The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of July 18, 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: Mayor Knudsen called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Susan Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman John Voigt, Isabella Altano, Melanie McWilliams, David Scheibner, Debbie Patire, and James Van Goor. Also present were Elizabeth McManus, Planner, Board Attorney Chris Martin, Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser, and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Barto was not present.

 

Reorganization of Planning Board

 

Administration of Oaths of Office to New Members and/or Reappointments – Mr. Martin administered the oath of office to Mayor Knudsen. Mayor Knudsen administered the oath of office to Mr. Van Goor as a Class II Member; Jeff Voigt, Class III Member; David Scheibner, Richard Joel, Isabella Altano, Melanie McWilliams, Debbie Patire, and Joel Torielli, Class IV Member.

 

Roll Call – The following members were present: Mayor Susan Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman John Voigt, Isabella Altano, Melanie McWilliams, David Scheibner, Debbie Patire, and James Van Goor. Also present were Elizabeth McManus, Planner, Chris Martin, Board Attorney, Chris Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary. Ms. Barto was not present.

 

Election of Officers

 

Board Attorney – Resolution appointing Chris Martin as Board Attorney for July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. The Resolution was adopted.

 

Alternate Counsel – Resolution appointing Glenn Kienz of Weiner Lensnaik, LLP as Alternate Counsel was adopted.

 

Chairman – Richard Joel was nominated and elected as Chairman.

 

Vice Chairman – Joel Torielli was nominated and elected as Vice Chairman.

 

Planner – Resolution appointing Brigette Bogart of Bogart Planning and Design Professionals as Planner for the Planning Board for the year July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 was adopted.

 

Conflict Planner – Resolution appointing Elizabeth McManus of Clark Caton Hintz, as Conflict Planner for the Planning Board for the year July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 was adopted.

 

Traffic Engineering Consultant – Resolution appointing John Jahr of Petry Traffic, LLC as Traffic Engineering Consultant for the Planning Board for the year July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 was adopted.

Conflict Traffic Engineering Consultant – Resolution appointing David Shropshire of Shropshire Associates as Conflict Traffic Engineering Consultant for the Planning Board for the year July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 was adopted.

 

Site Plan/Subdivision Review Committee – Mayor Knudsen, Councilman Voigt, and Isabella Altano were appointed to this committee.

 

Site Plan Exemption Committee – Mr. Scheibner and Mr. Van Goor were appointed to this committee.

 

Master Plan Reexamination Committee – Ms. Patire, Ms. McWilliams, Mayor Knudsen, and Mr. Torielli were appointed to this committee.

 

Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) – Ms. Altano was appointed to this committee.

Open Space Committee – Ms. McWilliams was appointed to this committee.

 

Resolution re: Compliance with the Requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act. The resolution was adopted.

Reorganization portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 8:20 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Susan Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman John Voigt, Isabella Altano, Melanie McWilliams, Debbie Patire, and James Van Goor. Also present were Elizabeth McManus, Planner, Board Attorney Chris Martin, Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser, and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Barto was not present.

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

 

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics, Correspondence Received by the Board – Mr. Scheibner reported the SPEC Committee met and discussed 5 Robinson Lane and the application was approved. Mayor Knudsen reported that the Historical Preservation Commission met and the Chairman was preparing a letter to support Graydon Pool's designation as a Historical Site.

257 Ridgewood Avenue, LLC, Block 3703, Lot 4, 6, & 8.01, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan – Pubic Hearing continued from May 16, 2017 – Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

 

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

Correspondence received by the Board – MR. CAFARELLI reported none was received.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Next item will be 257 Ridgewood Avenue, LLC, Block 3703, Lot 4, 6 and 8.01 preliminary and final major site plan public hearing continued from May 16, 2017.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE, is the attorney on this matter. So the floor is yours, MR. BRUINOOGE.
2. MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Thomas H. Bruinooge, 301 Route 17 North, Suite 505, pleased and proud to appear here before this board on behalf of 257 RA, Ridgewood Avenue, L.L.C. As the Chairman has indicated this matter has found its way into the queue and eventually found it's way to a hearing tonight with jurisdiction having been established by virtue of an affidavit of proof of publication and an affidavit of service upon the property owners within 200 feet of the site in question, based upon a certified list of property owners provided by the village tax office. I would assume Mr. Joel and MR. MARTIN will confirm that the board is possessed of jurisdiction.
3. MR. MARTIN: Yes. And that is also ‑‑ notice is satisfactory. Thank you.
4. MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you very much. I guess, let me start it this way by saying congratulations to those of you who are elected or assumed positions tonight. I say that on behalf of my client and myself. For those of you who are serving on the board for the very first time, on behalf of New Jersey planning officials we welcome you to the course that the planning officials teach from time to time, as you know you have a statutory obligation to attend such a course. And I'm honored to teach such a course from time to time throughout the years. So we look forward to seeing you at the course. This last step of the long journey bringing this site to a point where the property owner/applicant seeks board approval for a permitted use under your ordinance under the B‑3‑R zone. The site is an interesting site. It's a challenging site. It presents a number of issues, but it presents as well some wonderful opportunities. And it's with those opportunities in mind that this application has been put together. You should know that within the last few weeks my team of experts has had an opportunity to meet with the village engineer as well as with Mrs. McManus. Mrs. McManus issued a lengthy review letter which was the subject of a rather extensive conversation with the team, I guess it was a week or so ago Friday. A number of interesting observations emerged from that conversation and candidly you will hear tonight that there have been some changes, minor changes, but nonetheless important changes, to various plans that were submitted as part of the application. Any of the changes that are going to be described this evening are, in my opinion, subject of course to your own board attorney's opinion ultimately, but the changes are not significant enough to warrant renotice. So that the matter can and should proceed. So we expect that over the course of tonight and probably another meeting, perhaps two, the board will hear from a number of witnesses. Our first witness will be Mike Dipple, a civil engineer who will present his qualifications to you and ask that you accept his qualifications, so that he can testify on behalf of the applicant as a civil engineer, qualified in such an area.

We also have with us this evening Mr. Englebaugh of the architectural firm Minno & Wasko. Minno Wasko has been with this project for quite some time. You will actually see exhibits during the course of the hearing which go back, believe it or not, to 2012. They have a long, deep involvement with this site and the project as it's evolved. One of the interesting things that's occurred within the last, I guess, you could say a year, little less than a year, because the application originally filed in May of 2016 was deemed complete in August of 2016. And since that time the applicant's had the opportunity to address a very important issue here in the village. I speak to the issue of affordable housing and particularly with respect to special‑needs housing. Having just concluded nine years as a board member of West Bergen Mental Health, the last three as chair of the board or president of the board, the need for special‑needs housing is hopefully apparent to everyone here, and certainly important. And the applicant has recognized that need and recognized the opportunity to address the need. And so working with the United Way of Bergen County we are able to present to Ridgewood an opportunity for eight units of special‑needs housing with up to 15 bedrooms. Those units will be creditable, in our opinion, against the ultimate obligation, whatever it is determined by the court in the declaratory judgment action, towards Ridgewood's obligation to provide a reasonable amount of affordable housing under the case law. So following Mr. Torranto we will ‑‑ we will hear from Eric Keller of Bowman Engineering. Eric will be presented as a traffic expert, parking testimony as well, he will be qualified. And what you'll hear from Mr. Keller is interesting in and of itself because as a consequence of bringing the special‑needs housing into the project, the complexion and nature of the project has changed. And when we apply some of the zoning conditions to the site, particularly parking, we see that an existing situation, that is to say the current situation on the ground right now shows 76 spaces available on the site. That is significantly below that which is required by ordinance, but the ‑‑ the 76 spaces exist legally and consistent with actions taken by this Planning Board over quite some number of years. I think Mrs. McManus will confirm that it's an interesting read going back through the resolutions taking this way back to the original Sealfons building. Some of us have very fond memories of the Sealfons building and going down there to shop with wives and children and what have you. But what's interesting about it is that the Sealfons building, as it has evolved over the years with its 76 spaces, right now presents a bit of a parking issue. And by eliminating a little over 13,000 square feet of commercial space, replacing it with the special‑needs housing the parking situation comes into a much better condition. And so you'll hear from THE WITNESSes that the project is proposing 131 total parking spaces assuming the project is approved. And a professional opinion from Mr. Keller that the obligation of the property owner/developer is really 141 units. So a very, very large shortfall or deficiency is being significant reduced by this particular project. End of the day, the presentation will conclude with testimony from a licensed New Jersey planner John Szabo who is a member of the firm Burgis & Associates, former planner for the town of Oakland, and I believe maybe he was the mayor of the town of Oakland, as well as the planner over in Wayne. He will testify on the planning reasons as to why the relief applied for and sought should be granted by the board under the relevant criteria set out in the MLUL and in the case law. So with that brief introduction, with your kind indulgence, we'll call the first witness.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: Call Mr. Dipple please.
2. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Dipple, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
3. MR. DIPPLE: I do.

M I C H A E L   D I P P L E,   60 Grand Avenue, Englewood New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

1. MR. MARTIN: And just for the record your name, your business address and spell your last name.
2. MR. DIPPLE: Sure. Michael Dipple, D‑I‑P‑P‑L‑E. I am employed by L2A Land Design, 60 Grand Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey. I am the licensed professional civil engineer in New Jersey and New York. I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering from Rutgers University. I am founder and owner of L2A Land Design which specializes in site plan applications such as commercial, residential, institutional, just about anything. I have appeared in front of this ‑‑ in front of the zoning board of adjustment as well as many, many communities throughout New Jersey and the Superior Court and have been found to be an expert in civil engineering.
3. MR. MARTIN: And you're still qualified as a civil engineer tonight. Thank you.
4. MR. BRUINOOGE?
5. MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you very much.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BRUINOOGE:

1. Q. Now, Mr. Dipple, you've been engaged by our mutual client 257 Ridgewood Avenue L.L.C.

Is that correct?

1. A. That's correct.
2. Q. And in that capacity as a civil engineer would you be kind enough to explain to the board what your responsibilities were and what you have done. And as a consequence of the work done for it on behalf of 257, what do you bring to the board for their review?
3. A. So I prepared the civil site plan documents, working with Minno & Wasko the architect. We prepared the set that is on the board and in front of you entitled "Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, The Enclave of Ridgewood." I've worked on this project for six years now on this, so I have been there from the beginning.
4. Q. Now, you mentioned plans in front of the board members I had asked you to ‑‑ and your office, to prepare duplicate copies of the exhibits that have been premarked and are up, in part at least, on the exhibit, but reduce them in size to 11 by 17 for easier use by board members. Is that, in fact, what you're thumbing through now? And do you represent to the board that the copies that you're about to hand out are exact duplicates of the exhibits?
5. A. Yeah, that's correct. They're dated May 2nd, 2017. And I'm handing, I guess, to the gentleman on the left here.
6. MR. BRUINOOGE: MR. CAFARELLI.

THE WITNESS: Copies of that, just reduced to make it easier if you want to flip through the set.

1. MR. MARTIN: MR. BRUINOOGE, all the exhibits are in order in that stack?
2. MR. BRUINOOGE: Yes.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Are these the drawings revised on June 28th?

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: The drawings bear the date that they bear and in some instances bear a later revision date. We'll get to that as we present the actual exhibit.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay, thank you.

THE WITNESS: Just for clarification that's only the site plan set, that's not all exhibit that we have with us. That's just the site plan.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: So let's ‑‑
2. MR. MARTIN: You want to mark the site plan?
3. MR. BRUINOOGE: We're going to mark what's been previously marked for identification by the certified shorthand reporter.

BY MR. BRUINOOGE:  

1. Q. And please identify, if you would, Mr. Dipple, the first exhibit?
2. A. First exhibit is preliminary and final major site plan, The Enchain at Ridgewood. It's Exhibit A‑1. And the date on the plan is May 2, 2017. It's revised, second revision to include special‑needs housing component as redesigned.
3. Q. Can you explain and describe the project, utilizing that particular exhibit or any other exhibit that's there. If you are going to use another exhibit please make specific reference to the exhibit you are testifying from?
4. A. I am going to start with Exhibit A‑5 which is a Google Earth aerial of the property and surrounding areas. And what I have done is traced a yellow line around the approximate boundary of the site so the board can see what property's in and what property is not in. So looking at this document you have East Ridgewood Avenue along the bottom and that kind of runs east to west. You have North Maple Avenue running, you know, about a third of the way from the right side of the page, Route 507, and that runs in a north/south direction generally. And you have Franklin Avenue along the top which again runs in and east/west direction. The site, again, surrounded by this yellow lot includes ‑‑ this yellow line, it includes the Sealfons building that MR. BRUINOOGE described. It includes this brown ‑‑ I'm sorry ‑‑ this black rectangle which is currently being used as an Arthur Murray Dance Studio (indicating). And then you have another building on the property which is Landmark floors, I believe, they do. And you have some parking areas surrounding that.
5. MR. CAFARELLI: Pardon me. You need to use the microphone, it's not getting picked up in the audience.

THE WITNESS: It's not getting picked up?

1. MR. CAFARELLI: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Can you hear me now?

1. MR. CAFARELLI: It's working.

THE WITNESS: It's on. Okay. Okay. So orientation‑wise north will be Franklin Avenue and North Maple will be east an the municipal parking lots and Board of Education building will be to the west and, of course, Ridgewood Avenue ‑‑ East Ridgewood Avenue would be to the south. The property has three frontages, East Ridgewood Avenue, North Maple and Franklin. There are driveways to this site on East Ridgewood Avenue. There is one on North Maple Avenue underneath the Sealfons building. There's another one in front of the Landmark Floors to access the back. And currently there is no access, direct access to Franklin Avenue. The project does not include the Brake‑O‑Rama site, as can you see, which is at the intersection of Franklin Avenue and North Maple Avenue. From the drawing you can see that it's almost entirely impervious. I think we're ‑‑ I can check my figures, but we're in the high 90s on impervious coverage. It's mostly building and parking, asphalt parking. The site generally slopes from North Maple Avenue and the hills starts to climb in the rear so the grade increases as you go to the west. It increases significantly as you go from North Maple Avenue to the neighboring funeral home, which is just immediately to the west on the northern part of the site. So I think that's all I have for that.

BY MR. BRUINOOGE:

8. Q. Well, before you put that down, Mike, I just want to get clear on the record that the site that you just described with that exhibit includes Lots 4, 6 and 8.01 in Block 3703. Is that correct?
9. A. That's correct. That's shown on the cover of my drawings, Block 3703, Lots 4, 6 and 8.01.
10. Q. And I note that the exhibit A‑1 also references the zoning as set forth on the zone map and in the zoning ordinance of the village. Is that correct?
11. A. That's correct.
12. Q. What is it?
13. A. It's in the B‑3‑R business/residential zone district.
14. Q. Okay. Thanks.
15. A. Okay. So starting with A‑1, we just have the cover sheet, what is the first sheet CO‑1. I'm going to quickly go through the set and maybe 11 by 17s will help you to follow along. CO‑2 is a demolition plan. And this is important in this project because it depicts that the Sealfons portion of the building and the parking that's underneath the Sealfons is going to remain. It's really from the Arthur Murray Dance Studio to the north where the site features are going to be removed entirely. So the Landmark building, the ‑‑ what is clearly a prior building addition for the dance studio and all of the parking leading towards Franklin Avenue would all be removed as part of this project. So this is a building addition to the existing building. And what I have done also is put on the easel, the architect's rendering, which is Exhibit A‑8. And I'm not going to testify to it. I think the architect could give much better testimony than I can, but I think I find it helpful to the board to ‑‑ you can see from the civil plan which can be confusing, and I'm going to go through it and you can see what I'm referring to in the elevation. I thought that would be helpful so I asked the architect to place his exhibit on another easel. So moving forward through the set, I start with ground floor site plan. My site plan is a little bit ‑‑ it's not traditional I have two different plans in order to describe the civil portion of the site, because we really have two levels. So when I'm referring to the ground floor site plan, is the plan or the improvements which would be pretty much at the level of North Maple Avenue. All right, which is immediately to the east. So on CO‑3 this is what you would see if you cut the building away and would you look down you would see a parking lot with a lobby in the middle. And that on CO ‑‑ I'm sorry on A‑8 would be near the middle of the proposed building addition. So we have an entrance off of North Maple Avenue and an exit with a right turn only, after speaking with the county extensively. We can access the site and there would be parking, 46 public parking spaces on the ground floor, which would surround the lobby. Above you would be a concrete parking structure and then above you would be the residential floors. So the ground floor would, again, consist of the square near the middle which has the parking and it has the lobby and some of the amenities, like, the fitness center and the club room. Again this is immediately to the north of the Sealfons building which would remain and is depicted in A‑8 as existing to remain. So I'm going to put up an exhibit which is A‑2 which is a colored version of the ground floor site plan. So I could continue my testimony and you could see maybe better from the dais as to what I'm referring to. So the ground floor of the Sealfons building is a little strange in the front because when you enter off of Ridgewood Avenue you have a partial ground floor. You come in and PNC Bank is using that as kind of their welcome area. It's had different uses in the past. It was a furniture store, but this is kind of the landing point when you come in off of Ridgewood Avenue. And then you come go up a set of stairs and there's another level. But I'm still on the ground floor. And then you have some display windows which are thick, and prior tenants have used those to display products or ads or ‑‑ or whatever they have. And that is ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ that's along North Maple Avenue and that's to remain. It's when we get to the back we have the new structure which would be concrete and parking on the ground level and then, of course, the lobby. And then in the front along Ridgewood Avenue we would have the streetscape. And we were continue the existing streetscape along North Maple Avenue from the Sealfons building and continue that northward toward the Brake‑O‑Rama site where we would have an opportunity to add some landscaping and other amenities at the entrance to the building. So maybe the color helps to see exactly what's ‑‑ what's happening in that ‑‑ on that floor. The access point, again, is ‑‑ continues to be from North Maple Avenue right‑in only and right‑out only. So it could only be accessed from the north side coming south along North Maple Avenue. There is an existing full movement driveway along Ridgewood Avenue which would remain. There are proposed 46 parking spaces underneath the building, as I mentioned before 38 of the parking spaces underneath the Sealfons building would remain untouched. Okay.
16. Q. Let me just interject a quick question, hopefully it will somewhat of a clarification. The exhibit that you just referred to, the exhibit number again is?
17. A. Is ground floor site plan. It's a colored version of Sheet CO‑3.
18. Q. And you say "colored version" I see colors that are somewhat orange on there?
19. A. Yes.
20. Q. And that represents areas of commercial use to continue to be occupied in the Sealfons building; is that correct?
21. A. Yes, there's a split variation in the colors. This lighter peach color is existing building to remain and the slightly darker orange color is the proposed structure (indicating).

And as I mentioned this is the lobby, the fitness center, the proposed club room. There are bathrooms and elevator and likely some mechanical space (indicating).

1. Q. That darker orange represents then the lobby as you just described it for the market‑rate residential above?
2. A. That's correct. So I can come back to this, I am going the leave this on the board I am going to slide it over and I am going to move through my site because I want to do the next floor up because they tie together so I am moving on to Sheet CO‑4 and now some of the building comes into view. And this level of the structure corresponds to a driveway to Franklin Avenue. So as I said in my opening remarks when I was ‑‑ when I had the Google Earth aerial of that ‑‑ the site has a rise, rises drastically as you go from North Maple Avenue to the back of the site near the funeral home and that's evidenced along Franklin Avenue the slope pitches up as you go towards the Kings Supermarket entrance and the Board of Education building and you continue along Franklin Avenue the grade rises. So CO‑4 is a depiction of improvements that are essentially associated with the next level up and linked to Franklin Avenue. So there would be a full‑movement driveway on Franklin Avenue which would lead southward into the site. You would encounter a row of parking spaces to your right. As you continue forward in your vehicle you would be presented with parking opportunities on that floor and now I'm one floor up from the previous exhibit that I had up on the board for CO‑3. And if you parked in this parking lot in the back you could enter the proposed structure through a rear door at what's called the first floor. And on the first floor there would be some apartments I see seven there, apartments on the ground floor, and then there would be apartments above as the building continues to go vertically.
3. Q. Mike, let's take a moment please and focus on the number of parking spaces in the area that you just described. And if you know, will all those parking spaces be dedicated for use by any particular occupants of the building?
4. A. Yes, there are 47 proposed parking spaces on this level. And they are designated as residential parking spaces. So they would likely be assigned to the residential users. There are 37 ‑‑ I'm sorry ‑‑ 39 market‑rate units in this building. And then, of course, I have not gotten to it yet, but this is in the front where the proposed special‑needs housing would be. So there are 47 residential parking spaces accessed only from Franklin Avenue, so anyone using this site would have to enter off of Franklin and exit onto Franklin. There are 47 parking spaces.
5. Q. Are there any other significant features that you think should be pointed out at this point to the board?
6. A. Well, this is elevated so we have a retaining wall which ‑‑ or a building wall, I should say, which supports the parking along the sides. It abuts right up against the Brake‑O‑Rama. Again, I'm up one floor now along North Maple Avenue. There is a stair tower in the back. There are columns to support the building above. And I'm going to bring up a colored rendering so we could see that a little bit better. So as I bring up Exhibit A‑3, which is first floor site plan, CO‑4, and again it's a colored version of that, maybe that helps to shed a little light on what is proposed at this level. The front would be where the special‑needs housing is on the upper floors. And that is the Sealfons building. So that's this slightly lighter peach color (indicating). And as I move into the middle of the site, this darker orange color is the proposed structure at that floor level which I'm calling first floor, and then there's this darker gray band that comes westward and that is proposed structure above(indicating). So if you enter this parking lot you would pass these parking spaces and you would actually go underneath the upper floors. So that at the upper level the buildings becomes an L‑shape, like a backward L‑shape. On this level it's just this rectangle, but on floors two, three and four it's this L‑shaped structure. So I did these two plans and I brought a bunch of easels so I could have them up so that it would be easier to describe the structure because it was challenging to design. And ‑‑ and I can imagine challenging to understand at first glance. Parking, again is depicted in the gray color, sidewalks are this other, you know, grayish green color. And then we have landscaping buffering the funeral home to the rear and the Brake‑O‑Rama building along that ‑‑ along that frontage. So this only colors the ‑‑ the site features associated with the first floor site plan (indicating).
7. Q. Mike, I'd like to continue because I think there's a flow that's developing nicely ‑‑
8. A. Okay.
9. Q. ‑‑ but I want to just note for your use going forward here that that particular exhibit is helpful as we get into a discussion of the number of variances that are occasioned by this particular site plan, in particular with respect the side yards and height of retaining walls under the code so...
10. A. I agree. So moving forward through the plan set I have ground floor now as the plan set progresses I'm doing my grading and drainage so I broke my set up into two sheets, again, and I have grading and drainage on the ground floor. And, essentially, that's really covered so we have a few drainage inlets throughout the parking lot, if there's ‑‑ you know water that comes in, sometimes it comes in off of cars or, you know, whatever it may be and it's traditional for or typical for there to be a few area drains through out the parking lot which connect to an existing pipe out in North Maple Avenue. It's generally flat on this site plan. There's not a lot of relief underneath the structure so it's not a lot of features to it. I am really just showing ADA compliance and grading the driveways. So I'm really pretty flat on this ‑‑ on this page.
11. Q. Just a point of additional information your office did prepare, at the request of the applicant, a stormwater management report; is that correct?
12. A. That's correct.
13. Q. That what's been submitted to the village?
14. A. It has.
15. Q. And it has been reviewed?
16. A. It has.
17. Q. And you've had opportunity to discuss that with ‑‑
18. A. Yes.
19. Q. ‑‑ the village engineer?
20. A. With the village engineer. I did ‑‑ we had a slight increase in the impervious coverage. As I mentioned it was close to 100 percent, but we did find we went from 91.89 percent to 92.46 percent. So we have a .6 percent increase in order to make this structure work. I think the Landmark building had a few old landscaped areas in front or does today, so those were removed. We did find some opportunity for landscaping, but we fell a little bit short. So I think it was agreed upon the principle anyway that we would ‑‑ there is a dry well at the site, we would increase the size of the dry well and mitigate any additional stormwater runoff. So I presented this to the village engineer and that's been the way we've been going forth.
21. MR. BRUINOOGE: We kind of slipped into a discussion on stormwater management and Chris, MR. MARTIN, gives me an indication that it would probably be a good idea to have that stormwater report marked for identification. And I'll ask our reporter to please mark it as A‑11.

(Whereupon, Stormwater Management Report May 13, 2016 is received and marked as Exhibit A‑11 for identification.)

BY MR. BRUINOOGE:

1. Q. I show you what has been marked A‑11, are you familiar with it?
2. A. I am, yes.
3. Q. And is that the report that you just testified to and report prepared by you or someone in your office?
4. A. That is and it was prepared by me personally.
5. Q. Okay. So moving, again, back to the testimony regarding the site plan and this particular sheet which is taking us through the building.
6. A. The only other features that are part of this Sheet CO‑5 are the utility connections. So we find opportunities for sewer, water and gas right here along East Ridgewood Avenue (indicating). And we're talking to the utilities company and the village, of course, for water and sewer. So they're really just laterals out to the existing sewers that really service the existing building and they would be either increased or added new services for the building addition.
7. Q. Based on those conversations that you had to date is there any indication that the building will not be able to be serviced by either sewer or water or any of the other utilities?
8. A. There have been no indication that they would not be able to. There are some prior letters, but working with the village engineer we feel confident that everything can be ‑‑ that we can provide necessary utilities for this structure. Moving along, we have first floor grading, drainage and utility plan. And now I'm jumping up to the upper floor and, again, when you get above the parking below the structure on the previous plan, again it gets very flat, some of this is exposed. And we do have some pitch to it to get to a few inlets. But, generally, it's pretty flat in the parking area. It does grade down a little bit to Franklin Avenue to catch the grades. So there will be a little bit slope coming off of Franklin to get you up to a level in which you can cross over and get to the structured parking, which is near the middle of the site. And this is where the existing ‑‑ along Franklin Avenue I'm pointing it to, that's where the existing dry well is (indicating), so far the indication has been let's increase the size of that dry well by putting two more next to it and that should handle the stormwater management. So we would work with the village engineer if that ‑‑ after his review that doesn't ‑‑ isn't the case, but we feel pretty good about it. We show ADA compliance. There are two accessible parking spaces in the back of the site. There are columns in which the parking is worked around, but there's not a lot to see on the Sheet CO‑6. Moving forward through the plan set we get to lighting and, again, we do ‑‑ we break the site into two, lighting underneath this parking structure is pretty standard, standard parking garage lighting. We use a fixture which is typically used. It's an ‑‑ it's a linear light fixture by Phillips. And then we have we have some additional building‑mounted fixtures in the rear because there is a set of stairs and a sidewalk that exist today to get up to the upper level. And that would remain. So we're putting ‑‑ casting a little bit of light back here so access from Ridgewood Avenue can continue northward through the site to the upper parking level. So there's a lot of connectivity also in this plan for pedestrian activity in and around the property.
9. Q. Is the lighting that you proposed as the project engineer and as reflected on the plans that you submitted, is it compliant with the village code?
10. A. Yes, I believe it is. I had some conversations with MS. McMANUS, I believe, regarding lighting. And we do find opportunities where we could shield the sides of it a little bit and we have run those calculations. We didn't resubmit for ‑‑ just for the benefit of time and continuing tonight, but we did find some opportunities, just for some additional shielding, so that we don't get much throw. But the design is really ‑‑ it shows up on the next sheet CO‑8 more so than CO‑7 because CO‑7 is essentially the parking ‑‑ the interior parking area lighting. But on CO‑8 we have surface‑mounted lights or pole‑mounted lights which are depicted in the middle, that's a standard shoebox fixture. And we have a few of those on the site. And we did find some opportunities to shield those a little bit better, but we're in a downtown, commercial area. There's a lot of ambient light, but we're doing our part to keep the light on our site. So, again, we did rerun the model. We were able to improve it slightly. And I would continue to work with your professionals in order to get that right. But I think the lighting levels are very good. I think it's a good distribution throughout the property. From here on I think the plan set gets a little bit kind of technical and boring, it gets into soil erosion and sediment control and things like that. And we get into construction details so the plan set is available if we have any questions about that. But, in general, it ‑‑ it's really about the different levels of the site and understanding how they would be constructed. So I'm just going to remove A‑1 and put A‑3 back up on the easel, which are the two levels. And, again, I don't have a lot of room because of the camera, but I'm trying to get the building in there. On exhibit whatever that was A‑‑8.
11. MR. MARTIN: A‑8 is the rendering.

THE WITNESS: A‑8 is the elevation view by Minno & Wasko, I think that's A‑8. Yes, it's A‑8.

BY MR. BRUINOOGE:

1. Q. So, Mike, you've basically taken us through the site plan and in rather extensive detail and I thank you for that. I think you have done a fine job. But you've got a zoning table up on the plans that we are applying for a certain number of variances. Variances, by the way, which have been reflected on the plan submitted, but variances as well we're applying for under the catch‑all language in the notice, but coming about as a consequence of the normal type of review that we've had most recently with Mrs. McManus and with the village engineer. So let me just ask you, based on the plans as you see them and the information that you are aware of as of today, the number of parking spaces, total number of parking spaces that the site is providing?
2. A. We are providing 131 parking spaces which includes, again, the existing ones underneath to Sealfons, the proposed spaces underneath the proposed building addition. And the surface spaces which are associated with the first floor site plan, all in total it's 131 parking spaces.
3. Q. And do you know, based on your own research or conversations you've had with any other members of the expert team, total number of spaces required?
4. A. We have a parking table here which indicates that by the village code there would be 140 parking spaces required.
5. Q. I think it's 141 at this particular point right now?
6. A. Yes.
7. Q. We'll wait for Mr. Keller.
8. A. We're going to wait for Mr. Keller.
9. Q. Thanks. Surface parking area, under the code section 190‑118.4.F(12)B(3) parking area shall not be closer than 5 feet from any side lot or rear lot. We're proposing certain setbacks; is that correct?
10. A. Yes, we are. And they exist primarily along the funeral home lot to the west and along the back of the Brake‑O‑Rama, technically I'm within 3.16 feet. So we have noted those in a table here parking lot location, minimum of 5 feet where side or rear lot line. And we're proposing a 2.14 setback to Lot 15 which is in this location, that I'm referring to, which is to the municipal parking lot (indicating). So we're abutting one parking lot, up against another parking lot. There is about a 4‑foot grade change there that is an existing retaining wall. So that ‑‑ that exists today. So we're just reusing that area, but I have a parking setback of 2.14 feet. I have a setback of 3.16 feet, again, to the back of Brake‑O‑Rama building. But that's elevated. So we're up again, kind of midway up the back of the building. And we are 3.16 feet ‑‑ we have a 4‑foot setback to Lot 5 which is ‑‑ exists here along the back of the Brake‑O‑Rama. We're including circulations so we have ‑‑ we have that ‑‑ that 4‑foot setback along the east side of the Franklin Avenue access driveway. And then we have another setback that I mentioned earlier to Lot 2.01 which is a 4‑foot setback. And it's really all driven by the width of this extension towards Franklin Avenue in order to get the standard drive aisle width and the standard parking stall size. We have ‑‑ we split 4 feet and 4 feet. We have 8 extra feet. And we split the difference between the sides. So we don't quite comply. We needed 2 more feet in order to comply, but we have landscaped that area.
11. Q. Okay. The site plan, again, as you designed it, drawn it, if you look at Section 190‑124.F(2)B of the code retaining wall setback should be not less than the height of the retaining wall itself, but there is an existing retaining wall, as I understand it. Could you talk to the board about that please and explain what we're asking for?
12. A. Yes, there's a number of retaining walls and we had quite a bit of discussion with your prior planner about the retaining walls. There's a retaining wall along ‑‑ I previously mentioned it along this lot line which divided the site between the building, public parking lot and the site, there's a retaining wall there. There's an existing retaining wall that I mentioned which supports the build ‑‑ the parking lot and does allow the access from Ridgewood Avenue, pedestrian access and continues through, up the existing stairs and accesses the top portion of the site. So there is that pedestrian vertical circulation, you know, that an elevator or something which exists today, which we're going to preserve. And, you know, there are ‑‑ based upon the interpretation there are retaining walls which would support the garage, but that's really where the bulk of the retaining wall encroachment exists.
13. Q. Along with that 4.6‑foot high retaining wall, the applicant is proposing a 4‑foot high fence as well; is that correct?
14. A. That is correct.
15. Q. For security and safety reasons?
16. A. That's correct.
17. Q. So you have a total of 8.6 ‑‑
18. MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm sorry. I'm having a really hard time hearing you.
19. MR. BRUINOOGE: I said to Mr. Dipple, that the applicant is proposing a 4.6‑foot high retaining wall with a 4‑foot fence on top of it for security purposes and safety purposes.
20. MS. McWILLIAMS: Thank you.
21. MR. BRUINOOGE: Moving on then.

BY MR. BRUINOOGE:

124. Q. Actual retaining wall height under 190‑124.3(c) a maximum retaining wall height is 4 feet. And, again, we just ‑‑ I think we just really addressed that, the applicant proposes a 4.6‑foot high retaining wall with a 4‑foot fence for a total of 8.6. Is that correct?
125. A. That's correct. And I note that in footnote number 11 in the middle of the page I talk about the retaining wall and what we just covered.
126. Q. Now, earlier we made mention of the meeting that you and I and others on the team attended with Mrs. McManus and the village engineer. One of the comments listed by Mrs. McManus or given by Mrs. McManus under section 190‑118.4.F(10)D screening of parking beneath a building. Can you speak to that at least from your perspective as the civil engineer recognizing that there may be another expert who needs to speak more particularly on that?
127. A. Yes, that's correct. It's an interpretation, and I think the intent of the code was to screen parking so that we're not looking at buildings up on stilts and we have parking underneath and your streets, your experience as you're walking down the street is not one of parking, but of a building. So along North Maple Avenue the architect will attest to that that they've taken great lengths to screen the parking. We do have a situation in the back of the building where we have the building above the first floor parking level which is this parking shown on Sheet CO‑4 of Exhibit A‑3 where we have building above, but we don't have ‑‑ this grade would be impossible for us to screen that parking that begins near Franklin Avenue and it extends about midway through the site towards East Ridgewood Avenue. And it passes underneath this overhead building. And it's in that area, I believe, that MS. McMANUS mentioned that that is not really screened. And I am going to leave that up to the architect and for the planner to describe. But I believe that is where we were referring.
128. Q. The architect and the planner, I'm sure will have an opinion with respect to the other comments made by Mrs. McManus under 190 ‑‑ pardon me ‑‑ 190‑18.4.f.12(b)2 front yard parking. And that is again an interpretation issue as to whether or not the area coming off of Franklin leading up to the parking, that is eventually under the structure, whether that's front yard parking.
129. A. That's correct. And it was identified specifically off of Franklin Avenue so a front yard would be from the building to the street, any area between that is the front yard, not to be confused with the front yard setback. And between Franklin Avenue we have an access drive which you can see from the size and shape, which I showed on Exhibit A‑5, we have this almost like an extension driveway towards Franklin Avenue. There is parking there now, but there's no building behind it. When we propose a building we technically find ourselves in a situation where we have parking between the building and the right‑of‑way line which is interpreted as parking in the front yard. It is not along Ridgewood Avenue which is the front of the building. It is not along North Maple Avenue which is the front of the building, especially with the new building addition. The situation only exists on this area of ‑‑ that extends ‑‑ the property that extends towards Franklin Avenue and the building is set above it.
130. Q. Okay. Finally, one issue which I think is ‑‑ which warrants some attention and that is what the applicant is proposing in the plan submitted consistently throughout this past year, is a building which is slightly above the height of the permitted height under the ordinance. What is the applicant proposing in terms of height and can you speak to the board and tell the board how you have gone ahead, and based on the engineering work that you've done, determined how we get to that height?
131. A. So the allowable height in the applicable zone is 50 feet. So the applicant is proposing a building which measures by your village code to be 54.92 feet which is 4.92 feet above the allowable which is a (c) variance and that is noted in the bulk table about the 6th line down, 50‑feet permitted and 54.92 proposed. Now the village calculates the building height by the average grade and then you go through a formula and you subtract the average grade from the highest point of the building and that is your building height. So we went through that exercise and I have an exhibit which may be difficult, I did not have an opportunity to shrink this exhibit, so I'm going ‑‑ it has a little bit of color to it. It is Exhibit A‑4. And it is entitled "Building Height Exhibit" and again we responded to a comment in MS. McMANUS' letter which asks for the calculation ‑‑ in other words, the calculation as been on the plans for, you know, six years or so and the interpretation now we're in front of this board and the way the building is being presented we re‑ran the calculations, and I think rightfully so, so what we did is we took points and coordinating with your planner since the meeting and over the last couple of days, we kind of picked points that would be representative and if you could see them there's these little red dots and you're supposed to pick a point that's 15 feet away from the building itself or within 15 feet.
132. Q. When you say the building, itself, you're talking about in part the proposed building?
133. A. The proposed structure. That's correct. And we see that often in codes, you know, I don't have to tell you, but the idea is you don't want to, you know, lift up a site and then say well the building is so high meanwhile you're up on stilts. So it's common, we've seen that the measurements taken some distance away from the structure. So you see these little lines out here with points on them we kind of projected them on a 45‑degree angle and we took the points and we did 11 points around the building. I believe myself and the planner agreed as to where we take the points to, to do a fair representation of that. And we came to an average grade elevation of 89.33, okay, which differs by .09 feet from the ‑‑ from the calculation that's on the plan. And that's because of the new interpretation. But Mr. Englebaugh, when he testifies to the architecture, is doing a building which will comply with 54.92 feet. So there was a slight variation based upon the new calculations, but I don't think it changes any of the plans. We are proposing a building which is, by any calculation, 54.92 feet.
134. Q. Now, moving along then the application also seeks some waivers, I just want to make sure that the site plan notes and reflects the waivers that have been requested. There has been some testimony, I think you referred to a little while ago, about a dry well, is that what's commonly referred to under the code as a seepage tank?
135. A. Yes. The dry well/seepage tank, yes, it serves the same purpose. It's retaining the flow and allows it to infiltrate into the ground.
136. Q. So the application then and your site plan reflects that we're seeking relief from Section 190‑83.E.2(D)2 seepage tanks to be offset 15 feet from building's foundation. We are proposing to retain the existing seepage tank, and slightly expand it, I guess, but that's going to be within ‑‑ that is within 15 feet of the proposed building?
137. A. Yes. Our new seepage tanks will be 15 feet away, but we're connecting to the existing one which is less than 15 feet away. So we're ‑‑ anything we propose is within that limit.
138. Q. The second waiver 190‑84A regulates the spaces of trees within the right‑of‑way. The regulation requires three trees along North Maple. Your site plan doesn't show three, what does it show there?
139. A. Well, on North Maple Avenue, I don't know if my exhibit has it, we are showing opportunity ‑‑ we have existing planters. We're showing a proposed tree in the center of the site and it has to do with spacing the existing trees and the location of the driveway and we are proposing one new tree planting in the front, also if we expand upon that your planner's requested some opportunity for passive recreation spaces, we intend to comply with. So we do have a lot of landscaping in the front, the front of the building right now there's really nothing there other than some old landscaping in front of the Landmark. But there is a real opportunity to beef that up, but I think with the tree spacing we find an opportunity to put one tree in front of the site and that's the waiver.
140. Q. And, again, I realize that you're not a parking expert by any stretch ‑‑ well, I shouldn't say by any stretch, you're not a parking expert, you're a qualified civil engineer, but I think your site plan took into account the waiver request from 190‑90.B parking stall size at 90 ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ 9 feet by 20 feet for spaces without a 2‑foot overhang. Is the parking configuration shown on your exhibit consistent with the waiver request?
141. A. They are consistent with the waiver request. We're showing 9 by 18 foot parking spaces where we abut the parking garage all or ‑‑ that's really where this occurs is where we abut either a parapet or on the ground level where we have a parking lot we would ‑‑ if you pulled into a space you would abut the parking garage wall so we don't have the 9 by 20, I think, which is what the code said. We're using 9 by 18 which is the traditional parking space size. And one of the places where it occurs is underneath and you can see it's the one extension of the parking which has only a few parking spaces along the north side.
142. Q. You're referring to another exhibit which exhibit are you referring to, what is that exhibit?
143. A. I am referring to sheet A ‑‑ or Exhibit A‑2 and we have 9 by 18 parking spaces and there's no overhang. It essentially exists throughout this ground level ‑‑ ground level parking lot where we about those walls.
144. MR. MARTIN: Mike, which sheet is that?

THE WITNESS: That's Exhibit A‑2 and ground floor site plan Sheet CO‑3.

3. MR. MARTIN: CO‑3.

THE WITNESS: And that shows all the dimensions of the parking, 9 by 18, 24‑foot drive aisles which is traditional is all of these parking lots.

1. MR. MARTIN: And the Chair notes that it's a colorized version so...

THE WITNESS: That's the colorized version.

BY MR. BRUINOOGE:

1. Q. Anything else you would like to add?
2. A. I don't, but I have a lot drawings up here, but...
3. Q. Well, let me ask you, this set of plans and this exhibit other than the exhibit prepared by Minno and Wasko, these plans have been prepared by L2A and signed and sealed by you as a licensed New Jersey civil engineer?
4. A. Correct.
5. Q. They have been prepared consistent with good engineering practice and reflect accurately the conditions that you have described?
6. A. I think so.
7. MR. BRUINOOGE: I have no further questions of THE WITNESS at this particular time. I am happy to have the board question him.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We'll start with cross by the board. Dave, do you have any questions?

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: I didn't hear you mention the subsurface utilities.

THE WITNESS: I mentioned that there would ‑‑ there would be utilities which would serve the building which would come from the North Maple Avenue right‑of‑way.

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: But in the architectural plans, in the ‑‑ the section drawings there's actually ‑‑ it's showing the utility room beneath the lowest level of the garage.

THE WITNESS: I'm going to ‑‑ I'm going to allow Mr. Englebaugh to elaborate on that. I haven't really testified to the building interior so...

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: Because ‑‑ okay. No further questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Jeff?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: C‑04 your entrance and exit off of Franklin?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Is the intention of people to get into that parking area to make a right‑turn only to get in and right‑turn only to get out or do you expect people will go on East Franklin to be able to cut across traffic and get into that parking area? What's the intention?

THE WITNESS: We are showing a full‑movement driveway on Franklin Avenue. Speaking with the county that's where we stand right now that it would be no restriction on that driveway. It would lead only to these residential parking spaces so ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Right.

THE WITNESS: ‑ I have feeling that the I don't want to get into the traffic engineer's testimony, but we have worked extensively with the county on all of the driveways although Ridgewood Avenue, as your engineer corrected me, in the area is not a county road, it is up to this interchange, North Maple Avenue is a county road and Franklin Avenue is a county road. So we've been working with the county on exactly how the movements work. And we feel that because of the size of the parking lot and the number of trips we do believe a full‑movement driveway is possible. But I'm going to leave the rest of the testimony for the traffic expert.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. As I just see some concern to be honest with you with people going on East Franklin and allow you to cut across traffic and it's a very busy intersection that may not be ideal. The ‑‑ parking area for the Franklin entrance is that the only access for some of the units? In other words, that's the only way that they can park their car and get to their units so ‑‑ so it's dedicated solely to those units, is that right?

THE WITNESS: It is a 47‑space lot which is dedicated to residential parking only. So the 39 market rate, you know, there will be eight units which, I guess, you know, theoretically would have two assigned parking spaces. There is a mix of unit size and perhaps the next space is typically upon request and usually costs a little bit more to get the extra parking space if you're a family with multiple vehicles. So is that the only place they could park, I don't think we've worked out exactly, you know, the parking distribution, but we know that the ground floor is public so that is for the common use for all of what is proposed. The front portion of the building which remains the PNC, the special needs, and then the residents ‑‑ the residential uses.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Are there service vehicles that are going to be coming in and out of here? Any kind of service vehicles whether they're ‑‑ even emergency vehicles?

THE WITNESS: We have spoken to the Ridgewood emergency department and they have told us unequivocally that they would not bring an emergency vehicle into the interior of the building, they could get stuck there, they would have to turn around in case of an emergency, God forbid, they would halt traffic on North Maple Avenue during that emergency, pretty wide right‑of‑way, I don't think it would stop the town, but in order to ‑‑ whether it's Franklin or Ridgewood or wherever the emergency is best served, they would ‑‑ they would just use the right‑of‑way and not go underneath, but it does allow clearance for an ambulance, not a fire truck.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So do you envision any service vehicles coming in and out of this facility and if yes, where would they do that?

THE WITNESS: We have a loading space proposed and that is ‑‑ it's existing and I don't think I gave ‑‑ I don't think I mentioned it in my testimony, coming off of Ridgewood Avenue, there is a space which is adjacent to the ADA accessible space and that would remain and that has the potential of a loading space should some product come in. Whether PNC needs it whether or not a move‑in vehicle can park there and use that space. If you have a small enough vehicle you would just use a parking space, but if it's a larger vehicle you would use that loading space. So that is a feature of the site plan that remains.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And I'm not an expert and there is the chief here who probably can provide some more light on this. The ‑‑ there's really no space between your building and the Brake‑O‑Rama. Right? I mean you can't even get through there it's just kind of like they're butted against each other?

THE WITNESS: That's correct. And that's actually ‑‑ that's actually the way the code was written, it's either 0 or 12 feet so you're 0 feet or if you do set back it needs to be 12 feet. So we're chosen the 0‑foot setback.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. I don't know if there's any issue with fire concerns with these buildings?

1. MR. VAN GOOR: It depends upon the building.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. Okay. All right. I'll let you ask those questions.

The lighting of the buildings, I know you've done a whole bunch of different C‑07 is a whole bunch footcandles and there's measurements here, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Those are footcandle measurements taken at grade. So that's what you would see on the parking lot level.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: If you envision any issues with any of the surrounding ‑‑ I think on the other side of Maple there are some residential homes, I mean is that going to effect them having this lighting during the evening, do you know?

THE WITNESS: No, I would say especially beyond on North Maple Avenue because the light that is anywhere near North Maple Avenue would be underneath the deck and, again, I haven't testified to the specifics of exhibit A‑8 but the architect has gone to great lengths to give the building a nice facade and shield that so no light spillage would really come out of that building. The parking lot lighting is on the opposite side shielded by the building, itself, and by the Brake‑O‑Rama building. So ‑‑ and it would be quite a distance, you know, hundreds of feet across. I think directly on the opposite side we're mostly commercial there, Jersey Mike's. We have the bank. We have the real estate. And then we have medical offices, I believe. I don't know if it's ‑‑ so directly across the street I don't think there would be any impact, you know, especially to North Maple Avenue. These light are designed only to project downward and not project out and ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: That's ‑‑ and then on the other side of Franklin you have a large apartment building. Is that going to be effected by any of the lighting here?

THE WITNESS: I don't believe so the first fixture is set back and, again, downward illumination only.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I had one other question I can't think of it.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: James, any questions?

1. MR. VAN GOOR: What is the height of the parking underneath? You said an ambulance could get in, what would be the height?

THE WITNESS: It is ‑‑ it is ‑‑ I think it's 9 feet 6 or 9 feet 8 inches I don't have it on my plan. It's ‑‑ you're going to hear more testimony from the architect. He has a section.

1. MR. VAN GOOR: On the drawing next to you there, you have that second floor overhang?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. MR. VAN GOOR: And what's orange ‑‑ that little orange spot?  

THE WITNESS: Of that's the stair tower so that does touch down on grade, that's what that is.

1. MR. VAN GOOR: So that goes to the parking underneath that?

THE WITNESS: That goes to the ‑‑ it does not go down to the parking underneath that, it goes just from this level vertically (indicating) to the residential floors above. It doesn't go into ‑‑

1. MR. VAN GOOR: Oh.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ it goes up.

1. MR. VAN GOOR: It goes up?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it doesn't go down to the parking below it.

1. MR. VAN GOOR: Okay. That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mayor?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Thank you.

I have a question on ‑‑ if we go to CO‑3 to start ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ on the west back part of the building, the west side of the building ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: You have this projection it appears to be a staircase going up.

Do you know what that is?

THE WITNESS: That ‑‑ that staircase exists, that is ‑‑ that vertical circulation from the parking area under the Sealfons which is very low compared to the parking area here, which has a difference of about 10 feet.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So just walk me through how does somebody access that staircase?

THE WITNESS: Well, there's actually access from the village parking lot so one opportunity, because you can ‑‑ today you can actually drive through and actually go through the building.  

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.

THE WITNESS: And continue. Yeah, it's a little ‑‑ it's a little short, but you can access that pedestrian walk or you can touch grade and then continue up the stairs. You can come in off of Ridgewood Avenue and walk through this parking lot and go up those stairs or conversely, you know, there's a parking lot here, you could go back down and go through the site.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then if somebody were coming in from Ridgewood Avenue and walking to that staircase, there's no ‑‑ is there a sidewalk in that space?

THE WITNESS: Yes. The sidewalk begins right about where the building begins. It's ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, let me rephrase. Is there a ‑‑ when you're at ‑‑ when you're trying to access as you're walking to that staircase is there a sidewalk and a driveway?

THE WITNESS: No. No.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So somebody has to walk through a driveway to get to that staircase?

THE WITNESS: That's the present day conditions. There is ‑‑ it's not a very busy ‑‑ it's not a very busy lot. You might want to look to make sure cars aren't coming through the ‑‑ the easement from the village lot, but it's pretty wide open. It's very visible. You could walk from Ridgewood Avenue through that asphalt lot and then get to the sidewalk once you hit the building and then up to the other asphalt parking lot. I mean you would then be in that asphalt parking lot.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: But I think my questions is ‑‑ and it goes to COUNCILMAN VOIGT' s question about the loading space so that half of loading now we're going to introduce into that space where pedestrians need to access the staircase, we're now introducing not just vehicles, but trucks as well?

THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't think the loading would really be used that often, but it is ‑‑ yeah, this condition currently exists today. It doesn't really get much traffic. I park back there when I come to the site, I pull in off of Ridgewood Avenue, and I have been to the back, especially in the evenings it's pretty much empty. There's a really a lot of opportunity ‑‑ it's not that there's no opportunity to move quickly through there. I mean when you come in a northbound direction you're confronted with this small parking lot which now will have 38 parking spaces in it. So there's really ‑‑ it's really no opportunity to move quickly. It's partially underneath the building, but it's just some opportunity for vertical circulation, again, we're leaving it in place. We think it's a good feature from one side to the other if you park your car and you want to get out to Ridgewood Avenue to shop or whatever, you do have an opportunity to come down a set of stairs and continue out or through the village parking lot which, again, would put you into a parking lot and then out to the streets.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: There's just no way to walk back in there, that's all, I guess there's no ‑‑

THE WITNESS: There's ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ sidewalk.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ no sidewalk, I think is what you're getting to.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.

THE WITNESS: But I don't ‑‑ I think it's a safe condition, even the village lot, if you park in the village lot you are essentially walking through the parking lot.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then that ‑‑ that loading ‑‑ what did you call it pad, elevated pad?  

THE WITNESS: It's just a striped area. It's not ‑‑ there's no ‑‑ it's really featureless other than striping.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: What is the dimension of that? Can you tell me the dimension of that?

THE WITNESS: Yeah, I can ‑‑I think it's 36‑feet long because it's two parking spaces in length, actually measures a little bit longer about 40 feet and it's a little skewed in size it's about 10‑feet wide. So about 40 by 10.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Let me ask about the lighting, if we could go to CO‑8 and this proposed lighting poles ‑‑

THE WITNESS: CO‑8?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.

THE WITNESS: CO‑8 is entitle "First Floor Lighting and Landscaping Plan".

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I want to go back to the lighting in the back of the building the light poles and how high those are?

THE WITNESS: Okay. They are 14 feet in height. And there are two pole‑mounted fixtures along the access drive to East Franklin and then there are building‑mounted fixtures, there are three of them to illuminate the parking level which is, I guess, on the southwest side of that parking lot. And that would be the same ‑‑ I think they will be the same fixtures just building‑mounted.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm done.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie?

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I have some questions pulling it together, you're parking deficient as the plan currently stands, if your parking variance request is denied tonight how much more deficient would you be?

THE WITNESS: Sorry. Could you just rephrase that?

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm sorry, if your parking variance request is denied ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: ‑‑ how many more spaces will you be deficient?

THE WITNESS: Well, I --

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Do you have any idea?

THE WITNESS: I shown on my plan nine. I was informed that the traffic engineer may be testifying that it's ten. And I'm getting a nod from MR. BRUINOOGE. So let's say the requirement is 141 and we're proposing 131.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: And then some of your spaces, I think aren't you ‑‑ aren't you requesting a variance or a change in the actual size. You gave the 18 feet versus the 20 feet.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: So if that were not to be approved do you have any idea how much more of a deficiency you would be at, at that point?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't know off the top of my head. I don't know what could be done to the lobby in order to improve upon that and then where we don't have an overhang in the rear, perhaps I think it would result in a ‑‑ in a building change.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. I think this might be a question, quickly, for Chris, is any of the retaining wall that is currently back there to code or, you know, does it meet any of our current code or is it already out of code.
2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I think the only issues with that retaining wall would be regarding its height. Anything further regarding its construction or whether any of its footings subsurface encroachment on the village property we don't have any information on it.
3. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
4. MR. RUTISHAUSER: The only issue I think is height because we also would have a safety fence on the top and I guess increase the vertical dimension in accordance with our ordinance.
5. MS. McWILLIAMS: The 0‑ or 12‑foot setback between the Brake‑O‑Rama site and your ‑‑ I guess that would come under parking, is that ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well, you would abut a structure it's ‑‑

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: These units here, all right.

Is there any ‑‑ does that leave ‑‑ that you have chosen as 0‑foot setback does that meet and specifications or limitation on what can be placed in the Brake‑O‑Rama?

THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of, but I'm not an expert of the building code. I think the architect may be better suited to answer that.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.

And you did say ‑‑ I believe my last question, you did say an ambulance could fit underneath, but not a large one? I didn't know if I heard you correctly.

THE WITNESS: Can fit what underneath? I'm sorry.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: An ambulance.

THE WITNESS: Oh, there is vertical clearance for an ambulance that's correct. I believe the maximum height for an ambulance is 110 inches which equates to 9 foot 2 based upon my reading of the federal standards. It could fit under there. We really don't see it going under there. But it ‑‑ but it could.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: All right. Thank you. That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay, Debbie?

1. MS. PATIRE: Yes, if you could look at a C‑04 one more time. I just want to make sure I understand it properly several question by board members, so coming off Franklin Avenue even though you're showing a line around the parking area, you come off Franklin Avenue and you make a left into the units on level two, right? You come in and you can make a left. Is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That's correct. We're showing a full‑movement driveway. That's correct.

1. MS. PATIRE: Great. So can you just show me if I pull in and there are no open spaces, how am I getting out of there? And if there's another car behind me, how is he getting out of there? How does that work? Where does the circulation flow?

THE WITNESS: Well, that's where ‑‑ we think that this would be, you know, first of all it would be assigned spaces that that would be an opportunity to assign them to the residences so that you ‑‑ and we would have signage there saying that ‑‑

1. MS. PATIRE: In other words, if I rented it wouldn't be ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ unit one is assigned a spot and you also have assigned spots on the Franklin Avenue side as well? They're all assigned?

THE WITNESS: I don't think the parking ‑‑ I don't think they've worked it out yet to see what the mix would be to see how the assigned spaces would go, but the ‑‑ the first level ‑‑ first floor level, which is what we're referring to is residential only. And it would be assigned and signed to be only residential. I think over time it would ‑‑ it would clearly be just for the residences.

1. MS. PATIRE: And I just want to make sure you and I are saying the same thing.

THE WITNESS: And ‑‑

1. MS. PATIRE: So that unit 1B has one assigned spot. Unit 2B has two assigned spots. They are assigned by units not just to residents because ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ so I know that my spot is the third one from the left.

THE WITNESS: I think that that is the way that it would go. I don't think that it's been completely vetted out yet as to how that would go, but that is an opportunity that's something we see in these types of residential buildings that it would be assigned specifically a space and a number not a free‑for‑all of you're in this lot and you go anywhere you want.

1. MS. PATIRE: I almost think from a resident standpoint if I lived there I wouldn't want to pull in and then have to figure out how to get out. And if someone pulls in behind me then they have to figure out how to get out, that is a problem not to have a circular flow there. So I would think you would need to assign those to certain apartment units.

THE WITNESS: I agree. I concur that that's a good idea.

4. MS. PATIRE: Also can you just show me on ‑‑ and I don't know where it would be, I guess it would be CO‑4. So if I'm moving in and moving out I'm parking in the ‑‑ towards the top of the left, correct? That's my loading zone?

THE WITNESS: That's an opportunity for loading, yes.

1. MS. PATIRE: Where would I ‑‑ where are to elevators to take me to my apartment if I'm on the third floor?

THE WITNESS: Well, there's a ‑‑ there's a way to go from here ‑‑ from the loading space through and then access the parking. One of the features that I failed to mention is there's connectivity between the parking lots on the ground floor site plan. We have an active drive. So one could park here and then walk through the structure and get to the lobby which then would take them up. So that's an opportunity, if you have a larger vehicle and you felt like you had to use the loading space you spoke to building management, you said that's where I'm going to be on such and such a day on move‑in day you could park that larger vehicle in this location (indicating) and then you could walk through and get to the lobby. If you have a smaller vehicle, like a car or a van, something like that, you could just use one of the parking spaces, even your assigned space in order to move in. So these are apartments not big homes, but there are some things that arise ‑‑

1. MS. PATIRE: So are they parking in the loading zone?

THE WITNESS: They ‑‑

1. MS. PATIRE: And they would have to walk all the way across the loading area for any apartment.

THE WITNESS: They ‑‑ that's ‑‑ where they would walk.

1. MS. PATIRE: These are rentals not condominiums, correct?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. MS. PATIRE: So people will be moving in and out ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. MS. PATIRE: The rentals will be moving in and out more frequently than the condos. Okay. That's all the questions I have.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella?

1. MS. ALTANO: Yes, I am actually although you gave testimony on the site plan I would be more comfortable if you also had building sections up there.

THE WITNESS: We will.

1. MS. ALTANO: Because of the nature of the architecture because of the different levels, it would be a lot easier for us to compare when you're discussing versus these sections to the levels change and perhaps that would also create more questions from us.

THE WITNESS: I agree and you will get that, that's part of the disjointed part of having an engineer and an architect, one guy's got to go first so I ‑‑ I pulled the short straw and I go first so he's coming up with ‑ he's coming up with building sections. And I think you have those in your package you have sections of the building showing exactly how it's going to work and he'll give extensive testimony on that ‑‑

1. MS. ALTANO: Right, but also it could have been done tonight so we can compare.

THE WITNESS: I think we'll ‑‑ I'm going to have these exhibits so they're not going anywhere. And that's why I put Mr. Englebaugh's drawing up there just so you could get some picture because if you looked at these orange spots it doesn't ‑‑ it doesn't tell you what the building looks like. So that's why I left that up there so that we could always see what it is we're talking about.

1. MS. ALTANO: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: On your Sheet CO‑4 you have ‑‑ it looks like you have a series of columns that are flanking some of your parking spaces; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's correct. This is ‑‑ this brown ‑‑ brownish grayish shade here is the elevated portion and you do have columns that touch down on to that (indicating).

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I notice they look to be adjacent to the parking spaces that are deficient in size, correct?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't think they are because they do have an opportunity to overhang. The only ‑‑ they only need that larger space when you don't have an opportunity to overhang.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So those are ‑‑ those are all 9 by 20s?

THE WITNESS: No. They're 9 by 18, but the 9 by 20, I believe, if I'm correct, is 9 by 20 is you don't have the opportunity to overhang by 2 feet. I think I'm getting a nod from your engineer that that's is correct. So ‑‑

18. MR. RUTISHAUSER: It is 9 by 20 unless you have a 2‑foot overhang and then you go for a 9 by 18.

THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. So I don't think that location is where we're deficient. I think to the left of that possibly because we have the parapet walls, but in the front we have a sidewalk so...

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Then I kind of flipped through your details in the back I didn't see any details for bollards. Do you plan to protect those columns at all with bollards or anything? I just ‑‑ I'm thinking about vehicles strikes or people ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Those are not typically done.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: ‑‑ opening their doors or all kinds of difficulties getting in and out of the spots.

THE WITNESS: No, they're not typically protected with bollards. I could ask the architect if there's any opportunity, but, no, typically the column and the parking spaces goes in right next to the column. It's wrapped in concrete. It's a pretty robust structure, but, no.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay.

1. MS. ALTANO: May I, could there ‑‑ could there be something else there like mirrors.

THE WITNESS: Mirrors? Yes. I think in a parking structure there's an opportunity for mirrors, if it's so warranted. I would say on the ground floor more so than the upper floor because the upper floors get natural light, ambient light, underneath possibly I'm not an expert in that. But

1. MS. ALTANO: But it should be, you agree, because of columns.

THE WITNESS: Well, the columns will be very visible. It's going to be very bright in there. It's going to be lit up. The columns are going to be, you know, quite large. I think I'm showing them about 1 foot or 18 inches by maybe 2, 2.5 feet so a column for a parking structure is very large. I ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑

1. MS. ALTANO: It's because they are very large.

THE WITNESS: Pardon me.

1. MS. ALTANO: I think it's because they are very, very large that we're worried about it.

THE WITNESS: I ‑‑ I don't know if these are large comparatively. I think they're pretty ‑‑ pretty standard. I think they're ‑‑ you know, but ‑‑ but they fit in those parking spaces ‑‑ between the parking spaces we're going to have striped areas.

1. MR. MARTIN: Could that be more for a blind‑spot issue as opposed to a lighting in terms of the mirrors?

THE WITNESS: I ‑‑ I don't ‑‑

1. MR. MARTIN: You're probably not ‑‑

THE WITNESS: I don't know if I have an opinion on the mirrors. I think the mirrors would be great. Are we talking about mirrors so you could see someone coming?

1. MR. MARTIN: Or, you know, around a blind ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Blind corners?

1. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ columns that create corners that have ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes, I think the mirrors ‑‑ I'm not suggesting that the mirrors aren't a good idea. I think it is. I just ‑‑ I don't really have a design in mind yet. I'm not really an expert on that, but I don't disagree that that ‑‑ there's an opportunity to improve with a simple installation of mirrors.

1. MR. MARTIN: You're not the circulation guys.

THE WITNESS: I'm not a ‑‑ I'm not a parking garage mirror guy, but, yeah, I do a lot ‑‑ I do a lot with circulation and parking, yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have some questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, go ahead.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Do you want to go first?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, go ahead.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. I just have a question going back to CO‑4 when somebody comes up into that parking lot in the back, you know, I see you have compact spaces as well. Right? Is that ‑‑ you appear to have three compact ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yeah. There are ‑‑ there are compact spaces located to the ‑‑ just to the sides of the stair tower, yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And so those spaces, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this, because this is a little bit of a complicated design obviously it's very complicated.

THE WITNESS: I agree.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So these particular spaces are allocated to or assigned to units anywhere in the building or are they specific to a space in the building?

THE WITNESS: I don't think that has been fully vetted out, but I think that it would be logical that here's an opportunity where a user who has a small car, you would ‑‑ building management would offer them that space and say while you have this, while you own or lease this small vehicle, use that space. And I think it would be assigned that parking space. I think there's an opportunity for that. I don't think ownership has fully vetted how this is going to work. But I think it's pretty logical the way the board is thinking it would be a good idea and I agree that perhaps assigning those residential parking spaces, especially someone with a small vehicle, would be opportunistic.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And so ‑‑ and then when I go back to my colleagues question about circulation and how if you get stuck how do you get out. So I'm to understand that somebody comes off Franklin and they get to that point where they actually turn into the other part of the garage is that accurate?

THE WITNESS: They come in off of Franklin, they could continue forward and utilize the 18 spaces which exist along the west side. They could make a left‑hand turn and access yet another bank of parking spaces whatever the difference is between that and the 47 spaces. So you have another parking area they could, you know ‑‑ and I guess the assigned space is a way to minimize the opportunity that someone's in your space, but again a lot of times it's not full, it could be full, but you would have to make ‑‑ if you went in there ‑‑ into that parking area errantly and you needed to turn around and come back you would have to either use an empty space, the ADA spaces, and make a K‑turn and turn around and you could continue or if you enter the parking area and look to your right and saw that there were no spaces because it's not a very big parking lot, you can simply enter your car, back out and then continue out to Franklin Avenue. But, again, I think there's ways to minimize that, that we'll discuss.

1. MS. PATIRE: So you're just saying what we were kind of talking about earlier, right, on why we think it's important again because looking out for the safety of pedestrians crossing the street, people coming in and out of there, et cetera.

THE WITNESS: Right.

1. MS. PATIRE: You know you're asking for variances on these parking spaces which are not only deficient by the size of them so that should sort of be thought out as far as a challenge ‑‑ you know, you guys figure it out because I think what you're asking the board for there is really some concern ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Right.

1. MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ we have a bigger issue than the parking, but what we have now thought were going to be assigned, so we're going to have traffic coming in and out into this area, having to do K‑turns because that's why I asked you to walk me through because it's kind of dead‑end in that area and you can't get out and if someone else is behind you ‑‑

THE WITNESS: I understand.

1. MS. PATIRE: ‑‑ that's a problem.

THE WITNESS: I concur. I'm just saying that you need the specifics. This has been discussed because we did assign this as residential spaces. So there has been discussion ‑‑

1. MS. PATIRE: Residential spaces versus assigned spots. So 1B is assigned a spot, 2B is assigned a spot, et cetera.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I will confer with my client before the next meeting and we can try to drill that down there.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: One other question on it because you have the 14 spaces then you have four that are for those compact cars and what is the size of that ‑‑ of fourth space.

THE WITNESS: The one space is ‑‑ it's not dimensioned but it's 9 by 18.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So that's what it is.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I have one more question on the entrance and exit on Franklin is that ‑‑ is there going to be a gate there so that people ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So anyone could go in it.

THE WITNESS: Potentially, yes. We are proposing signage to say residential parking only for this building. Yes. And directional signage.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. No consideration of a gate, where you can't get in unless you have a card ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: No?

THE WITNESS: No, you know the gate causes problems and that is you fumble with your key, you have to push that gate to get into the parking lot. You're fumbling, you can't find your access key now you have to back up, what do you have to do. There are inherent problems with a gate to that ‑‑ ‑

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: How many ‑‑ how many feet approximately is that driveway from the light on Franklin, that corner.

THE WITNESS: I'm going to approximate it at maybe 130 feet.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Because then that light can back up with any ‑‑ at any time of day you can be sitting at that light. That's a three‑way traffic right here so it backs up well past where that entrance ‑‑ where that driveway will be if you had somebody, you know, with a gate or any ‑‑ any other method of getting in or out.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: But I don't know how you stop ‑‑ signage would be one way but I don't know how you stop somebody pulling in off the street trying just to find a parking spot.

THE WITNESS: Yes, well, I mean it ‑‑ you know, there are ‑‑ I mean there are other methods. I mean there could be ‑‑ there might be someone ‑‑ management at the building from time to time who if someone is doing it they might be doing it frequently, you know, this happens at residential buildings. So there are ways to employ ‑‑ that you can employ that make sure that this doesn't happen that they assigned spaces, someone comes home and they're in your space management's going to know about it pretty quick. So I think over time, I think, you know, initially when the ‑‑ as the residents move in it will start to take shape and the signage again, you know, can say: This is ‑‑ you till be removed or towed or whatever and that could be a deterrent.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: How are you going to tow them in there?

THE WITNESS: I walked into that one, right? Well, you know, those flatbed things that pick up cars aren't that big. So, yeah, they could ‑‑ I think it could.

1. MS. PATIRE: Mr. Dipple, would you say it was safe to assume that from the stop lines on the street at that corner you are about, I don't know, seven or eight car lengths back to get to those driveways?

THE WITNESS: It's 130, yes, that's about right. Yes. Uh‑huh.

1. MS. PATIRE: So I just want to understand for rush hour time people are leaving or whatever, that light backs up, I don't know if you have been in the morning or even in the evening or after school, but that light backs up so you might have a little congestion in that area I think both in and out.

THE WITNESS: I'm going to let the traffic engineer discuss that. I haven't preformed traffic counts or observations. I'm familiar with the area so.

1. MS. PATIRE: Thank you.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just wanted to ask you to walk through the trees again. Walk through the tree planting again.

THE WITNESS: Okay. The trees we have ‑‑ we showed the spacing of the trees so I think what MR. BRUINOOGE was referring to on North Maple Avenue was that there is a planter perhaps with a tree in it. There was one that's knocked down. And I can't remember which one it was, but I'm showing a planter here (indicating). So we're showing the spacing consistent down North Maple Avenue. And that's why we have ‑‑ there's an existing tree on the corner which will remain but we're proposing one additional tree almost in front of the ‑‑ of the entrance to the building so we're keeping the spacing consistent and I think that led to ‑‑ led to the waiver. And we do have, again, the landscaping. We have ornamental trees proposed. And your planner did recommend an opportunity for some pedestrian or passive seating area, which we want to incorporate into the plan.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: The planters that you're referring to are those planters that you have shaded in, like, darker.

THE WITNESS: Those exist. Those exist today. That's part of the streetscape.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Whose plantings are they?

THE WITNESS: I think they're the municipality's. Those existing planters.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.

THE WITNESS: Yes. They're in the right‑of‑way.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I believe they're our planters as well. I think they're the village planters.

THE WITNESS: I think so.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I am still worried about ‑‑ I am still worried about that parking area on Franklin where the entrance is.

THE WITNESS: One second, I'll answer your question.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Sure.

I'm still worried about the entrance on Franklin and that parking area.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: If ‑‑ and there's been some talk to develop that Brake‑O‑Rama and being potentially a restaurant, there's been some talk about that. My concern is what ‑‑ with the funeral home and if they have overflow that's just kind of inviting trends for people to park there. I am hoping you can think of ways to prevent non‑residents from going into that area because it can be ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It can really be a ‑‑ can be problematic.

THE WITNESS: I think you could draw some comfort that any applicant who would try to redo that Brake‑O‑Rama would have to ‑‑ the county would have a lot to say about it because they're fronting on a busy intersection. Just like they have a lot of say about ours. I do want to say that my client just informed me, even though we are working with the county on that driveway and as it stands and as it's submitted it's a full‑movement driveway, my client is taking the position that he doesn't want it to be a full‑movement driveway. That he only wants it to be a right in and right out. And I apologize for being incorrect on that. And but I think for the safety of that area and my client is from Ridgewood and knows the area much better than I do. That right in, right out will be proposed in a future submission or, you know, hopefully for resolution compliance. But, again, we have a traffic engineer who is going to elaborate on that.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So just out of curiosity I see the driveway on to North Maple driveway appears to me anyway to be right out; is that correct?  

THE WITNESS: Right in right out. Yes, the North Maple driveway is right in, right out. It's it has been, that's been with a lot of discussions with county ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.

THE WITNESS: And it's important to note that we are removing an exit driveway.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, I know that.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I don't know if I really touched on that in my testimony, but there is an exit driveway which continues through and that would be removed that would ‑‑ that the county requested we remove that and you do right in and right out. We have a ‑‑ we have a workable project along North Maple Avenue and that's how we designed it.

1. MR. MARTIN: Just because some people actually read these transcripts a couple weeks down the road or months, right in and right‑out only on the Franklin Avenue side and the other side?

THE WITNESS: That's correct right in right out and that's a change to my earlier testimony on Franklin Avenue and right in right out on North Maple Avenue. And I think the Franklin Avenue we just need a slight reconfiguration of that in order to make it right in right out. But it would be signed. So I hope that alleviates some of the concerns of the board with left turns and ‑‑ left turns out and left turns in.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, I have another question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Question if you could, so now the ‑‑ back to CO‑3. So the parking lot that we ‑‑ the parking lot that we see in this kind of boxed area, the only way in and out of that space is from Maple. Is that accurate?

THE WITNESS: No, it's not really accurate from ‑‑ directly from the right‑of‑way, yes. But there is ‑‑ there is a connection between the existing parking lot. So you have an opportunity from the municipal lot and from Ridgewood Avenue also.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: The municipal lot. Oh, okay, because I see you're going through this ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes. The municipal lot has an easement which extends down into the site that stops.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. I understand. I'm sorry. I see it.

THE WITNESS: And then ‑‑ it is still possible you could come underneath the building and continue out onto North Maple Avenue. It's just getting relocated slightly.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: It's on that the ‑‑ that more circuitous route and you go out into that other parking lot going ‑‑ drive into the municipal lot. Is that what ‑‑

THE WITNESS: It would be possible to come in off of North Maple enter the ‑‑ underneath the structure, cross over into underneath the Sealfons portion and go west into the municipal parking lot, that is possible.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Or they can head south and dump out onto Ridgewood Avenue, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Or you could ‑‑ you could go ‑‑ it's pretty circuitous, but, yes, you come in and go out and then come in and then, you know ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: You're not assuming somebody would come in. I'm just asking if somebody is in there already, it would make someone come in off of Maple and take that driveway ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes, it's pretty ‑‑ yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right. Okay I'm good.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I have one quick last question you had mentioned something about amenity area or adding some ‑‑ what was it called? I want to make sure. What term it was, passive recreation?

THE WITNESS: So, like, a very passive opportunity for some seating or pedestrian, you know, a little rest area here where you would maybe have some benches facing the sidewalk, kind of, continue the streetscape and be inviting. So your planner recommended that there's an opportunity right here in the northeast corner for that where the building is set back and there's some landscaping. So ‑‑

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: How many ‑‑ how many feet is that? I mean is it ‑‑ so it is ‑‑

THE WITNESS: It's no, it's pretty substantial. It's 45 feet. And it is 25‑feet deep. So we don't ‑‑ I mean we haven't really planned it yet. We're responding to the comment. We agree with it, but a couple of benches and a little seating area wouldn't take up much space.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I would just like to echo what Isabella said, just it would have been nice to have some more visuals, it's kind of tough with a flat plan on it with the cross‑sections with any 3D models that you have.

THE WITNESS: I think it's coming.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, it would have been nice to have it from to get‑go to conceptualize.

But I understand where you're coming from.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Our next will be cross by our professionals. Chris, do you have any?

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: Before we move in that direction ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: ‑‑ please, Mr. Joel.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: Two points, if I may please. One, while the architect hopefully will start this evening he's not going to finish this evening clearly. But I don't expect that Mr. Dipple, as he said earlier, that his exhibits will disappear. I expect him to be here so the opportunity to have available to you the section drawings from an architectural point of view will be there. I wanted to ask a question of Mike because I was left with a bit of confusion based on a question that came from this side of the board, I think it was from MS. McWILLIAMS as to the deficiency that exists and whether or not that will be exacerbated or improved as a consequence of the project being approved. And I think the parking table on the plan actually spells out the existing parking is set as or is ascribed at 76 space provided right now. What's the deficiency per code?

THE WITNESS: Per code 181 parking spaces are required for the existing uses on the site as configured presently. And 76 are available on the site, so 105‑space deficiency under the current conditions.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: And if the project is approved as presented and reflected on your plans the total number of spaces provided is 131 as I recall it?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: And the deficiency, if ultimately the traffic engineer says the requirement is 141, the deficiency is ten?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: So we go from 105 deficiency to a ten deficiency?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have a question om what Melanie questioned and then maybe she can speak for herself, but what she questioned was if the design ‑‑ and she can correct me, but what I understood the question to be is if the design waiver was not approved ‑‑

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Right.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And you had to then accommodate the appropriate‑sized vehicles what then would be the impact of the deficiency? Is that ‑‑

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: Two more ‑‑ two more spaces would be lost.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: To answer.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I hate to jump in, I thought that's what you were asking.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: No, no, that's what I ‑‑ and I thought he had actually answered me.
2. MR. BRUINOOGE: So instead of a ten deficiency you'd go to a 12 deficiency as opposed to 105 deficiency currently.
3. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. We have different ‑‑ I mean it's a little bit different.
4. MS. PATIRE: So the parking spots are open.
5. MS. McWILLIAMS: Either way it's also changing the use of the building currently versus the use ‑‑ you know where there's a commercial use.
6. MR. BRUINOOGE: We're changing it ‑‑ we're taking advantage of the planning exercise the village went through and the modification of your Master Plan and the current Zoning Ordinance which contemplates and permits this and it's a wonderful testament to sound, good planning that you take an ‑‑ an existing condition and not simply ‑‑ well, it's not exacerbated by a change in use or a re‑purposing of the structure and addition. It's a ‑‑ it's a marked improvement.
7. MS. McWILLIAMS: Understood, but it wouldn't change the fact that to draw the parallel where there is now a ‑‑ you know a however many 100 something spot deficiency versus a ten spot deficiency in your current plan, there is still significant increase in use of the property. So it's really ‑‑ it's apples and oranges in my opinion.
8. MR. BRUINOOGE: Well, we're going to differ on that, but the truth of the matter is as someone who doesn't shop in Ridgewood because I can't park here, the parking situation is going to be improved in my opinion and we'll have testimony to that effect.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Chris, do you have questions?

1. MR. MARTIN: Yes. MR. BRUINOOGE, you know sometimes things go from questions, which is always allowed sometimes a statement is thrown in so I usually like to swear in the engineer just to stipulate to him, he asks the questions and if there is a statement back and forth they agree upon sometimes it's important. Are you okay that with?
2. MR. BRUINOOGE: Sure.
3. MR. MARTIN: R. RUTISHAUSER, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
4. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, I do.

C H R I S T O P H E R R U T I S H A U E R, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

1. MR. MARTIN: MR. BRUINOOGE, do you stipulate that the village engineer is a professional engineer and a licensed civil engineering?
2. MR. BRUINOOGE: I'll accept him as qualified to testify as to the village ordinances as well.
3. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, sir. Go ahead.
4. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. Thank you. Quick question, how much soil movement is anticipated for this project?

THE WITNESS: MR. RUTISHAUSER, I'm going to have to get back to you on that the soil movement ‑‑ let me explain it, I don't know if I have an exact number, because the borough ‑‑ I mean the village rather, computes it different than others do, but essentially the back portion of the site, the soil will be removed in order to excavate for the sub‑ground parking structure. It would begin where my hand is here. Yes, here, you could see an orange line drawn around. And that would be excavated to a depth of approximately 10 feet in the rear and match grade in the front (indicating). So while I could get a final number, I just want to point out that the excavation is in that area of the box in order to provide that parking.

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: The main reason for my raising that question is ‑‑ and we're going to look at the value created if it's over 2000 yards cut and fill combined the village has a major soil permit that'll have to be approved as an action of this board and a subsequent action of the village council.
2. MR. BRUINOOGE: Understood. We're aware of that regulation.
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. The other thing is looking through the survey I noticed a couple of monitoring wells and what appears to be a vent for the Hallmark building possibly a UST. Are there any environmental issues that you know of that will be addressed and remediated as part of this project?

THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of. I didn't do an environmental assessment of the property.

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: That's it for now. I have to finish my report which I will get issued. Thank you.
2. MR. MARTIN: MS. McMANUS, can you raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
3. MS. McMANUS: I do.

E L I Z A B E T H   M c M A N U S, Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: I'm not so sure I really want to ‑‑ no, go ahead.
2. MR. MARTIN: You stipulate to the professional planner's qualification?  
3. MR. BRUINOOGE: In working for quite some time with Mrs. McManus in a number of different municipalities I certainly have no hesitation in agreeing to her testifying as well.
4. MR. MARTIN: Thank you. So stipulated. Thank you.
5. MS. McMANUS: Okay. I issued a report on May 12th much of what's contained in this memo is not necessarily relevant to the engineer, but there are a few sections that I think are worth bringing up at this time. So if the doesn't mind I'm going to skip around a bit just to get to the relevant items. And for the engineer's testimony I'd really only like to address a few of the items towards the back of my memo beginning on page 9. The plantings now as the applicant has indicated I did meet with them more than a week ago at this point to discuss the contents of the memo they did agree to a number of items. But I think it would be helpful for them to just reiterate those agreements for the record. So I am looking at section 5, plantings there were ‑‑ some of these were addressed tonight, but there are a few different recommendations for either amending the plants that are proposed or identifying additional locations for trees around the site, particularly along the frontage of the site. And I think that the applicant had previously indicated they will comply with those recommendations, but I would like to get some further information on the record.

THE WITNESS: Yes, you know you're correct. We did meet on the plantings. And the new street tree, the existing planting area located 110 feet from the corner of Ridgewood Avenue and North Maple, as I said, I think there's a tree there. I know one came out, I believe that's what you're referring that the applicant would put a tree back if it wasn't there. I was just a little unprepared as to which tree actually came down. Relocate the trees proposed in the northeast corner planting area along North Maple Avenue, closer to the sidewalk and provide street trees in lieu of the ornamental tree proposed. I think this goes toward ‑‑ and correct me if I'm wrong, MS. McMANUS, that this goes towards that ‑‑ that area that's in question in the front corner ‑‑

1. MS. McMANUS: Yes.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ where I think we have some recommendations to improve that area and perhaps we can present an exhibit which would be satisfactory to the board and to the board planner to address that. As we move forward through the report you can stop me at any time Franklin Avenue we had a proposed ‑‑ we have some landscaping, I believe we all agreed that that would be beefed up a bit to ‑‑ to buffer out the parking area because it's parking in the front yard so that came out of that parking, you know, front yard between the building and the right‑of‑way discussion. And we agrees to that some species in item 5.1(d) are recommended and we have agreed to that which goes on to 5.2 and some more information was required for the perennial plantings so we can get a plant mix that would be typical for perennials from 5.3. And appears that the northeast planting area adjacent to North Maple Avenue contains a large area of mulch as a ground cover material, given the overall area of prominence in the space we recommend the applicant consider use of ground cover the lieu of mulch and then the interesting pedestrian plaza courtyard with seating, it an all blends into that, so we would incorporate all those recommendations into something that the borough can be proud of ‑‑ the village ‑‑ sorry. I testify in a lot of boroughs.

1. MS. McMANUS: Thank you.

In terms the lighting in the next section I'm on page 10 at this point you previously indicated that your light fixtures be shielded to neighboring property lines so ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. MS. McMANUS: ‑‑ so thank you that will be satisfied. And I encourage you to include on any subsequent lighting plans and detail of the fixture that shows the shielding.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

7. MS. McMANUS: On parking and circulation again a number of these items have already been addressed. Item ‑‑ sight triangles I request that you show ‑‑ I'm sorry. 7.1, 7.2 are for information only and 7.3 sight triangles I encourage you to include those on subsequent plan revisions.

THE WITNESS: We will. The county is very interested in the sight triangles and we would add those in to a resubmission, but we're very confident that we have nothing in the way and that sight distance is very important for the motoring public as well as us. So...

7. MS. McMANUS: Item 7.4, vehicle clearance we talked about that in testimony while you're parking garage ‑‑ parking structure can accommodate an emergency vehicle there's no intention as those will ‑‑ emergency organizations to do so that.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. MS. McMANUS: Item 8 ‑‑ excuse me section 8 page 11 can you provide some testimony in regards to the refuse disposal? I would like to ‑‑ I would like the board to understand how it is going to be accessible to trucks and how it will be accessed.

THE WITNESS: Yes. We have proposed in the southwest corner of the first floor parking lot which is the one accessed off of Franklin Avenue. We have a trash enclosure and the little storage area with a chute and the chute permits trash to be ‑‑ to go down vertically one floor where there is another such enclosure in the sublevel parking lot or the ground floor parking lot and then it can be accessed through the back parking space which is commercial so in off ‑‑ in off times they can access it through a small door in the back and pull the trash out. I would like the architect to give a little more on that, that's his design, but I think it works so it allows an opportunity for trash to be taken at this level, down to the lower level or the lower level to go straight out to the same trash enclosure which can be accessed not only from the top level but also from the lower level. So I mean we believe that private waste hauler ‑‑ and we can stipulate the hours of pick up with a private waste hauler. And they would use a small vehicle. We don't see this being a large vehicle, but more or a smaller private vehicle.

1. MS. PATIRE: Mr. Dipple, the truck ‑‑ the truck is coming in the Franklin Avenue side or is it coming in from the Ridgewood Avenue side?

THE WITNESS: I think the plan is to come into from the Ridgewood Avenue side during the off hours where this parking lot would be open and use that door ‑‑ use that trap door. It's an interesting solution.

1. MS. PATIRE: Okay.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: And what size vehicles? You don't foresee it being a huge garbage truck.

THE WITNESS: No.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Like how ‑‑ like a pick‑up truck or ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, I live in a local town and the truck that comes is not much bigger than a large SUV to be honest with you. It throws it into the back. The guys come around they take it right out of my trash can, they throw it in the back. There's opportunities for any size vehicle. They will serve the customer. And that's exactly how it works.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
2. MS. McMANUS: My last item is ‑‑ and I'm not sure if you're the right expert from this, but about the material of the trash enclosure? Is that better for the architect.

THE WITNESS: It is, but it typically matches or somehow works with the building itself. It will be attractive. And I think that maybe Mr. Englebaugh could add a little more flavor to that.

1. MS. McMANUS: Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks. MR. JAHR? Do you want to swear him in?  

1. MR. MARTIN: I do.
2. MR. JAHR, if you can raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
3. MR. JAHR: I do. J O H N J A H R, Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
4. MR. MARTIN: And, MR. BRUINOOGE, you stipulate to MR. JAHR being a professional engineer?
5. MR. BRUINOOGE: Yes, absolutely.
6. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
7. MR. JAHR: Thank you. I only have two very simple questions. Can you send me an updated plan? And can you tell me who you have been working with in Bergen County?

THE WITNESS: This is Ridgewood, this is Michael Varner and, yes, of course. I can send you an updated site plan.

1. MR. JAHR: And that may be the right question for Mr. Keller.
2. MR. BRUINOOGE: I have spoken with Eric Keller. I had hoped that he would have been able ‑‑ would have been able to speak with you even before tonight, but I expect plans should be in our hands tomorrow ‑‑ report, rather, should be in our hands tomorrow and on your desk we will e‑mail two copies of the updated traffic report.
3. MR. JAHR: I prefer just e‑mail for efficiency.
4. MR. BRUINOOGE: Yes, you will get that--We apologize for not being here before but we knew we weren't going to get to Mr. Keller tonight.
5. MR. JAHR: Fine. Thank you very much.

THE WITNESS: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. That concluded the board professionals. Now will be cross by the public. Is there anyone in the public that would like to ask question of the engineer?  

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Seeing there is none, this concludes cross by the public. We reached a point it's actually 10:25. We had this slotted till 10:30 we did start earlier on it would probably be appropriate to break, stop on the application now and schedule the next date on it. And I believe, Michael, is the next date that we for them August 15?

1. MR. CAFARELLI: That's correct.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So our calendar cleared a little bit so that you're getting a quicker date than we would normally have for it so...

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you. Hopefully we'll all be able to be here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. Okay. So we'll carry this application without further notice to August 15, 2017.And it's without prejudice to the board.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: I guess the question that comes out of the August 15th number is the next available date after that we could keep the queue ‑‑ keep the ball rolling. MR. CAFARELLI, is there a date beyond the 15th of August, behind it?
2. MR. CAFARELLI: September 19th.
3. MR. BRUINOOGE: September 19th would be the next available date for the hearing to continue?
4. MR. CAFARELLI: As you mean in addition to the 15th?
5. MR. BRUINOOGE: Yes, if we don't finish on the 15th.
6. MR. CAFARELLI: Right now the 19th is available, September 19th.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. So you're saying you want the August 15th and the September 19th.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: I don't know whether or not that fits in, we're coming to the High Holy Days so as we get into September.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: If you want to check with your professionals and see?

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: Yeah. But if we can put a temporary hold on the 15th of August and the 19th of September. Sounds good to us. Subject to ‑‑
2. MR. MARTIN: Why don't we carry to the 15th now.
3. MR. BRUINOOGE: Yes, definitely carry to the 15th.
4. MR. MARTIN: No prejudice to the board, correct?
5. MR. BRUINOOGE: I'm sorry?
6. MR. MARTIN: No prejudice to the board in terms of decision?
7. MR. BRUINOOGE: No prejudice to the board. We're not going to hold your feet to the fire.
8. MR. MARTIN: And then if there's a problem, we could address it and carry as needed ‑‑
9. MR. BRUINOOGE: Absolutely.
10. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ between now and the 19th of September things happen. Do you want to ask to put it on the 19th and if you have to say it's unavailable you can to tell Michael quickly.
11. MR. BRUINOOGE: Fine. So we'll go definitely 15 and 19th of September ‑‑ 15th of August, 19th of September.
12. MR. MARTIN: Any change you'll notify the secretary. Thank you.
13. MR. BRUINOOGE: Absolutely. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So this matter is carried to August 15th, 2017 and September 19, 2017. If there are any changes just let us know.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Joel, appreciate it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you for your time.

1. MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you.

(Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date. Time noted 10:25 p.m.)

 

Appointment of Village Engineer – Mr. Rutishauser was nominated and appointed as the Village Engineer.

 

Master Plan Discussion – Mayor Knudsen said the Master Plan has not been reexamined since 1983 and discussed a budget approved by the Council for a proper Master Plan review to be completed. She discussed the website links sent to Board members and said they can be used as a resource for Board members during the Master Plan review process.

Ms. McManus discussed the components of a Master Plan and suggested the Board not do the Housing Element as it is in litigation.

 

Approval of minutes - The minutes from July 19, 2016 and August 2, 2016 were adopted with two corrections.

 

The meeting was adjourned 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,  
Michael Cafarelli
Board Secretary

Date Approved: June 5, 2018

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of June 20, 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 7:59 p.m. The following members were present: MAYOR KNUDSEN, COUNCILMAN VOIGT, Mr. Torielli, MS. ALTANO, Mr. JOEL, MS. PATIRE, MR. SCHEIBNER, and MS. McWILLIAMS. Also present were: Kendra Lelie, Village Planner; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Christopher Martin, Esq., and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Barto and Ms. Giordano were absent.

 

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

 

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics; Correspondence Received by the Board – MR. CAFARELLI reported two emails from the Board attorney, legal memorandum and Two Forty Associates resolution, and a document from MR. WELLS discussion the stipulations in the Ridgewood/Dayton application.

 

Two Forty Associates, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 150-174 Chestnut Street, Block 2005, Lot 38: Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Approval – The resolution was adopted with one correction on page 22.

 

Ridgewood/Dayton, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 100/152 South Broad Street, Blocks 3707/3905, Lots 5.01/1.01- Pubic Hearing continued from May 2, 2017 without prejudice to the Board – Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.  The next item will be the Ridgewood/Dayton, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 100/152 S. Broad Street, Blocks 3707/3905, Lots 5.01/1.01, Public Hearing continued from May 2, 2017 without prejudice to the board.

1. MR. WELLS: Good evening, folks. For the record, my name is Thomas Wells, from the law firm of Wells Jaworski Liebman in Paramus, New Jersey. I've been before you for a long time on this application. In fact. I had my 65th birthday this year, I was in my 50s when this started. This evening I hope we will come to an end of this matter. Where we were at the last hearing was that we had completed all of the testimony that we wanted to present to the board. The board had solicited testimony from MR. JAHR, its expert, from Ms. McManus, it's planning expert, and your engineer, was not present that evening and you wished to question him further.

So I believe what's in order would be his direct testimony, any cross, any questions from anybody, then perhaps any statements that wanted to be made from the public, and then it would be my time for closing argument, and then I think we're done. So, that's where we are now, unless there are questions of me. What MR. KOHUT is handing out to you, you know from the past that it's my practice to try to make it easier, so you have a couple of things in front of you: One is an exhibit list with all of the exhibits. There are two that will be added this evening; one is a copy of our stipulations, which provide no surprises, they're stipulations that we talked to you about at the last hearing, and, in addition, those stipulations that were added at the last hearing. I'll talk about it a little bit more in the closing. There are 21 in number. The other thing that is there is the list of exhibits themselves, and I've added our stipulations as the A‑23, and I've amended, as I have in the past, I've taken the liberty and you certainly don't have to do it, but MR. MARTIN had submitted a legal memorandum to the board that I received a copy of this morning, so I took the liberty of marking that as BD‑7, assuming that would be a board exhibit.  If you're not going to put it in the record, I certainly will.  So I would like to have those two documents put in the record as A‑23 and BD‑7, if possible.

1. MR. MARTIN: MR. WELLS, on mine, it's BD‑7, and I think there was one change on the first page that the applicant stipulates that ‑‑
2. MR. WELLS: Really what happened is in the very first hearing back in September 2016, Mr. Brancheau had raised a variance with respect to stucco on the rear or the lack of stucco on the rear of the retaining wall as it faced the railroad tracks. And although we didn't really feel that was terribly necessary, rather than have a variance for that, we stipulated that it is literally No. 1 on the list, it was stipulated within the first few minutes of the first hearing, so we eliminated that variance. So there is only one variance that remains pending with this application.
3. MR. MARTIN: Which is the steep slope, right?
4. MR. WELLS: Yes, which I'll re‑explain. (Updated Stipulations List is marked as exhibit A‑23 in evidence.) (Legal Memorandum prepared by Christopher E. Martin, Esq., is marked as exhibit BD‑7 in evidence.)
5. MR. WELLS: As you heard testimony, we also dispute, we don't believe it's correctly listed as a variance, but we alternatively explained why we didn't believe it was a variance and then also presented the necessary criteria under (c)(2) to justify the variance, should it be determined to be a variance, but that's the only one that exists.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I guess we'll proceed with Chris Rutishauser with his testimony to pick up where we left off.

1. MR. MARTIN: MR. RUTISHAUSER, just for the record, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, I do.
3. MR. MARTIN: And you're a Professional Engineer, and you're in fact the Village of Ridgewood Engineer, right?
4. MR. RUTISHAUSER: That is correct.
5. MR. MARTIN: Do you stipulate as to MR. RUTISHAUSER as a Professional Engineer?
6. MR. WELLS: I certainly will.
7. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
8. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Good evening, members of the board. I'm going to basically go over the items that I do not believe were addressed at the May 2nd meeting that apparently I was not in attendance at, from my September 6, 2016, review of submitted materials. I see a number of items that I had in my memo have been addressed, a couple of ones may still be up in the air, like the CE, if we can get some clarification on it.  I'm starting on the second page of the site plan, the first comment I made is that for S. Broad Street, along the front of the proposed building, is currently a "no stopping or standing" zone.  I just want to confirm if the applicant is going to seek any kind of change to that or permit parking? 
9. MR. WELLS: We confirm so.
10. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Excuse me?
11. MR. WELLS: Yes, we can certainly confirm that.
12. MR. RUTISHAUSER: So no change is going to be requested?
13. MR. WELLS: No.
14. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay.
15. MR. WELLS: I think what you're asking is, we haven't requested a change, but you're asking that we agree that we won't in the future.
16. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes. I don't know if you would be considering any kind of change in the current parking along the street there.
17. MR. WELLS: Really, honestly, that is actually a matter for the Mayor and Council to consider as opposed to us. We won't be requesting that of the Mayor and Council, if that's what you need from us.
18. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. Thank you. Another comment I made is the refuse collection area shown on the southwest corner of the site, basically how will the trash with two trash compactor rooms get to the dumpster; is there going to be an on‑site attendant or by a homeowners association? But I don't think you will be having a homeowners association for this site.
19. MR. WELLS: There was testimony on that at the last hearing by MR. LOVENTHAL.

If the board wants to have it, that testimony repeated, we can, but it was covered at the last hearing.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Maybe we can have it repeated.

1. MR. WELLS: Okay. Do we want to wait and see if there's anything else?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Yes.

1. MR. WELLS: And then we'll cover that.
2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Then I'll look through the transcripts.
3. MR. WELLS: Tonight is the night, so we'll be happy to re‑present it.
4. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Then, I guess, MR. LOVENTHAL will also address the under building parking areas, because I made a comment that they do not appear to have any garbage cans, and I asked if ANY were proposed, again who would service them?
5. MR. WELLS: I don't actually think there was testimony on that, so we'll see if we can get an answer for you on that.
6. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I made a comment that I was uncertain as to what the vertical clearances were at the entrances to the under building parking area. What was it? And would the village ambulance have adequate clearance to access the lobby areas where the two elevators are or should patients be transported out the front door to an ambulance waiting at S. Broad Street? I also recommended that the under parking area access points have their vertical clearances posted.
7. MR. WELLS: There was extensive testimony during MR. LAPATKA's presentation back in September, September 20th of last year, on that issue. We also presented a letter from the emergency services people here in Ridgewood indicating that it was not their practice to ever put an ambulance under the building, and we testified that it was not our intention to do that, and that there was evidence presented by several witnesses that it would be totally appropriate for ambulances to service any needs that might be in the building from the rear driveway.
8. MS. McWILLIAMS: Can you pull the microphone just down closer to your mouth?
9. MR. WELLS: I'm sorry.
10. MS. McWILLIAMS: Thank you.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just have a question, I don't mean to interrupt, but how many buildings do we presently have that an EMT would respond and say, send a letter stating that they wouldn't make it a practice of going into a garage like this to transport a patient? How many buildings do we even have in Ridgewood that would have that type of scenario occurring?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: There are several.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Those are office building. How many residential?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Actually a big office building that had a lot of ambulance calls is 1200 E. Ridgewood, because it is medical offices owned by Valley Hospital, and they do have some under the building parking, not through parking, but they do have parking underneath portions of the building.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: How many residential buildings do we have? I mean, this is little bit of an unknown territory. I'm just kind of wondering aloud, because the EMT is sending a letter like that, I would imagine that if they contemplate it as a residential building?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I think it depends on how it's looked at. This project proposal is relatively open, under building parking. There are parking areas underneath residential buildings that are more like just garages, oftentimes have individual garage doors where a resident can park his car. I believe the Oak Street Apartments have something like that and some of the other garden apartments on South Maple, I believe, have a couple spaces for under the building parking. We do have one office building at Franklin across from the Stop & Shop next to Baumgart's that does have under the building parking, but you are correct, Mayor, there are not many examples in the village.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: It's kind of new territory, I would imagine.

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: It's a design style that hasn't found much favor.
2. MR. WELLS: I can try to pull the section of the transcript and read it to you or MR. LAPATKA, I brought him back this evening because your engineer was testifying, he can try to remind the board. I believe that the key to his testimony, I don't remember the exact distance, he will, the distance was just not very far, and that's why there's not particular concern; the distance from the driveway to the door is not far, well within an acceptable distance to cover with rolling a stretcher or whatever.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right. Those were my questions.

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. As regarding soil movement, the applicant has submitted a permit application for a major soil moving permit. I believe that major soil moving permit is a part of this application process.
2. MR. WELLS: It is. And, again, back at MR. LAPATKA, he did testify about the actual cut and fill and the total amount that would be done.
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Regarding the sanitary sewer services, the Village of Ridgewood collection system will service the development. There's a connection fee of $5,000.00 per dwelling unit that would be required to be paid to the village. The project will likely require an NJDEP sewer extension approval. The Village will obviously work with the applicant's professionals in processing that. Given the age of the village's sewer system, we're going to request the applicant provide anticipated flows with peaking times from the development. The flow volumes and peaking times will have to be carefully examined, particularly under wet weather conditions with the available capacity and receding mains from the site all the way down to 30‑inch diameter trunk main. And, again, I refer to my February 2013 memorandum on sewer capacities. I made some minor technical items in the sewer connection in Broad Street. It should be done in accordance with the village standards, and we recommend the connection be made with a manhole rather than a Y. We will recommend the detectable warning tape be utilized in all utility trenches for this in locating them in the future. And that's it.
4. MR. WELLS: I say we agree with actually everything he suggested.

In passing, I would mention since we have members of the governing body here, even I didn't realize you had a $5,000.00 per unit connection fee, which is outrageous, it's over $200,000.00 in this case and it's essentially to cover administrative cost as opposed to new sewers and so forth, but it is in the ordinance, so I pointed it out to the applicant that it did exist, and he was duly shocked, but it's there, so that's a real boo‑boo.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 

Dave, did you have any questions for Chris?

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes. In the stipulations, stipulation No. 12, it indicates that the applicant will replace water main along the front of the property as discussed in the Ridgewood Water report. As an engineer, increasing the size of the main just in front of the property would make an appreciable difference in the flow characteristics?
2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Not necessarily. I am not familiar with the condition of the water main in that location. That recommendation may have been made based on knowledge I don't have on the existing main's condition. You may have a very deteriorated section that's heavily tuberculated, it's bare cast iron, so a natural recommendation would be if it is bare cast iron, to either line it, if the host pipe will withstand the lining process, or, as the recommendation in the water company report said, replace it. I would assume the replacement line would be minimal a class 52 ductile pipe cement lined.
3. MR. WELLS: My memory is this was in response to the water report at the time and there was not, to my recommendation, having Andy look back for the report, it was not a question of the capacity of the pipe to be able to handle it, it was simply, quite frankly, because we're there, they let us put a new pipe in the front. And it says, the recommendation by Mr. Calbi, the director of operations for the Ridgewood Water was the water main servicing the site is ‑‑ in fact, he said is undersized and should be replaced by the developer with a new 8‑inch diameter pipe that meets Ridgewood Water standards.
4. MR. SCHEIBNER: But it doesn't make any distinction how far that replacement pipe needs to go?
5. MR. WELLS: That's correct.
6. MR. SCHEIBNER: So if it's connected to a tuberculated 6‑inch cast iron main at one end and at the other end what good is it?
7. MR. WELLS: Well, there comes a point at which municipal services, municipal water and so forth, not become an appropriate responsibility of the developer. So, what we've agreed to do is replace everything that's directly related to our site but not beyond that. I mean, obviously you could argue that the whole village maybe needs new water pipes.
8. MR. SCHEIBNER: Would you consider having adequate fire flow at The Dayton your responsibility?
9. MR. WELLS: Oh, yes. And I think if you would have a situation where there wouldn't be safe water capacity in order to obviously service the building for drinking water or for sprinkler systems, that would be a problem that would have to get addressed, for sure.
10. MR. SCHEIBNER: So, if in order to have adequate fire flows, if the main has to be replaced all the way to Ridgewood Avenue, would the developer be willing to cover that cost?
11. MR. WELLS: Well, I understand you're asking the question; no expert has suggested we do that.
12. MR. LOVENTHAL or MR. LAPATKA, any thoughts on that?
13. MR. WELLS: I think the question, just so we understand it, if it's doesn't have sufficient capacity in order to allow safe water at our property, would we consider doing ‑‑

A L E X A N D E R J.  L A P A T K A, P.E., previously sworn.

1. MR. LAPATKA: We would have to do something to make sure that we have proper capacity.
2. MR. WELLS: Yes, because we need that capacity.
3. MR. MARTIN: That might have been preempted by the state.
4. MR. WELLS: I don't think it's a matter of state law, but it would certainly be a matter of code, you know, in other words, you have to have appropriate water in the building. So, yes, the answer is yes.
5. MR. SCHEIBNER: So that stipulation could be amended to state that it would be ‑‑
6. MR. WELLS: Yes, the record reflects it, she's taking it down right now, but essentially I think I repeated what you said, and that is, if there's a lack of capacity such that there's not enough water in the building, that we would be willing to replace the pipes up to E. Ridgewood Avenue, yes.
7. MR. SCHEIBNER: Okay. No further questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Jeff? 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You know, it relates to the stipulation No. 8, and I guess the applicant and Chris can probably answer these, No. 8? Applicant will truck snow from property during large snowstorms,." I don't know what that means. I don't know what a "large" snowstorm is.

1. MR. WELLS: Well, MR. LOVENTHAL actually explained this, in addition to MR. LAPATKA, but it's a snowstorm such that management determines that it cannot clear the snow, and that's going to happen, almost any snowstorm of any real size is likely to cause that event here, because there's not a lot of on‑site storage for snow on the site. So it's not a particular number of inches, it's whenever management can't get the parking lot clear without moving the snow off‑site, that's what they do.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, is that the stipulation, if the parking lot cannot be cleared, then you would truck the snow? 

1. MR. WELLS: Right.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Is that right? 

1. MR. WELLS: Yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Would you be able to just say that in a stipulation? 

1. MR. WELLS: Sure. Again it's in the record, but, yes, the parking lot and the driveways, essentially the macadam area that needs to be appropriate.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.  Good.  No. 15, milling and paving the full width of S. Broad Street.

I'm assuming, Chris, you mentioned this in the meeting that you will be re‑paving the full length of S. Broad Street, so this would be done in conjunction with that. Is that correct?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, we would probably use our public contract, if it's satisfactory to the applicant, and they would just pay the cost for that section that they stipulated in front of their site.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. No. 19, this relates to the fair share of the sewer line.

Again, if an upgrade is needed, I'm assuming you're going to pay your fair share as agreed upon with the village for the upgrades to the sewer line. Is that what that means? Yes?

1. MR. WELLS: No. I have to think back about that. But what all this was there was some question about ‑‑ Chris, you can help me, with the sewer line whether it needed to be examined underneath or something and you wanted us to confirm that we would do that, so that we would make sure there was enough capacity for flow.
2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: That is correct. I'd like to see that there's an adequate capacity for the anticipated flow from the development in the existing line. If there is not, we'll have to investigate what kind of upgrades would be necessary to provide the capacity.
3. MR. WELLS: And, again, obviously we need the toilets to work, so if it doesn't have the capacity, we're going to do whatever we need to do.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: All right.

1. MR. MARTIN: Upgrades as necessary for use of the applicant.
2. MR. WELLS: Well, this is a process that kind of goes on together with the engineer and the professionals. Our engineer believes that there is capacity. I think this was actually in response to a comment not made by Chris but actually by MR. JAHR. But, yes, we'll examine it, and if we need to do something more in order to make it work, we're going to do whatever we need to do. It's got to work.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Got it.  And I'm not sure this is part of the stipulations or not, and this was discussed before, but it has to do with the right‑of‑way for New Jersey Transit on your property. Is there a right‑of‑way, do you know? 

1. MR. WELLS: Is there a right‑of‑way?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: For NJ Transit on your property? 

1. MR. WELLS: On our property? Crossing it?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, in the back. 

1. MR. WELLS: No, absolutely not.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: There's not? 

1. MR. WELLS: No, and it's their own property where the railroad tracks is, so there's no easement or anything beyond their property.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.  So, if they want, they can't get through to the line or the railroad line through your property? 

1. MR. WELLS: No.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: That's it. 

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. MAYOR KNUDSEN.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just want clarification. How many stacked spaces were there?

38. MR. WELLS: 38.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just want to go back to the parking lot for a moment, and it goes to our engineer's comments. Chris, could you just go back to that under building parking area/trash collection and restate the question so that maybe somebody would be kind enough to answer it.

1. MR. WELLS: Yes. He asked that question and the question with respect to the garbage cans under, and I was going to let one of them answer that question.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, because it relates to this stacked parking, so maybe ‑‑

1. MR. WELLS: Maybe we can do that now.
2. MR. LAPATKA or MR. LOVENTHAL, garbage cans underneath.
3. MR. LAPATKA: I believe I testified previously that we would put trash cans underneath the building in the parking lot along where we would expect the most pedestrian traffic. That probably would be at the entrances to the building underneath. And I also said that maintenance employees would carry the trash refuse from the compactor room in the building to the dumpster.
4. MR. WELLS: And then MR. LOVENTHAL, he elaborated more substantially in terms of exactly how trash and recycling would be handled, that was at the last hearing but maybe you can just remind them.

S C O T T L O V E N T H A L, previously sworn.

1. MR. LOVENTHAL: Good evening, members of the board, once again.
2. MR. WELLS: I haven't said so, but for the record, both of these witnesses were previously sworn.
3. MR. MARTIN: And remain sworn.
4. MR. WELLS: You have to tell the truth, Scott.
5. MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes.
6. MR. MARTIN: And MR. LAPATKA too.
7. MR. WELLS: Yes, only lawyers don't get sworn.
8. MR. LOVENTHAL: At the last meeting, I believe, our civil engineer just indicated, our maintenance staff would be moving our compactors that are under the building, our compactors/disposal containers based on the schedule of the refuse company, will be moving those off and directly to the vehicles they come. They will be moving the refuse containers as the refuse company enters the site, it will be on a normal schedule, and we'll be removing them off and directly to those sanitary rigs, private disposal here. We often find that the trash enclosure is used for overflow. We generally compact the trash under the building, comes down a chute, it's compacted, it's put in 2‑ to 4‑yard containers, and then those containers by on‑site maintenance staff are moved either directly to the refuse vehicles or to the refuse enclosure in the parking area. Second, I indicated that I had spoken with and received communication. While I can't find the letter, I put it on the record last time, I had met with ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ spoken to your sanitation and your recycling coordinators to ensure this board that we will be meeting all of the obligations with regard to refuse disposal as well as with regard to recycling materials being disposed of in accordance with the village's ordinances.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

1. MR. LOVENTHAL: I could also add that while it's not shown, Al has indicated that we will and do at all of our projects have decorative refuse containers that will be located at the front doors, that will be located at probably about six locations throughout the parking level, so that people can remove their typical vehicular trash and place those right in those containers on a routine basis, and they're checked daily by our maintenance staff and then removed.
2. MR. MARTIN: To get from the compact room, Scott, to the trucks where the maintenance take them from the compact room to the trucks, what's the route they take?
3. MR. LOVENTHAL: The route is right through the parking lot under the building, directly under the building to the rear driveway. Those containers are on wheels. They're lightweight.  Sometimes one, maybe as many as two maintenance members, and that's all that is necessary, and that's what we do in all of these types of buildings throughout our portfolio.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mayor, there's tandem parking.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: First I want to ask a different question. 

So, going back to the question ‑‑

1. MR. WELLS: Can I just so I can get it straight. We're still doing questions of your engineer or are we moved on?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, we are.  These were just fill‑ins.

1. MR. WELLS: All right. So, whatever, I'm lost on where we are.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I know.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: We're all actually lost.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We brought up garbage questions, but then there was another question pertaining to parking, so I figured just while he's up talk about that and then get back on track.

1. MR. WELLS: Again, I would just point out for the record, because I just reviewed it today, because I wanted to talk about it, there's extensive testimony on tandem parking, most of which was by Mr. Disario, and then also testimony by MR. LOVENTHAL and by MR. JAHR, all of which is already in the record, but if you want to renew some of that, we can do that.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'll tell you the reason I asked the question, because we had a memo here that indicated there were 25 or 26, and I had some confusion.  So I only asked for clarification on that, but we've since corrected it.

38. MR. MARTIN: I incorrectly put 25 on my legal memorandum and it should be 38.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So I only asked for clarification.

1. MR. WELLS: Understand.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So I just want to go back to those trash bins into the parking lot, so maybe MR. LAPATKA has to come back up. 

I just wanted to know, how wide are the sidewalks nearest to the entrance to the lobby?

1. MR. LAPATKA: They are 4 feet.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Four feet. And so you're suggesting that a trash bin, a garbage pail, a trash bin would be located somewhere on that 4‑foot width? 

1. MR. LAPATKA: The trash bin would probably be located closer to the doors, the entrance. We try to put it in a path that people will walk through.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Is it 4 feet on that?  Is it a 4‑foot width walkway? 

1. MR. LAPATKA: In the rear of the lobby or the front?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Where you enter the lobby along the perimeter.  So, if I'm looking at the sidewalk closest that's in front of what would be essentially the community room, it's traveling north to south along the west part of that room, so how wide is that? 

1. MR. WELLS: What's from space I guess 100 to space 48 along the building, is that what we're trying to figure out?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.  It's running along the parking spaces, so if you were looking at the trash compactor room, it's the sidewalk that begins at the trash compactor room, and it goes all the way down to the end and wraps around the community room, how wide is that?  It appears to be 4 feet. 

1. MR. LAPATKA: That's the sidewalk under the building, and that would be 4 feet, and that is not where the trash cans would be put. They would be put to the side of the doors that the people would walk through to get into the lobby.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.  I have no other questions right now.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 

Melanie, any questions for Chris?

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: A couple, I think.

Did I miss somewhere in reorienting myself, did we determine the peak flow times for the sanitary sewer system?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: As far as I know, we've not calculated that. We're going to work with the applicant on what their flows are, and we have to see how that peaks. The peak from the site is less important than what the peak is in the main sewer.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: I'm not sure if this would be, I think this is for you, but we had determined that the elevator size needed to be changed to accommodate the stretcher, horizontally land stretcher in the last meeting. I think that was on May 2nd. And I'm wondering if there's any reflection of that anywhere, how much a change was made to the plan, if at all? 
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: The applicant made stipulation No. 21: "All elevators will meet building code requirements for accommodating stretchers."
4. MR. WELLS: It did not require a change.
5. MR. LOVENTHAL: There's no change. The dimensions that we show with regard to the elevators are consistent with my testimony and consistent with our conversation, they will accommodate a stretcher in accordance with New Jersey's building codes.
6. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. And ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Could I?  I don't mean to interrupt, but could you just explain what New Jersey building code is on that?  I would like a better understanding of that.

1. MR. WELLS: Actually not relevant to site plan, but is somebody able to do that?
2. MR. LOVENTHAL: I had extensive testimony on the record with regard to the code. I wasn't prepared, I'll look for my memo.
3. MR. WELLS: Typically, building code issues are dealt with the building department, through that process, so it's not normally something we would be prepared to discuss in the site plan review, but if he happens to have it, we'll be happy to do it.
4. MS. McWILLIAMS: So I have it as the elevator car shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate a 24‑inch by 84‑inch ambulance stretcher in a horizontal open position and shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services. "In newly constructed multiple dwellings, when an elevator is installed in any newly constructed multiple dwelling, regardless of height, the elevator shall meet the dimensional requirements listed above."
5. MR. WELLS: I think that's what you read last time. Can you tell me what you're reading from?
6. MS. McWILLIAMS: So, I actually will have to go back and pull it specifically up. It was the New Jersey building code, and it's Section 3002.4, so I'll have to find you the specific exact website.
7. MR. WELLS: You probably don't have to, because what we've said repeatedly is we're going to meet the building code. So if you're correctly ‑‑ I don't have the building code in front of me ‑‑
8. MS. McWILLIAMS: I was more asking would it require any change to the plan at all and it didn't.
9. MR. WELLS: No, it didn't.
10. MR. LOVENTHAL: In the detail that I read from was providing, I had a catalog cut from an elevator that we use routinely that meets code. It's made by Kone. They have an elevator that's used in residential buildings that meets New Jersey's building code as it relates to accommodating stretchers.  Those are the elevators that were shown by our architect on the drawing.
11. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you. My last, it was just a small question, I only thought of it due to recent conversation. We recently in town changed our refuse containers throughout the village to a clear container, for safety reasons, and I'm not sure if that was a village ordinance.  Is that something we would ask of any applicant within their facilities?  So I don't know if that's a question for the governing body.
12. MR. WELLS: I'm curious.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: We adopted a clear trash container as part of the police department's security initiative. They're the same type of containers that New Jersey Transit uses on their platforms. There is currently no obligation in our ordinances for a private development such as this to employ those.  We employ them mostly because we're concerned about areas that may have a concentration of people, in the parks, on E. Ridgewood Avenue.  And that's where we did the initial roll down.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.

That's all I have. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie? 

1. MS. PATIRE: Yes. Chris, I just have one question. The current code or ordinance for the building, the sidewalk to the street, because they said it was 4 feet from the sidewalk to the front door, is that the current ordinance is 4 feet? 
2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: There isn't really an ordinance, it just has to meet the ADA standards, and 4 feet is adequate for a wheelchair. Almost as critical, besides width, is the slope so that the wheelchair can easily roll in steep sections, and they show that on the plans.
3. MS. PATIRE: I just want to understand; the face of the building will be 4 feet from the street, if you're standing there looking at it, so just to make sure we're saying the same thing, it's literally 4 feet from the street?
4. MR. WELLS: I think I can help here, because what you're doing is, you're talking about the testimony that MR. LAPATKA gave in response to the Mayor's question about the sidewalk behind the building near the trash.
5. MS. PATIRE: No.
6. MR. WELLS: You've asked a different question, and the plan shows a 6‑foot sidewalk in front of the building, so even though code would be 4 feet, we have a considerably bigger sidewalk in the front.
7. MS. PATIRE: So 6 feet in front of the building?
8. MR. WELLS: Yes. Again, it's not required by the code, but considered desirable to make it nicer.
9. MS. PATIRE: I was asking that question, because I thought earlier I heard 6 feet.
10. MR. WELLS: Yes. The sidewalk behind is smaller than the one in the front.
11. MS. PATIRE: So it's 6 feet from the street?
12. MR. WELLS: Uh‑huh.
13. MS. PATIRE: Okay. That's it. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella? 

1. MS. ALTANO: Yes, I have a couple of general comments and then specific ones. I think that anywhere where we say the applicant will provide something, I think whatever is being provided should be submitted for approval, so we can see what it looks like. I am particularly interested in the screening around the rooftop, what is it going to look like as we're going to see it from the streets?  And I think it's important that we get a chance or perhaps the Village Engineer to look at it.
2. MR. WELLS: Can I just ask a question? I'm almost positive, again, that's way back in early September, but the testimony by Mr. Appel was that because of the building and the way it's set up and the rooftops, that you would not be able to see any mechanical from, and it was not going to require additional screening. So there's no screening to be seen.
3. MS. ALTANO: Okay, because it says screening here.
4. MR. WELLS: Because essentially the way the roofs are set up and there's flat areas, the roof appears to be pitched from the street, but in reality there are flat areas where the mechanicals go.
5. MS. ALTANO: I know that, because it says screening.
6. MR. WELLS: I'm just saying there is no rooftop screening. Normally I would say normally you can't see rooftop screening because of the height, but, in this case, there just isn't any to worry about.
7. MS. ALTANO: That's fine.

We have 38 stacked parking spaces.

1. MR. WELLS: Right.
2. MS. ALTANO: Stacked parking spaces always make me nervous, because to me they indicate the fact that the site is too small for the parking spaces, that's why we go to stacked.
3. MR. WELLS: That's not the testimony of any of the experts.
4. MS. ALTANO: No, I understand, but what I'm saying, if you had the extra space ‑‑ I'm not saying this in a negative way, but if you had the extra space on the site, you would place the spots where they should be. Didn't anybody ever consider going underground so you don't have to worry about, just putting the extra spaces underground?
5. MR. WELLS: Further underground?
6. MS. ALTANO: Uh‑huh.
7. MR. WELLS: Well, there are all kinds of practical difficulties with doing that. We did look at different heights for the building, you know, the soil permit and so forth, but I think the reality is, as all the experts have testified, while stacked parking may be in a sense, less desirable, it works in other locations, and because these spaces, as was the testimony was, in all cases are the second space for a person with a single unit, it's just something that people, you know, work with, and nobody's forced to have a tandem space and have that be their only space, you know, it's two spaces for one unit, they're happy to have the second space. Plus, the other, again I'm repeating a lot of testimony that was given, but there are a substantial number of free spaces here that are not assigned, I can't remember the number right now, so that even if they found a little difficulty, they have other places they could park and so forth. It works, essentially.
8. MR. LOVENTHAL: If I may address that. In addition to the testimony that was provided by our traffic engineer regarding tandem spaces, I provided extensive testimony regarding our experience with tandem spaces, we provide them in all of our buildings ‑‑ not all, many of our new buildings are designed with tandem spaces. I do not agree that they're less desirable, I actually believe they are desirable from a number of circumstances. They provide less impervious surface.  They allow control from one unit to have two parking spaces just like they would in a residential driveway.  And our residents find those tandem spaces to be desirable.  And they have an option whether they choose a tandem space or not.  They are both assigned to the same unit, as we've described, so the 19‑pairs of tandem spaces would be assigned to one unit per tandem space.  And then that unit has the opportunity to park just like they would in a residential driveway.  So I didn't provide any testimony that they're less desirable.  I think there's many nice attributes and good attributes with regard to the tandem spaces.  And I also provided testimony to indicate in my management experience, we've had absolutely no incidences regarding those tandem spaces as relates to safety.
9. MS. ALTANO: To that point, MR. LOVENTHAL, how do you designate, dedicate, designate, those stacked parking to the same unit? Are any of those units going to be affordable units? I mean, how do you decide that? 
10. MR. LOVENTHAL: No, we actually provided extensive testimony and in our traffic report we have a chart, that's Table III, which is the parking assignment summary, which provides exactly how we will assign those spaces.
11. MS. ALTANO: Okay.
12. MR. LOVENTHAL: The tandem spaces are generally assigned to the units that have greater rents, higher rents, because they're desirable, people want a second space in this instance, and that's exactly how we do that. So those 19‑pairs of tandem spaces are assigned to particular units that haven't been determined yet, they're numbered. Each of those residents are provided either a hanging placard from their rearview mirror a sticker that provides management the opportunity to police those spaces as well, so we know people are parking in their assigned spaces.  As Tom alluded to, we have 53 unassigned spaces.  Those unassigned spaces, based on the count, are available for both residents and visitors as well.  So, the resident that wants to move his car can go to an unassigned space, and that's why there is appropriate parking on the site.
13. MS. ALTANO: Okay. Thank you.
14. MR. LOVENTHAL: You're welcome.
15. MS. ALTANO: I have another question. No. 8: "Applicant will truck snow from property during large snowstorms." Where will the snow ‑‑
16. MR. LOVENTHAL: We will be contracting with a third party contractor, and generally the snow is removed in large tandem dump trucks, and they're taken too quarries and facilities where rock is processed and the snow can melt in open areas. As we do with a number of our developments, we contract with a third party, and they're on a contract. And when management deems, as COUNCILMAN VOIGT indicated, that the appropriate width of our drive aisles are compromised or all of the parking spaces that are on‑site are compromised, then we move to removing that snow to off‑site locations.
17. MS. ALTANO: I just want to make sure it's not in the village.
18. MR. LOVENTHAL: No.
19. MR. WELLS: And I always thought it was in the front yard of anybody who votes no on the application where I represent the applicant.
20. MS. ALTANO: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That's a joke, I hope.

1. MR. WELLS: Yes, that was a joke.
2. MR. MARTIN: And all snow stays on‑site too, so if they can't keep it on‑site clear, they have to take it off.
3. MR. LOVENTHAL: We generally find it's usually in late February, when you've have numerous snows in a row. Normally our site is how the dimensions are set up. Under the RSIS, the dimensions are there with regard to locations where snow up to generally 10 to 12 inches of snow where you have no issues at all.  It's where you have multiple snow in a row where you lose spaces you can place the snow in the typical places where you can place snow, in the islands, in the grass areas, like where you see in the shopping centers and things of this type.
4. MS. ALTANO: Noted.

One point, and I know the transformer was located on the site. Since we're talking about site, should that be an indication of what should be done with the transformer, how should the transformer be protected? 

1. MR. LOVENTHAL: I can tell you we have no say, just like any other applicant in this village regarding transformers. We show them on a plan. They will locate them there, then the local utility company, the electric company needs appropriate code clearances around those transformers.  So sometimes we have an opportunity for limited screening and plantings.  We would do that in coordination with the utility company, not unlike any other location where new transformers that are placed throughout the village.
2. MS. ALTANO: Chris, is that satisfactory and what happens normally?
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Oh, yes. PSE&G is pretty much going to tell them where they're going to get their power feed, and they're going to have to make it look as attractive as possible.
4. MS. ALTANO: Thank you, MR. LOVENTHAL.
5. MR. LOVENTHAL: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mr. Torielli? 

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: No questions for Chris.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I have no questions either. 

Does the applicant have any questions?

1. MR. WELLS: I don't. I do not.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does the public have any questions for MR. RUTISHAUSER?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.  We're finished with MR. RUTISHAUSER. 

All right. Our next ‑‑ oops, did you have questions for the engineer? 

1. MR. SLOMIN: There are questions related to the topics discussed tonight.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, since we did bring the people, is it MR. LOVENTHAL and MR. LAPATKA who you had questions of?

1. MR. SLOMIN: You know, I didn't track exactly who was speaking when, but it's related to questions and answers tonight, if it's possible to ask questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, just state your name for the record.

1. MR. SLOMIN: It's Dave Slomin, 36 Heights Road.

I expect I'll be getting a lot of snow over by my house.

One of the discussions tonight, questions and answers, was related to the cost of this sewer replacement, so I guess it is engineering.

It seems clear that the application causes a necessitation of off‑site improvements to be required. I think I and many residents, and from what I heard tonight, would argue that these are the direct impact of the development, as they were not necessarily triggered before.  If you take a 6‑inch pipe and it hook it up to a 4‑inch pipe at both ends what happens ‑‑

1. MR. WELLS: Objection. Question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Can you phrase it as a question?  We will have public comment.

1. MR. SLOMIN: It is an important topic, and I will get to a question at the end. So if you can bear with me to get to what is an important question for the residents of Ridgewood.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We are going to have public comment later on.

1. MR. SLOMIN: There is a question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Go on.

1. MR. SLOMIN: I guess the first question, I'll bring this up later through public comment, is: What exactly are the costs of this? Do we know the costs?  Do you, the board, know the cost?  Have you been presented with the costs? 

In Ridgewood's ordinances, it is required that you ascertain what the costs are before you can determine how to go forward.

Can you make that move forward knowing all the costs right now at this time?

1. MR. WELLS: You can answer the question, but he just represented Ridgewood ordinances incorrectly. There is no ordinance that states as the questioner ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, he's concerned about the cost.  Can you address that.

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: At this time, no cost estimate has been done. Any improvements that may be necessary, there's a number of techniques that could be considered, again, depending on the nature of the improvements that will be necessary. You can line the pipe to increase or to reduce the friction.  You can burst the pipe and put a larger pipe in.  There's a lot of different technologies, most of them are in situ type, so that you have a minimal disturbance of the ground, we would not want to go to a trenching and put in new piping, we'll work with the existing pipes.  And, again, until we have a firm handle on the flows, our capacity, and if there is any need for increasing that capacity, we'll address it at that time and also look at the different technologies.  It would be unfair to the village or the applicant to stipulate a technology at this time when there could be possibly a lower cost and more efficient one down the road.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.  Go ahead.

1. MR. SLOMIN: Then who is responsible for those costs, if it is down the road?
2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I believe that would be something that's going to be stipulated in any either developer's agreement or in any resolution of approval from the board.
3. MR. WELLS: And as I'm sure you heard a few minutes ago, MR. SLOMIN, in response to the board questions, we indicated if there was any inability to have proper sewer capacity or water capacity and it was deficient, that we would do whatever was necessary in order to work with the village to make that happen. So I think it's been covered.
4. MR. SLOMIN: And I appreciate that, but just it's my concern.
5. MR. WELLS: We can't tell in advance what it's going to be.
6. MR. SLOMIN: And I appreciate you making that offer, but just to be for complete clarity sake, as one who is going to be paying the taxes related to any work that is going to be done ‑‑
7. MR. WELLS: They're going to pay a lot of taxes here too, so you're not the only taxpayer.
8. MR. SLOMIN: No, I didn't make that indication I was the only taxpayer.
9. MR. WELLS: Well, you indicated that you ‑‑
10. MR. SLOMIN: That I am a taxpayer as well, and it will inure to me to cover any shortfalls, as well as everyone else in Ridgewood, as in public body, not me personally, hopefully. But I just want clarity, you said, and I did note, MR. WELLS said: "We'll do what we can to make it work. It's got to work."  I guess the clarity I'm looking for is, when you say "we'll do what we can," what is that?  What you can do financially?  What you are willing to do fiscally, administratively?  Will you commit to making us whole on any improvements? 
11. MR. WELLS: I'm going to object. MR. LOVENTHAL can try, but this has been asked and answered several times.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It has, but MR. LOVENTHAL came up and I guess he'll just respond so hopefully he can just get the question done.

1. MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes. I simply can answer, as an applicant we will do what is required in order to bring the appropriate services to our project.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Can I ask a stupid question? 

Let's assume that the sewerage system costs $5 million, okay, just ‑‑

1. MR. WELLS: Well, obviously that is not ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It may cost a fair amount of money, and you agree to, and I'm going to makeup a number, pay 20 percent of that.  So you would pay that $1 million, you would agree to pay that $1 million? 

1. MR. WELLS: No. Your hypothetical is not based in reality. In reality, if it started to cost many millions of dollars to do a sewer connection there, probably to the great misfortune of the village, because it would be a serious problem throughout the village, including on this site, and you may not build a building, if it starts to become a stratospheric cost.
2. MR. LOVENTHAL: Councilman, can I answer the question?
3. MS. PATIRE: I think what you're hearing from many folks here, just to make sure we're clear, is that we're concerned, as you guys should be concerned, because you need the water to work.

If there is something that is required above and beyond just getting to your property, that's what you said earlier, if there are other things that are required to make sure that everything is properly functioning that is outside your property line, I think what you're considering, from testimony from the board members, etc., from questions, I'm sorry, and from other board members is: Who is covering that cost? 

1. MR. LOVENTHAL: We expect to be treated in the same manner that any applicant that brings an application before this board is treated, and if that includes off‑site obligations in order to service this project, which I believe is what you're referring to ‑‑
2. MS. PATIRE: That's it exactly.
3. MR. LOVENTHAL:  ‑‑ then we would be working with your engineer to complete that project, that's correct.
4. MS. PATIRE: And I think that's the question I'm asking, whether it's you or whether it's somebody else ‑‑
5. MR. LOVENTHAL: If there are ancillary improvements that the village chooses to make in connection with what we would be doing in order to service our property, then of course those costs would not be borne by us. We would be treated like any application that comes before this board with regard to any off‑site obligations in order to bring those services that have been described by your engineer to our project.
6. MS. PATIRE: Right. So regardless of the cost, because I'm not going to put a number on it, regardless of the cost X, you guys are responsible?
7. MR. LOVENTHAL: We're responsible for bringing those facilities to our project in order to service the project. If the municipality chooses to make additional upgrades in connection with those improvements, then certainly you're not seeking my ‑‑
8. MS. PATIRE: I feel like we're going in a circle here.
9. MR. LOVENTHAL: No, we're not.
10. MS. PATIRE: I'm going to give it really simple.
11. MR. WELLS: We've ‑‑
12. MS. PATIRE: There's three pipes that connect, one of them is on your property, the other one is off your property, and the other one is off your property, right, but we need these three pipes in order to make sure that your toilets flush. Who pays for this pipe and who pays for that pipe?
13. MR. LOVENTHAL: Well, it's a very difficult scenario. It's probably best served by answering by your engineer.
14. MS. PATIRE: Right now Chris, who pays for this pipe and that pipe?
15. MR. RUTISHAUSER: It depends. And one thing I forgot to mention ‑‑
16. MS. PATIRE: So it depends on?
17. MR. RUTISHAUSER: It depends also, it's not only just myself as the engineer on behalf of the village, it's also what the DEP is going to require. In the end, they're the one that's regulate our treatment of wastewater. Their standards are the ones we have to adhere to, we, the village, and the applicant also.  So while we'll work together to come to a conclusion, the end desire is often the DEP, because we have to adhere to their criteria and standards so that we do not have a loss of sewerage, effluent, product, however you want to characterize it.
18. MS. PATIRE: So down the street, Sook Pastry, which is my favorite place in Ridgewood, are they going to have to pay for that pipe or are they going to have to pay a share of that pipe improvement?
19. MR. RUTISHAUSER: They just replaced their sewer lateral.
20. MS. PATIRE: Pretend.
21. MR. RUTISHAUSER: You asked, and they just did.
22. MS. PATIRE: But then another pipe ‑‑
23. MS. McWILLIAMS: Down the street, down the line at the ‑‑
24. MS. PATIRE:  ‑‑ would be impacted, you know what I'm saying, by this project, how does that work?
25. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Well, this project would release a certain amount of effluent. Unless down the street is also increasing their effluent, we will see what effect this project has in receiving pipe relatively immediately.
26. MS. PATIRE: So I guess my question is: When in the process does this happen?
27. MR. RUTISHAUSER: This happens in the design process, in the permitting process with DEP. If this applicant is approved and they move towards construction, that's when flow value would be calculated, pipes would be examined, and as has been stipulated in other resolutions of approval, those conditions are stated therein.
28. MS. PATIRE: I guess, and, again, to that point, I wonder how you expect someone to make a decision with blindfolds on, not knowing what it really means, because you don't know what it means, you don't know what it's going to cost.
29. MR. RUTISHAUSER: At this point, we don't know exactly what it means, we don't know exactly what the costs are. Those will be determined as part of the collection system.
30. MS. PATIRE: Right. Okay. We all say yes and we find out maybe six months down the road from now, it's X cost and it's going to hit the village and the taxpayers of the village.  It's a problem.
31. MR. RUTISHAUSER: It can be, yes.
32. MS. ALTANO: To that point, I want to say, isn't there a specific rule that has to do from the distance of the building, there's a certain distance, I think it's in the code.
33. MR. WELLS: Mr. Chairman, can I be heard on this?

We have a problem here, obviously. We all know MR. SLOMIN's feelings and there may be other people that have feelings about this application.  We're here before this board for site plan approval.  There are certain things that are appropriate to be discussed.  We're weighing into things that are not really relevant to site plan.  You may be concerned about things, but we're coming up with hypotheticals. What we have is an applicant who has said that they will absolutely meet the code and meet the village responsibilities.  That's the testimony.  It's been given over and over again.  Anything further beyond that is just some kind of ‑‑ I don't know what we're doing, but it's not appropriate to continue with this.

1. MR. SLOMIN: I'm sorry.
2. MR. WELLS: You know what, I addressed the Chairman.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Point of order. 

Chris, we can discuss things that are concerns that affect this development and make conditions. So we can consider discussing these items as appropriate.

1. MR. MARTIN: Absolutely.
2. MR. WELLS: But only if the condition that you're discussing is something that you could appropriately put on a site plan approval, and you certainly can't tell an applicant that it has to pay for every conceivable problem in the future or has to know in advance what the cost will be.
3. MS. PATIRE: I think it's a question of concern. It's a question of safety just like you talk traffic lights. It's a question or the points here are of safety and are of concern.
4. MR. WELLS: And most of the testimony with respect to traffic lights and all things was not appropriate and fair either, as I pointed out at the time.
5. MS. PATIRE: There's still a lot of questions that have not been answered.
6. MR. WELLS: By all means, ask them, and I'm going to keep making this record real clear as to when this board goes outside of what I believe a court will ultimately conclude you can do.

(Various voices speaking.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Point of order!  Quiet! 

You're okay asking those questions, he's okay making the objection. He's just doing his job. 

Now we'll just get back to MR. SLOMIN's questions towards the engineer.

1. MR. SLOMIN: Yes. I guess to this, are off‑site improvements a valid discussion and area of questioning related to a site plan?
2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: They can be, and again I go back to my comment about the DEP.

The DEP governs how the village collects its wastewater. Approximately 15 years ago, the village was under a sewer connection moratorium at the behest of the DEP.  Based on that, no restaurant could open up with more than 15 seats, until the village made improvements to its wastewater treatment plant.  Those improvements were completed in 2005, cost about $18 million, and at that time the DEP listed its moratorium.  What this has in relationship to this discussion is the DEP is going to weigh in on it and they will make their determinations, and if they require upgrades and improvements, it's going to be something that the village will have to address.

1. MR. SLOMIN: To that, based on this discussion, MR. LOVENTHAL said we will do what's required. MR. WELLS said we will do what we can. My question, as a concerned resident, is: What is required?  We don't know the cost, we don't know the amount of work, we don't know how extensive, what we do know is we have never had any development of this scale in our village and we have older systems it is tying into.  What I am hearing is we don't know the answers, therefore, we don't know the cost.
2. MR. WELLS: All right. Let me state an objection to the question.
3. MR. SLOMIN: How do we get to a state where residents can be comfortable that this development is not going to negatively impact us, when it is these developments that may trigger more.
4. MR. WELLS: MR. SLOMIN has answered asked this question and it has been answered before.
5. MR. SLOMIN: It has not.
6. MR. WELLS: He testified that there's never been a development of this scale before in the village, which is patently incorrect, and he shouldn't be testifying and it's incorrect along the way. We really got to rule this out of order.
7. MR. SLOMIN: I'm questioning, this is not testifying.
8. MR. WELLS: Did you say that? Where the factual basis?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It's getting a little circular now.  Keep it tight questions to MR. RUTISHAUSER, and then there's going to be public comment that you're going to have and then you can, you know, expand on certain things.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Where else in the village is there a project of this magnitude with this many toilets and showers, where else in the village does something like that exist?
2. MR. WELLS: You want an example of a project?
3. MS. McWILLIAMS: Yes.
4. MR. WELLS: Valley Hospital or virtually any ‑‑ there's so many places where the water and sewer lines, we can get somebody to do that, it's not relevant again to this matter, not at all relevant, but I think there are many, many examples where the water use and sewer use would be far exceed this project.
5. MR. SLOMIN: I'm going to sit down, but I would say, please don't take your one end user error in my question to, you know, derail, you know, the entire concern.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is there anyone else that has any questions of MR. RUTISHAUSER? 

1. MR. FELDSOTT: Yes, the engineer.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name.

1. MR. FELDSOTT: Ed Feldsott, 67 Heights Road.

And I prefer not to be interrupted by the legal team or the developers.

1. MR. WELLS: And he doesn't get to say that.
2. MR. FELDSOTT: My question was ‑‑ I thought that was out of order.
3. MR. WELLS: You don't get to make the rules up.
4. MR. FELDSOTT: Anyway, anyway, my question for the engineer, and this is a question I asked last time I came up here a few months ago is: Has the engineer or any of the members been to any of the developments the developers have built to check out the quality of their work? Because my parents just moved in to a 55 and older four seasons ‑‑
5. MR. WELLS: Objection; testimony.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Just phrase the question.

1. MR. FELDSOTT: Certainly.

My question is: Have you ever seen any of their other properties? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I've driven past the one just off the Garden State Parkway that MR. LOVENTHAL had testified was under construction numerable times going to Newark Airport and points south.
2. MR. FELDSOTT: So you have visited existing properties and you have gotten feedback ‑‑
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: That was not ‑‑
4. MR. FELDSOTT: My question is: Have you visited the existing properties, not ones that are being built, but current properties and gotten feedback from residents of the quality of workmanship that has been done in putting up these units?
5. MR. WELLS: Objection, way outside the scope of direct.
6. MR. FELDSOTT: Of course.
7. MR. MARTIN: It's a simple question.
8. MR. WELLS: No testimony with respect to any of this by the engineer.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, can you answer that? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I believe I've been into a couple of developments that MR. LOVENTHAL had presented, one in Fair Lawn. I have not interrogated residents there as to their satisfaction or dissatisfaction regarding the construction.
2. MR. FELDSOTT: Thank you. That's it.
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else have questions? 

All right. Next step is public testimony, this isn't public comment.  If someone is going to testify, they're subject to cross examination. Seeing there's not, then we'll move, do we have a motion ‑‑

1. MR. SLOMIN: I'm sorry?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That's public testimony.  That's different.  Public comment is ‑‑

1. MR. SLOMIN: Is after, okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do we have a motion to open to public comments? 

1. MS. PATIRE: I'll make a motion.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Second.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Debbie made first motion to open it up, and Joel seconded it. 

1. MR. MARTIN: MR. SLOMIN, do you know why it's public testimony as opposed to comment?

Okay. If there was a person in the audience that was an objector, formally or informally they brought MR. LAPATKA with them or a planner or a traffic expert or something else, that that person can testify or a fact witness that has specific facts as to certain things involved, you would be sworn under oath and considered, not you, but others, that would be public testimony.  Public comment is different.  Any positions that you might have asserted previously or want to assert now, those are comments. 

1. MR. WELLS: That's helpful. I appreciate that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.  So we had a motion to open the public comment, Debbie made the motion and Joel seconded it.  Call the roll call.  A yes is a yes to open to public comment right now. (At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken and the motion is passed by a vote of eight in favor, with Ms. Barto and Ms. Giordano are absent.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right.  So we're in the public comment portion.  You can make a line.  You'll state your name and address, you'll be sworn in, and our custom has been three minutes to speak, but does the board have any feeling one way or the other?  I was thinking enlarging it to maybe five minutes, and then if somebody has to come back, they can come back, but it just makes conciseness for it. Michael will keep the time on that.  So just come up, state your name, you'll be sworn in.  Once you start speaking, you'll have five minutes to make your statement.  And if you have a written statement with you, you can provide that to Michael after you're done so that it's part of the record, and just keep proceeding in a respectful manner on this.  Okay.  So state your name again and your address.

1. MR. FELDSOTT: Ed Feldsott, 67 Heights Road. So, before I was supposed to ask questions, I started talking about the Four Seasons 55 and older complex that my parents moved into. We paid a lot of money for these units.  They're not low‑end, they're not mid‑end units, they're high‑end units.  And my point being is, my brother and I never researched other units this developer built, because this is fairly large developer that built them, and these developers scrimp on everything.  In the two years my parents have been there, all kinds of things have gone wrong with these units.  They put in the cheapest elevator, they put in the cheapest air conditioners.  All I'm saying is, you know, it's our town, it's your town, you need to do your due diligence and check out other units these developers have put in.  You know, if you guys have done great work, which you may be ‑‑
2. MR. WELLS: They do.
3. MR. FELDSOTT: No, I mean then that's a different story, but I have to say, based upon what I have experienced, I don't trust anyone, anyone, no developer, no one. I like to research things and make sure I am getting what I paid for, which is why I also additionally want to say all the promises I'm assuming that were made here today will be in a contractual agreement so if they are breached for any reason, the town has recourse.
4. MR. WELLS: There's a resolution and also a developer's agreement, yes.
5. MR. FELDSOTT: So any breach ‑‑
6. MR. WELLS: There's a "contract," as you put it.
7. MR. FELDSOTT: Good. That's a very good answer.

I am hoping that you do your research, visit other units, and, as you say, they will find that you do amazing work, high quality work, and you'll be very pleased with it, but should you do your research and find out the workmanship is shoddy, you really need to take that into account. That's it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.  Thank you. 

State your name and address.

1. MR. GLAZER: Dana Glazer, 61 Clinton Avenue. I'm just a resident here, and my biggest concern is: What are the costs that are going to be on my shoulders and the other residents' shoulders?  And I'm unclear as to what those costs are going to be.  And I'm wondering if there's going to be some sort of a ceiling, so that if it should exceed whatever those costs are expected to be, that there will be some remedy for that?  So, is that something that has been considered?  Where is that at? 
2. MR. WELLS: I'll give a very general answer. Again, we're here for site plan. This particular project will also be a very large taxpayer in the community.  The economics of this type of use were examined extensively by this board and the Mayor and Council during any zoning process, but in terms of where we are right now in a site plan review, other than the kinds of discussion that we had so far about issues such as a direct off‑site effect, as opposed to a remote off‑site effect, no, you cannot.  There's no way to set a dollar limit on what it would cost someone else.  It's not an appropriate inquiry.  There's nothing about this project that would make it appear that it would create any kind of an additional burden on the taxpayers.  In fact, what we learned during the zoning process is that this is a net positive for the village in terms of, they get more taxes in than they spend, but that's not relevant.  And the fact that I'm even talking about that is not really appropriate at this matter.  So I'm trying to answer your question.  So, no, it's not an appropriate inquiry at this point, in my view.
3. MR. GLAZER: These are not appropriate questions? Is that correct? I'm asking the Planning Board.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, it's not a question, you can make comments.  He was kind enough to respond to you.  You can just keep going and make comments, it's public comment.

1. MR. GLAZER: Okay. I see. Well, I'm very concerned about this, and I appreciate your response, but I don't think that it makes me feel any better.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 

1. MR. SLOMIN: Dave Slomin, 36 Heights Road, Ridgewood.

I guess to echo what MR. GLAZER just voiced and elements of the prefaced questions I asked before, I have grave concerns representing the citizens group RCRD, Ridgewood Citizens for Reasonable Development, regarding off‑site improvements and the costs and clear determination which, in my readings of the village ordinance or code or documents, is my understanding that there has to be a greater determinations made than I've seen so far, and I'm gravely uncomfortable with saying, while I respect we'll do what's required or we'll do what we can, those are very broad terms, and when you try to "require" or "can" into a contract or an agreement, you have to then specify what that is, what is required.  Well, the code might only say you have to do this or this, when this really is impacted by the development.  That's what I as a resident would like to know, and I would like to ask you as a Planning Board to represent us and ask that you have that answer before you consider any type of affirmative votes on this. We have old systems in this town.  I believe this application will cause an impact on our municipal systems and cause the need for costly off‑site improvements, just as other applicants are impacting traffic in other locations.  My understanding is some of the other applicants are actually making some accommodations to work with the village or make it work for the village.  I would hope that the developers here would work with us to do the same.  Ridgewood is a town of great civil service, great concern and care for the town.  Citizens Park, one of our biggest parks in town was donated by residents.  We all do our part and I believe you guys could, if this goes ahead, we are pro development, pro reasonable development, we would like to ask that you do your part, which may be a little more than you think you're willing to do now, to make this work for all of us, just like the folks who developed the Citizens Parks did the right thing.  It's really all about doing the right thing.  You as a board, I need to ask you to please make sure you know what you're getting into.  If you're going to consider any type of affirmative vote, know what it's going to cost, know the extent. I've heard that we're not going to know that until later.  I think we need to know more.  If not, get a commitment that it will be covered with more clarity than required or can do. On some other elements, one of the things discussed tonight was trash.  I guess this is for the developers, MR. WELLS too.  In New Jersey, there is a law that enables owners of multifamily residential properties to seek either reimbursement for or have the town be required to pick up trash.  In your agreement, will the developers commit and will your Planning Board require that the developers commit to not seeking future reimbursement for trash pickup on these sites and not to ask the town to pick up?  I don't know if I open that up or just keep going.

1. MR. WELLS: It's a statement, keep going.
2. MR. SLOMIN: Okay.

Regarding parking: For the last 17 years, I've lived in a tandem parking driveway.  It is not a luxury item.  I would say, if I was a higher paying tenant at a luxury complex, I would be frustrated and insulted if that's what I was given.  It's the same thing you could argue that sitting in traffic on the George Washington Bridge is a plus, because it gives you more one‑on‑one family time together.  You know, it's not a benefit.  It's much easier to pull in and not have to move one car to get to the other.  It's turning, you know, a negative into a positive.  It's great salesmanship; it's not a benefit for the residents, it's not a benefit for Ridgewood.  I think it's a force fit.  I want to get around the force fit, so this development, all developments can truly be reasonable as if this was properly master planned from the beginning. And I guess one other point I have ‑‑ trash, tandem, off‑site costs.  You guys, I applaud you for volunteering for the Planning Board at a very difficult time in Ridgewood.  I don't think I would have been allowed to do it, but God knows I didn't do it.  But I am involved and I am concerned, along with a lot other residents involved in RCRD, and I would just like to say:  Please don't feel that you have to be forced to vote to any affirmative votes, if you don't feel your questions are answered, your questions about off‑site improvements and costs ‑‑

1. MR. CAFARELLI: Time is up.
2. MR. SLOMIN:  ‑‑ are fully answered. You do have the power to vote no, if it's not ready yet.

Thank you.

1. MR. MARTIN: There's no issue on garbage collection. It's going to be taken care of by the developer.
2. MR. WELLS: Right.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Let me ask a question on that.  It's an interesting point and one that we actually had a situation where we are, if you'll remind me because I'm sure Chris is laughing now, we've been going back and forth a number of years as to whether or not the village's obligation was to reimburse the development for, I believe it was leaf collection? 

Could we expand on that, because I think it was a valid question. Until it was just said, it escaped me.

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: You are correct, Mayor, we have a number of condominium complexes that are governed by the condominium act which allows a condominium association to seek reimbursement from the host municipality for snowplowing services, leaf collection, and street lighting. We do have several condos in the village that do get reimbursed. The reimbursement for snowplowing is what it would cost to village to plow, not what it would cost them to plow.  And we have developed a formula, which, unfortunately for those developments, is a much lower rate than what they pay, because we base ours on plowing municipal streets, that's our formula.  So some of the complexes get in the winter, average winter just a few hundred dollars, the one you may be thinking of, that made a backdated claim, has gotten a little bit more.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right, because I know we've been kind of working on that for a while together.

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So I guess the question is ‑‑

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I don't know if this development would qualify under the condo act, and that's something I will certainly defer to our board attorney.
2. MR. MARTIN: I don't believe so. It's a multifamily development housing.
3. MR. WELLS: Doesn't ‑‑
4. MR. MARTIN: There's a few land use regulations in this community that may overlap, but in terms of what governs a type of ownership entity, it's different in multifamily and residential housing. But, again, maybe I'm wrong. I sat through all these hearings, but I believe that there's no issue that there's going to be collection of any kind of refuse by the applicant, right, that could be put into a resolution.
5. MR. WELLS: MR. LOVENTHAL gave the testimony and there was other testimony, everything is going to be done by private contractors, so there's no question.
6. MR. MARTIN: At the expense of the applicant.
7. MR. WELLS: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: With no reimbursement by the village, correct? 

1. MR. MARTIN: MR. LOVENTHAL.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You want that as a stipulation, I would say.

1. MR. LOVENTHAL: The Municipal Services Act, Chris was referring to the Condo Act, my experience is regarding the Municipal Services Act is that certainly we're not entitled to snow removal, it's a private parking lot, like any other parking lot, we're not entitled to leaf pickup. We're a private property like any other. My experience in the past regarding sanitation has been however all of the multifamily rental communities are treated in a particular community is how we would expect to be treated.  So if you are providing trash pickup currently at your multifamily rental communities, we would be entitled to that service.  We're a different building in the sense that we will be removing trash from common containers, as opposed to small residential containers that would be brought to the curb.  We have no intentions of doing that.  So, from my expectation, we would not be looking for any reimbursement from the village as it relates to that service either.
2. MR. MARTIN: Trash and recycling, right?
3. MR. LOVENTHAL: Right, trash and recycling is, if the village, my understanding of the Municipal Services Act, if the village is providing service to other like/kind rental communities, residential rental communities, then an arrangement can be made in the form of a separate agreement under the Municipal Services Act as it relates to those services. We're not seeking that, but, again, I'm not aware, mayor, you may be as to whether the village is currently providing either a reimbursement for trash or is actually picking up the trash at any of your other rental communities, I'm just not aware of it.
4. MR. MARTIN: I don't believe so.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, that's not the case.

1. MR. MARTIN: Chris, is that correct?
2. MR. RUTISHAUSER: No.
3. MR. WELLS: No.
4. MR. LOVENTHAL: So then we would not be looking for that same service, and we would be continuing as I described to remove the trash from a private trash hauler at no cost to the village.
5. MR. MARTIN: And the recycling?
6. MR. LOVENTHAL: Yes, and the recycling, yes.
7. MR. MARTIN: MR. SLOMIN, are you okay with that answer?
8. MR. SLOMIN: Can I come up?
9. MR. MARTIN: Sure. I invited you, why not?
10. MR. SLOMIN: I guess I would, just as with some other items, ask as our representatives, there's a question here, I'm not sure it's been answered with full clarity, and I know in my experience we've had towns where they did pickup, try and take it away, force payment upon us, and we said no, you can't do that. And they ended up ‑‑ actually they didn't, they just kind of went back to picking it up, it was never resolved, legally they just didn't want to go there and make a fight over it. It's a question mark in New Jersey, and it is handled oftentimes in the courts with legal filings, with a complex saying you, the municipality, here's not only the precedent in your community but the precedence in the state, and there's arguments made where municipalities are forced into either reimburse or to pickup.  Sometimes it has to do with, however you pickup, maybe you pickup some multi‑families and put it in cans, others put it in dumpsters, then a complex could buy 100 cans and put it out on the street on trash day, which would be a negative impact to the community to get it for free, until they force the hand of the community to say all right, all right, we'll give you a dumpster for free.  This is how it works and dot your I's, cross your T's in anything that you do, and that's why I was asking for a commitment, if they're indeed not seeking that, if that could be part of the resolution saying not only now but we're not going to do it five years from now.  That's all I'm asking.  Thank you.
11. MS. McWILLIAMS: You may not know, but who does like even just up the street at Cameron Commons or the Oak Street Apartments, is that a private collection, because there is a dumpster in the back?
12. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I'd have to check. Our sanitation people do pickup some dumpsters. Matter of fact, we've had employees injured when they pickup dumpsters, so it is a dangerous task, with other places that have private carters handle their trash.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I have a question for Chris Martin.  Chris, as it relates to the off‑site improvements and us not knowing what that amount is, what's the law as it relates to us being able to say yes or no to a development, without knowing what that number is? 

1. MR. MARTIN: It's always difficult, it really is, and we've gone through this, you've had probative questions on other applications as well. But, in terms of that, the developer must agree, in my opinion, and I believe they have, that if there is a need for water service, for example, to be appropriate for not only potable water but also for fire safety, that they will do the necessary improvements to get to make sure that the site is properly protected and there's sufficient water supply, and if there's any additional improvements that are pro rata share related, they're going to have to pay that. And at the end of the day, the Village Engineer and other professionals are going to be the ones that say the nexus is based upon this, and, if there's a disagreement, they can go to court and address the issue at that point. But they would have to put the money in escrow, do the same thing for traffic lights and traffic signal improvements, you can do the same thing for schools.
2. MR. WELLS: Let me just comment in a general way, tell you what we're not arguing but so someone keeps this in mind. A few minutes ago, MR. SLOMIN made the comment that you have to be careful, because people want it to be free. It's not free. This particular applicant, as anybody who owns this, will pay a great deal of taxes to the village for municipal services, like everybody else.  That said, so that they are at the right to an expectation, as any other taxpayer in the community that certain things will be provided for them in the community.  That said, this particular applicant has said we're not trying to put any additional burden on the community, certainly not to do with anything to do with the direct approval and construction of this project.  So we talked about water and sewer, you know we've talked about traffic in the past.  In reality, even though I huffed and puffed and told you why you were not entitled to lots of off‑site improvements, at MR. JAHR's request we make about $80,000.00 worth of off‑site improvements that are not pro rata share, we just did them because we wanted to be helpful in the general area because we want it to work well.  This applicant is telling you they want to be fair and reason reasonable and work in the community, but I think it's important that we also realize that they're going to be a very large taxpayer in this community, just like everybody else is a taxpayer.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So I just want to kind of follow‑up on that.  What happens if the costs are really prohibitive; in other words, if we have to fix something that is really, really expensive, what does that mean for us as a village?  I mean, does it end up being something that we may not be able to do? 

1. MR. WELLS: Well, that's not dissimilar to everything the governing body has to deal with if a prohibitive cost comes about, in my experience when I work with villages, big costs get bonded and so forth. But that's not what we're talking about here; in other words, you certainly you wouldn't suggest, for example, if you need new sewer pipes at the other end of town and it was going to cost $2 million, that this particular applicant would do that, somebody might suggest. It wouldn't be reasonable to suggest, it wouldn't be legal to suggest.  What is be reasonable is things that they directly cause and things that they maybe indirectly affect, then they would be asked to do a pro rata share, and we've done that and more any time anybody has asked us.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I understand.  This relates to, and I don't want to seem too harsh, is that is relates to a need created by an applicant that wasn't there before.  Okay.  And if we have to do an expensive upgrade to something, and if we don't do that upgrade and you go on the sewer system and the sewer system all of a sudden pops, there's stuff all over, that makes it really difficult ‑‑ it creates a problem.  So the concern we have, and I think it has been voiced over and over again, is that there is a risk, and that risk may be minimal, but we want to be protected against that risk, and I don't know how we do that.

1. MR. WELLS: I suggest that you have done that. You obviously finalized the resolution on another multifamily application earlier this evening where I'm happy, I happen to represent the client, and we went through a process, took a couple of months until we finished the resolution to make sure that, as one of the questioners talked about, is there a contract? Yes, there's a contract.  And not only is there a resolution, but there will also be a developer's agreement.  So it's to make sure that everybody is being fair. What I can represent, and I have no problem representing, that this particular applicant is a very high quality developer.  That's the reputation everywhere they do it.  And one of the reasons where you can be very comfortable they're not going to build the kind of units that people are concerned about, is they want to rent them for a lot of money.  These are high‑end units so that's not ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Oh ‑‑

1. MR. WELLS: We understand our responsibility to pay for the cost that we directly cause. And if we indirectly cause them and you need to do an improvement in the general area, we're going to pay our fair share, but we can't be told that we have to pay for everything that goes on in the village forever because we're building in the village.
2. MS. PATIRE: I don't think anyone is saying that.
3. MR. WELLS: I'm exaggerating. I'm trying to say there's got to speed the process.
4. MS. PATIRE: I'm not going to pay for something on Route 17. I was saying all things connect. I was giving the example with pipes, they all connect to something.  I think what COUNCILMAN VOIGT is saying and, Chris, maybe some clarity or some guidance to your point, you're saying it's difficult, I feel like we're being presented with an opportunity here to vote on something, you kind of got one eye closed, right, because there's things that we just don't know.  And I guess my question is, and, again, Chris has testified and I know what everyone is saying, how do you weigh the risk and reward, yes, for a taxpayer, absolutely, they're entitled to A, B, C and D, just like any other taxpayer in the village.  They're a taxpayer, but there could be, I'm not saying there is, there could be problems caused because of this application that no one knows about or it may cost us a boatload of money or it may cost us nothing.
5. MR. WELLS: Two comments, lots of professionals, engineers and so forth have told you no, there are no problems, they checked the water, checked ‑‑
6. MS. PATIRE: I ‑‑
7. MR. WELLS: But some things that we don't know, what we have said repeatedly is we will cover any direct costs that are related to something, if something pops up. Do we expect them? No.
8. MS. PATIRE: A running issue and MR. SLOMIN said this earlier, bringing to your property, again I keep going back to the simple example, what happens to the three links of the pipe that you need to connect ‑‑
9. MR. WELLS: If it's remote to our property and related to a municipal service that generally services the area, then the only appropriate thing to do, if there's going to be a municipal improvement, would be to then tag us with our pro rata share. So, if we're causing 20 percent of that problem, you can do that, or it's a general municipal matter.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So you say you'll pay for your fair share.  What happens if we can't, we can't pay for our fair share? 

1. MR. WELLS: Well, that's a problem. Like any municipality ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: What do we do? 

1. MR. WELLS: You raise taxes or you bond. I mean, that's what municipalities are responsible to do is to provide basic municipal services for its taxpayers. That's your job.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: But what happens if we don't want to raise taxes or we don't want to bond? 

1. MR. WELLS: You shouldn't be in office, you're not doing your job. That's the job. You're supposed to provide municipal services for the taxpayers.
2. MR. LOVENTHAL: COUNCILMAN VOIGT, could I just provide some clarity? We expect to do nothing more than is required by the Municipal Land Use Law. I'm just trying to clarify, because this does come up, and the reality is, from the developer's perspective, if that unusual scenario plays out where there is some multimillion dollar improvement that the municipality simply chooses not to make or cannot make, then the reality exists that our project may be in jeopardy, so that's where there is a negotiation. It's that simple.  So, for the off‑site, the unlikely scenario that some significant multimillion dollar improvement is necessary, that's where negotiation takes place.  Once we complete our studies with the engineering department, those things will be flushed out in the developer's agreement, and ultimately if the municipality chooses not to, well, then we can't build the project.  So the reality is that that's where you have cooperation between the property owner, the developer, and the municipality in order to make sure that it doesn't place a significant burden on the village and that there's a fair share and actual nexus attributed to the developer.
3. MR. MARTIN: So going back to the decision‑making process of this board, Debbie's questions are excellent, but the board has to make a decision on the evidence presented before it, coupled with the legal standards. There's a nice gentleman in the audience with a green shirt, MR. SLOMIN, the position that the use in context, I agree; however, we've gone through this before, the board has to deal with the ordinance as to the uses is allowable as you sit here today. What is the evidence? We have the Village Engineer who knows the area, addresses the issues, goes through the evidence, and at this point can't say that there's any problem with this development surcharging and causing a catastrophic break of any pipes. If there was, that would be an issue before the board right now, but the maybe, could have, should have, that's where I come in and try to lock the applicant down and say, listen, MR. WELLS just represented as an agent of his applicant, of his client, that if there's a direct link with something, they're paying 100 percent; if there's an indirect activity or relationship off‑tract, they're paying a pro rata share.  That is what the men in black would do, if they wore the black robes and say, planning board, you had the evidence, you had your own professionals, you had their professionals, this is all the testimony, this is how you can make a decision.  Direct problem, they pay; indirect problem, they pay a pro rata share, and that's it.
4. MS. ALTANO: Also, I think there's another step to make it right, which are the specifications, which go under the first sections of the specifications of always go under attorney review, and this is a way of making things even better, looking at what is right, the percentages.
5. MR. WELLS: Are you talking about building specifications?
6. MS. ALTANO: Yes.
7. MR. WELLS: That's building code.
8. MS. ALTANO: No, no, not actually code, but sections, the legal, the legal section 1, 2 and 3 are legal.
9. MR. WELLS: But typically reviewed by your construction code official, and he may seek the guidance once and a while of the village attorney, but, for the most part, your construction code official, that's within his jurisdiction.
10. MR. MARTIN: With the engineer too, those three.
11. MR. WELLS: Yes, but in terms of building specs?
12. MR. MARTIN: But if somebody designed something improperly, there is a recourse for the village.
13. MS. ALTANO: So there is an additional road to make it right, that's what I was trying to say.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else from the public to make a statement?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. I guess the next would be if you want to make a closing statement.

1. MR. WELLS: I do.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Are we finished with traffic?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, we had that at the last meeting. Chris was the only one left.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I thought I was midway from hearing an answer on the garbage collection and how to lock that down when Jeff asked his question. I just want to make sure everybody was fine with that answer as far as protecting ourselves from being sought at any other point. And you had I heard what you said.
2. MR. LOVENTHAL: I do want to be clear, I indicated that we would comply with the Municipal Services Act, and the Municipal Services Act provides that, at least as it relates to rental communities, if the village is presently collecting trash at other complexes in a like/kind, that we are not going to be treated any differently. That's what the law says, and I plan on complying with the law. I do not believe that I will be looking for reimbursement, because there are no like/kind communities. I will be at my expense be collecting trash as my own cost. I did not agree to be barred in perpetuity from negotiating with the municipality under the Municipal Services Act.
3. MS. McWILLIAMS: So when she had said before, you wouldn't be asking for that now or in the future, that's not ‑‑
4. MR. LOVENTHAL: I didn't say in the future, I said that I believe I'm going to comply with the Municipal Services Act. Today I will not be seeking any reimbursement, because I am going to be collecting trash privately, through not through trash cans, and we weren't clear, it wasn't clear as to whether any of your rental communities are being provided that service.
5. MS. McWILLIAMS: Again, because you're not of a like/kind to any of the rental communities?
6. MR. LOVENTHAL: That's the Municipal Services Act, so I'm not barring any further negotiation in the future. Should the village at some point choose to collect sanitation from all rental communities, I'm not suggesting that I should be barred from that in the future. I'm paying taxes, just like anybody else.
7. MS. McWILLIAMS: Or seeking reimbursement retroactively or otherwise.
8. MR. LOVENTHAL: It may be seeking, that's correct. That's the Municipal Services Act. I plan on complying with the law.
9. MS. McWILLIAMS: I just feel like this is very open‑ended. There's so much going on up here I'm having a conversation by myself. I'll wait until they're all done, and then we can wait to go ahead.
10. MS. PATIRE: The good news is there's nothing quite the size of The Dayton that's in Ridgewood ‑‑
11. MR. LOVENTHAL: Yeah, I don't ‑‑

COURT REPORTER: I can't hear three people talking at once. I'm sorry.

1. MR. WELLS: Let me just try to reach clarity on this. The point is simply this. We want to be treated fairly. We want to be very fair in meeting expenses that are caused by us. If this municipality should decide that it wants to provide garbage services to other rental properties, it would be unfair to this taxpayer, just like everybody else, and put them at an unfair competitive advantage to say that they don't have the right to do that. So that all Scott is suggesting is if the municipality starts to do garbage pickup at all rental properties, then we want to right to ask to be treated like everybody else.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: And my question had been trying to find out if we do, what units do we collect at, where do we collect at currently, and is that standard or are we reimbursing in other areas? I would like to know that going in, so that if something either settled ahead of time, and it's not a surprise, you know, to the taxpayers or to any of us up here.
3. MR. WELLS: Well, to be legal again, what we're saying is, we will comply with the law.
4. MS. McWILLIAMS: I understand.
5. MR. WELLS: And that is actually our only legal requirement. What we're doing here is trying to explain ‑‑
6. MS. McWILLIAMS: So would you also agree that the law can be somewhat ambiguous. So when he's saying that like/kind, let's be clear what like/kind, because he said there is no like/kind facility, nothing of this kind in Ridgewood; half an hour, hour ago, you said there is, you said there are many like/kind facilities in Ridgewood, so I'm making ‑‑
7. MR. WELLS: No, you're really distorting things. What I said half an hour ago was that there were other users that needed water or sewer that it was stated that this was by far the largest that had ever been in the village, and that's not true.
8. MR. MARTIN: I think you said Valley Hospital.
9. MR. WELLS: Well, I used that as an example, but I'm sure there are others as well.

We've asked and answered this as well as we can. This is the best I can tell you.

1. MS. PATIRE: So, Chris, can we ask, are there like/kind apartment complexes, rentals in the village where we pick up trash and they're responsible for their trash ‑‑
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Or being reimbursed for it.
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I'd have to make those inquiries. A similar size, a similar place, I don't know if it's exact size and the number of units would be the Oak Street Apartments. I have to find out how many units and also whether we service their trash and recycling or they have a carter. I can get that information for the next board meeting.
4. MS. PATIRE: When you say a "carter," I don't know what that means.
5. MR. WELLS: I mean a collection company.
6. MS. PATIRE: Okay.
7. MR. WELLS: Mr. Chairman, you asked me about a closing. I've said all along that I want to be very complete, make this application, to make our record, as I put it, bullet proof, so it will probably take me a half hour to do the closing, so if you want to take your break and then I'll come back.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We'll take a ten‑minute break.

(A short recess is held.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, call the roll.

(At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken with MAYOR KNUDSEN, COUNCILMAN VOIGT, VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI, MS. McWILLIAMS, MR. SCHEIBNER, CHAIRMAN JOEL, MS. ALTANO, and MS. PATIRE present, with Ms. Barto and Giordano absent.) CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We're back on the record. 

1. MR. WELLS, You can proceed with your closing statement.
2. MR. WELLS: Good. We haven't lost anybody. First, before I begin, let me say what I always like to say to boards when I get a chance to do it, right now everybody is still paying attention, and that is that I do this for a living, which means that he's got to pay me to come here, and, therefore, I particularly appreciate people who do this as volunteers, because this isn't all that much fun. I know sometimes it gets kind of argumentative, and I participate in that because that's my job, but I do want to say, as some people in the public said to you, I appreciate what you do. I know this isn't all that much fun and it gets a little tedious sometimes, so I don't want to leave tonight without saying that to you. It is pleasant to get to the end of this process. I told you on the first hearing that this was a very simple site plan application, and, in reality, it is. This is a permitted use. It's largely conforming. It has one very minor variance that probably is the variance, and it has one design exemption, and I'll go through those and the evidence that you've heard about those. But it's very largely conforming: The impervious area, the FAR, the height, the setback, the amenity areas, both the interior and the exterior, the parking, all of the key elements that you worry about in terms of what we call "bulk variances" that you're going to hear about on other applications on another night, probably from me or somebody like me, they don't exist here. So what we have is a pretty straightforward application.  I want to remind you of the particulars, because a lot of time has passed. It is a 93‑unit project. It includes 15 one‑bedroom market rate units, 64 two‑bedrooms, and that's the end of the market rate units, that's 79 units.  We propose to build 14 affordable units, 2 one‑bedrooms, 9 two‑bedrooms and the three bedrooms, the three of them are all affordable housing. And I won't spend a lot of time, although it is important that you understand that in addition to everything else that we're doing here, and you've heard us say over and over again that we really think this is a great project for the Village of Ridgewood, it is also meeting an affordable housing obligation, and that's important legally and it's important because it's a good thing to do. The history of the application began with an extensive process before this board and the Mayor and Council to rezone the property. That went from 2011 all the way to 2015, and then didn't actually became a final ordinance until March of 2016. We've been in front of you on this matter, as I indicated, for almost a year. We filed this application on June 10th of 2016. So 10 days or so past one year. There have been five hearings: September 6th last year, September 20th, February 7th, May 2nd, and then tonight, June 20th, 2017. 

You've heard from nine different witnesses. Again, simple site plan but an awful lot of witnesses. Larry Appel was the architect. Alexander Lapatka was our site engineer, and he was back tonight answering some questions. Art Bernard was our planner, who happens to have a unique additional set of skills and knowledge because he's the former head of COAH, so he was able to help educate the board a little bit to the affordable housing aspects, in addition to providing planning testimony to support our one variance. Dan Disario testified only a couple of months ago, our traffic engineer. And Scott Loventhal, who's the principal of this particular application, the principal of the developer, and as I've said, that night one of the most extraordinarily hands‑on developers that I've ever had the privilege of working with, and who his project, cares about it, and knows every aspect of it. In addition, you've had testimony from four of your own experts: Blais Brancheau, who is no longer with the village, actually gave a report and gave testimony a number of months ago. Elizabeth McManus, who is the new planner who is not here this evening, she sent a substitute, but she also produced a report and then gave actual testimony at the last hearing. John Jahr, several reports, I think three in number, and then also testified substantially last time. And then Chris Rutishauser, who testified as your civil engineer. So that's nine witnesses, lots of evidence. There's also been a lot of stipulations. We came in this evening with 21. I don't know what the count is. Andy, you can tell us? He'll tell me in a minute.

21. MR. KOHUT: More than 21.
22. MR. WELLS: We added a few tonight. What are stipulations? We're clarifying things. Often specifically related to requests that you've made, it's our way of agreeing in advance to certain conditions, so as to make it clear that we want to conform with it. Site plan legal review: I put into evidence at the last hearing what is your A‑21, the memorandum that Chris and his firm prepared with respect to another application that was heard before you. As it turns out, it's in evidence again this evening or a slight variation on it with respect to the responsibilities that a board has when it reviews a site plan. I think it's a particularly good piece of legal work, and, therefore, it's handy for me to use it to reinforce what I believe are your responsibilities here, before I go through the evidence that you have. In the memorandum, it states in its very beginning when it talks about site plan approval: "In reviewing an application for site plan approval, the Planning Board's authority is limited to determining whether the development plans conforms with the zoning ordinance and the applicable provisions of the site plan," and that particular principle comes from a Supreme Court case here in New Jersey.

It goes on to say: "The objective of site plan review is to ensure that the site will be used in accordance with the provisions of the site plan ordinance, which are designed to effectuate the provisions of the Municipal Land Use Law. These provisions of the MLUL," that's the Municipal Land Use Law, "relate to on‑site considerations. "When a site plan is being considered by a Planning Board and use being considered, the use is always a permitted use or wouldn't          be in front of the Planning Board. Therefore, in most cases, the board must grant site plan approval, and, where appropriate, grant waivers or exceptions from ordinance provisions," again citing the applicable New Jersey case law. The memo goes on to point out that your own bylaws at 7.7 say that: "The board's decision must be based on evidence. Specifically, each case shall be decided strictly on the basis of the facts produced at the hearing, viewed in light of the statutory and ordinance requirements." Again, New Jersey case law, Supreme Court case, which I won't cite the case but that's in the material that you have makes that abundantly clear. Finally I want to just tell you one other thing that comes out of this memo, and, again, citing the Allen v. Hobo (phonetic) case, Chris points out to us: "Where there is conflicting testimony or evidence, the board must decide which facts are true, and may accept or reject the testimony of a witness." That's a good place for me to start reviewing evidence for you, because there is no conflicting testimony.  You have a very clean record here. I told you there were nine witnesses; five of them were presented by the applicant, the other four were presented by the village, paid for by the applicant but they were the village's witnesses that you produced. 

There is no evidence in this record that says that there is any problem with the site plan that would justify a denial. Now, let's start with the one variance that we have. I'll make sure that you understand I did say at the outset that there was another variance that was included initially, and that was the back wall of the retaining wall, where the railroad tracks didn't have stucco on it. We put the stucco on it; the variance went away. The only variance that remains on this application is with respect to the steep slope. You know, you've heard with respect to the other applications that you already approved, same here, they got a pile of dirt on the property. Mr. Bernard did a good job of talking to us about that, and he said ‑‑ I think it's important, because you may recollect, it's so long ago, that I argued with Mr. Brancheau as to whether this was a variance, but there comes a point when you do this kind of work where it's not productive to keep arguing whether it's a variance or not, it's easier just to argue in the alternative. But the testimony you heard from Mr. Bernard was with respect to the variance, he says: "So, I mean, the first exception, which is Section B(1)," he's referring to your ordinance, "you get an exception from the steep slope ordinance for redevelopment within the limits of impervious surfaces that were in effect and the way I'm reading the ordinance is that they were in effect at the time the ordinance was adopted." 

"And that's what the applicant is doing, is redeveloping the property within the limits of the existing impervious surfaces. In fact, the applicant is reducing the impervious surfaces by 10,900 square feet. And the second way I think we can get an exception from ordinance is B(3), which gives an exception when the new disturbance necessary provides an environmental benefit and is used as an example of the remediation of the contaminated site." Now, in this case, the environmental benefit is stabilizing the slope. So I think there's a very clear record that there wasn't even a variance. But, if there was a variance, and I won't take you through it as tediously, but there are positive and negative criteria, we've heard about that here in the course of this hearing, you've heard about that certainly other times variances have been presented to you, and Mr. Bernard went through the positive and negative criteria one by one, it goes on for a number of pages, and then he concludes: 

"So, in summary, I find that this proposal has a variety of benefits, so I conclude that there are benefits associated with the variance, but it's really what the applicant is doing is complying with the spirit of your steep slope ordinance. I find the proposal advances the multiple purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, and that the variance relief does not create a substantial detriment to either the public good or the zone plan." Significantly, neither of the planners that were presented by the village and gave testimony contradict that. Nobody indicates that that's not correct. So that's the one variance that this board has to consider that I've now very tediously gone through and reminded you of the legal justification for why we don't believe that is a matter of any moment in this application. The second matter that comes up is the tandem parking. That's not actually even a variance, so it doesn't even require that kind of benefits/detriments thing, it's just a matter, it's called an exception to the site plan. Even that, may or may not really exist, because the village ordinances say absolutely nothing about tandem parking, they're silent on it; however, there is an ordinance that talks about other parking areas and implies that there would only be one car in a space. Contrary to that, RSIS, which actually dictates to the parking on our site, because it's a state law that prevails, makes it clear that the tandem parking can be appropriate. Again, that is in the record but I don't want to spend a lot of time arguing with you whether or not there is a deviation, rather, I want to point you to the fact there was extensive testimony by Mr. Disario about the tandem parking, it goes on for about six pages; there was also testimony by MR. LAPATKA; and there was testimony by MR. LOVENTHAL; and basically what they testified to over and over again is, it works. MR. LOVENTHAL indicated to you that he actually has had the experience of people actually prefer it. I won't go that far, but I will tell you that your own expert, MR. JAHR, concluded very significantly that it was maybe not perfect but it was fine.  This is his testimony: "Tandem parking is not my favorite kind of parking; however, I don't see it operating very differently than what their traffic engineer testified. It's very similar to what works in my single family house and most others. "Do I try to have it? Yes, I do think the applicant probably tried not to have it. I think that's so too. It does appear to me that it will work, just like any other spaces, it's just an inconvenience for the people that have to, you know, be behind one another. So I do think, I don't see a safety issue, because it's going to operate like other parking spaces in the area. I see an inconvenience, but I do not think there's a safety problem"...It goes on from there, but the key thing, the thing that you need to know legally is, it's safe. It's not a problem. It doesn't create anything. 

There was additional questioning by MR. SCHEIBNER, which I think was helpful, and he pointed out that it might create a problem at the end of the row. MR. JAHR responded to that: 

"Well, I see it operating just like any other parking space at the end of an aisle, so I don't. I don't see, I don't see that it being very different from any other parking spaces at the end of the aisle. It's always nice not to have a space at the end of the aisle and to have some, you know, where you stripe it off or that's where they put like a green island or something. I'm sure you've see that in commercial lots a lot, but not really an option here in this case." The reason I'm giving you MR. JAHR's testimony is because, again, he's your expert, and I wanted to make it clear to you that there really is no evidence in this record that supports coming to a conclusion that there's a problem with the tandem parking that would justify not approving this site for an application. So let me conclude a little bit where I started, and then I'm going to go back to the very thoughtful analysis that you have before you from your own board attorney. He tells us, very significantly: "Since this use is permitted, the Planning Board does not have the authority to deny a site plan based upon its view that a permitted use is inconsistent with the principles of sound zoning." And then he goes on to quote the case that he's citing and quotes the court in particular.  I'll tell you what the case is, because I'm going to quote it. It's Wawa Food Market v. The Planning Board. It's a 1998 Appellate Division case.

And the courts concluded: "While site plan review gives a board wide discretion to ensure compliance with the objectives and requirements of a site plan, it was never intended to include the legislative or quasi‑judicial power to prohibit a permitted use." So why did I end with that? Well, the reason I ended with that is because I began with that months and months ago, and, that is to point out that what is before this board is not zoning, it's not about whether or not you think 35 units per acre should be on this property or all of the things that went into that decision. The only thing that is before this board, despite the fact that we've gone in all kinds of other places, is whether this site plan, basically the development of the site itself, has been done in a fair and reasonable manner. 

And with respect to that, you have a code, and your code has many different requirements in it. We talked about it. Impervious area, height, setbacks, all of the rest of those things. And it conforms to those. So the only things, the only things that don't conform with the code where we don't follow exactly what you say must be done are with respect to the steep slope, a pile of dirt in the back of the property and the tandem parking. And the evidence that's been presented with respect to those two things is overwhelmingly in support of allowing those two changes. Now, why do I say this so emphatically? I'm saying this because while we appreciate a deliberative process, this process has been long and it's gone on for a very long time, for probably some very good reasons and probably some reasons that aren't all that helpful.  Bottom line is, it's over at this point in time. We've been presented a full and thorough case for why this site plan should be approved by this board, and I would humbly and respectfully request that you now approve the site plan, the variance, and the exception that's required.  And, in addition, because I don't want to leave it unsaid, we also made application for a soil moving permit, and I would request that you also approve the soil moving permit, and that is all I have to say.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, MR. WELLS.

Do we have a motion to formally close the hearing?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So moved.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel made the first, is there a second to the motion?

1. MS. PATIRE: I second it.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I second it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Jeff second.

All in favor? (Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone opposed?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. So the hearing is closed right now and now we're going to move into board deliberations. Dave, we'll start with you.

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: You always start with me.
2. MR. WELLS: That's what happens when you're on the end.
3. MR. SCHEIBNER: Yeah. In large part, I agree with the closing statement, that it's A fairly simple application in that it's largely conforming. I don't personally see any issue with the steep slope. However, I am still not convinced that the stacked parking is appropriate in all the instances that are shown in this plan. There are places where there's stacked parking where a vehicle can back out in both directions, but there are at least six places where the first vehicle has to back out in the direction that the second vehicle has to back out. And this creates a problem unless there happens to be other open spaces in that general area. And these six spaces are against a wall, so not only can they not back out, but they can only back out in one direction, but they also have to watch out for a wall. The illustration of the private driveway, single lane driveway, is very familiar to me. I have a single lane driveway. I have four cars that park in it. And it's on a very busy street. But we cope, but we are able to back out in either direction, and that is fundamentally my problem with the stacked parking in this particular design. I think that stacked parking is like a design crutch, and I think when you resort to it as extensively as it's done in this particular design, I think you haven't designed enough. I think that's all I have to say.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

Jeff.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, you know, I think in essence I'm okay based on the law with the application as it is. A couple of things I just want to make sure are addressed, and I'm hoping, I'm assuming, that could be in the resolution. The stipulations that have been outlined and specifically as they relate to the developer's responsibilities as per our ordinance 190‑55, I think that's going to be the ordinance. Yes, I think that's it. Those things need to be put in there and fairly clearly. The one concern I have, and, you know, it was probably one in a thousand, one in 2,000 chance of happening, very low, is the issue of any kind of very expensive modification we have to endure with the infrastructure as it relates to this. I understand that the developer has agreed that if that occurs, then we sit down at the table again and we figure out what to do. And that's probably one of my major concerns. I don't want our residents to have this to be put on their shoulders, and I think we just need to make sure that doesn't occur, if that situation arises. So that's it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

MAYOR KNUDSEN.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, first, thank you for being here for like, what is it, like a decade, century.

1. MR. WELLS: Six and a half years.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: It seems like such a long time.

1. MR. WELLS: Since I was in my 50s.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. So I actually share the concerns regarding the tandem or stacked parking. The application, as a whole, is a good application. There's a very big challenge with this creating an inadequate circulation with the stacked vehicles, you know, it causes a deficiency and it's a self‑imposed problem. It's a self‑imposed condition. Ultimately, the vehicular traffic problem is on‑site, and I don't think that just because the experience of someone may or may not be that other tenants somewhere else prefer tandem parking, I don't think that's a good explanation or reason for me to say, well, maybe some may or may not. I absolutely share Jeff's concern that the backing out, while waiting for someone else to get out, hoping that no other cars are coming, maybe praying that there's an empty space, causes a host of problems. And, again, I think that this is a self‑created situation, and I'm not happy with the stacked or tandem or stacked parking. It's obstructive parking, and it violates 190.90C of the village code. That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 

Melanie.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: I feel like a lot of us feel like we've been here for a long time, whether or not we've sat up here or sat out there, some in our 50s, some in our 20s and 30s. No big deal. But I'll say I share some of the similar concerns with my fellow board members with these applications, finding ways of meeting the ordinance requirements but only barely, ordinarily, or by a different explanation than what I think the ordinance was set out to do. This tandem parking creates an issue that I see as being something that while it may not seem like a tenant created big problem, could in fact become a regular issue. I agree with some of Jeff's concerns about, you know, our obligation to the residents that we represent up here and making sure that what we approve and what we say yes to does not create a burden for the taxpayers. We answer to them. We don't sit up here to answer to a potential of being in a court or anything else, we answer to the residents. And when I look at this, I have a few concerns with certain aspects of it, and, you know, one of the No. 1 issues within our town is the parking. And I have to look at this and say that it doesn't fit what I feel the ordinance laid out for it.

That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

Debbie.

1. MS. PATIRE: Yes. I think everyone has been relatively consistent up here. I do think it is a relatively conforming site plan application that fits within the ordinance that we have in the village. There are a few things that I question with regards to the developer. I'm doing some research online over the past few months, and, also, I was the person who asked the question about other complexes, so I actually did do some other research and I did go to a few complexes and I did poll people on their experience, and I had mixed results. But I do have those concerns that my other board members have as well.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Isabella.

1. MS. ALTANO: While I share the tandem and stacked parking issues with my fellow board members, it's one of the things I mentioned in the beginning of the meeting, we already have a problem in the village with parking, and so we should try to come in with projects that try to resolve parking issues. I have a problem with circulation. It's very important to me, and I know it's very important to the village residents we represent as board members. I have a problem, though, with the fact that there's a hierarchy now created within the parking lot where certain units will be located better parking spots. I guess I'm a bit of a socialist when I say that; I want everyone to be treated equally. And I think the application is wonderful. I think you addressed a lot of the things, everything within, you know, the realm of what's to be done; however, I still feel that the parking, it seems like an afterthought, and I would like that resolved in a positive way. That would actually give your project a feather in the hat, because it's a wonderful project. This particular area truly needs that development; however, we have to make sure that everything within that development is done in a way that satisfies all the requirements and all the needs of the community and mostly those individuals who are going to inhabit those units. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I'll keep my comments pretty brief. Before I volunteered to be on the Planning Board, I spent about six years on the Zoning Board, all kinds of different applications, many of them requested many variances, sometimes 10 variances, bulk variance, height, setbacks, things like that. Some nights they would talk about (c)(1) and (c)(2) relief and all of those kinds of fun things. This isn't that kind of application. I feel we got off‑track with some of what we're talking about. So much of what this applicant has proposed is as of right of ordinance. Whether we like the ordinance or not, that's our ordinance. I think if you stick with the letter of the law, they're complying, and the steep slope is a nonissue. I don't think the parking is ideal but, I think it is compliant, I'm in favor of the application.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I'm going to echo what Joel just said. I mean, it's an extensive application that was filed, a lot of witnesses, we heard a lot of testimony. The application conforms with the zoning ordinance and the site plan ordinance also.  We heard from the experts. We received a lot of information on this matter. There's been a lot of back and forth. There's been stipulations, stipulating certain things to provide for certain protections to make it a winning plan for the village and for the developer too. I think a lot of thought went into that. And as for the variance, I don't see that as a big variance, the steep slope. It's actually improving a condition that was man‑made. I'm not crazy about the stacked parking, and, you know, I am with the rest of the board on that concern, but it's also balanced against that it does conform and meet the code with respect to that. And for the soil moving, that's been addressed. I'm favorable to the plan. All right. So we've heard from everyone, and I guess, at this point, if anyone wants to make a motion with respect to this application they're free to do so or if they want to engage in more discussion.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: You know, my point is that I think that this board has been pretty loud and pretty clear about this tandem parking, stacked parking, whatever you want to call it, and it is a design exception and it is a significant design exception. So the idea that it hasn't been addressed is astonishing, because, as I said, it's been a topic of almost every single meeting, it's been raised every single time, and actually what I almost foresee is that people who don't want to be maneuvering in and out of these parking spaces might actually take up street parking in the absence of having to kind of get in and then get out and move here and move there. I see it as a problem, and a very serious circulation issue, and serious enough that I could never support this application with this type of parking lot in it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Is there any other comment or motion with respect to the application?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I question the mayor. In the beginning you said you're surprised that the dual parking hadn't been addressed. Do you mean revised by the applicant? Because I think we had testimony, MR. JAHR spoke about it, we definitely spent some time speaking about it. I just want to understand.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: By the applicant, yes.  I mean by the applicant. The applicant has heard this board loud and clear about the tandem parking, about the stacked parking, and that there's been no effort made to remedy the situation. And there's no doubt, you know, maybe cherry picking some of our traffic expert's comments makes it sound one way, but there's no doubt it was an issue all along.  And, quite frankly, I overall like the application, but it's an issue. It's been an issue from the get‑go. 

And I do see somebody, you know, somebody decides I have to move in and out of these spaces all day, somebody is going to just drive out and take a street space, and then just park their car in the street all day and then maybe put their car back at night. That's just the way that is.

1. MR. MARTIN: Just before the board is going to take any further action, as you know, there's the steep slope disturbance variance, and MR. WELLS spoke about it, the applicant presented witnesses about it, the village witnesses and experts spoke, I think everyone has addressed the steep slope on this board in terms of their comments just now. The retaining wall facing issue is moot, because the stipulation shows that they will take care of the facing on that with stucco. The last element is the stacked parking and tandem parking, however you want to phrase it. That boils all the way back down to what most of the board members just commented upon, that this is basically a site plan issue or a permitted use, and no one's defined that yet. I should have put that in my little tome, but just for the record, site plan means: "A development plan of one or more lots, which shows the existing and proposed conditions of a lot, including but not necessarily limited to topography, vegetation, drainage, floodplains, marshes, waterways. Second: "The location of all existing and proposed buildings, drives, parking  spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, drainage, utility services, landscaping, screening." And, lastly, No. 3: "Any other information that may be reasonably required in order to make an informed determination pursuant to an ordinance requirement review and approval of site plans by the Planning Board."

And the case is Estate of Neuberger v. Middletown Township 215 NJ Super 375, and that's an Appellate Division 1987 case. Bottom line is: When you deal with bulk variances that address things that are conservation easements, other things like that, you have a steep slope disturbance, that's a variance. When you are addressing exceptions to site plans, it's like similar to a variance but it's used as an exception. And that's the issue we're here about in terms of the stacked parking issue. To be fair, MR. WELLS has I believe stated in his closing that that may not even be an exception issue, the way he reads the ordinance. You've been supplied with the ordinance in my legal memorandum. It's the board's determination as to whether it applies and whether they need an exception for it.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Then I guess the question is if ‑‑ I read it. I mean, I've been reading it, the question, because it is a good application, but there's this one issue that's yet unresolved. I mean, does somebody want to go back and re‑think the parking? You know, I don't know.  I know, you know, I also spent years on the Board of Adjustment, and when we get to this point where there seems to be concerns, there's always the opportunity for somebody to go back and revisit those issues. 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any comment from the applicant on it?

1. MR. WELLS: I don't think so.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No.

Any other comments from board members or a motion be made?

1. MS. ALTANO: Can we approved with this, you know, pending additional ‑‑
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Like voting or waiting to hear what they come back with.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, I mean, there's going to be a motion for a no vote, there can be a motion for a yes vote, there can be a motion for a yes vote with conditions, all different things. 

9. MR. MARTIN: Conditional approval is right in your Ordinance 194‑9. Granting an approval may require reasonable conditions designed to further the intent and purpose of the Municipal Land Use Law.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Can the people who have the tandem parking, can it be single parking.  The tandem parking is allocated to one apartment each. Is that right? 

1. MR. WELLS: That's right.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Can you put that other car out in the lot? You have extra spaces out there, can that ‑‑

1. MR. WELLS: Yes, they could.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  ‑‑ be a stipulation?

1. MR. WELLS: Yes, it can be a stipulation. It's already been testified to, yes, they can park in the free spaces, if they want to.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: But if we require them from those two spaces, you can have one space there, you can use it and have persons park outside.

1. MR. WELLS: Let me tell you why that's not a very practical thing. Some people might do that, but if everybody ‑‑

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Speak in the mic.

1. MR. WELLS: I am sorry. If everybody did that, what would happen is you would not have any free spaces open and available for guests and so forth. So that's not a good solution. So, no, there's not going to be a change in this application.  I think I made the legal position clear.  We believe that if you deny this application because of this, this is not a variance, this is a completely different standard, your counsel has not explained that to you, but he may at some point, and this is a very minor matter, and all of the evidence in this record indicates that this is not a problem, despite some of you having a feeling different from the expert testimony you heard.  If you deny it for this reason, I believe you will be overturned, so I think that would be foolish.  I think this is a very fundamentally good application, and I do not believe this is an issue in which this board can deny.  That's my legal opinion.  You can defer to your counsel for his legal opinion and your own opinions, I guess.
2. MR. MARTIN: And I gave the opinions and I stand by them.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, I mean, I see it as two choices, to either deny it, which I'm happy to do, or to approve it with the stipulation that all tandem parking be removed, and that all parking spaces are unobstructed and accessible with the appropriate circulation and proper access.  So, I mean, that's the two options, I mean, that I'm willing to go with it, I don't know about anybody else. 

1. MR. WELLS: Can I be heard? The legal issue here is reasonable conditions. The applicant will not stipulate to that, and I do not believe that is a reasonable condition that this board can place on this application, so I think you have only two choices, which is to approve it or deny it.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: We still have the choice to approve it with the ‑‑

1. MR. WELLS: No, I don't believe legally you have that choice.
2. MR. MARTIN: I believe you have the ability to request conditions. MR. WELLS has made it clear that he won't stipulate to them.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.  This is the motion and the stipulation, I would be asking questions.

190. MR. MARTIN: Section 190.
191. MR. SCHEIBNER: Can I give an a position on this, because my objection mostly is to the tandem spaces at the end of an aisle. There are four tandem spaces that have back out spaces in both directions. I have absolutely no objection to them.  You know, this is a situation I live with on a daily basis, but I don't think you need the tandem spaces at the end of an aisle.  They are not acceptable.
192. MS. McWILLIAMS: I think the concern is that based on what our ordinance states, the parking required can't be met. If you require this much parking, it doesn't fit here. If you're not willing to move it and move it elsewhere, it doesn't fit with the number of units you suggested.  So if you're asking ‑‑ I'm understanding the concern is either vote with the stipulations or, you know, but the suggestion really is, you can't fit the parking you need with the number of units that are there, so what way can this be fixed? 
193. MR. WELLS: There are two different issues that have been raised. The one that was raised at this end of the dais was whether or not we could eliminate the aisles, and if you want to give us five minutes, we will look at that issue. That's a distinct issue.  However, that does not take away all tandem parking.  There's a possibility that it could be eliminated where it also is an end out.  Also, I would point out that the experts all testified that that created no particular problem or safety concern as well, but we'd be happy to look at that particular one, if you'd like us to, if you want to give us time to look at that.
194. MR. MARTIN: Well, the Chair can answer that question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you want five minutes? 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: You know what, I understand specifically where you're looking at, because I see similar situations that occur when two cars have to back out and so I see it as being problematic with a number of these tandem spaces.

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: Well, I would say a minimum of six.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Six or just 12 spaces?  

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: Six spaces. Three situations where it gets against the wall.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And I see ‑‑ well, I mean, do we just want to take a break?  I mean, that's fine.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, we can't really deliberate off the record.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, I mean ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You can gather your thoughts, and I guess you'll gather your thoughts and give us some input.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Give them five minutes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.  We'll take five.

(A short recess is held.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Let's go back on the record. 

Michael, call the roll.

(At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken with MAYOR KNUDSEN, Councilman Voigt, VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI, MS. McWILLIAMS, MR. SCHEIBNER, CHAIRMAN JOEL, MS. ALTANO, and MS. PATIRE are present, with Ms. Barto and Ms. Giordano absent.)

1. MR. WELLS: MR. LAPATKA, could you go up by the board over there, just so you can be my pointer. You know, miracles can happen. So what we've done is try to adjust the site plan so as to accommodate the concern about tandem parking, and we have come up with a suggestion. 

Right now, this site has extraordinarily wide access, an extraordinarily wide one‑way access road around the building. In most areas it's 24 feet, some areas it's even more than that. 

Under the village code, it's only required that the driveway in a one‑way drive be 12 feet for this type of project. Some places it is allowed to be as low as 10 feet, but it's supposed to be 12 feet here.  So, what we propose, with the concurrence, and I'll let them speak for themselves, of your traffic engineer and your civil engineer, is that we add 15 parking spaces, essentially parallel parking spaces, around the perimeter of the property, and this is where Al can point to you where they would be.

1. MR. LAPATKA: Along the rear driveway and the northerly driveway.
2. MR. WELLS: With the 15 parking spaces that we add there, together with the four additional that we already have on the site, if you'll recollect the requirement for this site is 83 spaces and we've provided 87, that four added to the 15 comes to 19, which not coincidentally but happily is the exact same number of tandem parking spaces that are now proposed at the site. What we would do then is obviously the area is still there, they would be marked, blind off and they would become essentially storage areas, so the tenants could use the back of their driveway for storage, they probably do it whether we mark it off or not. But we would eliminate the tandem parking, we would add 15 more spaces that are legal under your code.  Honestly, we don't think it's as desirable as what was previously approved, so I'm not going to tell you that we like this plan, we like the other plan better, but we've heard the concerns expressed by board members with respect to it.  So that's the change that we propose to make. 
3. MR. LAPATKA, am I missing any part of this?
4. MR. LAPATKA: No.

The only thing is, the driveway, while being required to be 12‑feet wide, would be 16.

1. MR. WELLS: Right, even with the parallel parking.
2. MR. LAPATKA: We would have an 8‑foot wide parallel spot and a 16‑foot wide driveway alongside it or a 9‑foot spot and a 15‑foot wide driveway.
3. MR. MARTIN: You're required 12?
4. MR. LAPATKA: Yes.
5. MR. MARTIN: Minimum.
6. MR. WELLS: Right. So, in order to perfect this stipulation, what I would do is to add to it in addition to what I've just said that we would make the modification on the plan to add the 15 spaces in consultation with and with the approval of both of your engineers. Let them sign off on it.
7. MR. MARTIN: Can we hear from MR. JAHR. You remain sworn. Can you help us out and just let us know your thoughts on that proposal?
8. MR. JAHR: Sure. J O H N   J A H R, PTP, TSOS, Previously sworn.
9. MR. JAHR: The proposal that they're putting forth seems to be an acceptable one. It meets the intent of the ordinance and it eliminates all of the tandem parking spaces, which I think none of us are all that keen on. So I think that this is a good solution to remove the tandem parking, while still maintaining the requirement of the number of spaces required for the overall plan.  So, the circulation will still be safe and efficient around the outside of the site, where they're proposing to add the parallel spaces.  The site already provides for a loading zone, so I would think that this should be a workable plan addressing the board's clear concerns regarding the tandem parking and my concerns as well.
10. MR. MARTIN: MR. RUTISHAUSER, you're still under oath. What are your thoughts to that?
11. MR. RUTISHAUSER: It's a very good solution to eliminate the need for the tandem parking, configuration to achieve the number of spaces the site needs according to our code.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I'm sorry? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: It's a very good solution to eliminate tandem parking, while still having the space count that the site needs in accordance with our code.
2. MR. MARTIN: How many spaces were outside prior to this, MR. JAHR?
3. MR. JAHR: The site had a surplus of four spaces prior to this change, and it had a large size ‑‑ the circulation road around the outside of the building was extra-large size.
4. MR. WELLS: I can help you a little bit.

There was a 14 car parking lot all the way to the one end of the site, and then there were additional, I think 7 or 8 cars that were not underneath the building prior to this.

1. MR. LAPATKA: There were a total of 27 cars not underneath the building.
2. MR. WELLS: Okay, 27 all total, not under the building now. We would be adding an additional 15 not under the building.
3. MR. MARTIN: There's room for that outside, another 15? : Yes.
4. MR. LOVENTHAL: Can I have one item that I think is important for the board's consideration and something that I indicated during my testimony and that was: The number of spaces that will be assigned would not change. I still have the opportunity to assign the same number of spaces to the units, so the residents will still be afforded the same number of spaces.  The spaces that will be moved outside the building are categorized to be unassigned, that's called "free spaces" that anyone can park in whether they have a visitor or an additional car.  So, in this instance I think we've not changed my marketing intent as it relates to providing enough covered parking for our residents in order to achieve the luxury nature of the project.  We would still have the same number of assigned spaces underneath the building.  We would only have our 27 plus our 15 outside, which is ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ 42, and we were proposing 53 unassigned, so we still will have under the building 11 spaces that will be unassigned and available as additional spaces and also available for visitors, if they so choose. 
5. MR. MARTIN: While completely eliminating the tandem.
6. MR. LOVENTHAL: While completely eliminating the tandem spaces, that's correct. And I think what's important to know as well is that those unassigned spaces that will be around the perimeter that will be parallel will be the last spaces that would be used, so, in all likelihood, most of those spaces are going to be visitors and are going to be the last place that someone will park, because they are certainly going to choose to park in a covered space first. Thus, I think again, in the spirit of what we're trying to achieve here, providing for what will just be the overflow spaces that will not ‑‑ that mayor made a point regarding having a concern that that tandem space might lead to someone leaving their car on the street, now they're going to have spaces right in our driveway and not be parking on the street.
7. MR. WELLS: And there won't be tandem, so...

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So just a quick question.  Can you just show me where the parallel parking will be again? 

1. MR. LAPATKA: Along the drive on the westerly side, along the northerly driveway, and from Broad, and actually there's an opportunity for a couple of spaces.
2. MR. WELLS: Well, that's a loading area there, Al.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Just to be clear, does that impact at all the radius for the, I guess the largest truck going in would be a fire truck, would that be ‑‑

1. MR. LAPATKA: We're not going to parallel park all the way to the corner, so we've taken that into consideration. We're going to pull back the first space quite a bit, so that trucks can swing wide.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. 

1. MR. MARTIN: It would have to meet fire approval anyhow.
2. MR. WELLS: Yes, leave it to the approval of your two engineers to make sure on own plans is what is proposed.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any further comments from board members? 

1. MS. PATIRE: Can I just ask a question?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Go ahead.

1. MS. PATIRE: So, MR. LOVENTHAL, you're going to build in the tandem parking spaces, say if a family moves in, a storage unit in the back that will be locked?
2. MR. LOVENTHAL: I haven't concluded yet, only because we're considering this tonight. In many complexes, we do where we only have a single space and sometimes also when we have tandem spaces, we do create what we have "cold storage," beach chairs, things along those lines.

So that would give us the opportunity, but it will afford us the opportunity to consider some additional cold storage for some of these units, yes.

1. MS. PATIRE: Okay. Thank you.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Can I ask a question of Chris.

And it's a turning radius also, but when you turn into like a street, you know, so you pull in, you know, if I'm coming off of Linwood Avenue and I say I'm making, so in a sense ‑‑ I'm just trying to put a couple things together. If I'm say I'm coming down Linwood Avenue and I'm going to make a right‑hand turn into Walgreens, say I'm coming from Broad and I'm going to make the right‑hand turn into this driveway here.  How far in will a car have to be for it to be out of the way? 

I mean, in a street it would be 50 feet, I would think, because of double yellow lines, all the rest of it. This isn't going to be that far back? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. I'm going to step back from your question just quick. There could be two cars in the way.  First they eliminated a one‑way circulation, so at the entrance, you're not going to have a car waiting to pull out.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Right.
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: So there isn't that head‑on conflict there. That's eliminated. With the entrance, there is a turning radius, and, as MR. LAPATKA said, he'll set the space back far enough.  Once he produces that drawing, we'll check with our standard templates, a fire ladder truck and a large truck, to see how the turn radiuses lay out on the plan, and if any of the proposed spaces would be in a conflict zone.
4. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
5. MR. RUTISHAUSER: And, as MR. LAPATKA said, he's going to look at that first, I'll confirm how his layout is with the turning templates, and that's where the spaces would be striped.
6. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have one more question. 

What happened to the fire lane? How does that work with the parking? 

1. MR. WELLS: It's still there.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: But I guess ‑‑

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: There's still an unobstructed ‑‑
2. MR. WELLS: Sixteen feet.
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER:  ‑‑ 16‑feet lane. That's wider than a standard roadway lane width, so there's ample room for an engine or a ladder truck to get around.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So it doesn't need that designated fire lane? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: A designated fire lane is not necessary, as long as the complete circulation is available, and that is on this plan. It's a nice thing to have, can help the fire department, but these lanes are still pretty close to building, and my experience with the fire operations is not to put your apparatus that close in a collapse zone.
2. MS. ALTANO: We want to make sure that no one parks in that area, and so you're saying it's not going to be marked on the ground?
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: The parking spaces are going to be striped.
4. MS. ALTANO: But the fire lane?
5. MR. LOVENTHAL: The curb along the building, though, there will be a no parking zone. We'll be signing it and striping it along the entire perimeter of the building, if that's the question. You're talking up against the building?  That is a no parking zone with the signage.  I mean, that was always proposed that way.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, I'm talking about there's this designated fire lane, and it says "No parking fire lane," and presumably that's where fire trucks go and other apparatus when there's an emergency. 

So, if in the event of an emergency, where is the fire lane then?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I believe as MR. LOVENTHAL said, that's the curb section closest to the building. That would be striped 4 or 5 feet out for a fire lane.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And that meets fire code or you would have to check? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: We'd have to check with Lt. Young, fire official.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.  So, in other words, that the parallel parking as defined just now would be hinging on whether or not that fire lane is required there? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Well, the parallel parking would be on one side of the curb of the access lanes circulating around the building, and on the inside would be the striped lane. I have the code with me, let me see if I can find something on fire lanes. Chapter 151 of the village code covers fire zones, and they show a no parking fire zone that would be typically against the building, it's shown as a 5‑foot wide striped section. And there's further information in the code as to the signage, striping has to be yellow, fire official's involvement and so forth.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So we would just make a stipulation in all of this that it's up to fire code as well? 

1. MR. WELLS: Yes. Exactly. We, quite frankly, would put a "No parking fire zone" along there anyway.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right.  I can't see the fire zone on that, but it's on paper, so I like it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else, comment, question, any motion?

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: I make a motion that we accept the application.
2. MR. MARTIN: As amended?
3. MR. SCHEIBNER: As amended.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Without the tandem parking.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: With a stipulation that we could review a final engineering site plan at some point, not asking for fully engineered site plans tonight.

1. MR. WELLS: Right. We're going to run it by your engineers too, but they obviously can come back, but we're going to be in the resolution process for a little while anyway.
2. MR. MARTIN: To the satisfaction of the village and traffic engineers.
3. MR. WELLS: Right.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So we have a motion made by Dave. I guess you agree with how Joel tagged on. 

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: I agree with his amendment.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So Joel seconded it.  So it's a motion to approve the application with modifications that were set forth in the record, subject to a final plan. 

1. MR. MARTIN: At the approval of the Village Engineer and the Traffic Engineer for the village.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, call the roll.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MR. SCHEIBNER?
2. MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes.
3. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Torielli?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Yes.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. McWILLIAMS?
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: No.
3. MR. CAFARELLI: CHAIRMAN JOEL?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. ALTANO?
2. MS. ALTANO: Yes.
3. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE?
4. MS. PATIRE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.  It's an approval subject to those conditions that were set forth.

1. MR. WELLS: I said at the outset I wanted to thank you for all for all you do, because this is a board of volunteers. I thank you also for your action this evening and look forward to getting it finished up.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.  Thank you. 

1. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

Approval of Minutes: The minutes for May 23, 2016 were approved as written.

Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Michael Cafarelli

                                                                        Board Secretary

Date approved: May 15, 2018

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of June 6, 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 7:45 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Ms. Altano, Ms. Patire, Melanie McWilliams, David Scheibner, and, Ms. Barto. Also present were Christopher Martin, Esq., Board Attorney; Village Planner Brigette Bogart; Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Giordano was not present.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – None were reported

 

Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Cafarelli reported there were three Planner Reports prepared by Brigette Bogart for Ridgewood Auto, Calbi, and Robert Jennee; and the Resolution for Two Forty Associates sent by Mr. Martin the Board attorney.

KS Broad Street, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 76 & 80 Chestnut Street and 25-27 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11,12,13,14,15 – Public Hearing continued from May 16, 2017 without prejudice to the Board – To be carried to June 26, 2017 without prejudice to the Board – The application was carried to June 26, 2017 to be heard in the Village Court Room starting at 7:00 p.m.

Two Forty Associates, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 150-174 Chestnut Street, Block 2005, Lot 38: Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Approval – The Resolution was discussed and there were several changes and modifications suggested. Board Members voted for a redlined copy of the proposed changes to be prepared and reviewed prior to a vote to approve. The resolution was carried to the June 20, 2017 meeting.

 

Ridgewood Auto, Informal Review, 260 Franklin Avenue, Block 3703, Lot 5 – Mr. Tuvel, the applicant's attorney discussed the application and the plans to open a strip mall at the Brake-O-Rama location that would include a Pilates and Chipotle. Mr. Tuvel said they would need a parking variance because they would not meet the ordinance for the required number of parking spaces. He said the plan was to have employees park in the Cottage Street municipal parking garage and that the peak hour for both companies would be at different times during the day. Board members expressed concern about the lack of adequate parking the impact it would have on traffic at the busy intersection of Franklin and North Maple Avenue, and potential dangers to pedestrians, in particular children walking to school. Mr. Jeffrey Martell the project's Engineer reviewed the site plan, discussed the proposal, and acknowledged they would have a deficit of seven parking spaces but he said there would not be a conflict in use of the property by the two businesses. Mr. Jonathan Vogel, the developed asked Board members to consider the benefits of having a Pilates and Chipotle on that property. He said there was another likely tenant, Mavis Discount Tire Center however; the property would not look as developed as it would for the other two businesses. Mr. Vogel said he has parked in the municipal parking lot several times and it was never full.

Calbi, Minor Subdivision, and Permit for not Abutting Street, 315 East Glen Avenue, Block 2106, Lot 20 – Mr. Delia, attorney for the applicant presented the application for a two-lot subdivision and improvements to the private driveway. He introduced Mr. Tibor Latincsics who was sworn as the project engineer. Mr. Latincsics discussed the application and presented Exhibits A1 through A5 depicting the site plan, photographs of the driveway, a ten scale blow up of the plan, the proposed home, and an enlargement of the key map area. He discussed the lot size, driveway, prior uses, and said the property does not have a front yard setback. Mr. Latincsics discussed increasing the driveway width to sixteen feet wide and using the driveway as the front street for the proposed lot. He said the issues raised in Mr. Brancheau's report would all be resolved.

Board members asked questions about easements, utilities, not having a front or rear yard, number of trees to be removed, the lack of streetlights, trash removal, tree replacement, snow removal, and safety improvements.

Open to the Public

Denise Lima, 319 East Glen Avenue asked about snow removal, number of garages are proposed in new lot, number of cars that can fit into the driveway, can fire trucks turn around or have to back out of driveway, how will the proposed sub-division improve the integrity of the neighborhood, would trimming trees allow for access of fire trucks. Mr. Latincsics responded to the questions.

Toni Thomas, 317 East Glen Avenue asked if the plan was to scale.

The application was carried to August 1, 2017 with further notice.

Robert Jennee, Minor Subdivision and C Variance, 246 Mountain Road, Block 209, Lot 13.01 – The application was carried to August 1, 2017 without prejudice to the Board and without further notice.

 

Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from March 31, 2016 and April 4, 2016 were adopted written.

 

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

Michael Cafarelli

                                                                        Board Secretary

Date approved: May 1, 2018

 

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of May 16, 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 7:40 p.m. The following members were present: MAYOR KNUDSEN, COUNCILMAN VOIGT, Mr. Torielli, MR. JOEL MS. PATIRE, MR. SCHEIBNER, MS. McWILLIAMS, and, MS. BARTO. Also present were: Elizabeth McManus, Village Planner; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Christopher Martin, Esq., and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Altano was not present.

 

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

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics; Correspondence Received by the Board – There were none.

KS Broad Street, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 76 & 80 Chestnut Street and 25-27 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11,12,13,14,15 – Public Hearing continued from January 17, 2017 – Following is the transcript of this portion of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:                 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, do we have any correspondence that was received?

1. MR. CAFARELLI: We do. We have two planner reports, one for K&S Broad and one for 257 Ridgewood, and then we have revised final site plans and final architecturals from K&S Broad, or for K&S Broad from Prime Law, and, again, final site plans and architecturals as well for 257 Ridgewood from Bruinooge & Associates. Okay. Thanks, Michael. (The Board discusses other matters and resumes the public hearing on this case at 7:51 p.m.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thank you. Our next item, Number 5, will be KS Broad Street, Preliminary and Final Major site plan, 76 & 80 Chestnut Street and 25‑27 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. This is a public hearing continued from April 18th, 2017, without prejudice to the board. Jason, you have the floor?

1. MR. TUVEL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I'm Jason Tuvel from Prime Law, attorney for the applicant. Where we left off at the last meeting, we had finalized our testimony, we did provide exhibits at the last meeting in response to MS. McMANUS' comments. The revisions that MR. CAFARELLI just mentioned are the exact same things that were put on those boards, it's just that we wanted MS. McMANUS to have a chance to review them at least prior to the meeting, so we submitted those. We did get her report, which essentially stated that there's no relief necessary in connection with the application. There were some other comments, obviously, and I guess we'll get to that at a certain point.

Right now I believe we heard from the board's engineer. We've heard from the board's traffic expert. We were up to MS. McMANUS' testimony concerning the application. I'm assuming after that the board will open it to the public for comment. We're here, obviously. If there's any questions that we need to answer, I would just ask, Mr. Chairman, if I could do a closing statement at the appropriate time.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.

1. MR. TUVEL: So I guess that's where we are. We're ready to hear from MS. McMANUS on the application. Okay. All right.
2. MR. TUVEL: Can I just ask one question before we start?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, sure.

1. MR. TUVEL: I know that not everyone is here from the board. Is everyone here eligible to vote? Has either attended every meeting ‑‑ I know the Mayor and COUNCILMAN VOIGT have been at every meeting. It looks like every ‑‑ almost everyone, I think, has been at every meeting or read the transcript. I just wanted to double check.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Michael, did everyone ‑‑ anyone that missed meetings signed a certification?

1. MR. CAFARELLI: Yes, they have.

Everyone here is eligible to vote.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

1. MR. TUVEL: Great. Thank you.
2. MR. MARTIN: MS. McMANUS, can you raise your right hand?

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

1. MS. McMANUS: I do.

E L I Z A B E T H M c M A N U S,    

100 Barrack Street, Trenton, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

1. MR. MARTIN: And just state your full name and your business address.
2. MS. McMANUS: Sure.

Elizabeth McManus, board planner for the Ridgewood Village Planning Board.

1. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.
2. MR. TUVEL, do you stipulate that MS. McMANUS is a professional planner and expert in that regard?
3. MR. TUVEL: Yes.
4. MR. MARTIN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay, MS. McMANUS, you could proceed. 

2017. MS. McMANUS: Okay. I've issued two reports on this application, the most recent one was dated May 12, 2017. This most recent report is ‑‑ is not a ‑‑ a new report, so to speak, as compared to my April 14th memo. Instead it's simply an update of those items reflected in the original memo. I'll take the board through the comments here, although quite a bit of it is informational, for the board's better understanding of the application. And some of these items have been addressed by the applicant in the previous hearings, but nonetheless I will address each one, and I'm obviously available to the board for any questions you may have. Section 1 beginning on Page 1 of this May memo is simply project description. I don't think it requires any further commentary this evening. Section 2 is zoning compliance. There are a few items that I think should be mentioned. Item 2.1 simply addresses the fact that this is a permitted use. Item 2.2 identifies two items that have been discussed at previous hearings; however, since the previous hearing and this evening, the applicant provided updated plans and so this memo reflects those updated plans and state that the applicant has provided the required number of parking, 128 parking spaces on the site, and therefore relief is not necessary for that item. Additionally, there was a concern that the building was obstructing the sight triangle and that relief would be necessary from Section 190‑119(e)(1). However, the revised plans show that there are no visual obstructions, such as a building, within the sight triangle. And as such, relief is no longer necessary for this item. Item 2.3 provides the bulk compliance of the application. And as you can see in there, there are no bulk zoning variances that are necessary by the applicant. Item 2.4 notes the last item of potential variance relief that had been discussed as late as the last hearing, and that is the front yard setback. A previous set of plans, the applicant had shown some encroachments within the front yard setback for some of the building undulations; however, the revised plans no longer place the building within the front yard setback or any architectural feature of it, with the small exception of wall‑mounted lights. However, it's my interpretation that given the design of the building and the fact that the building, itself, is outside of the front yard setback, that no relief is required for this item. Section 3.0 provides consideration of the (c) variances. This is information in here simply because there had been (c) variances requested that have since been rectified. And this is for the board's information only. Section 4.0, beginning on Page 5, begins the commentary I provided on this application. Some of these items have been addressed, but I'll go through them this evening just to refresh the board's memory. Item 4.1 addresses the exterior amenity area, and this was the concern that we had raised and had been discussed in an earlier hearing where the applicant is proposing their outdoor amenity area at the southwest corner, generally adjacent to the railroad tracks. We had suggested that there may be an alternative location on the site, perhaps behind the building, that would provide for a place of quiet enjoyment. You may recall that this item was discussed. The applicant is proposing a different type of outdoor amenity area, if you will. One that provides for people watching rather than quiet space. And as thus, declined to revise the plans. I should note that while it's conforming, this was an alternative idea that was discussed by the board. To support their proposed location and to ensure that there's safe access provided to the folks that are looking to enjoy that area, the applicant did offer to provide, as I had recommended, a crosswalk across the driveway to at least make sure the folks that were entering the site in their vehicles were aware that pedestrians were crossing and to indicate the pedestrians looking to cross that driveway to or from the outdoor amenity area, that this is a safe location to do so. Item 4.2 proposed a couple of amendments to their planting plans, both of those have been agreed to, quite frankly. The first item was a switch of a planting material. We were concerned that the dense yew has poisonous berries. They've indicated that they will ‑‑ they will provide an alternative planting. Additionally, we had recommended in "B" that some additional shrubs species be provided and plant changes to the landscaping plan in the parking lot. They have agreed to those changes, as well. Item 4.3, sub‑items "A" through "G," recommend that the number of architectural changes which I believe that we had gone through with the Planning Board at this last meeting, and I recall that the applicant had offered to ‑‑ to provide a ‑‑ work with our office subsequent to any approval the board might be willing to grant to work out any architectural issues. And I'm happy to help facilitate those changes in that type of mechanism if the board is so inclined to include that as a condition of any approval. Item 4.4, we had asked the applicant to provide testimony on noise mitigation features included in the building. I think that's actually ‑‑ ‑ that's previously been done by the board ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ by the applicant's architect. And that generally concludes the report items or, excuse me, Sections 5, 6 and 7 are there for informational purposes only. So with that, that's an overview of my memo, but as I said earlier, I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thank you. Dave, do you have any questions at this time?

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: No questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Jeff?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I do have questions, but they're related to off‑site improvements, so who should I address those to?

1. MR. MARTIN: I believe that you can address them to the planner, Mr. Voigt. Any other individuals that haven't testified ‑‑ I believe everybody else has testified, you can actually ask them as well. Since the planner is up, you might as well ask her.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. If they ‑‑ if she can't answer the question should I ask the traffic engineer; is that possible?

1. MR. MARTIN: Probably after she's finished you can ask him questions.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Okay. I'm going to hand out Section 190‑55 which is off‑site improvements to the board here, and I'm happy to give you a copy.

1. MR. TUVEL: I have a copy.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So I just hand these out?

1. MR. MARTIN: Sure. The secretary will do that.  
2. MR. TUVEL: You know what, Councilman, I'll take an extra just for one of my people, if you have it.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. And are you familiar ‑‑ Elizabeth, are you familiar with this section? So we have ‑‑ I think we've addressed the issues in 190‑55(D), which talks about proportion of the total cost of the improvements. And that particular section is the ‑‑ kind of, it's a "may be" considered section. In other words, you may consider the proportion of total cost as a factor. There's a section before that that is Section C, which is called a general criteria for determining proportion of the total cost to pay for off‑site improvements. And that's a "shall be" section. In other words, this ‑‑ I'm assuming this may take precedence over the "may be," for the "shall be." The "shall be" should take precedence over the "may be"; is that ‑‑ is that an appropriate assumption? 

1. MS. McMANUS: That's a legal term.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: That's a legal term.

1. MR. MARTIN: Generally it does ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So under Section C, there's number one, number two and number three. Number one is a total cost of the off‑tract improvements. Number two is the increase in the market value of the property effected and any other benefits conferred. And, number three is the needs created by the application. I'm assuming one addresses the total cost, let's say, of a light at that particular intersection. I'm not sure what that would cost, would the ‑‑ Elizabeth be able to address that or, Andrew, would you be able to address what the approximate cost would be for that particular light?

1. MR. FERANDA: For the traffic signal?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

1. MR. FERANDA: I think I provided in testimony it would be between 300 and 400,000. I would still ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Excuse me, do you have a microphone there? Thank you.

1. MR. FERANDA: Yes. In the previous testimony I provided information that it would be between 300 and 400,000. Again, it depends on the final configuration of the intersection, but I still believe it would be within that range.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. And then number two says the increase in market value of the properties effected and any other benefit conferred. I'm assuming that ‑‑ does that mean that if we approve that traffic intersection it increases the value of the property accordingly; is that how that should be interpreted? Is that ‑‑ is that right?

1. MR. FERANDA: Okay. My understanding as a traffic engineer, increased operation of an access or a driveway certainly would improve that function and add value. I don't know that I could put a number to it, but it certainly would add value to the driveway for that particular development.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And would it add value to the property? In other words, if you upgraded that intersection would it add corresponding value to that property; do you know?

1. MR. FERANDA: I believe a site with efficient and effective access certainly would have added value, yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. And I want to talk a little bit later about the need created by the applicant, itself. Okay. So I'd just had some generalized questions and I'm hoping to go through those and whoever can answer them. So...

1. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Voigt?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes?

1. MR. MARTIN: Just a point of order. The one witness is up ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

1. MR. MARTIN: So let's go to the other witness after.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. All right. So, Elizabeth, the first question I have is if the upgrade to the intersection is not made, what would happen to the development? Where would the ingress and egress be? Would it be on, just on Chestnut Street? Is that where it would be? I'm assuming there's only ‑‑ there's only going to be one entrance and exit; it would have to be on Chestnut Street if we didn't necessarily upgrade that, or would it become problematic?

1. MR. TUVEL: Councilman, I'm sorry to interrupt. I don't understand the question. What's the question? If the signal is ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So my question is: If we don't upgrade that intersection ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: I'm sorry, I just want to make sure we have it all ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Sure. So my question is: If we don't upgrade that intersection, what happens to that intersection. In other words, if we decide we don't want to do it, okay, we don't want to upgrade that intersection, what happens to that particular ingress and egress to that particular area? Does that become problematic go in and out of it or... 

1. MS. McMANUS: The safety of the intersection, in terms of how that safety may compare before or after any upgrades, I'm actually going to have to defer to your traffic engineer. But I will say that the existing ‑‑ if I understand your point, the existing ingress and egress along Franklin Avenue is an existing condition that the applicant would ‑‑ although I'm happy to be corrected by the attorney, but it's my understanding the applicant would continue to have the right to utilize that ingress and egress, regardless of any upgrades.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So I guess my question is: If we didn't upgrade that intersection, would it become problematic to get in and out of that area, based on that particular ingress and egress at Franklin; would it be an issue.

1. MR. MARTIN: Councilman, that's a good question for the traffic engineer later on.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Andrew, could you help me with that?

1. MR. MARTIN: Well, let's ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, okay.

1. MR. MARTIN: --finish one witness at a time.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Sorry.

1. MR. MARTIN: That's okay. You can ask MS. McMANUS and then we can ask ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: All right.

So, Elizabeth, can you answer that?

1. MS. McMANUS: The safety implications of not upgrading ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Again ‑‑

1. MS. McMANUS: ‑‑ the intersection, I must defer to your traffic engineer.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So should I ask Andrew that ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, Just ask any questions you have for MS. McMANUS first.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Okay. All right.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, again, if we don't upgrade that intersection, where are service trucks going to enter and exit? Would they enter there or enter at the Chestnut Street location? What would happen to the patrons if they had to enter and exit out of that particular intersection if it wasn't upgraded? Where would those people who live in that particular building, how would they get in and out of there, if we didn't upgrade that intersection? And what about those commuting on the train? How would they get back and forth? Would it be difficult for them to get across the street? You may not be able to answer this question, but I'm thinking would it frustrate people if we didn't upgrade that intersection who lived at KS Broad? In other words, if we didn't do anything would they be frustrated in getting back and forth across Franklin Avenue? And then from a valuation standpoint, this is where I'm having a little bit of difficulty, and I don't know how to do this, if we don't upgrade that intersection, what does it do to the value of the KS Broad property? Does it make it less valuable to live there? Would people want to live there if we don't do anything versus if we upgraded the intersection, would they want to live there? 

1. MS. McMANUS: Okay. So a couple questions.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

1. MS. McMANUS: In terms of whether or not people will be frustrated if the intersection would not be upgraded? I think it's reasonable to conclude that without the intersection upgrades there may be some frustrations experienced by residents who move into the area. As to whether or not the frustration would translate to a safety concern, again I have to defer that. And give me, again, the second component, as to whether or not there would be a value impact ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. So is there a value differential if you ‑‑

1. MS. McMANUS: There may well be a value impact. A property located on a well‑functioning intersection versus ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ a building located at a well‑functioning intersection versus that same building located at a poorly functioning or a failing intersection, there may well be some value implications to the property, if ingress and egress is difficult to the property, but ‑‑ that's certainly possible, but I can't give you any more specifics as to whether it might have a 5 percent, 10 percent or 20 percent impact.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: How would you find that out? Would you use an appraiser to figure that out, what the value would be, kind of a before‑and‑after, how much would it increase; is that, kind of, a suggestion?

1. MS. McMANUS: If the ‑‑ in order to answer the question as to what the value of the property would be before or with or without any improvements, an appraiser would need to be involved.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: An appraiser would be.

1. MS. McMANUS: Yeah.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So would you suggest that we do that.

1. MS. McMANUS: I'm not ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Would you suggest we identify an appraiser to make sure to answer item number two, which is the increase in the market value of the property at 190‑55, that's what's concerning me is that, you know, by adding ‑‑ by not adding the intersection and upgrading it, it may decrease the property versus adding that particular intersection, improving that intersection would obviously increase the value. But I want to look at the differentials, because that's something we should consider as to what the off‑site improvements would be. Is that right?

1. MR. TUVEL: I just want to ‑‑
2. MS. McMANUS: I think that's a ‑‑ I think that's a literal interpretation of the ordinance ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

1. MS. McMANUS: ‑‑ and that's one way to look at it, but I think the board also has to be concerned and take into consideration for its approval or any conditions of approval that might be imposed, the testimony and the report of your traffic engineer who has ‑‑ and he can provide additional testimony, presumably, about the ‑‑ the need for traffic improvements and what the applicant's pro‑rata share is. And so while these might be a consideration, I'm not sure that they ‑‑ I'm concerned that there could be a conflict in identifying what the pro‑rata share is for the application and how the board should otherwise ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So ‑‑ so my concern is that we've been looking at Section D the pro‑rata share. We haven't looked at Section C, which seems to have more relevance to what the off‑site improvement values should be. And I'm not sure we're looking at this correctly as far as, you know, what that value should be to the ‑‑ for the developer to the village; in other words, for their contribution.

1. MR. TUVEL: But you're not deciding ‑‑ I mean I understand your point about we need to determine the proper valuation of the pro‑rata share. I think that's typically done after ‑‑ post‑approval with the experts figuring that out based on certain methodologies that are prescribed by ordinance. And just remember, I'm sorry if I sound a little ‑‑ I just remember one other with respect to this ordinance that it is a pro‑rata share, so the things that you're discussing, increase in market value, that's increase of market values of the properties that are all benefitted by the upgrade in the intersection. So you're going by pro‑rata share as to the property. So it's not just remember, the applicant pays its pro‑rata share, it doesn't pay for the entire upgrade.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: But, Jason, that's where I have difficulty. I don't agree with that based on what the ordinance says. The ordinance says that Section C takes precedence over Section D. You're talking about Section D which is pro‑rata share, and Section C really has more relevance to this particular issue, as it relates to clearly the total cost of the improvements which we need to know.

1. MR. TUVEL: I'm not getting ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: The differential ‑‑ the differential between what would the value be before and after, we need to know what that is because I'll just give you an example, let's assume it's $1 million. Let's assume by putting that street light there, your development increases ‑‑ the value increases by $1 million. So the question to us is should we ‑‑ should you give that to us, that $1 million, to pay for that intersection, that $400,000.00 intersection, as opposed to only a 25 percent ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: Well, just remember, the proportion ‑‑ even in Section C, it's the proportion of the total cost. So it's not ‑‑ it's not the total cost. It's a proportion.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, but you have to understand, that proportion is ‑‑ so the proportion is related to what the value is, the increase in value, you have to understand what the cost of that off‑site improvements are, okay? And I don't know what they are, and then the other question I have is ‑‑ and I guess, Elizabeth, I'll ask you this, so as currently stands, we can ‑‑ that particular intersection functions, I would assume, yes? Or is it something Andrew would know? It functions properly.  

1. MS. McMANUS: I'm sorry. I was nodding, sorry about that, to indicate that, yes, I'm going to defer to your traffic engineer on that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So ‑‑ so, Andrew, if I could ask you ‑‑ is it possible to ask Andrew?

1. MR. MARTIN: Finish up with the witness ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. Okay.

1. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ and everybody else finishes with this witness. Then we'll go to the other witnesses.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Yes.

So should I wait until after to ask ‑‑

1. MR. MARTIN: Yes. Finish up with this witness.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Sorry.

1. MR. MARTIN: Then you can ask him.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. Okay. So, all right. Yes, those are my questions. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: MAYOR KNUDSEN? 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Those are interesting questions actually. But I just want to ask a question regarding the exterior amenity area.

4. MS. McMANUS: Yes, it's item 4.1.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: It is conforming ‑‑ would you say it's conforming? Do you think that was what the ordinance intended, or do you think that the ordinance was just too vague to make that determination?

1. MS. McMANUS: I think the ordinance doesn't provide adequate guidance for the board to dictate exactly where it should be on the property. And so as such, the board's faced with a ‑‑ with a circumstance where the applicant has chosen the location that suits their ‑‑ suits their site plan and also suits their intention for how the space will be used, which may conflict with preference of the board.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So ‑‑ And in the absence of that area, there's no other area for just restful respite, other than people watching, in a busier intersection, is that...

1. MS. McMANUS: Is your question are there no other places on the site?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: There are no other places on the site that you could have ‑‑

1. MS. McMANUS: Given the existing site plan, there are no other ‑‑ I don't see any other options. There are some places on the site plan that could be amended with revisions to accommodate an exterior amenity area, although some design work would be needed to ensure that not only does it allow for a continually conforming site plan application. So, for example, there could easily be a larger, perhaps better, space placed behind the building, but we don't want to be ‑‑ but there could potentially be a circumstance where it reduced the number of parking spaces, therefore triggering the need for relief of the parking. You know, there could be consequences from an amended site plan. But, nonetheless, there are ‑‑ there are potentially other options should the plan be amended.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then on the answer when you wrote it's too slight almost ‑‑ that actually gives the appearance of greater bulk to the buildings and that was the impression, because it appeared to be wall? Could you just explain that a little further. 

4. MS. McMANUS: Yes. With ‑‑ this is item C on Page 6 of item 4.3, the mansard roof is at a slight slope, so yeah, the intention ‑‑ the purpose of that comment is to indicate that if there were a larger slope to the mansard it would have a reduction in the appearance of building height and the appearance of building mass, that would be one item that could reduce the perception of the size of the building from the street.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Could we also put the dormers at the different sizes also, would that kind of be better because they're consistent; would that be ‑‑ would that give the effect of even more mass?

1. MS. McMANUS: I'm less concerned about the size of the dormers from a building mass perspective, more so from an architectural design aesthetic.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: You can go on right now. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Carrie.

1. MS. GIORDANO: I have the same two comments as Susan. I find that the space as ‑‑ the recreation space as it's been designed, we have those benches by our train station, so I understand that some people like to people watch. I just have a problem with that for anybody else, should there be children there, I still don't see that as a safe location, so you answered the question, I guess, about where else it could be located and potentially why the developer put it where it is. But I still have an issue with that location for recreation for anything else than watching a train. And then back to the roof, I don't have the ordinance with me, but ‑‑ do you have it with you? Are you familiar with the architectural guidelines in that? Do you think that these buildings incorporate the features of the buildings in the downtown?
2. MS. McMANUS: Oh, the comparison of architectural styles?
3. MS. GIORDANO: Yes.
4. MS. McMANUS: Yes. I think that it does generally. It doesn't mean that there's not room for improvement, which is why we focused ‑‑ I focused my architectural comments ‑‑ commentary on comments rather than compliance measures.
5. MS. GIORDANO: Okay. I feel as if it's so bulky that it doesn't match the character of anything on that ‑‑ on that street. So that's just my interpretation of it, it may be different architectural perspective.
6. MR. TUVEL: And just to reiterate based on comments of the Mayor and MS. GIORDANO, that the applicant understands that the architecture is not an exact science, and we'd be willing to work with MS. McMANUS and a committee any of the board so that if you choose to do so, to work out the fine details that are being pointed out right now.
7. MS. GIORDANO: Right. No, I understand that, but it has been brought up at every meeting, every time, it would have been great to see it because the building really looks so ‑‑ just bulky and overpowering and the sidewalks there are not as wide as depicted when you see the building. That's all.
8. MS. McMANUS: You know, further commentary on that, yes, the building is larger, it has a larger bulk than a lot of the other buildings that you see in downtown, but I think, in part, what's intended to more precisely measure that some of your bulk standards like the density, for example, the floor area ratio requirement, the maximum improvement coverage, I would say that those are the ordinance standards that are intended more directly address the building bulk. And I also wanted to echo the previous comment I had that the developer just indicated, that should the board be inclined to grant any approvals to this application, there has been an offer that an architectural conversation can continue beyond the approval, that we would make, as well ‑‑ and I'd like to just one or more board members as well to get the board's input on the architectural changes, so that while the architecture is conforming, there are ways, as highlighted in my memo, to further address some of the concerns that you stated and some of the concerns that I think the other board members have.
9. MS. GIORDANO: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you. Frances.

1. MS. BARTO: My concern, a lot of my concern, is the issue of parking spaces.

Now, I do understand that the applicant has satisfied their requirement; however, if we're looking at, you know, units where people may have multiple vehicles, we've got retail shoppers, restaurant goers, people who are going to, without a doubt, utilize the parking spaces that are commuters, because we have a lack of parking in the area and that has been an ongoing issue. What are your thoughts, if any, on, you know, whether or not this really is sufficient parking, even though it's met the requirement technically?

1. MS. McMANUS: I think RSIS, quite honestly, is sufficient for the majority of residential projects around the state. And that were the ‑‑ we, as in this board in this application, are in the position of having a building be proposed directly adjacent to a train station for the multifamily units. I think the likelihood that a proportion of those residents don't have two‑car households is likely. And that's, in part, reflected by RSIS. Another point about the concern that commuters or folks seeking to visit downtown uses are going to be using that parking lot, I think that's probably true. They're going to want to park there. I've done that. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, but in other communities I may have parked my car in a parking lot that you're not supposed to be in. And, quite frankly, in situations like that it's incumbent upon the property owner, especially ones where the residents ‑‑ the parking is specifically reserved for its residents, to manage the parking and to enforce the parking to have, perhaps, towing a car when they ‑‑ when they see illegal parking of vehicles. There's ‑‑ it's a situation that could occur on almost any property throughout New Jersey as I think one site is perhaps under‑parked for visitors to a different site that's nearby. But it's incumbent upon that property owner to enforce its own parking requirements when ‑‑ of course when they've got compliant parking in the site.
2. MS. BARTO: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie?

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: My comments on the architectural issues were similar to Susan's and Carrie's. And it's just that I feel they've incorporated all of the architectural, you know, touches from so many varying buildings and areas in town and it just doesn't mesh or match up or make any sense when I look at it visually, but I am glad to know that the conversation is open later, as far as that goes. My concerns have been all along the site ‑‑ the obstructions, the sight‑triangle issues. And I know that you stated they are resolved. But are they resolved ‑‑ how resolved? Are they resolved within feet? Are they resolved within ‑‑ you know, how resolved are they? I ‑‑ that is such ‑‑ that part of the sidewalks aren't being widened in any way, even though we looked ‑‑ you know, we saw the rendering a couple weeks ago, it really ‑‑ it looks like there's a mile of sidewalk and then a building. First off, they're not 4‑foot sidewalks. And then a mass of a building. So I'm just ‑‑ I'm really curious as to how ‑‑ if it's possible to gauge how much these are resolved by the sight‑triangle concerns.
2. MS. McMANUS: I think I could answer your question.
3. MS. McWILLIAMS: Or does it strictly not matter because it's resolved entirely?
4. MS. McMANUS: Well, in part, I mean to some extent in terms of whether or not this is a compliant application, it doesn't matter. They've met the ordinance requirement, period. But to answer your question, I think that they have ‑‑ I think that they've just met the sight‑triangle site planning requirement. I can open up the plan to look, I think they're very close to ‑‑ to the minimum distance.
5. MS. McWILLIAMS: Like within inches, I think ‑‑
6. MS. McMANUS: I believe so. Maybe a foot or two.
7. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
8. MS. McMANUS: I can confirm that, but it's not ‑‑ it's not a significant difference beyond what's proposed and what's required.
9. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
10. MR. TUVEL: I would just add that we comply with not only with the Village's requirement but also the county as well. So because it's a county road, we also have to comply with their sight‑triangle requirements and sight‑distance requirement. And we've done that.
11. MS. McWILLIAMS: That's ‑‑ I have another question about that, when the county plays in, but I'm not sure if that's going to come to safety and traffic later. But speaks to what Jeff was asking earlier, and I guess the front yard setback raises the same question, I think Isabella had noted in some of her comments that the site ‑‑ that the setbacks, there's still encroachments with the lights, and that the setbacks were to within an inch of being met. I have concerns about that, just based on what that corner provides, what that corner ‑‑ what that entire area has, you know, what has previously happened and existed on that corner and what sort of issues with safety we've had there before. I just think that it's something to be looked at more closely. My last, I think, comment was about the exterior amenity area, and that we're requiring crosswalks to get to it and a crosswalk to keep people safe in and out of it. It's right at the ingress. It's right at the turn. And it's right at the train. And I while it's an alternative use, I think it's pushing alternative ‑‑ the alternative use of what that ordinance meant like to the limit. So it's an area if we're open to discussion on, that's great. But I don't necessarily think ‑‑ I think calling it an alternative use is just a nice way of saying it doesn't really comply. I think that's it. And if you ‑‑ I guess my question is, is that a fair way of looking at it?
12. MS. McMANUS: In terms of the outdoor amenity area, I don't think there's a compliance issue.
13. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
14. MS. McMANUS: Sorry.
15. MS. McWILLIAMS: No.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel? 

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: One question for you, back to the outdoor amenity area, if you were the planner retained by the applicant and not by the village, would you put it in that corner? And, if not, where would you put it, as a planner?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can't hear you. Say again? Can't hear you.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I'll try again. Better.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay. If you were the planner retained by the applicant, not the village, would you put the exterior amenity in that corner by the railroad tracks? If not, where would you put it as a planner. 

1. MS. McMANUS: For what it's worth, my preference might be a location that provides for quiet enjoyment. A place that's shielded from the traffic and the activity of the street.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I like the comments regarding the architectural. Do you find that it works well? Yes, very much so. And it's really where you have a willing applicant, the applicant has indicated they're happy to go through this exercise. But, yes, being able to sit down and have a work session with the applicant, I probably would bring one of my ‑‑ the architects that I work with to ‑‑ in hopes they would also bring their architects so that they can hash out some issues and design alternatives. I've found them to be a very successful process and helpful in getting buildings approved or constructed that are more aligned to the community's aesthetics.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you see it doable in this situation that you would be able to get it done?

1. MS. McMANUS: Yes, I strongly recommend that as a condition of any approval.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Can I just get ‑‑ pass it back for one question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, sure.

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Just a point of order, property owner or Chris, will we have difficulty approving or not approving something as a board knowing that it's going to be subject to change? We're approving, you know, they have a plenty of exhibits, they're well‑documented, they're revised things. And we're agreeing to kind of meet on the side or not and revise things or not. Will we have difficulty as a board having a motion to either deny or approve an application based on changes that are not defined.

1. MR. MARTIN: Well, yes and no. From a planning perspective, I think we have the right witness for this question, if there are material architectural problems that are not consistent with the Master Plan and the ordinances and the State of New Jersey law, that the planner knows, that would be a material problem. If it's a "I like this better than I like that," that's different. We can't deny an application for that as a matter of law. And that's where the subcommittee working together helps the community because the reasons to deny an application are not based on aesthetics, unless they're material issues. Am I correct, from the planning perspective?
2. MS. McMANUS: Yes. And I ‑‑ I would further add that my intention for being part of any subsequent discussions and subcommittee would not be to fundamentally change the architecture from what you see here, but rather to discuss how it could be amended in ‑‑ in smaller ways to improve the aesthetics, not to change the architectural style, for example, it would be should a building be here or perhaps 10 feet over, should it be this material versus that material, not as a ‑‑ not a fundamental change in the architecture. And, furthermore, if there are any items that could not be rectified by the subcommittee and the applicant, I'd recommend they come back before the Planning Board. Furthermore, the board would not be granting any permission to suggest that the applicant should deviate from the ordinance.
3. MR. MARTIN: Okay. In fact, most comply with the ordinance.
4. MS. McMANUS: Yes, yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does the applicant or anyone else have any more questions? I have a quick question. You recommended, Cathy spoke to the windows to the retail area. What is the impact of that on setback, and what is the impact of that on the sight triangle? You recommend a canopy on the corner.

1. MS. McMANUS: A canopy is unlikely to affect the sight triangle because it's so high. Drivers would continue to be able to see underneath it. But I will say if the canopy was in the sight triangle I would immediately retract that recommendation for that portion of the building because that's a safety issue that must take precedence.
2. MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes, there are a number of heavy vehicles associated with village activities that use that intersection, so the drive position of those vehicles would be quite a bit higher, and also the ‑‑ that corner is on a slope, so the large vehicle, a driver in a higher position may be further back than a passenger car is going to be, quite a bit higher than the passenger car.
3. MS. McMANUS: Well, I can tell you I'll certainly take that into account if there is such a discussion after this evening, we'll make sure that any architectural changes have no impact on the safety of the building or the sight triangles.
4. MR. SCHEIBNER: And it has no impact on setbacks.
5. MS. McMANUS: Give me one minute to confirm. I want to just confirm that. I'm sorry. Can I answer you in just one moment?
6. MR. TUVEL: As someone who's had to go through general code on my phone, I know what it's like to scroll through and try to look something up that you weren't ready for a question on.

Can we just continue and then maybe MS. McMANUS can just get back to that? 

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

Does anyone else have any more questions?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I do of Andrew.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. We are going to get to that.

Does the applicant have any questions?

1. MR. MARTIN: I just ‑‑ I do have a question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Oh, yes, sure.

1. MR. MARTIN: MS. McMANUS, whenever you're ready.
2. MS. McMANUS: Under pressure. Okay. Hold on. Give me one second.
3. MR. TUVEL: What I would say to the question, though, is that if is did create relief we would just ‑‑ we would just point out those architectural elements that would not create relief, and that our architect would work with MS. McMANUS to get that same architectural effect without creating relief.
4. MS. McMANUS: I have an Answer.
5. MR. TUVEL: Go ahead.
6. MS. McMANUS: All right.
7. MR. TUVEL: I was trying to help you out.
8. MS. McMANUS: Thank you for ‑‑ yes, thank you. I appreciate that.
9. MR. TUVEL: Breaking the silence.
10. MS. McMANUS: Okay. There is an ordinance provision. For the record, it is Section 190‑119(a)(4). It's (a)(4)(f). "No canopy or marquee shall extend past any setback line affecting the building to which it is affixed. Prohibition shall not apply to retractable types of blinds. In addition, canopies and marquees shall be subject to provisions," and then it goes on. So, ultimately, it seems as if it's the type of canopy that will be dependent as to whether or not it may project into the front yard setback.
11. MR. SCHEIBNER: Thank you.
12. MS. McMANUS: So after all that, my answer is still it depends.
13. MS. McWILLIAMS: If it's within inches as it stands, would even a retracted canopy retract against the building, because it would ‑‑
14. MS. McMANUS: Again, presumably the mounting ‑‑ if the building were clearly at the setback line, presumably the mounting hardware would extend.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have a question.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Just when you make a note that the parking lot was void of any shrubbery, what was the benefit other than visual? Was there any added benefit to that?

1. MS. McMANUS: To adding the shrubbery?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes. Besides visual.

1. MS. McMANUS: Oh, it's primarily visual. Plantings can be helpful in maintaining soil, in the case of soil erosion during rain events as well.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: All right.

1. MS. McMANUS: It depends on the ‑‑ how the planting beds are designed. But they can be helpful in that respect.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Thank you.

1. MR. MARTIN: Just, MS. McMANUS, I just want to follow up with a couple of questions by COUNCILMAN VOIGT. I thought they were very good. In terms of Section 190‑55 the ordinance, can you pull that up?
2. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
3. MR. MARTIN: Now, obviously you weren't the planner that was involved in the drafting of this ordinance, correct.
4. MS. McMANUS: Correct.
5. MR. MARTIN: But it was adopted by the governing body and presumably consistent with the Master Plan as recommended by the Planning Board, correct.
6. MS. McMANUS: Presumably, yes.
7. MR. MARTIN: Again, you weren't involved in it, correct?
8. MS. McMANUS: Correct.
9. MR. MARTIN: If you look at Section 8 it says: "Determination of required improvements the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Adjustment as applicable shall determine the nature of off‑tract improvements." This ordinance would be used by both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, correct?
10. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
11. MR. MARTIN: Okay. Going down to Section C, it says? "General criteria in determining proportion of costs to be paid by applicant. The proportion of the total cost to be paid by the applicant for off‑tract improvements shall be"...

And that's bold and underlined, correct?

1. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
2. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ "determined by the board with assistance of the village agencies based upon the following criteria."

So the "shall be," I believe, in the planning parlance, is that the board at issue, here the Planning Board as opposed to the Zoning Board, shall be the one that determines it, correct?

1. MS. McMANUS: Correct.
2. MR. MARTIN: I don't believe that "shall be" says that one, two, three, four, five, six, seven are "shall be" things that must be looked at, those are general requirements; am I right?
3. MS. McMANUS: I believe so, yes.
4. MR. MARTIN: In that light ‑‑
5. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
6. MR. MARTIN: ‑ are you familiar with planning situations where it is a tract of land that's going to be subdivided; and in fact, this deals with site plan and subdivision review, correct?
7. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
8. MR. MARTIN: If it's going to be subdivided and there's no improvements and they're going to yield a substantial subdivision, there needs to be access to the subdivision to have any market value to the buildings that are being constructed; is that ‑‑
9. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
10. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ normal planning processes?
11. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
12. MR. MARTIN: And in that light, if an unimproved tract can't be improved, there would be a significant market value difference in planning; is that generally how it goes?
13. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
14. MR. MARTIN: So this criteria can be considered and it says, based on what's here, one section has off‑site improvements and market value, that can be considered for subdivisions and issues that involve access to the tract, itself, where there are going to be improvements, correct.
15. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
16. MR. MARTIN: Okay. In this instance, do you see the safety concerns that I believe are enumerated in number seven, public health and safety, to be more related to a traffic engineer's analysis or a planning analysis in terms of the zoning use issue or off‑tract improvements to access the site to be able to develop it.
17. MS. McMANUS: I see that in relation to traffic engineering to ensure that; for example, access is safe for the public.
18. MR. MARTIN: So in this application as opposed to another type, you see it more of a Planning Board issue or a Zoning Board issue in terms of the requirements under this criteria of this general criteria of 190‑55.
19. MS. McMANUS: I'm sorry, do you mean by Planning Board versus a Zoning Board issue.
20. MR. MARTIN: There is an ordinance in effect that relates to this project that was addressed by the governing body, correct?
21. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
22. MR. MARTIN: Separate from that, now we're at the planning stage; we all know that, right.
23. MS. McMANUS: Right.
24. MR. MARTIN: The access in terms of proper circulation, ingress, egress, safety, health concerns, is that more of a traffic engineer's concern at this point or more of an overall planning design element.
25. MS. McMANUS: More of a traffic engineer's concern at this point.
26. MR. MARTIN: And based upon your experience as a planner, would the increase in market value be more involved in a different type of development as opposed to this application, or would it be related to this application in terms of what the spirit of this ‑‑ this ordinance is about.
27. MS. McMANUS: It's more applicable to other types of applications.
28. MR. MARTIN: Are you sure about that?
29. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
30. MR. MARTIN: No, I just ‑‑ there's an ordinance here that deals with ‑‑ it's a broad ordinance; is that fair to say.
31. MS. McMANUS: Yes. It's very broad.
32. MR. MARTIN: I just want to make sure the board understands from a planning perspective when you're looking at this ordinance from a professional planning perspective what the relief is all about.
33. MS. McMANUS: Okay. Yes. The ordinance is, as you alluded to, very broad. It's intended for just about every ‑‑ potentially most types of applications that come before this board. But in terms of increase in market value, that is not a question that typically plays into a board's decision making for granting variances, waivers, and often needed site plan applications or conforming applications.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm not sure I understand that. 

1. MR. MARTIN: Do you want to ask ‑‑
2. MS. McMANUS: I'm sorry. Could you speak into the microphone?
3. MR. MARTIN: You want to ask a question?  

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, I wasn't sure what your answer was.

We can take that into account or we can't take that into account? In other words, what's the difference in the market value, we should be taking that into account?

1. MS. McMANUS: My point is it's not typically a consideration for a board in the case of a conforming application. Yes.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So I just ‑‑ okay. Can I ask one more question?

1. MR. MARTIN: Yes, sure.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It's okay. So this is ‑‑ this is a unique ordinance. And you don't see this very often.

1. MS. McMANUS: Correct.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Hardly at all.

1. MS. McMANUS: Correct.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So ‑‑ and I don't know, I don't pretend to get into Blais Brancheau's mind as to what he was thinking. It's here. But it just seems to me that we should consider what that differential in value is based on the off‑site improvement, and that should be used in our estimation of what the proportion of the costs should be for the applicant to pay for something like the intersection. So I'll just make up some numbers. Let's assume that this is the increase in value based on the fact that you add this light, it increases the market value of that development by $2 million, okay? And let's assume we come up with a calculation that it's 25 percent of that $2 million that they should pay for the intersection to us. So that's half $1 million. Okay? I don't know if you come up with that estimation to understand or even be able to approve this unless we know what that is. And so that's my concern. And that ‑‑ and that references Section I of this ordinance which basically says that the board cannot agree on the total ‑‑ if they can't agree on the total cost of the applicant's proportion ‑‑ for the applicant's proportion of total cost, we can't approve it. So unless we know what that is, we are unable to approve this. We need to understand what that is. And sections ‑‑ we need to understand what Section C is and means to us before we go ahead and say, yes, we approve this or not. And that's where I'm having difficulty.

1. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Voigt, as a matter of law, that's not consistent with the case law and Municipal Land Use Law as to not approving an application or not. I think the question of the planner would be what relationship to off‑tract improvements should be required from a planning perspective by this applicant. And in terms of the very good question market value, as a matter of law and interpretation to the board, I would say it's, from a planning perspective, the planner has testified that it's not necessarily related to this type of application. Am I wrong about that? I just want the board to be clear.
2. MS. McMANUS: No. That's correct. My experience when boards struggle with the appropriate share of off‑tract improvements, it's been my experience that the discussion completely revolves around the change in use for the intersection, for example, as a result of the application, the increased activity that will result as a ‑‑ from the application. The activity might be measured in terms of vehicle trips per day down a particular street. And so it's measured or it's calculated, measured on the increase in whatever the off‑tract improvement is ‑‑ is about, whether it's road infrastructure or some other type of infrastructure. The value that the applicant will receive as a result of that off‑tract improvement is not ‑‑ is not typically part of the conversation.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: But ‑‑ so, again, this is the problem I have with this, is that this language is not in any other ordinance practically in New Jersey.

1. MS. McMANUS: I'm not ‑‑ I've not seen language like that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So how do we apply it? Because you're spinning back to me what you would do in a normal situation. This is not a normal situation for us. I don't know ‑‑ I don't know how to use this. And, you know, I guess I have to interpret it literally that says, okay, well, I need to understand what the total cost of the off‑tract improvements is and there's going to be an estimate for that, I don't know exactly what it is, I need to understand what the increase in market value is based on the improvement of the off tract and the light, I don't know what that is. And then the needs. And I want to get to that in a second with Andrew with the needs created by the application itself and whether or not this is making ‑‑ if we don't do anything, having this application, does it make it worse off? And I'm assuming it probably does, if nothing's done. So that's where I'm having difficulty in being able to interpret this and make sense of this.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Where does it say in here that it has to be a conforming application, or is that just generally with other ordinances similar to this throughout the state, and this one being so, you know, sort of abstract or different ‑‑ I don't see here where it says it should apply to only a conforming application.
2. MR. MARTIN: Well ‑‑
3. MS. McWILLIAMS: And I may have missed it.
4. MR. MARTIN: No, no, no. COUNCILMAN VOIGT's questions are excellent. That's why I was trying to see if the planner could explain it to the board in terms of this is the zoning board as well as a planning board general ordinance. If there's something that's inconsistent with the laws of the State of New Jersey, the general planning principals of the State of New Jersey and the Municipal Land Use statute and how it's interpreted, the ordinance is not going to be upheld. So there's a lot of good things in this ordinance, but reading it in a way that is inconsistent with the law, from my perspective, and the planner's perspective, I think the board just needs to know the reality of it, and whether it's right or wrong, I have to call it as I see it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Any further questions? (No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Applicant have any questions?

1. MR. TUVEL: No. If there are any public comment, if I think of any, I'll reserve that right to ask MS. McMANUS any questions.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

1. MR. TUVEL: But at this point I don't have any.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. We'll let the public cross now.

Is there anyone that wants to ask Beth McManus any questions?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You can line up and you can ask three questions. You can ask them in a row. She'll answer them, and then if you have more questions you just go to the back of the line. I'm just saying that because of the volume of people we have here right now. If there's not going to be that many people, it should move along quickly. So whoever wants to ask questions of the planner can approach the podium. 

1. MS. KOTCH: I'm not sure this is the right kind of question. I'm not sure ‑‑ I'm not sure where it's appropriate.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Give it a shot.

1. MS. KOTCH: Okay. Give it a shot.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name and address for the record.

1. MS. KOTCH: I'm Linda Kotch, 60 North Hillside Place. You what I went to a gym today for the first time, my muscles aren't working in my mouth. (Laughter.)
2. MS. KOTCH: So, okay. Hi. Okay. Question: Safety, bike lanes. So that bike lane that vexing bike line that is under the trestle, let me just ‑‑ let me just preface this by saying my husband rides his bike to and from Ridgewood to New York City every day. Okay. So I can appreciate, I see both sides. And every day I drive through there is humph. But not only that. I am worried about the safe situation for the first time, only time I see this poor kid, you know, bee‑lining out it the wrong way. Now, we are not used to seeing cyclists in that lane, and everyone wants to get their kids to high school or wherever they're going, that's my situation. Are we dealing with cycling lanes or pedestrian‑friendly situations? Because I'm hearing this sort of, like, this project, it smacks of trying to shove 20 pounds of flour into a 10‑pound sack. We're talking inches. Can we, like, get this much more in this much space (indicating). And why don't we just look at this in terms of a little bit more of a pedestrian friendly? The west Village is one of the safest places in Europe because there's tremendous pedestrian vibrancy. So if we're looking at this project, and God knows we're going to be one of many projects that are going to be happening in other towns, HoHoKus, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, let's do the best we can. Let's make this a little bit more cycling friendly, a little bit more pedestrian friendly. We are ‑‑ cannot assume that because we're close to the train that everybody is going to want these apartments are going to be coming in and coming out. There's a lot of folks that want to stay here and they might want to go to a, God forbid, some place in town. But ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Linda, can you frame it as a question? We're going to have public comment later on.

1. MS. KOTCH: What are we doing about ensuring that we're going to have the most pedestrian cycling friendly development; does that make sense.
2. MS. McMANUS: Okay. I think I understand your question.
3. MS. KOTCH: Okay.
4. MS. McMANUS: So the applicant is ‑‑ there are two things I think you should know. One, the applicant is going to be providing ‑‑ the applicant is going to be providing sidewalks along both frontages of the site.
5. MS. KOTCH: But, like, I don't want a gangplank, I'm talking, like, you know, France, you know.
6. MS. McMANUS: No. I understand.

The applicant ‑‑ but they are meeting they're ‑‑ they are meeting the requirements for the site. They are providing a bike rack on the property to help facilitate ‑‑

1. MS. KOTCH: A bike rack.
2. MS. McMANUS: It is a single structure but it holds several bikes. I don't have the number in front of me, but it's several. So they are ‑‑ they are facilitating some of the residents of the property to have bikes so that they can, you know, bike around Ridgewood and the surrounding towns. But in terms of wider site improvements, no, the applicant is not proposing to upgrade the bike lanes for ‑‑ in the area, for example. I think ‑‑ I think part of your concern is that the village, as a whole, should be advancing pedestrianism and bicyclists throughout the town. And, so, this application, although it's in a ‑‑ in a prominent location, there's only so much that it's responsible for and only so much that it can be asked to upgrade the village's infrastructure for the pedestrian and bicycle lanes at this time. So I hear your concern, but the challenge before the board is dealing with these village‑wide concerns with this regional ‑‑ or I should say neighborhood concerns versus the application for a single site. And I think that's ‑‑ those are the concerns that we've heard echoed by some of the board members and questions about off‑tract improvements.
3. MS. KOTCH: Fair enough. Thank you. I was ‑‑ I was just looking for a holistic approach, not necessarily just this program or this project, or these two projects. I understand there are two projects before the board at once? But when you're putting two projects on the board and then a couple other following, are we looking at this holistically in terms of being the best we can and making it a vibrant, you know, community and, you know, I'm sorry. And the cooperation aspect and that we can work with the developers. I mean, I ‑‑ you know, I actually played cricket, and we would sit down between matches and both teams would sit and have tea together and then we'd get up play together, but we would sit down, so I like the whole notion of the cooperation. And I would like to have that with folks here. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you. Anyone else have questions?

1. MR. DANI: Yes. Good evening.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name and address, please.

1. MR. DANI: Saurabh Dani, S‑A‑U‑R‑A‑B‑H, D‑A‑N‑I, 390 Bedford Road in Ridgewood.

I have a few questions, I don't know which ones are for planner. If they are not, then just let me know.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can't hear.

1. MR. DANI: So the first ‑‑ can you hear me now?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.

1. MR. DANI: So the first one is where the council ‑‑ the Village Council, the previous Village Council was doing the hearing, public comments on this issue, we went and asked that in the other towns where we have lived previously, we always seen the town's imposing impact fee of developers and for schools, for water, for police. I lived in Secaucus andthey, of course, have parted with a lot of money and the taxes have not gone up for many years because all the new developments. So I ask that is the Council imposing any impact fee, and I would assume that that could be done by the planner at the planning stages where the Planning Board hears that? So have you done impact analysis and that is what Mr. Jeff Voigt was asking that have ‑‑ is there any impact fee being imposed, because that's the answer that we received when we asked that question during the ordinance hearing that the Planning Board will do those hearings and Planning Board will be doing the impact analysis and putting the impact fee. So has that analysis been done for the impact for schools, traffic, police, fire and water and has ‑‑ are we imposing those impact fees to the developer?
2. MS. McMANUS: I ‑‑
3. MR. DANI: I have recording from the council meeting where I was clearly told that this will be discussed by the Planning Board.
4. MR. TUVEL: Can I just try to answer. Are you finished with your question?
5. MR. DANI: This question, yes.
6. MR. TUVEL: Please so just real quick. So just ‑‑ I'm sure Chris will chime in as well, just in some connection with the question you just asked. The pro‑rata share of improvements that we're going to need to engage in as part of this application were outlined in the board traffic engineer's letter in terms of specific off‑tract improvements that the board traffic engineer recommended. That's number one in terms of what improvements we're going to have to make, correct. The other issues that you just discussed were all ‑‑ are not something that this board decides within the confines of a site plan application, but rather something that this board and the Village Council deal with as part of a Master Plan process and a rezoning process. And the issues that you are discussing, you know, whether it be utilities, overall traffic impacts, school children, things of that nature, that has all been done as part of a prior process. And that's why the application here that's before you is, number one, permitted as‑of‑right under the ordinance, and why there are specific bulk criteria within the ordinance regarding setbacks, density, coverages, et cetera, that have all been part of that analysis. So that's all been done.
7. MR. DANI: So I'm here to inform that I am ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You have to phrase ‑‑

1. MR. DANI: ‑‑ I ask ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You have to ask questions of the planner.

1. MR. DANI: Right. Yes. So I did ask this question at the council meeting and I was clearly told that the Planning Board would be ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. You're going to phrase it as a question.  

1. MR. DANI: ‑‑ imposing impact fee.

In your opinion, who imposes the impact fee? At what point? Because at the planning and zoning part, there was no impact fee imposed.

1. MS. McMANUS: The Planning Board can only impose the impact fees that are authorized through its own ordinances or otherwise authorized through this Municipal Land Use Law. And so the board's ability to access impact fees for items that are not authorized through one of those two means such as those to schools or to fire districts are very limited, if not eliminated.
2. MR. DANI: In your opinion, is there any impact on the town from the development.
3. MS. McMANUS: Well, yes, there's an impact. There's an impact to any development that occurs in the town.
4. MR. DANI: And is there a proper impact fee being charged.
5. MR. MARTIN: That's a rather broad question.

In terms of off‑site improvements for traffic?

1. MR. DANI: No. Overall impact on ‑‑ development's impact on the Village.
2. MR. TUVEL: Yes, so ‑‑
3. MR. MARTIN: Outside of this site plan reviewed by the board, I don't think the planner has an opinion on that. Maybe she does. But for this board's determination ‑‑
4. MR. DANI: Right, but I pose a question to the planner.
5. MR. MARTIN: Can I finish, please?
6. MR. DANI: I think you're feeding an answer to the planner.
7. MR. MARTIN: All right. Let me finish. There's off‑site improvements for the traffic issues that the planner alluded to and I think the traffic engineer is going to testify to at length. I believe COUNCILMAN VOIGT asked some questions in that regard as well. There's also some issues that directly affect this application and I believe the village engineer and the village planner can address those. As to overall use impacts, that's not for this board on this site.
8. MR. DANI: Who addresses the impact on the water.
9. MR. MARTIN: That would be, in part, related to this nexus specifically, the village engineer.
10. MR. DANI: Okay.
11. MR. MARTIN: But he's not up yet. He will be up. He'll be up.
12. MR. DANI: Okay. So I'll ask that to the village engineer.

And how about the ‑‑ there was a fire in Edgewater, and that was ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It has to be a question to her? 

1. MR. DANI: Right.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And pertaining to what she testified to.

1. MR. DANI: So there was a fire in Edgewater and there was a lot of press that goes with the State of New Jersey's building codes were not to the standard, and I guess usually we get by with those. So as a planner, I think it may not be in the State of New Jersey's laws or books, but are you recommending that this building or one of the others, for any building that you're being part of, use this or properly building materials and aren't just what is by the code? For the ‑‑ especially in that Hackensack building fire where the firemen died.
2. MS. McMANUS: Two things; one, municipalities, planning boards, are unable to impose stronger building code requirements on an application as a general principal. There may be instances where there are particular concerns about an application, but as a general principal they're unable to say: You must go beyond the building code. But, furthermore, I want to be clear that although I'm a planner and I deal quite a bit with the way a building is laid out and designed, the types of concerns that you have about sprinklers and other building code issues are really more specific to an architect and not my area of expertise.
3. MR. DANI: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you. Anyone else have questions for the planner?

State your name and address.

1. MS. TARZIAN: Linda Tarzian, 576 Highland Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Spell your last name please.

1. MS. TARZIAN: T‑A‑R‑Z‑I‑A‑N.

Mayor, thank you to everyone who here serves our great village. My question to you is how are these high‑density developments going to improve the life in our village? And I'd like that directed to representatives of the developer that gets up later.

Do you want me to stand here or should I go back?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You asked a question, you're entitled to an answer.

1. MS. McMANUS: So what improvements will occur as a result of the application?
2. MS. TARZIAN: How will our life as individual citizens, taxpayers, mothers, fathers, residents improve with these high‑density developments the previous council so, perhaps, unwisely approved.
3. MS. McMANUS: That is a ‑‑ I'm sorry to say, that is a very vague question, very subjective to how you view your station in the municipality and what your thoughts are about this particular application. I can't tell you whether this application will improve your quality of life versus your neighbors' quality of life. I can speak to the improvements that will occur generally to this property in terms of the application, but I can't comment ‑‑ I can't comment on that specific ‑‑
4. MS. TARZIAN: Okay. Let me take another stab at it. What is the percentage breakdown of single‑family‑dwelling‑units in our ‑‑ in our Village versus multifamily?
5. MS. McMANUS: I don't have that figure on me.
6. MS. TARZIAN: Does anyone here know that.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It's just questions of the planner.

1. MR. TUVEL: Mr. Chairman, just to, again, chime in, just more questions, I'm more than willing to answer them, but I don't want to raise this objection every single time somebody asks a question, but we're not here to determine whether this is a good idea. This use is permitted. So that ‑‑ we're not here to determine whether it's a good thing, it's a bad thing. It's very straightforward. We're here just to determine whether or not the application complies with zoning and site plan regulations. That's it. So I understand why people do ask those questions. And I'm not ‑‑ I'm not, you know, saying that it's an invalid type of question in a more general forum, like at a village council hearing when there's an ordinance being adopted or something along those lines, but in this specific proceeding we've got to really try to stick within the jurisdiction of the board.
2. MS. TARZIAN: What is your name again.
3. MR. TUVEL: Jason Tuvel.
4. MS. TARZIAN: Jason, where do you live? What town.
5. MR. TUVEL: Tenafly.
6. MS. TARZIAN: Tenafly? Subdivisions if I might remind you are significantly larger than they are in Ridgewood. So, thank you. I'll reserve my further questions for the next witness.
7. MR. MARTIN: Actually, I thought your question was excellent. My mind ‑‑ my mind, as a board attorney, just started spinning when you opened your mouth and opened ‑‑ and asked the question. And I'm thinking she's talking about a (c) variance type of criteria. What a great question. I wonder if she's an attorney or I don't want to insult you, but some other area of life. So in that regard, I quickly looked at the planner, oh, she'll break down the (c) criteria. Then I thought to myself, is there any (c) variance ‑‑ is there any variance issue?
8. MS. McMANUS: No, there are not.
9. MR. MARTIN: Can you explain that? Because it's an excellent question, I think the audience should know, why that type of good question on this particular application is problematic in terms of the review?
10. MS. McMANUS: Yes. So ‑‑ thank you. In general to ask the questions are ‑‑ are there benefits over the detriments from this application is not a ‑‑ is not a question that can't be asked of any application, but it needs to be targeted towards areas that require relief from the Zoning Ordinance. So pieces that are nonconforming, parts of the application, not all parts, not the use, but if there were what's referred to as (c) variances, these are variances that typically, but not always ‑‑ but typically in Ridgewood refer to things like the bulk standards, where is the building located on the property? Is parking sufficient? Is it set back properly? So on and so forth. And in cases like that, the applicant would or the applicant's planner would typically go through what's referred to as a (c)(2) variance dialogue with the board where they would discuss basically how does this proposed design ‑‑ so is the undersized setback, for example, is this beneficial to the board, do these benefits outweigh the detriments, and what is the impact to the Zoning Ordinance? What is the impact to the public good? How is the quality of life? How are ‑‑ how are those that view or that pass the site impacted? So the question ‑‑ the question can be asked, but in this particular application the applicant doesn't require those types of items of relief. The applicant's not requesting (c) variance relief or the type of relief that would necessitate the question of do the variances ‑‑ do the benefits of the variances outweigh those detriments that may be created.
11. MS. TARZIAN: Okay. So the Council can't ‑‑ or the Planning Board can't ask or trigger those questions?
12. MS. McMANUS: No. And that's why ‑‑ and that's why you ‑‑
13. MR. MARTIN: They can, but it's not material to the decision. They're not asking for relief. The governing body said: Here's the ordinance. They said: We don't want relief from the ordinance. We just want the ordinance. And that's why they're here.
14. MS. TARZIAN: Okay. I'll save my other questions for later. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Anyone else have questions? State your name and address.

1. MR. MATTESSICH: Kevin Mattessich, 836 Morningside Road, Ridgewood.

Just a follow up to that ‑‑

THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, spell your name please? 

1. MR. MATTESSICH: M‑A‑T‑T‑E‑S‑S‑I‑C‑H. Just in a follow up to that, are there any ‑‑ were there any variances on this property before the plan of this current project?
2. MS. McMANUS: I haven't done a whole zoning analysis of the application, so I should be clear about that. But there may be ‑‑ they require ‑‑ they exceeded the maximum improvement coverage, for example, the coverage ‑‑ the portion of the property covered with impervious surfaces.
3. MR. MATTESSICH: So were those variances then built into the new plan?
4. MS. McMANUS: That variance in particular was not, so in this zone maximum improvement coverage is 95 percent. The applicant was previously at 99.66, and they're not proposing 94.9, so there was a reduction in the improvement coverage; furthermore, a reduction down to that which is below the maximum.
5. MR. MATTESSICH: Okay. So there was ‑‑ apart from that, there was no other variance with respect to this property?
6. MS. McMANUS: The minimum side yard and rear yard were undersized by various small amounts. .05 feet in the case of a side yard and approximately 1.7 feet in the case of the rear yard.
7. MR. MATTESSICH: And is the ‑‑ go ahead.
8. MS. McMANUS: And in both ‑‑ on both of those cases, the applicant is now conforming.
9. MR. MATTESSICH: Okay. Anything else? Any other variances?
10. MS. McMANUS: Those are the only items that I can answer at this time.

As I said, I haven't done a full zoning analysis on what the existing conditions are.

1. MR. MATTESSICH: If you haven't done a full zoning analysis, how can we proceed tonight?
2. MS. McMANUS: The question before the board is not so much what the existing conditions are, but that which the applicant is proposing.
3. MR. MATTESSICH: But if it takes in variances that haven't been reviewed, can the plan go forward?
4. MS. McMANUS: If those ‑‑ if existing conditions are being ‑‑ if nonconforming existing conditions are being continued as part of this application, they would be addressed in my report and addressed in my zoning analysis. My point is existing conditions that may be not conforming that are proposed for elimination as part of this proposal may be present, but I haven't done an analysis of the existing conditions as they ‑‑ as they exist today without this proposal. I have not done that analysis.
5. MR. MATTESSICH: I am confused then. Is it possible that there are variances baked into the current plan that will be continued for the project?
6. MS. McMANUS: No. The application, all variances, all nonconforming conditions have been rectified as part of this application, in such that the applicant now has a conforming application.
7. MR. MATTESSICH: So for the ‑‑ for the prior variances haven't been figured into the new plans?
8. MS. McMANUS: No.
9. MR. MATTESSICH: Because I thought you just said you didn't ‑‑ hadn't done that as part of the equation.
10. MS. McMANUS: If a condition on the property is existing and it's nonconforming and it's being eliminated as a result of this application, I haven't specifically identified it because it's no longer relevant to the board's ‑‑ to the board's granting of variances.
11. MR. MATTESSICH: But you have looked at variances ‑‑
12. MS. McMANUS: For the new application.
13. MR. MATTESSICH: ‑‑ that are being carried forward?
14. MS. McMANUS: Yes.
15. MR. MATTESSICH: And there are none? Or there are.
16. MS. McMANUS: There are no nonconforming conditions as part of this application.
17. MR. MATTESSICH: Okay. Thank you.

Well, let me ask it. Nobody's in a rush tonight, I don't think. (Laughter.)

1. MR. MATTESSICH: You guys get paid by the hour.

Does this ‑‑ this high‑density‑housing project that's going to sit there, is the ‑‑ is that that section of town going to be more safe or less safe after the ‑‑ that housing is built?

And, well, you know, I'll narrow it down pedestrians? Elderly walking to church? Kids walking to school? Will it be more safe or less safe after this project for those folks? 

1. MS. McMANUS: The applicant's proposing a lot of improvements to the site, to the access, and, for example, pedestrianism along the ‑‑ along the frontage of the property.
2. MR. MATTESSICH: And in your opinion is it less safe? More safe? Less safe.
3. MS. McMANUS: I'm unaware of any unsafe conditions that are going to be created by this application. If there are unsafe conditions presently that have not been addressed ‑‑
4. MR. MATTESSICH: So, potentially, it could be less safe, is what you're saying.
5. MS. McMANUS: No.
6. MR. MATTESSICH: You're saying you don't know.
7. MS. McMANUS: I have no ‑‑ there's no indication that I heard either from the board's engineer or the traffic engineer to indicate that there are going to be less safe conditions as a result of any approval of this application, period.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Can I ask a different kind of similar question? Can I just kind of go along with what Kevin said.

So if we don't improve that traffic light, okay, and we build this, is it less safe?

1. MS. McMANUS: I'm going ‑‑ I'm sorry. I'm going to have to defer to the traffic engineer, because the safety questions have to do with what the level of service and what the ingress and egress to the property is and how the intersection functions. I don't think it's appropriate for me to ‑‑ as a planner, to weigh in to what the traffic conditions are currently versus they will be under the proposal. I mean, I'm happy to recite the portions of the traffic engineer's report, but I think the board is looking for more and the public is looking for more information than that.
2. MR. MATTESSICH: Then I say let's get more information on it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name and address, please.

1. MR. SLOMIN: Dave Slomin, S‑L‑O‑M‑I‑N, 36 Heights Road. I'm a Ridgewood resident and trustees of Ridgewood Citizens For Reasonable Development. I'd just like to preface my questions by clarifying something Jason said before that I'd like to restate that the prior process he talked about, in which these ordinances were passed, is under challenge for being conflicted. So, again, to accept it as a given and as gospel is not fair to the residents of Ridgewood. So that aside, I'd like to move on to my questions.
2. MR. MARTIN: MR. SLOMIN, for the record, as you know, I applied for a stay of the applications and I got one for a period of time, because of what you just said. But the court disagreed with me on continuing it, so I understand your comment and I believe the board understands that as well.
3. MR. SLOMIN: And I appreciate that it is ‑‑ the matter is still before the court and has not yet been decided so it is still under what we believe very legitimate challenge. And I just hope the board recognizes that in your decision making. For the ‑‑ for the planner ‑‑
4. MR. TUVEL: But before MR. SLOMIN asks his questions, just as to one thing he just said, I don't think that the fact ‑‑ I guess it's public record that there is a challenge to it, so I'm not denying that there is a lawsuit that's pending, that's for sure, but the board shouldn't consider that as part of its review of this application. That's an irrelevant fact. If a court makes a determination later in the future, that's one thing, but right now it's a valid ordinance. So I'm not disputing that it's under challenge because that's the truth, but it shouldn't be relevant to this board's decision that it is under challenge.
5. MR. MARTIN: Well, further, it was also stayed for a period of time and now the board's proceeding or not, so this is all public knowledge.
6. MR. TUVEL: Correct.
7. MR. SLOMIN: Earlier you mentioned regarding architecture, the developers have offered to discuss changes at a later date, and you seemed to accept that positively, yet there's been some challenges or questioning from the board about this outdoor amenity area. Last meeting there were some issues raised about the architecture itself, that kitty cat ears, and the tower and other ‑‑ and other issues. I guess, you know, we've been part of this process for ‑‑ the residents for many years, and we haven't seen that kind of, friendliness, on the part of the developers throughout the whole process, that, you know, old give‑and‑take. So I guess in saying that they're offering that, and as a planner, knowing how the process works and knowing obviously development and seeing it happen, and having, I guess, a responsibility to the residents here, how can you or can you offer us any guarantees that they will make good on these needed architectural changes and developments and site improvements?
8. MS. McMANUS: Well, there's certainly no guarantee, but what I can tell you is give you an explanation of the process so should the board issue an approval and should they include a condition, I'd recommend that guidance be provided about that condition. The guidance should include who should sit on the subcommittee, a number of ‑‑ number of folks included on the Planning Board and professionals, so there's a sense for the board, as well as the public, who will be involved, and also guidance as to what architectural considerations should be included in the discussion. For example, item 4.3 in my report identifies a number of items, A through H, a number of architectural changes that I request as part of the board's conditions that they indicate that discussion should focus on these items and that the subcommittee and the applicant should come to a resolution. The guarantee ‑‑ the comfort that the public can feel is that if there's no resolution, the remedy will be that the applicant will need to appear before the Planning Board again for further discussion, if the condition could not be executed, and at that point there may be further public discussion on the topic. But in terms of, I mean, there can be no guarantee with conditions such as that, that they ‑‑ the condition is different than if it was specified that a certain roof line should be provided, that certain specific items shall be changed in specific ways. Instead this is a directive to a subcommittee that includes professionals, board members and the applicant to sit down and work through the architectural issues to the satisfaction of the members of that subcommittee.
9. MR. SLOMIN: And I appropriate that. I guess my concern, as a resident, is when you made that statement before it was given as a positive, like, hey, these guys are going to work with us.
10. MS. McMANUS: Uh‑huh.
11. MR. SLOMIN: And I'm not sure how long you have been part of that process as a planner, but the residents, as a resident I speak for myself, I haven't seen that true give. I've seen more take.
12. MS. McMANUS: Uh‑huh.
13. MR. SLOMIN: So I was concerned hearing that, hey, they're going to work with us on the architectural. And I guess I'm hoping that that can come true. And I would ‑‑ and that was my question, what can the board do. So it sounds like there'll be some subcommittees that will be addressing that and will have some powers over what is ultimately decided subsequent to any vote here tonight?
14. MS. McMANUS: Well, I think that's part of what the board needs to discuss. They could identify a subcommittee of my office, one or more board members so there's planning board input on the matter.
15. MR. SLOMIN: So that can be decided later after any vote?
16. MS. McMANUS: It should be discussed as part of the condition, it will be worked out in a resolution of approval, where the ‑‑ any guidance that the board wishes to provide to that subcommittee will be spelled out in the resolution.
17. MR. SLOMIN: And is that at the board's discretion or is that if they decide to have a board subcommittee, can that be then challenged by the developers attorneys and that you don't get your subcommittee and, I mean, that warranted control.
18. MR. MARTIN: I think the simple way is I would request MR. TUVEL to address that with me in a resolution so it is nailed down.
19. MR. SLOMIN: Okay.
20. MR. MARTIN: Any other comment?
21. MR. SLOMIN: Thank you.
22. MR. TUVEL: MR. SLOMIN, I'm sorry. All I would say on that, and I understand the question about, you know, sort of systematically and procedurally how we handle that. So, I mean, if it's a condition of the approval that we have to meet with a subcommittee, then we can't get signed plans and a building permit unless we do that. So, I mean, it's to our benefit to do it because if we don't, then we can't get resolution compliance and we can't get a building permit.
23. MR. SLOMIN: So I can make this Part B of the first question, can you please recommend that to our esteemed Council that they have this subcommittee in the event this moves forward?
24. MR. MARTIN: No, the Planning Board.
25. MR. SLOMIN: The board. Sorry. Yes.
26. MR. MARTIN: Some of the Council is here tonight.
27. MR. SLOMIN: Another comment that you made tonight, and I don't remember the exact wording, but I think you used the term "scientific" related to parking. You said something related to parking, you called it scientific. I guess there are studies and norms and accepted parameters as far as what is required for parking. Going back to the testimony we heard especially from residents, including the current property owners of town, who own apartments in town, they said that every two‑bedroom has at least two to three ‑‑ apartment has two or three kids in it. Everybody has two or three cars in a one‑bedroom, two cars in two‑bedrooms, there's often three. What we heard is that the scientific parameters that seem to apply somehow to the rest of the world don't seem to apply in Ridgewood. I don't know if it has to do with the affluence, people can afford more cars here, the location, it's in a driving‑commuter culture. There's a lot of malls you can't get to on the choo‑choo train. So I guess on that as a planner, we've seen that traffic and parking is a problem here and how ‑‑ you know, how can ‑‑ again, I'm looking for guarantees here because this is an important vote if it happens. You know, as a planner, how can you guarantee that these norms that we're applying to this property are really going to meet the needs of a community where the norms when it comes to parking don't seem to apply?
28. MS. McMANUS: I don't think there's any planner working for a municipality that can guarantee the specific number of cars that are going to be generated by a particular development. It's simply not in the nature ‑‑ not in the area of expertise of planning. But I think the point that I was ‑‑ that I was trying to convey to the board and to the public is that the applicant has met the required parking set forth by the Village Ordinances and by the Residential Site Improvement Standards, and that is the standard by which planning boards and zoning boards around the state are required to measure a residential parking requirements against. It's been found that RSIS is ‑‑ provides adequate parking for the majority of the uses around the state. In terms of the specific parking generated from this property, I think that's an area of expertise for a traffic engineer rather than a planner. But I think my point is that the point that I was making in this memo is that the applicant has met their requirement and that there is no parking relief necessary.
29. MR. SLOMIN: I guess I'll just defer that. I understand you can't guarantee. And there are standards that are, I guess, being followed here. Have you looked at the issues in Ridgewood and reconciled them against what Ridgewood's reality is versus these parameters and advise the board on: Is this going to work?
30. MS. McMANUS: For other projects ‑‑ in comparison to the traffic and the parking generated by other projects; is that your question?
31. MR. SLOMIN: I guess other projects that ‑‑ I guess other existing, preexisting developments in town.
32. MS. McMANUS: I haven't ‑‑ I have not done an analysis that measured the parking demand generated by other projects in the Village.
33. MR. TUVEL: I just want to put my objection on the record. You can keep going obviously.

It's not MS. McMANUS' job to determine if the parking ordinance that has been set forth by the Village is correct. That's the standard. Nor is it her job to determine if RSIS is correct because that's been determined by the state to be adequate. So, again, it's not something for this board to consider in terms of ‑‑ we comply with parking, the buck stops right there. There's nothing else to be considered. I'm sorry. Keep going.

1. MR. SLOMIN: Something that I heard come up last week and I've heard come up several times tonight is that this notion of legal questions keep popping up as related to this site plan. Based particularly, I guess, on the traffic issues, we really ‑‑ it's been determined at the last meeting it was stated that we really don't know what the costs are for the Village up and down the corridor of Franklin, even necessarily near the site, that we don't really know the impacts, we're going to find them out later and then can address them. Given that, and I've read the same ordinance, there was an ordinance that COUNCILMAN VOIGT read that does call for a specific addressing of this. Now, I also heard tonight, well, that's really not legal to have that in there, yet it was ‑‑ or elements of it are not legal by planning standards.
2. MR. MARTIN: No, no. No. It's legal. It may not be applicable in this application, though.
3. MR. SLOMIN: And ‑‑ I guess we can come back to that later. Okay. So, yeah and I noted Chris said that's it's not relevant legally, so I guess relevant to this application, I guess my feeling is ‑‑ I appreciate Chris's counsel, you don't always have to agree with your lawyer. I've learned that over 20 years in real estate myself. I believe the Planning Board, you know, needs better clarity on the legal parameters of this decision, and it seems like there's questions that haven't been answered, and I heard a conflict in your counsel tonight and what is says of the ordinance, I guess from a planning perspective, can ‑‑ before making a decision, can this board viably seek that legal clarity on these questions? Because I heard a conflict tonight that I don't how I could vote on it, knowing do we have to pay for it, don't we have to pay for it? Is it relevant? Well, it says we have to pay for it but it's not relevant to this one, but we have to pay for it if we're causing the problem, but who's causing the problem. So this is an irreversible decision. So before they make a decision, can this board request legal clarity? Because I certainly was not clear after hearing that question and answer.
4. MR. MARTIN: Oh, I have ‑‑ yes, I have a lot of legal clarity now. But the planner is the witness and the planner stated that that section is not applicable to this application. In terms of legal clarity, I will present that at the time when the applicant rests.
5. MR. SLOMIN: But if it states that they have to pay for any issues that are created by this development, I would say it is applicable to this.
6. MR. MARTIN: I happen to agree with you. One particular section of the general criteria to be considered in a law, criteria under section 190‑55, according to planning principles is not applicable to this particular application. In terms of other aspects of items, I think the witness testified to the traffic engineer on behalf of the board. That's on all fours of what the law is. And I've given a 19‑page opinion that is public. And I stand by it. And I'm going to reiterate aspects tonight if there's going to be a resting by the applicant.
7. MR. SLOMIN: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Any more questions?

State your name and address.

1. MR. GLAZER: Yes. Dana Glazer, 61 Clinton Avenue. My question is given that there are other developments pending before the Planning Board, what's to keep all of these developments from suddenly being built at the same time and creating a disaster in terms of trying to get through your CBD; is this something that can be addressed at this point?
2. MS. McMANUS: No. Unfortunately, the board does not have the power to institute a moratorium or a phasing schedule for different applications throughout the municipality.
3. MR. GLAZER: All right. Thank you very much.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Can I ask you a question? Does the Council have the authority to do that?

1. MS. McMANUS: I don't ‑‑ I don't believe municipalities have the authority to institute a moratorium or a phasing schedule for various developments without potentially some minor exceptions that I don't believe apply here.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Who does?
3. MS. McMANUS: In general, municipalities have tried, and I'm sure that ‑‑ and there's case law on their inability to state that only certain lands may be developed under a certain time period, you know, if you think about some planning principle ‑‑ or planning efforts throughout the country where there are urban growth boundaries, for example, where only certain areas are eligible for development under a certain time period, that principle has been tried and tested in New Jersey and found not to be consistent.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name and address again.

1. MS. TARZIAN: Linda Tarzian, 576 Highland Avenue, Ridgewood, 30 years taxpayer.

How long has the Ken Smith dealership been shuttered?

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You need to speak up please.

1. MS. TARZIAN: How long has the Ken Smith dealership been shuttered?
2. MS. McMANUS: You know I'm sorry to say I don't think I can answer that question. It's been vacant for as long as I've been involved with Ridgewood, but that's not very long.
3. MS. TARZIAN: Does anyone here know. Is it five years?

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Ten years.

1. MS. TARZIAN: So is it safe to say there hasn't been a heck of a lot of traffic in and out of that site? Is it safe to say that?
2. MS. McMANUS: I think you could presume that with the limited use of the site and the traffic 
3. MS. TARZIAN: Okay. Limited use for the last ten years. So with this high‑density proposal that was accepted by the previous council, we're going to go from limited egress to, let's see, 66 units, is it, if I remember correctly, 2.3 cars approximately per unit? I want you to ‑‑
4. MS. McMANUS: It would be ‑‑
5. MS. TARZIAN: I want to ‑‑ and I know this is really for the traffic engineer, but I really want that to be addressed. There is a significant safety issue for anyone who travels that way under the railroad pass every day.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. But ‑‑

1. MS. TARZIAN: I would like to know how many of these people travel that way.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Just phrase it as a question ‑‑

1. MS. TARZIAN: Yeah. Sorry.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: ‑‑ because we're going to have the public comment.

1. MS. TARZIAN: All right. So I'll save it for later.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right. Any other questions?

1. MR. TUVEL: Mr. Chairman, can we take, like, a five‑minute break? Is that okay?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, that's fine.

1. MR. TUVEL: I think we've been going two hours or so.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. We're going to take a five‑minute break.

(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Mayor just stepped out for a second. 

Michael, can you call the roll?

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Here.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Here. 

1. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Torielli?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I'm here.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. McWILLIAMS?
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: Here.
3. MR. CAFARELLI: MR. SCHEIBNER?
4. MR. SCHEIBNER: Here.
5. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. GIORDANO?
2. MS. GIORDANO: Here.
3. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. BARTO?
4. MS. BARTO: Here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Jason, we're just going to take something at this point.

1. MR. TUVEL: Yes.

(Whereupon, Village of Ridgewood Planning Board discusses notice of 257 Ridgewood Avenue, LLC. And announces the matter will be carried to the July 18, 2017 meeting. No further notice required.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We're back on with KS Broad Street. And I guess we finished with our planner and the public questions, and I think there might have been some more questions that want to be asked of our traffic engineer and maybe our engineer.

1. MR. TUVEL: Yes, it seems as though there were some questions asked to MS. McMANUS that were more germane to their areas of expertise, so we were holding off those questions for those witnesses, so if there is any other ‑‑
2. MR. MARTIN: MR. TUVEL, as follow up to MS. McMANUS' questions, you agree that our traffic engineer remains ‑‑ Andrew Feranda of Shropshire Associates remains sworn and is also qualified as a ‑‑
3. MR. TUVEL: Yes.
4. MR. MARTIN: ‑‑ as a traffic expert.
5. MR. TUVEL: As well as your village engineer, correct.
6. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

ANDREW FERANDA, PE, PTOE, CME, Having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Andrew, I guess there was some discussion on certain items and I guess COUNCILMAN VOIGT has questions for you. 

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I do. So, Andrew, just let me go through my line of questions. So the Franklin/Broad intersection, does it function now? Is it functioning okay?

1. MR. FERANDA: Franklin and North Broad, a study was done for the Village and right now during peak hours, morning peak hours, evening peak hours and Saturday peak hours, baseline information says that the morning signal operates at an overall Level of Service B, that the evening level of service is C, that the Saturday level of service is also C. That's what ‑‑ then, again, I'm a consultant for the board and I've reviewed all the information. One of the pieces of information is a report that they have done before the board. I've also reviewed the traffic report done by the applicant. Right now those are the conditions.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So if the development were to occur, what would the service levels be without an upgrade?

1. MR. FERANDA: Based on the traffic report, the level of service overall in the a.m. would also be B, in the p.m. would be C, and on a Saturday it would be C. Now, just let me put that in perspective, what A, B and C means. For a signalized intersection, Level of Service B is 10 to 20 seconds of delay. When I say overall, that would mean each approach would have an average of that 10 to 20 seconds delay. Level of Service C would be 20 to 35 seconds, that would be overall. There might be individual movements such as the northbound North Broad which would have a little bit more delay, that's offset by the right turn would have a little less delay. That's what's reported in the reports that I've reviewed. My experience and observations, I have seen quite a bit of queuing for the northbound North Broad Street, and also for the westbound movement ‑‑ I'm sorry, eastbound movement under the railroad bridge. That level of service is reported as B or C, and my observation is that the queuing is substantial and it doesn't pass as many cars as you might expect for a Level of Service B at 10 to 20 seconds or a C for up to 35 seconds. That being said, I have to go with the information provided. I did not do an independent report. So I have this information.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So if the upgrade were made, upgrade to the intersection, what's going to happen to the ingress and egress of that area and what's going to happen to the ingress and egress of the Chestnut Street entrance/exit?

1. MR. FERANDA: I'm going to step back a second and ‑‑ you're asking what would happen if the improvements were made. To my ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Not made, if improvements were not made.

1. MR. FERANDA: If they were not made? Based on what I see on the plan, the traffic controller is in a position where it has to be relocated based on the building. There's a signal pole and a traffic controller on the northwest corner of the intersection that require relocation. They have to be in a new position. So to answer the question, what if nothing were done to the traffic signal, something has to be done to the traffic signal based on what I'm seeing on the traffic signal plan. And that requires relocating that control. And there's a signal pole there. I don't know that that's specifically called out for relocation, but based on the architecture and based on the overhang, the cars are going to be coming underneath an overpass, and based on the current location I believe that the pole will also have to be relocated. So to say nothing would have to be done, I don't know if that's even a possibility. What you're approving is a relocation of that traffic signal controller and that's integral to the intersection. You can't just relocate a controller and not have improvements done to the intersection.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So ‑‑ but ‑‑ let me continue to ask the question.

1. MR. FERANDA: Okay.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So if you don't do anything to that intersection, where is it going to ‑‑ is it going to create a situation where you're going to have more cars coming out of Chestnut, the Chestnut entrance and exit?

1. MR. FERANDA: This particular development will add traffic on that driveway. My understanding is that the parking or the lot is now ‑‑ I don't know if it's currently, but it has been used for parking, for parking for the railroad station. So currently there are vehicles using that driveway. I don't have a count, other than what's in the current study that was done for the Village.

But that parking lot being used would contribute traffic. The exact volumes, I don't know what they would be in relationship to the proposed traffic that will be using the driveway. Based on the number of parking spaces I can give you an educated guess, there's probably more during the a.m. and p.m. commuter peaks when people are parking in that lot. If they're all coming to that lot parking, leaving their car for the day and then leaving in the evening, that would be quite a bit of traffic that is currently using that driveway.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So is it going to create a level of service situation at the corner of Franklin and Chestnut that would be worse if you didn't do anything, based on the traffic coming out of that Chestnut exit?

1. MR. TUVEL: Can I ask ‑‑ can I just add a follow up to that? I don't understand the line of questioning if we do nothing because the plans show that we are changing the signal. So I'm trying to understand why you're focused on that.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Oh, so here's what the problem is ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: ‑‑ you're going to contribute a, you know, X amount. Okay? We may not be able to afford it, okay, as a village. So ‑‑ so the issue you have here is that while it's nice you're going to contribute, you know, what percent, we may not be able to do it. So we're left with a situation that, you know, we're eating ‑‑ as a village we're paying for your benefit and so that's the issue I really have at that intersection is that, you know, frankly the way this has been kind of decided for our share, I'm not comfortable with that number that's kind of been bandied about. And, you know, frankly, I think it's ‑‑ I think it's frankly too low, based on the benefit that you're going to receive from that intersection.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Right.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And so I want to find out if we don't do anything, because we may not be able to, what's going to happen. That's the issue I'm trying to get at is because we may not ‑‑ may not be able to do it. We just can't afford it. So...

1. MR. TUVEL: The ordinance, though, provides for multiple methods of implementation with respect to the traffic light, though. So if you were in a situation where the Village can't do it, there are other methods that put it on the developer and have the reimbursement later, as well. So there's other mechanisms that allow ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm not familiar with that. I mean, this is news to me that what you're saying is you're going to be able to pay more. I mean ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: That's not what I said. What I said was the way that the ordinance reads, there are different ways that we can implement the construction of the signal based on the pro‑rata share contribution. That's what I'm saying.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So, basically, you would be financing it.

1. MR. TUVEL: It's ‑‑ all I'm saying is that's a possibility.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: That's what you're suggesting.

1. MR. TUVEL: That's what I'm saying, is that's a possibility under your ordinance. That's usually something that's discussed post approval after all of these construction costs are identified.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. Well, so here's ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: And I'm not undermining your question ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

1. MR. TUVEL: I just wanted to engage in a dialogue here on how this gets accomplished.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. So, again, I'm having a problem with this ‑‑ you know, we're kind of betting on it coming ‑‑ in other words, you're saying you're going to do it, we've got to approve this and then we're going to be ‑‑ we're going to be ‑‑ we're going to be holding the bag. And so the issue I have is that I want a good understanding that we know, kind of, what it is that you're going to pay for so we feel comfortable in approving the application. That's the issue I have.

1. MR. TUVEL: We can't pay for the but, Councilman, we can't pay for more than what we're legally obligated ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Sure you can.

1. MR. TUVEL: ‑‑ legally obligated to pay for under ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Sure you can.

1. MR. TUVEL: ‑‑ under the ‑‑ under the ordinance.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Sure you can. Sure you can. You can pay for as much as you'd like as a contribution to the Village. You can pay for whatever you want, okay.

1. MR. TUVEL: I don't think that's true.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And that's ‑‑ and that's called goodwill. 

1. MR. MARTIN: Well, Jason ‑‑ (Applause.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, no, please, no applause, comments when people are speaking.

1. MR. MARTIN: Jason.
2. MR. TUVEL: Go ahead.
3. MR. MARTIN: COUNCILMAN VOIGT, I recommend that he ask his questions and I believe the issues are is there a need for improvement. If there is, what is the relationship to the developer.
4. MR. TUVEL: Correct.
5. MR. MARTIN: And what is the relationship to the costs. But we're not ‑‑ I would ask you give him a little latitude, let him ask the question.
6. MR. TUVEL: No, no. That's fine.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. So, so, so, so, I guess ‑‑ I guess my ultimate kind of assumption here is that this is kind of tipping the ‑‑ tipping it for us, we have to do this, okay, where before we didn't have to. So the question is since we have to do it now, why should we pay for it?  You know, why should we pay for any of it. (Applause.)

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And ‑‑ and ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Please, no applause.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: And so ‑‑ so if it relates to, you know ‑‑ it relates to the needs created by the applicant, and you're creating a need that we didn't have.

1. MR. TUVEL: I don't know if that's ‑‑ I don't think that's true either.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: No? But he ‑‑ but he just said that. He said we don't have a need and now ‑‑ and now you're saying we have a need.

1. MR. MARTIN: Let's hear him.
2. MR. TUVEL: I think ‑‑ I think ‑‑
3. MR. MARTIN: Let him ‑‑
4. MR. TUVEL: Fine. That's fine. We can wait till later to talk about it. That's fine.
5. MR. MARTIN: Do you have any other questions?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. Yeah. So is my assumption right, you know, right now we don't have a need and then this is causing us to have a need? That's what I'm getting the assumption is that, yeah, I think it is.

1. MR. FERANDA: Right now, based on the information I have, the signal is functioning at levels of C or better during peak periods, and if this development were to come in, there would be need for improvements. And it's not just for the vehicles, it's also pedestrian.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, so ‑‑

1. MR. FERANDA: ‑‑ ADA requirements and that ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. So that's what I want to know is that, you know, there wasn't a need and now there is a need. And so the question is, who pays for that need? And that's, I guess, something we have to discuss at some point. But, you know, I guess my thought is that it would be nice for the developer to contribute a ‑‑ something that's fair, to the Village. Okay? And that also relates to if you change that one light, in other words, if you say, okay, we'll pay for that one light, you've created a mess at all the other lights. And so the issue I have is that whole corridor becomes a mess, just from one improved light. And so, again, we're held ‑‑ we're holding the bag here and we're creating ‑‑ you're creating a problem for us that we have to pay for. And that's not right. And so I mean, we just ‑‑ we need to figure it out, okay?

1. MR. MARTIN: Take advantage of the fact that he's provides them ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, so

1. MR. MARTIN: He's following up on the planner.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah, so ‑‑ so, Andrew, as it relates to that, you know, that ‑‑ that corridor, I mean, we talked to Bergen County and Bergen County said, yeah, we'll pay for ‑‑ maybe pay for one light. There's five lights. Okay. They'll pay for a portion of it. And then we have an issue with the Maple and Franklin intersection. We have an issue with the Ridgewood Avenue and Maple intersection. And we have an issue with Wilsey Square intersection. So all of those have to be ‑‑ tell me if I'm right or wrong here ‑‑ they all have to be coordinated. So if you coordinate ‑‑ if the use one light that's actuated and you keep all the other lights the same, it creates a mess.

1. MR. FERANDA: Correct. For a corridor of signals in such close proximity, they're very close because they're city blocks, Oak would be the next one to the east. And then I guess Wilsey would be the one to the west. They're very close proximity. Coordinating them is important to allow the traffic to flow because if they're not coordinated then they ‑‑ one might operate well, the next one doesn't, then all of them operate as the weakest link. Traffic just doesn't work efficiently. You need certain bandwidth to make it pass through.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So just so that ‑‑ this is one development at this one intersection, I'm assuming that all the other 4 ‑‑ 400,000 are allowed. So that's $2 million. Okay. And you're going to pay a portion of 25 percent of one? I'm having difficulty with the math.

1. MR. TUVEL: Well, then, again, what we're getting ‑‑ we're outside of the jurisdiction of the board ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: No, but it ‑‑ but it isn't.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: No.

1. MR. TUVEL: You have to ‑‑ let me just explain.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It really isn't.

1. MR. TUVEL: I don't want to interrupt.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

1. MR. TUVEL: I don't want to interrupt you. So go ahead. Can I just finish just what my thought is, you got to remember that off‑site traffic is not a consideration when you have a permitted use. The only thing that the board can consider, which we have discussed, and I think was even outlined in your board attorney's memo, is reasonable conditions that could be imposed upon the application if it's permitted, and as‑of‑right, and also off‑tract improvements where we pay a pro‑rata share. This isn't a ‑‑ the board cannot go beyond that jurisdiction. And that's where I'm trying to keep us focused. And I understand you're trying to be an advocate and trying to do what's right for your constituency, but we have to stay within the purview of our jurisdiction.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So ‑‑ so based on what you're saying and based on what we can do, just that little ‑‑ we can't afford to pay, it's not worth our while to do anything. Okay. And based on that, your development creates a huge problem for us from a traffic standpoint.

1. MR. TUVEL: That's not for ‑‑ that's not for consideration here.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Oh, sure it is.

1. MR. TUVEL: Off‑site traffic is not consideration when the ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Sure, it is.

1. MR. MARTIN: Can we ask the witness some questions? Jason, please.
2. MR. TUVEL: That's fine.
3. MR. MARTIN: Let him testify.
4. MR. TUVEL: That's fine.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes, so ‑‑ so the ‑‑ I guess my problem I have is that, you know, we can't afford to do this, you know, one light. And we can't even afford ‑‑ we can't even afford to pay for the one light. They're going to pay, you know, whatever percent that ‑‑ we can't pay for it. So ‑‑ so my concern is that if we don't do anything, it creates ‑‑ does it create a problem for us from a traffic standpoint and a pedestrian safety standpoint? And so that's kind of the issue I have. Is that right? If we don't do anything we have a problem. And if we do something we have a problem with one light. So we need help.

1. MR. FERANDA: If you don't do anything, the signal doesn't match up with the driveway, its configuration and the light, the signal heads can't be seen underneath the pass. The potential there is to close that driveway if the signal doesn't work with the site driveway, but, obviously ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Well, let me ask you a question. Would you recommend that if we can't do anything with that intersection to close off that ingress and egress and the only way that they can get out is through Chestnut Street which creates a problem; is that your recommendation?

1. MR. FERANDA: As a traffic engineer, absolutely‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.

1. MR. FERANDA: ‑‑ I would not recommend that be done because two egress points are better than one, there's more distribution and they would be able to use the signal. Obviously, the signal would have to be configured so that they could use it, but their use of it certainly would allow access in and out of the site.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. Okay. So I just want to get your perspective on this as a traffic engineer, would you say ‑‑ if we don't do anything with this intersection and you live there, would you have problems going in and out of that development? Personally.

1. MR. FERANDA: If the Village were not to change the intersection at all ‑‑

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes.

1. MR. FERANDA: ‑‑ and allow that driveway to be there as it is?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Would you have a problem with it?  

1. MR. FERANDA: Again, it's a hypothetical because I don't think that building can be put in without relocating the signal.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: But how about from a traffic standpoint?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I you have to hear his answer.

1. MR. FERANDA: Again, it's a hypothetical because equipment has be moved for that building to work as it is, so ‑‑ and it's shown on the plans, the controller has to be relocated.

But if nothing was done, no timing changes were made, no signal changes were made, it would be an improper use of a signal for that driveway.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So I think ‑‑ that's all the questions I have at this time.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone else have a question?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, I want to kind of continue down that road. So just so I understand, essentially it's the design of the building ‑‑ and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the design of the building that has created the issue with the placement of the light; is that accurate?

1. MR. FERANDA: I believe so, based on the building being very close to the right‑of‑way and the current location of the controller box that would have to be relocated, and also being that there's an underpass that the signal head would have to be seen, those things are based on what's being done with the development, the proximity to the right‑of‑way.

MAYOR KNUDSEN So for the benefit of the people that are here to listen to this, whose decision is it whether or not to move that light?

1. MR. FERANDA: Whose decision is it to move the light?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.

1. MR. FERANDA: The light is officially in the county's jurisdiction. It's the county's jurisdiction. However, the Village maintains and operates the signal. So it goes back to the Village. The Village right now.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And so ‑‑ and I'm just trying to understand, as the Councilman kind of laid out this scenario, if the Village says simply we are not moving that light because we just did a budget, I've got to tell you, we were just, you know, really going by with nothing. We have no money. And so it would be a serious concern. So if the Village said look, we can't afford to do this, and we choose not to do it, then I guess to the Councilman's point, there's ‑‑ is there a safety hazard, presumably? Is there a safety hazard? What are the ‑‑ what are the ‑‑ I guess, the impact of not moving that? What is the problem?

1. MR. FERANDA: I'm not sure of the exact implications of moving that signal controller, what that would have on the building. Right now it's shown to be relocated. That's a major portion of a signal, and that's the brains, that's the computer of the operating of the signal.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.

1. MR. FERANDA: That has to be relocated. My recommendation is that if it's relocated it be replaced because it's old, outdated. It can't handle the coordination we're talking about. It can't handle actuation times. I would recommend actuation video detection, and also I would recommend some signal changes so that you could get some phasing using left turn arrows and that would go along with signal timing improvements. So there are multiple reasons that the signal needs to be changed, in addition to the pedestrian, which is significant with the crossing for the train station and this development. There would have to be improvements to make sure the crosswalk is ADA compliant, that there's pedestrian provisions including push buttons and signal heads, the timing is appropriate, the crosswalk, any handicap ramps. All of that would have to be improved as well as the signal equipment as part of the intersection improvements. These are all listed in my recommendations that I made.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then if we weren't able to adjust the timing on all the lights where they're synchronized, is that then another safety issue? What does that ‑‑ what happens then? So you have an interruption of service, but is there a safety issue involved in that interruption? 

1. MR. FERANDA: Synchronizing the signals is not as much a safety issue as it is an efficient use of the corridor. That will be a better level of service because it will provide a pass‑through. You'll see green at one intersection, you'll drive through and see green at the next intersection, instead of seeing green, seeing red, having to stop, then seeing another red. They would allow for vehicles to pass through without having to stop at every other intersection or every intersection. That's what the synchronization or coordination does, that will help improve the delay. The actuation and the pedestrian improvements, that's what provides the safety ‑‑ the actuation also betters the delay, but it also helps provide safety because then the signal can react to vehicles and pedestrians at the intersection.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: What was the, just from my recollection, the ‑‑ when there is that activation, that pedestrian activation, what was the ‑‑ because then they're off sync momentarily, what would the delay be to re ‑‑ sync, if I'm saying it correctly, for all the lights in line because ‑‑

1. MR. FERANDA: Bandwidth?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

1. MR. FERANDA: You have a bandwidth to make sure that the vehicles can pass through on the corridor.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right.

In other words, when a pedestrian goes to this crosswalk, the light changes ‑‑

1. MR. FERANDA: Correct.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ so that synchronization of all the other lights is then off momentarily.

1. MR. FERANDA: Yes. Momentarily.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: What would the delay be like for them to re‑sync? How does that work?

1. MR. FERANDA: They would re‑sync within the next cycle.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: The next cycle?

1. MR. FERANDA: Yeah. And that's something that would be done by the smarter controllers that have a computer in them. Right now my understanding is some of the controllers are mechanical controllers so they're pre‑timed.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes.

1. MR. FERANDA: So they're just like a clock. They're going around and they're saying every 30 seconds I'm going to give this approach 15 seconds. And then I'll give this approach, and then I'll give this approach. And It just cycles around mechanically.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. I got it.

1. MR. FERANDA: With the smarter controller, the computer, it can actually use the actuation, detect the vehicle, and then say there's vehicles here waiting, let's allow them to have some time, or if there's no vehicle waiting, let's not give that approach any green time. So right now in cycling around you probably get some green time to some approaches that have no vehicles there. That won't happen with the actuation.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Got it. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else have question?

1. MS. GIORDANO: Can we just, like, go back for one second to something that COUNCILMAN VOIGT mentioned? I think I may have missed a portion of it, but he asked you what the level of service was for the signals and you said something about ‑‑ did you say that the studies didn't really match up with your own experience?
2. MR. FERANDA: The levels ‑‑ the overall level of service is what I gave you from the village report and then the overall level of service I gave you from the traffic report. Individual movements within those overall levels of service can have lesser or better delay. You can have ‑‑ the North Broad Street, we have more delay with left turns, a little bit more time, and there's that level of service would be a D or an E, where the right‑turn movements, very simple movements to make with no opposing vehicles, that could be maybe a Level of Service A. So when I give you the overall level of service, that's a balance. There are individual movements that have to be accounted for. If it goes up to Level of Service E or Level of Service F or worse, it can get worse, Level of Service F ends at 80 after that, it's just failing. It's just a bad condition that needs to be fixed. If there is that Level of Service F within ‑‑ even though the overall operation might be a C because everything else is operating at A, if there's one approach within that that's operating at an F, that really needs to be mitigated. And what is reported in the reports is that North Broad does operate with D or E, but in the reports it's a Level of Service B or C for the eastbound Franklin Avenue, and when I got to that intersection, there's been queuing up and under the bridge and all the way back to Wilsey many times. So my observation is that vehicles aren't getting a chance to pass through in the cycle. The traffic counts may not be accounting for the actual volume that wants to go through, it's just accounting for the actual volume that is going through. When you get congested conditions, there's a breakdown. When vehicles don't travel through the intersection, someone can go out there and count five vehicles passing through and say that's great. But if those five vehicles can only make it through and the other ones can't because there's gridlock, then that's when there might be some breakdown between what you're seeing in the analysis and what you experience as a village residents. You get out there in the traffic and you have to wait a couple cycles, you're going to tell me that it's not 10 to 20 seconds of delay Level of Service B. If you have to wait a couple of cycles it's a longer delay.
3. MS. GIORDANO: So how comfortable then should we feel in relying on some of those studies when you look at the numbers, because I know it's been brought up a few times for me specifically the egress and ingress point on Chestnut. The studies might not show that it's backed up, but my own experience has been that it's ‑‑ it will block ‑‑ traffic will block past that ingress. It absolutely will and cars will stack on the property. So how comfortable do you feel the data that we have, how comfortable should we feel, versus maybe our own observations at this point?
4. MR. FERANDA: My job is not to knock down the reports that were done by competent engineers who have gone through the analysis. They've provided the information. I have not done any independent ‑‑ you know, I have reviewed what I've been given. I can only go by what they're giving and that's why I'm giving that to you that there are Es and Cs for overall level of service, and then that particular approach that I'm talking about is Level of Service C or better, the eastbound Franklin, 35 seconds or less delay. Anybody who's driven through it, coming from that approach, you probably feel like there's more than 35 seconds of delay as you go under the trestle there. So what I'm giving you is also the explanation why that may have occurred from a traffic report, that's been done by engineers and looked at the analysis and they're saying this is the vehicle passing through and this is the time that we're getting, and the delay that we're getting.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Can I just jump in? I just have a question. I'm sorry, Carrie.

1. MS. GIORDANO: Yes.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Could you just state where you got that information from, the report that you're referring to?

1. MR. FERANDA: The report that I am referring to is the Ridgewood Downtown Zoning Impact Analysis for the Village of Ridgewood.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Year? What year?

2016. MR. FERANDA: Oh, I'm sorry. And the year on it, it says March 2016. Engineering ‑‑ Ridgewood Downtown Zoning Impact Analysis, Village of Ridgewood, New Jersey.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Would your analysis on ‑‑ let's just take, for instance, that one particular location we were just discussing, would your analysis be somewhat different than that? Is that what you're suggesting?

1. MR. FERANDA: What I'm saying is I have not done an analysis, all I have is my visual experience in passing through the intersections over the last several weeks in observing that intersection.
2. MR. MARTIN: MR. FERANDA, just for the record to make it clear, was that report that you just cited to from March 2016, is that generated by the applicant or some other source?
3. MR. TUVEL: That was generated by the Village.
4. MR. FERANDA: So ‑‑ so ‑‑  
5. MR. TUVEL: And then the applicant did a separate report as well.
6. MR. MARTIN: I need some ‑‑ for the record I need some testimony on it ‑‑
7. MR. TUVEL: Oh.
8. MR. MARTIN: For the people here and also the record, I need to know whether that's the applicant, board, or some sort of outside of this application review, I think it's important.
9. MR. FERANDA: I'll read directly from the cover of the report.

"Prepared for the Village of Ridgewood, 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, 07450, prepared by BFJ Planning, 115 Fifth      Avenue, New York, New York, 10003."

1. MR. MARTIN: So that's outside of this application, that was prepared for the village overall.
2. MR. FERANDA: Correct. That's my understanding.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: But just for the record, is that Gordon Meth's report?  Can you name the engineer that ‑‑ the traffic engineer that did the work. 

1. MR. FERANDA: Inside the cover it says, "Prepared by BFJ Planning, RBA Group, Ross Haber Associates, Urbanomics"

Yes, next page in: "Acknowledgements, RBA Group, Gordon Meth, BFJ Planning Group, Susan Favate and Noah Levine, Ross Haber & Associates, Ross Haber and Urbanomics, Tina Lund."

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Just a question. If you went back and did the same ‑‑ if you went back and do the analysis, let's just say at that point, that place, and your analysis determined that the intersection was an F, how would that change your report? How dramatically would your report change?

1. MR. FERANDA: Again, I haven't done that analysis, I'm relying on other engineers and on engineering ‑‑ two engineering groups who looked at it and have used it. The one that prepared it in this report and the one that used it for their report, the applicant.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So the applicant used Mr. Meth's report. And you relied on it, and yet thus far for this particular site plan application no one has actually gone out and physically done a study of that particular intersection just for the point of this discussion; would that be accurate?

1. MR. FERANDA: I think you would have to ask the applicant what they did for their report.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Could we just take a five‑minute break, if you don't mind?

1. MR. MARTIN: Okay.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.  Five‑minute break.

(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Let's go back on the record. 

Michael, call the roll?

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MAYOR KNUDSEN?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Here.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: COUNCILMAN VOIGT?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Here. 

1. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Torielli?

VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Here.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. M Here.
2. MR. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.

1. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. GIORDANO?
2. MS. GIORDANO: Here.
3. MR. CAFARELLI: MS. BARTO?
4. MS. BARTO: Here.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone have any further questions for MR. FERANDA? 

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Carrie had a question.
2. MS. GIORDANO: I'm done.
3. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. So I remember that the testimony, I think it's April 18th, where we ‑‑ where it was noted that the intersection operated at C to D ‑‑ or D and E, certain aspects of that.
4. MR. FERANDA: Certain movements ‑‑
5. MS. McWILLIAMS: Right.
6. MR. FERANDA: ‑‑ within the intersection operate at D and E.
7. MS. McWILLIAMS: And I'm aware of the fact that the traffic study being used here was generated by ‑‑ was one of four, I believe, impact studies done by the previous council. And being you, you know, in the vein of passing the ordinances that bring about this development, and I'm also aware that no further traffic studies are being presented here tonight for this development, and I can make all of the observations that I want and talk it over with all of the engineers I want. I've gone and ‑‑ through that intersection, I can't even guess how many times, or through that underpass up Broad Street, up Chestnut, down Chestnut, right and left off of Chestnut. So my own analysis, if what we're actually basing our board commentary on tonight is our own analysis, my own analysis is that it is almost never a convenient area of town to travel through. It is ‑‑ I ‑‑ I can't ‑‑ I mean, if it's at a Level of Service B or C I would really actually hate to actually ever be in a D or an E. And I share every single person's concerns up here that ‑‑ about financing traffic lights that are going to make it acceptable, financing traffic lights up and down that corridor. And we can act like they're 60 miles apart, they're a block apart. They're a few hundred feet apart from one end of that street to the other. It's a few hundred feet. We have a bike lane that takes up an entire lane of traffic, so that you've now bottlenecked people trying to get through that intersection in any which direction, and now we're going to also have people with significant more regularity trying to make a left at that underpass, and, oh, in addition, there'll be a sitting area to people watch.

(Laughter).

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Traffic watch.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Please, don't speak out.

Do you have a question for him specifically?

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: Yes. Is this, like, completely ludicrous or just a little ludicrous? Because I'm not 100 percent sure any more what I'm listening to. (Applause.)
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: We're discussing our own analysis and we're using traffic studies that were generated, you know, I sat with those interviews, I watched Gordon Meth's interview. And I watched Gordon Meth come back a month later with a completely different story from what he sat there in his interview and said.

So are we going to generate some valid, new, in my opinion, legitimate traffic data or are we going to go based on our own analysis? So ‑‑ and ‑‑ and I have appreciated everything you've said. I feel like you've answered our questions really, really well. And I really appreciate all of your input. And I feel like what you're saying to us is that you see this as a difficult area. We're saying there's budgetary constraints. What do you suggest we do? Because there is no way ‑‑ we have had pedestrian fatalities on this block in a few ‑‑ within feet. 

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Uh‑huh.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: And I want to know what we're going to do to mitigate that and stop that and promise the residents that it's not going to happen again when we put these buildings in. And the buildings are what create further dangerous situations. So I really ‑‑ I struggle with what we should do, so I'm asking you where do we go? We need new traffic data. We have no adequate, impartial traffic data that we're all looking at.
2. MR. FERANDA: Where this questioning began was can this be done without improvements to the intersection, and I think my analysis is, no, we need something in this Village to be done at that intersection. Not only at the intersection, the corridor needs to be coordinated. There needs to be actuation. And that's where we're going. The analysis that was done, whatever was done in the past, if these improvements were made, you have a new intersection, you have new equipment, you have things that will be done in the future that can be done better. There will be coordination. There'll be actuation. There'll be pedestrian crossings that's actually not just pre‑timed giving them a certain amount of time and hoping the can cross, but timing that will work with the pedestrian crossing. So where the initial line of questioning was what would happen if you did nothing, and I stated the conditions and the nothing conditions would continue or get worse if you did nothing. But my suggestion and recommendations and in my letter of recommendation in all these improvements that something has to be done to this.
3. MS. McWILLIAMS: Even if we didn't ‑‑ even if these site plans weren't before us you would suggest those improvements? But specifically now with these site plans before us they literally have to be done in order for it to be a safe, passable area. Okay. I wasn't asking what would happen if they were never done. I may be going a step past that to what Jeff said that after that which is that we can't afford it, and what Susan said, we can't afford it, we don't have it in our budget. So what next? Because I sat, you know, if that ingress were to be closed off based on how unsafe it would be if we cannot afford it, and if the county's paying part of it, the builder's paying part of it, and we're required to pay part of it and we can't afford it, these are needs and wants. Like, I don't ‑‑ I ‑‑ there's needs and wants. I don't ‑‑ I don't understand ‑‑ so then what? We're going to be ‑‑ we're going to be putting people in 200 feet into Chestnut Street to get in and out of the development and the 5500 square feet of retail space. There's no option other than to put the signal.
4. MR. FERANDA: I believe the applicant has agreed that they ‑‑
5. MS. McWILLIAMS: No, no. I ‑‑ they've agreed, but we would have a share that we'd have to pay too, though, that we can't afford. Right? And so if we can't afford it, it isn't safe if we can't ‑‑ if they can't get it.
6. MR. FERANDA: I can only testify to changes need to be made.
7. MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is there any other questions on this side? 

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just have one last question, how long would it take you to confirm the counts at that particular intersection and maybe the Chestnut, how long would it take you to actually go back out there and confirm the count? 

1. MR. FERANDA: Do a traffic count and traffic analysis of those intersections?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, that we could use.

1. MR. FERANDA: Typically we can get that done within 30, 45 days.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

1. MR. FERANDA: That's typical turnaround for something like that.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: I just have a question, that report, is that something that you would reasonably rely upon and it doesn't give you pause at all?

1. MR. FERANDA: The traffic report?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, the traffic report.

1. MR. FERANDA: Based on the information I have, knowing that ‑‑ which traffic report, the report that the applicant ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: The Village Council one. Were you comfortable with that and you didn't feel the need to do any further counts or analysis on it?

1. MR. FERANDA: It was done by multiple professional groups and, therefore, I relied on it because it was done for the Village and done by multiple professional groups. This was based on ‑‑ that I have reviewed for this intersection because it had the intersections of this application involved them.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: And your observations kind of confirm what was in there? Did you get a sense, you know, that things were ‑‑

1. MR. FERANDA: In general my observations do confirm what's in there, but I do have a concern about especially that eastbound approach that comes under the bridge where it says Level of Service B or C. And when it's queuing all the way back to the signal and around the bend there, something is just a little bit off with the analysis that says its passing in under 30 seconds.
2. MR. MARTIN: MR. FERANDA, could you ‑‑ within 30 days could you come up with the actual direct data yourself just to confirm or revise anything that may be inconsistent in your eyes?
3. MR. FERANDA: We would send somebody out there to do the analysis and whether that matches what's here or doesn't, the Village would then have to look at the data and would have, you know, the different reports to then go through. Again, typically, when professional traffic engineers do the counts and do the analysis, typically the results will come up the same; however, in this case there would be a special focus on some of the more delayed movements, the longer queues, and we would look at that specifically, whereas if it were done as part of an overall corridor and they wanted to get all the counts in and just analyze them without specific focus on certain problematic movements, maybe that might have not been a focus of that analysis for this particular intersection.
4. MR. MARTIN: And you could finalize that and go over with the applicant's traffic engineer if you needed to, correct? You can do it independently at this point.
5. MR. FERANDA: Certainly, yes. That could be ‑‑ that could be something worked in.
6. MR. MARTIN: Thank you. And based upon your review up to date of this matter, can you see if the intersection of Franklin Avenue and North Broad Street had any ‑‑ would be directly impacted by this particular application?
7. MR. FERANDA: The intersection of Franklin and North Broad Street?
8. MR. MARTIN: Yes.
9. MR. FERANDA: Would be impacted by?
10. MR. MARTIN: Directly impacted by this application. There would be some nexus to the application at the intersection whatever it may be.
11. MR. FERANDA: Let me step back, as I'm telling you we can do this count, we can certainly do the count analysis. What this is going to do is record the existing conditions. This is the existing conditions with the existing pre‑timed signal. Again, my recommendation is that there be signal improvements in the future. We can certainly do the analysis with the signal improvements, but things will change based on that signal being put in place. So I'm ‑‑ and I want to make sure the board gets what it's looking for, but I don't want to go out and do a study and another analysis and something else that is just going to be a record of existing conditions without that future condition which this signal will improve.
12. MR. MARTIN: A couple things on that, okay, number one, I'll get to the look‑back in a second. And I think MR. TUVEL and I discussed this at the last hearing, but just, I'm going to ask you about certain intersections and whether you, based upon your review of this matter, believe that there is an impact directly by this application or not. Okay? Franklin and North Broad; do you believe that intersection is going to be impacted?
13. MR. FERANDA: Absolutely.
14. MR. MARTIN: Excuse me?
15. MR. FERANDA: Franklin and North Broad, absolutely. It's the driveway is going to ‑‑
16. MR. MARTIN: Okay. I'm just trying to set a record here.

Franklin and Chestnut; yes or no?

1. MR. FERANDA: Yes.
2. MR. MARTIN: Franklin and Oak Street, same question.
3. MR. FERANDA: Yes.
4. MR. MARTIN: Finally, North Broad Street and Ridgewood Avenue; same question.
5. MR. FERANDA: Yes.
6. MR. MARTIN: All right. Now, in regard to what you just testified to and maybe it's going to get a little ‑‑ maybe I'm getting a little punchy now, it's 20 to 11, but generally over the 27 years of doing this, there's look‑backs that applicants agree to, where then we spoke about at the last hearing, if there's any kind of change based upon the actual as‑built project, the traffic engineers will come back and they'll say, okay, listen, at this point we're going to put up a no‑left turn sign because traffic is really a dangerous condition in that regard. At this point we're going to have to put up a little buzzer because when you come out of the garage there's traffic and people walk by too quickly that an alarm goes off, things like that. Would that be beneficial in terms of this case, that after six months of being constructed you could take a look back with the applicant's engineer and say, hey, listen, this is good, this is bad, this needs to be improved?
7. MR. FERANDA: I think that is a good idea in where this board should go. I believe that getting the signal with these improvements and the ability to detect ‑‑ to actuate the different approaches with the pedestrian improvements, with the signal heads, with the controller being improved, synchronization having that in place and then post‑development going back and redoing the study, rather than doing another study upfront and getting existing conditions, we all know that the existing conditions aren't great. But getting a study done after the signal is in place, having the equipment there, then you can use the actual volumes and re‑time the signals, use the equipment that would be improving, signals now in place, and then a new study can tell you what the best timing would be to use ‑‑ to most efficiently use that new equipment that's there.
8. MR. MARTIN: And that look‑back can address vehicular traffic?
9. MR. FERANDA: Vehicular and pedestrian.
10. MR. MARTIN: Sidewalks and pedestrians?
11. MR. FERANDA: Correct.
12. MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else on the board have any questions for MR. FERANDA? 

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does the applicant have any questions for MR. FERANDA? 

1. MR. TUVEL: Not at this time. I'll let the public go because I know they've been patiently waiting.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Does anyone from the public have questions for MR. FERANDA?

1. MS. KOTCH: Yup, I do.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Line up. A little anxious, aren't we?

State your name and address.

1. MS. KOTCH: Linda Kotch, K‑O‑T‑C‑H, 60 North Hillside Place. I'm sorry, sir, what's your name again?
2. MR. FERANDA: Andrew Feranda.
3. MS. KOTCH: Feranda.
4. MR. FERANDA: Andy, Andrew.
5. MS. KOTCH: Okay. So I listened to what you're saying and just listening to the grading that you were saying, I got to tell you, I got a little nervous, because I was waiting for the F, because I think I literally read War and Peace waiting to get under that trestle. And what make me ‑‑ gives me pause is the last statement you made, what I understood you to say is that your suggestion would be to look at after and make some changes. Well, that makes me nervous because that bike lane that was put in there under that trestle, the bike lane to nowhere, that is so dangerous because you have that fear factor. People aren't quite sure how to negotiate it. And I said earlier, I saw one cyclist in the time that that's been in there. This poor kid riding without a helmet, flip‑flops on, like a bat out of hell, the wrong direction. So she's coming around a blind curve. And everybody's, like, waiting to get through on the F‑intersection. So rather than approaching this as an after‑the‑fact, why aren't we looking forward and say let's make sure we're addressing it. I think, for the vehicles, the pedestrians and the cyclists, that was a disaster, the bike path. And I'm all for bike paths. But let's be holistic in the whole egress safety, look at this holistically rather than react. That's my two cents. Thank you.
6. MR. FERANDA: May I respond?
7. MS. KOTCH: Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, please.

1. MR. FERANDA: I'm assuming that was a question. I know the bike lane is out there and it appears to be a bike lane to nowhere. It starts at this site and then continues up. There also is median striping in the middle that, in my opinion, if I had a blank slate to work from, and a signal design is part of that blank slate because we'd be putting in new signal, new improvements at the intersection, because there would be left turns into this site, I would take away that bike lane, I would take away that median. I would put in a left‑turn lane so that any left turning vehicles could move to the side and allow the through traffic to pass by.
2. MS. KOTCH: I ‑‑ bravo.
3. MR. FERANDA: But, again, that would be an option when the signal design is actually done.
4. MS. KOTCH: Were you aware when this bike lane was being ‑‑
5. MR. FERANDA: No.
6. MS. KOTCH: ‑‑ put in? Okay.
7. MR. FERANDA: I was not part of that bike lane.
8. MS. KOTCH: We had to fight to make it wider because originally that median was even wider and you couldn't get an emergency vehicle over there.

So maybe we got the grant to do this project and we're probably wound up spending a lot more than the grant to do something that doesn't even serve us. So thank you.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name and address.

1. MR. DANI: Good evening, Saurabh Dani S‑A‑U‑R‑A‑B‑H, last name is Dani, D‑A‑N‑I, 390 Bedford Road in Ridgewood. I have ‑‑ I have heard two very different statements from two different bodies here in this Ridgewood, in this courtroom, one is Village Council when we asked if there is an impact fee. They told us the Planning Board would impose that. And the Planning Board said that would have been done by the Village Council. So in your experience when we are seeing that a new building or new development will have an impact of five ‑‑ four or five traffic signals, in your experience, who pays for that impact?
2. MR. FERANDA: Typically the developer is ‑‑ as a fair‑share contribution they put in a pro‑rata fair share based on their contribution to the intersections. Now, because there's two intersections that are immediately adjacent to this site, they would have a greater impact on them by the site traffic. As you get further away in the roadway network and the grid, traffic disperses through the roadway network and there are less and less vehicles going through the intersections, but there is an impact. There is ‑‑ and the questioning before was is there any impact at this intersection, and this intersection and further away at this intersection. My answers were yes because vehicles will go through them. The impact is obviously lessened as it gets farther away. As you're a mile away from the site ‑‑
3. MR. DANI: Right, but there is an impact ‑‑
4. MR. FERANDA: ‑‑ there is less impact. Yes, there is an impact.
5. MR. DANI: ‑‑ and in your professional experience, have you seen that other planning boards did not run away from that. They did ask the other person to pay their fair share.
6. MR. FERANDA: Correct. They asked for the fair share and typically that fair share is applied towards the intersections that are most impacted, and those would be the ones closest to the site, whether they be adjacent or the next intersections that ‑‑
7. MR. DANI: And to COUNCILMAN VOIGT's point as of yet, we don't know what their fair share is, what that expense it. How is that fair, how is that ‑‑ how are you going to calculate what is it ‑‑ what is it going to cost and what is that fair share?
8. MR. FERANDA: That's a pro‑rata fair share. That's based on the traffic contributed by the site. That's something that a formula that's set, traffic engineering uses ‑‑
9. MR. DANI: And is that done at this stage of the planning or is that done later on?
10. MR. FERANDA: Typically what is done, the board would put it as a condition that the applicant contribute their fair‑share cost towards the intersections and to that extent, I prepared a letter, an April 13th letter, which listed the adjacent intersections that would be mostly impacted, and I requested that fair share. I believe at the last hearing that was agreed to that the conditions of my letter for fair‑share contribution had been agreed to.
11. MR. TUVEL: Yes, we agreed to all of the upgrades and contributions and improvements that MR. FERANDA recommended in his report at the last meeting, so those included the light at Franklin and Broad, that included the light at Franklin and Oak, as well as some other crosswalks, ADA ramp improvements. There was a list of about six or seven items in his report, I believe there were six items in the report and we had stipulated that we would pay our pro‑rata share for all of those items, yes.
12. MR. MARTIN: And sidewalks.
13. MR. TUVEL: Yes.
14. MR. MARTIN: The sidewalks as well?
15. MR. TUVEL: Yes, yes. I'm sorry if I didn't cover every single thing, curbing, I think was in there as well.
16. MR. DANI: And when you did the analysis, Andrew, did you include the new DOT requirements that HoHoKus train track will be changed to one‑way in this ‑‑ later this year?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I hope not. 

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I hope not. That's my ‑‑ I hope not. 

1. MR. DANI: Yes, but that's DOT ‑‑ that's ‑‑ that was done to be part of the Village Council meeting about this March 2016 traffic report. That currently HoHoKus train intersection is two‑way street or two‑way all the way and that will be changed to one‑way so that traffic has to be diverted to other intersections, so that would be either this intersection or some ‑‑ or something ‑‑ where else would it go?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I think that that's why the whole fact becomes critical because this is something that we anticipate with some level of certainty. MR. DANI's point about the traffic review in the likely result of a greater flux of commuters to this area.

1. MR. DANI: Right, commuters and people who just have to cross, people who have to go west side to east ‑‑ east side to west side, because that will be changed only to one way.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Right. It changes the traffic ‑‑

1. MR. DANI: But I guess ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: It actually changes the traffic dramatically if that is to happen. It's a dramatic change to that area. There's no doubt.

1. MR. FERANDA: I am not aware that this is a final plan.
2. MR. DANI: So the two changes that we heard that will impact the board, one is the shut down DOT wants to put a bus station at the train station, so they want to move the bus then or the bus station which is currently at Van Ness to a different intersection that is DOT's plan, and Ridgewood engineer is supporting that, so if that happens then a lot of the buses would be going to this underpass. And if there's HoHoKus two‑way traffic changes to only one way, then some of that traffic would be diverted here. So there would be even more traffic at this intersection and even more commuters will be coming here, so the focus will be greater here.
3. MR. FERANDA: Those are reasonable considerations and I don't want to say that, no, they shouldn't be considered. But it sounds to me like they're not final plans and those particular applications would have to take into account their impacts just as this applicant is taking into account their ‑‑
4. MR. DANI: No, those are not applications. Those are coming from DOT. Those are happening ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So can I ‑‑ can i just jump in again with a ‑‑

1. MR. DANI: Sure.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ with a little bit of a correction here. That plan for the buses to leave the train station was just an old plan that was revived, I guess, from the Village engineering department when the issue came up as to whether or not to add parking to the ‑‑

1. MR. DANI: Train station.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: ‑‑ north side of the train station.

1. MR. DANI: Right.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So that would have been on the south parking lot. But since that time we started to realize that it was just really not feasible and there was just too many traffic implications with that and the buses couldn't really make those turns, we have since abandoned that and will not be pursuing that. So just a point of clarification.

1. MR. DANI: But the HoHoKus roadway that is ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes, the HoHoKus issue is, I believe, is still a problem. So that I see it's ‑‑

1. MR. DANI: Right. Because the way it was presented to us at the Council meeting by the engineer is that the Village does not have a choice, it is coming from DOT and we have to do that. This is already agreed to. That's how it was presented.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: We're aware of it.

1. MR. TUVEL: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, sure.

1. MR. TUVEL: I thought at the last meeting, and I thought we were going into public comment because I thought that we had gone through all the experts. I know there some follow‑up questions based on MS. McMANUS' testimony, that was really questions that were really geared towards traffic. But I thought we ‑‑ that's what I thought we were doing tonight, we were getting into public comment.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. Well, COUNCILMAN VOIGT had questions for the traffic engineer and then since it was open, other people can ask and then ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: So are we reopening the cross of the traffic expert because ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, just because he testified I mean you have to give the opportunity ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: Just as to those issues that he ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah. Pretty much what was just discussed, not a ‑‑ a whole replay of everything.

1. MR. TUVEL: Well, that's my concern.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yeah. For the additional ‑‑ yes, I mean, I give some leeway, because sometimes people ‑‑ and you've been patient, too, on that. So, are there any more questions for the traffic engineer? I see just one more.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: You can keep it towards what he just testified to.

1. MR. SLOMIN: You may as well hold on to the mike you're going to need it. Dave Slomin, S‑L‑O‑M‑I‑N, 36 Heights Road. You might not need it for the first one, but the second one.
2. MR. TUVEL: All right.
3. MR. SLOMIN: I guess it's ultimately a traffic question. I think the question for Chris, I didn't bring the ordinance with me tonight, but I believe last time I read it, it does require that the ‑‑ that the board know costs of items related. Isn't that a fact? Related to improvements, off‑site improvements? Isn't that a factor in the ordinance?
4. MR. MARTIN: It says that if they are related and ‑‑
5. MR. SLOMIN: But didn't it ‑‑ didn't it have a point that they have to be ‑‑ certain knowledge of what they are and defined. That it's not just ‑‑ it's can't be an open‑ended?

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It says total cost.

1. MR. MARTIN: If you could not agree, right.

COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Total cost.

1. MR. SLOMIN: Okay. So that's right. We have to be able to agree on the total cost. Are you able to, at this point, define what is the total cost of the traffic improvements needed along Franklin Avenue, both specifically the two at the site and the ancillary impact, I guess, zones along Franklin? Do you know what the costs will be.
2. MR. FERANDA: I've given that range; 300 to 400,000. I believe that's a reasonable cost range based on what's proposed to be done for the improvements at that intersection. The costs cannot be given until there's a detailed traffic signal plan. You would actually look at each piece of equipment and take off the linear feet of striping or number of signal heads or mast arms, poles, the new controller costs, that would all have to be on signal plan to detail the cost estimate. But from my experience, and I have done quite a few of these signals, the cost to make these improvements that we're talking about would be in the range ‑‑
3. MR. SLOMIN: Per intersection.
4. MR. FERANDA: I'm specifically talking about the intersection of North Broad and Franklin. The other intersections I have not looked at as closely, but the improvements that were suggested for those intersections, actuation, the coordination, the synchronization, that could be $5 to $10,000.00 per the necessary equipment to make those work. That doesn't mean that other improvements wouldn't be needed. I'm thinking of the Oak and Franklin. I believe that intersection may be as old as this particular intersection. Chris might have better information on that, but that signal also needs improvements. Again, the actuation, the pedestrian provisions. It may need some signal arrows for some phasing that would improve the left turn phase. So the detail, the actual cost will come out of the plans when they're designed. But for now we have costs that can apply a percent towards. The fair‑share contribution is a percent, whatever the cost is, if it's 100,000 and their fair‑share cost is whatever the number is, 10 percent, 25 percent. It's a percent of the total cost. If it's 10,000, it's a percent of that total cost. Whatever the cost is, their fair share towards it is a pro‑rata fair share based on their traffic contribution.
5. MR. MARTIN: Dave, may I ask a question?
6. MR. SLOMIN: Yes.
7. MR. MARTIN: I didn't see specific but section I is consistent with the ‑‑ what I read. And it's also consistent with case law. This is what happens on off‑tract improvements especially with motor vehicle traffic. If the application is denied because there is problems with height or size or variance issues or something that ‑‑ or health and safety issues on‑site it's denied, that's easy. Okay. Let's say it's granted. There's off‑tract improvements that must be considered and have a nexus to the project. You've got to pay a percentage. Yes, I agree to pay my percentage, absolutely, right? So the project is built. The engineers come around and they say wait a minute, we think that this is directly related and it's $45,000.00 or $500,000.00. Now that things are gelling this is what it is. And applicant says, no, I don't think it's $200,000.00 and 10 percent. That's not something under the law and is inconsistent with section I, they can't turn down the application for the off‑site improvements. But if you can't agree after the fact, they put a deposit in and then we go and we work it out in the court as to what the percentage is and what's proper. So if we can't work it out amongst themselves, as the development is being built and the off‑site improvements need to be done ‑‑ and, Andy, correct me if I'm wrong, then they have to put it in escrow and the Village presents evidence as to why they should pay more. So that's perfectly consistent with I. It's perfectly consistent with the law. But it's not something that the law allows in terms of an acceptance or a denial.
8. MR. SLOMIN: I mean what I heard, and I appreciate the consistency of your testimony from last meeting to this one, which is refreshing and appreciated. And ‑‑ but what I'm hearing is there's a lot of things we don't know and it would help to know some more, and I ‑‑ and you were asked specifically earlier tonight, you know, do you have any issues or do you agree with everything in that report? And it was a ‑‑ that's a yes or no answer. And it was a ‑‑ you gave a thoughtful answer, but it was not a yes or no. You didn't say, yes, I agree with it. I guess you may have ‑‑ there may be defects, it sounds like there may be defects in this ordinance that you may not be able to get around, and I don't know how, you know, if you have a contract and one thing's defective, you don't throw the whole thing out. I don't ‑‑ I don't know how it works in an ordinance. But there's issues clearly some things don't comport with law in these ordinances ‑‑
9. MR. MARTIN: Well ‑‑
10. MR. SLOMIN: ‑‑ but, so how do we get to a point where they can make a ‑‑ I mean, you guys ‑‑ this is the planning board, not the applicant board. I mean, how do they plan for this? I think we're already heard tonight, we'll pay our pro‑rata share, someone asked, will you just pay for the whole thing? Nobody ‑‑ again, nobody ‑‑ you guys didn't say, you know what, we're going to make a lot of money here, we're going to give this couple of lights back to the Village. You could say that. You could offer that up, but you didn't. So how ‑‑ how do you get to ‑‑
11. MR. TUVEL: Just ‑‑ I'll let you keep going, but just chime in on two points that you just made.

Going back to what Andy had said, in addition to what Chris mentioned regarding the deposit that would be put in the event that there's a disagreement on the amounts we owe, we also have a bond for any public improvements that are made by the applicant. We'd have to post performance guarantees as well, because any time you do any type of public improvement in any sort of right‑of‑way, whether it be county, state, or municipal, you have to ‑‑ you have to post a bond. So that's another aspect of it that I want to mention, that's one. Number two, the other thing that you had mentioned as well is we have to ‑‑ we can only pay what we're legally required to pay. So I can't ‑‑ that's what the law says. I can't go beyond what the law requires.

1. MR. SLOMIN: But that's actually not true.
2. MR. TUVEL: Okay.
3. MR. SLOMIN: You could only be required to pay what the law legally requires you to pay, but you cannot you, you're the attorney for them, I understand your position, but the developers, the owners of the property, can say you know what, Ridgewood clearly has an issue here related to our development. They can't afford these lights. Right now we've been trying for years to get a comprehensive Master Plan going, but the cost of it has been an issue. As I hear it, the cost of these lights is more than a comprehensive Master Plan. That's crazy.
4. MR. TUVEL: All I'm saying, MR. SLOMIN, is that there has to be a rational nexus for any sort of off‑tract contribution. That's all.
5. MR. SLOMIN: We've been looking for a rational nexus for the last five years.
6. MR. TUVEL: I'm just telling you, that's what I'm saying. That's the legal standard so...
7. MR. SLOMIN: I ‑‑
8. MR. TUVEL: We're talking about the legal standard.
9. MR. SLOMIN: But the thing is there are plenty of development that happen where that ‑‑ where the developer, just to get something approved, will give a park to the town, will give extra parking, will give a traffic light. There has ‑‑ there has been nothing offered here. So ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Let's get back on track. Make it a question to the traffic engineer.

1. MR. SLOMIN: Well, I was ‑‑ I was asked a question I had to respond.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That's all right. Yes.

1. MR. SLOMIN: So I guess ‑‑ I guess, you know, ultimately the question is, is that they need to make a decision based on shared costs, can you, given that it seems like ‑‑ even at the last meeting you said, well, we really don't know what's going to happen. We're going to have to live with the impacts after the fact. I don't see a lot of, you know, promises here to give that, hey, we're going to be a little more generous here. Can you define what Ridgewood's ultimate responsibility is going to be here and can you say we can afford it?
2. MR. FERANDA: I cannot say exactly what the cost to Ridgewood would be without having those exact design plans for those intersections. What I can say is the applicant, as in any application throughout the state, will be contributing a fair‑share pro‑rata amount towards those improvements. That's the law and that's the traffic basis for what they would contribute for off‑site improvements. I cannot say what the total cost would be, the remaining cost, not covered by their fair share for the other improvements.
3. MR. TUVEL: And what would happen as part of the ‑‑ sorry. What would happen is part of the ‑‑ once the board identifies the off‑tract contributions that are going to be made which were ‑‑ which were set forth in the traffic engineer's letter, what we typically would do, as a condition of approval, is provide a cost estimate. That's also done as part of the bonding for any site improvements that we do as part of any development project. We provide a cost estimate to the municipal professionals; board engineer, board traffic engineer. They would review that. Sometimes actually they offer to prepare it. Sometimes the applicant prepares it, whatever. Both sides review it. So there is going to be an itemized cost of all of the improvements that's prepared, based on what the board decides are the off‑tract improvements that need to be a part of this application based on that rational nexus. So there will be itemized numbers given as to what the cost will be.
4. MR. MARTIN: And, generally, how I write my resolutions is it's at the discretion of the board's traffic engineer. Sometimes the applicants don't like that, but often they have to.
5. MR. SLOMIN: And is this isn't a question, but it seems like there's something of a discussion, I think it's a positive discussion, I appreciate what you're saying. Ridgewood is a generous town with generous people in this town. The residents of this town have built huge playgrounds behind Ridge School. I was part of that. Given thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to playgrounds. Citizens Park came as a result of residents donating a park. One of the other developers on Chestnut, I believe, he donated the money ‑‑ to rebuild the old library, correct? What I don't see here is any give from the developers certainly from this site saying what can we do to maybe help the town a little? Like I said, we can't afford ‑‑ we've been struggling to afford a Master Plan review that we really need. And we know we need it now. You can do more. It's called generosity. It's called talking. It's called you don't have to, it's not in the law, but you can. That's what ‑‑ that's what I'm saying.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Do you have any more questions? 

1. MR. SLOMIN: Yes.

Again, one more, the ‑‑ I guess, again, with the idea of this board being a planning board and not an applicant board, they are faced with four applications at once. Chestnut Village impacts the intersection here at Chestnut and Franklin. The Brogan site will impact the Broad and Franklin. The Enclave will impact all up and down Franklin. Again, one of the things I haven't heard, because I gather you're forced to take this testimony in and of itself, but, again, it's the planning board, not the applicant board. What ‑‑ can you offer anything to help this board make a decision for planning for Ridgewood, not for the applicant, but planning for Ridgewood on how this can work. Because, yes, you might give us two lights here, but then you're also going to do one you're going in heard on the Enclave, well, we need to do this at Franklin. We need to do this at Cottage, and that impacts here. Oh, we haven't looked at what's going on, on the Brogan site. So I ‑‑ you know, say, look, that's not their job, this is the applicant, they have to hear this one. But, again, that's why, you know, residents are here ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Frame it as a question, I guess ‑‑

1. MR. SLOMIN: I said why ‑‑ I did.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Has he taken a comprehensive view ‑‑

1. MR. SLOMIN: Can, you know can ‑‑ what can you do to offer this board to take a comprehensive view and can they really do this right without it.
2. MR. FERANDA: My job as the conflict engineer was to review this application, and this application's impact on the adjacent roadway network and sidewalks. Those other applications are being reviewed as well by other engineers and they will have their own fair‑share contribution. This board knows of all that, I don't know all ‑‑ I know of those projects, but I don't know the detail, I don't know the traffic that's being contributed. I know that they will also be required to do their fair‑share contribution, pro‑rata fair share based on their traffic generated. So that's just a traffic standard. It is the board's decision to put all that together. It's ‑‑ they have to connect all these things together as a planning board. That's what weighs into their decision. I'm here to give the information, the best information, to help them understand this application and what this application will do to as an impact to the Village.
3. MR. SLOMIN: Are you able to do that without knowing all the information on the other sites?
4. MR. FERANDA: I cannot tell you exactly what the impact of those other sites would be. I cannot. The board may know that. But, again, my focus for this application is the impacts of the site traffic generated by the site on the roadway and intersections, sidewalks, crosswalks, that are immediately adjacent and immediately, maybe, the next signal or two.
5. MR. SLOMIN: So while we're talking about nexus and looking for a nexus, would it be helpful to the board to have a unified vision from the ‑‑ all ‑‑ again, I don't think the traffic engineers are ‑‑ but having you guys work together to, say, we're looking at this all? And that's my final question.
6. MR. TUVEL: So, I wanted MR. SLOMIN to get his questions in, I didn't want to interrupt, but the reason I object to a lot of what was said, in terms of the discussion is that, again, I know this is not a popular statement for me to make, but that was all done already. And that's why these uses are all permitted. And that's why we have these bulk standards that we have. And that's why we have the FAR and height requirements that we have. All of this was already done. So what your traffic engineer said was absolutely correct which is now we look at the individual applications. And we look at the individual application and what reasonable conditions we can impose, based on its impact on these off‑tract issues. We don't even consider off‑site traffic. That's actually not even something that should be considered by the board for any basis to deny the application. Instead what we have to look at are the reasonable conditions that can be implemented by way of off‑tract improvements or on‑site reasonable conditions, and I think that was done in the engineering letter that was provided. And I think in terms of some additional work that was suggested, what you had said earlier, Andy, with respect to the existing traffic and taking an extra look at that is really irrelevant because we're going to change the signal and do all these upgrades anyway, as you proposed in your report, then that all goes away because all the levels of service will be essentially mitigated or fixed as a result of making those improvements. But you also suggested monitoring it while the improvements were in place in order to just ensure that it turns out the way that it's supposed to turn out; is that pretty much what was had said?
7. MR. FERANDA: And that is very much what I said.
8. MR. MARTIN: I object to the leading nature of the question, but go ahead.
9. MR. FERANDA: That is pretty much ‑‑ that's a summary of what I said. It was called a look‑back or monitoring. My recommendation is when the building is mostly occupied what you ‑‑ what would you determine mostly occupied, 80 percent, 90 percent, there may never be a full occupancy of the building, but at some point you can pick a timeframe, maybe six months after the building gets a CO, if the building doesn't get filled that quickly maybe it's a year later, but at some point after when most of the building is occupied, its tenants are in the retail space, most of the building is occupied by the residents, that's when you go to the study and see, confirm that the numbers in the report are what they are. And that if signal timings need to be made for the signal to adjust if you were trying to, say, Franklin Avenue didn't have as much traffic as you thought coming from the driveway, that's when you make the adjustments, based on the actual traffic that's going through the intersections.
10. MR. MARTIN: Which is different than on‑site issues that were not looked at for the various concerns with the health and safety of the residents, if they were on‑site circulation issues or turning issues, sight‑line issues, all of that kind of stuff, that's something that needs to be addressed now. Correct?
11. MR. FERANDA: That would‑‑ that would be ‑‑ right.
12. MR. MARTIN: And you had testified that all of the requests in that regard that you made of the applicant's engineer have been complied with or have been agreed to comply with?
13. MR. FERANDA: They've agreed to comply. But we had the initial review letter which they've gone through in detail and said they would comply with and they gave reasons what they would do. That was the initial traffic testimony and addressing our comments. And then there was the conditions letter which imposed the off‑site improvements that would be necessary for this site to work with the adjacent roadways and intersections.
14. MR. MARTIN: And, lastly, MR. SLOMIN's comments all about the numerous different projects, if you will, or applications in this particular zone, you don't have any comment about that, although you agree that it's logical that it will have a context to the impact as to everything in the aggregate, correct?
15. MR. FERANDA: Correct.
16. MR. MARTIN: All right. MR. TUVEL, it's quarter after 11, do we have another question ‑‑ let him ask a question.
17. MR. TUVEL: Okay. I'm sorry.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Please state your name and address, police.

1. MS. D'ANGELO: Ardis D'Angelo. A‑R‑D‑I‑S, D' A‑N‑G‑E‑L‑O. I live at 414 Red Birch Court. Just two questions. What about the kids that live in that building? They're going to need to be bused to school. So where is the safe bus stop, in the midst of all that traffic, for those kids to get on and off that bus? And second question, how is the school bus stop going to effect all of the regular traffic?
2. MR. FERANDA: I believe it was testified to and it's not necessarily a traffic issue, that there will be school children. This isn't an age‑restricted ‑‑ this isn't something that would be age‑restricted. So there will be school children. A bus stop would be planned by the school district, probably at a centralized location somewhere where they have an ability to safely allow the students to wait. My guess is it probably would be on the corner of, say, Chestnut and Franklin, in that location, or maybe further along on Franklin. When school bus stops, all traffic stops, so safety is built into people obeying the law and stopping for the bus. So what that would do to the traffic on the road is what any ‑‑ what would happen at any traffic at a school bus stop.
3. MS. D'ANGELO: Right. But this area is a specifically congested area, it's not like a school bus stop on a local street.
4. MR. MARTIN: So the question is where would the bus stop be? It's an excellent question.

Chris, you have talked about this at other hearings, could you just explain to the questioner how that will be determined?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: As Andrew said, the school bus location will be up to the board of ed and how they route where they would go. It could be picked up on the westbound direction of Franklin Avenue in front of the development, if the bus routing was going underneath the trestle to the west. If the board of ed's routing had them coming east to pick them up in the morning, they may want to consider having the bus making a left turn onto Chestnut, possibly having a pick up on Chestnut because it's a lowered trafficked street. Then again, the bus would go up Chestnut and if there's any school children in the Chestnut Village development, it could pick those children up also, make a right turn either on Robinson or the street just north and get down to Oak Street and go whatever direction they needed to.
2. MR. MARTIN: And does the board of ed work in conjunction with the Ridgewood Police Department in regard to any of the routes?
3. MR. RUTISHAUSER: Absolutely. There would ‑‑ the police department and traffic safety bureau would have a significant input as to where the bus would stop to make sure it's the most safest location. We have at least three highly trained traffic officers in the bureau.
4. MR. MARTIN: And these considerations, were they brought up originally when the ordinance was addressed?
5. MR. RUTISHAUSER: That I don't recall. It's been a while. I apologize.
6. MR. MARTIN: Okay.
7. MR. TUVEL: Could we just take two minutes just to confer and figure out what we're going to do?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.

(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. We're back on the record. I guess this application ‑‑ was there any more public questions at all? (No response.)

CHAIRMAN JOEL: That was done.

1. MR. MARTIN: Yes. I believe the planner and traffic engineer had testified, village engineer, I don't know if there's any testimony.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is there any additional we need from you, Chris?

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I don't know, but I'm always available if there are because I think at a prior meeting we had discussed sanitary sewer issues. And I don't know if there's any other issues that the board wants to vet with the applicant.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I don't know. Anyone else have questions of Chris?

1. MR. SCHEIBNER: I do, on the sanitary sewer issue.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. No, I was just trying to gauge what we have.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have some questions as well.

1. MR. MARTIN: Yes, I think MR. TUVEL was trying to find out what is left.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. MR. MARTIN: Public comment, Chris and public comment. And that's it.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, technically public testimony.

1. MR. TUVEL: Yeah. I mean, the way I looked at it, I think Chris has testified, I think at almost every meeting with regard to a specific issues. If the board, during deliberation, wants to ask him questions or seeks clarification on certain things, I think that's fine. But I don't think ‑‑ I mean, he's been at almost every single meeting, asked to testify on certain issues. We've agreed to comply with all of the recommendations in his report. I don't think we need to open it up again for direct testimony and again, if the board has questions, that's pretty common when you deliberate to ask the professionals to clarify something.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. So I guess Chris would be willing to answer additional questions.

Then we move over to the public testimony, then public comment and then closing statement.

1. MR. TUVEL: Well, public testimony and public comment are basically the same thing, right? Everyone comes up and says what they want to say about the application, correct?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: It's not ‑‑ no. Public testimony would be that person can be cross‑examined. That's if they're offering evidence.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. Fine.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: But, you know, a lot of times people say we just want to give some comment.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. That's fine.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. MS. REYNOLDS: I have a question of Chris. Like, I don't think the public got to ask Chris questions or if they did, I don't ‑‑ whatever.
2. MR. MARTIN: Yes, we had public questions.
3. MS. REYNOLDS: I have questions. I think other people might have questions of Chris.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, he was ‑‑ he did have prior testimony before and there were questions asked of him. But I guess if the board has a couple more questions and if it's germane to that, then I think you can ask additional questions, but it's not going to be a reopening of everything.

1. MS. REYNOLDS: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay?

1. MR. TUVEL: And I don't mind during public comment if part of the public comment is asking a question that someone's unsure about or seeking clarification on.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure.

1. MR. TUVEL: That's fine, too.

But I just don't want to do things twice.

1. MR. MARTIN: We'll have our professionals here then; is that correct?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. This is going to be carried to June 19th, and it's going to be a special session at 7:00 without further notice and without prejudice to the board; is that correct?

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. In this room, correct?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, we've got to check on the availability, but Michael is going to check on availability for the room. If it's not here then it would be at an alternate site.

1. MR. TUVEL: I think we need to get that on the record now. If we're going to carry it, we need to say the location.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: When is the high school graduation?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Later that week, that be Thursday or the following Thursday. Always Thursday.

1. MR. TUVEL: What's that?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just wanted to make sure we weren't scheduling this on the high school graduation night.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay.
2. MS. REYNOLDS: No, it's either the night before BF or middle school graduation, it's two nights before high school graduation.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: So it's not the 19th.

1. MS. REYNOLDS: The high school graduation is the 21st ‑‑

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

1. MS. REYNOLDS: But I think middle school graduation is the 20th.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay, good.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. So let me just make this clear, so we don't know where it's going to be as of right now; is that correct?

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Why don't we tentatively say it's Here. I don't think there's anything ‑‑

1. MR. TUVEL: This is ‑‑ can I make a suggestion?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. MR. TUVEL: You have a meeting before that meeting, correct?
2. MR. MARTIN: We have a meeting next month.
3. MR. TUVEL: You have a meeting June 6th, correct?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. So this is my ‑‑ this is a suggestion. Carry it to June 6th. At that meeting you'll know by then where the room is going to be for June 19th, and then carry it again to June 19th for the special meeting saying exactly where it is so that there's no break in any of the notices that have been done.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

1. MR. TUVEL: However No one from the public's got to be concerned about where ‑‑ what building they have to go to.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. So this application is going to be carried to June 6th, 2017, without prejudice to the board, and it's most likely going to be further carried to special session and date.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: So it's just to preserve the notice. No further notice is required. And it's without prejudice to the board.

1. MR. TUVEL: Hold on one second.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, sure.

1. MR. SLOMIN: Can public ask one question? Will public comment and testimony be on the 6th or the 19th? I ask because the 19th is a terrible night to schedule public testimony and/or ‑‑ because people can't make it because of the graduations.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No. We just heard that it's on different days.

1. MR. SLOMIN: Oh we're going to now be on the 6th.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, 19th.

1. MR. SLOMIN: That's the bad ‑‑ I'm just saying, if you're scheduling a meeting where the main ‑‑ one of the main events is public commentary and public testimony, it has ‑‑ it's scheduled on a really bad night.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: What's on the 19th?
3. MR. SLOMIN: For that ‑‑ it's just, it's graduation week. It's the last week of school. I mean, just ‑‑ can you do it? Yeah. Can people make it? It's a really bad week for it. I'm just saying, if that can happen on the 6th, that would be ‑‑ that would be ‑‑ make more sense.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. So, Chris, yes? 

1. MR. RUTISHAUSER: I checked my calendar I have a conflict for the 19th. I would likely not be able to make it.

MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, we'll still carry it to June 6th, but I think ‑‑ if you wanted some certainty for a date.

1. MR. TUVEL: What do you have on the agenda June 6th?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: There's three items that are on.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. Some of them are the other multifamily applications as well?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No. These are other things that have to be heard and that have been sitting long.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay. So what date can we ‑‑

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Well, we're going to carry it to June 6th.

1. MR. TUVEL: I know, but that's just for purposes of just further carrying it to a date certain. But I just want to see ‑‑ come up with that date now. (Whereupon, off‑the‑record discussion is held.)
2. MR. MARTIN: How's the next Monday, Jason?
3. MR. TUVEL: What's that?
4. MR. MARTIN: It's the next Monday.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: June 26th work?

1. MR. MARTIN: All the graduations will be over.  

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: The 6th. The 6th. The 6th.

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: We can't do the 6th.
2. MR. MARTIN: No, the 26th.
3. MS. McWILLIAMS: No, they were saying can it be the 6th.
4. MR. TUVEL: Okay. We'll make it work.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.

1. MR. TUVEL: So we have this room, we know that, for June 26th, or we still have to check.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We still have to check. So we'll carry this matter to June 6, and that's without further notice, without prejudice to the board. And the intention is to carry it further to June 26th.

1. MR. TUVEL: All right. So June 6th, 7:30 in this room, right?

To be carried to another date, to be finalized at that meeting at that time.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. MR. TUVEL: Okay.
2. MR. MARTIN: June 26th will probably be at 7.
3. MR. TUVEL: All right. But no further notice to June 6th as of right now.
4. MR. MARTIN: No prejudice to the board.
5. MR. TUVEL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. All right.

1. MR. TUVEL: So, Chris, I'll just communicate with you regarding, confirming at what venue it will happen.
2. MS. McWILLIAMS: You guys all got that?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: What's that?

1. MS. McWILLIAMS: You guys all got that? Carried to the 6th to be carried to the 26th.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: So it won't be discussed on the 6th.

CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, just a carry date.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can I ask a quick question for Andy?

CHAIRMAN JOEL: We're done with the application here. You can ask him in private if you'd like.

(Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date. Time noted 11:39 p.m.)

 

Approval of Minutes: The minutes for February 2, 2016 and February 16, 2016 were approved as written.

 

Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Michael Cafarelli

                                                                        Board Secretary

Date approved: April 17, 2018