Planning Board Public Meeting Minutes 20140603

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of June 3, 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 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Ms. Bigos, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Joel, Mr. Hurley, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Katie Razin, Esq., substituting for Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, and Chris Rutishauser, Village Engineer. Councilman Pucciarelli is recused from the hearing regarding the Master Plan amendment for the AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C-zone districts and was absent from the meeting. Mayor Aronsohn was absent.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – There were no comments at this time.
Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Rutishauser said there was none.
Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan – AH-2, B-3-R, C-R & C Zone Districts – Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  At this time we're going to begin the fourth item which is public hearing on the Amendment for the Land Use Plan Element to the Master Plan, AH 2, B 3 R, C R and C Zone Districts. 
This is testimony from traffic engineer for applicants.  The last time we met on this topic we concluded the testimony by the architects for the applicants.  We actually had questions from the public and the Board. 
And tonight we'll hear testimony from traffic experts.  The way we'll proceed is that we'll hear all three presentations. Then at that time, I'll open to the public for questions, if they have questions for any of the witnesses tonight.  And then we'll follow that with questions from the Board, the Board's experts.  And then any cross from the attorneys present tonight. 
Okay.  With that, Mr. Wells? 
MR. WELLS:  I will just give a few words of introduction, if this is working?  Yes, it is.
To remind the Board and the members the public that are here, what we're doing this evening is going to present testimony of the traffic expert.  This particular traffic expert is Langan Associates.  And they presented a report to the Board during the work session in consideration of this matter in 2012, which is about a year and a half ago. And in reality when we went back and looked at the report, we realized that it didn't really need to be revised.  So, we resubmitted it to the Board about two weeks ago.  Hopefully, you received copies of it. So, that there's no confusion, there were indeed, actually, two dated reports:  One dated September 28th, 2011, and I'm sorry; than the other one was September 11, 2012. And the reason for the change was in earlier discussions with respect to The Dayton project we had been talking about for the proposal, included is 120 units on the property, and it was subsequently revised to 106 units. So, at that time and before he testified the traffic engineer submitted a supplemental report. And I'm hoping    we'll put both of these into exhibits in a minute, but I am hoping that the Board Members did get those in advance.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. WELLS:  Okay, great. 
And, obviously, as has been ruled in the past, all of the materials the Board heard during the work session is no longer in the record, per se.  So, what we would like to do this evening is present again, testimony of the traffic expert.  I will tell you in the way of introduction for the traffic expert that consistent with what the Board is doing now, which is working very hard on considering a revision to its Master Plan in accordance with the proposal that the Board has prepared itself, as a template. I have asked the traffic expert not to dwell on this, as if it was a site plan.  The first testimony was a little bit more site plan oriented.  And there will come a day, hopefully, where this and other applicants may be in front of this Board, you know, presenting a site plan. But right now since the Board is really considering its Master Plan revisions, which basically contemplate a use, and, therefore, this use and the traffic it could generate is relevant.  I ask you to focus on the traffic that would be generated, in this case, from 106 units on this property.  So, that would be one primary area that the traffic expert would testify. 
The other area, which is not a use variance    but not a use variance, not the "use" per se, but a bulk requirement that is also within the purview of a traffic expert, is with respect to parking.  And since there has been discussion and the Board is considering not just the use, but a use with certain requirements, and in reality what the Board is considering is requiring that any use that's there conform with RSIS, which is essentially a state regulation, which provides for really two things:  It provides for a certain number of cars per unit and, therefore, the bedroom count and so forth are based on bedrooms. 
So, for example, it would provide a certain number of cars that would be appropriate for a one bedroom unit and a certain number of cars would be for two bedroom unit.  And you will hear testimony on that. 
Then it also provides for the Board to consider other factors.  The one that we'll talk about here, is no surprise, is the proximity to transit.  And, again, we will not be doing this the way we would do it in a site plan process, but generally would speak to the amount of parking that we believe would be needed. 
I will tell you, as I did at the outset, and having said many times that this Applicant is comfortable with what the Board is discussing right now, which is to simply impose the RSIS regulations, which is really a state minimum anyway, in the ordinance. So, we have no problem with that.  We're not going to present testimony from the traffic expert stating we have a problem with it.  We're simply going to let him explain to you why we believe what we propose will work out given that.
So, those are really the parameters of the testimony I have asked them to present to you.  The report that you have is somewhat more detailed than that. Although, that's primarily what the report is about.  And, hopefully, that will be very informative, in terms of the consideration that he has. I told him that I don't believe the traffic is the most important consideration for this Board and, therefore, I told him to keep his testimony straightforward and not to make it any longer than it needs to be. Then certainly to take whatever questions the Board or the public might have about the traffic or the parking that we will generate here. 
So, that said in the way of introduction, what I would like to do is to just    the gentleman, so there is no confusion for Board Members who have been sitting here since 2012, the gentleman that will be this evening is also with the same firm, but he's not Mr. Disario who came to you last time. 
Who I would like to call is Karl Pehnke who is one of his colleagues who will be testifying this evening. 
MR. PEHNKE:  Here? 
MR. WELLS:  And I think you'll find it easier, over there (indicating). While he's going to the podium, I could tell you that most everything you have is in the material, in fact everything you have is in the material you have. And we're only going to present two slides just for clarity purposes.  So, I don't think the Board needs to move down.  The first just shows you the site, approximately where it is in the town, and its proximity to the railroad station.  And the second one is a chart. 
So, those will be projected in a minute, and if you don't mind just turning and looking over your shoulder for a second, you will probably catch it.  It is    really is very much for everybody else, as it is for the Board. But I do, in addition, so that the Board Members don't have to turn their neck too much, as he's getting sworn, I'm going to walk by you and give you the actual slides.  So that the Board Members actually have it in front of them.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Tom.
MR. WELLS:  So I'll leave Counsel to swear in the witness then we'll go from there. 
THE COURT REPORTER:  Can we have the appearance of the attorneys for the record? 
MS. RAZIN:  Sure, we can do that first.
MR. WELLS:  In that case, as the Board well knows, my name is Thomas Wells, for law firm of Wells, Jaworski & Liebman in Paramus.  I am here right now representing    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you speak into the mic, Tom?  I'm sorry.  
MR. WELLS:  Yes, The Dayton Project.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Yes, good evening, Thomas H. Bruinooge   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you use the microphone, I'm sorry.  We can't hear in this room. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Good evening, Thomas H. Bruinooge, Bruinooge & Associates, 301 Route 17 North, Rutherford, New Jersey, representing The Enclave, 257 Ridgewood Avenue Associates, LLC. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Tom.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Board, Daniel L. Steinhagen, from the law firm of Beattie Padavano, 50 Chestnut Ridge Road, Montvale, New Jersey, on behalf of Citizens for a Better Ridgewood.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Dan. 
MS. RAZIN:  Are we set to go? 
Mr. Wells, just to clarify, you are also here, I know that you mentioned you're here for The Dayton, you're also here for the   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Chestnut Village.
MS. RAZIN:  Chestnut Village? 
MR. WELLS:  That's correct. We'll do that in a second.
MS. RAZIN:  You are also here for Chestnut Village? 
MR. WELLS:  Yes.  I am also here representing Chestnut Village.  
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you. 
Mr. Pehnke, do you want to please state your name, spell your name and provide your business address, for the Board? 
MR. PEHNKE:  Certainly, my name is Karl with a "K" Pehnke, "P" as in Peter e h n k e.  I am with the firm of Langan Engineering and Environmental Services and our office location is 619 River Drive, Elmwood Park, New Jersey.
MS. RAZIN:  If you raise your right hand to be sworn in please. 
Mr. Pehnke, do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 
MR. PEHNKE:  Yes, I do.
K A R L  P E H N K E, 619 River Drive, Elmwood Park, New Jersey, having  been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MS. RAZIN:  Are you intending to qualify, Mr. Pehnke? 
MR. WELLS:  Yes, I am.
MS. RAZIN: That's what I thought.
MR. WELLS:  Before I qualify him, let me just do one other piece of housekeeping. I do have additional copies of the report that he submitted, should any of the Board Members need it, although it was mailed to you in advance or should anybody else who is here need to see a copy of it, I would be happy the supply it.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  We also have   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  If the public would like to have it.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  We also have copies on the piano, if any members of the public are interested. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Come on down if you want a copy.
MR. WELLS:  Okay, good. 
If you would, Mr. Pehnke, could you run through your professional qualifications starting perhaps with your education, how you learned to be a traffic engineer and then telling us whether you had the opportunity to testify in front of a board before.
MR. PEHNKE:  Sure, yes, I have a degree in Civil Engineering from Villanova University.
I am a registered professional engineer in the State of New Jersey, as well as several other states. 
My area of expertise is traffic engineering which I have been performing for over 28 years.  I regularly appear before planning bodies throughout the State of New Jersey. 
I have qualified as such.  This is the first time that I am in Ridgewood.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. 
MR. WELLS:  I would propose to offer Mr. Pehnke as expert to testify in the area of traffic.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thanks, Mr. Wells. Any comments with regard to his qualifications?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No, okay. 
Are there any questions from the public with regard to Mr. Pehnke's qualifications? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Accepted. 
MR. WELLS:  Thank you. 
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLS:
Q. Mr. Pehnke, I'm going to bring two reports over to you and use the mike before I do that, and one is dated    revised to November 22, 2011, addressed to the Planning Board on Langan stationary.  It's    well, I will let you identify it further.  The other is dated September 11th, 2012, again addressed to the Planning Board on Langan stationary. If you could identify those two documents and then we would have them marked as exhibits. 
A. Yes, the first document is a letter to the Planning Board prepared by my partner Dan Disario, who is also a professional engineer.  And it is dated, the most recent date of November, revised November 22, 2011. 
MR. WELLS:  Do you have a sense of what number we should put on this? 
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, I believe we're on D 7, does that sound right to you? 
MR. WELLS:  I'm sorry.
MS. RAZIN:  D 7, the November 11, is going to be D 7.
MR. WELLS:  We will make that D 7.
It is going to be D 7. 
MR. WELLS:  Yes.
(Whereupon, Langan Engineering Traffic Report, Last Revised to November 22, 2011, is marked as Exhibit D 7 for Identification.)
MR. WELLS:  Continue. 
MR. PEHNKE:  The second document is a letter, again prepared by my partner Dan Disario of Langan Engineering dated November 11, 2012, also addressed to the Planning Board.
(Whereupon, Langan Engineering Traffic Report, dated November 11, 2012 is marked as  Exhibit D 8 for Identification.)
BY MR. WELLS: 
Q. Okay, if you could discuss what is now marked as D 7 and D 8 and your own recollection about this project?  Would you run through for the Board both the traffic considerations and the parking considerations of this proposed project?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Wells, we can't    we can't hear you.  I am sorry, you will have to use the microphone.  Thank you. 
MR. WELLS:  I'm sorry.
Q. That resulted in this particular application in support of the Board's consideration of the Master Plan revision to allow multifamily housing.
A. Yes.  You're going to bring up the first slide.  You want to bring up the first slide?
Q. Yes, hopefully.  I need your help now.
A. So the first slide before you this evening is basically an aerial view from Google maps.  It shows the project area, the project area is basically   
Q. I'm sorry.  Keep going. 
A.    is basically the property that would be best identified as the old Brogan Cadillac. It's currently not in operation as a commercial use, it is being utilized for commuter parking for about 90 spaces, used on a daily basis by commuters. The location is on South Broad Street and it's located in very close proximity to the    to the train station, within quick walking distance from the train station. 
Before I move to the next slide.  Just to lay a little foundation, from a traffic engineering standpoint and rezoning consideration, one of the things that is Board will need to evaluate and understand is the relevant traffic generation from the project as well as under potential uses of the site. Today the property is zoned for uses by commercial users such as an office, such as a retail, maybe a mix of the    the two.  It does have some residential opportunity on the second floor over commercial. So there is a range of uses for the property today under your existing zoning.  And then also as proposed this evening, we're proposing to or requesting a change to allow a pure residential use on the site, which would yield 106 units on this site. And what's important from a traffic engineering standpoint is to understand the potential change in the traffic generation from this site as compared to what could be generated or just developed on the site under the existing zoning. It really is indicative of the relative traffic impacts that might be dealt with at the time of site plan approval for either a use developed under existing zoning or if this Board concurs and agrees with the properties and the site would be designed as currently proposed under that use. 
In evaluating the traffic generation, traffic engineers have a substantial amount of data to rely on, that data is primarily documented in a publication entitled "Trip Generation".  It's published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.  It is a nationally maintained publication that basically documents data gathered and existing uses so that we have a means to project forward the traffic characteristics of a new use by looking at and understanding the characteristics of the various uses.  It is a well recognized source document.  And it really is the formal document that is used by the transportation and traffic engineers throughout the country to understand traffic generation. At this point in time we're in the 9th Edition of that document.  It is a living document that is regularly updated.  So the property as it stands today, as I indicated, could be developed for commercial uses or alternatively as I proposed it could be developed with pure residential use.
As a traffic engineer, the second thing that is important to us in understanding traffic is understanding the impacts of the project during the peak hours of the roadway.  That's when traffic is generally reaching its highest point on the roadways.  In many cases this is the timeframe when various uses are also generating their highest traffic.  And that's the period where traffic engineers tend to try to focus on to identify and evaluate, in terms of traffic impacts. In general on a weekday daily basis the two peak hours that are generally critical is the morning peak hour and then there's an evening peak hour.  The morning peak hour characteristics are of generally peaking traffic related to people going to work, starting their business day, school activity, of course and it's    it's mostly the office work related type trips. The evening peak hour traffic, particularly in downtown area, is a little more complex.  It certainly has that home    or work/home trip related characteristics to it but it also has a mix of high activities associated with commercial establishments that are in play, restaurants, retail, and school activities of people starting to focus on evening entertainment.  So the evenings generally are what we see as higher traffic volumes. It's a more complex volume that we're dealing with, but those are the peak hours that we generally look at.  And with this particular project in the property currently zoned for commercial uses and also being for residential, those are really the peak hours that would be critical in the analysis of what the property is developed for under existing zoning or as proposed. 
If you could switch to the next slide.  So this slide is a very simple slide, it looks at three potential conditions on this site.  And it looks at, in the first several columns, the traffic generation possibilities that would be generated during this critical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours of the property under the proposed zoning that would result in, as we said, a 106 units being yielded at the property. But then it looks at two alternative development opportunities on the site, which under existing zoning seem to indicate could be developed with a commercial building approximately 52,000 square feet.  Whether it's office use or retail supermarket use or something of that nature. And this probably is a little in between type uses that could be mixed, but characteristically have been similar traffic generations. So as I indicated from a zoning standpoint, purely understanding, you know, what it the Board is considering is, we look at the comparisons during the various peak hours to the alternative uses of the site under existing zoning.  And what we would find in this particular case is the proposed unit counts and really the totals that are here to focus on in the a.m. peak hours we're anticipating approximately 38 vehicles that would be generated by the 106 units, and that would be compared to approximately 82 by an office use on this site or 178 by a supermarket on this site. And you can see by that direct comparison right off the bat that the proposed use is certainly a less intense use than other options that could be developed on this site. And then the same characteristics in the evening peak hour, 106 units would generate approximately 47 trips coming in and out of the site. And from an office or supermarket standpoint, we would be looking at closer to 78 to 80 trips from an office use and may be closer to 500 if we actually had the supermarket site, certainly the highest activity that you would see on the site. Actual site today, as I indicated, while it's no longer being use as a commercial site it's actually active and being used for commuter traffic.  And even that traffic today, the 90 vehicles that come in and out during the peak hour who would use the train station, there's about 62 vehicles in the a.m. peak hour and 55 vehicles in the evening peak hour, which are basically a little bit higher than what the residential use is. So, quite frankly, if you took off and closed that property today and developed 106 residential units the actual traffic characteristics being generated by the site and the adjacent roadway system, in terms of total peak hours, in terms of traffic, would be similar or less.
The one thing that my partner did not mention in this particular site, but which should be considered by the Board in terms of the benefit of the residential use in a downtown area, particularly located as close to the train station in this particular case, is that it is desirable for certain demographics, the location in such an opportune space, so that they can take advantage of the various activities that are available in the downtown area of the Village and they can also take advantage of the commuter mode in that immediate area. So while providing some projection as to what the potential traffic generation is based upon the ITE data, that data does not consider a downtown Village area, and we know as traffic engineers that we would anticipate that peak hour traffic to actually be lower by upwards of almost 20 percent because people would have less of a need to use their cars for after shopping activities, restaurant uses, so forth and/or because they have excellent mass transit opportunities immediately available to them. So we're actually providing a relatively conservative picture of what might be generated by this site by residential use on this site. 
So from a zoning consideration standpoint, the representation that we would like to make to this board is that what is proposed would not result in a detrimental traffic impact compared to the commuter use of the property under existing zoning. In fact, there's a high likelihood that it will actually result in less potential traffic in the Village during the peak hours, in particular, than if this site was developed with the commercial uses that are permitted today.  So I think that's important to understand. 
Lastly, just quickly on parking, I know we chatted a little bit about that in the introduction, all residential development in the State of New Jersey is governed by the Residential Site Improvement Standards.  It's across the board, whether you be out in the farmland of Hunterdon County or in the Village of Ridgewood. But the RSIS also provides for consideration by the Planning Board at the time of site plan approval, to local considerations as the environment of the site and provides the ability for the Board to make a determination as to the appropriate adjustments to the RSIS standards. And in this case something the Board would likely consider at the time of the site plan application is the fact that the site is located in the Village.  And it is immediately adjacent to a high profile train station.  And also has great interconnectivity with bus service and, you know, from planning studies done by the New Jersey Transit, particularly in the publication entitled "Planning for Transit Oriented Development" that residential development in such an environment could actually demand 20 to 25 percent fewer space than are required.  So that's just something the Board might consider and that relates back to the conversation that I just had with regard to the traffic generation actually making    being lower than what the national standards suggest.  So that's basically the presentation that I have for this evening.  And I would leave it there.
MR. WELLS:  I would like to do two things, one is the two slides that we used, if we could mark those as D 9 and D 10 for the record.  The map would be nine.  And the chart would be ten.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.
(Whereupon, Map Slide is marked as Exhibit D 9 for Identification.)
MS. RAZIN:  And the chart D 10?
MR. WELLS:  And the chart would be D 10.
(Whereupon, Chart Slide is marked as Exhibit D 10 for Identification.)
MR. WELLS:  And then just to make a comment before I turn him over for questions about another area of inquiry that I was not going to go into, but I'll clarify because this was discussed during the Work Session process, when your traffic engineer had the opportunity to meet with the traffic engineer for the Village, Mr. Jahr, representing Maser Associates, he pointed out to us, as he did to the Board in his previous testimony and likely will again, that there are traffic issues in the Village with    at various points that are not directly related to our site so, for example, even though the testimony here before the Board this evening is that this application will actually produce less traffic than could otherwise be expected, there are already existing problems in the Village as we're familiar. And at that time, I represent on behalf of the Applicant, that I would represent again that we understand that if we are fortunate enough to get to a site plan process and the Board would determine that there is a    that there are improvements needed in the Village that would have a "rational nexus" to our property, we are certainly open and amenable to that    that kind of improvement. We also expressed support to the Board then and we would express to the Board again support should the Village ever determine to create what is usually referred to as the "TID" what stands for Traffic Improvement District in the whole Village or for the core area of the Village and would look for contributions from developers within that TID, not necessarily the rational nexus, but within the nexus to the overall area, again, we would be amenable and supportive of    of that kind of contribution because we believe that what is good for the Village core, the Village itself, is good for this particular applicant as well.  We can't do anything more than that at this point because we're not at site plan.  And we don't know where we are, but I wanted to re express to you what I said to you a couple of years ago that we do    we are aware that there are issues of matters that could stand attention and we would be willing to participate in that to the extent that we could. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MR. WELLS:  That said, he's open for questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Actually, Mr. Wells, what we'll do is hear the next presentation for Chestnut Village.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And then   
MR. WELLS:  Do them all together? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     we'll do them all in one, open for public question before we actually receive questions from the Board.
MR. WELLS:  Okay. 
I'll give you a bit of introduction, so let me, as I did with respect to the other applicant, I'll remind you where we are, although I can shorten the process considerably here because much of what I said with respect to the date also applies to The Chestnut Village, like the other project we are not here on site plan.  So, I'm asking Mr. Rea, who also did an extensive traffic study, which hopefully it was submitted, the Board received it as well and, again, as did before I have additional copies if Board Members want them. 
And then I heard Mr. Rutishauser indicate that there are additional copies on the piano as well for members of the public.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  We're going to put them out shortly.  So if anybody needs them they can have those.
This was a report prepared in 2011, and like the other report remains accurate.  And as I indicated before, I have asked Mr. Rae to focus his testimony on the areas of the traffic generated by this project, which is, as the Board knows, is considerably smaller than The Dayton project.  It's 52 units as opposed to 106 units.  And then after talking about the traffic, again to address the Board's concerns as they might relate the parking, which is a bulk requirement which is included within the Master Plan.
As before, there is going to be an exhibit.  It's on the table or its on the screen already, but I will let Mr. Kohut, since he's coming, do the actual walk    
MR. KOHUT:  Leg work.
MR. WELLS:     the leg work and walk around and hand that to Board Members. 
As he's walking back I'm going to let the witness been sworn and then I'll get his exhibits introduced.
But I will do one thing before I do that and since I just discussed it with you with respect to the application by The Dayton what I will do is say to you that this Applicant, as well had similar conversations through its traffic engineer directly with Mr. Jahr representing the Village about concerns that occurred in the Village as well.  There was a distinct difference in this case and that is some of those concerns were more    were focused more directly on one particular intersection.  I believe it was the intersection of Franklin Avenue and Chestnut Street. However, I do understand that the County is undertaking to make improvements to the area, so as with respect to the earlier application I would again represent the Applicant's willingness to, during the site plan process, to certainly consider and help on traffic improvements that have a rational nexus to the site or if the Village should undertake a TID again would be supportive and willing to participate in that. 
And, again, that's about as far as we can go this evening.  So now what I would do is I am going to walk over, because I don't want to have that microphone problem I did last time, I'm going to walk over in the minute and show Mr. Rea the report dated October 26, 2011.  And Ms. Razin is going to tell me what the number would be, I hope.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, it's going to be CV 6.
MR. WELLS:  Okay.  And CV 6 you said.
MS. RAZIN:  CV 6.
MR. WELLS:  CV 6, right.  And then    CV 6 and then if we could, what I will do to be efficient is can you take both of them over and just show them to him so he can qualify it, and then the slide that's on your Board, we could make that CV 7.
(Whereupon, Traffic Report of Mr. Rea,  October 26, 2011 is marked as Exhibit CV 6 for Identification.) 
(Whereupon, Slide is received and marked as Exhibit CV 7 for Identification.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WELLS:
Q. Does that look familiar to you, Mr. Rea?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the report you prepared, all that kind of good stuff?
A. Could I answer?  I haven't been sworn in yet.
MR. WELLS:  Oh, I'm sorry.  Swear him in.
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Rea, can you please state your name, spell your name and provide your business address? 
MR. REA:  Sure.  John Rea, R e a.  I'm a principal with McDonough and Rea Associates.  I work out of our Manasquan office at 1431 Lakewood Road, Manasquan, New Jersey.  We also have a Westfield, New Jersey office.
MS. RAZIN:  Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?   
MR. REA:  I do.
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you.
J O H N   R E A,  1431 Lakewood Road, Manasquan, New Jersey, having  been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. WELLS:  Thank you.  Although Mr. Rea has had the opportunity to testify before this Board a number of times in the past, I would like him to briefly review his credentials, both academic and professional, so that we have them in the record.
BY MR. WELLS:
Q. If you could?
A. Yes, I have an Undergraduate Degree in Civil Engineering from the Newark College of Engineering.  A Masters degree in transportation engineering from Polytech Institute in New York.  I have been a licensed professional engineer for approximately the last 35 years and have a total of 40 years experience in the traffic engineering field. I have testified before many planning and zoning boards and township committees, council meetings, across the state, in various court.  I have appeared here the Ridgewood on several occasions as an expert witness in traffic issues.
MR. WELLS:  Okay. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Rea.
MR. WELLS:  Mr. Rea is an expert engineering   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Do we have any questions regarding his qualification from the Board? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  From the public? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Accepted.
BY MR. WELLS: 
Q. Now, I will ask that question that I jumped the gun, the report that Mr. Kohut showed you a few minutes ago dated October 25, 2011, can you tell us whether you recognize this and tell us what it is?
A. Yes, that is the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for Chestnut Village by my firm and signed and sealed by myself.
Q. Okay.  Now, using that which is CV 6 and CV 7, which is the table that is up on the screen, if you could tell the Board your professional opinion and conclusions with respect to this particular project on this site and as it pertains to the Board's consideration of Amendment of its Master Plan in order to allow multifamily housing on this site?
A. Yes, I'll do that. 
First of all, Mr. Pehnke has already established a good foundation for what we do and how would do it in terms of traffic studies, I don't want to repeat a lot of what he said as far as why we do analyses of certain peak hours for residential projects.  We do focus on the traditional morning and afternoon peak commuter hours because those are the days and hours of the week when people are basically going to work, coming home from work.  And also, basically, those hours are peak hours for the roadway network as well as. 
And so that's why when you're doing a residential project you focus on those Mondays through Fridays peak commuter hours because those are the hours when a residential project will have a consistent maximum impact on the roadway network. So we, again, did the same thing.  We focused our study on the traditional morning and afternoon peak hours.  I'm going to go a little bit off what Mr. Pehnke had testified to.  We did do traffic counts at the intersection of Robinson Lane and Chestnut Street which is the T intersection over by the YMCA which basically is right across the street from our site.  We did do Level Of Service Capacity analysis for our site driveway and the intersection of Robinson Lane and Chestnut Street.  And all of the levels the service that we calculated for the post development condition were B Levels of Service or better.  Very good levels of service for northern New Jersey, and certainly well within acceptable traffic engineering parameters.
So the first thing we did is we did an analysis of our driveways, of the one closest off site intersection that we will impact, to make sure that we had no significant capacity or safety issues at those locations.  And we don't. So we know the site access will work safely and efficiently. 
But, again, very importantly as Mr. Pehnke indicated in a zoning case you have to take a look at the traffic generation from the use that's being proposed for which you are seeking a use variance or a zone change as compared to what's permitted in that zone. 
We have a somewhat unique situation here in that we already received an approval for a 91,000 square foot self storage building several years ago.  And so I included that on the slides that are behind the Board, in terms of trip generation comparison. And what I can tell you is that the uses on the ITE Trip Generation Manual as we all do when we do these trip generation calculations the number of visitors that are proposed for Chestnut Village, which is 52 units, and this consists of 46 apartments and six townhouses which will actually have frontage on Chestnut Street, our traffic generation number, if you look at the slides, are very have comparable to what's already been approved for the site, the self storage facility, there is very little, if any, difference in traffic generation.  And, therefore, it would be a very similar impact whether we built the self storage facility or we received an approval for 52 residential units. But the last two lines on the slide show what could be generated from either general office or medical office space on that property.  And, again, similar to the case of The Dayton, a permitted medical office use, in particular, would generate approximately twice as much traffic during the morning peak hour and a little bit more than twice as much traffic during the afternoon peak hour.
And looking at the land uses that are along Chestnut Street, medical office is something that is conceivable.  We do have a big medical office building right adjacent to our site.  And so, that's something that's not "pie in the sky" in my estimation.  That is something that could conceivably be built on the site and, again, generate twice as much peak hour traffic. So in terms again, of the issues that the Village is dealing with, downtown in particular, the traffic issues, again this is a land use that will generate a similar, if not lesser traffic impact, then a permitted use. 
And so that is a very important consideration in a use variance for a zone change situation.  As far as all parking situations are concerned we have the site    the last site plan I looked at we had 82 parking spaces and that represents a ratio of a little bit over 1.5 parking spaces per unit.  It's my experience, and I second what Mr. Pehnke said, given the location of this property, proximate to the train station and to all the downtown businesses in the Village, we do have a sidewalk connection to the train station along Chestnut Street.  The expectation is some of the residents of this building and this community will probably walk to the train station in the morning and so even the trip generation estimates that you see on the board that's behind you, they're probably a little bit on the high side, because we did not take any credit for the consideration of the proximity to the train station and to the Village and to the other transit lines, the busses that run along Ridgewood Avenue and go into New York and other various places.
So we did do a very conservative analysis.  Any way you look at it, it's going to be less traffic than certainly a permitted medical office use.  But in terms of the parking, again, we probably    at 1.5 spaces per unit we probably provided a little bit more than we really anticipate where we're going to need at the end of the day, but it's    it's a good healthy number for a project of this size and the location that it's at.  And I am very confident that if we're given an opportunity to come back and present the site plan to the Board that I will be able to provide you with a significant backup that the 1.5 spaces per unit that we are providing for our project will provide for more than adequate resident and visitor parking.  And that basically summarizes it. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Rea. 
MR. WELLS:  I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  The lights.
MR. WELLS:  We'll turn it off. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MR. WELLS:  So, Mr. Chairman, based on what you've said we're going to stop now and The Enclave will present.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Correct.
Mr. Bruinooge? 
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Bruinooge?
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Tonight my client asks the Board to consider the testimony of our traffic engineer. 
We have marked two Exhibit E 4 which I will talk about in a second, and E 5A through E 5D.  The second exhibit E 5 being the slides that are being projected up on the screen behind the Board. 
(Whereupon, Omland Engineering Traffic Assessment is marked as Exhibit E 4 for Identification.)
(Whereupon, Traffic PowerPoint is marked as Exhibit E 5A   E 5D for Identification.)
MR. BRUINOOGE:  So may we have the witness sworn please? 
MS. RAZIN:  Well, do you want to state your name, spell your name   
MR. KLEIN:  Sure.
MS. RAZIN:     business address?  
MR. KLEIN:  My name is Lee Klein    my name is Lee Klein, K l e i n, with Omland Engineering, 54 Horsehill Road, Cedar Knolls. 
MS. RAZIN:  And do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. KLEIN:  I do.
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you.
L E E    K L E I N,  54 Horsehill Road, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:  
Q. Now, Mr. Klein, please for the purposes of qualifying you as a traffic expert, give the Board and those in attendance this evening the benefit of your background, your history, your work experience, and whether    please tell us as well whether you hold any licenses issued by the State of New Jersey or any other states?
A. I have a Bachelor in Civil Engineering from Rutgers University.  I'm a professional engineer in the State of New Jersey as well as New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware. 
I am also a Certified Professional Traffic Operations Engineer which is a national certification issued by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.  I have been sworn in as an expert at planning and zoning boards in over    probably over 50 zoning boards and planning boards combined.  I've also been an expert in Superior Court in Bergen County and Union County.  Anything else? 
Q. Yes, before I ask the Board to accept your qualifications, by whom are you employed?
A. They don't want to hear that. I'm with Omland Engineering as a consultant.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I'd move the qualifications of this particular witness and suggest to the Board that he is qualified and have his testimony as a traffic expert.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Bruinooge. 
Are there any questions with regard to Mr. Klein's qualifications from the Board? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  From the public?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Accepted.
MR. KLEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
Q. Mr. Klein, I show you what's been marked for Identification, at this point, as E 4.  It's not quite yet in evidence, but it's marked for Identification.  Are you familiar with the document; and, if so, please tell us what it is?
A. Yes, sir.  This is our revised May 27th, 2014 Traffic Assessment Study, prepared by my office. 
Q. And it's a Traffic Assessment Study of which property, and if there was an earlier date; if you would cite that date as well?
A. It's for The Enclave At Ridgewood, the original date was January 31st, 2013.
Q. Are you familiar and does this report bear your signature?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. I show you as well what has been marked as E 5A, and I ask you if you are familiar with that?
A. Yes.  These are a series of slides, 5A is an aerial photograph of the study area of our existing site.
Q. Okay.  And E 5A is projected up on screen; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Tell the Board, if you would please, what E 5A describes and how that impacts in on what you've been asked to do by our client?
A. Yes, I wanted to give a visual aid to you, so that I could have something to point to and to talk to when I discuss the various locations of the driveways, the intersection of this existing site. 
It's an actual aerial view of the property lines.  It was put together by Minno & Wasko the architects for the project.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  And I would represent to the Board, Mr. Chairman, that this particular photo was actually marked, and I am not quite certain what the actual evidence number is, but I think it might be E 3, since it was the last witness.  I see Katie indicated, yes.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes. 
Q. So we asked you to do sort of an overview of what the project is all about.  What existing conditions are.  And what the proposed conditions are.  [What] the existing access is and proposed access; is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Why don't you tell us what you found?
A. Certainly, I will just give you a brief overview of the project site. Right now existing on the site is proximity 43,927 square feet of commercial space, 19,645 square feet of office, 24,282 square feet of retail. In the proposed condition, we're going to eliminate 14,551 square feet of retail and construct 52 apartment units.  Access for this site:  Currently, there are three access points.  There's a two way access driveway on East Ridgewood Avenue.  There's an "exit only" on Ridgewood Avenue right at the edge of the site, on the western edge of the site (indicating). There's an "exit only" from the garage onto North Maple Avenue under the Sealfons building. And there's a two way driveway from the existing flooring store, towards the northern end of the site.  For the proposed conditions, we're going to retain the two way driveway on East Ridgewood Avenue.  We're going to consolidate the exit only driveway and the two way driveway for the flooring store into one two way driveway, in order to keep the cross access easement between the site and the municipal lot behind us. The driveway on Franklin is going to be for our reserved parking.  I'll get into that in a little bit, but that'll be a gate controlled access point two way for a separate parking area.  And I'll talk about it in a little bit.
Parking, that seems to be an important issue for this project and I just wanted to explain a couple of things, when it comes to parking. The slide that I put up now is a table that we put together to summarize the parking calculations for the existing and the proposed conditions.  Right now on the site there are 76 parking spaces, required by the Village are 159 parking spaces.  There's a deficit of 83 parking spaces right now. I believe that this site has been previously given waivers and variances for the parking deficiencies at that point.  We also do what we call a "shared parking analysis".  Now, shared parking is when you have multiple uses on the same site or within neighboring the same site, you want to be able to have the most efficient uses of the parking. So, when you have different uses such as office, retail and residential, which is what we have, they all peak as different times.  So, if you can imagine a residential parking would operate, in the evening as people come home have work, they start to fill up the parking lot and overnight, they're going to be using the parking spaces. In the morning when you get up to go to work, most of the people start to take their cars out six, seven, eight o'clock in the morning to head to work.  And the opposite would be of an office parking facility.  People would start to arrive at eight, nine o'clock in the morning.  Start to fill up the parking lot.  At 10:00 when people are having meetings, it normally peaks at that time.  And then later, five or six o'clock in the evening, that's when the parking starts to dissipate as people start to go home. Retail, generally starts a little bit later in the morning, nine, ten o'clock.  Employees show up at nine.  The stores open at ten.  And depending on when they close, parking usually sticks around until six, seven o'clock in the evening and, again, dissipates. 
So, when you look at the peaking characteristics of those three different uses, you want to be able to come up with an efficient use of parking in this facility so that you don't have parking for the retail, parking for the offices and parking for the residential and it's not all being used efficiently.
Q. Let me interrupt you, if I can?
A. Sure.
Q. You just spoke about some shared parking analyses   
MS. PETERS:  Can you turn the mic please? 
Q. You just spoke about shared parking analyses that you've done, is the shared parking analysis set forth in any of the exhibits that we previously marked?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm showing you, as you sit down, what's been marked as E 5C and E 5D and I believe, E 5C is now currently up and is also referenced as table, is it IV 1?
A. Yes, that's correct. 
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Bruinooge, I'm sorry, just for my own clarification, I have E 5A as the front page and the second page, is that E 5B? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Roman Numeral IV V would be with an "E"    I am sorry. First, the aerial photograph is E 5A.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  So, that's the top sheet.
MS. RAZIN:  Correct.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  The second sheet is E 5B.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.  Because that one we didn't mark  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  It does not bear a title.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.  Fine.  So, that's E 5B and the following page is E 5C.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Correct.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.  Thank you.
BY MR. BRUINOOGE: 
Q. E 5C is up on the screen at the present time?
A. That's correct. And what that is, is that's an existing shared parking analysis for a weekday.  And what we did is we looked at the Village parking standards for the various uses that are on the site right now. And we've got approximately 15,571 square feet of office in the B 1 Zone which requires a parking demand    a parking supply of 3.3 spaces per thousand square feet; 4,074 square feet of offices in the B 2 Zone, which requires four space per thousand square feet. And then in the B 1 Zone there's a retail portion that is 9,731 square feet, which requires 3.31 parking spaces per thousand square feet. 
And it would be retail in the B 2 Zone is 14,551 square feet requires four parking spaces per thousand. 
And we look at the peaking characteristics from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and we get this data from The Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation.  There's temporal distribution of the various land uses, data collected over various times periods, and compiled into this report.  And we use that data to be able to figure out when different uses peak at what times.  So to compare apples to apples, we use the Village parking standards in this case, and we looked at the temporal distribution, and as you can see at 10:00 a.m. the office is peaked, the 52 spaces is what would be required for the 15,571; 16 spaces for the 4,074; 30 spaces for the    32 spaces for the retail at 9731 square feet; and 58 parking spaces for the 14,551. And when we look across, as you can see they    they peak slightly different, but the peak demand of the parking for the existing use would be 152 parking spaces at approximately noontime. And if you look at the parking that's provided, the 76, we have a deficit of 76.  And that's what I had on my first slide, that's the existing conditions.  If we move onto Table IV V, which is the Exhibits E 5D, as in "David".  We did it for the proposed conditions.  And, again, to compare apples to apples, we looked at the Village requirements for parking, the Village Standards and we also looked at the Residential Site Improvement Standards for the residential portion. 
Q. Just for purposes of the record   
A. Yes.
Q.    E 5D which the Reporter will mark formally as we get off the stand, but is also Table IV V?
A. That's correct. 
The Proposed Shared Parking Analysis for a weekday.  As you can see in the fourth column.  We took out the 14,551 square feet of retail.  We substituted the residential units, 52 units. And what we did is we did a subtotal of what is out there today and what's going to remain, the office in the two zones and the retail, subtotal that up and then we looked at the residential units. And, again, we have the temporal distribution information that we have from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation, we laid it into the table.  And we look at the peak and we see that there's a peak of 133 parking spaces at 11:00 a.m. that's the combination of the office, the retail and the residential. 
And if you look at the next column "Parking Provided   Common" there are 82 parking spaces out of 134 that we're proposing that are going to be open to the office, the retail and anyone in the residence that have an additional vehicle that they need to park. So, 52 vehicles are taken off the board, that's one per unit, they'll be reserved.  And it's in that separate parking area that's accessed off of Franklin.  And then the other 82 parking spaces are open for the various uses.  So, you can see at the end, we've got a much smaller deficiency of parking.  We're only at the most 20 parking spaces short.  And then really that deficiency is for only five or six hours of the day.  Whereas, before, we had a much larger deficiency of 76 vehicles throughout most of the day.
Q. So, based on your professional experience and your training, that you formed an opinion as to whether or not the proposed parking works?
A. Yes, in my professional opinion, we're taking advantage of the shared parking.  The different peaks of the office, the retail and the residential.  And we're developing a site with efficient parking.  We're not going to have a large field of parking that's going to be empty half of the day.  We're going to have parking spaces that are going to turn over and they are going to be used more efficiently.
If you think about it, on street parking spaces are shared parking spaces.  They're for the bank.  They're for the hair salon, office may be upstairs where the accountant is.  So, those parking spaces turnover throughout the day as well. 
Q. In addition to analyzing parking both existing versus proposed, at least as has been generally discussed in this planning exercise, did our client ask you to do any work with respect to traffic that might be generated by the existing uses, proposed uses, and what their impacts might be? 
A. Yes, we did. We did a traffic study as has been marked in Evidence as E 4.  And that study was a compilation of, as the other two traffic engineers had said, traffic data, traffic studies and what we focused on were the intersections of Franklin and North Maple, and North Maple and East Ridgewood Avenue.  Those were our two main intersections that we studied.  And we looked at    similarly, we looked at the trip generation of the existing site and then the substitution of the 14,551 square feet of retail with 52 residential units. The calculations indicate that the site generated existing, according to the ITE 135 a.m. peak hour trips; 96 in and 39 out.  And in p.m. peak hour 201 peak hour trips, 61 in, and 140 out. And on a Saturday it would be approximately 174 trips; 90 in and 84 out.
Q. Now, is any of the information that you just testified to presented in tabular form or in a slide that is available for viewing by the Board and the public?
A. We've got    in our report, we have a Figure 5, which is the Site Generated Traffic Volumes on a diagram it shows the study intersections, you can see how those volumes come out, if you look at Figure Five.  There's also a table that shows the calculations for the trip generation in the report, if you will.  That's Table Three; Trip Generation. 
The proposed land use, we looked at    now in order to be conservative, we looked at the 14,551 square feet of retail that we're removing.  We used a higher trip generation generator number, a specialty    I'm sorry, a lower number, specialty retail.  We said that we're going to take away a lower number and then we're going to substitute the higher number. So, we looked at specialty retail, which is a lower generator for 14,551 square feet.  We substituted that and took that lower number out.  Then we did the trip generation for the 52 residential units.  We plugged those numbers back in. And the change in traffic volumes that resulted in removing 14,551 square feet of retail and substituting 51 residential units was an increase of only 27 vehicle in the a.m. peak hour; 57 trips in the p.m. peak hour; and 53 trips on a Saturday peak hour. And that's roughly one vehicle per minute either entering or exiting the site, in addition to what's there today.
Q. Based on your expertise and your training, your education, have you formed any preliminary opinions as to whether or not traffic, as it generally has been described by you and set forth in detail in E 4; any preliminary opinions? 
A. Yes, we noticed through the existing analysis, as well as the projected analysis, that the intersection of Franklin and North Maple, as well as Ridgewood and North Maple, don't operate very efficiently.  It's old equipment.  We've spoken to the County.  And I know that your engineer has spoken to the County, as well. We spoke to Mr. Gary Ascolese at the County.  He said that he was approached by your Village Engineer, you were looking to    a few months ago and you were looking at some improvements that may be taken over by the County.  We're looking at possibly improving the intersection of Franklin and North Maple, upgrade the traffic signal, additional new ADA ramps, new signage, striping, to improve the efficiency of the intersection. Mr. Ascolese said that the County would be putting approximately $400,000 towards that signal upgrade, that intersection upgrade, and they're asking for the Village to participate by providing new mapping, surveys mapping of the intersection, providing the design. 
Q. So, overall, just to sum it up, you've looked at parking, you looked at traffic, both from the point of view of existing on site right now and the proposed per The Enclave, suggest to the Board that what could happen if the Master Plan is amended.  And do you have an opinion as to what both the traffic and parking were? 
A. It's my opinion, with my years of experience and other projects that I've worked on in places very similar:  Westfield, Cranford, Fanwood, other areas that have train stations and areas of downtown that have mixed use development, and in this situation, it's an ideal location and an ideal situation for a shared parking.  Taking advantage of the peaking characteristics that complement each other, so to me this parking is something that should work very well. 
And as far as the traffic impacts go, we understand that there are some issues right now with the efficiency and the operation of the signals.  We think that upgrading those traffic signals would improve the overall operation today and the addition of an additional vehicle every minute; either entering or exiting the site during the peak hour would not be a detrimental impact to the operation of those intersections.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I have no further questions for the witness at this time.  And certainly Mr. Klein is available to answer questions of the public or the Board. 
MS. RAZIN:  Mr. Bruinooge, can I clarify Table 5, the last page of your D 5, do you want that to be D 5E? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I don't think    I didn't talk about that.
MS. RAZIN:  I don't think you discussed it, so I don't know if    so leave it out.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Leave it out. 
MS. RAZIN:  Fine.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Yes.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Bruinooge. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  You're welcome. 
MR. KLEIN:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It might be good to have Mr. Pehnke and Mr. Rea and Mr. Klein all find a microphone.  There's one at this table (indicating).  Can we make    can we bring the one up    actually leave the one on the podium.  That's great.  Good.  So before I open to the public, can I get a show of hands of the number of people that will have questions for tonight's witnesses? Great, okay, good.  Okay.  So, is there a motion to open to the public for questions?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  A motion to open to the public for questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Second please? 
MS. BIGOS:  I will second.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Anyone opposed?
(NO RESPONSE.) 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Charles, let me ask a question, the attorney for the residents, does he go before the public? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No, he'll speak at the end when we   
MS. DOCKRAY:  At the end? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  At this time, I'd like to ask members of the public who have questions with regard to tonight's testimony from Mr. Pehnke, for The Dayton, which is South Broad Street; Mr. Rea for Chestnut Village; and Mr. Klein for The Enclave to please come forward.
We will do one at a time.  Please state your name, spell your name and provide your address, please.  
And you'll be entitled to three questions.  And it's best if you can ask the three together, first and then we can see how it goes after that.
MR. ABDOO:  Brian Abdoo, A b d o o, 308 West Ridgewood Avenue.  Is it on?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, Mr. Abdoo.
MR. ABDOO:  Good, I'll ask the three questions now.  These are general for all of you. 
Your guys are obviously professionally trained in this and I'm not.  So, I'm looking for some clarification on things.  You all seem to be getting the estimates from the books, that I'm sure written by numerous studies and statistics and probability studies that make perfect sense, but each site seems so uniquely different.  How granular are the assumptions that go into whatever the book is you guys have been using to come up with these estimates? For example, if would you were to build a 52,000 square feet ShopRite in a downtown area versus a rural area, I assume your traffic assumption would be different. 
So, I'm just curious as to what assumptions go into that, that's question number one. 
Question number two is does    I'm not sure if there's a society of traffic engineers or are you just individually?  Do you guys ever go back and actually look at it a year later, what traffic was actually generated, compared to what the estimates were? I am sure again, bell curve distribution, what's the ratio of error and stuff like that.  And then number three which is a specific question for Chestnut Street and The Dayton, in just looking at the numbers, the only thing that kind of didn't make sense to me is    and, again, I'm assuming that Chestnut Street is 52 apartments or 21,000 square feet; The Dayton is 106 apartments almost double, a little more than double, or 50,000 the general office I am sure again, you don't publish a finding and paraphrase it like that.  And then there is a separate question for Chestnut Street and Dayton.  Just looking at the numbers and what didn't make sense to me is, and again, I am assuming that Chestnut Street is 52 apartments.  Where it is 21,000 square feet.  The Dayton, if I have this right, is 106 apartments, almost double, a little more than double or 52,000 space, again, a little more than double.  And yet, the ratios that in each are estimated are very, very different for the apartment traffic versus the general office traffic. So, for example, again if I look at your numbers correctly, for The Dayton for the a.m. peak for the proposed 106 units, you're saying that there will be 38 total?  But if it was general office space, it would be 82 total or more than twice as many.  And yet    and the same thing is true in the p.m. And yet for Chestnut Street they're saying the a.m. peak for 52 units would be 27.  And yet the a.m. peak for an office space would only be 34.  So, it's only very slightly different.  To me that's confusing.  So, those are the three questions.
MR. REA:  You want to work from left to right? 
MR. PEHNKE:  How do you want to handle this left to right, right to left? 
MR. REA:  John Rea, we'll work from left to right. 
MR. ABDOO:  However you want to do it.
MR. REA:  Well, I'll give you my take on it.
MR. ABDOO:  Sure.
MR. REA:  The numbers that we used from the ITE Trip Generation Manual are predominately numbers that were taken from suburban sites. So, if anything, all of us have probably over estimated the traffic generation from these residential units, given the locations of these units, proximate to downtown, to the Village, to the train station. Mr. Pehnke mentioned that, I don't know if Lee did as well too, but I know I did. So, if anything, we probably over estimated the traffic from the residential units. 
With respect to the differences between my counts and I think The Dayton counts that Mr. Pehnke did, I think I have an explanation for that.  It's several fold:  Number one, I want back and checked and actually my numbers are from the Eighth Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.  Karl's are updated.  He used the Ninth Edition.  So, I probably could have taken a little bit more credit, if I looked at the latest edition. 
So, you're helping me.  So, that's fine.  But    and the second thing is we have a townhouse component which generates a little bit higher traffic volume than the apartment component. So when you weigh all of those factors together, I think that's why there's a little bit of a difference.  But I know Mr. Pehnke's numbers are accurate.  I think, it has to do with two different editions of the Trip Generation Manual and the fact that we have a townhouse component and they don't.  Their project is all apartments.
MR. ABDOO:  So, it's an Eighth versus Ninth Edition? 
MR. REA:  And there is also a little bit of    and    and there's also an average rate you can use on a regression equation.  There are two ways of doing it.  We all tend to be overly conservative when we do these things. I    my engineer that assisted me in this project, he was like super conservative and I think he probably looked at the two different methods of generating traffic, using the average or the regression equation and used the higher of the two.  So, that's the explanation.  But I can tell you what everybody's testified to, I know these gentlemen very well, everything is dead solid accurate as far   
MR. ABDOO:  I'm not   
MR. REA:     less traffic than permitted uses. 
MR. ABDOO:  I'm not questioning you.
MR. REA:  Yeah, no, I   
MR. ABDOO:     I'm just curious about the numbers, I mean the numbers seem out of whack.
MR. PEHNKE:  I think there's a second part of the answer too, because I think you were raising the question as to why    when he was comparing for an office use and I was comparing to an office use and we're showing different levels   
MR. ABDOO:  Different ratios.
MR. PEHNKE:  Different ratios, and the size of the buildings that we are estimating would be able to be developed on those properties, because the property themselves are different, are also variable. 
For instance, where based upon existing zoning the office use, getting involved with the different levels of use there. 
MR. REA:  Different ratio.
MR. PEHNKE:  Different ratio; the size of the building that's we are estimating maybe and to be asked on these properties, because the properties themselves have a big difference. So, that is why are all a variable, for instance, where based upon existing zoning, we are anticipating an office building 50,000 could be built and John had   
MR. REA:  It's 21,000.
MR. PEHNKE:     21,000 that could be built.  So that's a big difference.  So that's why you see a difference in the office portion of that.
MR. ABDOO:  But, the office, the ratio and the size of the office that were given will probably change as the rate of traffic is not.
MR. PEHNKE:  The other part of the database is what we find as traffic engineers is that there is a variation in the rate of traffic generation as the    generally the size of the use, whether it's residential, a smaller residential use portion would generate higher traffic and as the community gets bigger you have more internal interactions   
MR. ABDOO:  So it's not linear.
MR. PEHNKE:  I'm saying it's not linear.  And the same thing happens with offices.  The same thing happens with retail the larger it is the logarithmic  
MR. ABDOO:  Okay.  You explained it.
MR. PEHNKE:  While, I'm talking, I guess you asked about, have we ever gone back in to research.  The answer    the answer to that is it's not a common practice, but many of us have had opportunities to revisit projects because of expansions or changes of those projects over our careers and I've certainly had that opportunity. I've also had the opportunity to go out and research projects with a need to develop data and add to the ITE data. And the two things I've seen is when I have gone back on projects, I have found the ITE data actually is very strong indicative to the traffic generation characteristics in New Jersey. So, I've generally found it to be very close.  The other side of that equation is a lot of the traffic data that is in the ITE documentation has been generated by professionals in New Jersey, including myself.  So, it is indicative of New Jersey type development.
MR. ABDOO:  Actually, I guess what I was saying it's kind of    since you can't get a granularity down to a certain address, there are obviously assumptions being made, you're doing it in a proper analysis.
MR. PEHNKE:  Correct.
MR. ABDOO:  What's the, kind of, standard error, based on your granularity? 
MR. RAE:  A standard of error. 
MR. PEHNKE:  Correct.
MR. ABDOO:  What is a standard error? Just a question, has no one ever done a survey?
MR. REA:  Statistics, you know, standard deviations and stuff like that, that's all built into the regression equations and the others that ITE allows us to use, but just to second what Mr. Pehnke said, especially with regard to residential trip generation.  I know I've had an opportunity to go back and actually put some traffic hoses out and do some counts at some existing residential projects that I wanted to get some research data.
MR. ABDOO:  Apartment buildings.
MR. REA:  Apartments, townhouse, yes, correct, because all of us can sit up here; we continually get questioned by people.  Well, if there are 100 units and each unit has two cars, you're going to have 200 cars going out all at one time. They don't all go out at the peak hour.  And that's what our counts have shown. If you put    because some people leave for work as early as 5:00 in the morning, 6:00 in the morning, 7:00 in the morning, 8:00, 9:00. I mean there's probably a five hour window that in the morning and afternoon when people leave for work and get home in the afternoon from work. 
And, so, during the concentrated peak hour the numbers are a lot lower than you think, but the long and short of it is, yes, I know, as Mr. Pehnke, has done, I have done some follow up traffic counts and particularly with respect to the residential numbers, they are right on target with the ITE here in New Jersey. 
MR. ABDOO:  Got it.  And you mentioned that based in the assumption there was a standard of error, I assume you don't know what this is, I guess, you don't.
MR. REA:  It depends on the land use, and the number of data points and a lot of different factors.  That's why they smoothed the curve out and give you that regression equation.
MR. ABDOO:  Okay.  Great.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No further questions? 
MR. ABDOO:  No, that was all three.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, great.  Anyone else?
MR. LANDINO:  I do.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  How many questions will you have? 
MR. LANDINO:  Probably two.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That's fine.  The reason that I'm asking is that we have a small turnout, we can stick to the three questions, but you could have some more flexibility.
Please state your name   
MR. LANDINO:  John Landino.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     spell it please for the reporter.
MR. LANDINO:  John J o h n, Landino L i n d i n o.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Would you please provide your address please. 
MR. LANDINO:  84 Ridge Road.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  You can ask the questions all together, first.
MR. LANDINO:  Sure.  One of the things that concerns me is we're talking about the traffic patterns, the increased traffic patterns based is statistical data. What about the condition of the roads?  What are you going to do for concerning hundreds of additional trips per day to your current roads which are already in horrible shape, by the way. How are you going to do to current condition of the roads.  And how do we address keeping these roads up to date with these additional cars coming through. I mean, I live here.  I ride my bike here.  It's not just this it's the entire road system going out to 17, going out to Route 208. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Is that your only question? 
MR. LANDINO:  I think so, yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, great. 
Why don't we start with, Mr. Pehnke, with you? 
MR. PEHNKE:  Sure, I think there's two answers to that question.  I don't mean to turn my back to you.
MR. LANDINO:  That's okay.
MR. PEHNKE:  There are two answers to that question.
One is starting with the conversation we're having this evening itself.  The traffic generation contributed to the road systems from the properties. And certainly at the election of the township, should they look to rezone these properties from the traffic data that has been developed, it sounds like in almost all cases here the amount of traffic being attributed to the roadway system would potentially be reduced from what may have been generated from the properties in the past and what could be generated under the existing zoning in the future. So, that goes directly to what could the potential future additional impact on the roadway would be.  And the township would be in selecting, at least in my opinion, to rezone the properties, would be taking a positive, proactive step to manage additional traffic impact to the roadway. 
The second part of that question actually is a different part of this process and that's addressed at site plan time when any property in the township is underdeveloped it comes before the Board, traffic impacts are certainly evaluated at the time of the site plan.  And at that point in time definitive solutions are developed based upon the relative traffic impact from the individual property.  In the case of these properties, I would suspect that we would mostly be looking at solutions that improve driveway connections, reduce curb cuts, improve sidewalks along the frontage of the curb line and may be some pavement improvements on a consolidated basis that may be a different discussion that the township takes on, in terms of a government overall approach to how to deal with, you know, multiple projects as they continue to be redeveloped.  Not just these projects, but the whole township.  That's a bigger issue that the municipality may or may not elect to take on in terms of developing a way to continue to address impacts on roadways. 
MR. REA:  I don't have much to add to what Mr. Pehnke said, other than the Board and the Village does have its own traffic engineer, who's well qualified to take a look at the cumulative impacts that these projects may have on the Village roadway network. 
And I think as our attorneys have indicated, there's a likelihood that when site plan applications come in front of the Board that there will be some off site traffic mitigation that will be required in order to help mitigate the impact that would be generated from these projects.  And that happens all the time.
MR. LANDINO:  I understand.  And, again, my point is the current condition is poor.  So, we're going to be adding extremely    more influx of drivers coming in and out of our town. So, I just, I see the statistics here, but I don't see    we're already behind the ball in trying in clean up our roads I don't    I don't see where all the traffic will be controlled.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Landino. 
Are there other questions for tonight's witnesses from the public? 
Please come forward. Dan, I will get you at the end, after, the Board.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Thank you.
MR. SOLOMIN:  Dave Solomin, 36 Heights Road. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Your address, please.
MR. SOLOMIN:  My address is 36 Heights Road.  What I wanted to know, one of my question is regarding visitors.  There has been a lot of talk about potential residences for empty nesters, people who want to stay in town, selling their houses in town.  People in the town homes have a lot of kids, a lot of grand kids, a lot of extended family.  That's extra parking. I've been in the real estate business.  I've managed properties from Long Island, out to Lehigh Valley to Massachusetts, where you have more affluent properties, larger apartments, we see more cars, more visitors, more visitor with cars. Have you calculated that in?  How would you quantify that? 
MR. KLEIN:  We used the Residential Site Improvement Standards, when we figure out the parking requirements.  And there's visitor spaces factored into that. The majority of the apartments that, I think that we're proposing are one bedroom, some two bedroom.  I don't think there any three bedroom apartments. So, we're not looking at, I don't think, large units, if you call them, with a lot of visitors.  I don't think people are going to have Thanksgiving dinner in these apartments, I'm not sure, but...
MR. SOLOMIN:  So, this is to encourage people to sell all of these large houses and move to one bedrooms and not have families over? 
MR. KLEIN:  I am just saying that   
MR. SOLOMIN:  I'm trying to figure out what the case is?
Mr. KLEIN:  Well, we've got state standards, Residential Site Improvement Standards that include factors for visitors. We do have the municipal lot, it factors    if visitors come in   
MR. SOLOMIN:  In addition I think if you did study the town   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let him   let him answer the question, please. 
MR. SOLOMIN:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. 
MR. KLEIN:  If visitors come in during the weekend, the office parking spaces are empty.  Overnight, the retail and the office are empty.  So, there's    there's more than enough parking, in the overnight hours.
MR. SOLOMIN:  Are you allowed to use private property apartments and office spaces and retail.
MR. KLEIN:  Well, it's all part of the same development.  
MR. SOLOMIN:  They're all part of this development?
MR. KLEIN:  Yes, they are. 
MR. SOLOMIN:  Okay.  And the municipal lot, have you looked at the municipal lot and how over parked they are.
MR. KLEIN:  We have not done a comprehensive study of the municipal lots.
MR. PEHNKE:  No, and just to supplement it, we are not relying on the municipal lots.  The properties are proposed to be self sustaining with regards to parking, meeting standards that are established to accommodate and handle the daily typical parking characteristics of a residential development that includes all of your visitors, users, homeowners and so forth.
MR. SOLOMIN:  So, for these apartments, if you have couples that are selling a home, suppose and there are one bedroom, we're talking about that talk about targeting empty nesters in Ridgewood or our singles and also with young couples and when you say that they're going down to one car from two? 
MR. PEHNKE:  They may.
MR. REA:  Some may, some may not.  Yeah. 
MR. SOLOMIN:  Some may not.  So    so if they don't, you can, you know, estimate our best case scenario as far as parking, but if it not a best case scenario, is there enough overflow    you are covering yourself if it doesn't work out like you plan.  Not    maybe not even the worse case but not your best case scenario.
MR. PEHNKE:  That's what the standards are set to do, yes. The standards are set to address, a    you know a typical mix that occurs on sites like these, based upon actual, factual data gathered at similar facilities and parking standards are designed to be conservative.
MR. SOLOMIN:  So, now when you say "similar facilities" you're talking transit oriented facilities.
MR. PEHNKE:  No, actually on transit oriented facilities we know that the parking actually would likely be less than what the RSIS.  That will be a conversation with the Planning Board as we bring those proofs to the Planning Board.  But the RSIS standards have been set statewide to be conservative to address everything from the McMansion to the suburban area, to the high rise building in Jersey City.  And based upon lots of studies that were done, I think it was by Rutgers as well as DCA and various professionals in the industry that contributed to the standards that were developed as well as national data.
MR. SOLOMIN:  And as far as standards you're talking about in New Jersey, are you also making sure in your analysis that you're not just going out in a broad statewide, but you're looking at demographically and    and economically similar communities and type of developments?  These are proposed as high end, high end rental developments, where you would expect people to be able to afford more than no cars.  Are you just looking at a broad view statewide?  That one of my concerns with things like with scholastic data that's been looked at, looking at    I know you looked at transit oriented developments, but if you looked at something which was studied and done many years ago at that time a transit oriented developments had no towns similar, you know, demographics or scholastic levels as Ridgewood.  They're very different    different type of community.  You can't really use that data.  It's not accurate.  You can use it, but it's not accurate as far as accuracy.  Having looked at the type of demographics in the studies that you've used to generate these numbers do you think they match what you might find in Ridgewood?
MR. KLEIN:  I think we did a conservative approach by using the Residential Site Improvement Standards and not taking into account the fact that we're near transit.  So people may move in with two vehicles and we're going to be able accommodate them because we're using Residential Site Improvement Standards as people's vehicles break down or they decide you know what, why do I need that car parked there all week when I only use it once on the weekend maybe I'll just get a Zip car.  They may sell that car and people start to downsize. I mean there was an article in the Star Ledger over the weekend about how even young people are trying to get into the cities.  And I don't think people want to maintain vehicles any more.  Trying the kept their    their lifestyle more simple.  But, again, we were conservative.  We took into account the fact that they may have two cars.  If anything they're going to start to    you'll see over time that they may not want to maintain two cars. 
MR. SOLOMIN:  Okay.  Thank you.  I'd be careful about that, that assumption around here.
MR. KLEIN:  But again, we took into account the fact that they may have two cars.  We've got a ratio of 1.94 parking spaces per apartment unit, almost two per apartment unit.
MR. SOLOMIN:  Okay.
MS. PETERS:  I    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Solomin, thanks for your questions. 
Are there   
MS. PETERS:  Yeah, I feel like I did not see in The Enclave that you were    I    I didn't see in the floor plans, all right.  I didn't see in the floor plans that were provided to us that there was the ability of 1.9 per each of the residential units, what did I miss?
MR. KLEIN:  We did our calculations.  I think the site plans or   
MS. PETERS:  They're a blueprint, but there are more floor plans that were given to us, did not show that.  There aren't that many.
MR. KLEIN:  Again, that could be something that we take into account during site plan    I'll take a look at the plans again.
MS. PETERS:  Yes.
MR. KLEIN:  But that's what our study say so... 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We'll come back to that.
Are there other members of the public who have questions for tonight's witnesses? 
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  None? 
Last call.
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  A motion to close for public questions.
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Motion to close.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Second please.
MR. REILLY:  Second. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Anybody opposed?
(NO RESPONSE.)  
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We're closed for public questions.  At this time why don't we begin with the Board.  Michele, maybe you can start, Any questions for tonight's witnesses? 
MS. PETERS:  Yeah, I    I do think points that Mr. Slomin was making are very important to the Village of Ridgewood, it's not a city.  And I think important to us is that we're trying to maintain the Village and development that would be in keeping with the Village, itself.  I know it's very, very challenging in our changing society and working with developers wishing to develop and the needs that they have along with the needs of what is our job that we have in front of us.
The question    I just have a general question about when we receive a traffic report, is that all of these projects are proposed as rentals.  And the    except for Chestnut Village then followed by The Dayton, then The Enclave, is that rentals are transient and they tend to move on a monthly basis.  And I haven't seen clearly the accommodation for the moving in and moving out of these large moving vans.  Is that something that I just missed?
MR. PEHNKE:  It's something that's relevantly addressed at site plan when we actually layout plans, provide it to the township professionals for review truck turning templates, show how we operate the trash and so forth. So it is absolutely an important part to the design of this facility and does get addressed in a lot of detail when the design plans are actually considered and will be before the Board.
MS. PETERS:  Because I would think that they would affect the traffic very much so.
MR. PEHNKE:  In terms of traffic generation all our numbers consider that    that type of activity and any impact associated with a multifamily development, moving in and move out, that is part of the facts and data that we gather and included in our analysis.  So from that standpoint, the Board's consideration of the zoning aspect of this with regard to traffic generation, that information is before the Board.  The details of how the site works, where the doors are and so forth is a site plan situation that comes back before this Board for consideration at sometime in the future, should the Village elect to move forward.
MS. PETERS:  Yes.  Thank you.  Thank you.  And I thank all the presenters.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Michele.
Wendy?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  I'm sorry I don't remember all your names, so I'm just going to start with The Dayton.
MR. PEHNKE:  I'm right here.
MS. DOCKRAY:  You're The Dayton.
MR. PEHNKE:  Yes.  My name is Karl. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  Sorry.
I actually read these report, are we not supposed to do that?  I mean how are we supposed to treat the reports?  Are we supposed to ask questions based on? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You should be asking questions as it relates to the report, regarding his testimony tonight.
MS. DOCKRAY:  But just    what about the reports that were submitted. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah, they're marked into the record. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  If    if    if it relates to traffic, yes.  But if it relates to something other than traffic   
MS. DOCKRAY:  No, no, no, but I'm talking about the traffic report. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Are we allowed to ask questions   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:     about these reports   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:     even if there was no testimony   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:     tonight on them?  Okay.  That's   
MR. REILLY:  You mean the 2011 report? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Pardon? 
MR. REILLY:  You mean the 2011 report?
THE COURT REPORTER:  Can we please take a bio break? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, that's a good suggestion    
MS. DOCKRAY:  What's that? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  She wants to take a bio break.
So why don't we do this   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's 9:25, let's resume at 9:35.
MS. DOCKRAY:  I don't have that many questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Don't worry.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  But we have others who will.  So it's a good time.  Five minutes, we'll resume at 9:30. 
Thank you, Laura.
(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We're going to resume our meeting.
Chris, can you do role call please?
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Bigos? 
MR. BIGOS:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Mr. Nalbantian?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Mr. Reilly?
MR. REILLY:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Mr. Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Ms. Dockray?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  And Ms. Peters? 
MS. PETERS:  Here.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Wendy, you were  
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes, I only have a couple of questions.  I won't be here too long with my questions. 
On the apartment information that you took from the ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition to estimate the peak hour and    peak hour trips, can you just confirm with me that the apartments were in, again, suburban areas, is that correct?
MR. PEHNKE:  The    the database that ITE uses is a mix of suburban, semi urban and urban areas.  The urban areas tend to be the high rise so it actually has a whole separate database.  So for the most part, the multi family apartment buildings, which in ITE is termed garden apartments, one, two or three level apartments, are suburban type facilities, correct.
MS. DOCKRAY:  All right.  But it is some combination?
MR. PEHNKE:  It's a combination of data that's been submitted over the years and then they try to isolate it for low rise, single story, mid rise, high rise and then they call out particular sites that were actually in the city and so forth, but the date    the majority of the data is based upon suburban locations.
MS. DOCKRAY:  But it's a mix?
MR. PEHNKE:  There is a mix in it. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  I wasn't clear on that.
And then on your more comprehensive report, I just have a couple of quick questions.
With regard to table four which, South Broad    intersection of South Broad and East Ridgewood Avenue, I see in one direction it's an "A" and in a different direction, the opposite direction it's a "C" and "F".
MR. PEHNKE:  Right.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Why is that?
MR. PEHNKE:  It's basically    South Broad and Ridgewood Avenue is where it's unsignalized and the analysis takes into    takes into account the particular volumes in the area, the approaches and how they interrelate with the opposing volumes.  So what this table is telling us is that in the morning peak hour, the problematic approach is that southbound approach.  And it's probably a combination of the left turn, having difficulty making the left turn, mixing with the opposing traffic on the northbound approach, that's causing that problem in the morning.  At least that's what the analysis suggests as to what may be occurring out there. So, you know, what you see during various peak hours is the approach    the approach level of service may change as the traffic pattern demands change and the availability of gaps or the traffic streams change. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay, thank you. 
Did you investigate the incidence of accidents at the intersection of Broad and East Ridgewood at all?
MR. PEHNKE:  No, we did not take this study to a traffic accident investigation.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  And you didn't look at pedestrian safety issues or anything as well?
MR. PEHNKE:  Not at this level, no.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  Those are the questions I have for you.  Thank you. 
Moving over to Chestnut Village.  Okay.  Mr. Rea?  Right?  Do I have that right? 
MR. REA:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  I got it right, okay.  Thank you. 
With regard to your written report, you seem to focus mostly on Chestnut and Robinson.
MR. REA:  Correct. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Right.  My concern is actually more Robinson and Oak or Chestnut and Franklin.
MR. REA:  Okay.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Can you comment on that please?
MR. REA:  Yes, the reason why we focused on Robinson Lane and Chestnut was because that intersection is right there and our access points are going to straddle the intersection, one on each side of the intersection.  And it was clear that that would be the intersection that we would impact to probably the greatest degree of any because almost all of our traffic is going to go through that intersection, if not all of it. So, that's why we focused on that location.
In terms of the other off site intersections, when we come in for a site plan application if that's something that the Board or the Board's expert, Mr. Jahr, wants us to take a look at, those particular intersections, we would do that.  We would take a look at our impact on those locations, again it's our expectation that at some point in time the Village is going to have some kind of a traffic improvement district or some kind of a plan to improve those intersections that each one of these projects impact and that we're going to have to pay some kind of an off site traffic mitigation cost in order to mitigate our impact. So, it's not that we dismissed our impact at those locations, but we're really going to save that for site plan to see, you know, what the overall plan is that the Village wants for those intersections and what percent impact we have on those locations and what our fair share is to fix the intersection. 
We haven't dismissed it   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.
MR. REA:     at this level.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  All right.  So, you know, my whole   
MR. REA:  No, no, no.  Understood. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  It's not    you know my impression is there isn't a huge amount of traffic at the intersection of Robinson and Chestnut, but there is a lot more traffic at the other two locations. 
So I think that there would be more concern in terms of those other two locations.
MR. REA:  Understood.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  And then, Mr. Klein?
MR. KLEIN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Let me just find your    can you tell me what "temporal" means. 
MR. KLEIN:  Say again? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  "Temporal".  You used the word "temporal" throughout   
MR. KLEIN:  Yes. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Pardon? 
MR. KLEIN:  Time of day. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Time of day?
MR. KLEIN:  For the distribution of the trip    of the amount of people that are parked throughout the day, temporal distribution.
MS. DOCKRAY:  I see.  Okay.  On table 4.5 in your temporal analysis, you have residents, at the top, residential units, I'm just trying to understand this, it's going to take me a little bit.
You have residential units, you have 52, and then at 7 a.m. you have, it looks like 63, is that correct?
MR. KLEIN:  Correct.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Is that the number of spots you're actually going to be providing for those 52 units?
MR. KLEIN:  That's how many spots we think will be occupied at that time, based on the data from the Institute Transportation Engineers Parking Generation.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Well, how many    forgetting that, what would be the RSIS standards for these 52 units?
MR. KLEIN:  At the bottom.  The combination of the number of bedrooms is 1.94 on average per unit.
MS. DOCKRAY:  So, it would be closer to 104. 
MR. KLEIN:  That would be occupied overnight.  So as you see   
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.
MR. KLEIN:     if you go down the bottom.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.  So, what happens between    before 7 a.m. that 40 or 50 people are gone? 
MR. KLEIN:  Look at    wait, say that again?  Before 7 a.m.?
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes, because it starts out at 63   
MR. KLEIN:  Yeah, before 7 a.m.   
MS. DOCKRAY:     I'm trying to understand.
MR. KLEIN:  Right.  We didn't    they don't normally collect data before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m. 
So, after 10 p.m., if you go to the bottom of the chart, 93 people are parked.  And then if you were to go probably maybe the next hour, 11, there might be that whole 100 and    what did you say it was, 102? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  It's 104 whatever, right. 
MR. KLEIN:  Right.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.
MR. KLEIN:  But in the morning, as I think Mr. Rea even said, people get up at four, five, 6:00 in the morning, they have to get out.  So we're saying by 7 a.m., there'd be 63 people parked for the residential portion.
MS. DOCKRAY:  So, 40 people are going to leave before 7 a.m.?
MR. KLEIN:  Roughly.  
MS. DOCKRAY:  Or 45.
MR. KLEIN:  Roughly, yeah.
MS. DOCKRAY:  That seems like a lot to me.  Okay. 
I need to think about this one.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Are you finished, Wendy? 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.  Oh, I am.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Not too bad, right?  Not too many.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Kevin? 
MR. REILLY:  Nothing? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Richard? 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I guess on Chestnut Village and The Dayton, have any comparisons been done, I mean you did where this apartment and office or commercial, has anything been done where it's parking any maybe    I mean commercial underneath and then two residential on top?  Does that affect the numbers in any big way or does it kind of just fall in between the two? 
MR. PEHNKE:  On The Dayton, it depends on the mix, but I think your    what you just said is probably about true, probably fall someplace in between, you know, maybe if your retail or commercial is a very small component you might end up being a wash basically.  So it's going to be anywhere from a wash to maybe someplace in between.
MR. REA:  I would agree with that, it depends on how big the commercial space is that you can fit there, and how many floors above the commercial you do.  Is it one floor above, two floors above, how many residential units    it would really depend on the mix and depend on what kind of commercial use that you got on the ground floor, was it a high traffic generator?  Something moderate?
So, it could be a little bit more, it could be a little bit less, we'd have to have more detail as to what exactly the commercial use was. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Say, extrapolating from the downtown, say little specialty stores underneath and then two residential on top?
MR. REA:  Well, specialty retail stores, as you've described them, generally generate less traffic than places like Starbucks or, you know, a convenience store or something that has a high turnover.
So certainly a specialty shop would probably generate a little bit less traffic, I would agree with that. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  So if it was a specialty store and two residential on top, would that be less than what's proposed here?
MR. REA:  Well, it all depends on    I mean with respect to Chestnut Village, I think our building is four stories as well. Okay.  So we would still probably have three stories above the retail, we would still probably have something on the order of, you know, 36 to 40 units above the retail. Quite frankly, I think that would be a higher    or commercial.  The number of residential units you would lose on the first floor is so insignificant in terms of traffic generation, in most instances the commercial aspect will take over and generate more traffic. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And for The Enclave, I guess on that chart, is there 52 exclusive parking spaces, I guess, to the residential?
MR. KLEIN:  That's what we're proposing, that we reserve 52, so everybody would have one parking spot. 
VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  I was just curious.  Okay. 
No further questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Richard.  I have a couple of questions.  And the first set of questions will lead into the latter questions.  I noticed that in the reports, each of you had different peak hour p.m. timeframes.  And I was curious why that was, if it was relative to the location or a different way of figuring it out.
MR. REA:  I think because they were different intersections, we all counted too and they may have    for example, Robinson Lane and Chestnut, peak on the afternoon was 4:30 to 5:30.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you describe how you did that?
MR. REA:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  How you counted, each of you can do that, and then help me understand   
MR. REA:  Sure.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     why there would be a difference.
MR. REA:  What we do is we have a person sitting there with a manual count board that counts all of the turning movements at the intersection and then the four highest consecutive 15 minute intervals are the peak hour. Sometimes it happens between 4:30 and 5:30, it may happen at another intersection between 4:45 and 5:45, but what you will find if you look at the raw traffic count data, which I think we've all included in the appendix, is that there's very little difference in most instances between 4:30 and 5:30 count, compared to 4:45 and 5:45 count, but what we try to do is take the highest four consecutive 15 minute intervals to get that peak hour, so we do a conservative or a worst case analysis and then we assume that our peak hour traffic generation coincides with the highest peak hour on the street.  It's another way of us trying to be good engineers and factor safety into the analysis. 
So, it might very well be that    the intersection Mr. Klein and Mr. Pehnke counted weren't the same intersection I counted, they may have had a peak hour of five to 6 p.m. But I think if you look closer at the numbers, there wouldn't be a lot of difference between five to six and 4:30 to 5:30.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So, it's possible then    and, again, it may not be a big deal, but I'll get to the reason I'm asking the question in a moment.  So, it's possible then that the peak hour activity of each of these developments could change the peak hour in that neighborhood? 
MR. REA:  That is very highly unlikely given the amount of traffic.  If you have an intersection for example    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I just   
MR. REA:     it's got out on Ridgewood and at some    like I think Mr. Klein's intersection Ridgewood and Maple, it might    1700 cars going through the intersection during peak hour, his project is probably going to add about 2 percent, 1 percent, one or 2 percent impact at that location.  For his traffic to change peak hour at that location would be almost unheard of.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Right.
MR. KLEIN:  But    but I thought you were going to hint    what you were hinting at was because you're near a residential location you may have an earlier peak, people get up early to leave   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That's right.
MR. KLEIN:     and then you have another wave of people that come in at later hours.  What we did was we put worst case scenarios, we took the worst hour of the intersection, we took the highest generation of the hour for office and the highest generation of retail and the highest generation of residential and combined them.  One might be seven to eight, one might be eight to nine and they never even see each other. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I just noticed that, again, one is 4:30 to 5:30 and 5:30 to 6:30 and one right in the middle between the two.  So there's all    they're all within    and the reason I was asking the question, it comes back to a concern about safety for children during walk   
MR. PEHNKE:  School hours.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Exactly.  And, you know, there are two areas logically that would concern someone for The Dayton, for example, Orchard School is the elementary school.  They    people, I would assume, would walk down Broad Street onto Ackerman and cross Ackerman to get to Orchard Street to the school.  And Ackerman is kind of a crazy intersection.  There's a crossing guard but it's a difficult intersection for children. Have you taken any of that into consideration?  Do you have a concern for that relative to The Dayton?  As far as The Enclave and also Chestnut Village, I believe Ridge School is the elementary school which is on the other side of the tracks.  And you're on the north side where there is no sidewalk to cross under the tracks.  So children would have to cross Franklin Avenue during a busy time or parents would be taking children to school.  And the reason I ask if this would change, even though the numbers are small in your calculations for school children, if parents are indeed taking kids to school, that has an impact on peak hour, because, again, that will be a flow in that direction. 
And the third question that relates to that is do you see the movement of traffic during peak hours going to 17 to 208 or different directions and does that have any impact on school children?
MR. REA:  I think I'll take a shot at the first couple of questions.  I think the need for some off tract improvements, perhaps additional sidewalk or a safe pedestrian path for a local school for any one of these projects is definitely something that, you know, can be raised at a plan application and definitely something that we would address. It's a serious issue, one that needs to be taken into consideration.  And I think getting back to what our attorney was saying we know that, you know, we're going to have an impact on the Village's road network and that impact has got to be measured, and if mitigation is required such as sidewalks or an improvement to pedestrian crossing at an intersection, that's definitely something that we have to step up to the plate and take care of at site plan application.  As far as what my expectation is for where motorists, commuters are going to want to go in the morning, I think some people are going to avail themselves at the train station and bus service that's available.  But if you're in your car, you're probably going to want to go down to Route 17 as fast as you can.  And I know from the Chestnut Street side, Chestnut Village location, my expectation is that people would probably go down Robinson Lane, make a left on North Maple and take Linwood Avenue out to 17, because it's a little bit less congested than Ridgewood Avenue, that would be my expectation.  But traffic flow is very much like water flow, it tends to find the path of least resistance, that's what we've found so...
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  Anything to add?
MR. PEHNKE:  No, I think Mr. Rea has really hit that pretty solid.  I mean the projects, even in the cumulative sample, they're not going to change, you know, the peak hour traffic counts that exist in the area.  And it's very typical from intersection to intersection to see a variation on a 15 minute basis.  And we look for the highest volumes of data so that we're doing that. You know, basically, in terms of how things were addressed at the time of site plan that is the appropriate time for discussion as to how the project looks for the sidewalks, what the sidewalks look like and so forth.  So I agree with Mr. Rea on that, from that standpoint. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. 
And, Mr. Klein, last question, you know for you, probably going to be one, you indicated that the entrance to The Enclave from Franklin is a gated or carded entrance, that intersection between Franklin and Maple and crossing over, it's pretty    it's pretty hairy.  It's a pretty intense intersection. 
As you get down towards that intersection coming down, coming east, do you feel that with the gated driveway it could pose any kind of back up problem during peak periods that would increase the stress in that area?
MR. KLEIN:  When I looked at the site plan last, I saw that I think there was a spot for two vehicles, one    actually, there were three?  Okay.  Two or three vehicles could queue into the driveway.  So the chances of more than three vehicles coming at one time, pretty slim.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And if, by chance, it turned into a problem is    would the plan have opportunity to extend that lane, if need be? In other words, it could be designed where that could be moved if it had to be. 
MR. KLEIN:  I mean, again, that's probably a site plan issue, we could probably work something out.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  And prior to public hearing there was some discussion about the left hand turn and the intersection coming from Maple Avenue driveway, the consolidated drive. 
Anything you want to add to that intersection there in terms of concern with discussion about extending the left turn lanes.
MR. KLEIN:  For the northbound people   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. KLEIN:     left into the site? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. KLEIN:  It    I have to look at the queue analysis again to see if we can accommodate it, but the volumes are very, very low making a left turn into it.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So you don't see any issue with that?
MR. KLEIN:  No, one car    queuing for one vehicle. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Thank you. No more questions.  Thank you.
Nancy?
MS. BIGOS:  Thank you, gentlemen, I am most grateful for your time, your knowledge and your expertise this evening. The one question    or two questions I have, most recently this Board approved the Franklin Avenue area as a redevelopment zone. That is adjacent, Mr. Klein, to some of your property.  Gentlemen, it's just blocks away from yours. Do you    this site is proposed to have a parking garage and residential units enclosed, does this redevelopment impact the results that you have prepared for us this evening?
MR. KLEIN:  We included a background growth percentage for our existing volumes.  I'll have to go back and take a look to see the number of trips that this other development might generate.  If it's more or less than a percent we may have to add another percent to the background numbers.  But I don't see it being a significant impact as far as traffic goes. 
MS. BIGOS:  Okay.
MR. PEHNKE:  With regard to The Dayton    I'm sorry.  With regard to The Dayton, going back to the conversation we had when I testified, the consideration from a zoning standpoint is the actual traffic generation potential from the site under your existing zoning versus the proposed on it.  So regardless of what else is occurring in the area, if we bring down the traffic generation or even in worst case, similar traffic generation, it would either improve the situation on the roadways ultimately in consolidation with that other project or worst case, maybe similar traffic. So from that standpoint from the zoning consideration standpoint, the approval of that project really has no influence with regard to my conclusions on what the zone change would do for this particular property.
MS. BIGOS:  Okay.  My other thoughts are, Mr. Rea, in your report you mentioned that Chestnut Street and Robinson Lane are assumed to be urban local roadways. Can you speak to me a little bit about the national trends in traffic?  Many of us, we all live here, your findings are clear, they're common sense.  We're familiar with the traffic and with the patterns and the peaks and the problems.  I mean this is our life. What is going on a national trend or even a statewide level that might affect these urban local roadways that we're addressing this evening.
MR. REA:  Actually the trends in terms of traffic congestion have been favorable.  One of the things that's happened since I published my report in 2011 to today, 2014, I just looked at the 2011 report.  Back in 2011, the NJ DOT's historical background traffic growth rate data for roadways such as Robinson Lane and Chestnut Street in Bergen County showed a 2.25   
MS. BIGOS:  A 2.25   
MR. REA:     percent per year growth rate, they've just updated their growth rate projections for these roadways.  And it's down to 1 percent per year.  So the rate of traffic growth in New Jersey    
MS. BIGOS:  Decreased.
MR. REA:     I don't know about    I don't know about nationwide, but in New Jersey the rate of traffic growth has been decreasing or flat over the     you know, probably has a lot to do with the recession we've been in, I'm sure, but the trend has been down.
MS. BIGOS:  Do you agree with those findings? 
MR. REA:  It depends on the part of the state that you're in.  And I know traffic volumes apparently on the toll roads, on the Turnpike and Parkway apparently have been down over the last couple of years.  But in certain specific locales where there's been a lot of growth, the growth's probably been a little bit higher, it depends on your location. But these growth rates, this historical background traffic growth rate data is basically published for each county.  And it looks at urban and rural areas and, quite frankly, in Bergen County, the DOT assumes that there are no rural areas, so it's all basically consistent.
I think probably most parts of Bergen County, the growth rate has been    I've done quite a bit of work here in the last 20, 25 years, the growth rate has been slowing down.
MS. BIGOS:  Okay.
MR. REA:  Whereas in some of the counties down in south Jersey it's been increasing, maybe a little bit greater than what the DOT projected.
MS. BIGOS:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Nancy.
Thank you, Nancy.  Okay, at this time I'd like to invite questions from our professionals.
Why don't we start with you, Blais? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I assume that    this is for everyone, that the    when you did the comparisons of trip generation between different uses, that the size of the other facilities, with the exception of the self storage facility.  Which I understand was a use variance, the others I think are based upon    just upon the zone's maximum floor area ratio to that use, is that    respond? 
MR. PEHNKE:  That would be correct.
MR. KLEIN:  Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay, so here's the question.  If, for example, the actual    there was no real site layout, and this was asked of me too, so I would like to get it on the record, but if the actual development could not achieve the floor area ratio, would it change the conclusions in your report?
Karl, I'll use the one example in your report of the shopping center, 52,000 square feet.  I don't exactly remember the acreage of the site, but I think it was around two and a half, 2.6 acres?
MR. PEHNKE:  Yeah, I believe that's about the size.  Correct.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  So, a little over 100,000.
MR. PEHNKE:  Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  So 52,000 is 50 percent, so be 104, applying the normal traffic ratio to a supermarket of let's say five per 1000 or even four 4 per 1000, and then how much square feet per parking space, I applied a rough factor of 350 square feet counting the spaces in the aisles, and my analysis indicates that for a supermarket, which is typically a one story building, it'd be very difficult to get a 50 percent FAR and have adequate parking. So I guess    I understand, I have no problem with the office because that could be multistory, with that    if that were to happen, obviously, there would be less traffic generated, but would it change the conclusions in, the overall conclusions that the traffic being generated by these proposals would be comparable to or less than other permitted uses?
MR. PEHNKE:  From The Dayton standpoint, given the size and so forth, I would say no and, for instance, if you took the supermarket or called it just a retail and then if you were to cut the size in half based upon the factor that you were thinking about, you would still be looking at    even under that type of assumption, twice the amount of traffic that would be generated by the apartment.
But the broad conclusion that we're reaching is that as a general finding, permitted uses within that zone, on that property are of such a nature that they would be generating more than 106 units, or in worst case similar.  But at the end    there's definitely, you know, nothing in there that says that the retail    residential use on this property would be generating more than the use of that property for commercial use. So the general conclusion that's being considered from a zoning standpoint would not change.  The magnitude of it may change, but the general conclusion would not change.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Either of you gentlemen care to add or change   
MR. REA:  Yes, the only    I just looked at the estimate for a medical office of 21,700 square feet.  I went over this with Mr. Lapatka's office, our site engineer, and we basically came to that number looking at comfortably how we can get the parking on the site and meet the ordinance requirement for parking.
And so I think it's a pretty accurate number.  But, again, as Mr. Pehnke just said, even if we cut that in half, cut it down in half, since 21,700 square feet of medical office is generating twice as much traffic as our residential proposal during morning peak hour and more than twice as much during the afternoon peak hour, even if we cut it in half, it wouldn't change my conclusion that the residential use is still, comparatively speaking, a pretty good use given what could be built on the property.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All right.  That's what I expected.  I just wanted to make sure. 
The other side of this is you know all of your traffic studies have been project specific, what your client's project is proposed to be, but the zoning that the Master Plan would endorse is not specific to your client's projects.  It's more general.  Conceivably someone could propose something different, all residential, than what your clients are proposing. Did you look at what hypothetically could be built under the proposed Master Plan and whether that would change any of the conclusions? In other words, I know you're looking at apartments in one case, apartments and some townhouses, I don't know whether you looked at maximum densities or different types of residential to see whether they would generate different amounts of traffic than what you're proposing.
MR. PEHNKE:  Well, from    from The Dayton standpoint, I think the 106 units on the site given the    how the parking and access would work, really, you know, indicates a build out of that site.  I don't see how you intensify that, changing it to townhouses you probably looking at a bigger project, you'd probably lose units, so while townhouses tend to generate a little more traffic, you'd have a drop in the unit count, so I think the general level of traffic would end up being about the same as    as you played with a mix of different residential types.
MR. REA:  As far as Chestnut Village is concerned, I would reach the same conclusion, we have to comfortably fit a number of parking spaces in there that will support the number of units that we're looking for.  And the plan that I've been presented with is a comfortable fit for the property.
You know, I guess potentially it could vary by five or ten units in one direction or another, but not by a number of units that I think would have any kind of a significant impact, maybe a little bit more, a little bit less.  But the overall magnitude of the parking and traffic generation for the site, it's only a little bit over an acre, it's going to essentially not change that much that it would change my conclusions.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  So let's say the same or a different developer were to come in with smaller units, but more units, I don't    again I haven't done the math myself, just tonight   
MR. REA:  Well, I know the Chestnut Village site is 40 of the apartments are one bedroom units.  I don't know how much smaller they could get, you know, so...
MR. BRANCHEAU:  My recollection was that they were fairly large because they were expected to be higher end units.
MR. REA:  Yes, that may be true.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Maybe if, you know, they were 1400 or 1500 square feet and instead were reduced to 1,000 square feet, and less expensive, but more units, would that significantly change the conclusions in your reports, I guess that's where I was going with the question?
MR. REA:  I can't see it happening because even if the size of the units were decreased, I mean how many more units could we get on a site that's as small as this?  And probably the same holds true for The Dayton and as Mr. Klein said, I just don't see how you could squeeze that many more units on the property that it would be something that would significantly change our conclusions.  I just    I don't see how that would be possible.
MR. PEHNKE:  Similar to the discussion you were having before about how you calculated the size of commercial use on the site, the controlling point becomes how many surface parking spaces   
MR. REA:  Right.
MR. PEHNKE:    you can put on the site and, you know, from the plan that I reviewed, we pretty much maximized the surface parking.  So that really helps as a controlling feature in the design.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay, that's all I have. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Blais.
Chris?
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  I'm going to look at this from a different perspective.  I'm going to take a trip down memory lane. 
Let's start with Chestnut Village.  Once upon a time it was the inspection station.  Do you folks have any counts as to what, like, peak    peak traffic volume would have been or was at the time it was the inspection station   
MR. REA:  I don't.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:    that we can compare with what is proposed from the proposed development? 
MR. REA:  I don't, but I can tell you from my anecdotal experience sitting in the line about a month ago with my wife's Honda Ridgeline, I think it probably would be, where was I, at the Freehold station, the inspection station, I will tell you that they had three lanes open on a Saturday morning and they were probably generating substantially more traffic than the Chestnut Village residential project would generate.  I couldn't tell you exactly what the number is, but probably close   
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  You didn't have your counter with you.
MR. REA:     probably close to, you know, to 75 or 80 vehicles an hour.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay, but you wouldn't    you don't think there's any data available?
MR. REA:  I don't have any data on the inspection station.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay, I would just like to compare it to the historical past use with what is proposed, so everyone could see how that may    your use may be a betterment in terms of traffic flow.
MR. REA:  I think it would be, but I just don't know to what degree.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  You don't have any hard data on that.
MR. REA:  I think the inspection station probably generated a healthy flow of traffic, you probably had some people queued up on Chestnut Street waiting to get in.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  More than just Chestnut.
MR. REA:  Yeah.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay.  For   
MR. REA:  Creating other issues, yeah.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  For The Enclave, would there be any data from when Sealfons was in that location and an active department store?
MR. KLEIN:  We looked at trip generation for specialty retail, we looked at trip generation for shopping center.  So we just did it compared to trip generation numbers because we didn't have any actual counts from back then.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  From back when Sealfons was   
MR. KLEIN:  Correct.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay.  All right.  I'm striking out. 
Let's try for The Dayton. 
MR. PEHNKE:  Strike three.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Well, yeah, would you have from when like it was an active car dealership with a very busy service component?
MR. PEHNKE:  We don't    we don't have actual counts on the Brogan Cadillac. Certainly the size of the building it can be probably related to ITE similar to what we have done, but we do have an actual figure on how the site is being used today, as a commuter lot.  And I testified to that.  So today it's generating about 62 trips coming in and out of the morning peak hour and 55 in the evening, which again is higher than what the residential use is.  So today it's an active site, it's    I guess you can call it commercial because he's selling spaces.  And it's generating traffic that's higher than any residential use on the site would be.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  And that's where I believe you had said for the 90 spaces that are currently there.
MR. PEHNKE:  Yes, I believe the number that my client was able to obtain was that he is parking about 90 vehicles on that site.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  So, the current parking use of the site at that location generates a greater peak traffic values than the proposed residential would in your estimation?
MR. PEHNKE:  That's correct.  Based on what we actually    that's based on actual counts that were done at the driveway.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay, thank you very much, gentlemen.
Nothing further. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Chris.
John? 
By the way, John is the Board's hired traffic consultant for this project.
MR. JAHR:  Well, after Chris's questions I think that clearly spells out what we've had some discussions on previously with regard to the fact that these sites potentially are going to generate less traffic than if they were developed as of right, which is an important part of our evaluation in this application.
I actually have, you know, a number of questions, but in considering the hour, I would like to just focus on a few things.  For the sake of the record, Mr. Pehnke and Mr. Rea, could you please individually answer, neither of your studies took into account Saturday traffic.  I know the answer to this, but I'd like you guys to both put on the record why you did not take into account Saturday traffic in your reports. 
There is, you know, a significant amount of traffic here on Saturdays.  It is a concern to the Village and I'd like to make sure we have, on the record, what your guys opinion is with regard to your projects and how they're going to affect Saturday traffic in Ridgewood. One at a time.
MR. REA:  I'll go first.  No, we did not do Saturday analysis.  We did the traditional morning and afternoon peak hours. I can understand why there might be a need for a Saturday analysis given the proximity to the businesses, you know, along Ridgewood Avenue and the downtown core, if you will.  And I think that's a legitimate question for a site plan application.  But what I will say is going back and look at the ITE numbers, my recollection, and maybe Mr. Pehnke or Mr. Klein can support me on this, the peak hour traffic generation for a residential unit on a    during a Saturday peak hour generator, is approximately equal to a weekday p.m. peak street hour, if I'm not mistaken.  It's pretty close. 
So the number, I thought I remembered that, so it's something that we can look at during the site plan submission for, you know, a Saturday analysis, we understand things are very busy downtown on a Saturday.  And it's something we can do, but I wouldn't expect that our conclusions would be all that different because the numbers of broad traffic volumes, cars being generated, are still going to be relatively low.  And you're talking about essentially the same traffic generation as we have during p.m. peak hour, but we can certainly look at it during site plan.
MR. JAHR:  Well, that really wasn't where I was hoping you'd go.  Actually because your two developments are all residential only, would you say that your traffic generation on a Saturday would be less than if it were a retail?
MR. REA:  Yes.
MR. JAHR:  And would you say that NJ DOT does not typically require any Saturday analysis for residential uses for that particular reason, in that traffic on a Saturday would typically be less than the p.m. peak hour, and I think we   
MR. REA:  Yeah, NJ DOT typically does not require a Saturday analysis for a residential application.  And the thought process there, as Mr. Jahr is right, on a Saturday I think people have, in general, not all the time, but in general, people have a little bit more latitude as to when they want to leave their house and go out and run their chores, their errands, do their shopping.  They have a little bit more latitude than they do during the week when they've got to leave the house at a certain time to deal with the traffic to get to the office on time, to get to work on time.  So there's a little bit more latitude there on Saturday.
MR. JAHR:  For the sake of those two developments, I don't really see the need to require you to do a Saturday analysis. 
MR. REA:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  But I want to make sure is that I clearly have it on the record why we're taking it off the table.  For the other development, they do have a retail component and    and other components that are not residential, therefore, the Saturday is    is still, you know, a requirement for the Board and, again, just following procedures set forth by DOT and ITE with regard to this matter. 
Do you agree, Mr. Pehnke?
MR. PEHNKE:  Yeah, with regard to The Dayton and your question, Mr. Rea hit it solidly.  You know the residential certainly has a generation component to it on Saturday may actually, in the Village setting, have a higher pedestrian generation with people enjoying entertainment, the restaurants, shopping activities in the Village as opposed to getting in their car and driving to a mall.  But, comparatively, to the permitted uses in the zone, and even office when you look at service office could be occupied, realty office and so forth, it's probably similar more or less than, again, like the weekday's traffic generation.
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  I think that answers, you know, at least it makes it clear why we're not doing that for those two developments and why we are doing it for the other.  I didn't want that to get lost in the translation.  What I would like to do is I'd like to have some time to absorb all the testimony.  With regard to the report prepared by Omland, there is some discrepancy between    it's minor, there is minor discrepancy between your testimony and the trip generation in table 3 in the report. What I would like you to do is, I would like you to review testimony and review table 3 and maybe resubmit an updated table 3.  I would like to do a written report on each one of your firm's reports and distribute that prior to the next meeting, so that you can come and answer specifically questions that I have about your reports on each one of your individual projects, if you guys would find that to be acceptable?
Yes, no, maybe would be a good response. 
MR. REA:  I hope it's not raining the next time I come up to Ridgewood on the Parkway.
Mr. Pehnke feels the same.
MR. PEHNKE:  I feel the same   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I didn't see that comment in the traffic report. 
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  With regard to Mr. Pehnke and Mr. Rea, I don't need    at this particular juncture, I believe that your testimony answers most of my questions and your reports are filed and adequate at this point. Quite frankly, my comments are going to be similar to what I've written before, we're going to go back and dredge through a couple of finer details just to make sure we have everything on the record. With regard to Mr. Klein and the Omland report, I do need that updated table prior to me writing my comments or if you like you can call me or e mail me to discuss the matter further if you're not clear of my concerns.
MR. KLEIN:  Specifically, the square footage is incorrect on the table? 
MR. JAHR:  You're    you're    yeah, It's not clear.  I'm confused.  I'm not clear between the testimony and what's in table 3.
MR. KLEIN:  Do you remember what numbers I said wrong, because I just went through my testimony notes and I have the same numbers.
MR. JAHR:  I would suggest we went through it off line.
MR. KLEIN:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  As opposed to boring people with square footages and minor notations between 55 trips and 54 trips.
MR. KLEIN:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  And things of this nature.  I would just like to have the record clear and accurate for all three of these studies.  Okay.  That's my goal.  And I guess last, but not least, there was another application I wanted to make sure that I question the Board, and that is has there been anything further on the Ridgewood Station project is that completely   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's not part of this proceeding.
MR. JAHR:  So that is no longer part of the discussion.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. JAHR:  Albeit.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  In terms of the specific application and the location is still part of the proposal, but there aren't applicants.
MS. RAZIN:  Right. 
MR. JAHR:  See from my point of view, I now have, you know, four, I mean if I count that study, I have four rather comprehensive traffic impact studies that encompass a significant portion of the Village downtown.  And I think that part of my charge here is to try and be a little bit more global in my review and not be so focused on any one particular development.  Of course I have to review each development on its own merits and its own impact and evaluate that, and come up with, you know, some commentary with regard to how I think that's going to impact the Village, but I think that one of the questions I've heard over and over again from public outcry at some of other meetings we had is they want to know how all of these things together are going to affect the Village.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. JAHR:  So I think we need to continue to keep that on the forefront of our discussion and how we're going to approach that moving forward. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, John. 
MR. JAHR:  Okay.  So that's all I have for this evening, if that's acceptable to the Board.
MS. RAZIN:  I'm sorry.  I missed that.
Go ahead.
MR. JAHR:  I said and that's all I have for this evening, if that's acceptable to the Board. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, John, thank you.  Are there any follow along questions from the Board.
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  That concludes our questioning for this evening.  Oh, I forgot, I apologize, Dan.  At this time we have Counsel cross, Dan?
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Yes, for the record again Daniel Steinhagen from Beattie Padavano on behalf of C.B.R.
Gentlemen, I'm going to ask a question I guess they're directed at all of you.  They're general in nature.  So if    answer where appropriate.  Is it fair to say that on behalf of your clients all you reviewed was the traffic generation for the projects that your clients are proposing? 
MR. REA:  No.  If I read your answer correctly    your question correct that we haven't considered each other's projects?
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Right.
MR. REA:  Well, we included, as I mentioned before, I know in my report, background growth rate that's more than twice what the growth rate is now that's been published by the DOT.  But I do think that at the end of the day it's Mr. Jahr's charge to put all of the numbers together from these projects and I guess for projects not part of it now, but to the extent that he may have a different conclusion, he is the Board's expert.  And we will live by it.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  So    okay.  If, hypothetically, all of these projects come on line at the same time, is that going to be accounted for in the 2.25 or one percent growth rate or is that going to be a bigger percentage at one time, like a big hit, that the traffic is going to surge based on X hundred number of units.
MR. REA:  Well, I can say based on the location of the other projects and the intersections that are in proximity to Chestnut Village site I think probably the 2.25 percent per year would cover it because I don't see a lot of their traffic coming up Chestnut Street unless they're looking to visit somebody in the garden apartments back there or whatever. 
But, again, I think that's Mr. Jahr's charge to put these numbers together.
MR. PEHNKE:  I would    I would concur with that, but then I would also bring the Board back to the fact that all three properties exist, all three properties can be developed under existing zoning. 
MR. REA:  Right.
MR. PEHNKE:  And you're facing exactly the same scenario.  So it's, you know, an impact analysis is different than a zoning consideration as to the traffic generation potential for the site that creates the impact.  And I think the    the story that you've heard today from the factual analysis and testimony is that all properties, as proposed, for the rezoning would result even in a cumulative status, a reduced potential traffic impact on the Village. So that scenario exists whether you not you rezone the properties independently or all together. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  But, so, Mr. Rea is it your position then if Mr. Jahr is going to be the one to synthesize all of the data that you should be looking at all the traffic throughout, not necessarily all the traffic, but you should be looking at potential impacts throughout the downtown area based on each development with the other properties that are going to potentially be rezoned.
MR. REA:  I think that's what he's indicated his charge is, so I would agree with that.
MR. PEHNKE:  Yes. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Mr. Klein, do you agree with that?   
MR. KLEIN:  Yes, I agree with that.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.
MR. KLEIN:  And actually I misspoke on page seven of our report we also used the 2 percent background growth.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  Mr. Klein, you referred    you mentioned developments of the type proposed here in towns like Westfield and in areas like Union County.  Did you do any studies of    gentlemen, also to you, did you do any studies about the number of residents in similar types of developments as to what's proposed here, who take a train the work, don't have a car, or is it you're just relying on NJ DOT studies for    statewide? 
MR. KLEIN:  Well, to be conservative we didn't discount our trip generation based on the proximity to the train or mass transit. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  But   
MR. KLEIN:  We took a conservative approach.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  But are we relying in part on the ITE numbers    this is for parking also.  This is    we're going to rely on the ITE numbers for parking generation, rather than the RSIS to some extent? 
MR. KLEIN:  No, no, we used the RSIS for the residential.  And we used the ITE numbers instead of the Village numbers for the shared    just for the shared parking    actually, no, I'm sorry. No, we still    we used    if you go to our such table IV V.  We still used for the retail and the office, we used the    the Village requirements.  We just used the different percentages of occupied parking spaces throughout the day to develop a shared parking analysis.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  Bear with me one second. 
Just so I'm clear.  I'm not    do all of these    as you proposed I mean in your report do you    are you presenting compliant RSIS parking numbers.
MR. KLEIN:  Yes. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  That's yes for all of you?  
MR. KLEIN:  That's yes for me.
MR. PEHNKE:  It's not a formal site plan before this   
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Right.
MR. REA:  Right, but in my analysis I used the numbers from RSIS.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Right.  Well, Mr. Rea, on page 5 of your report you say that 82 spaces are going to be sufficient.
MR. REA:  That's my opinion that it be sufficient, yes.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Is that    are the 82 spaces in RSIS compliance   
MR. REA:  Technically   
MR. STEINHAGEN:     based on the numbers that you're proposing   
MR. REA:  Technically, the RSIS requirement for our bedroom mix is 98, if I'm not mistaken, but in my opinion because of the proximity to the train station, and please bear in mind also the RSIS has a specific section in it that gives a board latitude to adopt another standard in certain circumstances like when you're within walking distance of a major the train station and major bus routes on Ridgewood Avenue. 
So in my opinion that technical shortfall of 16 spaces from the technical RSIS requirement is nothing to be worried about.  In my particular situation, I actually think the 82 spaces, the 1.5 ratio we have is going to be    we're going to have a comfortable surplus. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  I understand that.  But when we're talking about    figuring out what's the appropriate density, shouldn't we try to figure out how many parking spaces we can fit on the site and maybe back it into the density.  As opposed to   
MR. REA:  That's   
MR. STEINHAGEN:     this is the density we want and we think we have sufficient parking? 
MR. REA:  Well, all I know is the site plan that I've looked at I think Mr. Pehnke and Mr. Klein will second that for their sites, our parking comfortably sits on our site without squeezing it in anywhere.  The parking aisles are sufficiently sized.  The parking stall sizes are correct.  So I can only tell that you 82 spaces comfortably fit on the Chestnut Village site. 
MR. STEINHAGEN:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  Dan, my apologies again for missing you earlier.
MR. STEINHAGEN:  No problem.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  If there are no further questions from the Board I think that concludes our questions for you gentlemen this evening.  Thank you very much for coming.
MR. REA:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you very much for your report.
MR. REA:  Thank you.
MR. KLEIN:  Thank you.
MR. PEHNKE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  We're going to talk about scheduling? 
MS. RAZIN:  Yes, so just in terms of going forward, I know that our office had sent out some contacts to the other attorneys regarding scheduling going forward and before we confirm the first, unfortunately we just have to go through some attendance and membership issues and just confirm that we're okay.  We're hoping it may be the 1st, it may be a week or two after the 1st.  We're hoping for the beginning or middle of July but we will have to renotice.  So I apologize for trying to get everybody, but we just have to confirm, I think, on our end some logistics before we confirm a date.  So we will renotice for the next meeting. 
MR. WELLS:  Is the Board reorganizing? 
MS. RAZIN:  That's one of the issues, right so we're just    and certain members may not be present so we're just trying to get everything set and so that we're properly hearing your matter.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And it's possible also that we will have concluded the Valley hearings by the 1st of July   
MS. RAZIN:  Right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     as well so that our schedule will be able to be focused more on these proceedings moving forward.
MS. RAZIN:  I think anticipated it is    we could return to the planners' cross by the attorneys which is one of the remaining things that has to be done. 
We can speak, I think, off line with Mr. Jahr about whether and when or if he would like your traffic witnesses back.  It seems like    well, we can figure that out.  And we'll be in contact with you.  I know that we finished everything.  But I don't    it seems that you wanted them present to review your report, John, so that may be a necessity at some future date.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  They may want to be present.
MR. WELLS:  In all due respect to Mr. Jahr and in terms of the it seems foolish to bring the traffic witnesses back to be honest with you and I think in terms of the overall importance of the project, and the process you're in. 
But if he has additional questions, he wanted to provide them, you know, we will certainly try to answer those.  But just in terms of moving this process along   
MS. RAZIN:  No, I know.  Well, that's why we're going to    we'll speak off line and just see what    what's intended from his position going forward.
MR. JAHR:  I suspect strongly they will be able to respond in writing and we may not have to have them come back.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. WELLS:  That we have no problem doing. 
In terms of the process, do you anticipate that Mr. Jahr will be producing a report and testifying.
MS. RAZIN:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Exactly.
MR. WELLS:  And Mr. Brancheau? 
MS. RAZIN:  I think at the next    hopefully the next meeting if we can conclude the planners' cross by the attorneys, which I think is the only outstanding smaller issue, we would likely move    unless anybody else has any other expert witnesses, we may move to certain of the Board's professionals, including Chris and John and any of the    we also put out "asks" to the Village agencies about their input and we would ask if they wanted to attend or participate that that would be the same    done in the same evening.  I don't think we received any response, and out board secretary is not here this evening, but we can    so we'll follow up on that.  So that would likely be, I think, the anticipated next meeting.
MR. WELLS:  I would suggest, I mean I certainly can't speak for the other Counsel, but I don't anticipate extensive cross with respect to that I would be doing so.
MS. RAZIN:  Okay.
MR. WELLS:  So I would hope we could schedule it. 
MS. RAZIN:  That's what we anticipate    we're not    yes, I don't think we would just schedule    we certainly wouldn't stop at that point.  We would move forward.
MR. WELLS:  I would also inform the Board that I think it would be helpful for the Board and the public that as we end this process that I ask the principals of my two clients to speak to    to address the Board again, you know, given what they're trying to accomplish here and give them the benefit.  They're not expert witnesses, but I think it would be very helpful because they've heard the whole process, to the speak to their project.
MS. RAZIN:  And I've spoken to    I know we spoke earlier today and I did mention that to Blais and to Gail so I think   
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
MS. RAZIN:     that's absolutely a possibility.  And I just would want to run it by the rest of the Board.
MR. WELLS:  Obviously, I as Counsel, would give a closing argument kind of wrapping things up, but it could be done at the same meeting or what have you.
But I don't anticipate that the principals would need extensive cross examination, but I think it would be helpful if they could give a statement in terms of where they are.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.  Sounds like a good suggestion actually.
MS. RAZIN:  So we will renotice, but in the meantime we will confirm our schedules with all counsel and just    but that's the anticipated   
MR. WELLS:  At this time you're not going to announce a night for the 1st because you don't know for sure   
MS. RAZIN:  Correct.
MR. WELLS:  Excuse me.
MS. RAZIN:  Correct, we are not going to announce    confirm the 1st    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It will be done as soon as possible. 
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
MS. RAZIN:  We will just renotice.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  We will renotice as soon as possible. 
MR. WELLS:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Tom.
MS. RAZIN:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Bruinooge.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  You're welcome.
(Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date.  Time noted 10:46 p.m.)

11:05 p.m. – Resolution of Approval – Cerf Amended Subdivision; 436, 440, 448 Farview Street, Block 1702, Lots 21.01, 22.01, 22.02 – The resolution was adopted as drafted.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.10 P.M.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved: 10-06-2015