Planning Board Public Meeting Minutes 20140609
The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of June 9, 2014. For more detailed information, 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: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Ms. Bigos, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Joel, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., and Katie Razin, Esq., Board Attorneys; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary. Councilman Pucciarelli is recused from the hearing on the H – Hospital zone and was absent from the meeting.
Correspondence received by the Board – Ms. Wondergem said the Board received correspondence from Mr. Drill dated June 6, 2014.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – There were no comments at this time.
Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan for the H-Hospital Zone, The Valley Hospital, 223 N. Van Dien Avenue, Block 3301, Lot 51 – Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: At the last meeting we concluded the public comment portion of these hearings and tonight we're going to hear rebuttal from Mr. Drill for The Valley Hospital and then summations from the attorneys, followed by instructions from the Board's Counsel for the Board.
So before we begin, I'd like to ask Gail if she could address some housekeeping issues from the last meeting.
MS. PRICE: Just one, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the public statement submissions that were made both at the May 20th meeting at the June 2nd meeting there's a couple of updates Mrs. Ringel who provided her document on May 20th and she was contacted and advised that certain edits needed to be made to her statement same to correspond with the verbiage contained on the transcript. And she did make those changes, so I would advise the Board that her statement, as revised, can be moved into the record tonight as P 4.
And that would leave the two that are officially in the record right now as Janet Daly's and Mrs. Ringel's.
(Whereupon, Statement of Marcia Ringel is marked as Exhibit P 4 in Evidence.)
MS. PRICE: In addition there were two other parties, Mrs. Tuomey and Mrs. Reynolds who were contacted with minor edits, they were provided the minor edits and were told that if they accepted those minor edits that their statements could be accepted. Katie just spoke with both of them and I understand that they're both agreeable to just putting on the record that the revised statements that matched the statements on the record are acceptable. We just need to do that on the record since we didn't receive an e mail copy back.
So if Mrs. Reynolds and Mrs. Tuomey would just come up to the microphone so we could just get that to record that would be great.
MS. TUOMEY: Janet Janet Tuomey, 59 John Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey. I accept.
MS. PRICE: Thank you, Mrs. Tuomey. So your statement will be marked as P 6 for the record and with tonight's date.
MS. TUOMEY: Thank you, yes.
(Whereupon, Statement of Janet Tuomey is marked as Exhibit P 6 in Evidence.)
MS. PRICE: And, Mrs. Reynolds?
MS. REYNOLDS: Hi, yes, Lorraine Reynolds 550 Wyndemere Avenue. And that's fine, I accept that.
MS. PRICE: So your statement will be mark as P 8 for the record.
(Whereupon, Statement of Lorraine Reynolds is marked as Exhibit P 8 in Evidence.)
MS. PRICE: The other parties we have not Jane, we have not heard from anyone else through your office in connection with getting revised statements back, correct.
MS. WONDERGEM: No.
MS. PRICE: So I would advise the Board at this point, there's no harm in terms of any statements that have been received on the record both on the 20th and on the 2nd. The statements were received verbatim and were taken down by the Court Reporter. They're contained in the transcripts and they're part of the official record. So I would counsel the Board that other than P 4, P 6, P 8 and P 11, that the other statements be as reflected in the transcripts of both May 20th and June 2nd.
Okay? And that's all I have now other than the instructions later on.
I would just like to note, Mr. Chairman, for the record that I've provided the Board Members work product documents tonight, part of work product from our office, as promised, with summaries of all of the transcripts of the hearings to date to be utilized in connection with the Board's deliberations. They provide the date of each hearing and the witness or witnesses in some cases, who testified during those particular hearings.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Gail.
MR. DRILL: We have a couple of housekeeping items also.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So before your rebuttal?
MR. DRILL: Right. So, as Jane mentioned, I had sent a letter to the Board on June 6th, 2014. I just think just to dot the "i"s as cross the "t"s that we should have that admitted as Exhibit A 37. And that is the June 6, 2014 letter where the Hospital proposed further revisions to the proposed Master Plan Amendment that had been drafted by your planner, Mr. Brancheau, specifically to respond to his recommendations number three, number four, number five and number six contained in his March 31, 2014, report to the Board. That's our first housekeeping item.
(Whereupon, Letter of Mr. Drill dated June 2, 2014 is marked as Exhibit A 37 for Identification.)
MR. DRILL: And then there's a document in the record as a Board exhibit, which is Exhibit B 5 which is the 1983 Village Council Resolution. And that was entered into the record on October 22, 2013.
At that time I had cross examined, actually, Mr. McKenna on that, who acknowledged that it had been reversed by the Superior Court. And I just think, again, to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s I'm willing to put it in as an A exhibit, but maybe it belongs in as a B exhibit, but I have a copy of a Planning Board Resolution, it’s entitled "Supplemental Preliminary Site Plan Approval Resolution 1985", and it's captioned in the matter of the application of The Society of the Valley Hospital for off street parking deviation relief, variance relief and preliminary site plan approval as to Lot 51 in Block 5301. And it's indicated that it was adopted on February 11, 1985. What I want to put it in for is on the second page, the Planning Board makes two findings of fact: Finding A says subsequent to the adoption of the original resolution by this Planning Board the Village Council modified the determinations of this Planning Board set forth in said resolution with respect to exception of deviation relief from off street parking requirements of the Village Code as to the minimum number of on site off street parking spaces required to be established by the Applicant on the premises in question and with respect to the granting of variance relief from the maximum land coverage requirements of the Village Code.
The Planning Board then said in the following paragraph, said modification action of the Village Council thereafter was reversed by a trial judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey who reinstated the determination of this Planning Board as set forth in said original resolution thereafter the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed the decision of the trial judge and also determined that the Applicant no longer required variances relief from said maximum land coverage requirements of the Village Code.
So I would like to put that in. Again it's your preference if it goes in as a B exhibit, it would be B 20, if it goes in as an A exhibit, it would be A 38.
MS. PRICE: Well, let's I mean it's a public document
MR. DRILL: Right.
MS. PRICE: So it could be received into the record. I would think we'll put it in as B 20 since the underlying is in as B 5 which is the '83 resolution. So to keep it consistent we'll keep it as a "B."
So that 1985 Planning Board Resolution would then be B 20.
(Whereupon, 1985 Planning Board Resolution is marked as Exhibit B 20 in Evidence.)
MS. PRICE: And do you have copies, Mr. Drill, for the board?
MR. DRILL: Well
MS. PRICE: Can you provide that?
MR. DRILL: Yes, I have an additional copy I can e mail it to you tomorrow. I have an extra one for tonight, I have B 20 for Jane. And then I have an extra copy of which I am going to hand to Blais to hand down to Ms. Price.
MS. PRICE: And you'll provide copies and then we'll also post that on the on the website as we have with all the documents which have been posted.
MR. DRILL: Right. And then just to totally close the loop because that resolution B 20 refers to the prior Planning Board Resolution which has been reversed, I also have a copy of the prior Planning Board Resolution which is even thicker than that resolution. So I would propose to have marked as B 21 the 1983 Planning Board Resolution which is in the matter of the application of The Society of The Valley Hospital for variance and deviational relief and preliminary site plan approval as to Lot 51 in Block 3301. And the resolution is entitled, "Resolution Reflecting Intention to Grant Deviation Relief, Variance Relief and Conditional Site Plan Approval". And this resolution indicates that it was adopted by the Planning Board on August 16th, 1983. And this resolution is referenced in the Village Council's resolution of 1983 as being reversed. And then the 1985 resolution references that being reversed, affirmed by the Appellate Division. And this underlying resolution reinstated it. And that's why
MS. PRICE: Okay.
MR. DRILL: I think just to complete the loop, we should admit that as B 21.
MS. PRICE: Okay. So that will be B 21 the August 26, 1983, Planning Board Resolution.
(Whereupon, August 26, 1983, Planning Board Resolution is marked as Exhibit B 21 in Evidence.)
MS. PRICE: And B 5, B 20 and B 21 can all be reviewed collectively.
MR. DRILL: Again, I will e mail those two resolutions tomorrow. And that's all the housekeeping that I have.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Drill.
Mr. Kates, you have no housekeeping matters?
MR. KATES: No, I don't. I don't keep house.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Drill, are you ready to begin your rebuttal?
MR. DRILL: Yes, as my sole rebuttal witness I have Joe Burgis who was previously accepted as a planning expert by the Board and was previously sworn. And Mr. Burgis has a PowerPoint to present. And we do have extra copies of the PowerPoint so if anyone wants copies you can hand them out. And we also have a number of extra copies in case anyone in the public wants them. But, I assume, the Planning Board Members want them. I am just going to ask Blais to take one and pass it down. If anyone in the public wants one I'm going to put this
MS. PRICE: Mr. Drill, you're going to mark this as a let me just get to the list
MR. DRILL: I'm going to Jane's going to take the whole folder and put it near the podium.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Marla, do you have a question? Mr. Sherman?
MS. SHERMAN: I do. I do.
MR. DRILL: And just for the record the PowerPoint is not a document that we seek approval for so it did not have be on file 10 days before. There's an expressed provision in the MLUL that says we don't even have to hand out a copy if we don't want.
The June 6th letter, just to play it safe, we submitted that ten days before. So this would be our Exhibit A 38.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: A 38.
(Whereupon, PowerPoint Presentation of Joseph Burgis is received and marked as Exhibit A 38 for Identification.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Drill, before you begin a member of the public did have a question. I assume it's a procedural question?
MS. SHERMAN: It is. It is, housekeeping, I guess.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All right.
MS. SHERMAN: I'm just not sure I understand, I thought that there were no more documents allowed to be entered into the record?
MR. DRILL: After tonight.
MS. SHERMAN: So I I mean we were told that we weren't allowed to to enter any more new documents into the record. So I was just wondering. I don't know the procedure so I'm just asking.
MS. PRICE: From a procedural standpoint, this is the part of the application or part of the request; it's not an application, part of the request that is referred to as rebuttal. So it's a limited response by the Applicant for it’s their opportunity to basically address any open issues that they saw following the conclusion of what the Board raised, what the public raised, anyone raised. And this happens on any application or any matter. So it is not meant to be extensive.
Mr. Drill, you understand that this is not meant to be an extensive proceeding?
MR. DRILL: Right.
MS. PRICE: In rebuttal.
MR. DRILL: In fact this is not rehash.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
MR. DRILL: And this is not new. This is rebutting issues that have been brought up.
MS. PRICE: All right. I just want to since I'm explaining what the rebuttal is, I just want to confirm that. It’s meant simply to basically be the final, let's sum it all up before the attorneys, per se, get to do their summations. And as long as I'm explaining that, the summations are not evidence. The summations are the attorneys' response to what they think the case is and what they think, how the case went in. But the Board doesn't consider what the attorneys said as evidential. It’s just their story.
But the rebuttal is an opportunity to be heard on open issues. So as I understood Mr. Drill's letter it was in response to a couple of specific issues that Mr. Brancheau raised in his report that Mr. Brancheau revised the Amendment. And it’s limited to that. And I anticipate that this document, although I haven't seen this document yet, is going to be used to walk us through that.
MS. SHERMAN: I was just because you said actually Mr. Drill said this is not rebuttal, this is housekeeping. So I was just wanted wondering
MS. PRICE: No. No, the marking of
MS. SHERMAN: whether we, you know, because you asked us if there was any you asked I'm sorry CRR
MS. PRICE: Right.
MS. SHERMAN: if there was any housekeeping so I just wondering whether they had also
MS. PRICE: No, this is marking
MS. SHERMAN: submitted any documents.
MS. PRICE: This is not housekeeping, the marking of A 37, B 20 and B 21 was housekeeping. This is rebuttal.
MS. SHERMAN: Okay.
MS. PRICE: So there's a line.
MS. SHERMAN: Okay. I didn't hear that line. Thank you.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Sherman.
Mr. Drill?
J O S E P H B U R G I S, Having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:
REBUTTAL DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DRILL:
Q. Mr. Burgis, you've prepared a rebuttal presentation?
A. I have.
MS. PRICE: Could we have, are both mikes on? I don't know oh, now yours is. Okay. Can everyone here Mr. Burgis in the back? Yes? Okay.
MR. DRILL: Let me give him the more powerful mike.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Burgis, can you also note for the Board when you change slide so we don't have to
MR. BURGIS: Oh, certainly.
MS. PRICE: Oh, much better.
MR. BURGIS: This is much better?
MS. PRICE: Much better, much better.
Mr. Burgis, let me just remind you that you remain under oath this evening so
MR. BURGIS: Yes.
MS. PRICE: you're not going to be re sworn but any of your testimony is also sworn testimony.
MR. BURGIS: I do understand that.
MS. PRICE: Is my head in way of that?
THE WITNESS: You could see a little.
MR. DRILL: Now it's not.
MS. PRICE: How's that good? Okay. I really would like not to move
MR. BURGIS: Just the top of your head.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: Oh, that looks comfortable. Okay. We can begin. As Jonathan had indicated my purpose here this evening is not to reiterate or rehash the facts of this proposed Master Plan Amendment. I believe everyone in the room fully well understands what the issues are that are at stake. I would like to take my time to address a few specific issues, however, in rebuttal to some of the statements that have been placed upon the record. You know I have taken the opportunity to cull through all 25 transcripts at this point. There is a total of some 4200 pages, and I also realized there's a total of 83 hours of testimony to highlight the many recurrent themes that were testified to by the public, their experts and Board's experts. We are on now slide number two, for the record. And I would like to use that testimony and those issues as a springboard to discuss where we disagree with some of what's been said. And why we feel from a planning perspective that there is substantial merit to this Master Plan Amendment request. I'm not going to review each and every issue that's on slide two, the matters raised. But if I focus in on the most commonly cited areas of concern, and I will say that I intend to limit this discussion to eight particular issues, although eight I'm going to combine some of the issues that are on the slide of number two into single categories. But by discussing how they're addressed we can hopefully provide both a focus and a framework for the Board deliberation and hopefully with sufficient clarity for the Board to vote in the affirmative. So I think maybe we should just get to it, going on to slide number three. The first topic is one that I think has found more common conversation than any other of these during the pendency of this application, that's the issue of size, scale height and intensity of use.
For those that don't have copies of this PowerPoint in front of them there are a number of page breaks throughout just introducing new topics. So I'm going to go through, so we do move onto the next slide number four. Now we have heard a lot about this issue. And what I have done is taken a number of quotes. And I could have taken any number of quotes, which I believe exemplify the areas of concern on this matter. The first comment on slide number four that I've identified regards the issue of the bed count and the rationale for it. And a number of people have talked about the bed count and why there are 454 beds. This one bit of testimony by one member of the public at the very last meeting, I think really summarizes it nicely: "I understand there is a need to modernize, but," this person indicated that they didn't understand the need for 454 beds because when Valley says they need this number to accommodate a large elderly population, that seemed to be based on very questionable assumptions.
The second comment was expressed a similar concern about the sheer size of the application. And that was that it's simply completely out of proportion with the size of the property and in which Valley is located. This theme was actually refined to a certain degree when the C.R.R. Planner, Mr. Steck, attempted to define those actual characteristics that reflect his perception of the over intensive nature of the proposal when he said that this proposal is more intensive because it's too tall, the buildings are closer the side lot line and the parking garage is also taller.
We have a number of responses to these comments. Our response is actually offered within the context of four very specific facts. They relate to first, the changing demographics of this community and the region at large. The second is related to the space and concern about the need to encourage a balanced hospital system that adequately serves the area. Thirdly, it relates to the changes that we've made to the plan to address this issue and how the project size is specifically driven by the value of single room beds and the value of enlarged operating room space. And then, finally, it relates to the site improvements resulting from the proposal and the benefits that accrue from those improvements.
First, I simply want to say, quite frankly, I do note that the issue of an increasing elderly population represents a questionable assumption.
On slide number seven we quote from John Downes, our hospital facilities expert where he said that while Valley service area, overall population is expected to remain static and flat, the age 65 plus cohort is going to grow between the years 2012 and 2017 by nearly 11 percent. Well, simply put, this is only one aspect of this issue of the aging population because the issue of the aging of our population is very real. And turn to slide eight. I don't want to offend anybody who is aging here because I know none of the Board Members are, but the Baby Boom Generation and that represents those born between 1946 and 1964. And they've represented the largest age group cohort in this country's history. And this age cohort is aging at a dramatic rate. And this does, in fact, have obvious implications to our healthcare system as people live longer than ever before. And this reflects the fact that in 2011 the first Baby Boomer hit the age 65. By the end of this year all Baby Boomers will be 50 years age and older. By the beginning of year 2015, half of all Baby Boomers will be aged 60. And by 2016 the first Boomer hits age 70. Now the reality is that while some people have testified here and suggested that the elderly are all moving to Florida, the reality is that's not happening. And that's why we see this significant uptick in the number of age restricted developments in northern New Jersey, that's why we see a significant uptick in the number of congregant care facilities being built in northern New Jersey. That's also why we see a substantial uptick in the number of assisted living facilities and nursing home facilities throughout northern New Jersey. Now interestingly, the State Department of Health has voiced their position on this issue of bed count that supports these conclusions. If we turn to slide nine oh, but getting back to slide eight for a moment, we also provide some statistics also indicating the increasing age characteristics of this segment of the population. Between 2010 and 2020, the age 65 plus cohort is expected to increase by 27 percent. Between 2020 and 2030 an additional 27 percent increase is going to occur in that same age cohort. And between 2010 and 2030 when one looks at the 85 and over age cohort, that population cohort is going to increase by fully a third, by 34.3 percent. By 2030, fully 20 percent of all New Jersey citizens are going to be at least age 65. And this obviously has implication for our Health Care system in the way we handle treatment for these older residents. But looking on, let me turn to this next slide. As I started to say, the state Department of Health has voiced their position on this issue of bed count that supports these conclusions.
In slide nine you can see where in 2013 the Commissioner of the State Department of Health said that even when considering the reopening of Pascack Valley in Westwood: "Any suggestion that any other Bergen County hospital should eliminate beds solely because of the pending opening of Pascack Valley is not supported by the data... and would clearly upset the balanced hospital system that...” the Commissioner was striving to achieve, which she mentioned when she made her decision.
Now but moving on, looking at the size and scale of the 2013 plan in relation to the 2000 plan, I would or 2010 plan, I would also say that I do not agree that the reduction in floor space is nominal as so many people have suggested. If we turn to slide ten. Slide ten identifies the reductions between 2010 and the 2013 Master Plan. It shows the reduction in floor space as measure by a variety of indices, for example, it shows a 22 percent reduction in floor space excluding rooftop mechanicals. It shows a 50 percent reduction in below grade hospital space. It also identifies an 11 percent reduction in rooftop appurtenances and a 41 percent reduction in the number of at grade parking spaces. In addition to that, it also shows a 5 percent reduction in above grade hospital building and atrium space. When I look at these reductions, I believe it’s clear that they are, in fact, substantial.
And the obvious question is how can I come to that conclusion? Well, there is the Municipal Land Use Law and case law behind that conclusion. First with respect to the Municipal Land Use Law. When you say legislature decided what overage above a required building height would be so egregious they would mandate the applicant to appear before a Zoning Board with their more onerous statutory burdens and voting procedure they choose a ten percent factor as the critical cutoff point and the critical measure. Secondly, in terms of case law there is case law and it pertains to the issue of res judicata that also informs my conclusion. Here the Court was asked to decide if the magnitude of a change in building plans was sufficient to allow an applicant to file a new application for development of a site and not be precluded from submission because the plans were similar to a previously denied application. The lead case, which is the Tenafly case here in Bergen County said that in that matter that the reduction of building coverage from 18 to 12 percent and the 20 percent proposed increase in nonconforming setback was sufficient to conclude that there was sufficient change in the plan to allow the new plan to be heard by the Board.
MR. DRILL: For the record that's the Russell versus Tenafly Board of Adjustment case?
MR. BURGIS: That is correct, yes.
In our case what we find is that six of the seven indices are being reduced by a minimum of 11 percent. The range of change ranges from 5.3 percent to 50.7 percent. The overall age is 24 percent, and based on all of that, I conclude that this is consistent with the holding in the Tenafly case and allows for my conclusion. What's interesting, however, is what's actually driving this expansion. You previously heard a number of the experts talk about the need for single room occupancy and expanded operating room space. I'm not going to go through all that again in any detail. But if we turn to slide 11, there's some interesting information being presented here regarding the proposed distribution of floor space in contrast to what was previously provided. And this slide just focuses on the change to single rooms and operating space. And as you can see, fully 62 percent of the proposed floor area's increase is due to going to single bed rooms. And this results in improved infectious disease rates as you heard others testify. In fact, fully 79 percent of the proposed increase is devoted to patient and operating room space. And you previously heard from others about the need for this expansion with respect to those two issues.
Finally, in light of record that this would add to intensity of use, but there's a way to soften the visual impact of the proposed site development I offer slide 12. This slide depicts what the proposed Master Plan would generate in terms of additional landscape amenities and buffer planning. As we all heard, upon completion of Phase I, 67 percent of the site would be encompassed by impervious coverage, upon Phase II completion that would be reduced to 64 percent. The significance is that the end result is 36 percent of the site encompassing 5.5 acres of the slightly less than 15 acre site would become landscape amenity. And because of these setbacks along North Van Dien Avenue and Linwood Avenue where we would now have physical buffers of 100 to 200 feet, we have a substantial area to provide a substantive landscape plan to enhance the aesthetic character of the site. I would suggest that this represents a significant improvement in the site conditions today which only have a nominal landscape feature along the perimeter of the property.
Next, moving on to the second issue and that's a critical area of concern that's shown on the slide before you now and that's the issue of quality of life. Now, the term quality of life is really a state of art term. It's admittedly subjective, although I know we all feel very strongly about the philosophy behind it. We've heard a lot of strong opinion from a lot of the residents who have spoken. The Village Master Plan, interestingly enough, doesn't define this term. But Harvey Moskowitz, one of the most well respected planners of his generation, defined it in his Development Definitions Handbook. And his definition is set forth in slide 14. Simply says: "The attributes that quality of life is: "The attributes or amenities the combine to make an area a desirable place to live". And in his associated commentary he does, in fact, list a number of attributes which I tend to agree with. And, in fact, from a planning perspective they've been voiced throughout the course of these proceeding, he references the issues of traffic, visual impact, noise attenuation. There's also the issue of impact of construction vehicles in the neighborhood, which is not mentioned by Mr. Dr. Moskowitz and, therefore, environmental concerns associated with construction. We already addressed each and every one of these issue in turn. But if addition to these impacts, I do believe it is imperative to also consider the matter of enhanced healthcare as a quality of life issue. Dr. Moskowitz agrees because in his commentary one of the items he references is the physical health of people.
Now, in contrast, and if you turn to slide 15, what we have often heard, with an implication that improved healthcare wasn't a part of this discussion. At best it either the existing conditions could or should remain or only at best there should be a much more modest expansion at the end result of this process. Now there's a couple of responses to that. One, we have Mr. Evers, one slide 16, identifying the reasons for single bed rooms. I'm not going to go through the details of what he said, but the highlight of what he said he specifically talked about decrease in infection rates, decreased length of patient stay, increased family participation and care, increased patient control over the environment, enhanced sleep, fewer medication errors, and enhanced patient confidentiality, that all serve as significant benefits to this single bed occupancy. He also pointed out on slide 17 that there is a desperate medical need for infection control. And he also said, pointed out how some hospital borne infections are so devastating and treatment for them is lacking, that the first the one thing excuse me about infection control that contributes to reduced hospital stays is having single bedded rooms.
Following him, later on in the course of these proceedings, we heard Mr. May, the Village Architect concur with Mr. Evers. And, in fact, the two of them concurred that if Valley was going to remain competitive and continue to provide a high level of care as a 450 bed facility, which as you had heard earlier, the Commissioner of Health supported as part of the overall regional healthcare system to adequately address the needs of the service area, this is the amount of space that is necessary for Valley to properly function. Mr. May actually went so far as to say that Valley seems to have done everything it could to reduce the size of the facility and still operate as a 450 bed facility.
The next issue that I would like to touch upon is traffic. This issue has also caused a lot of consternation and concern. A lot has been said about traffic during these proceedings. And this next comment on slide 19 exemplifies the concern. Basically it says the street network can't handle the traffic now and it certainly won't be able to handle it during and after this project is completed. And we've heard variations on that theme many, many times during these proceedings. Well, this simply doesn't jive with the fact and conclusions of the two traffic experts that testified. In slide 20 we have the Valley traffic consultant's conclusion that his analysis indicated that there will be reduction at all peak hours of 430 trips daily resulting from this upgrade. And slide 21, we have the Village Traffic Consultant essentially concurring with Mr. Olivo, the Valley consultant, with the proviso that outpatient services, we discussed, does in fact occur. But to point out while there have been many statements claiming their conclusions are wrong. There has not been any factual testimony refuting their analysis, their methodology or their conclusions.
Now, the fourth issue is the issue of project duration. Now here there are always legitimate serious legitimate concerns about the duration of any construction project and its associated impact on a community. One resident comment effectively summarized the feelings of many on slide 23: "The proposed hospital expansion will seriously and permanently hurt my family and community both during the construction period and over the long term after the construction project has been completed".
Again, when it comes to this issue there are many quotes that I could have chosen. And simply put, there is no getting around the timetable. As Phil Centineo, our construction manager, indicated on slide 24, he did point out that this is a six year construction timeframe, however, he did point out that two and a half years of that total will be solely indoor activities where at least the impacts of the development will be less lessened to a certain degree. His schedule was presented in his testimony and is repeated on slide 25, actually an abbreviated version. It points out that the initial 14 months will, in fact, be all outdoor activity. And that's followed by a combination during the next eight months of indoor and outdoor activity. But this is followed by a little more than two years, 26 months, where there is solely indoor construction activity taking place. And so at the end of the process it culminates, the last six months being solely indoor work.
Now, I don't mean to minimize the impact of the six year timeframe. It's a long period of time.
But when you contrast the needs of the region's healthcare system as exemplified by the comment by the Commission of Health, this is necessary in order to make this happen. Mr. Centineo also presented similar information for Phase II which we've shown on slide 26. Although, he did point out that it wasn't known when Phase II would actually be implemented. In his testimony he talked about and he highlighted the fact that he and his firm have employees with a range of appropriate professionals to run a job of this scale and have substantial experience of it, they are the ones responsible for preparing and implementing the appropriate safety and related mitigation programs to minimize the impacts to the extent possible. He also worked with others on The Valley team to make certain that happened. His impact mitigation plan resolves around a number of specific elements that he described in detail.
And I want to focus on two on slide 27. And I also want to talk about health related issues that were raised during the hearings. The two issues that relate to Mr. Centineo's testimony regard his plans to address the impact on school children and pedestrian movement and the impact of trucks on the neighborhood. With respect to pedestrian movements, he presented a detailed plan that would assist in directing people to street crossings and controlling student crossings in the area, identified a signage plan to identify the construction zone and the coordination with the school board with respect to early dismissals, half days, holidays, et cetera, to ensure that the Board of Education is fully aware of what's taking place and can respond to what's taking place on the on the site and on the street. With respect to truck impacts, while we cannot do that much about the number of trucks being generated to and from the site, in an effort to keep the streets clean he identified a variety of methodologies to ensure that the amount of dust, et cetera are kept to a minimum.
Now, with respect to the issue of the impact on the schools. Turn to the next page on slide 28; you can actually turn to slide 29. Aside from the construction, construction affecting the school children, there was also a lot of comment about shadow impacts and about air pollution. In fact I'm going to address all of these issues during the rest of this presentation. The comments on slide 29, I believe, adequately summarize some of the concerns raised, two pertain to shadows on the BF property and the other pertains to air pollution. Again, in response to those comments that are on slide 29, the fact is that Mr. Evers presented detailed evidence to refute much of this. In the following slides 30 through 38 I presented some, but not all, of his slides which indicate there's only one time of the year and one particular time in the midday that shadows actually impact the area in question.
Could you start with slide okay. Now Mr. Evers identified the impact of shadows in the summer, spring and fall and if we could focus on slide 38 we find that's the only time of year, December, in the winter of the year, that the shadows actually extent on to the ball field of BF and the driveway portion of BF. Slide 38 shows the shadows at 4 p.m. and hear you can see where a good portion of the field is covered at a time when the school is not in session. It’s very cold, reducing the likelihood of people playing on the ball field. As for the proposed North Building blocking sunlight to melt snow, the shadow studies in his testimony indicated that up until close to 3:00 p.m. when the winter sun would be strongest, no shadows affect this property. This is the winter sun and the winter shadows at noon (indicating). And the next slide shows it at 4:00 p.m.
Now moving on to the issue of environmental air monitoring, in response to public comment, we turn to slide 39 Shannon Magari our environmental expert testified about how we will monitor air quality to address the concerns about impact on the adjacent school. She said, as you can see on slide 39, that she stated action levels for each contaminant which if exceeded trigger an action on behalf of the hospital. As she stated, the action level are set below state and federal standards and if you hit her predefined action levels, that are below, again, state and federal standards the entire job will be shut down. It's evaluated. And work doesn't commence again until the work practice is modified. The next slide is slide 40, identifies her placement of air monitoring because there was a question of concern. She recommends three specific locations for air monitoring. They would be at the point source, at the defined work zone, and then at property lines. Her testimony was that this was the best placement of the air monitoring and control devices because it provides a warning while any contaminant is still on site and allows time for immediate reactions to stop activities if the contaminants don't rise above the applicable standards. You may recall that she was actually asked if it would be appropriate to place additional air monitoring devices on BF ball field. Her answer was that you could, but it wouldn't serve any purpose because you want to be able the react before it reached somewhere off site of the hospital.
She also identified the process to put into place that would be put into place, if contaminants exceeded the applicable standards. And I indicated the action levels for contaminants were lower than the federal and state standards to give added protection and warnings if something was amiss.
Finally, to complete to issue about the concerns of the project impacts on BF, we do have the testimony of the school board president. She was pointedly asked, if you could turn to slide 41, whether: "If terms of the sizes of the proposed buildings, in terms of the impact on the space and the air and the ball fields just the visual impact does the board have any concerns about that". And her response is an emphatic no. When she was asked: “Do you think that the children of Benjamin Franklin Middle School will have the same learning experience as the children at George Washington," she had also an emphatic response, and that simply was a yes. Then in response to a question from Mr. Drill, on slide 43, she was asked about the impact of the second floor construction about classrooms that were in that school and she said: "Yes...some of the work was done in the summer. And then the bulk of it was done during the school year," and extended into the next summer. In response to a question about the impact of construction on the quality of the children's education she utilized that experience to indicate that quote: "...a very high quality educational experience," was maintained there. And she expected the same here.
The sixth issue regards the issue of local versus regional implications here. This issue regards the matter of if only six percent of Ridgewood residents avail themselves of Valley service, why should Ridgewood bear the brunt of providing this regional service. And a number resident have, in fact, commented on this as exemplified on slide 46 where it was specifically suggested that the number of beds at Valley could be reduced because only six percent of the Ridgewood population used Valley. Well, the reality is a much larger percentage of Ridgewood residents use Valley in any single year. We've reviewed with Valley the number of Ridgewood residents that use this location in any set year, and not just those who had an overnight stay here, which happens to reflect that six percent figure. But, when you count all those who come to Valley having broken bones set, to have an X ray or use their ER, but don't stay overnight the figures present a dramatically different picture of local usage. And that's reflected on slide 47 because this slide depicts the number of residents who were cared for at Valley in the last two years ago, 2012. These roughly 6400 people, and there is no double counting in this figure, represents 25 percent of the Village's 25,205 residents. Another interestingly fact is the fact that 71 percent of all Ridgewood residents who are hospitalized anywhere overnight were hospitalized at Valley. Now that 25 percent figures is a far cry from six percent. But, quite frankly, it doesn't really matter. And I say this because all municipalities are obligated to recognize that certain uses by their very nature as stated by your own planner serves areas larger than a single municipality. If you thought otherwise it would mean that every municipality would have to have its own hospital, would have to have its own airport, would have to have its own college or university. Otherwise, for example, the City of Newton Newark would be telling us that their healthcare was going to be scaled down to only meet the needs of their citizens or Princeton University would be telling us that the City of Princeton would be telling us that they’re going to see their university reduced in size to meet only Princeton's citizens needs. But, fortunately, it doesn't work that way.
Beyond that, slide 48 indicates that the Municipal Land Use Law mandates that municipalities consider regional type uses. For example, in it's opening purpose section it says you can't impose restrictions that conflict with the needs of surrounding municipalities. The second purpose says that it's your obligation to consider the needs of all New Jersey citizens in your planning efforts. And the third purpose says that you should consider ways to coordinate your planning efforts to encourage the most efficient use of land. Having each municipality provide for its own hospital is far from the most efficient use of land in this state.
And moving onto the last two matters. One in regards to the ranking of inherently beneficial uses which is the page break on slide 49, moving on to slide 50 this application impacts two inherently beneficial uses. And the question by a resident at the last public hearing and as noted during my initial testimony I pointed out that the Municipal Land Use Law defined inherently beneficial use as follows: "A use which is universally considered of value to the community because it fundamentally serves the public good and promotes the general welfare. Such a use includes, but is not limited to," and they give a number of examples, "a hospital, school, child care center, group homes", and solar facilities. Now, in the ranking of inherently beneficial uses, which is prescribed by the Sica test in Sica v. Wall Township inherently beneficial uses are to get ranked based upon the magnitude of how compelling is their public purpose.
And I would offer that the public interest in hospitals, simply the saving of lives, it implicates the promotion of the public health and safety in a direct manner that affects each and every one of us and serves the very basic life issue, our health. As such, hospitals represent the most compelling public interest.
Public interest in schools is the education of our children, so they could become productive members of our society. And as such, schools represent the next most compelling public interest. But it is a step down from saving lives.
Therefore, the issue of what takes precedence when one is dealing with these two inherently beneficial uses is clear. Hospitals rank above all other inherently beneficial uses and are to be treated accordingly.
Now, finally, there's been a lot of question about what are the benefits of this hospital expansion to Ridgewood? That's the page break on 51. There are a number of people that have questioned what benefit does this proposal pose to the Village. For example, as noted on slide 52, one citizen asked:
"What specifically will be the good only for Ridgewood? Not for the community at large," meaning not for the region, "... but specifically for Ridgewood?" Now I believe this does, in fact, deserve an answer because there are a variety of benefits, some direct and some secondary, that should be noted.
For example, moving on to Slide 53, the most obvious benefit resulting from the application is ensuring that Valley continues to provide the highest quality of care for Ridgewood residents, and others, as it has been historically known to do, while continuing to remain competitive with the regional healthcare community. Well, there have been a lot of suggestions that Valley will continue to maintain its high quality of care irrespective of whether they get this approval or not. The reality is, is that in all likelihood is not the case because in order to remain competitive in the high and keep the same high standards that it's been known for, they need to constantly enhance their facility. Another benefit is knowing that because Valley is here, doctors want to have their offices here. And ensure that we all have great and easy access to them. In point of fact, 401 of the 800 doctors with privileges at Valley do, in fact, from offices in Ridgewood. These doctor offices also generate substantial spillover effects to the Ridgewood community. From the simply buying of office supplies, using our restaurants, keeping our office buildings occupied and the like.
Now another issue to consider is the fact that Valley expends approximately $6.3 million on the local community including expenditures to Ridgewood vendors, and such programs as the Ridgewood only events that they provide on other programs at Valley that are open to everyone besides Ridgewood residents, on Their Lives Touch program and on other programs in the region including health education, health fairs, exercise classes, support groups and health screenings. All on these things play a apart in indicating Valley's historic and continued and ongoing support for the Ridgewood community and the region. In addition, something that has not been mentioned is that Valley contributes $1.7 million in property taxes to the Village from some of the properties they own. There are, of course, secondary or spillover jobs in retail trade expenditures associated with the Hospital and with Valley's doctors' offices that are located in Ridgewood.
And, finally, there is that fact that 25 percent of Ridgewood resident use Valley on a yearly basis.
And all of this, in addition to the site improvements that I mentioned earlier, would in fact give everybody a broad understanding of Valley's position and broad understanding of the benefits.
And that ends my presentation. And I thank you for your time.
MR. DRILL: I have no further witnesses.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Drill. Thank you.
Do members of the Board have questions at this time for Mr. Burgis and his testimony?
Paul, do you want to? This side? You want to start this side?
MS. DOCKRAY: Charles, I have lots of questions and I'm kind of surprised that some of this data that's brought to our attention some of this is new
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't hear you.
MS. DOCKRAY: Sorry. I think some of this is new data.
MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's go through the questions.
MS. PRICE: It's not new testimony, it's just
MS. DOCKRAY: And and, you know, I'm not that some you know when I see a lot of data like this, I like to think about it and I'm kind of taken aback that I have been given such little time to do that, to be really honest so...
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: This is his testimony; you have an opportunity to ask him questions with regard to it. So why don't we begin with Paul.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. And by the time you get down here maybe I'll have
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You might have some time, yes.
MS. DOCKRAY: I’ll be I'll be in a better place.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure. Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation, I just have a few sort of scattered questions, I was making notes as we were going through it. So these are in no particular order. Just on slide 17 you have a quote from Steve Evers in the country there's a desperate need for infection control. You've heard some of these you have the quotes there, infections that are hospital borne so devastating that there's no treatment for them. One thing about infection control that contributes to reduced hospital stays is having private rooms. Is Mr. Evers a medical doctor? I mean this seems like a strange quote to have from an architect and to highlight.
MR. BURGIS: I could have used quotes from Dr. from Mr. Downes as well, he's the hospital facilities planner. Mr. Evers is not a doctor, but his practice is related solely to hospitals and hospital care. And I felt that this substantially encapsulated in the position of the hospital for the reason and the reasons for that facility.
MR. DRILL: Just for the record
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure.
MR. DRILL: Mr. Evers' statements were based on the regulations from the FGI which was the group and it was submitted into the record. And as an expert Mr. Evers is entitled to rely on data to form an opinion. And Mr. Burgis is entitled to rely on the same data. He can also rely on other expert opinion unlike a layman.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure. And let me actually back up a second. I guess some of my notes that I made during this and I wasn't planning on asking any questions, I was just sort of planning to listen, it seems like some of the information here, with all due respect, seems somewhat selective. And I think and this is just in one second example because while Mr. Evers and I don't recall the testimony, might have been referring to someone else's expert you know, expertise in this area, he's an architect. And you highlight this one quote, and it seems like a very compelling quote, but he's an architect not a medical doctor.
MR. DRILL: Again, through the record, we went through extensive testimony on this point. This is April 2nd, 2013 transcript at page 81. I mean just to keep this as short as possible
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Okay.
MR. DRILL: he took out one representative quote. If you want I can start reading his testimony into the record and he testified extensively on this.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Okay.
MS. PRICE: I think that and I provided the Board Members with summaries of all the transcripts so they'll be able to go back and, you know, review all
MR. DRILL: I just took a quick look at them several
MS. PRICE: the experts' testimonies.
MR. BURGIS: Okay. Mayor, I understood that I had a limited amount of time, so I couldn't quote as extensively as I would have otherwise liked from not only Mr. Evers, but Mr. Downes as well and then from the documents that Mr. Evers is relying upon.
But this is supposed to be a, you know, a rebuttal only not to reopen the entire testimony.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: And I appreciate that. I was trying to listen to it in that spirit.
But I can't help but sort of reopen some of these discussions we've had.
For instance, slide 9, of course, the now oft quoted comments from the Commissioner of Department of Health concerning the need for beds. Again, this is in itself a compelling quote, but it was used to discuss another compelling quote from the head of the Hospital that we had discussed that there was too many beds in Bergen County.
MR. BURGIS: Well, actually, if you want me to quote only from the Commissioner, she's in that in a previous letter predating that letter that I quoted from, she specifically had pointed out that there that Valley had used earlier data and that was superseded by more recent information. And that was the most compelling information and appropriate information to use to inform her decision. I mean it relied on that data which was initially relied upon by Valley which was in the year 2000 and 2006.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: But it was in a letter dated 2012, right, or I don't remember the letter now from from Audrey Meyers.
MR. BURGIS: No, it was earlier it was earlier than that, but her letter from 2012 and 2013 maintained a position that maintained Valley's 450 bed hospital was the appropriate number to ensure that regional healthcare system was functioning appropriately.
MR. DRILL: And I think you'll recall when we had a back and forth on the issue.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: I remember.
MR. DRILL: I had explained that Valley's position from that litigation was based on valid data from 2006. By the time it got all the way up to the Commissioner there was new data. So even though their positions seemed inconsistent, when the new data came out, their position changed. And that's what the new data submitted was stating and that's when when Mr. Burgis was referring to Commissioner O'Dowd's prior letter, that was the letter issuing the certificate of need to reopen that hospital.
And we had this discussion back then; again, it's all in the transcript.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure, I know. I'm in the process of reviewing all the transcripts again.
MR. DRILL: It's two different sets of data, one that led the Hospital to take a certain position and when the data changed Commissioner O'Dowd specifically said when she issued the certificate of she relied on later data. Then she submitted this letter, apparently, just to clarify for the Board so they would understand.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure and I am going we're all reviewing the transcripts, and I appreciate that.
One of the things I do remember, and I'll go back to clarify this, was that with respect to Audrey Meyers letter it was suggested that she was talking about another part of Bergen County, that she wasn't talking about our area. And I thought that was that was sort of the rationalization.
MR. DRILL: Whatever, again, I didn't go
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Okay. I'm going to go back I'll look.
MR. DRILL: I didn't look at that part before tonight, I knew this one would be an issue so I looked at that part. But whatever it says in those transcripts it says.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: And, again, I really don't mean to nitpick. My my thinking going into this evening was I just going to sort of take it in, but as you can appreciate the Board here has been hearing a lot of information, sometimes it seems conflicting information and so sometimes what at least from my perspective, when I see just selective quotes and selective things taken out, I'm wondering like what where's the other side to this where it seems like it’s it's sort of purposely being left out of this discussion.
MR. BURGIS: Mayor, in my reading of all the background information and my reading of the transcripts, on this one particular issue I thought it was very straight forward. Now the Commissioner of the Department of Health is in a very defined position indicating that it is appropriate to have Valley at a 450 bed facility irrespective of Pascack Valley's reopening. And that's a very straight forward comment. And if you when you go through the transcripts and if you also go through some of the background information you'll see how the Commissioner came to that conclusion, even if it was, you're suggesting, was a reversal of prior
MAYOR ARONSOHN: And just with respect to the issue of number of beds, and I don't think it necessarily goes to this, and maybe I shouldn't ask it, but just for point of clarification because we're talking about a nearly doubling the size
MR. BURGIS: Yes.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: of the overall size of the Hospital. And it had suggested that one of the compelling reasons, the rationales for that is and need to go from double beds to single beds.
MR. BURGIS: Yes.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: But, correct me if I'm wrong over a third of the beds at Valley Hospital are already in single room; is that...
MR. BURGIS: It's somewhat less than that, but there are there are
MAYOR ARONSOHN: I thought it was Mr. Evers' testimony that it was about 37, 38 percent.
MR. DRILL: Put it this way, again, whatever the transcripts say let's assume for argument's sake
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Okay.
MR. DRILL: that your figure is correct.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: We'll go back
MR. DRILL: Assume for argument's sake
MR. BURGIS: Okay.
MR. DRILL: the Mayor's figure of 37 percent is correct.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: And I just wanted a clarification, I wasn't making a point in that because I think the assumption is if we're going to you know we need to go from double rooms to single rooms so it almost suggests a doubling in the size of the Hospital.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, no.
MR. BURGIS: Let me bring you back to Mr. Evers' testimony
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure.
MR. BURGIS: because while he talked at length about infection, infectious disease rates declined by virtue of going to all single beds occupancy he also took great pains, the identify the fact that at present all of the rooms at Valley are constrained in terms of size. If you recall in his presentation he identified to fact that when one wants to move one patient out of a room, they have to move the other patient first, just to get out the door.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: In the double rooms not in the single rooms.
MR. BURGIS: In double double rooms
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: obviously. And that is the overwhelming majority of the rooms, that's a huge inconvenience
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure.
MR. BURGIS: it's a huge inconvenience not only for the patients, but for any family members visiting, beyond which there's not much room at present for families to
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Right. I'm sure we've all experienced that.
MR. BURGIS: Yes, everybody in this room has had that experience
MAYOR ARONSOHN: I was just looking for clarification
MR. BURGIS: but he's not only addressing the issue of infectious disease rate reduction, he's also addressing the issue of the inappropriateness of the size and scale of the rooms themselves.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure.
MR. BURGIS: And beyond which he also did point out and it's a known fact that having the ability the allow patients' families to stay in the rooms, also tends to help patients get better quicker
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: and that was all part of his presentation. And it went on for a long time.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: A long time.
MR. BURGIS: Right.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Yeah. My last my last point of clarification with respect to the presentation on let me get my glasses. On slide 11, talking about the proposed distribution of floor space, and you talk about 60 percent 62 percent of the proposed increase is devoted, is this 62 percent, when you're talking about the increase, you're talking about what exists today?
MR. BURGIS: In comparison to what existing today.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: And the reason I got confused on that is because one slide earlier you're not comparing the proposed 2013 plan to what exists today, you're comparing it to 2010, what was adopted. And this goes to an issue that I and I think other have raised throughout this that sometimes it seems, you know, and I apologize, it sometimes seems like it's convenient to compare 2013 to 201o and other times it's comparing 2013 to existing. And I know for all along have asked repeatedly throughout this if we could stay consistent maybe we can look at existing, 2010, 2013. But here it's on back to back slides you're doing two different comparison.
MR. DRILL: The 2010 plan allows more than what the Hospital is applying for in the 2013 plan. The whole reason we got into this was
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Which slide are you talking about? I'm sorry?
MR. DRILL: No, I'm saying the 2010 if you take a look at slide 11
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Uh huh.
MS. PETERS: Slide 10 and 11.
MR. DRILL: If you look at the 2010 plan, there's more square footage in it. This remains the same. The only reason that we got into this whole issue that's on slide 11 during the merits of the case is because a couple of the Board Members, including yourself, wanted to know why what's the big deal about the single bedded rooms. We got into that whole issue, in fact if you recall I was not planning on calling Mr. Downes as an expert. We brought him in to address that issue. So there's you can't compare this to 2010 because 2010 there's even more space.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: No, I appreciate that. I think I've made that maybe I wasn't clear.
So 2010 I mean in 11 slide 11 that's useful. 2010 I mean excuse me the slide ten, on the changes between 2010/2013 it would help me if I had what exists right now.
MR. DRILL: You do have that.
MR. BURGIS: You do have that. We I presented that
MAYOR ARONSOHN: But I don't have it here
MR. DRILL: That's correct.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: in this latest presentation.
MS. PRICE: Well, can I answer that question, Mayor?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Gail.
MS. PRICE: Let me, I'm going to try to bring this all together because
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you raise the mike.
MS. PRICE: I am just not on.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: There you go.
MS. PRICE: Now I'm on. And I think from Wendy's question and some of the questions that you're asking and I don't know if this is the answer, but I'm going to try to short circuit this, one reason because my hip is throbbing and I have to stand up in a minute. But I think, although I think it was very long winded, I must say, Blais asked for a response. And, Blais, I love you, but Blais wanted to hear what the benefits and detriments were in rebuttal in response to his last report. He wanted to understand as the planner because the last document the Board has before it is Blais' revised Amendment. And it was Blais' thought that he did not fully understand or fully get from the Applicant, closure; let's use that word, closure on the benefits and detriments per se on the 2010 Amendment versus the proposed Amendment. So he asked for clarification on that, together with some other issues, and those other issues are addressed in the letter which was marked as an exhibit. But Mr. Burgis' testimony, as I understand it, was addressing Blais' in a battle of the planner, in terms of length of verbiage, request.
So I think, and tell me if I'm wrong, but
MR. DRILL: No, you're absolutely right. We just think we were more direct than Blais, that's all.
MS. PRICE: Oh, I don't know about it tonight, let me tell. I think what they were trying to do is respond to that and they're entitled on rebuttal to try to make their case however they want to make it. It's up to the Board to say, "I believe you", "I don't believe you". And that's what you're going to do next week. You're going to say, "Mr. Burgis, I don't believe a word you said", or "Mr. Burgis, I think you're right".
You know and after we go through all of the instructions and you know the how you apply the burden of proof we'll you know, the Board will more fully understand that. But I think that's what the applicant is trying to do. And I hope they're close to being done with that.
MR. DRILL: We're done.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Sure, I appreciate that. But
MR. DRILL: We're finished
MS. PRICE: Okay.
MR. DRILL: we're just answering questions. We're finished with direct.
MS. PRICE: Okay. But I just wanted you to understand and the rest of the Board what they were doing.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: And I appreciate that. And if that's the case that could be useful perhaps, but this is under a section called "size, scale, height and intensity of use," and it's followed by a bunch of resident comments. And so it doesn't look like it's responding to Blais. It looks like it's responding to the residents. And then in that context it seems very selective because it doesn't talk about what exists today. And so the numbers in that last column would be very different if we compared 2013 proposed to what exists today.
MR. BURGIS: Right. But, Mayor, I previously gave that information to you.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: I know but I'm talking about your presentation this evening.
MR. BURGIS: Okay. But the purpose of this evening's presentation was just to rebut those issues that we felt
MS. PRICE: Right.
MR. BURGIS: were rebuttable. There are certain issues that I didn't touch upon because, you know, there was no need to.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Okay.
MR. DRILL: I think out it this was we the Hospital believes that the relevant comparison is to between 2010, because that Master Plan is in full force and effect, although we agreed not to do anything about it during the pendency of this proceeding, and the proposed 2013 plan. The Hospital doesn't believe that a comparison between now and 2013 is relevant. We've submitted it because you asked for it, but if we don't think it's relevant then on rebuttal we're not going to bring it up because we're not going because that's what we think relevant, that's basically the essence of it.
MR. BURGIS: And beyond that, Mayor, when it comes to this change in floor space, if we were comparing ourselves to 2010 there would be nothing to compare because we would simply say we were allowed more in 2010. And the discussion was the room sizes, you know, the amount of floor space
MAYOR ARONSOHN: But that seems to be again, I don't want to belabor the point, this is my last and then I'll I'll cede the floor
MR. DRILL: Yeah, I think
MAYOR ARONSOHN: but just on that, you're comparing 2013 to 2010 because it looks favorable. It looks like there was a
MR. BURGIS: Well
MR. DRILL: Actually we believe it is favorable.
MR. BURGIS: It is.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: I know, I know, but that's not want he's saying
MR. BURGIS: It is very favorable.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: I understand but
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yeah, so
MAYOR ARONSOHN: I know that's not what you're saying, again, I I appreciate I do appreciate your testimony. I just think the way this is being presented tonight is somewhat disingenuous because it seems very selective.
MR. BURGIS: Well, okay, this was
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Well, Paul
MR. BURGIS: this was designed to
MS. PRICE: Right.
MR. BURGIS: to rebut some of the issues that have been raised during the course of 25 other hearings.
MR. DRILL: For the record, we don't think its disingenuous. We think we presented the relevant
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.
MR. DRILL: data. You might disagree
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.
MR. DRILL: and you might vote differently and state your reasons
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And let's move on now
MR. DRILL: there's nothing we could do. We don't agree with with the underlying
MR. BURGIS: Premise.
MR. DRILL: correction of the of your position on that.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's yea, let's move on. And I think it's important to also note Gail's comment. We can interpret this information as we see fit as we review the material and out notes.
So, Paul, I think if you have issues go through that as part of your
MAYOR ARONSOHN: I understand it. But I thought the point of this was for me to ask questions and get clarifications and that was
MS. PRICE: It is.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: exactly what I was trying to do.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, absolutely. No disagreement.
MS. PRICE: It is.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Just trying to move on. Mayor, do you have any more questions?
MAYOR ARONSOHN: I have some more on that.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Do you have other questions other than that?
MAYOR ARONSOHN: No.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Nancy?
MS. BIGOS: No questions, Chairman. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Richard?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Let's see on slide 47, where'd those numbers come from for the utilization?
MR. BURGIS: Slide 47 is from the public information, provides the information indicating that 25 percent of individual Ridgewood residents have been cared for at Valley in 2012 and 71 percent of any Ridgewood resident having any overnight hospital stay, anywhere.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is that self compiled by the Hospital or is it
MR. BURGIS: It's self compiled by the Hospital and...
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: And with respect to number 54
MR. BURGIS: Pardon?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Slide 54 was the reference to expenditures and the taxes where are those numbers from the
MR. BURGIS: That also came from Valley.
MR. DRILL: We have there's a stack of data that we have that's about an inch and a half thick and we had it purged just in case anyone wanted to ask, we took all of the Social Security numbers out of it and all of the personal information. And if you wanted to see the underlying data on which this is based we could submit it as an exhibit.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, I just seeing what the basis was
MR. BURGIS: It's more like four inches thick.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah. No, I have no interest in doing that but I was just seeing how it was complied because, you know, that's relevant.
MR. DRILL: And, again, you know just for the record let me just ask Mr. Burgis, are the facts and data that you relied upon in coming to this conclusion in testifying as you did with respect to slide number 47, is that the type of data that is reasonably relied upon by experts in the planning field?
MR. BURGIS: All the time, yes.
MR. DRILL: Have you relied on this sort of data in prior occasions in forming your opinions and testifying to either boards or other clients.
MR. BURGIS: Yes, certainly.
MR. DRILL: And are you aware of any other planners who have relied on data such as that to from their opinions?
MR. BURGIS: All planners rely on planning information.
MR. DRILL: The only reason I ask this question is because he's an expert
MS. PRICE: That's okay. That's okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. On slide 54 the 6.13 million was that self compiled too?
MR. BURGIS: Yes, it was.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: And for the 1.7 you said that was property taxes, do you know what the properties that's paid on?
MR. BURGIS: I can give you the block and lot numbers.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.
MR. BURGIS: I don't have that information with me, but we can
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: That's for physician offices that aren't part of the Hospital proper or
MR. BURGIS: I'm sorry.
MR. DRILL: He wants to know if those are physician offices or if there are other services of the Hospital.
MR. BURGIS: All of that and more, whatever they own. That they're not yet they're not paying taxes on.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. But that's not like the the Hospital, itself, doesn't pay any taxes?
MR. BURGIS: Not on the Hospital 14 plus acres, right.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
MR. DRILL: We'll give you, if you want, we can submit that the Hospital doesn't pay taxes on this particular site, the Hospital pays taxes on its other properties.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
MR. DRILL: We could give you a list of all those properties.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Well, I just wanted to gather and have some insight on what's generating the property taxes on it.
MR. DRILL: And just for the record, those property don't necessarily have to pay taxes. The Hospital has not sought tax exemption for them, just want to make that clear for the record, if the Hospital wants to seek tax exemption for them at least on some of them, maybe I don't know how many of them the Hospital could, but they haven't.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. And with respect to slide 50, I guess inherently beneficial use, I guess it's our task to kind of balance what the breaking point is, would you would that be fair to say? It's not like a free pass if something's inherently beneficial, we still have to do the balancing for it.
MR. BURGIS: Well, now I was here when Blais went through his balancing test. That's a use variance test. I understand that it could help you inform your decision to a degree but it's not the test per se that I believe you should be following in a Master Plan Amendment.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: What's the test we should follow?
MR. BURGIS: It's as set forth in section 40:55D 28(a) where it talks about promoting the general welfare.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. So but something that promotes the general welfare, just because it does that, does not mean it's automatically granted.
MR. BURGIS: I would agree with that.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right.
MR. BURGIS: But I think the question was relating to when you're balancing the issues of two different inherently beneficial uses, you know, one there was a suggestion that one takes precedence over the other. And when you go back to the Sica inherently beneficial the lead inherently beneficial use case, it specifically says you must grant these uses. And in terms of the ranking and the issue always is what's the most compelling of inherently beneficial uses. And what I suggested was that in terms of saving lives I would say a hospital is the most compelling of all inherently beneficial uses.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: Schools aren't far behind, I'd rank them as number two, but they're not number one.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. No further questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Richard. I have one follow on question which I'll take this moment to
MR. REILLY: You're the Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I'm also wary of statistics and how they're used. And I just wanted a point or clarification. In slide number 47 where you represent 6,395, 25.4 percent of individual residents are those individual visits or are those individuals, separate people who've attended the Hospital.
MR. BURGIS: Individual that's why I used the word "individual."
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yeah.
MR. BURGIS: There is no and that's what I said, there is no double counting in this.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: So it's
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So there's no double counting?
MR. BURGIS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you for that clarification. Kevin?
MR. REILLY: Those were both points that I I thought were unclear, both the taxes and what seemed to be like Ridgewood was storming the doors of Valley every year to be treated, again glad those cleared up. I'll just go with an observation here, selective of course in the quotes you're selecting from the residents. I I just received this a short time ago so I have to go back and review for the Concerned Residents case because you're rebutting their case, but I notice that you spend valuable space open the issue of shadows on the BF driveway. I don't recall that being a particularly significant point. It came up, but to me it's not a particularly significant point whether it's ten feet or 20 feet as I see I see your diagrams here. But one thing that has caught my attention all along, let's see where I marked it, and I think it's it's important, on slide 19 you're quoting a resident talking about traffic and ten years of construction. Well, maybe it's going to be six years of construction, but there's going to be a lot of construction, I realize it's phased, but again a lot of construction. I see that you differentiate between the interior and the outside construction, I can understand the difference, it doesn't mean inside construction is impact free. You're still going to have the truck coming and going, but you're responding to the question of traffic with the number of trips, I guess employee trips they're going to be reduced but there's another major component to traffic and that's the trucks coming and going. And I remember the numbers were enormous on a daily basis. And, again, I know it's not 365 days of the year. It's phased. But it is over a very considerable period of time. We've got a lot of truck traffic. And there was a lot of discussion, not so much on rebuttal, but I remember a lot of discussion on the that the routes that the trucks would be taking and you had dust issues. You had particulate issues. You had all sorts of issues coming up. And you addressed the reduction in the proposed reduction in employee trips, certainly a valid issue. What about the truck traffic though? That's traffic.
MR. BURGIS: Yes, there's no getting as I said in my testimony, there's no getting around the fact that, you know, construction does, in fact, have an impact. If you recall from my original testimony, I addressed that point to the extent that we looked for the truck route that would have the least impact on residents. And we have a truck route, if I recall correctly and I believe I am, that will pass fewer than 60 dwellings or 50 dwellings on their route to Route 17 on their route to Route 17. We looked at a number of other alternative routes, none resulted in having as few a number of dwellings as that.
MR. REILLY: I remember your testimony and I remember the different routes that were discussed. And it's a way to mitigate what's a definite impact. It's not eliminating it, it's mitigating it. It's still cumulatively an impact, though.
MR. BURGIS: Yes, I'll and I'm not I don't think anybody here is saying that's not the case.
Now this is a large development. And it will generate trucks. You know we look at the end result as a substantial benefit to the community and to the region, in terms of enhanced healthcare because all that you've heard has indicated that in order to maintain the high quality standards that Valley has become known for, there is a need to improve those rooms, improve operating rooms and all the other things that you've heard discussed.
MR. REILLY: Okay. Thank you. No more.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thanks, Kevin. Michele?
MR. REILLY: You're on.
MS. PETERS: Wendy?
MS. DOCKRAY: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You want to go last?
MS. DOCKRAY: No, no, no, no, no, actually
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All right. Go ahead, Wendy.
MS. DOCKRAY: Actually Mayor Aronsohn stole my thunder. I had the same questions. I was very confused about why you were seeing a comparison between the 2013 and 2010 plans in some places and in other places we were comparing the 2013 plan with what's existing now. I think it goes back and forth, back and forth through the whole document. So I was confused as well. I do have one question in that regard on slide 20, I don't know if you know the answer to this, but you said on a daily basis there would be a reduction of 430 trips. And I need to know is that comparing the 2013 to the 2010 Amendment? Or is it comparing to 2013 to what exists now?
MR. BURGIS: No, that's comparing it to the 2010. And I would also point out that if you go through these slides you will find that I think that only that one slide is making that comparison to the existing conditions. And that's because that is the only relevant comparison in that one issue. It doesn't make sense to make a comparison to 2010 because there is no comparison because in 2010 you allowed even more floor space.
MR. DRILL: I mean just, again, on this whole traffic thing, it's because of the Hospital's proposal to take the highest traffic generation outpatient services away from the Hospital. That's what results in that 430 trip reduction. On a separate, but some might say related issue, the number of parking spaces, this chart accurately reflects the difference 2,000 parking spaces allows with the 2010 Master Plan Amendment and 1700 now, but that figure, again, is less than existing, but we don't think that the existing comparison is relevant. So we didn't put it in there. As Mr. Burgis said there was one area where we could make that comparison because there's nothing else to compare it to.
MS. DOCKRAY: Right. I think in fairness to the residents, some of their comments were with respect to taking the 2013 and then comparing it to what is happening now and what's here now. And then
MR. DRILL: We understand that, that's their argument and our position is
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let her let her finish.
MR. DRILL: Okay.
MS. DOCKRAY: All right. No, I'm just saying.
MR. DRILL: We understand.
MS. DOCKRAY: You know they have that concern too.
MR. DRILL: Right. We believe that that's not an issue that is properly he before you.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay.
MR. DRILL: We believe that the issue is the 2010 to 2013.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. I guess I get where you're going. All right. I just have one other question, Mr. Burgis you talked about the uptick of assisted living and nursing home facilities in the area as being evidence of the aging of the population. Isn't it true it's also evidence of the fact that hospital stays are getting shorter and those patients are being discharged to nursing homes and assisted living facilities which are less expensive than hospitals?
MR. BURGIS: I'm not
MS. DOCKRAY: Isn't that a part of the trend. I'm not saying it's all the trend
MR. BURGIS: Yeah.
MS. DOCKRAY: isn't that part of the trend?
MR. BURGIS: I'm not sure how much that would be reflective of the nursing home construction, which is a small part of the assisted living, the over age 55 constructions, and congregant care facilities in general. I mean there is a lot that has been happening throughout northern New Jersey over the past five to seven years.
MS. DOCKRAY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Wendy.
MS. DOCKRAY: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Michele?
MS. PETERS: Yes, a rare moment when I feel I've been voiced already by the other members that are here. But I do view this as a rebuttal. And I see it as strictly that. And I have very much in mind, all the testimony that's been given. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Michele. I have a general question as it relates to Wendy's question about the use of the Baby Boom data, is that generally true in other regions besides Bergen County, that there is a correlation of healthcare needs and hospital facility requirements to the fact that there are more of us in that generation consuming those service? Are other hospitals planning the same way? Are other regions planning the same way? And if you're able to answer the question, is it true in other parts of the country.
MR. BURGIS: My practice is concentrated in the New York Metropolitan area and while I can talk a very little bit about other areas we go to national conference and the like, I'm not sure how definitive that would be.
MR. DRILL: Why don't you state, for the record, where do you get, what data source do you get the information you put on slide eight?
MR. BURGIS: Well, slide eight data comes from various New Jersey Department of Health, Office of Aging and the like. That's where all that information comes from.
For example, some of the data comes from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Work Force Development, there's projection of New Jersey population and labor force by the New Jersey Labor Market View which is a standard planning publication that's used. That's where most of that information. But the question related to around the rest of the country, I assumed.
MR. DRILL: For the record those data sources are also reasonably relied upon experts in the planning field.
MR. BURGIS: Oh, certainly.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Are they, if you're able to answer this question, are those figures used by the business interests of any hospital in terms of their resource planning or are they specifically used in this case, you know, for your analysis?
MR. BURGIS: No, this is more of a planning tool. Recognizing the changing demographics, I am certain for hospital planning, Mr. Downes uses such information. He touched upon some of these kinds of statistics when he testified. So it is used.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Burgis. Any follow on questions from the Board before we move on to professionals?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No? Okay. Chris is not here. Gail, do you have any?
MS. PRICE: No.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Excuse me, I got it cranked here.
Page five, slide ten, the comparison between the two plans, my figures have a few discrepancies from them, I don't think this change the overall conclusions, but I just because they do effect the content of the plan I wanted to go through the differences between what you show and what the plan shows.
First of all the total hospital floor area excluding rooftop mechanicals, the 2013 plan you have as 910,000, I have in the plan as 900,000, 10,000 square foot difference. And I'll just go through all of them because I think they all have to do with this 10,000 square foot figure.
MS. PRICE: Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU: The above grade hospital buildings and atrium you have as 695,000 in the proposed plan, we have 685 in the proposed plan.
MR. DRILL: Can I just, that 10,000, just right there you got it. One goes up and one goes down.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Right.
MR. DRILL: That 10,000
MR. BRANCHEAU: In the rooftop would go up by the 10,000.
MR. DRILL: Right.
MR. BURGIS: That's correct.
MR. BRANCHEAU: That's the reason for that difference.
MR. DRILL: That's right.
MR. BRANCHEAU: That's correct.
MS. PRICE: I thought that that was corrected on the record.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I'm sorry.
MS. PRICE: I thought that that was corrected on one of the previous records.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, it was but it was never corrected in this
MS. PRICE: Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU: It probably didn't get corrected on this.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
MR. DRILL: It was corrected but never made it on here.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay.
Lastly on the number of surface level not lastly, but on the table the number of surface level parking spaces, and the comparison. I looked in both plans and I couldn't find any figures of surface level parking in either plan. So I'm asking is this what the hospital was computing internally as what that would be versus because I don't see anything in the plan itself that deal will the non surface level parking, only coverage. We talked about total parking on site and we talk about be impervious coverage, but there's nothing in the plan that talks about number of spaces
MR. DRILL: I believe there is a document that we've submitted which answers that question maybe we can just for now go to the next question
MR. BRANCHEAU: All right.
MR. DRILL: Let me see if I can find that document.
MR. BRANCHEAU: All right. The the the largest question that I have relates to items one and two in my March 31st report. And it had to do with at which phase of development these figures are representative? Is this at the completion of Phase II? At the completion of Phase I? Is it some from each? What what does this reflect and in both plans?
MR. BURGIS: In many instances it's Phase I. In some instances it is Phase II. It varies depending on the scale, for example, if we look at the amount of landscape amenities, in the Phase I there's a 67 percent impervious coverage factor. At Phase II it drops down to 64 percent, just to cite one example.
MR. BRANCHEAU: In 2010 or for today?
MS. PRICE: 2010 or 2013?
MR. BURGIS: 2000
MR. BRANCHEAU: Because the 2013 plan the
MR. BURGIS: Those figures re the 2013 plan.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Okay. 2013 plan says 70 percent and whereas in
MS. PRICE: Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU: in 2010 it was 60.
MR. BURGIS: You're talking you're speaking of the ordinance requirement, if you recall.
What I'm speaking to is the design, the actual design as presented by Mr. Evers.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, I'm comparing the plans, and that's I guess if we're going to be doing a comparison, I think A, one, needs to be an apples to apples comparison. I need to know that that the columns being compared are both referring to the same phase of construction. And then, secondly, because Phase II is out there and may never happen and that's, you know, on the record that it's something that while it's planned it's recognized that it may not happen. And, so, I think Phase I should be certainly called out. If we're going to be comparing Phase I under the original and Phase I under the proposed because if Phase II never happens then the comparison is sort of...
MR. BURGIS: Right. And that's why in many
MR. BRANCHEAU: not there.
MR. BURGIS: of these instances we talked about Phase I. If you would look I can get you a letter this week detailing that.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I think that would be helpful. That's all that I have.
MR. DRILL: Blais, to answer your other question, when I submitted my March 6, 2014 letter which formally revised the Hospital's application to incorporate the Master Plan Amendment that you had prepared dated February 28, 2014, I also submitted to you and to the Board office, as part of the record, a February 27, 2014 memo responding to questions. So those parking questions were on the memo, there's a colored chart, so we're not going to be able to do it now but I'll have we'll check and if those numbers are wrong we will correct them based on this chart which we know is correct.
MS. PRICE: But for Blais
MR. BRANCHEAU: It's not in the plan, is my point.
MS. PRICE: But for Blais' purpose the information should be on February 27th memo?
MR. DRILL: Yes, for your information it's part of the record, on the February 27th, 2014
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So let's leave it.
MR. DRILL: you said it's not part of this plan, there is no site plan.
MR. BRANCHEAU: No, I mean it's not part of the Master Plan.
MS. PRICE: What is?
MR. BRANCHEAU: The number of surface parking spaces.
MR. DRILL: It wouldn't be.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Is not a policy in the plan.
MS. PRICE: It's just a total number.
MR. BURGIS: That is correct.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Pardon?
MS. PRICE: It was just a total number of parking.
MR. BURGIS: Yes, there's a total of 1700.
MR. BRANCHEAU: The total number is the only thing
MS. PRICE: Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU: that's in the plan.
MS. PRICE: Right.
MR. BURGIS: Exactly.
MR. BRANCHEAU: What
MR. BURGIS: The point is what I was trying to point out that by virtue of this redesign we have, in fact, reduced the number of on site spaces which allows us to increase the amount of landscape amenity on the property. And I thought that, from a planning perspective, was an important distinction.
MR. BRANCHEAU: And I guess and I hear what you're saying. I mean the table was titled "changes between 2010 and 2013 plans", so I was looking at the plans. And I wasn't seeing number of parking spaces.
MR. BURGIS: If you look at that February correspondence
MR. BRANCHEAU: I know it's that's why I asked whether this is a hospital calculation, not a plan policy that that was recommended.
MR. BURGIS: To allay your concerns, this week I will get you a letter detailing all this and where it comes from.
MR. BRANCHEAU: All right. And and the other thing is, I'm seeing a reduction of 217 surface parking spaces and yet at the same time the improvement coverage between the two plans has gone up. And I'm not sure of the reason for that. There may be other factors involved in that, and I think that was in my March 31st report as well, that I still have some confusion as to whether there's an apples and apples comparison going on.
MR. DRILL: All those questions were asked and answered
MS. PRICE: Are in the record.
MR. DRILL: in this memo dated February 27, 2014.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, I'll check that memo again. But, again, this was in my March 31st, report which was after that. So I'm
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU: I'm just saying if we're going to be comparing plans and showing how this is an improvement on that plan I think, you know, some of the item are still unclear, to me anyway.
MR. BURGIS: Okay.
MR. DRILL: Which specific items are unclear to you? I want to
MR. BRANCHEAU: What the numbers are at each phase. In other words, are we comparing Phase I with Phase I or are we comparing Phase I with Phase II? Are we comparing two Phase II plans with Phase II a I don't say conjectural, but an uncertain event? And I think we should be comparing, you know, the immediate development which is Phase I. At the very least I think we should also compare Phase II, don't get me wrong, but I think we should have a Phase I comparison because if Phase II never happens, Phase II comparisons are meaningless. And then the reduction in surface parking, I understand and I think we've asked in the plan for a 300 square foot total reduction on site, and I understand some of that is below grade, not reflected in the surface figures, but the question remains about the improvement coverage in between the two plans. It's actually gone up. These this would lead one to believe that it would go down because of the loss of 200 plus surface parking spaces. And yet the percentage of improvement coverage has gone up in the plan.
So I'm unclear as to the precise reasons for that and which phase we're talking about in in the these figures.
MR. DRILL: I understand the information you want, I believe most, if not all, is answered in that February 27th, memo. At the break we can take a look at it, if you still a questions they're not answered in this memo we will submit answers.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, are those all of the question?
MR. BRANCHEAU: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Great. So maybe you can review those with Mr. Drill during the break. We're going to take a short break now and then conclude your observation afterwards.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a ten minute break. We'll resume at 20 minutes to ten, at which time, at which time we'll allow cross exam from Mr. Kates representing C.R.R. and then we'll open to public questions for Mr. Burgis' testimony.
We'll see you again at 20 minutes to ten.
(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's start. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to resume our meeting, would you mind, please take your seats. Thank you.
Jane, roll call, please?
MS. WONDERGEM: Mayor Aronsohn?
(NO RESPONSE.)
MS. WONDERGEM: Ms. Bigos?
MR. BIGOS: Here.
MS. WONDERGEM: Mr. Joel?
MS. BIGOS: Can't hear you, Jane.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Start from the beginning.
MS. WONDERGEM: Mayor Aronsohn?
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Here.
MS. WONDERGEM: Ms. Bigos?
MR. BIGOS: Here.
MS. WONDERGEM: Mr. Nalbantian?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Here.
MS. WONDERGEM: Mr. Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.
MS. WONDERGEM: Mr. Reilly?
MR. REILLY: Here.
MS. WONDERGEM: Ms. Dockray?
MS. DOCKRAY: I'm here.
MS. WONDERGEM: Ms. Peters?
MS. PETERS: Here.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Jane.
Blais, are you good with Mr. Drill?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Uhmmm.
MR. DRILL: He's good to the extent that we are going to revise that chart to correct any errors that he already pointed out the 10,000 square foot error, the parking figure error. We're going to revise that.
And he asked for some additional information about the breakdown of other things between other than parking between Phase I and Phase II. And we're going to submit it.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.
MR. DRILL: Correct?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.
MS. PRICE: Just for the record, can I just confirm that it's non substantive issues in terms of just additional data that you're looking for?
MR. BRANCHEAU: It doesn't affect the word or the language in the plan.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.
MR. BRANCHEAU: Assuming, again, that 10,000 is corrected.
MS. PRICE: Right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Kates, do you have any questions for tonight's witness?
MR. KATES: No. We are satisfied with the Board's interrogation.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Kates. Okay, at this time I'd like to ask members of the public how many of you have questions for tonight's testimony? Okay, great. Again your questions need to be specific to his testimony tonight and not historical. So anything within the presentation or that was stated this evening. Please state your name, spell your name, provide your address. And if you could ask three questions first and if you can ask all three in sequence, that would be easier.
MR. VOIGT: Sure, is this on? Jeffrey Voigt, J e f f r e y V o i g t, 99 Glenwood Road, Ridgewood.
One of the reasons for the single bed rooms, I'm not sure this isn't in the past, but if one of the reasons for the single bed rooms is to help decrease infection, is that is that correct? And that's the main reason for for doing so?
MR. BURGIS: That is one of the reasons.
MR. VOIGT: Is it the main reason?
MR. BURGIS: Is this on? Can you hear me?
It's not the only reason. If you're going to rank them, I guess one would say that that it is the first reason, but equally important is the issue of inadequate size of rooms. If you've been to Valley in those rooms, you know, they need a significant upgrade in terms of the size and dimensions of the rooms to adequately care for the patients. That's also very significant.
MR. VOIGT: So
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Voigt, can you ask the remainder of your questions and let him answer.
MR. VOIGT: Sure, all all the questions I have and then he can answer them?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.
MR. VOIGT: Okay. So I'm just curious, what's the infection rate at Valley and what's the infection rate at Valley as it relates to the double rooms? Do you know what that is?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It was not part of your testimony, Mr. Burgis
MR. VOIGT: Is that historical?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We have that information.
MR. BURGIS: That is correct.
MR. VOIGT: You do have that information?
MR. BURGIS: That's not part of my testimony.
MR. VOIGT: Okay, so you can't answer that. No?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: He's not obligated to answer the question if he doesn't have the information.
MR. VOIGT: All right. Do you happen to know how Valley ranks as it relates to infections versus other hospitals in New Jersey and nationally.
MR. BURGIS: No, that also was not part of my testimony.
MR. VOIGT: You're not obligated to answer that, huh?
MR. DRILL: That's correct.
MR. VOIGT: Okay. Is that in the history at all? I mean anywhere?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Do you know if there is any data in that with previous testimony?
MR. DRILL: No, there is not.
MR. VOIGT: It is not? It just seems to me that, you know, one of the reasons why they're increasing the size in the single rooms is this infection rate, and if the infection rate is not an issue, then possibly the reasons why they're increasing all of that space may not be an issue.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, if you there was testimony on a number of facts, I think if you go back to the records you can actually see testimony as to why they're being changed to single rooms and why this space. I believe there is testimony, I can't speak specifically to that necessarily.
MR. DRILL: But the record will reflect that is not being done because The Valley Hospital has an infection problem that's different than any other hospital
MR. VOIGT: I'm not saying that.
MR. DRILL: The record should reflect that it's being done because it’s part of the standards per the code.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.
MR. VOIGT: No, I'm not saying that they have an infection problem. I'm saying that if there really isn't an infection problem then maybe that's a reason why
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So this is a reason why questions are limited to tonight's testimony
MR. VOIGT: Understood.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: in rebuttal
MR. VOIGT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: because a lot of this information has gone through the process by other witnesses throughout the process over 25 weeks.
MR. VOIGT: Understood.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So I would recommend if you are interested you can take a look at some of the transcripts.
MR. VOIGT: But it sounds like you don't have that information anyways. I'm just no? That's okay. All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you. If I can just remind everyone, again, these are questions that relate specifically to testimony tonight during the rebuttal.
MS. TUOMEY: Thank you, I have three questions, Mr. Burgis.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please if you will state your name
MS. TUOMEY: Oh, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: spell your name and provide your address.
MS. TUOMEY: Janet Tuomey, 59 John Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey 074 if you don't know that we're in trouble. Am I sworn in now?
MS. PRICE: No, you don't have to be sworn in.
MS. TUOMEY: Oh, I don't have to be sworn.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: These are questions, again, they're not comments.
MS. TUOMEY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And if you can ask your three questions together
MS. TUOMEY: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: please Ms. Tuomey. Thank you.
MS. TUOMEY: Yes, I will be quick with them.
Mr. Burgis, the questions that you wrote down that were quotes from our school board president, Sheila Brogan, you wrote them down and they seem very positive in favor of construction, generally speaking. But I must ask you, do you know the length of each of these construction projects that you quoted her about?
MR. BURGIS: It was in the record. Quite frankly, I don't recall. I believe
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Burgis if you could, if you can let Ms. Tuomey ask her three questions.
MR. BURGIS: Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. TUOMEY: Okay. All three together?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.
MS. TUOMEY: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Centineo, page 21, let's see, is he page 21 you ask okay. Oh, no, Dr. Magari on page 20, the environmental expert that you quoted
MR. DRILL: What slide is that?
MS. TUOMEY: It's 40, 39 40 on page 20. Dr. Magari is a principal owner of her company and works for Valley and has for many years, of course you know that. But she did not do an environmental impact on the neighborhood
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you pose that in the form of a question?
MS. TUOMEY: Oh, yes, that's right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: In the form of a question and then you have one more after that.
MS. TUOMEY: Okay. Did you know she did not do an environmental impact on the neighborhood and that her area of expertise is worker safety and patient safety and visitor safety and it took a little urging when I spoke with her and asked her a question to say children, neighbors and seniors in the neighborhood?
MR. DRILL: What's the question?
MS. PRICE: Did you know that she did not do an environmental impact
MS. TUOMEY: Did you know that she did not do an environmental impact in the neighborhood?
Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And the third.
MS. TUOMEY: And okay. Oh, I had more on that one. On, Mr. Centineo, he's at page
MR. DRILL: Tell us the slide please.
MS. TUOMEY: I'm looking. Here he is, the slide 24 and it's important to note that phased construction project includes two and a half years of interior construction which represents 45 percent of the overall project duration, and what was your purpose in stating that? Is it do you think that it limits the amount of air pollution that would be generated having indoor construction? Because in my book it still requires maybe thousands of vehicles still arriving at the construction site. And by the way, Mr. Centineo, when I
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: They have to be questions.
MS. TUOMEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You gave your three.
MS. TUOMEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So, Mr. Burgis, you can answer those.
And then you can come back again if you have more.
MS. TUOMEY: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: The first question, did I know that Ms. Magari didn't do an environmental impact assessment of the entire neighborhood? Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that this is not site plan approval. It's a Master Plan Amendment.
MS. TUOMEY: No, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let him finish. Let him answer the question.
MR. DRILL: Let him answer the questions you asked. Thank you.
MR. BURGIS: As a Master Plan Amendment, her responsibility was more in the context of explaining how she would go about doing her analyses, not did she do the analysis. Okay.
With respect to Mr. Centineo, I thought it was pertinent to bring up the fact that he had testified that there's two and a half years of solely interior construction because it does, and I said, to a certain degree, limit environmental impact in terms of the surrounding neighborhoods. I certainly didn't suggest that it eliminates environmental issues completely.
And then
MS. PRICE: The third one was do you know the length of the construction
MR. BURGIS: Oh.
MS. PRICE: project that Sheila Brogan testified about?
MR. BURGIS: That was testified to at the hearing, and if memory serves she talked about, or someone talked about roughly a two year period. But I don't recall
MS. TUOMEY: Every project that you
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let him answer the question.
MS. TUOMEY: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: I don't recall if it was she who made that statement or someone else. I recall someone talked about a two year period.
MS. TUOMEY: Okay. Well, you don't know that. Okay. But that's quite different than a six to ten year period, of course. Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you very much.
MS. TUOMEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Anybody else with questions? Again, please ask your three questions
MS. BENSON: I only have one.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: succinctly. Okay. Thank you.
MS. BENSON: Cathy Benson, 572 Fairway Road.
Could you put up slide number 37? Sorry. Okay. There was a comment about shadows why he put so many in. My comment, which is quoted here: "The BF driveway would not see the noon day sun for five months out of the year". And how dangerous it is to have a driveway, that's a main driveway to our school and is on a slope, I know my front driveway is not in the sun in the winter and no matter how much ice melt I put down there, its ice. It is in shadow. The only slide that you show of
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ms. Ms. Benson
MS. BENSON: of one of the five months.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ask the question, please.
MS. BENSON: The slide the question is coming is slide 37 is at 12 noon, December 21st. Could you tell me what is in shadow there on BF?
MS. PRICE: On slide 37?
MS. BENSON: On slide 37, is the BF driveway in shadow?
MR. BURGIS: Is that your only question?
MS. BENSON: That's my only question.
MR. BURGIS: A portion of it is, yes.
MS. BENSON: There you go.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Benson.
Please state your name, spell your name, provide your address and if you can ask all three questions together first? Thank you.
MS. PALACIOS: Diane Palacios, D i a n e P a l a c i o s, 342 North Van Dien Avenue.
Yeah, I have a question concerning your projection of rooms, how many beds you'll need in the future.
You said that you project that people over 65 like myself, I'm going to be 71 pretty soon, will be using Valley Hospital in a great degree and that that is what the future projection is for the beds. Well, from the people that I know, and from my own experience, senior citizens who live in this climate do one of three things. They move to warmer climates, it doesn't have to be Florida, it can be Virginia, for example. I mention Virginia because I have family there.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you pose the questions?
MS. PALACIOS: Oh, yeah, I will. Well, the question is how do you know, because senior citizens go to assisted living, they go I'm telling you what they do. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No, this is the time for
MS. PALACIOS: They go to Heath Village.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ma'am. Ma'am this is
MS. PALACIOS: How do you know that those projections are valid? Because there are many suggestions about many topics that are not valid.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ma'am, this is the time to ask him the questions so if you can form them into questions
MS. PALACIOS: The question is how do you know that senior citizens will be using Valley Hospital and to a large degree and how long will they be using it? Like one person, how long will that one person be using it?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: Is that your only question?
MS. PRICE: So just wait, Mr. Burgis
MS. PALACIOS: That's my question.
MS. PRICE: just wait, Mr. Burgis, Wait. Just for the record, let me see if I can help you. I think you're referring to the testimony that Mr. Burgis gave regarding
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The Baby Boomers.
MS. PRICE: the Baby Boomers and the stretch
MS. PALACIOS: Right.
MS. PRICE: the stretch of the seniors
MS. PALACIOS: Uh huh.
MS. PRICE: and when people are going to turn certain ages?
MS. PALACIOS: Yeah, and how long will they be using it, right.
MS. PRICE: Okay. All right.
MS. PALACIOS: The whole thing. Why is it valid? And who where does that information come from?
MS. PRICE: Okay. So, Mr. Burgis, the question is with specific reference to the testimony that you gave to the Baby Boomers and particularly those who are at 65 or over, how do you know, what's the basis for your testimony this evening, in terms of the information that you compiled? Does that reflect your question, ma'am? Mrs. Palacios? Is that what your question is?
MS. PALACIOS: Uh huh.
MS. PRICE: The basis of his that's what you want to know, right?
MS. PALACIOS: Right, what's the basis of it. Right.
MS. PRICE: Do you understand?
MR. BURGIS: Yes, I do.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: And that information presented on that slide does not tell you that information.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: Mr. Downes, when he testified, talked about this issue.
I was just trying to respond to a
MS. PALACIOS: Well, who who
MR. DRILL: Please.
MS. PRICE: Let me just let him answer and then we'll come back.
MR. BURGIS: I was just trying to respond to the suggestion that everyone moves south. And the reality is that's not the case. We're an aging population and not everybody has the economic wherewithal to move south. Many people stay here and that is why we have these large numbers of age 55 and over developments occurring throughout northern New Jersey.
MS. PALACIOS: How do you know that they're going to be going to the hospital rather than an assisted living and nursing home?
MR. BURGIS: Again
MS. PALACIOS: They don't.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ms. Palacios, let him answer the question.
MR. BURGIS: And, again, that is what Mr. Downes testimony talked about. I was not presenting this demographic information for that purpose, I was just simply pointing out that the age of this population is aging rapidly. To respond further, not everybody has the economic wherewithal to move. And hospitals have to respond accordingly. There's a lot of people between 65 and 95 that stay in this area. And we're seeing that by virtue of the fact that the large number of all types and all manner of age restricted developments that are occurring throughout northern New Jersey.
MS. PRICE: And you're basing that information on your planning history?
MR. BURGIS: I am, because I have represented many such applications. And Mr. Downes' testimony supported the suggestion that a lot of these people do end up needing nursing care excuse me hospital care.
MS. PRICE: So, if this resident wanted to read more information it would be necessary, in your opinion, to go back to Mr. Downes' testimony and read that transcript.
MR. BURGIS: That is correct.
MS. PRICE: Okay. So Mr. Downes is the witness who testified during the hearing about those numbers.
MS. PALACIOS: Well how how does he know about them? Who's Mr. Downes? I mean what's his position?
MS. PRICE: He's
MS. PALACIOS: What's his profession?
MS. PRICE: Well, Mr. Drill you can explain who Mr. Downes is without me putting words, Mr. Drill. Mr. Drill?
MR. DRILL: Yes.
MS. PRICE: Could you explain Mr. Downes' title for this resident?
MR. DRILL: Yes. I'm going to
MS. PRICE: No, you don't have to give a formal title, just explain who Mr. Downes is.
MR. DRILL: He's a hospital facilities expert. And that's what he does for a living. And we got him qualified as an expert and apparently you must have
MS. PALACIOS: Yeah, expert.
MR. DRILL: you must have missed that hearing because he testified
MS. PRICE: All right. All right. All right. All right.
MS. PALACIOS: I have a third question.
MS. PRICE: Wait. Wait.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please hold on.
MS. PALACIOS: I have a third question.
MS. PRICE: Wait, hold on. I want to help you make sure we understand this because the information that you testified to, Mr. Burgis, in the slide, those percentages, it's my understanding that those percentages were pulled from the New Jersey Department of Health and the Department of Labor and other sources that you relied upon, correct?
MR. BURGIS: That is correct.
MS. PRICE: But if this resident or anyone else wanted to look for specific additional testimony, he or she should go back to Mr. Downes testimony which, if you just give me a minute I'll give you the specific date so you can go back and look
MS. PALACIOS: I'd like to ask the third question.
MS. PRICE: Okay, you can do your third question, but I want to make sure you have the right date so you can go back and look at the record.
MS. PALACIOS: I'm not going to go back because I don't believe it.
MR. DRILL: One follow up to the first question
MS. PALACIOS: But I want to ask my third question.
MR. DRILL: there is a follow up and can you, for the record, give an indication of which municipalities you have testified in, in support in age restricted housing applications, just for the record.
MR. BURGIS: Just in the past three years, the firm has been involved in age restricted development in Woodcliff Lake, just a month or so ago I testified on the expansion, excuse me, of a large congregant care facility located in both Wyckoff and Hawthorne. And we've also been involved in a number of other development applications, just within the past three years.
MS. PALACIOS: Yeah, I have a third question now.
MS. PRICE: Okay. Let me just tell you before your question, the transcript date is April 29th, 2013, if you want to see that testimony. Okay?
MS. PALACIOS: All right. My third question is, where to you get the information that it is more expensive for seniors to live here and that they don't have the economic wherewithal to move? It's cheaper to move. It's expensive to live here.
MR. BURGIS: In many instances
MS. PALACIOS: It's always cheaper to move.
MR. BURGIS: in many instance of planning information indicates that for those that have paid off their homes and only have their taxes to pay, and they're not in the high tax municipality, some are in Bergen County but others are not. And the fact that they want to stay in the community that they raised their family in and have their friends in, they prefer to stay locally.
MS. PALACIOS: But you
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ms. Palacios
MR. BURGIS: And that's the information I've relied on
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You've asked your three questions. I'm sorry.
MS. PALACIOS: Yeah, but you said it was cheaper
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Hold on, Ms. Palacios
MR. BURGIS: I did not say it was cheaper.
MS. PALACIOS: You said they don't have the economic wherewithal to move.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.
MS. PALACIOS: That's not the truth, it's always cheaper to move the whole Bergen County area is very high taxes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Ms. Palacios, you're going to have to stop. Thank you.
Are there other members who have questions? I'm going to have to remind you all, let me just say a few words here. It's always uncomfortable during these proceedings when the public has opportunity to ask questions if they haven't heard a lot of the testimony before. So, tonight again, please remember that your questions should be directed towards Mr. Burgis with regard to his testimony tonight only.
If it is not regarding tonight, I'm going to have to ask you to move on to one that is.
Please state your name, provide your name your address, spell your name and ask your three questions. If you have more you will have opportunity to speak again afterwards.
MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Kevin O'Brien. K e v i n O ' B r i e n, My address is 227 Bogart Avenue. I have three questions. Particularly on slide 47, this was this was the local utilization of hospitals. You indicated in 2012 that 6,395 people or 25.4 percent of the Ridgewood residents used Valley Hospital's services.
First question is how many of those people who went there were going for services that could now be given off site or are going to be off site or could be off site.
Second question is of those 6,395 people, how many of them were over 65 that stayed in the hospital, that's that six percent and were off sited, you know, people who could possibly drive to Paramus or something like that?
The next question I have is on slide number 54, and it was brought up briefly by one of the members of the Planning Board and that was about the 1.7 million in taxes. Just wanted to confirm, could you please state whether that was for taxes for the property in question on the plan, because these are meant to be relevant to the plan, or were they for properties that are for profit making operations, that is for profit activities, at which point I guess that would make Valley a landlord?
So if you could please just clarify where that is. That's my questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Burgis, do you have the three questions?
MR. BURGIS: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.
MR. BURGIS: With respect to how many of the 6,395 individual people use services will now can be off site, we did not do that analysis. We also did not do an assessment of how many the questions was how many
MS. PRICE: Were over 65.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Over 65.
MR. BURGIS: how many are 65 and over, we did not do that assessment.
And with respect to the 1.7 million in taxes that are paid, I can confirm that this does not include what I'll call Valley proper, which is the 14 plus acres the subject of this application.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: But they would include properties I think the follow along part properties that the Hospital owns and leases to third parties?
MR. BURGIS: That may be.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: May be. Okay.
MR. DRILL: I can represent that it and a list can be submitted if you would like of the properties and addresses or I can give you that right now, if I can, 505 Goffle Road, 5
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't hear you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you speak into the mike.
MS. PRICE: Yes.
MR. DRILL: They are 505 Goffle Road; 579 Goffle Road, sorry 579 Route 17, 555 Route 17 plus four houses, all have not for profit status all pardon me, so the three, 505 Goffle, 579 Route 17, 555 Route 17, not for profit and they pay taxes.
There are four houses where they're the landlord they pay taxes because they don't qualify and 1200 East Ridgewood in the Duck Pond building has some Valley but they're the landlord there.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Drill.
Are there other members of the public who have questions? Have you gone already?
MR. DRILL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay, so we're let's go through let's go through people who haven't first.
Ms. Baney?
MS. BANEY: I realize it's getting late so I'll be quick.
Lisa Baney, B a n e y. I just wanted to know regarding the focus that was given in tonight's rebuttal regarding the importance of conducting the proposal as designed for the purposes of infection control.
I was just wanted to know if you were aware that Valley had received for the fifth time in a row, an A.
MR. DRILL: We can’t hear your question.
MS. BANEY: You can't hear my question? I'm sorry.
MR. DRILL: You're going too fast and speaking too low.
MS. BANEY: Oh.
MS. PRICE: Lisa, just
MS. BANEY: I'm aware of how late it is.
MS. PRICE: Lower the microphone.
MS. BANEY: Okay.
MS. PRICE: There you go.
MS. BANEY: There we go.
MS. PRICE: Much better.
MS. BANEY: Thank you. Given the amount of focus that was given in the rebuttal this evening, relating to the importance of conducting the expansion as designed for the purpose of infection control related to whole patient rooms. I was my first question is I wondered if you were aware that Valley had, according to an announcement, a recent press release, received an A in a ranking in the country on a scale of A to F for five times in a row for patient safety which includes infection and injury and accidents and errors and only one of 300 hospitals in the country have received this award five times in a row. So, that is the current status, as I understand it. And I was wondering if you could source in the document, earlier in this process, where one can see the role of sharing a patient room, as I understand blood line type transfusions and breathing masks and hygiene are frequently the more important things. So I'd like to know where your sources are in that health expert, what the sourcing was on that? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Baney.
MS. PRICE: So I think with regard to question one, that question can be answered, but I'm not sure if question two about sourcing.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Unless it was testified to earlier this evening.
MR. BURGIS: With regard to question two, I did not testify to that and I am not aware of what an answer would be.
With regard to question one, I was not aware that Valley received an A for patient safety, it doesn't surprise me. But, more importantly, that does not go to the heart of what my testimony on rebuttal was, in terms of the merits of this improvement plan.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Burgis.
Wait, we have Ms. Reynolds is on her way down. Please state your name, spell your name, provide your address and ask your three questions together.
MS. REYNOLDS: Hi.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please state your name and spell you name and provide your address. And ask your three questions together.
MS. REYNOLDS: Hi, Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue, Ridgewood.
First question is slide 47 where you have 71 percent of the market share having an overnight hospital stay. What is that, like the above thing the 25 percent you put an actual number to it, 6,395 people. What is the actual number on the 71.4 percent of Ridgewood residents having an overnight stay? That was question one.
Then on, oh, slide 54 where it says contributes 1.7 million in taxes and Mr. Drill just mentioned the addresses, I didn't hear a Maple Avenue location. I thought that was owned by Valley Hospital. Is that? And, if so, do they pay taxes on that property?
And that's it.
MR. BURGIS: So just the two?
MS. REYNOLDS: Yes.
MR. BURGIS: Okay. In terms of the market share. If memory serves, the number reflects the balance or close to 1,700.
MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.
MR. DRILL: And Maple, I'll make that correction that you are
MS. PRICE: Use the mike.
MR. DRILL: You're right on Maple.
MS. REYNOLDS: Yay, I'm right about something.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Reynolds.
MS. REYNOLDS: And do they pay taxes on that?
MR. DRILL: Yes.
MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. And that's included in the 1.7 million?
MR. DRILL: Yes.
MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you. Are there other members of the public who have not had opportunity to speak yet? Okay.
MS. DALY: Good evening, my name is Janet Daly, 386 Ponfield Place, Ridgewood, New Jersey.
Okay, I'm having a hard time putting this all together. I'm sorry.
MS. PRICE: Just try and we'll help you.
MS. DALY: I'll try. Okay. Slide 47, it says that 25.4 percent of the individuals, Ridgewood residents, are cared for, did you say that was outpatient or inpatient? I'm sorry. What was that?
MR. BURGIS: Is that your only question?
MS. DALY: No. And then I the original comment was that only six percent of The Valley Hospital of The Valley Hospital patients are from Ridgewood, only six percent of total that use Valley Hospital are from Ridgewood.
And my third question is talking about the region, couldn't the region be just as well served by a split campus, a Valley Hospital with a split campus, because the people have to come from other areas anyway to get here. What does it matter if they come to Linwood Avenue and Van Dien Avenue, if they go to another town in Bergen County?
MR. BURGIS: In terms of the 25 percent, it included overnight stays as well as as I said earlier, inpatient or anything from using the ER to having bones set or whatever it would be.
MS. DALY: So how many are inpatients, though. How many were
MR. BURGIS: It's 6,395.
MS. DALY: Oh, so it's
MR. BURGIS: In terms of I didn't get your question about the six percent.
MS. DALY: Yeah, the six percent, the statement about that was that of the total people that go to Valley Hospital, only six percent are from Ridgewood.
MR. DRILL: We never made that statement.
MR. BURGIS: No, we never made that statement.
MS. DALY: You never made
MS. PRICE: No, there was a there was a public statement, Mrs. Daly that because I looked in the transcripts
MS. DALY: Yeah.
MS. PRICE: to find out where that was this past week
MS. DALY: Uh huh.
MS. PRICE: because I missed the last meeting. And I wanted to see where that was.
And there was I think that there were two public comments raising that very question about the six percent. But it wasn't a Valley comment, it was that six percent was a number raised by two members of the public.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It was not in any of the testimony.
MS. PRICE: It was not testified to by any of the experts.
MR. BURGIS: And that is why we thought it necessary and appropriate to rebut that figure because we knew it was wrong and when we went through the records we found fully 25 percent of Ridgewood residents have actually use Valley annually, that was for the year 2012.
MS. DALY: Uh huh. Okay. And wouldn't the region be served also be served with a split campus
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's the third question.
MS. PRICE: That's question three.
MS. DALY: Three, question three.
MR. BURGIS: My recollection was that in Mr. Evers testimony, he had indicated that for a variety of reasons it wouldn't function well. But he offered that testimony, I have not and I didn't in my direct I mean in my rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Daly.
Anyone else who hasn't asked questions?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So let's go with round two, please now you can come back.
MR. VOIGT: Jeff Voigt. I have a question on the
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you spell your last name again please?
MR. VOIGT: V o i g t, first name Jeff.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.
MR. VOIGT: On slide 40, on the contamination issue. And the contaminants exceeding a certain level, and this may have been talked about before and I apologize. How is the public alerted to such issues if that, these contaminants exceed a certain amount? I mean is it going to be is the street going to be cordoned off? I mean what how does that work?
MS. PRICE: Can I let me just respond. The Village Engineer spoke about this when he the night that we talked about the environmental, the Village Engineer actually participated in that conversation and said that it would be his recommendation that if this ever got to that point where there was an actual plan and a site plan application, that there would be very stringent monitoring requirements outside of what The Valley Hospital experts were proposing and akin to what the Board's environmental expert was proposing. So that and that that would be handled in a developer's agreement, so that there would be on site on site oversight by a Village rep, pretty much at all times so that there would be knowledge if anything occurred and then an opportunity for that trigger point to
MR. VOIGT: Can you can you be a little bit more specific about that because if there is an
MS. PRICE: Well, there
MR. VOIGT: If there is an issue with contaminants that, you know, you'd certainly want the public to know about it.
MS. PRICE: Yes.
MR. VOIGT: And this it sounds very vague to me.
MS. PRICE: Well, no, it's not vague
MR. VOIGT: And that's a little bit of a concern.
MS. PRICE: It's not vague because there are DEP criteria that must be followed on certain issues. So DEP regulations would govern depending on what was involved. Local ordinances would govern on other issues. The main point of what I was just saying was not meant to be vague, in fact it was meant to go multiple steps away from vagueness because if anything, having someone on site, during construction, full time, is not something that's ordinary. And
MR. VOIGT: So, let me ask you this, can there be a process put in place that the public is aware of if a condition like that happens so people know what to do?
MS. PRICE: I'm sure that that can be readily accomplished.
MR. VOIGT: Good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Other questions, follow on questions for Mr. Burgis this evening?
Okay. Again, once again, please state your name.
MR. JAMES: My name is George James, 421 Linwood Avenue.
Twenty five percent of the people from Ridgewood use the hospital, you're saying. What are the number what is the percentage of people of Ridgewood in comparison to the total patients or people who use the hospital? That's what that six percent was, it's a six percent of a total number of people who come from the entire area and I do believe, if I'm not mistaken, someone did, and I don't know if it was you, when it was asked how many people from Ridgewood in comparison with the total population of your serving area, someone did say it was six percent.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So, Mr. Burgis, can you clarify what the 25 percent is, how it was calculated?
MR. BURGIS: Yes, 25 percent are those Ridgewood residents, the 6395 people, 6,395 Ridgewood residents avail themselves of Valley services during the year 2012. That represents 25 percent of the town's population, the Village's population of 25,205, that's what that figure represents.
MR. JAMES: Do you did you do you have a figure of the percentage of people from Ridgewood in comparison with the total people who use the hospital?
MS. PRICE: No, I think that's what the figure is, the 25 percent. Right?
(Audience Outburst.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No, the question if I can interpret the question, the question is what percentage of people who use the hospital are from Ridgewood?
MR. JAMES: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yeah.
MR. BURGIS: And I do not have the total number of people that were served by Valley so I can't give the percentage of the Ridgewood residents represent.
MR. JAMES: Thank you. I just want to say that I do think somebody did say that, I don't believe it was a resident, any resident.
MS. PRICE: Oh, no, I found it.
MR. JAMES: I think it was
MS. PRICE: I found it in the transcript.
MR. JAMES: Okay.
MS. PRICE: It was a resident. I can search I can search it for you again and provide it.
MR. JAMES: It was a resident that said that?
MS. PRICE: It was a resident. It was during public comment. I don't know if it was on May 20th or June 2nd, which of the nights, but it was it was during public comment.
MR. JAMES: You mean recently?
MS. PRICE: Excuse me.
MR. JAMES: You mean recently?
MS. PRICE: Oh, yes. It was recently.
MR. JAMES: I think back in one of the 25 sessions, someone got up and made and asked this question and the answer that I think came from the Hospital, was that it was six percent of their total service area.
MS. PRICE: Well, we can search it again but we've searched multiple.
MR. JAMES: I think it's a relevant term.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. James.
Please ask your three questions if you have them.
MS. BLAIR: I only have two.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Great.
MS. BLAIR: Beth Blair, B l a i r, 78 North Van Dien Avenue in Ridgewood.
One question relates to truck traffic that Mr. Reilly had asked about the reduction in traffic and that question is, Mr. Burgis, when you talked about the proposal for truck traffic, you said that the route that was being proposed was a route that passed the least number of dwellings. Have you done a calculation to figure out if there is another route, perhaps, that might pass fewer individuals?
The other question is just about the tax question. I'm just curious, if Valley Hospital were to pay taxes currently on this facility that we're adjacent to now, what would they pay.
MR. BURGIS: Is there a third?
MS. BLAIR: No.
MR. BURGIS: Okay. To answer your first, the traffic consultant, along with Mr. Centineo's office, did an exhaustive analysis of all different truck routes to determine what route would result in passing the fewest number of dwellings in the municipality. Excuse me. That was the route that was identified at one of the hearings and I believe the number of dwellings that would be passed was 59. The second fewest number of dwellings that would be passed by the next lowest my highest route was, I believe, 126 dwelling. So, consequently, there was this one that they really focused on. All the other routes contemplated had an even higher number of dwellings that were passed by the trucks.
With respect to what would the Hospital pay in taxes on, again, what I will call Valley proper? I do not know, I don't know if the municipality has ever made that analysis. I just don't know.
MS. BLAIR: And just as a follow on, I'm wondering did was it ever taken into account that in passing this building, for the route to go around BF Middle School and out to the highway on Glen, that there are over 600 children that are here, in addition to all of the dwellings.
MR. BURGIS: Yes, and that is why Mr. Centineo's testimony, at great length, he went though his analysis or his program, I should say, as to how he would set up the appropriate barriers and crosswalks and whatnot, in an effort to protect those children.
MS. BLAIR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ms. Blair, you might note on the November 26th testimony by our consultant, Mr. Meth, he touched on that same issue as well.
MS. BLAIR: Thank you.
MS. DALY: Hello.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please state and spell your name again.
MS. DALY: Hello, Janet Daly, 386 Ponfield Place, Ridgewood, New Jersey.
Okay, my question is, how is it that Mr. Burgis presents all of this information without the experts tonight, yet when public came, we were told we had to have experts here so the experts could be asked questions and we're being referred back to all of this information that is just mind boggling. I mean I'm going to have to go home and go through transcripts and to just try and figure out what Mr. Evers said.
MS. PRICE: I'll give you what I hope is a simple answer. The New Jersey rules of evidence, specifically Rule 703, allows an expert to rely upon facts ordinarily utilized by others in his or her field of work or expertise and allows that information to come in. The purpose of tonight, and I think I may have, in a moment of frustration I thought that the purpose of tonight was a limited one in terms of responding with some questions that Blais had raised. It went a little bit further afield than I had anticipated, certainly. I thought it was going to be an abbreviated response to Blais's questions and then we would hear summations and hear my instructions and I would be back in my PJs. So but in terms of his reliance, it's allowed because he is an expert and this is rebuttal. So they're not offering any of this new testimony for the truth of the matter in terms of they're not saying "here's new testimony and we're making our case upon it". That's why they're referencing other sections of who said what in the record, because the Board when I get to the point when I'm providing the instructions, the Board is going to be charged with going back through the 23 or 24 or 25 transcripts that the Board has and culling through those transcripts and seeing what the witnesses said and then assigning a weight to those experts and to lay witnesses and then applying the standards of proof and governing case law to those.
So, although it seems frustrating tonight, it should be a very constricted rebuttal case and he's not doing anything out of the ordinary, even though it's frustrating.
MS. DALY: Thank you.
MR. DALY: Edward Daly, D a l y, 386 Ponfield Place. I just want to state for the record, that slide 47 is evidence that has never been presented before, why not take it out? The information about taxes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Are you asking if slide 47 was ever presented before?
MR. DALY: YES.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is that your question?
MR. DALY: Yes. And also the other slide
MR. BURGIS: It was while not
MR. DALY: And also slide 54.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And slide 54.
MR. BURGIS: The purpose of rebuttal is to respond
MS. PRICE: Right.
MR. BURGIS: to comments made at the hearing.
MS. PRICE: Right.
MR. BURGIS: There were specific comments about the six percent factor. We wanted to disprove that.
MR. DALY: You didn't disprove that and it's new information and you just said new information shouldn't be here.
MR. DRILL: Legally we have a right to provide
MS. PRICE: Right, to rebut.
MR. DRILL: to rebut incorrect information that was given so the Board will not rely on them. And it's our obligation to bring in an expert to correct that misinformation. And that's what we did.
MR. DALY: Let me just say that the the specific
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let him finish. Okay.
MR. DALY: The statement was that six percent of the people that use the hospital come from Ridgewood. The statement that 25 percent of the people that live in Ridgewood use the hospital is not rebutting the previous statement. It's new information.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. That's enough.
MR. DRILL: Just for the record, what did you find out about the six percent when you looked through the records?
MR. BURGIS: The only six percent figure that was defined related to the number of overnight for the percentage of overnight stays in the Hospital. That's the only six percent factor that we could find.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you articulate what that means? In other words, six percent was what of overnight stays?
MR. BURGIS: No, the
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Of all hospital stays.
MR. BURGIS: Six percent of Ridgewood residents.
(Audience Outburst.)
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No. No. No. No.
MR. BURGIS: That was the statement in the transcripts.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So
MR. BURGIS: And that's
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Six percent of Ridgewood residents.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's not right.
MR. BURGIS: Stayed in the hospital overnight.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Overnight.
MR. BURGIS: And that's the only six percent figure that we could find in the record in our analysis.
MS. PRICE: So, wait, but
MR. BURGIS: What's interesting though is I also testified that in the end, this figure does not matter because, as I said, the Municipal Land Use Law mandates you give consideration to regional issues, case law mandates that you give consideration to regional issues and an Appellate Division case, I cited a few, but another one is in the Township of Brick where the Appellate division specifically said because zoning powers are derived from the State's general authority, a zoning decision must consider the welfare of all of the state's inhabitants not just the interest of the inhabitants in a particular locality.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: So, then why did you why did you offer the 25 percent figure anyway then?
MR. BURGIS: To disprove the six percent.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: But you but you weren't answering the question, though. I mean this doesn't
MR. BURGIS: Mayor, I was quite frankly, I was.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: No, but the question was
MR. BURGIS: The reality is the question
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
MR. BURGIS: The question was how many Ridgewood residents use Valley and the suggestion in testimony was 6 percent. And we found it's 25 percent.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: The question was this doesn't seem that difficult. The question was what is the percentage of the total population, the patient population
MR. BURGIS: That was not the question. The question was
MS. PRICE: Okay.
MAYOR ARONSOHN: It doesn't matter.
MR. BURGIS: It doesn't matter, but we wanted to correct the reference.
(Audience Outburst.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Hold on. So, the question that is being asked right now is, is there and I think you've answered the question already tonight. Is there data that suggests what percentage of hospital guests are from Ridgewood? I think that was the question that was being inferred earlier by everyone else.
MR. BURGIS: Correct. Right, out of the total
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.
MR. BURGIS: number of people serviced?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.
MR. BURGIS: I am certain there is. I don't know what that percentage is, but as I very clearly said, it really doesn't matter because of the Municipal Land Use Law and case law demands that you consider it.
MS. PRICE: And that's that's going to be in my instructions to the Board, but the six percent, my recollection in the transcript was the six percent was a generic reference was that six percent of the patients served by Valley Hospital are Ridgewood residents. So, when you just said you looked at the data, was the data that you looked at, did that indicate anything that reflected a number other than six percent, in terms of overnight, you know, ER, you know, whatever use of the hospital, in the available data that you had in order to prepare for your testimony tonight, was there anything that you had at your fingertips that demonstrated a number different than the six percent that was made reference to in the public comment.
MR. BURGIS: No, I did not look at that question because in my reading of the transcripts, that was not the question posed.
MR. DRILL: You know it's in the record, it's on slide 46 if you want you can reveal it's Joan O'Donnell's comment made June 2, 2014 at page 127 on the transcript. She said: "Common sense would suggest if the Hospital is serving the community well with fewer beds, especially such a small percentage, six percent of Valley's patients are Ridgewood residents"
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Right.
MR. DRILL: that's what we are rebutting. We couldn't find the six percent. So we asked Mr. Burgis to look into the hospital records to see if he can find the six percent anywhere. He found the six percent. Six percent he found is what he told you and then he advised us if you look through the rest of the records that actually
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It's a different number.
MR. DRILL: it's 25 percent.
MS. PRICE: But wait
MAYOR ARONSOHN: No, no.
(Audience Outburst.)
MAYOR ARONSOHN: No, no.
MS. PRICE: Wait, wait, wait, let me just stay right there. The six percent that you found in the record, in the records, that's what
MR. DRILL: In Valley's records.
MS. PRICE: that's what I want to get clarified for the record because everybody's saying different things. So the six percent that you found, after you went back after that statement, the six percent in the record was a Valley Hospital record, correct?
MR. BURGIS: Correct.
MS. PRICE: Okay. Now, the six percent that you found in The Valley Hospital record, that was for overnights?
MR. DRILL: Yes.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's what I said. I said that
MS. PRICE: Okay. Wait. All right. Okay.
So the only thing that you were able to confirm, either confirm or disapprove or whatever, was that the only thing in the record was six percent of the overnight stays for what year? Was there a year?
MR. BURGIS: 2012?
MS. PRICE: 2012, could be attributed to Ridgewood residents?
MR. DRILL: Well, maybe we can ask
MS. PRICE: No, wait.
MR. DRILL: Ms. O'Donnell where she got the
MS. PRICE: Wait, wait, wait. I want just an answer to that, is that accurate?
MR. BURGIS: Yes.
MS. PRICE: Yes. Yes?
MR. BURGIS: Yes.
MS. PRICE: Okay. So there's nothing else that you were able to no other percentage that you were able to do based upon the information that you reviewed.
MR. BURGIS: Based upon the information I reviewed.
MS. PRICE: Correct.
MR. BURGIS: Can we
MR. DRILL: Can we ask Ms. O'Donnell where she got the information from? Maybe it's maybe it does mean something else and we'll find out about it.
MS. PRICE: Just then so, the six percent was overnight, for 2012, Ridgewood residents.
MR. BURGIS: It was actually 5.4
MS. PRICE: The 25 percent
MR. DRILL: We know where it
MS. PRICE: I know, wait, so that's one answer. Okay. One answer.
Now, 25 percent now that you utilized in slide 47 that talks about 6395 Ridgewood residents, what you did to get that was what?
MR. BURGIS: We looked
MS. PRICE: Explain that.
MR. BURGIS: We looked at addresses to determine the number of Ridgewood residents that used Valley services.
MR. DRILL: Now, all Valley services or just The Valley Hospital
MR. BURGIS: No, just
MR. DRILL: at this particular site.
MR. BURGIS: This particular site. And individual we did not
MR. DRILL: It was overnight and day?
MR. BURGIS: Overnight and day, individuals we did not duplicate anyone.
MS. PRICE: Okay. So it's for 2012, you looked to see how many of the total services rendered by this 15 acre site were done with Ridgewood residents and you came up with 6395?
MR. BURGIS: Yes, 6395 which I said represents 25
MS. PRICE: So 6395 and then you took that total and you did the math with the total population of Ridgewood and you came up with the 25 percent.
MR. BURGIS: That is correct.
MS. PRICE: So, it's a percentage of the Ridgewood population that's reflected in the slide, not the percentage of The Valley Hospital service?
MR. DRILL: Correct.
MR. BURGIS: That is correct.
MS. PRICE: Okay, I just there's so many numbers and so many questions reflected tonight on this transcript, that somebody reading this transcript is going to need a Scotch.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Or want one.
MS. PRICE: Or want one, right.
So, the six percent is overnight, Ridgewood, clearly you were able to confirm that.
MR. BURGIS: Correct.
MS. PRICE: And then the 25 is the math based upon the Ridgewood population.
MR. BURGIS: That is correct.
MS. PRICE: What we don't know is the total percentage
MR. BURGIS: The total percentage.
MS. PRICE: of The Valley Hospital
MR. DALY: Well, I think at this point, though, that 25 is irrelevant. It wasn't well, let's take it out.
MS. PRICE: Well
MR. DRILL: Can we ask
MR. DALY: I don't think it's rebutting the argument, we know what the six percent was.
It's new testimony.
MS. PRICE: I mean I think we'll hear about it in the instructions in terms of its applicability to this use and any other use.
MR. DALY: Okay. Then can we go back to the one other point
MS. PRICE: Yes.
MR. DALY: the $1.7 million in taxes?
MS. PRICE: Yes, you had
MR. DALY: The $1.7 million in taxes reflects rents on a property? That has nothing to do with their plan or the benefit of a hospital. They're acting as a landlord then. So I'd like that I don't think that should apply.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The
MS. PRICE: The issue of taxes was also raised during public comment, so to the extent that they want
MR. DALY: Correct, but this is not taxes as to the hospital. So it doesn't matter
MS. PRICE: to rebut it.
MR. DALY: to me if they go out and they buy property and rent it and act as a landlord. They're not that is not a hospital acting in a beneficial way to this community. They're acting as a landlord. So it's irrelevant to this discussion and this Master Plan.
MR. DRILL: We were responding to an issue that was raised
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yeah, I think the point is taken, just leave it.
MS. PRICE: Right, well, I think it's also in terms of the question was, the issue of taxes was raised, so they're entitled to rebut it and then the Board will weigh it. But it's also, since it's been submitted in terms of benefits versus detriments, so the Board will look at that as well and make a determination.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And and
MR. DRILL: We think the issue of taxes is irrelevant but again there is information being put out there that we feel an obligation to respond to
MS. PRICE: Right, I know.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It was useful that they outlined what were residences versus what were operational facilities.
MR. DALY: Yeah. Okay. So that's all I have.
MS. PRICE: Okay. Who else?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Are there any other questions for tonight?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Seeing that there are no more questions for Mr. Burgis tonight, is there a motion to close the public session?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to close.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Second please?
MS. BIGOS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All those in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Anyone opposed?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. It's 10:45.
We have summations and then we have instructions. I think we will continue with summations. We might need to carry this meeting for the instructions.
MR. DRILL: Well, quite frankly, if you're going to carry for instructions, its 10:45, I suggest you carry it for summations.
If you're going to do summations tonight we're all going to stay late because there
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Well, your summation is how long?
MR. DRILL: Mine, I timed it, 13 minutes. Mr. Kates said he hasn't done it in front of the mirror so how long do you think
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: He said he said 15 minutes.
MR. KATES: Yes, 15 minutes or less.
MS. PRICE: Less than 15.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Less than 15. Let's do them and focus on the instructions at the next session because it's a meeting that isn't scheduled and I don't want to keep that as a long meeting.
(Whereupon, an off the record discussion is held.)
MR. DRILL: Just want to note for the record, unless Mr. Kates is going to be speaking very quickly, my closing is seven pages, double spaced. I timed it. I practiced it. So I wouldn't have to rush through it, it came out to 13 minutes. Mr. Kates's closing is 11 pages. He told me beforehand he hasn't practiced it. There's no way his closing is going to take 15 minutes. But...
MS. PRICE: All right. Let's see.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's proceed.
(Audience Outburst.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's proceed. Please.
MR. KATES: Start the egg timer.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Kates.
MR. KATES: I thank you. The Concerned Residents of Ridgewood thank you for the time and effort that you've devoted to this matter. We recognize that you are volunteers and that balancing the competing interest of the Hospital and the Village can be difficult. However, there are several factors that we want you to keep in mind, we think they lead to a clear conclusion, borne out by the record developed before you these many months. That conclusion is to reject the proposal before you.
First, although the proposed amendment to the Master Plan was not initiated by you as we believe all Master Plan incentives or initiatives should be, any amendments of the Master Plan becomes an official planning document of the Village. It has the legal consequence. It can facilitate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. It will have consequences if either the governing body uses it as the basis for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, or absent that ordinance, Valley uses it to justify a building plan by variance. So, you are not dealing with a trifle here. It has vast consequences. And so, to move off the status quo, to amend a Master Plan in place requires the moving party to sustain a burden of proof. Respectfully, that burden has not been sustained.
Second, we are not dealing with a blank slate, there is a history here and you as planners should not and cannot disregard that history. It should inform you as to what is practical, possible and appropriate.
In 2011, the Village Council concluded in Resolution 11 293 (Exhibit B 4) as follows: That the height of the structures would interfere and detrimentally impact the light, air and open space of the surrounding residences and middle school, contrary to the purposes of proper planning and zoning defined in the MLUL. (Resolution, page four). That the Hospital was already "too large for the neighborhood in which it is located". Essentially the 15 acre site was and is too small to support the expansion. Again (Resolution, page four). The Council recognized Valley's need to upgrade its facilities technologically and physically, however, it concluded on page five, "The extent to which the present 15 acre campus can accommodate an expansion to foster this purpose is overestimated by this Amendment to the Master Plan". (Resolution, page five). The Council expressed concern that the construction process would adversely affect an impact zone extending 1,500 feet from the boundaries of the Hospital property. (Resolution, page five). The Council noted the timing of the construction as being between seven and ten years, which is a significant period of time for the immediate residential neighbors and school children to bear the impact. The impact, as noted, was increased truck traffic, air quality concerns from diesel fuel and dust from construction, oppressive noise and related construction interruptions, all of which detrimentally impact the residents, school children and the community. (Resolution, page five). The Council also took note of the testimony from the hospital planner who approached the project on the assumption that the expansion would occur, and focused on minimizing the impact on the surrounding area. The Council stated this was "misguided" as to the ultimate issue which was whether such expansion should be approved. We must be mindful not to repeat this type of deliberation. (Resolution, page six). The Council concluded that the 2010 Amendment would permit an expansion that would be "unacceptable" and "incompatible" traffic.
Off the script for a moment, the 2010 Amendment is not the proper comparator for this Amendment, as it has been rejected by the Council, and that the fair comparable is the existing conditions today, not what a 2010 Master Plan exercise attempted to do.
So, what has changed? We would argue that the trumpeted reduction in the gross floor area from 1,170,000 square feet, again the 2010 Amendment, to 900,000 square feet is a distinction without a difference. Building mass above grade will increase as will improved coverage, comparing again to 2010. These are indicated in Mr. Brancheau's color coded summary of items labeled, "worse than" the prior Master Plan Amendment (his phraseology). See exhibit B 19, which is your planner's report.
What has probably changed is Valley's business plan, which Valley refused to share with you, but which newspaper coverage tells us involves the acquisition of off site locations, to relocate Hospital departments and services, in recognition of the limitations of a 15 acre campus in Ridgewood.
What is also newly relevant is the Affordable Care Act and its affect on the growth of hospitals and/or consolidation of hospitals, as well as Hospital need and standards, suggesting that consideration of the Hospital's needs should be deferred to a re examination study and report by this Board. On its own initiative and at a time in the not so distant future. On the assumption that your role here is to accept or reject the proffered Amendment, we offer the following: Question one, does the 2013 Proposed Amendment address the issues raised by the Village Council? Increased traffic, detrimental impact on light, air and open space, length and enormity of construction, impact on surrounding neighbors and a site too small to accommodate expansion? Our answer is no, it does not. The detrimental impacts are massive and still far exceed any incremental benefits.
Mr. Brancheau's report provided a clear roadmap to a denial. Let's look at the numbers, 12 of 23 are still negatively impacted and many to a massive degree.
One, Intensity of Use: Existing conditions: 236,000 square feet of high intensity floor area; Proposed 380,000 to 400,000 square feet.
Existing conditions: 562,000 square feet of total gross floor area; Proposed 900,000 square feet (almost double). Mr. Brancheau's report, page five.
Two, Building Mass Above Grade: Existing conditions, 405,000 square feet; Proposed, 1,056,400 square feet (almost double). Mr. Brancheau's report, page five.
Building Coverage: Existing conditions: 128,645 square feet; Proposed 288,000 square feet. Mr. Brancheau's report, page five.
Maximum Building Height: Existing conditions 65 feet; Proposed 94 feet. Mr. Brancheau's report, page five.
The bulk dimensions that appear to be benefits are either miniscule or are proportionately offset by detriments. Where the Van Dien Avenue setbacks might increase on one side of the building, the Steilen Avenue side setbacks are reduced. See the table on page six of Mr. Brancheau's report.
The reduction in on site parking is de minimus and irrelevant. Mr. Brancheau's report, page six. The bulk detriments far outweigh the benefits. The detriments include increased building mass, building coverage, building height, reduced building setbacks in some locations and a reduced buffer depth adjacent to the Ben Franklin middle school. Mr. Brancheau's report page six.
His report also notes that the H Zone Master Plan Amendment adopted in 2010, which was rejected by the Village Council, had many of the same benefits and detriments as the current plan. Page seven of his report.
When Mr. Brancheau compared the 2010 Master Plan with the current proposed amendment, he concluded that improvements were limited to some increased building setbacks and reduced heights with the same setback in some locations, but that features were worse than the current plan including reduced setbacks in two locations and increasing building coverage. Again, the improvements are de minimus and the features that are worse than the current plan are significant detriments for planning purposes. Mr. Brancheau's report, page eight.
We applaud Mr. Brancheau for compiling this document as it was not easy to do. Valley did all it could to avoid showing existing conditions on site. Mr. Brancheau had to cull through prior approvals to obtain many of the bulk dimensions.
Planner Peter Steck's September 20, 2013 presentation concluded that the detriments are overwhelming to the residents are follows:
One, "in my opinion, this represents an improper balance of the Hospital's interests with the interests of the neighborhood". That's at pages 50 and 51 of the transcript.
"I think the interests of the neighborhood are severely compromised by the nature of this Master Plan Amendment". Page 51.
"Applicant is simply, in my opinion, asking to intensify the use from what exists today in that zone". Page 51.
At the September 30th, 2013 hearing at pages 86 and 87, Steck also notes that the proposed building and campus would be much more visible to the surrounding area: "Looming above the tree line", and thus removing or seriously downgrading the residential quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Page 106, Steck states: The "beacon" of a parking garage will have negative impact. With respect to Mr. Burgis's presentation, I'm now referring to exhibit A 29, not tonight, though he tries to focus attention on improvements of 2013 versus 2010, he also admits the detriments. He concedes the construction timetable is a detriment at page 107. He concedes floor space is a detriment at page 109.
Question two: Are acute care beds as necessary and beneficial to the region as Valley would like us to believe? Answer, no, Valley officers and professionals claim we have too many acute care beds in Bergen County. Audrey Meyers' letter, exhibit O 5 was written in January of 2011 to the State Department of Health in opposition to Hackensack University Medical Center's petition for a Certificate of Need for a new acute care hospital in Westwood. She vehemently argued against the issuance of the Certificate of Need for the reopening of Pascack Valley Hospital and cites at the basis for denial, excess hospital beds hospitals/hospital beds, declining demand and occupancy rates, a negative financial impact on area hospitals and job loss. Meyers stated: "New Jersey has too many hospitals and too many beds". The Stroudwater report, exhibit A 6, April 29, 2013, slide 16, concludes there is an overabundance of beds in Bergen County. Existing inpatient demand is 409 beds at TVH. TVH has current capacity of 451 beds, which exceeds the current demand. The Affordable Care Act will reduce admissions. This is Stroudwater's exhibit, A 6, slides 8 and 11 and our exhibit O 7, which I am adding to this summation. The elderly population will not grow enough in Bergen County to increase admission rates. This was Stroudwater's testimony in the Appellate Division record which was produced by you, exhibit O 7. He is saying, Stroudwater is saying, that this so called increase in admission rates is misleading, that the elderly population will not grow enough in Bergen County.
Question three: Is there a high risk that traffic would increase at this already overburdened location? Answer, yes. On the detriments side of the ledger, you were told that traffic at the intersection of Van Dien and Linwood Avenues is bad now. The traffic expert suggests traffic may not increase, based largely on commitments by Valley to remove certain activities to other locations. The Board and the Village will have very little, if any ability, to constrain on site activities once the building and accessory structures are completed, and it is neither rational nor plausible that a hospital doubling in size will not create additional traffic. The traffic calculations by Charles D. Olivo, Exhibit A 9, pages two and three, are based on data provided by Valley. Once built, there will be no reasonable means to check what activities are going on inside the hospital and both agree it's the on site activities that drive traffic. Traffic engineer, Gordon Meth, Exhibit B 7 at pages two and three, states that per ITE manuals, Valley "is already acting like a 995,000 square foot hospital" in terms of trip generation. And we ask again, if Valley doubles in size, isn't there a reasonable likely hood that there will be a traffic increase?
This is a projected six to ten year construction project. There are significant known impact of the construction which were noted by Mr. Brancheau at page 12 of his report, as well as the report of Torcon, Inc., Exhibit A 19, including truck traffic, excavation, dewatering, vibration, settling, noise and pollution. Factor in the unknown variables, delays, etcetera, with a massive construction project such as the one proposed. This is a significant detriment to the community.
And what about the unknowns. What if Valley's business increases? It is a public record that Valley Hospital has purchased or leased other property in and out of Ridgewood. How do these properties figure into the business, Valley's business plan? Will they increase the breath of services that Valley provides and possibly grow Valley's business at Van Dien? I would add, space is being vacated, but you remain in the dark as to all of the floor area space conceived in this plan. You remain so as of this late date.
How is Valley going to fund this massive expansion without increasing its post expansion business? It is notable that the "unknowns" pertaining to potential increased business at TVH could have been resolved by the request for TVH's business plan. You chose not to do so, and thus we are left with more questions and concerns than answers and resolutions. What if occupancy rates increase? Exhibit O 11 shows Emergency Room admissions after the Year 2000 modernization, increasing from 49,348 to 76,812.
Let's talk briefly about comparables. Architect Stephen Evers and Hospital Planner James May presented what they viewed as hospitals worthy of comparison to Valley. Yet we heard many times over that there is no "apples to apples" comparison of hospitals. We agree that finding the perfect comp is not going to happen and even if you did find such a hospital, that would not, in and of itself, justify or invalidate Valley's proposal. However, that does not mean that the search for comparative hospitals is a fruitless exercise. Please take another look at the municipalities offered by Architect Evers. Those New Jersey suburban hospitals, on average, have either two to three times Valley's acreage, or far fewer beds than Valley. None of them has a bed to acreage density anywhere near that of Valley Hospital. So, the lack of reasonable comparables in New Jersey is something that this Board should consider as a red flag of caution. And the comparables offered by Mr. May, though somewhat closer to Valley in terms of density, are located in large municipalities and city centers like Bridgeport, Connecticut and Binghamton, Geneva and Schenectady New York. The Board should consider if those examples demonstrate the look and feel of what we want for Ridgewood.
I want to talk about the process. If I were to say to you that the Village of Ridgewood is to commence a master planning process for the largest development in the Village's history, at least in terms of size and construction duration, and that the Planning Board should proceed by considering just one option, what words come to mind? Would "arbitrary" and "unreasonable" come to mind? You're being asked to "green light" a project that would take six to ten years to build, alongside a middle school, and the only option you're being told to consider is the land owner's proposal? The most frustrating aspect of this process for C.R.R. is the idea that you would engage for nearly 15 months on a matter of such importance and do it by proposing other options. You being asked to plan based on one party's interests and goals.
The master planning process, as we said at the outset is your document, not Valley's. If it is your counsel's advice to consider only the blueprint before you, then good planning dictates that you reject it. The Village should not be held captive to a singular proposal by a single property owner. C.R.R. engaged in this process, hired professionals and dedicated thousands of dollars and hours in the belief that this Board could forge its own Master Plan Amendment. Ironically, a quasi judicial evidentiary standard was imposed by your counsel in what is truly a legislative hearing, and it has shielded or protected Valley, not the neighbors. Recall that the Board required C.R.R. to go through its attorneys to admit a piece of information that was plainly available on Valley's own website. And when C.R.R.'s planner, Peter Steck, offered one sheet of suggestions for other development options for the site, Valley screamed that C.R.R. would have to pay $5,000 for that privilege, and since only Valley paid for the microphone, only Valley's script should be followed. Sadly, the Board agreed.
Let me add that Mr. Burgis and C.R.R. agree that the Sica methodology is misplaced. You are being asked to expedite a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, not to apply Sica to a use variance applicant. Otherwise, an inherently beneficial use can do whatever it wants and you know that's not true.
Valley's proposal is not a compromise, it is a renunciation of the interests of this community. Over these 15 months, C.R.R. was trying to have a rational discussion of the future of this neighborhood and this Village. We welcomed a vigorous debate, we got neither. Instead, this process turned upside down and the residents became the outsiders looking in. Most Ridgewood residents are well educated professionals who should be encouraged to participate in the process, not shut out of it unless they are forced to hire experts at their own expense. This is a legislative hearing not a trial. You need to change your rules. You need to suspend the ordinance inviting boutique master planning. You need to reject Valley's proposal.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Kates.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Drill?
MR. DRILL: Yes, I would just ask, his presentation took 22 minutes, I would just ask to have the same 22. I am going to give my 13 minute closing.
(Audience Outburst.)
MR. DRILL: And then I'm going to respond to his.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It's so noted. Let's move on.
MR. DRILL: Good evening, I delivered my opening statement to you on March 11, 2013. And since that time, you've held 25 hearing sessions over the course of the last 15 months and the Hospital's application for this Board seeking an Amendment of the 2010 Land Use Plan Element of the Village Master Plan as to the Hospital zone, the H Zone.
First I want to thank you like everyone else has thanked you for your time, your patience and your attention during the process. I want to stress, though, the application is to amend a 2010 Master Plan Element which is in full force and effect. We have agreed in a settlement to that litigation, to hold all further action relative to that Master Plan Amendment in abeyance, pending the outcome of this hearing process. But the key is what's in front of this Board is an Amendment to the 2010 Master Plan, not the rescission of the 2010 Master Plan. Before the Board could think of rescinding the 2010 Master Plan, either the Board on its own or some applicant, is going to have to propose to do that and notice it.
So, for C.R.R. to suggest to the Board that the comparison that should be made is between the 2013 plan and existing conditions has the effect of rescinding the 2010 Master Plan. And, quite frankly, if you go down that route, it's my professional opinion, that you'll be committing error.
Now, a brief procedural summary: You may recall that attached to the application form as an exhibit was a document dated February 25, 2013 which contained The Valley Hospital Specific Proposed Revisions to the H Zone Land Use Plan Element. And it was in redline text. You will also recall that your planning expert, Mr. Brancheau, drafted a revised Amendment to the H Zone Land Use Plan Element, approximately a year later on February 28, 2014. The Hospital formally revised its application by my letter to this Board dated March 6, 2014, to accept all of Mr. Brancheau's proposed revisions. Again, just as a procedural matter, it is true that Ridgewood has an ordinance that allows property owners to institute requests for Master Plan Amendments. And contrary to C.R.R.'s suggestion in their attorney's closing, there's nothing wrong with that process. In fact, there is a Law Division case Messer (phonetic) versus Burlington Township from of 980 that says that that process is perfectly legal. If the Board believes it doesn't want to use that process anymore, then you can suggest that the Village Council eliminate that. But that's the process in place right now. Valley is just trying to follow the rules.
So Valley submitted the application and it's been opposed. Mr. Burgis had indicated in his rebuttal testimony that the Hospital recently proposed a further revision to the Amendment to the H Zone Land Use Plan Element, that's by my letter to the Board dated June 6th, 2014. Those revisions contained in my June 6th, 2014 letter are the Hospital's responses to recommendations that Mr. Brancheau made in his March 31st report to the Board, specifically his recommendation numbers three, four, five and six. So that's what's before the Board right now. It's a proposed Master Plan Amendment. It has February 2013 version. It has Mr. Brancheau's February 2014 version. And now with a couple of clarifications by my letter dated June 6th.
I will now summarize, very briefly, why as a board, you should grant the application and amend the 2010 H Zone Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan. The reasons for granting the application and amending the plan can be summarized in one sentence, and that is to revise 2013 Amendment to the 2010 H Zone Land Use Plan Element will improve the H Zone Land Use Element in areas that the Village Council found lacking when it voted not to introduce and implement the ordinance on November 22, 2011. The Village Council did not say that it should go all the way back to 1983, another argument that C.R.R. did not the attorney didn't make tonight, but the president of C.R.R. made that argument. And what the record will reflect is that 1983 Council Resolution was reversed by the Court, put documents on the record earlier in the evening, this Board approved, and then the Board of Adjustment approved what's at the hospital site now. The whole reason that this whole Master Plan Amendment process started was because the Board of Adjustment suggested that a better way of doing this, instead of piecemeal, was to do a Master Plan Amendment.
I will now review the reasons expressed by the Village Council and compare the revised 2013 Amendment to the 2010 Land Use Plan Element. I will not compare it to existing conditions because as I stated before on a number of occasions, existing conditions are irrelevant to what's before the Board. The Board has to 2010 Master Plan Amendment in place. That's what this application has to be compared to.
First issue, light and air. The Village Council Resolution memorializing its rejection of the enabling ordinance states that the building as proposed in 2010, would interfere and detrimentally impact the light and air of surrounding residences as well as the middle school.
As explained by Valley's numerous experts, and specifically as explained by Mr. Burgis in his rebuttal testimony tonight, the revised proposed 2013 Land Use Plan Element has reduced the maximum total hospital floor area by over 21 percent. It will take the floor area of occupied square footage from 1,170,000 square feet, as provided in the 2010 Land Use Plan down to 900,000 square feet.
C.R.R. says that's nothing. That's not nothing. You heard Mr. Burgis testify in his opinion a change between 5 percent and 20 percent is significant from a land use perspective. You saw the chart, while some of these numbers, 10,000 square feet can have to be adjusted, the percentages are not going to adjust by that much. This 2013 plan represents a significant improvement over the 2010 plan. Again, a significant reduction is anywhere from 5 percent to 20 percent, a reduction does not have to be 50 percent to be deemed significant. That's the effect of C.R.R.'s position, that this would have to be reduced by 50 percent to be deemed significant.
Further, the revised 2013 plan amendment refines the language of the 2010 Land Use Plan relating to minimum size yard and rear yard setbacks as well as minimum front yard setbacks along Van Dien Avenue, a mandate all hospital campus buildings to define setbacks along all perimeters of the property. Thus not only providing for more light and air than the 2010 plan, but providing for enhanced light and air. Again, I'm not going to compare it to existing conditions, it has to be compared to 2010. It's a substantial improvement.
Finally, the revised plan calls for major changes to the buildings' interior by eliminating the subbasement, whereas the initial plan for 2010 included a subbasement, the revised upgrade plan calls for a five story building with just one level below grade. This equates to over a 50 percent in reduction in below grade hospital buildings but further, and more significantly, the upgrade plan calls for additional level of parking in the parking garage without increasing the height of that structure.
As a result, some surface parking will be eliminated and replaced with green space along Linwood and North Van Dien, further enhancing light and air, again, a substantial improvement.
Finally, the Hospital agreed to limit the hours of operation of the top deck so that lighting problems on the top would not, as Mr. Steck testified, become a beacon in the night.
Next issue is traffic. The Village Council Resolution memorializing its rejection of the enabling ordinance, states that traffic will increase in proportion to the increase in building expansion and that the traffic generated by the project would result in the back ups at the already congested intersection of Linwood Avenue and North Van Dien. Okay. First of all, there's been a lot said about the fact that the Hospital has been buying up other properties. The Hospital, in order to move its high traffic generating operations off the site, has to move them somewhere. The Hospital has been very up front and clear that's why the properties have been being purchased.
One of the objectors complained in the last hearing or two that, well, we've had 15 months, the operation should have been moved off site. I want to be very clear about this that the Hospital's proposal to relocate the high traffic generating outpatient services, as well as to reduce onsite parking from 2,000 spaces to 1,700 spaces, as well as to propose off site traffic improvements to the existing roads as part of this Master Plan process, even though the upgrade plan is not going to result in additional traffic, is part of the Master Plan Amendment. The Hospital is not going to do these things without the Master Plan Amendment being adopted. So, to complain that these things haven't been done is not fair and unrealistic. If the Master Plan Amendment is adopted, these things will be done. Otherwise, I guess things are going to have to stay as they are, at least for now, but, you know, who knows what the future is going to hold. This gives it the ability to have some say in the future of the Hospital, rather than just have the Hospital end up returning to the Board of Adjustment for its future proposals. Finally, as to traffic, I want to make this comment, which actually applies to other aspects of the plan, but many members of the public and the C.R.R.'s attorney just said they simply do not believe that traffic is going to be reduced.
C.R.R.'s attorney just said, it is unbelievable, how can that be? They fear an increase in traffic. And what we do, we urge the Board to separate fear from fact. There is undisputed expert testimony that the traffic generated from the site will be reduced. This testimony wasn't just from the Hospital traffic expert. This testimony was also from the Board's independent traffic expert.
To suggest that the Board doesn't have it within its bag of tools, planning tools, the ability to suggest conditions if the Master Plan Amendment is granted, is being put into the ordinance, to make sure that the high traffic generating outpatient services are moved, is just ignoring the Municipal Land Use Law and the ability of a board to suggest conditions to the governing body.
The third aspect that the Village Council was troubled by was the water table disturbance. Village Council Resolution memorializing the rejection of the enabling ordinance states that construction of the new building would disturb the underground water table and require dewatering of approximately 500,000 gallons per day. And the Village Council felt that that could damage residences within 1500 lineal foot zone and impact from the site. Because of the elimination of the subbasement, the revised upgrade plan calls for a maximum of 300,000 gallons of dewatering with an average of 200,000 gallons per six months. As a result, the zone of impact of dewatering has been greatly reduced. And, more significantly, there's undisputed expert testimony from the Hospital's geotechnical expert and agreed to by the Board's geotechnical expert, that there will be no damage to any surrounding buildings.
Apparently C.R.R. must agree with that because they didn't bring that up in their closing, but there are still some objectors that are fearful of this, again please separate fear from fact.
The fourth concern by the Village Council is the excavation of bedrock and environmental issues. And I want to those two, in my opinion, should be dealt with together or I will just be repeating myself. Again, the Village Council Resolution states that construction of the new building, and this is from the 2010 plan, would require removal of bedrock below grade involving a lot of excavation, including blasting, which will require approximately 22,000 truckloads of material to be trucked off site. The resolution states that the impact of the truck traffic would adversely affect air quality with diesel fumes and dust and that the excavation and blasting would result in additional noise. To repeat, because of the elimination of the subbasement, the revised upgrade plan calls for a major reduction in excavation and now requires minimal, if any, blasting, thereby minimizing noise disturbance and vibration. Additionally, the reduction in the amount of earth excavation is going to greatly reduce the amount of truck traffic. Now, there will still be construction trucks. And the Hospital is well aware that particulate matter, diesel fumes can have negative health impacts, that's why the Hospital presented an occupational and environmental health and safety expert. That is what our expert was qualified as, as an occupational and environmental health and safety expert. And what she does, part of what she does for a living, is exactly this, design protocol and programs when there are big construction projects and they want to make sure that there won't be any negative environmental impacts. Well, the Hospital presented unrefuted expert testimony from her, as well as an expert testimony in construction management. Both experts explained how the construction work would be done and what safety precautions would be put in place to protect the neighborhood environmentally.
Now, again, many members of the public simply do not believe that the construction can be safely performed. Again, they fear an increase in pollution. They fear the negative health impacts. Again, we urge the Board, separate fear from fact. There is undisputed expert testimony that the construction work will be done safely and with adequate safety precautions in place. Mr. Burgis tonight just touched upon a couple of the monitoring protocols that this expert suggested and the Hospital agreed to.
Now, one of the members of the public, over the last two hearing sessions, stated, complained, that the objectors did not have the money to hire an environmental expert of their own. I submit, if they found an environmental expert who was willing to render an opinion that they wanted to hear, they would have hired the expert. I submit that that expert doesn't exist because that expert they couldn't find someone to tell them what they wanted you to hear.
The fifth aspect that the Village Council had a concern with was and it was conclusion, after saying all the other issues it had with the 2010 plan, the Village Council said the project was too large and intense for this site. The Village Council Resolution in the last three paragraphs states, the site's too small for the project, project is an over intensification of the site. 2010 plan, for all the reasons I just explained, the Hospital submits that it’s substantially reduced the size and intensity of the project so now under the 2013 plan it is appropriate for the site.
Now, I am going to have a couple of comments about some of what C.R.R.'s attorney stated. But first I just want to conclude my initial closing.
And in conclusion, I urge the Board to remember that in considering the revised 2013 proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element, the Municipal Land Use Law requires that the Board consider the site as it exists with a hospital in terms of regional needs, the services the Hospital provides. Contrary to excerpts by the objector's planning expert and certain members of the public, the Board cannot legally consider the site as a vacant parcel. And you cannot put on blinders and place the colloquial desires of the neighborhood over the entire community and region. And when viewed in this fashion, the Hospital submits that its application should be granted and the Board should approve the revised 2013 Amendment to the H Zone Land Use Plan of the Master Plan, again, because it significantly improves the existing 2010 Master Plan which is in full force and effect.
Now just a few comments as to some of the things that C.R.R. attorney said. First of all, I am sure that the Board attorney is going to advise you of this, but nothing that I say in my closing or that C.R.R.'s attorney says in their closing is evidence. I have tried to stick to what's in the record. C.R.R.'s attorney went a little beyond that, and I would just hope that the Board listens to its attorney's advice and where the C.R.R. attorney is going beyond what's in the record, the Board can't. The Board has to stick to what's in the record. I stated before, to use the existing conditions and use that as reasons to defeat the 2013 Master Plan is, in effect, rescinding the 2010 Master Plan with no proposal, no notice. It would be highly irregular and I would just urge you not to be tempted to go down that road, which C.R.R.'s attorneys have laid out for you.
C.R.R.'s attorney telling you about newspaper coverage, tells you about the acquisition of offsite locations. I didn't object. He shouldn't have done that because he knows that the newspaper articles weren't submitted into evidence. Highly improper, but again, just you have to ignore that.
Again, from starting on page four of his closing, all the references to existing conditions, they are legally irrelevant. And again. The Board goes down that road, my professional opinion, you'll be committing error.
C.R.R.'s attorney and a number of objectors have cited and quoting various testimony by C.R.R.'s planning expert. I'm sure that the Board attorney is going to be advising the Board on all that stuff, that net opinion.
Valley Hospital contends that C.R.R.'s planning expert testified almost entirely based on net opinion. He didn't even know the area. He didn't know that the site is served by mass transit bus line. He testified that one of the reasons it was inappropriate for the Master Plan Amendment because there was no way for anyone to get to the site other than driving. When he was corrected by either, I believe the Village engineering expert, could have been the planning expert, it doesn't really matter, his response was he went onto the Valley website, that's where he got the information. You're not supposed to go on the Valley website, but I can tell you the board knows this, but I can tell you that if I'm not suggesting you look at it, but if he looked at it, the Valley website, he would see that there is a whole bunch of information there about how to get to the hospital using which bus lines.
Everything that C.R.R. has said about Valley's president Audrey Meyers' letter written to the State Department of Health in opposition to the HUMC addition for Certificate of Need, again we've been through this, we argued it, we had it in briefs. Fortunately the Board kept out most of the evidence that I thought was improper. And I let a couple of things in, quite frankly, that we objected to, it is what it is, but you can correct yourself by not relying on it. As I argued back then, the president, Audrey Meyers' letter, even though it was written in 2011, because the only data available at that time was data from 2006 and otherwise, that's the data that was used. By the time the Commissioner of Health decided the application, there was new data. She said in her letter in which she granted the Certificate of Need and there were questions about it in front of this Board, the Commissioner of Health wrote a letter that we submitted into evidence explaining, you can't use something that Valley's president wrote to object to one application where the data has changed and you can't use it in any event to impeach the hospital.
MS. SHERMAN: Excuse me.
MR. DRILL: And that’s what C.R.R. said at the time
MS. SHERMAN: Excuse me. Excuse me.
MR. DRILL: they want to impeach the hospital.
MS. SHERMAN: Excuse me.
MR. DRILL: You can't impeach a Hospital. You can only impeach a witness.
MS. PRICE: This is summation.
MS. SHERMAN: Is he allowed to do this?
MR. DRILL: And they had they had nothing
MS. SHERMAN: He's allowed to rebut do another rebuttal?
MR. DRILL: They had nothing
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please take your seat. He is in the middle of his summation.
MS. SHERMAN: Is he allowed is he allowed to do another
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please do not disturb.
MS. SHERMAN: another rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please do not disturb
MS. SHERMAN: I I need to know
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: the summation.
MR. DRILL: I'm going over my time because C.R.R.'s attorney
MS. SHERMAN: I I
MR. DRILL: went over his time.
MS. SHERMAN: I asked a procedural question before.
MR. DRILL: I'm sorry. I stated that earlier. I timed myself it was 13 minutes.
In any event, as I was saying you can't you can't question the credibility of an applicant. I even put in cases where even if an applicant doesn't comply with a condition, it can't be held against the applicant in another application. Again
MS. SHERMAN: You also can't rebut in summation.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please do not disturb please
MS. SHERMAN: You cannot do this rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ms. Sherman, please take your stat.
MS. SHERMAN: This is not allowed.
MS. PRICE: You're out of line.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please take your seat.
MS. SHERMAN: This is not allowed.
MS. PRICE: You are fully out of line.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ms. Sherman, please take your seat.
MS. SHERMAN: I would like it to be explained
MR. DRILL: I am going to ask the Court Reporter to ignore what Ms. Sherman is saying
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No.
MR. DRILL: because she's interrupting me. And this is my
MS. SHERMAN: I would like it to be explained in the record as to where the
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ms. Sherman
MS. SHERMAN: where it says he is allowed to rebut his side
MS. PRICE: Wait, stop, wait a minute. Mr. Drill, wait a minute.
Ms. Sherman, you are out of line. This is the this is
MS. SHERMAN: But I think that he is out of line.
MS. PRICE: Mrs. Sherman, Mrs. Sherman, Mrs. Sherman, you are out of line, not the first time in this proceeding. And the Board has afforded you a lot of leeway. This is respectful opportunity for both attorneys to do their summation, uninterrupted summation.
MS. SHERMAN: But he did his summation and now
MS. PRICE: Not interrupt wait a minute. He's doing his summation now. The Applicant gets the last summation. This is not for you to question at this point.
MS. SHERMAN: His summation is a rebuttal
MS. PRICE: No, his summation
MS. SHERMAN: of his summation.
MS. PRICE: is whatever he wants to make it. He's the attorney for the Applicant. Just like Mr. Kates got to say whatever he wanted to say. And Mr. Drill didn't object.
You are out of line.
MS. SHERMAN: My apologies.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, please continue.
MR. DRILL: In any case, the C.R.R.'s attorney stated in his closing, again highly improper, I didn't object, I just let it go, I didn't want to interrupt him, didn't want to do anything to his flow, he said the elderly population will not grow enough in Bergen County to increase admission rates. There's nothing, nothing in this record to support that statement. It's highly improper, shouldn't have been said. Just pointing it out and I am hoping that the Board does what it should and ignore it.
Again, in conclusion, I urge the Board to remember that in considering the revised 2013 proposed Amendment to the H Zone Land Use Element, the Municipal Land Use Law requires the Board consider the 2013 Amendment against what is in effect now which is the 2010 Amendment. And in terms of regional need, you heard Mr. Burgis testify about what is more important you have two inherently beneficial uses, you have a hospital next to a school. I would hope that you would agree with Mr. Burgis that the hospital need in and of itself is a higher ranking than a school, but especially when you take regional considerations into effect.
Will there be some detriment in the neighborhood? Absolutely. We can't Mr. Burgis said, there will be inconveniences. There will be it's a long construction project, but the fact is the Planning Board is not supposed to be the board that just picks one neighborhood's issues into account when its making land use decisions that not only impact the entire Village, but impact the region.
So we would hope when you balance everything, keep in mind that in The Valley Hospital's way of thinking, the regional need for the upgrade, the hospital to continue its history of excellence, versus some detriments that absolutely will be there, are outweighed and because of that, because this 2013 Amendment substantially makes the plan better than what is now in place, that you would approve the application and grant the amendment.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Drill.
Okay. Now before we talk about carry date for Gail's instructions, Blais, did you want to address the points in Mr. Drill's letters in terms of how we should proceed with that?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, Mr. Drill has, in response to my memo, requested an amendment to the plan before the Board. I think it would be I don't believe any of those are substantive, but I think it would be probably clearer and just neater to do it that way, is to amend the plan before the Board's vote so that there's no confusion about what it is you're voting on. And I would request that the Board authorize me to prepare that Amendment for the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay, any objection?
MS. PRICE: Just
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I'm sorry. Gail?
MS. PRICE: Yes, just to be clear, Blais, you're just talking about the items that were in the
MR. BRANCHEAU: Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 in my report.
MS. PRICE: in A 37, right. A 37 that were responsive.
MR. BRANCHEAU: The letter, the June 6th letter from Mr. Drill. Yes.
MS. PRICE: And that would be for clarification purposes?
MR. BRANCHEAU: Just for clarification, just so there's no confusion.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Any questions from the Board on that?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I would like to move that the Board requests that you amend the current Amendment to be inclusive of those points per your recommendation.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: I second.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All in favor?
(Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
MS. PRICE: No.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Roll call?
MS. PRICE: Let's do a roll call.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, Jane, Roll call on that please?
MS. WONDERGEM: Mayor Aronsohn?
MAYOR ARONSOHN: Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM: Ms. Bigos?
MR. BIGOS: Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM: Mr. Nalbantian?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM: Mr. Reilly?
MR. REILLY: Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM: Mr. Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM: Ms. Dockray?
MS. DOCKRAY: Yes.
MS. WONDERGEM: Ms. Peters?
MS. PETERS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Jane.
There was discussion regarding dates and venues for instruction from Counsel.
The hearing was closed and the matter carried to June 16 at 7:30 p.m. at Benjamin Franklin Middle School.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Wondergem
Board Secretary
Date approved: August 4, 2015
- Hits: 635