areas on this property that anyone can pass

9   through that is not either currently fenced could

10   cut through anywhere else on Chestnut, et cetera,

11   or is that the only exposed property? It's for

12   the engineer.

13                           MR. TUVEL:  I believe that's the

14   only one.

15                           MS. PATIRE:  That's the only open

16   area where people can pass through.

17                           MR. TUVEL:  I believe so.

18                           MR. BUSCH:  That you could pass

19   through?

20                           MS. PATIRE: Yeah, my question is,

21   is there anywhere else on the property that

22   people can cut through, whether it's on the north

23   side into the parking lot?

24                           MR. BUSCH:  No.  To answer your

25   question, that's a cut-through location.

Page 117

1                             MR. TUVEL: Okay. Great. Thanks a

2                             lot, everybody.

3                             CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Thank you

4                             (Whereupon hearing adjourned at

5                             10:45 p.m.)

Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from            September 1, 2015 were adopted as written.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.                                                               

Michael Cafarelli

Board Secretary

Date Approved: June 19, 2018

 

.

  • Hits: 2828

COPYRIGHT © 2023 VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD

If you have any trouble with accessing information contained within this website, please contact the MIS Department - 201-670-5500 x2222 or by email mis@ridgewoodnj.net.

Feedback