Planning Board Public Meeting Minutes 20171107
The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of November 7, 2017. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.
Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Following members were present:, Joel Torielli, Mayor Knudsen, Richard Joel, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Mr. Van Goor, Melanie McWilliams, Ms. Barto, and David Scheibner. Also present were Board Attorney, Christopher Martin, Esq., Village Planner, Elizabeth Mc Manus; Assistant Village Engineer, Jovan Mehandzic, and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Mr. Rutishauser, Ms. Patire, Ms. Barto, and Ms. Altano were not present.
Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – None were reported
Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics, Correspondence – Mr. Scheibner reported the Site Plan Exemption Committee (SPEC) met to discuss two applications and both were approved.
Stacy Tsapatsaris, Minor Subdivision and C Variance, 144 North Murray Avenue, Block 2104, Lot 2 and 3.06 – Pubic Hearing continued from September 5, 2017 – Nick and Stacy Tsapatsaris were at the meeting and Mr. Tsapatsaris presented their application for a subdivision with no new variances. Board members asked about the dimensions, the reason for the subdivision and deed restrictions. Mayor Knudsen motioned to approve the application, Mr. Torielli seconded and all approved.
200/210 South Broad Avenue, LLC, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan and C Variance, Block 3905, Lot 6 and 7 – Pubic Hearing continued from September 5, 2017. (The following is a transcription of the audio file prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R. of the Village of Ridgewood Planning Board Meeting of November 7, 2017 concerning the 200/210 SOUTH BROAD AVENUE LLC application. Case begins at 18:40 on the tape counter.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Our next application will be 200/210 South Broad Avenue LLC, preliminary and final major site plan with (c) variance, Block 3905, Lots 6 and 7. Public hearing continued from September 5, 2017. Counsel on this application is Charles Collins. Welcome.
MR. COLLINS: Good evening. I'm not sure why you and Mr. Torielli are here, you belong someplace else tonight. For the record, my name is Charles Collins. I'm an attorney with offices at 135 Prospect Street in Ridgewood. And I'm here on behalf of the two applicants to pursue site plan approval from this board. By way of background, the application has two applicants because although this zone is only going to be on 210 South Broad Street, there is an easement that is located on 200 and across the rear of 210. And that is the reason for that limited liability company to be also in that, both of which have as their principal, Dr. Anna Korkis who is here tonight with us. The history of this application, you may well remember or at least Mr. Torielli and Mr. Joel will remember, we were before the zoning board originally. But an issue arose as to floor area ratio. And there was a give and take between actually I think it may have been Mr. Voigt at that time, over whether if we abandoned the request for a floor area ratio, would we be able to proceed without any further concern by variances. At any rate, we did abandon the floor area ratio request. It is not part of our program here tonight. And what we are seeking are some (c) variances. And I hope to convince you that they are presently only because of existing conditions. They're not because of anything we're doing with the property to create them. I have three witnesses tonight before you. And I have Mr. Bartlett here who is a principal in the former occupant of this building, Urban Associates. It was a publishing company for a long period of time. And his testimony, if it's called for, will relate to the intensity of use of the property (inaudible) publishing company. So with that in mind, I would like to begin with our engineer, Brian Shortino.
MR. MARTIN: Counsel, you would agree that this is a major site plan?
MR. COLLINS: Say that again, I'm sorry?
MR. MARTIN: It's a major site plan, you're seeking, correct?
MR. COLLINS: Yes.
MR. MARTIN: Yes.
Mr. Shortino, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. SHORTINO: I do.
B R I A N S H O R T I N O, 66 Glen Avenue, Glen Rock, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN: Counsel, on voir dire.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. Mr. Shortino, what is your occupation?
A. I work as a licensed professional engineer for Bertin Engineering Associates.
Q. Would you give the board the benefit of your curriculum vitae and your education, experience and expertise as an engineer.
A. I have an undergraduate degree in landscape architecture from Rutgers University. I have a master's of science degree in civil engineering from New Jersey Institute of Technology. I'm a licensed professional engineer, licensed professional planner, licensed landscape architect in the State of New Jersey. I've been involved in the practice of landscape architecture for 40 years and a civil engineer for 36 years.
MR. COLLINS: With that as a background I offer Mr. Shortino as a professional engineer for purposes of this application.
MR. MARTIN: So qualified.
College?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
MR. MARTIN: What year?
THE WITNESS: 1977, that's about 40 years.
MR. MARTIN: Very nice.
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. All right. Mr. Shortino, you've been involved in this application ever since it began, haven't you?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you've been with me in the ups and the downs, right?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Let's hope we have an up night. Would you describe the application and what you did for (inaudible) use of this property?
MR. CAFARELLI: Excuse me, MR. COLLINS, can you and THE WITNESS please use the microphone. Thank you.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Is it working?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: No.
THE WITNESS: Is it working?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Tap on it.
THE WITNESS: Working? Okay. Now I got it. Just for a matter of record, our office prepared the site plan drawings, they consist of site plan drawings, eight sheets. The initial date of the drawings is April 3rd, 2015. And the latest revision on the drawings is February 6, 2017.
MR. MARTIN: Do you want to mark the entire package A 1 and refer to the sheet.
THE WITNESS: Okay, A 1 and today's date is 11/7/17. (Whereupon, Site Plan package, eight sheets, Last Revised February 6, 2017 is received and marked as Exhibit A 1 for identification.)
THE WITNESS: So just with respect to the location of the well, there's actually two properties involved, the majority or really the application only deals with Lot 7 but they're known as Lot 7, which is the subject property and Lot 6, which is the property that has the existing easement on the site that we're going to be using for access, both located Block 3905. So with reference to Lot 6, which is 210 South Broad Street, what I'd like to do is just introduce an exhibit that normally we prepare for planning or zoning board presentations. This is not part of the package, but we call this the Landscape Rendering. We submit this as an exhibit or present it as an exhibit at the hearing and with the colorized versions just gives a better understanding for the board and the public of what we're proposing for the site.
MR. MARTIN: Just mark this in. (Whereupon, Landscape Rendering is received and marked as Exhibit A 2 for identification.)
THE WITNESS: Okay. Just, I guess I'll back up a little bit, but I'll reference the exhibit, but again this is really a combination of the site plan and the landscape plan, again for presentation purposes. Obviously the greens are either plant material or landscaped areas. The brown color is actually the building portion that's going to remain. One thing about this application, there's an existing two car garage on the westerly side of the building. That's proposed to be removed as part of the application. So what we're proposing for this site is to renovate the existing building. There will be testimony from the architect on what will be done to the exterior and interior. But we're proposing to remove the garage and do a renovation to the existing building. Presently, there's only one driveway that acts as a two way driveway along South Broad Street. There's a two car garage and there's just a paved area to the rear. So access presently is done on South Broad Street with a two way driveway. So what we're proposing for the renovation of this building is to remove the garage, two car garage along the rear. The driveway along South Broad Street will remain, but now it's going to function as a one way in driveway. And we're just having a clockwise type orientation to get to the parking area within the site. But on this northerly side where we the adjacent property line to Lot 7, there's a driveway that's utilized by 200 South Broad Street, which the driveway actually accesses the parking area to the rear.
MALE BOARD MEMBER: I think a lot of them are backwards.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Can I just ask a question? Because I'm not finding what you're maybe it's me, is everybody on the right page? Can you just tell us
CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, that's that's not part of our package.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, I know, but don't we didn't get anything that I understand the colorized version, but we don't have any (inaudible) that exists?
THE WITNESS: No, you should. You have the site plan. That should be Drawing C 22. It's not that large scale, it's a smaller scale, but the site plan drawing is C 22, which shows the parking, the driveway orientation, the garage, the (inaudible) building.
MALE BOARD MEMBER: (Inaudible).
THE WITNESS: Excuse me?
MALE BOARD MEMBER: (Inaudible).
THE WITNESS: No, the landscape shows the landscape plan shows the plant material and the landscape plan is Drawing 2.4.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right. I have it. I just thought I was going to see more mass. I thought it wasn't going to be color, but the exact same plan. Okay.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I think I believe I said the lot number incorrectly.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I think you (inaudible).
THE WITNESS: I thought I did. Okay. But just to back up, again, what we're doing is with respect to access in and out of the site, as I mentioned, the driveway along South Broad Street is currently a two way driveway. It's more or less a dead end behind of building with a garage. So you would access the site, the only access from South Broad Street, which is two way access. But in this proposal with adjacent Lot 6 that has a driveway to the rear, there's an agreement to open up the curb cut, provide a curb cut so this site functions in a clockwise orientation for access in and out of the site. So we've indicated 10 parking spaces on the site. It's my understanding that 10 parking spaces were already previously existing at the site. So we've maintained the same amount of parking that's presently allocated for the site. With the renovation and again, there will be testimony from the architect, with the interior modifications, the proposed main entrance will be on the northerly side. With the parking arrangement we did, we're required to put one handicap ADA accessible space, which we did, at the northwesterly corner. There's a ramp at the northeasterly corner above the building and then a concrete sidewalk to the front entrance that essentially is on the side of the building. So with respect to the parking spaces, again, we have 10 spaces on site. You would enter from South Broad Street and you would exit to the access easement and then you would make a right turn and you'd be able to exit the site or get onto a municipal roadway on South Broad Street along the driveway that's on existing Lot 6. There were certain site improvements that were done with respect to the renovation of the building with removal of the garage. But the site has pavement on it, a certain amount of pavement is existing to remain, that's essentially on the southerly side, because that's where all the existing pavement is. But we are indicating certain improvements that don't exist. There's currently no dumpster at the site. So we have a dumpster in this that's more or less the southwesterly northwesterly corner. We have some angled parking spaces with (inaudible) parking spaces with wheel stops that protect from hitting the building. The handicap spot will be signed and (inaudible) correct me through color for designated for handicap access. On the adjacent Lot 6 there's a landscape strip along that southerly side of the driveway and the landscaping is going to be removed and a concrete sidewalk is going to be installed. So there's pedestrian access allowed from South Main Street with steps in the middle of the site and it's handicap accessible necessary from pedestrian access you would need to go to the ramp at the end of the sidewalk and then enter the ramp within the site to go back to the sidewalk to the front entrance, but that's how we would want to that somebody would approach the site, that new handicap accessibility from a pedestrian along South Broad Street. With respect to some of the numbers for the site and some of the variances, just to go through them, essentially as MR. COLLINS stated, they're more or less all existing. We'll call nonconformities for variances with respect to the site. The side yard requirement is 0 feet where 12 feet is or 12 feet is required what is shown, so it can have 0 on the that's the northerly side and but the variance because the lot line changes as you proceed in the westerly direction. This was noticed as a variance, but there wasn't any. There's a maximum coverage by improvements is 90 percent. And it was noticed that it was 94 percent. But that was incorrect. On Lot 7, the coverage, which is the subject property, is going to be 84.3 percent. And on Lot 6 the coverage is going to be 74.76 percent. There's a variance request for the maximum illumination level at the residential zone boundary, 0.1 footcandles is required and, again, this varies between 0.5 to 1.0 footcandles and that occurs on this westerly side that's the zone boundary, for a residential zone on this excuse me I said westerly, it's the southerly side of the property. And, essentially, that occurs along the property line, but just for reference, there's actually a 3 foot to 4 foot wall along the property line and that actually prohibits the site lighting from reaching the property line. And, again, just to be on the safe side it was recognized and noticed as a variance, but we don't even believe that occurs on the outside of the wall. And there's because there is lighting, we've indicated some wall lights on the building. And there's some existing area lights that are going around the adjacent property so it actually two (inaudible) and the third light's on the subject property.
There's a variance required that's setback from the parking areas should be 5 feet from the side and rear property lines. And this varies, but again, the parking area along the rear is more or less existing so that along side lines is approximately 2 feet, from the rear property line is essentially 0 and on the opposite side that's approximately 4.5 feet. Then the last variance that was noticed was setback for driveways to the residential zone, 10 feet is required. And, again, this is more or less an existing condition. That's the driveway along South Broad Street, which is existing in that 0. So there's no change to that requirement of 10 feet. We weren't able to change that. So that's notice or withdrawn as a variance in the notice. Okay. Just with respect to some of the site improvements, we're doing for the site, since it is an existing building, all the existing utilities would remain. There's gas, electric, sanitary water, those are all going to stay, they're not going to change. We're doing interior curbing, delineating some parking areas. Again, there is improvements with some additional site lighting that exists, small lights attached to the building. They vary in height, but essentially they're between about 7 and 11 feet, I believe, but they did vary because even though they're mounted on the same height on the building, the grade changes from the rear to the front. It actually the storm drains is towards South Broad Street. With there presently isn't any storm drainage structures on the site, but we did increase the pervious area on the site. So what we've installed on the grading plan, there's a dry well on site and that captures about two thirds of the roof area from the existing building. Presently there isn't any storm drainage structures on the site. So more or less the rule of thumb is when you re develop a site, you can't increase the stormwater generation. It should be treated somehow or addressed somehow where the stormwater would not increase and that's what we're doing by providing a dry well to the rear.
The dry well is because it's the roof area of the building, it gets clean water and that percolates into the ground. So there's no issues with any type of contamination being transferred to the subsurface groundwater level. As indicated, we have some proposed landscaping on the site where there presently isn't any. The shrubs to the and plant material to the west and north as existing on adjacent Lot 6, but it's important so we kept them on there even though those plants are not being proposed, those are all existing. Everything else within the site that's indicated as plant material is proposed. We have two ornamental trees in the front along South Broad and the other one of them along the side property line. Some of the plant material that's being removed along Lot 6 is being relocated onto this site and the and the dotted area is going to be lawn area on the site. As I mentioned, we've indicated that included a trash enclosure on the site to address some garbage on the site plan. Part of the site plan package, we do show a vehicular turning movement with a garbage truck. A garbage truck can enter the site, exit the site through the access easement without any problems. It's a safe maneuver. And let me just look at the plans here see if I missed anything else. Okay, I believe that's it. That's more or less what we're proposing for the site. In my opinion, I think it does make for a better plan than presently was existing, just by virtue of from a traffic standpoint and we do show, you know, the improvements with the handicap spot. We've increased some landscaping on the site. There presently isn't any landscaping on site. I'm sorry. There is a minimal, I'll say, lawn on the front and some of the areas in the rear. And that would be it, that's basically the summary of the proposed improvements to the site.
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. Now, the variances that you've outlined for the board, they are all a result of existing conditions; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. There's nothing that we are doing with the development of that property that creates a variance, other than the variances that were already needed, right?
A. That's correct (inaudible).
MR. COLLINS: I don't have anything further, Mr. Joel.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We'll start with questions.
Jeff?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So what's the what's the use of this building? What's it going to be used for?
MR. COLLINS: Proposed medical building.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: A medical building that what kind of medical?
MR. COLLINS: I don't have the answer to that, Mr. Voigt. I can't tell you. The there has been no market it at this point in time.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. But it's going to be a it's going to be a medical building.
MR. COLLINS: It's going to be a medical building.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
MR. COLLINS: And that
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.
MR. COLLINS: unless for other the reasons that it doesn't work in terms of the owner and the market, but that's what is intended and that's what we've indicated in each one of the applications for this project (inaudible).
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Help me understand, you have 10 spaces?
MR. COLLINS: Ten.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Ten. Okay. So it's a medical building. I mean, how many spaces do you think you're going to need?
MR. COLLINS: If we were I believe it would be close to 30. I'm not sure.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, I just I was looking at the requirements it does say 30 spaces.
MR. COLLINS: All right.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So I guess
MR. COLLINS: So my memory was correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, that was pretty good.
So the question I have is: Where are the other 20 people going to park?
MR. COLLINS: Well, the testimony previously had been that we are parking on nearby streets. We have a more specific answer for you when the planner comes up to tell you exactly what is intended. But if you'll remember, the limitation of 10 spaces was reviewed by the zoning board and authorized by the zoning board. And I believe as part of the resolution that I had to get to the application, if you want to take a look at that, it's there.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I have a question to, I guess, (inaudible) how much weight to be taken of a resolution from the zoning board? I mean, that's a piece of evidence that we consider or is it something that is kind of binding or not? I don't...
MR. MARTIN: This is (inaudible).
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
MR. MARTIN: I don't have any (inaudible) issue.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. Okay. Yeah, so I guess that's the the main concern I had. I don't know if you can squeeze in more spaces or not. We may not be able to.
THE WITNESS: No, we can't we can't squeeze any more spaces into the site. This is it's 10 spaces. Again, that's what was previously existing and actually two of those spaces were inside the garage. So that probably adds to the these improvements and maintain the spots, 10 spaces. That's all I can fit on this site is 10 spaces.
MR. COLLINS: Do you remember in Ridgewood historically, and perhaps unfortunately, parking is based upon area, floor area, not on use.
So as a result, although, for my case we're not I'm not asking stipulation as far as parking on that property, but at this point we feel that there are enough available spaces in that neighborhood to make up for any loss or deficit that we might have.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. Just a question I didn't ask. One wonders where are you going to put those people, the 20 spaces are
MR. COLLINS: Understand
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: would be the question I have.
MR. COLLINS: Let me bring on a witness a little later on to
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
MR. COLLINS: to try to answer that for you. Okay?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Dave?
MR. SCHEIBNER: Help me understand the ground rule that the handicap ramp is on the northerly side of the building, 4 foot wide?
THE WITNESS: The handicap is on this northwesterly corner or northeasterly, excuse me. That's where the ramp is, it's right across from the handicap space.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Okay. And so that that entrance is the main entrance?
THE WITNESS: Yes. The main entrance would be on this northerly side where in this colored rendering, landscape rendering, it's this tan color.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Okay. And the the entrance on the westerly well, there's two westerly walls, those triangles represent entrances?
THE WITNESS: The triangles are the entranceways or doorways.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Do okay. But they're not the main entrance?
THE WITNESS: The architect is here, it was my understanding the main entrance is where the canopy is on this on the northerly side.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Okay. And one of the parking spaces is actually right off the street beside the driveway?
THE WITNESS: That's correct. There's one space which is perpendicular to South Broad Street.
MR. SCHEIBNER: And then two spaces are tandem spaces in the southwest corner.
THE WITNESS: That's correct. And there there are no they are going to be signed as employee spaces only.
MR. SCHEIBNER: I don't yeah, maybe it's on a different sheet, but I'm not seeing the the distance between the southwesterly corner of the building and the property line and
THE WITNESS: Is it the distance you're looking for here?
MR. SCHEIBNER: No. The
THE WITNESS: Here?
MR. SCHEIBNER: That corner, yeah.
THE WITNESS: This one?
MR. SCHEIBNER: Yeah.
THE WITNESS: I don't know if it's on the plan. I can scale it if it's not shown. I can have it scaled.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Just ask that that other corner there, to the curb it's indicated 12 feet, right?
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure where you are.
This is this is the this is where you just asked me.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Correct?
MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes.
THE WITNESS: So that distance is that's approximately 17 feet.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Okay. Now, the southwesterly corner of that parking space, the garage space, the distance from that corner of that parking space to the brick wall?
THE WITNESS: That's approximately 12 feet.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Okay. No further questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: James?
MR. VAN GOOR: I have no questions at this time.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mayor?
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Just a question, actually, for our planner.
Are tandem spaces permitted?
MS. BOGART: We don't actually count them as space parking spaces in regards to the zoning ordinance.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: They do not?
MS. BOGART: Right. In addition, I think space 9, is it? The one that runs out to towards the sidewalk, I don't know if that would actually comply with the code as well.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Well, essentially that was my next question.
What is the size of 9?
THE WITNESS: The size of the space?
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So now space No. 9.
THE WITNESS: It should be 9 by 12, all the spaces excuse me 9 by 18. All those spaces should be typical of that size. Yes, it's 9 by 18.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right. I might have a a few questions coming back. Why don't you just continue.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie?
MS. McWILLIAMS: I don't there's a lot I do like about it, but I really, I have concerns about the parking issues. If you have two doctors' offices running simultaneously, I mean, it did say that Dr. Korkis would be operating one office and probably you keep control over who would be in the other office. You'd have two doctors, two nurses, two medical assistants, two receptionists, and say two patients, I mean and that would be the most under functioning doctor's office I've ever seen. So I'm not sure how with even just the staff you can operate with just 10 spaces and two doctors' offices. So the parking is just huge. It's I'm not sure where you go. It's not really a question as much as it's more, if you have any and if you're already deficient, maybe or possibly one space already, space 9 doesn't meet the zoning, I have real concerns about the parking. I'm not sure I necessarily even have a question. I don't mind the lighting. I don't know. I don't I don't really have a question, other than how do you what are your options as far as parking for employees and staff anywhere else given that with just the staff alone you're already at probably well over 10 spaces?
MR. COLLINS: I'm sorry, I was interrupted. If I may, I know this parking is an issue. It has been an issue ever since these applications began. One of the exhibits I have here indicates that this building was erected in 1957. That's 60 years ago. At the time of the original application before the zoning board Mr. Brancheau had testified to the board as follows: "What I'm saying is today as the building exists today, I believe that the floor area is 2900 and something and one per 200 you need 15 spaces, let's say. And with both floors you need 30. Both floors with the same footprint, you need 15 if we're just using the ground floor only. If you're using some of the basement, you need something more than 15. If you're using all of the basement today, you need 30. And so under Ridgewood system for better or worse, that's neither here nor there. I suggested to the planning board as part of their ongoing re exam that they look at this issue about regulating by floor area only and not by use. But that's not what the code is today. The code is that the parking is determined by area, not by use. We are not casting a vote in favor or in opposition to that regulation, but it is something on the books and it is something that should apply. I do have the planner who's looked at on street parking available in the area and he will testify to that. But for all practical purposes, we're only required to provide based upon area. And the zoning board has made a decision in that resolution, I've got the ordinance attached to your application, to the application, that 10 parking spaces is all they're going (inaudible).
MS. McWILLIAMS: And that
MR. COLLINS: Is that do you have any further questions for Mr. Shortino?
MS. McWILLIAMS: Well, we haven't even finished everybody yet. I don't I'm not sure if you were responding to me. I'm not sure when you said that was dated, the comments from Mr. Brancheau.
MR. COLLINS: This was in January of 2016
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. COLLINS: when the matter was before for the first time before the zoning board.
MS. McWILLIAMS: I I understand. I just think, you know, it's definitely a concern we have to look at up here given the rest of the development on that street, and in the area and that's why I asked the question about it. I understand it's sort of where do you go, because where else do you put them, but that's my question at least. Thank you, though.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie?
MS. PATIRE: Yes. So I have a question based on the current rules and regulations. Have you looked at cutting off the back end of the building and making that parking? So it's a one story building, they're going to make if a habitable area of whatever it's going to be, whatever use. Have you looked at cutting off the back of the building and making it more conducive for parking, based on floor area, but if someone understands it.
MR. COLLINS: No, if you're asking whether the owner is going to consider, even after they eliminated the garage, to take off more of the building, no, they haven't. The building the building, in existence, is really a nonconforming use.
MS. PATIRE: Sir, I understand that. I'm just asking a simple question
MR. COLLINS: Got you.
MS. PATIRE: based on where you're asking for a variance. And, again, we're looking at the site and we're trying to trying to work with you. So I'm asking, based on what you're presenting to us, for whatever the use of the building is going to be, if we've looked at it to try to come in where we don't we're not looking for, what was the number, 26, parking spaces based on current ordinances? If we've looked at taking part of the building down for whatever use it's going to be and adding more parking. That's my question. So the answer is, no, we haven't looked at that?
MR. COLLINS: Well, no one has ever has raised the issue. You're the first one to suggest
MS. PATIRE: Okay.
MR. COLLINS: the building should be reduced in size.
MS. PATIRE: So whatever the use is based on floor area and the size of the lot and the requirements, that's that's just my question or suggestion.
MR. COLLINS: But oh, never mind.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any other questions for Mr. Shortino?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, the answer is no.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Quick question, Brian, on the site egress you have two "do not enter" signs that are labeled as (inaudible) C or
THE WITNESS: That's correct, yeah, from the from the access easement. So the question was, we have two "do not enter signs," which I failed to mention. So if you were coming into the site or entering the site along the access easement or 200 South Broad Street, you would not be able to, there's well, there's two signs that say "do not enter" and you're not able to enter the site technically today, no.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Right. So you designed the site to have clockwise circulation, right?
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So when you go near Spot No. 2, I guess, and someone comes in on South Broad, parks, would you consider a "do not enter" sign so you don't go back down that and back over your ingress driveway?
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what your question was.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I'm trying to see if you can add some signage to prevent cars from going opposite the flow, say if they back out through that little driveway on South Broad, instead of backing out through the easement.
THE WITNESS: So you're required to have (inaudible) in the site?
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Yeah.
THE WITNESS: You are? We need to use good any (inaudible) I don't think we need any signage, because all those all the all the stalls within the site are on an angle, which more or less I mean, we can put some one way signs there but...
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: People are stupid.
THE WITNESS: There's no problem putting a one way sign in there.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: We just come up with the idea.
THE WITNESS: That's not an issue.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: It would cause a problem.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, there's no there's no problem putting one way signs in there just to verify and further enhance what the orientation is that I understand now.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: All right. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Bridgette, you have more questions for Jeff?
MS. BOGART: I actually just got a text from the village engineer. He's at a gas leak and he wants to be here, but he...
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yeah, there's a gas leak over on the
FEMALE BOARD MEMBER: In the spill (inaudible) now.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: in between Spring (inaudible) Spring, Ridgewood Avenue and then going to the Parkway, is we apologize.
MS. BOGART: He's still there.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: A pretty big event.
MR. MARTIN: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MS. BOGART: I do.
MR. MARTIN: MR. COLLINS, you stipulate that the village planner is certified as a planner and is able to testify as such?
MR. COLLINS: I certainly do.
MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
MR. COLLINS: I'd get killed if I didn't.
MS. BOGART: Not from me.
MR. COLLINS: (Inaudible) no, not from her. I've known Ms. Brigette for a long time.
MS. BOGART: So I have a couple of question with regard to the site plan issues, but first I kind of wanted to address the parking issue. Is it on?
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yeah.
MS. BOGART: I'm always worried about the
FEMALE BOARD MEMBER: The popping.
MS. BOGART: Feedback. So I 100 percent agree with the Mr. Brancheau with regard to the fact that it's an existing building and there's 10 spaces on site that were existing prior to the zoning ordinance. And the property owner has a right to develop their property and use their property based upon the existing conditions. However we have a proposal here which modifies the existing conditions in a number of ways. First, with regard to space 9, which I have to concerns, I have to ask the engineer about that, if that's directly out onto a sidewalk as opposed to a circulation aisle? The existing conditions don't have tandem parking spaces as proposed, namely spaces 4 and 10. The existing conditions don't have a 12 foot wide circulation aisle. And a number of other things that are created that may create a negative impact to the site. That being said, there are also a number of issues that are planning items that are created that are a benefit to the site, which I want to hear the engineer to talk about, but first and foremost I just want to say that I don't think this board can rely on the fact that it's an existing building, existing 10 spaces, because there's been modifications proposed to the site that need to be reviewed when thinking about this use. And, most importantly, medical office uses are very intense when it comes to parking and circulation. So I think that board has a right to review all that with respect to the new site plan application. That being said, the first question I have is with regard to space 9, my concern is backing out backing out right onto the sidewalk area and (inaudible) being proposed?
THE WITNESS: That's not the intent for Lot 9. Lot 9 excuse me space 9, you would pull in from South Broad Street and when you wanted to exit the site, you would just pull straight ahead forward and enter the site where all the other cars at the site enter the site. You wouldn't back out into South Broad Street.
MS. BOGART: No, I appreciate the intent. I'm not sure as a visitor of the site that I would be driving all the way around the building is the most efficient way out. I think most patrons would probably back right onto the sidewalk. Is there any way you can prevent that?
THE WITNESS: We can sign it with some type of signage to that effect that says "no backing out" or "pull forward to exit the site" whatever is deemed appropriate, but it's not the intent to and we don't want the intent to back out onto South Broad Street.
MS. BOGART: Which I agree 100 percent. My concern is if you're driving a vehicle out of space 9 and you have to back out passed the landscaping that's being proposed, you're at least moving 2 or 3 feet. And that's 2 or 3 feet into the public sidewalk without even being able to see yet.
THE WITNESS: If that was the case, I would I would tend to disagree, because we're only showing an ornamental tree. Your line of sight, as you pulled in, the driveway is on the left hand side, I think you have full visibility looking to the south and I think that all goes to visibility, except for the width of the ornamental tree looking towards the north. So I think there is sufficient sight distance in either direction if that situation did occur.
MS. McWILLIAMS: The nose of your car would technically be, like, up into the spot, so you'd have to back you, I guess, in some capacity, I think is what she's asking, in order just even to continue out into the driveway. So you have to back out some sort of
THE WITNESS: No, I don't think you have to back out at all. I think you can pull in forward. I don't think you have to back out at all. It's only line striping that's in front of you.
MS. PATIRE: That's not my question. So since Joel doesn't think people are intelligent, can you put a concrete thing back there so people can't back out?
THE WITNESS: No, because that's how you get in.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Then you can't get in.
MS. PATIRE: Well, why can't you pull in and then back in? It's not
THE WITNESS: That that's
MS. PATIRE: It's not difficult.
THE WITNESS: I think is even worse that's because then you're asking somebody to pull in the one way and do, like, a parallel parking maneuver.
MS. PATIRE: Yeah.
THE WITNESS: I think that's worse.
MS. PATIRE: I think that's better than hitting somebody on the sidewalk.
THE WITNESS: I disagree, but...
MS. PATIRE: When they're walking into (inaudible).
FEMALE BOARD MEMBER: So
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Can you make that a committed space, like for the doctor or something? So it's so it's only used by
THE WITNESS: That could be too. We can but we have the the two tandem spaces for employees only. So now we're
MS. McWILLIAMS: That's plenty.
THE WITNESS: That's more that will be kind of three spaces now that are committed to employees and not meant for public or patients or whatever use is on the site. But it could be done.
MR. COLLINS: You know, I was going to wait and try to use this as part of my closing, but Mr. Voigt's suggestion prompts me to say that even if we used all of the spaces for doctors, we would still be short. This property is in the B 2 zone. How many properties in the Village of Ridgewood in the B 2 zone have any on site parking, any?
MS. McWILLIAMS: Why would we keep making the same mistake? Why are we going to add to an already existing problem when we don't have to? We're going to we're going to try to improve every future and coming site plan with an
MR. COLLINS: But we are
MS. McWILLIAMS: with an adjustment and a fix.
MR. COLLINS: We are offering 10 spaces.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. COLLINS: It is it is a difficult issue, I'm aware of that. But for all practical purposes, we have a piece of property with a building on it that is 50 years old and no efforts are being made to expand the building, in fact, to reduce the size of it. And, yet, we can't use it for any purposes, unless you tell us we have to provide for (inaudible) parking. We can't do it. We just can't do it. You look at the lot, you look at the way the building is located on the lot, you can see, it's impossible.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just wanted to
MR. COLLINS: We squeezed 10 spaces on there.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yeah, I just wanted to kind of jump in on that, because the one thing I do agree with you that in the B 1 and B 2 zone it is true that no one can really provide parking that's required. But you need to this particular site is that it is immediately adjacent to a residential area and so that forces those vehicles out of excuse me if they were going to look for additional parking, it actually forces vehicles into to park in a residential area. So that is the unique difference this building to other buildings in the B 1, B 2 zone. Because you're in the B 2 zone and you're in the middle of business, you're parking in the middle of business, you can park on the street. So this a little bit different, this street. And I'm sure you'll agree that Broad Street is very, very different than businesses in the B 1, B 2 zone on Oak or Chestnut, Ridgewood Avenue, Franklin. There's just a different availability of on street spaces and it pushes everyone into the residential. And I'm just to add just, you know, kind of throwing that out there, because I know you know that.
MR. COLLINS: I understand the the argument. I think if you take the termini of the B 2 zone, you'll see that for all practical purposes it abuts a residential zone. And you'll see the properties at the termini don't have any parking. So what I would ask is if we set a I'm sorry you couldn't help us. This is a piece of property that we want to be able to use. We don't want to reconstruct the property, but if you're saying to us, since you can't put enough cars on the lot, you're not going to be able to use the building, that seems unfair.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Maybe this is this is a good time to hear from the planner because I'm sure he's got some focus on the planning reasons to give you this.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I don't know what
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Brigette, did you have any more questions?
MS. BOGART: Oh, I just had some minor site planning questions, as I mentioned to you, I agree with Mr. Brancheau with regard to the fact that this site is (inaudible) this building (inaudible). And your question of
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I can't hear you. Can't hear.
MS. BOGART: Oh, I'm sorry. The question really pertains to this application is how does this site plan work? And my main concern is based on the fact, you know, the sidewalk has and maybe I have the wrong plan, but I see two 5 4 to 5 foot evergreen junipers right next to that, so you have (inaudible) those the sidewalk. And my other concern is the tandem spaces. So I urge this board to review this proposed site plan in conjunction with the proposed use, because I think it's a little different than what currently exists on the site and it warrants review from that perspective. That being said, just some minor site planning issues. Are all of the landscape areas proposed to be irrigated?
THE WITNESS: They're not shown on the site plan to be irrigated. I don't know, it would be up to the owner to decide if they should be irrigated, if it's warranted or not. Myself, personally, being a landscape architect, I don't think any area should be irrigated. I don't think it's necessary.
MS. BOGART: I respectfully disagree. These all should be irrigated and (inaudible) the shade trees should have (inaudible) on when they're installed at least for (inaudible). With regard to the HVAC systems, are there is there any fencing or any sound barriers proposed besides the landscaping?
THE WITNESS: No. We only have the landscaping shown around the HVAC unit.
MS. BOGART: Is there any opportunity to put the units on the roof to provide for more parking or more circulation area?
THE WITNESS: I'll defer that question to the architect, but if that was done, I don't believe we would be able to get another spot even if that was done.
MS. BOGART: Is there any opportunity mostly medical offices this day and age don't have dumpsters this large, because most of the waste is transferred off site. So I was surprised to see such a big dumpster for a medical office. Is there any opportunity to remove the dumpster to provide an additional circulation area or a space on the site?
THE WITNESS: That would be up to the owner also, I don't but if the dumpster area was removed, I don't think it would improve any type of circulation and I don't believe we would be able to get another parking space on this site. The aisle width would more or less still remain the same which is shown as 12 feet wide, because it's kind of fixed there because of the size it's almost as if the side property line is extended, so that's why we put the dumpster there. We just felt it was an appropriate location and doesn't impact any type of circulation around the site.
MS. BOGART: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Next will be the public. Anyone from the public have any questions? Okay. Please come forward, state your name, address and spell your last name.
MS. GIDNEY: Is it possible that we have like three minutes, because we couldn't see
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Oh, yeah. Sure.
MS. GIDNEY: the plans and everything and we live right next door.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. You can just go over to the plan and whoever wants to take a look at it. And, yeah... Brian, why don't you (inaudible) and just (inaudible).
THE WITNESS: Yes, but I don't know if you want it on the public record or not? It doesn't matter to me, you know, I'm only asking (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, if they can if they can ask you something, if it's on there you can it could be off the record, right.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MS. GIDNEY: Did you want us to say who we are and then
CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, you'll ask your questions up here and you'll say it, but just get a (inaudible). (Whereupon, off the record discussion is held.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. So just state your name, address and spell your last name. Then you may direct your questions to the engineer.
MS. GIDNEY: Okay. Do I have questions or can I just make I have a lot of questions because
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. State your name, address
MS. GIDNEY: My name is Darlene Gidney, G I D N E Y. And I reside at 218 South Broad Street (inaudible) here in the town of Ridgewood, New Jersey. And I am the secretary of the board for Broadway (inaudible) Corporation. And I came with some other board members. So am I asking questions or do I just state my concerns?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: No. There will be a time to state concerns, but you're going to ask questions. So where's your property located? Is it just south of this project here?
MS. GIDNEY: Okay. The property is directly adjacent to the south side of where he wants to open up that garage.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
MS. GIDNEY: Open up that driveway and.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
MS. GIDNEY: And go ahead.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. So now you can ask questions with regard to his testimony and then they'll have other witnesses you can ask questions again of those experts.
MS. GIDNEY: All right. I didn't know if we can
CHAIRMAN JOEL: And then there will be a point in time where you can give public comment.
MS. GIDNEY: Okay. Well, I guess this is I just my first question is (inaudible) my first question is that
CHAIRMAN JOEL: It's got to be towards him.
MS. GIDNEY: Say that again?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: It's got to be a question for him. There will be a point in time where you can give comments and things like that.
MS. GIDNEY: Okay. All right. So my first question is in the map where I showed you that they had built in that wall right there or where the bushes are, those trees are, those trees are, how much property are you going to have, because our wall comes all the way up to the end of that property.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what the question is, but there's a wall along the southerly property line.
MS. GIDNEY: Yup.
THE WITNESS: that follows all the way, (inaudible) by the dumpster and then continues almost to the end of the property line.
MS. GIDNEY: Okay. That, to me, and it probably goes way beyond scale of what actually is there because I don't understand where you're going to put 10 parking spaces.
THE WITNESS: Well, this is an engineering site plan. They don't exist out in the field. So if you walk the property, you're not going to see 10 spaces, because we're doing certain improvements for the site. I don't know how to explain it any better.
MS. GIDNEY: How much of that garage are you're taking off of the back end, and you probably gave you spaces, because there I don't see how much from the back of that garage there is no land.
THE WITNESS: The garage is being removed. You have to understand that the physical two car garage is being removed. It's probably 30 feet garage in width, 25 to 30. So you gain a lot of space when you take up that portion of the building.
MS. GIDNEY: And where is parking space no. 9?
THE WITNESS: Parking space no. 9, which the board's concerned about, is right off of South Broad.
MS. GIDNEY: Is that in front of the house in front of the building?
THE WITNESS: Essentially, yes, it's in front of the building.
MS. GIDNEY: Where's the sidewalk?
THE WITNESS: The sidewalk is along South Broad Street. The existing
MS. GIDNEY: So you're taking up all of the front steps right there and you're changing it and where is the entrance?
THE WITNESS: The entrance, as I mentioned, there is front steps, a central door that faces South Broad. The architect is here. He can explain what he's doing. But, yes, that entrance is being closed and removed.
MS. GIDNEY: So pretty much that would be dangerous.
Can I make a statement?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, you can ask a question.
MS. GIDNEY: Would you believe that would be a dangerous parking space?
THE WITNESS: No, I don't believe it's a dangerous space.
MS. GIDNEY: How familiar are you with the area?
THE WITNESS: I'm not that familiar with South Broad Street.
MS. GIDNEY: Okay. (Inaudible). Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: You're doing great. You're asking questions.
MS. GIDNEY: So if you were familiar with the area, you'd know there's a lot of foot traffic. There's a lot of a lot of foot traffic, which would cause a major and (inaudible) can tell you which would cause a major issue for anybody, because there's a lot of people that just walk downtown and walk back and forth and the kids and having a parking space there would be dangerous. That's the first thing. The second thing is I want to know where what is going to go along that back wall over there along the back, passed that passed the wall where you go circle around the building, as you say.
THE WITNESS: Well, there's a certain amount of existing pavement that's presently existing. My testimony was a lot of that pavement is going to remain, where we take down the garage and where we where we continue the access drive onto the access easement and that's going to be some new pavement. So there's portions of the area that are existing pavement to remain and then to put a row of parking spaces and the exit driveway we will need additional pavement on site
MS. GIDNEY: Okay. So what
THE WITNESS: a
MS. GIDNEY: What are you going to do with the back portion or the other side of the wall that's on the on the along the south side of the property, what's going along there where there were bushes and trees put up, because there is a fire lane there.
THE WITNESS: We're not touching that. The existing I believe you're talking about the existing trees that are along the rear of the property that are really on adjacent Lot 6. Those shrubs and bushes are not being touched.
MS. GIDNEY: That would be (inaudible).
THE WITNESS: They're not being touched. They're existing.
MS. GIDNEY: Okay. So whenever I can give my arguments about whatever is going on with whatever they're doing, I would really like to, because there's a lot of things that happened, but for all of you I think I remember you, there's a lot of things that happened (inaudible). There's a lot of things that happened with the property, with our property and with the property next door to us and when that doctor's office went up, that there's an easement there are two easements that were there and both of them have been blocked off.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. You're going to have a point in time where you can give a statement, but if you have any more questions, you can ask them.
MS. GIDNEY: Yes. Hold on.
Dumpster, where did you say that dumpster was going?
THE WITNESS: The dumpster is located this is kind of the middle of the property. And I'll call this southwest, the middle of the property.
MS. GIDNEY: So would you say it was fair if that dumpster is there and there's a south southerly wind, that all that stench would go to the apartment apartment next door?
THE WITNESS: I can't testify on that. I have no idea what the wind direction is (inaudible)
MS. GIDNEY: I said if it was a southerly wind and that dumpster was there, because from what I understand that's a pretty large dumpster, all of that foul odor will go over to the homes next door.
THE WITNESS: I can only say that's a possibility. I don't know what they're going to put in the dumpster.
MS. GIDNEY: Let's see what else I have, about parking spaces. Let me see what else I have, 26 spaces, is that what you said the ultimate goal would be?
THE WITNESS: No, I believe we said that we have 10 spaces and the calculation which is required is 30 spaces.
MS. GIDNEY: Okay.
MR. COLLINS: That's if the full basement is used.
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
MR. COLLINS: If only half of it is used, it would be 22 spaces.
MS. GIDNEY: I can't see how 10 spaces can go on that lot. That's the smallest lot between the between 220, 216, 218, 222, the apartments and the doctor's office, that's a little lot that's squeezed in there and I can't see how 10 spaces can go in there.
THE WITNESS: Well, it's my opinion we have 10 spaces shown on here. It's also my opinion they're all spaces required by ordinance are all 9 by 18, except for the handicap spot and I believe they're all safe with respect to access in and out of the site and there's adequate spaces. So we do indicate 10 spaces and it's my opinion they're all within (inaudible).
MS. GIDNEY: Okay. I do have a question.
Can I ask him a question because he was speaking too?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, just pointed to the engineer.
MS. GIDNEY: Okay. When was the easement created for 200?
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure when the easement was created. I know I believe this site was I believe 200 was approved in 2011. But I'm not sure, but I if that was if that's the case, then I believe it was in that area, 2011, 2012 when the site plan was approved.
MS. GIDNEY: So if that easement was created for 200, what happened to the easement for 216 and 218 and 222?
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what that's all about. I'm not sure what the easement was for. I believe the easement is to get around the rear of the property and access to that property to the rear, but I don't know about the lot (inaudible) unless I look at the it looks like it would be access to 8.01, that's the property that I believe you're talking about, but to the rear of that.
MS. GIDNEY: (Inaudible) how much noise and what's the noise level would be for entering in on the south side of Broad Street? The noise level.
THE WITNESS: Noise from what? From the traffic? From cars?
MS. GIDNEY: Traffic, cars, people, what would the noise level be?
THE WITNESS: I cannot I cannot answer that question.
MS. GIDNEY: That's it for right now.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thank you. Is anyone else who would like to ask questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing there are none.
MS. BOGART: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.
MS. BOGART: Can I just ask a question?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah, sure.
MS. BOGART: I was wondering if you looked at the possibility of providing four spaces parallel to the southern property line? It looks like there's enough width between the building and the property line in which to provide those spaces and you would actually pick up a number of spaces that wouldn't be tandem and wouldn't be backing out onto the sidewalk.
THE WITNESS: Along this fence here?
MS. BOGART: Yeah.
THE WITNESS: We can't put spaces there. That's it would create a deficient lot width. The
MS. BOGART: The survey says you have 16 feet between the existing building and the wall. So if need 8 feet or 9 feet for a space, you have a 12 foot aisle width.
THE WITNESS: No. It's 16 feet. And you have a 16 feet and you have a 9 foot space, you only have 7 feet for an aisle width. Is that what you just said?
MS. BOGART: At the peak point but or at the squeeze point, but everything else is much wider than that.
THE WITNESS: But you can't do that. That's you can't have a 7 foot aisle. I don't understand.
MS. BOGART: If you did
THE WITNESS: And plus we have two angled spaces that need a larger aisle width than that.
MS. BOGART: Okay. So if you took that point where that space point is and did some striping in that area, create a buffer and put two parallel spaces to the west and two parallel spaces to the east, you pick up two spaces on the site.
THE WITNESS: I don't I don't see how each space if you put spaces here, these spaces would back into them.
MS. BOGART: Then get rid of those two spaces.
THE WITNESS: But then you're at the same amount of parking.
MS. BOGART: Okay. Thank you. (Inaudible), but thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.
Chuck, do you have another witness?
MR. COLLINS: Well, yeah, I can do a comical. Just for the record, the lady asked about the creation of the easement and they which was called at the time it was mandated as an emergency access easement plan. And that easement was created in July of 2011 and (inaudible) it was created because the board required that it be created so that you can get to the back of the building it would be in the in the event an emergency would require it.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.
MR. COLLINS: Anyway, it was July of 2011. Jordan, would you come up, please?
MR. ROSENBERG: Sure.
MR. MARTIN: Raise your right hand. Do you swear to do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. ROSENBERG: I do.
J O R D A N R O S E N B E R G, 27 North Broad Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN: And, Jordan, you have to state your full name and business address, please.
MR. ROSENBERG: Jordan Rosenberg, 27 North Broad Street, Second Floor, Ridgewood, New Jersey. (Inaudible).
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. COLLINS:
Q. MR. ROSENBERG, would you give the board the benefit of your education and professional
background and any other information that might be related to your curriculum vitae.
A. I've been a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey since 2004. I have my master's and bachelors of architecture from Tulane University. And I've been practicing in Ridgewood since 2004 in my office. And I have been sworn before almost all of the zoning boards, many of the planning boards, but almost all the zoning boards in Bergen County over the last 20 years.
MR. MARTIN: And today you're accepted before the planning board as a licensed professional architect. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.
MR. MARTIN: MR. COLLINS?
BY MR. COLLINS:
Q. And you have had some experience with this property which developed over the years?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you describe for the board what the building how the building will be used, what's (inaudible) proposed architectural plan.
A. Certainly.
Do you want me to go through the proposed plans or start with the demo?
Q. Well, start with the demo
A. Okay.
Q. so that everybody can follow from here to the development.
A. Very good.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Chuck, we didn't get architectural plans with the submission.
MR. COLLINS: Oh?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: We have the engineering drawings, but not architectural.
MR. COLLINS: Oh, I'm sorry to hear that because the
MR. MARTIN: They were submitted?
MR. COLLINS: Yeah.
MR. CAFARELLI: I didn't receive them. I don't have them in my office.
MR. COLLINS: Well, that that sort of neuters my testimony as far as the architect.
MS. BOGART: Yeah, and that was actually one of my concerns from the beginning of the application, because at the prior application with the zoning board, they decided to permit the use of building because they utilized the basement, they would require an FAR variance. And so I've gone back and forth with MR. COLLINS, doing the research (inaudible) of the basement but we never saw floor plans. And so that's, you know, a major (inaudible) with the application, because if they do require a (d) variance, they'd be in front of the zoning board.
MR. MARTIN: There is also, due to an emergency, the village engineer is not here. We have no architectural plans. And I think there's been a start of the application, MR. COLLINS, where a number of issues have been raised that may want to be looked at, but we'll definitely know or not. I don't know if the chair or the board wants to see it. They need the time that plans have been submitted, the village engineer (inaudible) issues, so it's something that (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you have another witness that doesn't require plans?
MR. COLLINS: No. I can't really present a planning opinion in evidence without having the all of the background material (inaudible). I do have Bill Bartlett here, who as I said I misspoke, I said it was a publishing use. It's not a publishing use. It was a market research firm. They did surveys and used that building. And I'm not, at this point in time, sure that that testimony is needed, because and I would have to make that judgment. All I can do, Mr. Joel, is ask that the matter be carried to the next convenient and available date. Hopefully it's quickly as possible, because we (inaudible) matter before you. I don't know what happened. I just assumed, Michael, that you had them. I don't know that I had any in my office so that's a...
MR. CAFARELLI: Yeah, no, I don't.
MR. COLLINS: So I would ask that the board give us that indulgence and set a (inaudible) date so that I can come back.
MR. MARTIN: Michael, MR. COLLINS' notice has been received and it's satisfactory, correct?
MR. CAFARELLI: Yes.
MR. MARTIN: So then we'll carry it without further notice.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, what would be the next date then?
MR. CAFARELLI: Unfortunately, the next date is not until January 16th.
MR. COLLINS: Is when?
MR. CAFARELLI: January 16th.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: January 16th.
MR. COLLINS: Oh, my Lord.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: We can put you on an earlier day, but then there's the risk that you show up and then the other applications stretch out and then is there any indication on the December 5th?
MR. COLLINS: Well, it's (inaudible) the fact of the matter is that I cannot present this application without necessary evidence and witnesses and testimony. So if that's the date
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah.
MR. CAFARELLI: We if I mean, we can we can try to squeeze you we have two applications, one is an informal and one should be finishing on December 5th. We can put you on that date, but I don't know how much time you'll have.
MR. COLLINS: Well, what I will do is I will order a transcript of what's going on here tonight so that we're up to speed immediately when we do come back. And I would if you would give me the names of the applicants and their attorneys, I'll see what I can follow some friends and...
MR. CAFARELLI: You mean, for the December 5th date, Chuck?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: So, Chuck, probably what you want to do is take that December 5th date
MR. COLLINS: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: make the calls and then if if it's not going to fly on that date, then we can indicate that prior to that next date. So do you want to pencil in for that day, Michael, and
MR. CAFARELLI: Yes, I'll do
CHAIRMAN JOEL: the 16th?
MR. CAFARELLI: I'll do that. I can do that, yeah.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah. And then we'll see how it shakes out.
MR. COLLINS: That's a good suggestion and I certainly (inaudible).
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. So
MS. McWILLIAMS: Ladies that you came to for this application, you understand it carried to December 5th or 15th or 5th?
CHAIRMAN JOEL: December 5th.
MS. McWILLIAMS: And possibly into January.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: But you can check with Michael and make sure that it's on a day before or so. So what's happening is we didn't get the architectural plans, so we don't have a full file to review this.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIRMAN JOEL: What's that?
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIRMAN JOEL: You can come forward. Unless you now this is mainly for scheduling. Not to give your input on it. We're just indicating that it's being carried to December 5th and they're going to submit architectural drawings. And he's going to see if he can get the application going on the 5th, if not it might be carried to January 16th.
MR. MARTIN: Just thank you for attending tonight. You're not going to get another card in the mail because the board at public meetings will the board can carry the matter. It's going to be carried to December 5th. You and the other individuals can come on December 5th. There will be other witness. You can ask questions of the other witnesses. Then when they're done, the board witnesses go. You can ask questions of them. Then when the matter is closed, the chair will say: Do you want to make any statements. You can go through all the information you got through this proceeding, plus your statements that you should keep procedurally, you should keep everything that you want to say. And I will I'm sure it's stuff that's significant. At the end is the you're in the middle of testimony now.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay.
MR. MARTIN: It's sort of like MR. COLLINS gets to make a statement, not now.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Yes, and it's a certain reason why you do that, you get evidence in and it's going to be free for all.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: I (inaudible) evidence. I just wanted to say what actually was the truth before 2011.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: You're going to have
MR. MARTIN: And you can say that.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Maybe that's not true.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: You will have your opportunity, but, you know, if we let everyone speak at all different times, it would be a free for all.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Nothing
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Also we have hearing procedures posted on the website. So you can look at that, that it'll show how the order goes for procedure wise.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay.
MR. MARTIN: But the real important part is you're not going to get another card that you're not going to get another notice in the mail. So December 5th, write that down and come back at 7:30 and they'll be this will be on the agenda. Okay.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Uh huh.
MR. CAFARELLI: You can call me, call my office.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Double check that it actually stays on that date.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay.
MR. CAFARELLI: It's extension 240.
MR. MARTIN: And we'd be glad to see you, but you can double check it.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS. McWILLIAMS: You nothing's going to happen before then. You're not going to miss out. We're not no one's going to vote on this. It's not going to get decided before that happens.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: So if I am not here, I'm traveling away somewhere
MS. McWILLIAMS: Right.
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do I can I submit my request information in writing.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: No. You can have one of your friends or neighbors come here on your behalf and provide us with the information. The person has to be here because sometimes you give in say public testimony, you would be cross-examined. So it's not to defend then. Okay?
FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.
MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Thank you.
All right. So this will be carried to December 5th without further notice and without prejudice to the board.
Is that correct, MR. COLLINS?
MR. COLLINS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the matter is continuing to a future date. 1:39:47 on the tape counter.)
The minutes from May 5, 2015 and December 20, 2016 were adopted as written
The meeting was adjourned at 9:17: p.m.
Michael Cafarelli
Board Secretary
Date approved: December 4, 2018
- Hits: 2575