Planning Board Public Meeting Minutes 20140506

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of May 6, 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: Mayor Aronsohn, Ms. Bigos, Chairman Nalbantian, Mr. Joel, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Chris Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary. Councilman Pucciarelli is recused from the hearing regarding the H – Hospital zone and the Master Plan amendment for the AH-2, B-3-R, C-R and C-zone districts and was absent from the meeting.
Chairman Nalbantian announced the resignation of Morgan Hurley from the Planning Board after many years of service.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – There were no comments at this time.
Correspondence Received by the Board - Ms. Wondergem said there was none.
7:39 p.m. - Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan for the H – Hospital Zone, The Valley Hospital, 223 N. Van Dien Avenue, Block 3301, Lot 51 – Continuation of Board expert presentations - Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's begin with public hearing on the Amendment of the Land Use Plan Element for the H Hospital Zone, the Valley Hospital, 223 North Van Dien Avenue, Block 3301, Lot 51.  This is the continuation of the Board's expert presentation. At the last meeting we were in the process of hearing public questions for Blais Brancheau's testimony.  Blais is the Village Planner. So, I would like to take this time to ask those members of the public who heard Blais' testimony and who wish to ask questions, based on his testimony, to come forward at this time.  There were a few left. 
MR. COLLINS:  Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to enter my appearance tonight on behalf of the Hospital, Charles Collins, 135 Prospect Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you Mr. Collins.  So noted.  Again, please state your name, spell your name and provide your address and remember these are questions for Blais that are based on his testimony. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Hi, good evening.  Marla Sherman, S h e r m a n, 449 Beverly Road. Good evening, Blais, I wanted to thank you for the document that you prepared.  It's a great resource and I look forward to talking    to asking some questions about it.  My first question has to do with the noise ordinances.  I know that you've had discussed the    you know, the pros and the cons of the project. And I wonder is there an exemption in the Ridgewood Ordinances for construction noise, generator noise, dewatering pump noise or does that have to follow the 50/65 rule. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  The rule that you've cited is not a local ordinance, it's a state regulation, the State Noise Regulations.  Ridgewood merely references those regulations.  I know there are certain exceptions to the noise standards.  They're not    they're really intended to regulate what I call continuous noise and not periodic noise.  And there may be exemptions for construction activity and motor vehicles.  It's more operational noise that those regulations cover.  But I can't tell you sitting here, specifically, what every exemption is, that would have to be looked up.
MS. SHERMAN:  But, there generally are exemptions for construction –

MR. BRANCHEAU:  There are, yes. 
MS. SHERMAN:     noise and things like that.  Okay. Do you know within the Village who actually enforces these ordinances? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I can tell you that as one of the persons who reviews development applications, it’s often a combination of myself, the Zoning Officer, and the Engineer for the Village.  We require, with every development application that has equipment, to provide us with noise specifications of that equipment.  And     
MS. SHERMAN:  Can I just stop you, I'm sorry.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS. SHERMAN:  I think that maybe I asked the question incorrectly.  For example, if I were to have a party and I had a band playing at the party and it was 10:00 at night.  I would get a knock on my door by the police, Ridgewood Police, saying if    you're too loud and you need to shut it down.  So I just wondered is that the same process for Valley Hospital? Is that    who does a resident call?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  If someone    if someone were to complain about a violation or an alleged violation of a noise requirement, and    it would have to be investigated and that depends on what the violation    there's different ordinances in place, not just the State Noise Regulations, but in the case of like a party there's the "peace and good order" which is in the General Section of the Code, that would be enforced by the Village and/or the Police Department. But in the case of, if someone were to say Valley Hospital's chillers are violating the noise regulations, what would happen in a case like that is we would review their approval for the chiller, what the noise levels were.  If it were suspected that they were, in fact, in violation, we could require a noise study to determine that, in fact, they were or were not in compliance.  And if not in compliance then they could be required to mitigate the noise levels to bring it into compliance.
MS. SHERMAN:  So, there are no safeties for a resident being disturbed in the middle of the night or during construction for whatever reason, if the noise level becomes troublesome? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, for example, on construction, I know there's been testimony on that, extensive testimony during these hearings. Construction noise would be something, the timing of construction and the mitigation of impacts from construction, is typically something that is regulated by both ordinance and by a Developer's Agreement that would go along with the site plan application.  So, for example, I believe landscapers aren't allowed to start cutting grass before a certain hour and so forth.  The same with construction activities.  It's limited in hours and perhaps days of use.  Specifics for any particular project, however, that would be typically covered by a Developers Agreement.  So, those safeguards are there, but if you're saying, can we a hundred percent guarantee that there would be no violation?  No, other than the threat of enforcement.  That's true with almost any rule that's out there.  We can't guarantee someone is not going to speed or hurt somebody, in some way or shape or form, but that's all that we have is    is the threat of enforcement against violations.  And, you know, the requirement that someone implements what we would call mitigating measures, like, I know we talked about –
MS. SHERMAN:  But if somebody chooses to speed and they get caught that's their own personal decision and they have to suffer the personal consequences.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Right.
MS. SHERMAN:  But if they are put upon by an entity, maybe not even just Valley Hospital, but if something happens, literarily what can a resident do?  I mean something happens that is disturbing, that is    that shakes their house.  I mean you can't, you can't investigate it, you want it to stop immediately because it's a problem.  What does a resident do? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All I can say is that you try to prevent those things from happening in the first place as best you can by imposing construction limitations.  We've talked about, for example, noise blankets and things like that.  We've talked about the hours of activity.
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm saying if all of those things didn't happen.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  If all of those things failed, all there is, is a complaint to be filed and to be –
MS. SHERMAN:  With the Ridgewood Police?  Who does    where does the resident file a complaint? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It could be filed with the police if it was something that was of a nature that we required an immediate response and it was a clear and present danger.  If it’s more of a nuisance type thing, it would depend upon what's being violated.  If it's a violation of site plan requirements, typically that would be enforced by the Village Engineer.  So, really depends upon what the violation is specifically being cited.
 MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  I mean I bring this up because in your document you have sort of a checks and balance approach at times.  And I was just wondered how it is that you    how is it that your document was to    to put any sort of limitation on the level of nuisance.  I mean just saying that noise is a nuisance is one thing, but if it’s truly a nuisance to somebody repeatedly and they have no recourse, it becomes more than    it becomes a quality of life issue, not just a single incident.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  What I am saying to you is, is that there is recourse.  If someone makes a claim of a violation, it would be investigated.  And if it is determined that that violation did, in fact, occur, then there would be fines levied and measures taken to prevent it happening again.  I don't know what more you could do.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay, okay.  My third question was in your report did you consider the long term impacts of the surrounding area, for instance, during a six year construction period, it might be difficult for somebody to sell a house.  And potentially the house might go for less money than it would go if there weren't a six year construction plan coming ahead.  And how does that    I'm sure hospitals, they    they grow and then there is an effect to the areas surrounding the hospital.  Have you looked into that at all and...
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I acknowledged in my report and in my testimony that there would be some impacts from construction, but as far as like real estate values or anything like that, I'm not an expert in appraisal of property values or in determining what effect that would have.  So, no, I didn't testify or write to that in my report.
MS. SHERMAN:  All right.  I mean I wasn't just talking about real estate values.  I was talking about the way that homes get purchased and eventually they become doctors' offices.  I mean that's pretty common practice with hospitals as they grow.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, I mean we've already indicated, I believe that the zone boundaries would not be amended and doctors' offices are not a permitted use in the adjacent residential zones. 
So, yeah, that would require a use variance and I didn't really go there.
MS. SHERMAN:  Is that something that could be put into the Master Plan.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, I think –
MS. SHERMAN:  To    to    so that that doesn't happen?  I mean what is going to prevent someone else buying here –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  That was the reason for    I mean, we already have in the Master Plan that a residential zone permits certain uses and not others.  And we also specifically said that the boundaries of the hospital zone are not to be expanded upon under the Master Plan.  So to me it's sort of like stating the obvious that we don't want to have doctors' office in a residential zone, where we've already said we only want single family homes in the residential zone.  So, we didn't    we didn't say that.  I mean, it's not needed.  Could it be done?  Sure, it could be done. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Well, I just    I just think it speaks to the fact that they will abide by what their plan is and that the Village actually is putting a constraint on it, is saying that there will not be any change to the residential zone around it, that it will not    because what's to stop them seven years from now from requesting as change to the Master Plan –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, nothing.
MS. SHERMAN:     to the residential zone to be changed to doctors' offices –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, this is –
MS. SHERMAN:     and here we are all over again.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Nothing, that could always happen and that's    
MS. SHERMAN:  But that's –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, Ms. Sherman, you have to refrain from making statements because you're not sworn in. So, if you could limit these to questions so Blais could answer them, it would work best.
MS. SHERMAN:  I thought I said "what's to stop".
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay, very good.
MS. SHERMAN:  That was the question.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  There's    I mean every request, every application is made on its own merits.  And could tomorrow someone come in with something that nobody anticipated and which is contrary to what current policy is?  Yes.  And if they did that, we would evaluate it on its merits.  If it was meritless, presumably, it would be denied.  If it was    had merit, it would it be considered, you know.  But, I    without    it's sort of speculative.
MS. SHERMAN:  It's speculative, absolutely. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  I    I have a couple more –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Thank you, Ms. Sherman. 
MS. SHERMAN:  I have a couple more questions. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Well, why don't we see how many people are intending to ask questions?  Okay.  So, let's let folks come forward.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Sure.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And, Again, let's    if we could continue as we had the time, please ask your three questions. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  And then allow them to be answered after all three of them have been asked.
MR. PUTNINS:  Zigi Putnins, 572 Fairway Road, Ridgewood, New Jersey.  So, Blais, at the March 31st    I think it was the 31st, 2014 meeting you gave a presentation of your analysis of the current H Zone and the 2013 H Zone Amendment.  And in it you had many comments about various setbacks on the property, various building heights, overall lot coverage and things of that nature.  Much of that analysis was based on the design described in Valley's Renewal Plan.  Given that neither at the current H Zone, nor the proposed Amendment stipulate any particular design to be built on the property, what is the benefit of such a detailed analysis?  It seems speculative at best.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm not    I didn't follow all you're saying, could you rephrase the question? 
MR. PUTNINS:  Basically, you did a lot of analysis on setbacks to the property, in terms of the H Zone Amendment, you compared the 2010 to 2013, this was back at the March 31st meeting.  My question is a lot of that is based on the Valley Renewable Project proposal.  Given that nothing said they'd have to build that proposal, what's the benefit of such detailed analysis at this point in the project? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  What's    well, the hospital has made a request for a certain Amendment to the Master Plan and this Board is considering that Amendment.  So, I think it would be unreasonable to not evaluate what they've requested.  So that's what my proposal has done is try to evaluate, in the area of setbacks, how it compares with what's already there and how it compares with the Master Plan that's already in place.  And that's what I've done.  So, I don't consider that of no benefit.  I think that's what the Board's charged to do; is consider what's being requested of it.
MR. PUTNINS:  In your analysis you mentioned, for example, the Cheel Building, the North Building, the Phillips Building, none of which are actually stipulated in the Amendment so.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  The purpose of that was to compare what exists today with what is requested by an amendment.  So, it's just to get a sense of what the effect of the change that's requested of the Board would be.
So, for example, some buildings would be further than they are today from the property line.  Some would be closer.  Some would be taller.  Overall, buildings would be bigger. So, the whole point of that is for the Board, again, when I laid out when my testimony was for the Board to understand this a balancing of positive and negative.  And part of that is to see where the proposal is an improvement from existing conditions.  And in some areas it's not an improvement, it actually worse than existing conditions.  The same thing with the comparison of the Master Plan.  There's certainly are public benefits by virtue of the hospital itself.  And also by some of the Amendments to the plan and the development amendments if, for example they can reduce setbacks, if they can    I mean increase setbacks, reduce traffic, reduce coverage and so forth.  Those would be benefits that have to be balanced against the negative impacts from the proposal and there are those as well. So, that analysis that you're referring to, setbacks and so forth, is really tied back to that fundamental question of balancing positives and negatives. 
MR. PUTNINS:  If by some circumstance Valley changes its mind or gets bought out and a new plan is substantially different from the current renewal plan, would you suggest –
THE COURT REPORTER:  Sorry, sir, please speak up and start over again? 
MR. PUTNINS:  I'm sorry.  If by some circumstance Valley changes its mind or gets bought out and a new plan is substantially different from the current renewal plan, would you suggest that the H Zone be amended to accommodate the new plan?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  That would depend upon what the Amendment was, I don't know. 
You know, if someone came in with a plan that was better, I would say, "yeah" we should go with that.  If someone came in with a plan that was worse, I would say, "well, what we have is better than what's proposed".
So, you know, it is a speculative question and hard to answer. 
MR. PUTNINS:  So, again, this will be my last question.  So, in the same meeting back on March 31st, you indicated that the H Zone Amendment is    hang on. You indicated the H Zone Amendment reflects up to and including Phase II of Renewal.  And you expressed some concerns about what happens if Valley doesn't complete Phase II of the Renewal project.  Again, this sounds to me like having H Zone Amendment targeted towards    specifically towards Valley's plan to the point of having consideration for their various construction phases.  Is there precedence to having a Master Plan so specifically targeted to accommodate an owner's future plans.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm not    I am not sure I understand the question.
MR. PUTNINS:  You had some concern, you know, about Phase I, Phase II, which to me is almost like a construction, you know, they get to the second phase of construction maybe you should change the H Zone Amendment to accommodate which phase they complete and so on.  It just seems like it's very specifically targeted towards their plan as opposed to be looking at the bigger picture of what's good for the    for the area.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, again, I'll go back to what I said before:  The Hospital has requested an Amendment.  And they've requested their Amendment based upon the plan that they argue addresses some of concerns that the Council put forth when it refused to implement the last Master Plan Amendment.  We're responding to what the Hospital's requesting.  We are pointing out what's good about it, what's bad about it.  And the Board will have to balance the good and the bad.  My comments about Phase I and Phase II in evaluating what's good about it and what's bad about it was to point out that Phase II at this point in time is uncertain.  And that some of the positives from Phase II are, therefore, also uncertain.  Some of the negatives from Phase II are also uncertain. And that    I had pointed out that the only thing that is immediately proposed is Phase I. And I commented in my report that it would be useful if we had an analysis of what would the results be at the end of Phase I, in the way of coverage, in the way of floor area, in the way of setbacks and so forth.  We have some of those.  We don't have a full picture.  So, but, you know, again we're responding to the Hospital's proposal.
So, I don't know how you could do this in a vacuum for a single lot zone with a specific user that knows, probably better than we do, what its own operation is and what its own needs are, whether we agree with those or not is what this Board has to decide.  But, I don't know how I could, how any Board could do this without "negotiating"    no, negotiating isn't the right word, but certainly having a discussion and a give and take with the property owner, who has been operating on the site for 50 years, I think it's something that is a given.  And you just can't plan for this in a vacuum and ignore what's already there and ignore the operation.  I think you have to. And so between them coming to us with a specific proposal and the need for us to discuss their proposal with the property owner, I don't know how    how it could be done differently than what has been done. 
MR. PUTNINS:  Okay, thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Putnins.  Please state and spell your name, provide your address.
MS. BENSON:  Cathy Benson, B e n s o n, 572 Fairway Road.  Mr. Brancheau, on page 10 of your report you put in a summary of other non residential properties and how the hospital compares to those, what you left out here is the parking deck.  How does a parking deck compare to other parking decks in town and where other parking decks are allowed in town.  Specifically, in these front lot    in the front on the corner, surrounded by residential zone.  Is this allowed anywhere in Ridgewood?  And would it be arbitrary, capricious and whatever, for the town    for the town Planning Board to say, "hey, no above grade parking, especially if the front yard". 
MS. PRICE:  Can I just?  I don't think that Mr. Brancheau as a planner is in a position to make a determination of arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
MS. BENSON:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  That's for a court to decide. 
MS. BENSON:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  The first part of your question, I think is fine.
MS. BENSON:  Then the second    the second part of my question would be, as a planner, do you believe that an open parking deck in the front yard, in a residential neighborhood fits in with the character of single family homes in Ridgewood.
MS. PRICE:  That I think you can answer.
MS. BENSON:  He can answer.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, that's sort of phrasing it in the vacuum, you know.  I think, I have acknowledged in my testimony that we're dealing with a situation that's a real life situation, that if this was a greenfield today, we probably wouldn't be talking about putting a hospital there.  The fact is that    the fact of the matter is it is there today and it's been there for a long time.  So    and I said at the last meeting that I think that is a significant factor.  I'm not saying that's a determining factor, but it's certainly a significant factor that the Board has to consider.  So, given that, and given the need for    reasonable need for a hospital to have parking, given the options to locating that parking either    as I said with the building, there is really three options.  You could go up.  You could go out and you can go down.  Going down means more construction.  It means more excavation.  It means a lot of things. Going up means negative things in the mass and the visual impact and other factors.  Going out means it brings it closer to the homes. So, that's a balancing thing as is it better to have more improvement coverage and more surface parking and less green or is it better to have the parking go vertical in a deck.  Those are the things that the Board is going to have to balance.  And I am just saying that if this was a greenfield would I said, yes, let's put a four story parking deck in the middle of a residential zone, I wouldn't say that normally.  But I am saying that's not the situation.  We're not dealing with a greenfield.  We're dealing with an existing hospital facility, and that's why    I mean this is six    we've been over 60 hearings on this now, either in the last iteration or in the current one, combined.  And I don't know how many versions of plans we've looked at of ones that had more underground parking and less aboveground, that had more building underground and less aboveground, taller buildings, shorter buildings.  And I think the parking deck is one proposal to try to provide an adequate number of parking spaces on the site without going to the property lines with the parking.
That may or may not be the best proposal.  I don't know how else to say that, it's just it's not easy to do it.  Even if, I think, indicated in the testimony that the parking is going down.
MS. BENSON:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  The number of spaces is going down.  So, could it be done in another way?  I don't know what the alternatives are other than what I have laid out:  Up, out or down.  And all of them have negatives.  All of them have positives.
MS. BENSON:  Okay.  You didn't answer one question which was –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.
MS. BENSON:     where else are there parking decks, and are they in the front yard    and are they allowed in the front yard. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  We do allow parking decks in the Village.  And as far as in the front yard goes, I'd have to look it up but if someone were to have a building with a parking deck    the front yard is defined as the area between the street and the principal building. 
MS. BENSON:  Uh huh.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  A deck were to be part of the principal building, it wouldn't be in the front yard.  The front yard would be in front of the deck.  I guess maybe the question really is, is what would the setbacks be for that? 
I know in the downtown area if someone were to build a parking deck, the setbacks would be minimal. What would the setbacks be from the adjacent residential properties?  Less than what they are proposed to be here. 
Making the downtown area    admittedly in many areas it doesn't abut single family zones, but it does in some.
I think the rear yard setback is half the building height.  So, if you had a 45 foot high deck, the setback would only be required to be 22 ½ feet.  Whereas, in this situation the parking setback is    the parking deck setback is much greater than that. So, it's not a likely scenario, but you asked the question and I tried to –
MS. BENSON:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     I tried to answer it.
MS. BENSON:  So we don't have any parking decks on the –

MR. BRANCHEAU:  Not    not currently, but they are permitted.
MS. BENSON:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Benson.  Is there someone else who has a question with regard to Blais' testimony?  Again, I am going to ask again, this will be the last time, I hope, please ask your three questions together.  If you need them to be repeated or if Blais needs them to be repeated, I'll ask Laura to repeat the question as she's noted them on the record.
MS. TUOMEY:  I have to ask my questions altogether? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, please, Mrs. Tuomey.
MS. TUOMEY:  I'm assuming it's correct –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please state and spell –
MS. TUOMEY:  I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     and spell your name and address, please.
MS. TUOMEY:  Janet Tuomey, T u o m e y.  59 John Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey.  Mr. Chairman, I was not present when Mr. Brancheau produced his or gave his presentation, but I read the document.  May I ask questions on the reading of the document? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You may as long as they are specific to his testimony.  And if you wouldn't mind –
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes, I understand that. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  If you could –
MS. TUOMEY:  I'm learning.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  If you could please state your three questions –
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     together. 
MS. TUOMEY:  I had a question about the noise level as well.  I wanted to ask about who is going to monitor the level of the noise, that is a major problem with children and our children are going to be in BF –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please, please try to refrain from comments.  Please ask the questions. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes.  And the decibel level, Blais, is 65 decibels that's the top level and anything over that    oh, he may not know.  Can it be destructive to children?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  What    can you just start again and just state your three questions please. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Go through them all.
MS. TUOMEY:  Who is going to monitor, on site, the level of noise during construction.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm going to say –
MS. PRICE:  No, Blais, wait.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let her ask all three.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Oh, you're going to ask all the questions –
MS PRICE:  Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     first?  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I've written down –
MS. TUOMEY:  That's number one.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I've written down two questions.
MS. TUOMEY:  But, I have only asked one.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Oh, I thought you wanted to know the decibel levels.
MS. TUOMEY:  I just told you, 65 decibels.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.  Why don't you keep going.
MS. PRICE:  Just ask the question.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay, number two, what were the environmental assessments that you read and that you used to come to your conclusions about the impacts? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Those that were provided during    
MS PRICE:  No. 

MR. BRANCHEAU:  Are you done? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That is number two.
MS PRICE:  That's number two.
MS. TUOMEY:  And number three; there was an assessment Mr. Collins told the Planning Board about, quite a while ago, that he would try to give to the Planning Board, and I assume the public, that Valley had done, but he said it was proprietary.  I believe, it was in response to Mr. Reilly's question.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  What is your question?
MS. TUOMEY:  Was it handed over to the Planning Board. 
MS PRICE:  Well –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, I didn't testify about that, so... 
MS. PRICE:  Yes.
MS. TUOMEY:  Well, I'm asking about that, did you    did you use that or did you see that? 
MS PRICE:  Okay.  So –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Did you use it in your testimony? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  No. 
MS PRICE:  Okay.  So –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So now you can all three questions.
MS. PRICE:  So he just answered number three, no.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.  So, regarding who will monitor, I think    construction noise, I think that's going to be a subject for the Planning Board to determine if and when we get to a site plan application.  There may be a requirement that the applicant monitor.  There may be a requirement that the applicant pay for the Village to hire an independent monitor or it may be done by current Village staff.  I think it's going to depend upon what, when and where.  As to environmental assessments those are all on record that were part of the hearing testimony.  I'm not an expert in the environmental assessments, but—
MS. TUOMEY:  Which ones did you    did you use?  Did you use any? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All of the ones that are on record.
MS. PRICE:  Let me see if I can help. Mr. Brancheau, you are referring to the reports that were filed by Converse on behalf of the Board. 
MR. BRACHEAU:  Both Converse and by the applicant, yes. 
MS. PRICE:  And the reports that were received into evidence –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS PRICE:     on behalf of the Hospital? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS. PRICE:  Those were the only reports received for evidential value at this point in time, correct? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Correct.  Those are the only exhibits and the testimony at the hearings.
MS. TUOMEY:  Ms. Price, who is Converse?
MS. PRICE:  Converse is the Board's environmental consultant who testified at –
MS. TOUMEY:  I was away, so I probably missed that one.  When was that?
MS. PRICE:  Okay.  I can't    I don't know –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  They're posted on line.
MS PRICE:     what night it was exactly, but it would by the website, because all the    all the transcripts are up on the website.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.  I did not know about that, okay.
MS. PRICE:  Dr. Kabir testified, Mrs. Tuomey.
MS. TUOMEY:  I remember that was a long time ago. 
MS. PRICE:  No, he testified on direct after his review of what the Hospital had submitted, he made an independent study and an independent report. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes.
MS PRICE:  And then he provided his testimony.
MS. TUOMEY:  That was a long time ago, too.  I was here for that.  But    how many questions?
MS. PRICE:  That's three.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That's three.
MS. TUOMEY:  Oh.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  You can come back after everyone is done.
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay.  Thank you very much. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I would encourage you to go to the website and look at the testimony that Blais is referring to.
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes, I will.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.  Is there someone else?  Well, let's get through everybody once, first.
Again, if you would please state your three questions together at once.  And, Blais, if we can answer them after they've been all asked.
MS. BANEY:  Lisa Baney, 136 Brookside Avenue.  My first question –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you spell your name first for the record?
MS. BANEY:  Oh, certainly, "B" like boy, a n as in Nancy, e y, Lisa.  One of my questions is a follow up to the one that Cathy Benson asked about the concept with the big parking deck and I just wanted to follow up, Blais, and get your input on one aspect of that, which is that, no, it's not a greenfield situation and the hospital is there, but would it not be one possible solution to not have a big, potentially inappropriate, parking deck for the setting in the residential area, to simply consider it not approving this development because normally as it is now, I mean the parking is about the same amount, but it’s on the ground.  And this particular proposal means that has to go up in the air, so    or down into the bedrock. So, one possible solution, could it not be, potentially to say that this is not an appropriate plan.  That's one question, I would just like to know if that's a possible thought.  The other one is about quality of life.  And I just    Blais, I know you've often made the good point that in society, and perhaps the law deems a health care use is inherently beneficial use and that a good use, therefore, if we were to improve healthcare that it's a good outcome.  But I'm always looking for the better grasp on something which is; is it possible that if it could be acknowledged that the healthcare needs to be met in another way, beyond the Ridgewood borders, I don't know any other way, then would it not be worth weighing that against the detriments, before one says that this    this balancing act is appropriate.  Those are my questions.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Just the two? 
MS. BANEY:  Um huh.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay, the first one, the short answer is, yes, that is one possible determination that the Board could make, that    that it is not appropriate and they could reject this.  The second question is on the healthcare, inherently beneficial, and I hope it    my testimony was not misunderstood that inherently beneficial determination is not a free pass.  The term is used technically in a use variance case. I used it in this situation only to highlight the beneficial aspects of the use.  And this, by statute, is named specifically as a beneficial use.  And I think it's fairly obvious why it's a beneficial use. But that being said, just as with if not, just because an applicant were to seek a use variance and is inherently beneficial, that doesn't guarantee approval.  That has to be balanced against the negative aspects of the use.  And in some cases the Board can validly determine that the negatives outweigh the positives and even though they are benefits to the use, per se, in this location and this proposal the negatives outweigh that.  And there is not enough sufficient benefit to outweigh the negative.  So, it can be rejected.  So, yeah, the Board could determine that we acknowledge the benefits, but that doesn't mean we're approving it.  So, I don't know if that answers your question but –
MS. BANEY:  Yes, thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Blais. Thank you, Ms. Baney.  Is there anyone else?  This is the last question, last individual.  Please state and spell your name, provide your address. And, again, this is specific to Blais' testimony. Good evening. 
MR. POSNER:  Good evening, Neil Posner, 354 Walthery Avenue.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you please spell your last name please.  
MR. POSNER:  Sure, P o s n e r.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Can you repeat that, please? 

MR. POSNER:  Sure, P o s n  e r.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MR. POSNER:  So, my question first is about the model that Blais –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm sorry.
MR. POSNER:     that you used.  I believe that you talk about a requirement to balance detriment with benefit; is that a correct statement?  That's number one.  If that's a correct statement, can you say, give me your assessment, your assessment of whether you believe you addressed all potential detriments or whether there may be some that have not been listed in your report.  And in terms of the specific benefits to the Village, could you point us please to the place in the report that actually lays out benefits to the Village of Ridgewood.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Those are your three questions? 
MR. POSNER:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  My model that I used, I said at the beginning of my testimony that there is no cookbook that says these are the steps to baking a zoning cake, so to speak, that there are certainly laws out there, but how a municipality applies those laws in each particular situation varies.  I did suggest the use a balancing test.  I find that almost universally that some type of balancing test occurs whether    whether in zoning decisions, whether in applications for variances, whether in site plan or subdivision applications.  There are always balancing going on.  No development occurs without any negative impact.  There's always negatives.  There are also positives.  And sometimes those positives are more subtle, but they're there. In the case of a hospital, I think fairly obvious that healthcare is a basic human need.  And the testimony that's been presented in the hearings has indicated, discussed at length:  Standards for hospital construction; standards for infection control; standards for treatment.  There's been extensive comparison with what other hospitals do.  And I think given that, that there are obvious benefits and I think that's why the State has defined a hospital as an inherently beneficial use, as to –
MR. POSNER:  But can I just clarify because that's not the question –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.
MR. POSNER:     I asked –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.  What's the question? 
MR. POSNER:  I asked if your model was indeed balancing of benefits to the community and detrimental effects of whatever is proposed here to the community.  Is that    I mean based on what you've said, I'm not sure what the answer is.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All right, the benefits    municipalities are not charged with drawing the lines at their own borders when evaluating benefits or detriments.  There has been court cases that have determined that a municipality must consider not only local needs, but regional need.  Certain uses, by their very nature, serve areas larger than a single municipality.  Certain uses that are located near a border    did we lose sound here?
That are located near a border with the municipality may serve a small area, but they go beyond the border.
The same thing with the negatives.  The fact that the traffic created by development may impact somebody outside the municipality doesn't mean the town can ignore it or that the development is adjacent to a zone in another municipality, doesn't mean it can ignore it.  The law, in fact, requires that in its planning, a municipality consider the larger area, not only its own local objectives, but consistency with the State plan, consistency with county plans, and address the    look at the plans of adjacent municipalities to make sure that it's not effecting them and that it’s doing its best to try to be consistent and work together with its neighbors.  So    and in looking at addressing the public health, safety and welfare and benefits to the general public, it's not just the general public of the Village of Ridgewood that the municipality must look at, but the general public anywhere that is affected by its decisions.  So, I would say that the hospital    to the extent that the hospital benefits the Village of Ridgewood, it does so obviously to those who rely upon it, its residents, or people who work here who rely upon it for healthcare needs certainly.  The Hospital has some secondary benefits as well in that it's community programs benefit members the public within Ridgewood and without.  Doctors' offices, for example, that locate in the Village of Ridgewood –
MR. POSNER:  But, I'm sorry, that –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Doctors –

MR. POSNER:  If I may, that is not, again, what my question is.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let him finish and then we'll get clarity. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, you've asked what benefits the Hospital provides to the Village of Ridgewood.
MR. POSNER:  That was my second question.  My first question was about the model itself.  And if I understood correctly, and I have to ask this, because I heard you say that this isn't about just the Ridgewood need.  This is about regional needs and needs outside the community. So, in your role as the Village of Ridgewood's Planner, did you write this on behalf of the Village of Ridgewood or did you write this on behalf of some larger regional area? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Both. 
MR. POSNER:  Well, I find that a very difficult answer to actually think is appropriate under this situation, but –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm required by law    I'm required by law to consider the needs of the general public, whether they live in Ridgewood or outside of Ridgewood. 
MR. POSNER:  So, the question    the second question now –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  And so is this Board.
MR. POSNER:  The second question now, if we move into that about the detriments and the quantification of the various types of detriments, do you believe that's actually been captured in here? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I think it's been summarized, the key.  Every little detail, no.  That would take a very extensive report.  I've relied upon the testimony at these hearings.  The exhibits that have been presented at these hearings, for much of the detail.  I don't believe that in a Master Plan Amendment that level of detail, is something that is called for.  There is certainly an adequate, I think, foundation in the record for the conclusions in my report.
MR. POSNER:  Just a question then, I mean, would    if you're saying though the key points about detriments have been summarized, would you consider impact on home values in the area to be not a potential detriment to those taxpaying Ridgewood residents?  
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, first of all, there's been no testimony on the effect of home values during the course of these hearings.  So I would have nothing to base a conclusion in my report on.  And I'm not an expert in real estate values. So, is it a valid consideration, I think   
MR. POSNER:  If I may    
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Go ahead.
MR. POSNER:     you're the Village Planner.  And I think isn't it a part of the Village's remit to ensure that not only is the character or the town maintained, but that the things that are important about any aspect of the town, when assessing something like this, that you would consider any detrimental effect.  And regardless of whether you're an expert or not, it's not even mentioned here in your report.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Because I have nothing to base an opinion upon.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay. 
MR. POSNER:  So, it's not a potential –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I am not saying there is no potential effect on property values.  I'm not saying that there is.  I don't know.  So, I don't know what to say.
MR. POSNER:  Well, I –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's not something we can really debate here at this point, you've answered his question.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I didn't testify concerning property values and no one has testified concerning property values. 
MR. POSNER:  What about standards of living and being able to enjoy one's property, is that part of the detrimental effect?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I think I have addressed that in the report.  I've addressed it in the various comments in the report in a number of ways:  When I've looked at setbacks; when I've looked at coverage; when I've looked at height and mass; when I've looked at noise; when I've looked at construction effects; lighting and so forth.  I think    stormwater runoff, those all effect the quality of life and I think that those have been summarized adequately in my report.
MR. POSNER:  I agree, but I think those are very detailed.  I think the very big picture question about if the proposal goes forward as planned in its totality, not about the individual lighting, not about the individual parking, not about the water, not about any individual piece of it.  But in its totality, what does it do for Ridgewood?  I guess honestly that's where I look at this and I go, I don't know what's being said because we're    we're looking at the details of it, instead of what does it mean for Ridgewood. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Mr. Posner, I'm going to ask, Blais, if you can take your time to answer this question.  And let's bring this to a conclusion this particular point.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  If someone says to me "quality of life", I am going to say, in what aspect of quality are you talking about.  And I think when    most people when they're talking about quality of life, I mean by itself that is a subjective, sort of a vague term. It’s    like the Judge said, you know, it's like pornography.  I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.  I think quality of life is something that, yes, we look at, but it’s the cumulative effect, I think, of everything that I've described.  It's not any one thing, although one thing, if it's bad enough, can have a negative effect on the quality of life.  Traffic, can affect quality of life.  Noise, can affect quality of life, visual blight, a lot of things can affect quality of life.  And when they add them all together, you can, I think, form your own opinion as to what that would be.  I think many people could disagree as to at what point it becomes a breaking point and that's ultimately the Board's call to make.  But the report does describe all of those things as they've been testified to in this hearing.  So, I think if you look at the cumulative effect and all of those comparisons that look upon what's there today and the traffic and everything else, I think they are indirectly addressing the question of quality of life.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Blais. 
MS. PETERS:  Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Posner.
MS. PETERS:  Mr. Chairman, and, Ms. Price, can I discuss a procedural question –
MS PRICE:  Yes.
MS. PETERS:     that is ripe in my mind.  If a person felt that    because we are asking about quality of life as this gentleman has just been asking about, if a person felt they had evidence as to either positive or detrimental effect of a hospital in a residential zone.  I know that our expert has testified as to the locations that do exist in the city, if they were to have evidence of this, how could they introduce that or they can't?
MS. PRICE:  Well, we received certain information on that very issue from Mr. Kates and the witnesses that he presented on behalf of C.R.R.  And we asked if anyone else had any affirmative documentation to present during the course.  And we didn't receive any.  I think the Chairman will be going through, you know the rules for the public comment portion.  But I think that there might need to be a little bit of clarification in terms of what I heard the last gentleman kept referring to a "model" which I think is    without speaking for Blais, is a little bit inaccurate in connection with the Municipal Land Use Law, because at the last meeting Blais explained that he was utilizing some comparisons by way of the statute. But this is not a variance application where one would be truly measuring positive criteria against the negative criteria.  This is a Master Plan Amendment which requires one to look at the statutory definition, which as of 2009 the Legislature specifically defined "inherently beneficial use" to include certain uses.  And one of those uses is hospitals, medical facilities.  So, the State, not Ridgewood, the State decided as of 2009 to list medical facilities, hospitals and as inherently beneficial uses. 
And by doing so, and which is right in the Municipal Land Use Law, it determined that those uses were uses that, in fact, served the public good and promoted the general welfare.  So, when you hear those buzz words come from Blais in his testimony those are not buzz words that he's making up.  Those are words that are actually in the statute by which this Board is charged to operate under and to follow the case law that has been generated by our courts, in terms of interpreting those statutory provisions. So I think Blais tried to explain it at the last meeting that he was using certain analogies in an attempt to make it somewhat clearer, but recognizing that this was a public policy issue rather than a variance application, utilization of, you know, benefits outweighing    substantially, outweighing detriments typically would be things that we would be looking at for variances.
So I think Blais was trying to be helpful, in terms of bringing it down on a plane that everyone could understand. 
But I just want everybody to understand that the Board is given the use as one defined by the State as an inherently beneficial use.  And Blais as a planner is also charged and limited by his professional license, in terms of where he can go in opining on certain things.  So, he would be risking, you know, risking censure or other negative behavior, if he were to go out on limbs that are beyond the scope of his role. So, I think    and I think he has been very careful to explain exactly the role of the Planner.  And these inherently beneficial uses are specifically defined and have been defined in case law, as uses that boards should look beyond the borders of a town in which those uses are located in. That doesn't take anything away from the town in which the use is located in.  It doesn't mean that the town in which the use is located is entitled to anything less than what it would be entitled to for a non inherently beneficial use, but because it is an inherently beneficial use the legislature and the courts have said people on a regional basis will have needs for those type of uses.  So some schools serve the region, they don't just serve the local community.  So, Blais, I don't know if I put words in your mouth, but I am just trying to clarify the statute.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  No.  I agree with everything you said.
MS. PRICE:  Amazing.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yeah, I was going to say that too, but at this time I'll agree with you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  Great. Thanks, Blais. And, Michele, also I will be talking in a short while about public comment.  Individuals will be sworn and it's an opportunity for the public to share their views.  Hopefully, you've actually listened to part or all of the testimonies that we've heard, so your comments will be based on what you've heard and what we've heard as well.  Next, Mr. McKenna. 
MR. McKENNA:  My name is Peter McKenna, M c K e n n a, 420 Meadowbrook Avenue, in Ridgewood. 
I guess my question relates to this testimony as well, and the question is, is there    it there a difference when you look at this inherently beneficial idea and the regional benefit and regional    and in this case I think of it as a local detriment for regional benefit.  And the context of this is the existing hospital presents 100 percent of the detriment sits with the Village of Ridgewood residents through providing a tax free location, traffic bottlenecks, the nature of having a 24/7 business operation in our midst, and granted, six percent of the patient load comes from Ridgewood.  So six percent of that benefit accrues to us directly.  And we share the burden and provide that service to the region.  My question is, that's the existing operation.  Is there a point where the marginal detriment to the Village of Ridgewood    is there any point where a municipality can say the marginal deficit that I'm going to bear above what I already bear is too great.  Is there    is there any ability for a municipality to ever say no to a hospital?
MS PRICE:  Is that –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Your question is largely legal.  But I'll give you the short answer is yes.  It's    we wouldn't be here for 60 hearings    meetings if we had to say yes.  It would have been very short.  So, yes, we can.  But I don't think, to answer it the other way, is that I don't think you can flatly say no.  There has to be an evaluation.  And it has to be dealt with on its merits.  But where the line is drawn, I don't believe there's any hard and fast rule to say you draw it here.  Each town, each board has to make the best judgment you can on the facts presented before it. 
MR. McKENNA:  But I guess the follow along question would then be, is the    can this Board evaluate the marginal benefit of this expansion relative to the marginal benefits of this expansion    I mean the marginal benefits of the expansion and the marginal detriments of this expansion, and evaluate it on    purely on those grounds?  Or do you still have to consider the benefits still have to be weighed in a regional context and the detriments not so much?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm not quite sure I understand the question.  I think the Board needs to consider both the regional benefits and the regional detriments as well as the local –
MR. McKENNA:  Right.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     benefits and the local detriments.  Now, if you're trying to say do local detriments trump regional benefits or vice versa, that one I don't think I can give you a categorical answer.  I think they have to look at all of them in their totality and make their best judgment.
MS PRICE:  Right. 
MR. McKENNA:  Thank you.  I appreciated your report.  I thought it was very thorough. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. McKenna. I think, Ms. Reynolds, you're the last one.  We have one more after, okay, thank you.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Hi, Lorraine Reynolds 550 Wyndemere Avenue.  Blais, yes, I agree with Pete, your report was great.  It was probably my favorite report of the last 14 months. But I have a question with inherently beneficial, since this is a unique situation where the hospital is inherently beneficial as well as school right next door is inherently beneficial, so how do you weigh the detriment that this expansion is going to cause to another inherently beneficial institution?  Like is one more important than the other?  Are they weighed equally as inherently beneficial?  You know the school is used by    100 percent of the students at the school are from Ridgewood, so that's a benefit to Ridgewood.  Only six percent of the patients of the hospital are from Ridgewood.  So, how do you weigh the detriments that this expansion would cause on the school's inherently beneficial situation.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Is that the only question?
MS. REYNOLDS:  That is. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.  I think the answer is going to be very similar to what I told Pete McKenna that I think the Board has to look at all the benefits, all the detriments.  There's no precise rule as to a mathematical formula for giving extra weight to one versus the other, you know, I think the statute wisely placed this decision making power in what is generally lay citizens who have the same perspective as the people they are affecting with their decisions.  And, certainly, they rely upon the testimony and advice of experts, but they are free to disregard it when it's    when they have good reasons for doing so.  And there's no magic formula for doing this.  The Board looks at, yeah, this serves a number of public purposes.  This also works against a number of public purposes.  And these things are never black and white.  They're always    there's always a balancing.  And that's    I don't know how to tell you any other way.  It's... 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay. I do have a follow up, so would this    would that be a valid reason for the Board to say no to this?  Because it would be a detriment to another inherently beneficial.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  If the Board were to find that this proposal would be detrimental to the operation of Ben Franklin School, that could be a factor in its decision.  Whether that alone would be sufficient to overturn it, and what specifically those detriments are is impossible for me to answer really at this point in time.  I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the school is a valid consideration. But I can't tell you how much impact would be sufficient to do it.  I can't    can't give you an answer. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  That's something the Board has to decide. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.  Last one and    Ms. Coopersmith. Again, please state your three questions, if you have three, together.
MS. COOPERSMITH:  Yes, sir. Do you need my name?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Name and address, and spell your name please.
MS. COOPERSMITH:  Right. Nancy Coopersmith, C o o p e r s m i t h, Address is 373 Meadowbrook Avenue. 
So my two    I only have two questions and they are about the height of that North Building.  And I had asked a question at the last session    and the height of that building is so far outside the range of what's permissible now anywhere else in the Village that my first question is, when I asked the question in the last session why 94 feet, I think    Blais, your first    at first you said, "well, I don't know".  And then you said, "I think it has something to do with economy," because the beds, the rooms    the rooms with the beds were all stacked on top of each other.  So, my first question is in terms of    I was always under the impression that as far as zoning issues go and certainly with variances, but I think it's all lumped into zoning, that the applicant's economics are supposed to have no bearing on any kind of zoning issue.  So, I guess that's the first    the first part of my question because it's so far outside the range of what's permissible, if the rationale is an economic one on the applicant's side then I am just wondering if that, you know, if there's a validity to saying no to 94 feet, and also the fact that it is so far outside the range, wouldn't it be a fair and reasonable change to the Master Plan Amendment to limit that height, in your opinion?  Because I know we're always talking about you can only make changes that are considered fair and reasonable. So those are my two questions. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I think, generally, I would agree with you that economics    the applicant's economics are outside the    should be outside its decision making criteria.  There are some exceptions to that when the decision, when the economics of something becomes confiscatory, meaning that you're really left with no option, then it can be a valid consideration. But, generally speaking, if the Hospital were to say make less money by having a lower building, that's not something that I think is going to have much, if any, weight or should have much, if any, weight. What I meant when I said that the economy of laying it out by five floors, 14 foot floors, one on top of the other, had to do with what went into the Hospital's decision making process.
And, again, I think I said that I'm not sure what it is, but that may have had something to do with it in laying it out the way they did, was they wanted a more efficient operation, not just financially, but operationally.  So it certainly is economy of space and so forth to do it that way as opposed to separating those bed areas widely.  It's less economical not from a    well, obviously money is involved, but economic in the use of staff, in the travel time needed to go between, there's less sharing of resources if those spaces are more widely separated. 
So    but to tell you the truth I don't know conclusively why there's five stories in that section of the building, that's my best guesstimate of why they did it, why they're proposing it the way they are.
MS. PRICE:  Can I just note for the record, though, that I went back over just now, your questions from the last meeting –
MS. COOPERSMITH:  Yes.
MS PRICE:     and I don't see where Blais referred to economics at all.  And your specific reference is to the efficiencies of having them vertically stacked in the same location as opposed to being spread apart. 
And he talks about the bed care units and the references to having three options going up, out and down.  And then there's a series of paragraphs where Blais talks about construction related impacts from those three and talking about the construction impacts.  I just don't see where he referred to the hospital's economics, themselves.  I only see the efficiencies and the bed care units. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm looking myself.
MS. COOPERSMITH:  It's possible I took efficiencies to mean economies.  And –
MS PRICE:  Okay.
MS. COOPERSMITH:  But I do think there is a relationship there.  And I guess    and I guess my second question is, given that this height is so far outside the permissible range, and we don't seem to have a real handle on what, you know, what the issue is    you know, the reason, the rationale for the Hospital and it maybe is efficiencies and maybe it is economies, I don't know.  But would that be something that would be considered fair and reasonable in terms of changing that Master Plan Amendment? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I think the height    and I've indicated in my report, the height is a factor.  It's one of a number of factors that the Board must balance.  And I think I've indicated the height exceeds anything else that's permitted in the Village.  And it's unprecedented.  I mean this is the biggest development in the Village, today it is and tomorrow it will be.  But    but it's a valid factor for the Board to consider.  And in some ways it's a negative factor, that height, there's no getting around that. 
MS. COOPERSMITH:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Coopersmith.  Ms. Sherman, I promised you go, you'd have opportunity to go again, so please come forward. I think this is the last question for, Blais. 
MS. SHERMAN:  I would just like to –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please again state your name, spell your name.
MS. SHERMAN:  I would just like to say that I realize there is a shortage of time but this    this is like the crux.  I mean this is our Village Planner.  And I    and I really would hate for anybody's question not to be able to be asked of the planner.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  I don't think we're stopping that. 
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please state your name, spell your name and provide your address again.
MS. SHERMAN:  Marla Sherman, S h e r m a n, 449 Beverly Road.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you.
MS. SHERMAN:  Thank you.  Okay, so my three questions.  In follow up to Mr. Posner and to Mr. McKenna, Blais, when you used the term that has been thrown around, serving the public good and beneficial to the general public not just the Village of Ridgewood, is there a possibility that the fact that there are four other hospitals within about a 10 mile radius, does that sort of weigh in to the fact that this is not the only facility that the public can go to that is serving the public good and benefitting the general public?
My second question is, I question why there are no limitations of intensity in the Master Plan Amendment or maybe there are and I just missed them.  But the whole premise of Valley Hospital spelling out that these were the six things that the Village Council didn't approve of and this is how we have remedied them, I just wonder that unless we have limitations that will assure those benefits or non detriments to the Village than it really is just sort of hearsay.
And then my third question has to do with, this is kind of picayune, but I'm just kind of curious, you used building coverage, lot coverage, maximum improvement coverage.  And I just wondered if you could explain all those different terms and whether you believe that flat impervious coverage is the same as coverage with a 72 foot building on it, are those considered the same to you? 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  All right.  I think the presence of other hospitals in the region is a valid factor.  The need for facilities is a factor, even with inherently beneficial uses.  As to the limitation of intensity, the Master Plan does in fact deal with that, it deals with primarily on page 3 of the Amendment and it talks about, in some detail, the intensity of use and there's four components that it uses in a cumulative fashion to deal with intensity as a specific statement, that the intensity of use, the goal of the Master Plan is to maintain and not increase the intensity of use at the Hospital.  The –
MS. SHERMAN:  It doesn't assure it.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  I'm sorry.
MS. SHERMAN:  Does that    does statement assure the intensity of use or no?  I'm just...
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, I think it is a reasonable means of insuring it as best we can. "Intensity of use" is a term like "quality of life", that is not capable of a precise definition.  Many ordinances simply regulate intensity of use by floor area ratio. 
MS. SHERMAN:  But, I think you have stipulated that it's traffic.  It's light.  It's noise.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It's a number of things. 
MS. SHERMAN:  It's all those things.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.
MS. SHERMAN:  Correct.  But unless we put limitations on things like traffic then there really isn't any protection.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes, in any regulation that's adopted, and any policy that's adopted, the ability to administer and enforce such a regulation is a key factor.  So, it might be, it might say here that no more than so many patients present at any one time.  To enforce that would mean constant monitoring.  It would mean    it would be unworkable to do that.  So, generally when you do zoning regulations and policies you try to base it upon standards that are measurable, that are fixed, that are easily understood and calculated and determined.
Is it 100 percent precise?  No, it is not.  But I believe that it goes beyond what I, frankly, have seen in almost any other situation that I can think of, as far as ratcheting and trying to control a unit of impact that's by its very definition open to interpretation, so four measures of control on a single factor is more than I've seen in almost any municipality that I've worked with in dealing with intensity of use.  But I'll acknowledge it's not perfect.
So, can I guarantee a hundred percent that there won't be any increase in intensity of use, no, I cannot. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Is there a way of putting in a monitoring    I mean could the Village actually say "and it will be monitored every second or third year that traffic is not growing any more than," whatever the Rutgers study or whatever traffic study might –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, here's the problem with doing something like that, and I understand the concern and, you know, it's a fair concern, frankly.  Let's say this were to be approved and the ordinance were to be approved and the site plan were to be approved and there were to be conditions on the site plan that were imposed in addition to what's in the Master Plan and the ordinance to try to make sure that the goals of the plan and the ordinance were being met.  And let's say someone did a traffic study three years out and found, oh, wow traffic is actually increased by 20 cars a day. 
MS. SHERMAN:  More than a standard deviation, whatever that term is. 
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well, that's the problem is that    and meanwhile you've allowed the Hospital to build.  They're    you've approved their thing, they've developed it in accordance.  Now    now, you've found that traffic went up instead of going down.  What would you do?  Would you say, okay, you've got to shut down that wing? 
It's    it's very difficult to have such a thing that's workable and enforceable.  So you try to do it    because the applicant also has rights to know what they're entitled to and what limitations they have, what responsibilities they have and what rights they have.  And to leave it open to something down the road that may not even be under their control is very difficult to do.  So in the case of traffic, it's a particular difficult one to say because the Hospital doesn't completely control how much traffic comes.  They, control certainly to some extent, the shuttle operation of how many employees come to the site and so on and so forth. But they're somewhat at the mercy of the healthcare needs of the region.  If people need to get –

MS. SHERMAN:  But then the residents are at the mercy of the Hospital –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Well    and that's    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's not get into a debate.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes.  And that's what –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's a valid point.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     the Board is going to have to balance and consider. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  But what I'm saying is that it's very difficult to impose control a kind of control for something like that, that's really workable.  So, we try to do it in a way that best estimates what we can control and what the hospital can predict and know.  And that's how these types of rules are established. As to the coverages and what they mean.  And, no, they're not the same.  Each of them are different and that's why we have different terms.  Building coverage is essentially what I call the footprint of the building.  It's any portion of the site that's not essentially at grade, that's covered by something that goes above grade.  And whether it's one story or five stories, that's a building coverage.  And a five story building with the same footprint as a one story building is the same amount of coverage. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Same building coverage.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Okay.  Improvement coverage is essentially areas that are not landscaped, and whether that's buildings or pavement or gravel, that's all improvement coverage.  If it's not landscaped, generally speaking, that's what improvement coverage is.  There are some exceptions to that, but that's a simplified definition, they're not the same. The building coverage is really looking at the issue of mass and open space, whereas improvement coverage is looking at how much area is green and landscaped.  We’d all agree that there is a difference between a lot that's 100 percent pavement and a lot that's 50 percent pavement.  And that's what improvement coverage is looking at. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Because I think    I'm pretty sure that in your report you say that maximum improvement coverage, you put it in     I'm sorry, on page 6, you put it in as a green area, meaning that that's something that's improved from the existing conditions to the proposed amendment.  And I    but you did exclude covered walkways, sidewalks, patios, which I thought would be included because you said that it includes everything except for shrubbery.  So, I'm just wondering whether that would, in fact, be a green rectangle, if you did include those areas, and how that might compare to what exists now which is a flat parking lot which you would call impervious coverage and    and that would be maximum improvement coverage versus something that might be smaller, but that becomes visible by three or four stories.  Does that make sense?
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Some of it.  I mean I'm sure it all makes sense, but I'm not sure I understand it all. 
But the    those were some of the exceptions that I just referenced a minute ago.  And the reason those are not included in improvement coverage is that those, at this point in time, are not known what they are.  It's anticipated that they are relatively minor in overall thing.  We can't give a number to them yet, so we're not trying to give a number to them yet.
MS. SHERMAN:  So, it might not be green?  It could be white.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It    it could be.
MS. SHERMAN:  It could be white.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  It may be addressed in the ordinance, but at this stage of the master planning process we have not seen a plan.  We don't know how that number would be dealt with, but, you know, it's hard to predict how much sidewalk.  I could    I could say there's a factor in here that one would expect maybe five percent or something like that, that's a    that's a rough guess, so we don't know, but    
MS. SHERMAN:  Actually I see that it is    I withdraw my question because I actually see that in the proposed amendment plan that it is actually a red zone.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  A what zone?   
MS. SHERMAN:  It is    it is highlighted pink, which    or red, which is a worse condition than what exists now, so I withdraw my question because it wound   
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Yes, that's in my report, yes. 
MS. SHERMAN:  It wound up being what I had thought.

MR. BRANCHEAU:  Actually, when you say it’s worse, both the Master Plan that's currently in effect, and the requested Amendment reduces the improvement coverage from what exists at the site today.  What exists at the site is over 80 percent.  What's proposed in this plan, depending upon which phase you're at is 64 to 70 percent so either    either phase is a reduction from existing conditions and improvement coverage.  But –
MS. SHERMAN:  No, it goes from 4,000    400,000 square feet to 469,000 square feet.  So, again, it's –
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Where are you –
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm on page 8.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Getting a detailed     
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Page 8 –
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm on page 8.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  Page 8 of my report? Yes, there's an increase    this is a comparison of the current Master Plan with the proposed Amendment.
MS. SHERMAN:  Yes.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  And I've highlighted in my report that the proposal actually has a higher improvement coverage   
MS. SHERMAN:  Higher improvement coverage.
MR. BRANCHEAU:     than what currently is in the plan. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Correct.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  But both are lower than what exists at the site today.
MS. SHERMAN:  Correct.  Thank you.
MR. BRANCHEAU:  You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Sherman. Any last questions with regard to Blais' testimony from anyone?  Well, thank you very much.  And thank you for being patient with this process.
So, this concludes the expert testimony portion of this hearing. 
So, before we conclude this item tonight, as Gail had indicated earlier, and as I did when a question was asked at the beginning, I'd like to take a few moments to walk you through the process for public comment, which is what comes next.  And I know a lot of you have been asking about that throughout the process, when is public comment? The public comment on the pending H Zone Master Plan Amendment is scheduled for the two Planning Board meetings, the next one is May 20, 2014 and June 2, 2014.  The May 20th meeting will be held at the Ridgewood High School Student Center and the June 2nd meeting will be here at the BF in the auditorium.  Both meetings will be at 7:30 p.m., will begin at 7:30 p.m.  In anticipation of these meetings, the Board has established certain rules of procedure that will be followed.  I'll review these now and expand upon them further, if necessary, at the beginning of the May 20th meeting.  Please keep in mind that the establishment of these rules, and by way of this review, is being done as a courtesy and to ensure that everyone is informed ahead of time as to how the next couple of meetings will be conducted. All interested parties to this matter have been entitled and permitted, without exception, to appear individually or with assistance of legal counsel for the purpose of asking questions of the various fact and expert witnesses.  And who gave testimony over the course of the 23 hearings which have been conducted since March 23rd of last year. So, on May 20th and on June 2nd, upon entering, each person will receive a number, this is to help make things easier.  The number will be used for the purpose of comment speaking by individuals who wish to comment and also as a necessary monitoring tool for capacity.  If someone intends to make a statement to the Board during the public comment period, once you've received a number, please proceed to a sign in desk which we'll have established, and write down your name and address and the number you were provided. When we begin the process, speakers will be called in numerical order.  Once your name and number is called, please move immediately to the microphone as you've been doing, with questions, slowly say your name and street address for the record so that the transcriber can be able to receive that information on the record.  You will also be sworn in at that time, since all comments must be made under oath. If you change your mind about speaking when you are called, that's fine just indicate "pass" and we'll move on to the next speaker.  Please note that passing or donating of time to another speaker is not permitted.  So you can't say I'm going to give my time to my neighbor to speak.  Each person who is given a number is entitled to their opportunity only. If you choose to not speak you will have waived that time allotment.  Each speaker will be given up to three minutes to speak.  The three minutes will be following the administration of oath, so we won't begin the clock until after you've been sworn in.
You may read a written statement into the record so long as it doesn't exceed the allotted three minutes.  At the conclusion of your time, you should promptly finish your statement so that it doesn't run on beyond that three minutes and take your seat.  If you choose, you may also provide a written copy of your statement to the Board's secretary, who will be in a convenient location, and the Board will include that as part of its record. We will proceed with this manner until we get through the list of everyone.  We will hear each speaker who wishes to make a comment only once in order to give everyone a chance.  Three minutes is customary.  And it's the amount of time for comments that the Council used during the underlying 2010 process for ordinance. Persons who are listed as members of C.R.R. are considered represented by legal counsel.  So those of you may proceed with your three questions and your three comments    excuse me    your three minutes, however those persons may properly be heard only through their attorney, although each member can testify their respective three minutes as long as their testimony is not repetitive.  The C.R.R. attorney will call upon them at the appropriate time.
The public comment period is also not a time for making formal presentations to the Board, as that opportunity has already been provided by the Board throughout the hearing process.  Thus, the Board does not anticipate a need for a submission of documents during this comment phase.  If there is any individual who has something that he or she believes should be considered by the Board, it may be    it must be provided 10 days in advance of the May 20th meeting.  And I think, Michele, it addresses part of your question.  That 10 days is necessary for us to review the material by Counsel.  That 10 day period is this Friday, the 9th of May, so please submit to Jane Wondergem, the Board secretary, either by e mail or in person, along with a one paragraph introduction as to the relevancy and basis for including that in the document.  She will then forward the information to the Board Counsel for legal review and should there be a concern, for example, lack of foundation, hearsay, relevance, etcetera, the Board will rule on admissibility of the document at the next meeting.  Again, if there is a question. Petitions cannot be accepted, nor any written statements by any parties not present at the hearings can be accepted.  This is a rule established by case law in the state and that all parties seeking to put information before the Board, must be available for cross examination.  It is improper for a Board to examine or discuss a petition and consideration of such a document, and it is certainly outside the scope of the Board's decision process.
As has been the Board's practice, we kindly ask that no one applaud, taunt, boo or interrupt the speaker at the podium, since he or she has the time to speak during that three minute period.  We also ask that everyone respect the time limits and promptly end their statements when we indicate the time is up.  This will allow all persons to be heard.  Please also be aware that the Board has the right to limit repetitive and irrelevant statements and we anticipate not needing to cut short any speakers provided this established procedure is followed.  I think this process has gone very well, people have been very courteous of each other.  And I expect that that will continue during the public comment period. 
The procedural details    the procedures detailed by me tonight will be followed up again on May 20th and also on June 2nd.  We will begin the June 2nd meeting with the first person and number that we did not have time to get completed through on May 20th.  So on May 20th we'll go through all those we have time for, we'll finish at approximately 10:30, and we'll begin with those in the number sequence on the second of June that didn't get a chance to speak on the 20th. 
If you're not able to be available on June 2nd, it is our recommendation that you come early on May 20th so that your name is high on the list.  We'll anticipate that we'll open doors for the provision of numbers and sign in and filling out sign in sheets about an hour prior to start time, which is 7:30.  So we will be here at about 6:30 with set up for you to get your numbers and sign in if you have a desire to speak. Again, as I mentioned, we'll end each evening at approximately 10:30 p.m. 
So, on that note, I want to thank you all for coming and I do look forward to seeing you    we all look forward to seeing you on the 20th of May.
MS PRICE:  At the high school.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  At the high school student center.  Thank you, Gail.  Just so there is no mistake about that. 
MS. BENSON:  I want to know –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, you had a question earlier about process, does that answer your question?

MS. BENSON:  No. No. No.  I want to know if you –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please come to microphone because the recorder can't hear. 
MS. BENSON:  If your    can't be here on time on May 20th, can you sign up on June 2nd?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. BENSON:  Okay.  So you can still sign up.  So it's not –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  There will be the sign-up sheets, will be there also on the 2nd.
MS. BENSON:  Thank you. If we hit 10:30 on June 2nd and you haven't finished everybody, then what?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Well, we'll see what happens.  We're going to continue with comment    
MS. BENSON:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     everyone is entitled to comment.
MS. BENSON:  Okay.  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, Ms. Tuomey.
MS. TUOMEY:  Around January, I submitted some research that I had accumulated which came to you, and I apologized that all of that material came to you on your computers, I didn't intend for that to happen.  Nor did I think or ever would have done anything that I didn't think was correct.  So there was    as Gail said, there was a miscommunication and you got that material. However, it is very important material as far as I'm concerned, it took me a long time to sort it out.  And it isn't everything either, although it's a number of studies on health effects of particulates in particular, and also cardiovascular events and other things from particulate matter that I'm interested in and    as you know. 
When can I    you said you would be very interested in this and Counsel for Valley Hospital objected to my submitting this.  And he said I had to present it when I got up like everybody else.  And if its three minutes, there's no    and I can't hand in the material, what is to happen?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  So, I think you were referred to our counsel to try to sort that out. And, Gail, I think –
MS PRICE:  Right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     why don't you follow up with this.
MS. PRICE:  I think, Mrs. Tuomey, that you were working with Ms. Razin from our office, in terms of trying to help you with what is or what might be admissible in that package, recognizing that articles authored by third parties who are not capable of testifying are not admissible and that there are other constraints placed upon what can come in and out of the record.  And some of the articles that you had provided had your handwritten comments and commentary on them, which doesn't allow this Board to consider those.  So what I would suggest, given the volume, is that our office work with you between now and the end of the week to see what can be done. All 1,000 pages, I can tell you, they're    it's not admissible in their entirety because you    you don't have firsthand knowledge about the drafting of them.  So –
MS. TUOMEY:  They are abstracts of articles from the National Institute of Health.
MS. PRICE:  I understand. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Yes.
MS PRICE:  And there might be certain issues that the Board can take notice of, but others where the documents are potentially compromised by commentary and certainly Counsel for C.R.R. as well as Counsel for Valley would have the opportunity to weigh in as well, which is one of the reasons why the Chair made reference to wanting to get this done by Friday because we want the Board to be able to utilize all of the time when we're here or at the high school to hear from everyone and that we don't get bogged down with objections and rulings. So we want to try to get all of these rulings taken care of, at least in advance sorted out so then the Board knows what they actually have to weigh in on.  So, let's touch base, I know you've spoken with Katie a bunch of times already.
MS. TUOMEY:  Not in a long time actually.
MS. PRICE:  Well, you were away I believe, right?  You've been away?
MS. TUOMEY:  I've been away, yeah. 
MS. PRICE:  So    right, which is why we couldn't talk to you.  So, now that you're back.
MS. TUOMEY:  And nobody tried either.
MS. PRICE:  Oh, that's not –
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Let's make a point of doing that, yes.
 
MS PRICE:     I think we can have a difference of opinion with that since Katie is right there shaking her head.  So, we can communicate outside this meeting. 
MS. TUOMEY:  Okay, very good.  Thank you very much.  It took effort and it is very important for you to see, I think.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.
MS. TUOMEY:  But it is what it is.  Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Tuomey. 
MS. BANEY:  Lisa Baney, my question is procedural.  And it's funny, since Janet was kind of tied into my question, but I'd like to ask, Gail, if you could possibly tell the Board or the public tonight specifically what will be the weighting of the basis of the Board Member's decision?  What weight on expert testimony and verifiable facts versus more subjective issues of quality of life, character of the Village and other intangibles. Because I know that you've said on many occasions that quality of life is, you know, a really important aspect of it.  And I've gone back and forth with the transcripts and seeing, you know, in some cases it says that particular emphasis should be put on fact based, you know, material, so as to sort of avoid the possible exposure to lawsuits for the, you know, appearance of capricious and arbitrary in its decision, but I know at the same time you really are interested and I know the Board is interested in quality of life aspects. So I'm wondering how    I think the residents should know before they go in, if they can, to give their public comments because I would be informed, you know, by knowing how to make my comment useful.  And I know the Board would want to have comments that they could use. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Right.
MS. BANEY:  So this is what I'm very curious about.
MS PRICE:  Lisa, I don't think I can answer your question in terms of what weight is going to be given because that's a determination for the Board Members to make when this matter comes to a vote.
But prior to the vote, I will be going through the parameters of    the legal parameters on actions on a Master Plan Amendment and the issues that have been raised by all sides and certain aspects and constraints on what the Board can do and not do. But I think the Board has acknowledged during the course of the hearings, which certainly has gone longer than the court had anticipated, but I think the Board has demonstrated that they want to make sure that they hear everyone –
MS. BANEY:  Uh huh, uh huh.
MS PRICE:     that at the end of the day it's going to be a combination of fact and expert testimony.  And then the Board, like on all of their matters, they have to make a determination as to whose credibility they assign the most weight. 
So from a residential standpoint, things that affect your quality of life are things that the Board, I'm assuming, would expect to hear about.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS PRICE:  And those things need to be personal to you.  You can't testify about what's happening to your neighbor or things that are happening to third parties.
So to the extent that you're going to get up and make a statement, I mean the statements that were made the last time were very helpful and very detailed.  So make it about you and your family and your thoughts on issues that affect your life in connection with the Hospital whether that's pro or con. 
And you've heard how the experts have broken down their testimony.  So you have traffic testimony.  You have stormwater management testimony.  You have you have environmental testimony in terms of certain underground issues.  You have open space, air and light testimony. 
We've heard from the Board of Ed representative, but certain, you know, parents have direct and firsthand knowledge of children in the schools, and you can certainly testify about that so, you know, a normal 24 hour day in the life of, how does this matter affect you, just as any development potential would affect you. 
I think that's    that's your guidance, you know, where you would get into trouble is if you steer off course and rely upon a newspaper article or say something that doesn't really involve you, but you're opining on another group. 
MS. BANEY:  Well, I'm glad I asked because I had the impression that there might be some better weight put or the Board might be advised to put more weight on testimony, public testimony that has some kind of facts and figures and verifiable, measurable, you know, aspects to it.
MS. PRICE:  Those facts and figures, if you're going to utilize any of those, they need to be based in documents that the Board can take judicial notice of.  They can't be subjective facts and figures that can't be confirmed without speculation or without debate. 
MS. BANEY:  Unless, perhaps, they're presented as part of, as you said, a person's own subjective day in their life, then    well, I guess, it's interesting because I thought I heard    this is helpful, I thought I heard     I thought I heard    I think I even read in one of recent transcripts, I thought there was somewhere where I thought you said that the Board would be urged to put more weight on fact based testimony.
MS. PRICE:  I think the question I was asked was does fact testimony   
MS. BANEY:  Get more weight   
MS PRICE:  Is fact testimony assigned any weight? 
Someone asked that question.  And the Board looks    I think the answer was the Board looks at all the testimony it receives. 
MS. BANEY:  It looks at all of it.
MS PRICE:  And then decides what weight to give to it. 
MS. BANEY:  Okay, that's great because I also get the sense that there's no real absolute norm with regard to a Master Plan application amendment process, you know, in terms of a rule, you know, on that, that it kind of is the judgment of the Planning Board and their attorney how they best think they can   
MS. PRICE:  It has nothing to do    although the blog and a lot of other neighborhood spin seems to think that their attorney has stuff to do with it.  It does not have anything to do with their attorney, it has to do with the decision of this Board and Board Members.
MS. BANEY:  Okay.  Okay.
MS PRICE:  But you're right, it doesn't have a hard and fast rule such as a variance, which I mentioned earlier where the positive and negative criteria can be more easily determined and that's why the Village Planner was trying to make comparisons for the purpose of presentation of his testimony, so that everyone could understand his analysis.
But the Master Plan Amendment creation is different than ruling on a typical site plan application.
MS. BANEY:  Okay.  So the only concern that I can think of is lying out there in the back of my mind, if I'm a Board Member and I'm sleeping at night, is the    the nightmare of have I exposed myself to a lawsuit because, you know, I haven't come up with something verifiable that Jane Doe thinks this is bad for her life, you know, and so I hope we can as residents come up with ways to talk about our personal heart and how we actually feel about the character of our Village and indeed that will be given as much weight as, you know, some expert's take on that, I hope.  So thank you.  Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Baney. 
Ms. Sherman, yes. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Just two quick questions.
Do I have to give my name and my address again? 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  If it's a procedural question just ask the question. 
MS. SHERMAN:  So my question is what sort of material can be sent to Jane if it    if it can't be an article from the National Institute of Health or it can't be    what do you mean?  Can you give us some examples of things that could be sent in, additional materials.  That's my first question.
And my second question    well, I'm going to wait for the first.
MS. PRICE:  It's really, we    the Chairman asked during the course of the hearing several times, if people had anything to present or if there was going to be a formal presentation, so that's what he meant when that reference was made earlier. 
During public comment, public comment is really not the time for the Board to start receiving documents at the end of the case, so it should be limited   
MS. SHERMAN:  What kind of documents can we submit? 
MS. PRICE:  I'm going to answer your question. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Oh, okay.  Fine.
MS PRICE:  Okay.  I was breathing. 
It would be, for instance, if you happen to live across the street from a particular site and you take a picture that you personally take of the line of sight from your property to an adjoining piece of property and you can then stand up and say, I took this picture on such and such a date and I can authenticate it and this is my view shed of this particular property. 
The Board could take that into the record and accept it for your testimony as to what it accurately portrays in your opinion.  That's an example of something.
MS. SHERMAN:  Great.
MS. PRICE:  But if you're going to pull something from, you know, 1982 that talks about hospitals in Alabama and something that happened there that the author is, you know, now in Costa Rica, that's not going to come into the record. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Their statements also can be brought into the record.
MS PRICE:  And    right, and your statement, just as we did in the underlying, your statements can be handed in and they will go into the black binder and the Board reviews those statements because they are part of the transcript and can refer back. 
And the last go around, those statements were    I can tell you the statements were very personal and very detailed.  There was no shortage of opinion given.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's a good idea to do that because it helps organize your thoughts and you can practice the three minutes and then we will have a hard copy as well.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  And then last question, I'm just going to sit down after I ask the question, is can you explain the difference between the vote and then the resolution?  Because I don't know if I understand that whole process.
MS. PRICE:  Yes. 
MS. SHERMAN:  I'm going to go sit down.
MS PRICE:  Okay.  In all land use applications or matters, the official action as defined by the Municipal Land Use Law is not the vote of a board, it is the adoption    actually it's not even the adoption, it's the publication that is made of the adoption of the resolution memorializing the vote.  That was a lot of words. 
In essence, after the Board votes, either yes or no, our office drafts a resolution which memorializes the Board's vote. 
After that resolution is adopted, the Board secretary arranges for a notice of that resolution's adoption to be published in the official newspaper of the Village.  And the appeal period runs from the date of publication of that notice.
So the 45 days on an appeal would run from the publication.  So, even though you might think, oh, well, it's the vote that really counts, it's not.  It's the adoption of the resolution that is the official action.  And then the appeal runs from the publication.  So that's the difference.
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.  Just the resolution last time was many, many, many pages.
MS PRICE:  Correct.
MS. SHERMAN:  It doesn't have to have more content in it than just the memorialization of a yes, no vote, that I    I don't    I am not sure    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Content is important. 
MS. PRICE:  The resolution is the findings.  The resolution has to be findings of fact a conclusions of law. 
MS. SHERMAN:  Okay.
MS. PRICE:  There you one more, I think.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Please, please come forward. 
MR. O'DONNELL:  My name is Laurence O'Donnell, L a u r e n c e O ' D o n n e l l, 568 Wyndemere, in Ridgewood. 
The deadline which you imposed of May 10th, may seem very important and necessary to the workings of the Planning Board, but isn't it clear that it is putting an unreasonable burden on anyone who would like to file something for consideration to your board. 
In other words, you're saying next time there is a hearing, if you want to submit any documents, they have to be here by the 10th, which is three days from now. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  The end of the week, yes.
Well, the hope is that you have that material.  If there is something you need to prepare, if there is a special circumstance it would have to be a good one.  Unless you   
MS. PRICE:  And the statement doesn't have to be    
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  No.
MS PRICE:  The statement is not necessary to be filed by   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes, that shouldn't be the misunderstanding. 
MS PRICE:     the 10th.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  The statement that you make, if there is a supporting document that's   
MR. O'DONNELL:  The supportive documents.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Supporting, completely separate from your statement   
MR. O'DONNELL:  Right.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     and there really is not many circumstances where that would be the case in our view.  Those should be in by the 10th so they can be reviewed appropriately by Counsel.
But your statement, you have until the 20th or the 2nd   
MR. O'DONNELL:  Yes, but the documents   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:     to prepare for that.
MR. O'DONNELL:    are what you want by the 10th. 
MS PRICE:  The 9th.
MR. O'DONNELL:  So they can be circulated.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  By Friday.
MR. O'DONNELL:  That's pretty short notice to say that to the people. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  That's correct. 
MS. PRICE:  And that's how the Board has acted with all of the matters to date. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Ten days before.
MS PRICE:  Everyone has had to file their documents 10 days in advance of the meeting. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Including the applicant. 
MR. O'DONNELL:  Well, for what it's worth, it doesn't send a good signal about the interest in getting the information from the citizens. 
MS. PRICE:  Well, I mean anyone could also get in touch with Jane or with our office and say, if you're having a hard time getting something, for instances, you can identify what it is, because if you haven't gotten it, but you can identify it, we may be able to expedite a ruling on it as well. 
The documentation really needs to be something that can come in and is admissible into the record. 
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Is it a question of determining that you may or may not add something and you're trying to figure that out or do you know you   
MR. O'DONNELL:  No, I'm not asking it from a personal basis.
MS PRICE:  Oh.
MR. O'DONNELL:  I don't have a document that I   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  It's just a general question that you have? 
MR. O'DONNELL:  A general question.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Okay.  I hope we answered it. 
Thank you Mr. O'Donnell.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Charles, can I just ask a question about the procedure and the comments from the public?
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Sure.
MS. DOCKRAY:  If they feel there's been expert testimony on a subject, but it's missing something or they dispute something in that testimony, should they not bring that up in their comments as well?
MS PRICE:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS. DOCKRAY:  Okay.  It's not just their personal experiences, but if   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Personal observations, they are welcome to do that.
MS. DOCKRAY:  That too.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  As long as it's theirs. 
MS. DOCKRAY:  Yes.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you for the question, Wendy.
Yes. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Hi, can like a school teacher or a Realtor come up during public comment and give their opinion as to, you know, if there was a school teacher that has lived through prior construction and what her experience or his experience was like or a Realtor giving their opinion of, you know, what people tell them.  People said, hey, if this is going through I'm putting my house on the market. 
MS. PRICE:  No.  Well, the Realtor    that may be hearsay on behalf of the Realtor.  So if the Realtor can opine directly   
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  To themselves.
MS PRICE:  Yes, to themselves.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Yes.
MS PRICE:  But the Realtor wouldn't be able to say so and so told me such and such because that would be hearsay. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  No, but even say for the last time when the Board voted yes, if the Realtor said there was a spike in sales around the Hospital and clients didn't want to buy those houses because of they thought that, you know, construction was going to be going on, something like that.  If they thought houses were not being sold as quickly or at, you know, market value because of what people expected.
MS. PRICE:  I think that that person would be subject then to pretty significant cross examination by different parties on a variety of issues. 
And, you know, a school teacher who's also an interested party can certainly testify as to his or her own experience and an interested party is defined as any person whose right to use, acquire or enjoy property is affected or may be affected.  So that's a pretty broad umbrella.
But, again, since it's a personal statement, it can't be based upon hearsay or not have the right foundation. 
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.  So anybody who has actually lived through the construction, prior construction.
MS. PRICE:  I would just caution it to be relevant to this matter because that's what the Board is    the Board is now acting on the new amendment in contrast to the existing amendment that's in place.  That's the issue. 
The 2010 Amendment is still valid.  And we'll discuss this in June, but the 2010 Amendment is in place.  The Board will be acting on this amendment which, if adopted, would then moot out the 2010 Amendment.
So the Board would be looking at, at some point, the relevance of prior construction projects because what it really needs to look at is, is this Amendment appropriate at this point in time in 2014, for the neighborhood, for the Village, for all of the questions it has to answer within the parameters.
MS. REYNOLDS:  Okay.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN:  Thank you, Ms. Reynolds. 
Okay.  No last questions on procedure.
So, hopefully, we will see you all on the 20th.
Again, it's at the high school. 

9:50 p.m. - Public Hearing on Amendment to the Land Use Plan Element of the Master Plan – AH-2, B-3-R, C-R & C Zone Districts – Chairman Nalbantian announced that the Board would hear architecture testimony for The Enclave and then proceed with public questions for the architects from all three applicants.
Thomas Bruinooge, attorney representing 257 Ridgewood Avenue, LLC, submitted the PowerPoint presentation of Minno Wasko, which was marked as Exhibit E-3. Mr. Bruinooge introduced Bruce Englebagh, architect for The Enclave project. Mr. Englebagh was sworn by Ms. Price and his credentials as an expert in architecture were accepted by the Board. Mr. Englebagh stated that he was standing in for David Minno, architect, but that he was very familiar with the design. Mr. Englebagh presented the PowerPoint which showed an aerial photograph of the property and the surrounding buildings. Mr. Englebagh showed the buildings on the property that would be demolished and where the proposed five story tower would be built to adjoin the existing Sealfons building with parking spaces in the lower level. Mr. Englebagh showed photos of other buildings in the downtown area to show how the architectural style of the new building would fit in. Mr. Englebagh showed a rendering of the proposed development, explained the architectural features and in the next several slides showed how The Enclave would look from different perspectives. Mr. Englebagh explained how the height was determined and compared it with other buildings in the area.
The meeting was opened to the public for questions of Mr. Englebagh, Mr. Appel and Mr. Peter Wells.
Brian Abdoo, 308 West Ridgewood Avenue, asked Mr. Englebagh how many parking spaces existed on the property now.
John Saraceno, 17 Coventry Court, was sworn by Ms. Price. Mr. Saraceno said there were 74 parking spaces now and that 14 of those spaces are reserved for employees.
Mr. Abdoo asked if the applicants were obligated to build what has been presented if the master plan amendment is approved. Ms. Price explained the process of the master plan amendment and adoption of an ordinance and said that once that was done the applicants would need to come back to the Planning Board with a site plan application consistent with the ordinance.
Oliver Beiersdorf, 50 South Murray Avenue, asked Mr. Englebagh about the height of the existing buildings which were shown in his presentation. Mr. Englebagh wasn’t sure of the height and explained that he used those buildings for the architectural style. Mr. Beiersdorf asked for clarification of the number of units being proposed and how many people would reside there and the number of parking spaces for those residents. Mr. Englebagh said there would be 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit and that of the 134 proposed parking spaces, 78 would be reserved.
The hearing was closed for public questions.
Board members asked the architects what the street frontage and floor area was for each of the proposed developments. Mr. Appel said the street frontage of The Dayton would be approximately 330 feet and the floor area of the building would be approximately 180,000 square feet. Mr. Englebagh said the street frontage of The Enclave would be approximately 176 feet and the building floor area would be approximately 63,900 square feet. Mr. P. Wells said the street frontage of Chestnut Village would be approximately 180 feet and the building floor area would be approximately 68,000 square feet.
The Board members asked Mr. P. Wells regarding the units set aside for special needs at Chestnut Village and if consideration was given to making them two-bedroom units to accommodate an aide. Mr. P. Wells said that would be open to the owner’s consideration.
Board members asked for clarification regarding the parking at The Enclave and the floor area for the commercial space. Mr. Saraceno said that currently there is approximately 43,000 square feet of commercial space. Mr. Saraceno said that what is proposed would include 28,000 square feet of commercial space after 14,000 to 15,000 square feet of existing commercial is demolished and replaced by the 52 residential units. There would be 134 parking spaces, 56 for commercial and 78 for residential. 
The Board members asked each of the architects regarding the use of any green space or patios associated with the apartments. Mr. Englebagh said, regarding The Enclave, that there is green space in front of the building mainly for aesthetic purposes as well as a common terrace area for the residents.  Mr. P. Wells said, regarding Chestnut Village, that they would hope to have an outdoor recreational area at the rear of the building in addition to the patios and stoops along the street front. Mr. Appel said, regarding The Dayton, that there would be buffer area and landscaping around the building and a courtyard that separates the buildings. Mr. Appel said that there would also be an amenity deck on the first residential floor.
Mr. Brancheau asked how the heights of the buildings were measured when the comparisons were done. Mr. P. Wells said they worked with the site engineer and used his measurements.
Mr. Brancheau asked, regarding The Enclave, if an analysis was done to determine what the relative parking ratio for the commercial component of the building is currently versus what it would be proposed. Mr. Saraceno said it would be better than the current ratio. Mr. Brancheau said that the Village Code requires 3 or 4 parking spaces per thousand square feet and that what is proposed is less than that, and that the occupancy of the commercial space would have to be restricted to certain uses to work with that type of parking ratio. Mr. Saraceno said currently they go to the Planning Board for each tenant due to those restrictions. Mr. Bruinooge said these questions would be better for the traffic or parking expert.
Mr. Rutishauser asked Mr. P. Wells, regarding Chestnut Village, what the height of the building would be when viewed from the west towards east. Mr. P. Wells said it would be two stories, about 28 feet.
Ms. Price asked about the length of time for construction if these projects were to be approved, from demolition to the first Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Englebagh said, regarding The Enclave, that they had not looked at that. Mr. Appel said, regarding The Dayton, that they looked at it but there were too many factors to consider in order to make an estimate at this time. Mr. P. Wells said, regarding Chestnut Village, that it would take 10 to 12 months as the site is already demolished.
Mr. Weiner had no questions.
There was discussion regarding hearing dates and witnesses. The hearing was carried to June 3, 2014.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:57 P.M.
      
      Respectfully submitted,
      Jane Wondergem
      Board Secretary

Date approved: