The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of April 4, 2016. 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. Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The following members were present: Mr. Nalbantian, MAYOR ARONSOHN, COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN, Mr. Joel, MR. THURSTON, MR. REILLY, and MS. DOCKRAY. Also present were: Katie Razin, Esq., Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Bigos, Ms. Patire, Ms. Altano, Mr. Abdalla, Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney, and Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer were not present.

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

Two Forty Associates, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 150-174 Chestnut Street, Block 2005, Lot 38 – Public Hearing continued from December 20, 2016 –

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 November 15, 2016 – Following is the transcript of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin our agenda, I just wanted to point out again certain issues of safety that involve all of us. First of all, please note the fire exits along this wall, should there be an emergency. We also have members of the police department, and, soon to come, a member of the Fire Department for everyone's safety.

One of the concerns we have is capacity in this room. So a member of the Fire Department is going to come to help manage what the limit is in this room. What we've done, if there's a crowd larger than what the capacity is, we have a live beam going down to the senior center downstairs and people can observe. And when it comes time for public comment, when it's their turn to speak, we'll allow the signer downstairs and people can come up from downstairs to make comments. So we're waiting again for a member of the Fire Department to help us manage the capacity in this room tonight. I think that covers the safety issue, so at this time I'd like to call this Special Meeting of the Ridgewood Planning Board to order, this Monday, April 4, 2016.

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: In accordance with the provisions of Section 10:4‑8d of the Open Public Meetings Act, the date, location and time of the commencement of this meeting is reflected in a meeting notice, a copy of which schedule has been filed with the Village Manager and the Village Clerk, The Ridgewood News and The Record newspapers, and posted on the bulletin board in the entry lobby of the Village Municipal Offices at 131 North Maple Avenue, and on the Village website, all in accordance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Richard.

Will everyone please stand for the flag salute.

(At this point in the proceeding all rise for a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.)

1. CAFARELLI: Ms. Patire?

(No response.)  

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Michael.

If you notice, on the agenda we have an executive session next, which is something that came up very recently. We're going to leave and excuse ourselves for that session. I'm not sure how long will would take.

1. WARREN: What?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: But what I wanted to do is emphasize that we will begin public comment tonight. There is a signup sheet, I don't know if everyone has seen that or assigned their name to it. We're starting over today. There was a signup sheet last week, in case we started public comment. So if your intention tonight is to make public comment, please be sure to sign up while we're gone, take note of your number, because we'll actually go through that process in that sequence. I'll begin after executive session with the procedure this evening and also the rules.

So before I do anything further, I'd like to read a motion. Whereas, the Open Public Meetings Act permits the exclusion of the public from a meeting in certain circumstances. And, whereas, this public body ‑‑

1. WARREN: I object. I'm sorry. Before you vote, hear me out. Some of us work, we had a 7:30 meeting, nowhere did it say anywhere that there was going to be an executive meeting beforehand. So all of a sudden this comes in. So a group that is here tonight has to hang out, you can't tell us how long?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Unfortunately we cannot proceed ‑‑

1. WARREN: "We can't answer questions. We can't tell you."

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We can't proceed without that, I apologize. Thank you. I apologize.

1. WARREN: This is wrong, absolutely wrong.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Be it resolved by the Planning Board of the Village of Ridgewood, County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, as follows:

The public shall been excluded from discussions of the hereinafter specified subject matters. The general nature of the subject matters to be discussed is as follows:

Anticipated/pending and threatened litigation including but limited to the Valley Hospital Inc. vs. The Village of Ridgewood Planning Board and the Village of Ridgewood, Docket No. BER‑L‑9305‑14, personnel matters. It is anticipated at this time that the above matter will be made public upon the completion of any litigation including any appeal of the law. This resolution shall take effect immediately.

Is there a motion on the floor?

VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to move to closed session.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there a second, please?

1. REILLY: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Michael, please call the role

1. REILLY: Yes.
2. CAFARELLI: MS. DOCKRAY?
3. DOCKRAY: I'm comfortable keeping the topic in public session, so my vote is no.

FEMALE AUDIENCE VOICE: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you very much for your patience.

1. CAFARELLI: MR. THURSTON?
2. THURSTON: Yes.
3. McKENNA: Can I ask a simple question, what happened to the people who signed up last time?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We're starting fresh, Peter.

1. McKENNA: That would have been nice to know.
2. WARREN: A lot of things would have been nice to know.
3. McKENNA: I didn't sign in, and now I'm going to be down at the bottom of the heap.

Mr. Mayor, We need a leader right now.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned that at the last meeting at the end of the meeting and also at the beginning of this meeting, so, again, my apologies.

1. WARREN: At the beginning of this meeting ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ma'am, you are out of order.

1. WARREN: No, you are out of order. You mentioned that you're leaving, I don't care about your order, you're out of order.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you very much. Excuse us.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I just wanted to ask a question of procedure. Since our colleague, Wendy Dockray, requested that this be in open public, is that something that's not an option?

1. RAZIN: We're going into executive at this time, and then if there's a need for public session, we'll come out of executive.
2. WARREN: So this cannot be held in public?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We are moving into executive session. Thank you.

1. WARREN: Because it can't be moved to the public or you won't?

MALE AUDIENCE VOICE: It's time to find a new leader.

1. WARREN: How about that? Does anyone see any difference between what was and what is?

AUDIENCE VOICES: No.

1. WARREN: So at three and a half percent difference these people ‑‑ we will vote you out. We will make you leave. You are all ‑‑

(Whereupon, Executive Session is held.)

(Back in session at 8:07 p.m.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, everyone.

Before I ask for a motion to open again, we have a number of open seats or a small number of open seats. If everyone can please find a seat, so we can maximize the capacity in this room. We have a member of the Fire Department, the Fire Chief is here. If we reach that capacity, which is somewhere around 120 people, we're going to be asking people to go downstairs to the senior room where they can watch with the live video stream.

Is there a motion to come back to public, please?

VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to come back to public.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Michael, please call the role

1. CAFARELLI: MAYOR ARONSOHN?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Nalbantian?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you all for coming and, again, my apologies for having you sit here. Thank you very much for your patience.

Welcome to tonight's meeting, which has been convened for the purpose of continuing the board's Whispering Woods hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the Village of Ridgewood Master Plan pursuant to settlement terms reached with Valley Hospital following litigation which commenced in 2014. For those of you who were not here at last week's hearing, I'll again briefly review for you the relevant history and where we are in the process. I'll also repeat the rules that have been set forth for tonight's proceedings.

Here's a brief recap of how we got here. At the conclusion of the Planning Board hearings held in 2013 and 2014, the board voted against adoption of a Master Plan Amendment that would have revised the 2010 plan. Since a further amendment was not adopted by the Planning Board in 2014, in 2010 Master Plan Amendment remained in place. Subsequent to the board's action to reject the proposed 2014 Amendment, legal actions were filed with the courts, and, subsequently, the board engaged in a mediation process that was recommended by the court late in 2015.

During that process, which occurred over several months, terms of a settlement were reached between the Planning Board and the Valley Hospital. The basis of those terms, by the way, when the board considers that, it looks at the broader picture, it looks at the impact on the Village, what benefits we can from settlement versus allowing it to be held in the hands of a court. I would like to remind everyone that the board is proceeding under the guidelines of the remand order that was issued by the court. The order establishes a framework for the settlement, with specific procedural requirements and timelines for these hearings, which we must strictly continue to follow.

During the previous two meetings last week, the board attorney, Katie Razin, to my right, walked through the key elements of the court's remand order, including the legal highlights of the proposed settlement and Valley Hospital's attorney, Jon Drill, also made introductory remarks regarding their intended testimony. The board then heard testimony from the Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, as to the proposed 2016 Master Plan Amendment document that was drafted, and, in the context of revisions to the previously proposed 2014 Master Plan that came about as part of the settlement terms reached with Valley Hospital. Both the board and the members of the public had opportunity to cross‑examine Blais on his testimony, and now that process is complete.

Next, the board heard testimony from Maria Mediago, Vice President of Facilities Management at Valley Hospital, who is responsible for property acquisition and planning, design, and construction of capital facility projects for Valley. Her testimony included a review of the proposed changes to the project, including the building height and sizes, and proposed architectural and landscape design features as compared to the 2014 amendment. Several exhibits were also reviewed as part of Ms. Mediago's testimony. The presented exhibits have been posted on the Village website.

Following and during Valley's testimony, which extended over two nights, and which included follow‑up testimony, both the board and members of the public had opportunity to cross‑examine the testimony and ask questions. That process was completed last Thursday night. So tonight, the board will begin the process to hear public comment on this matter. Let me review the rules and procedure again.

When you arrived here this evening, you were asked to sign up for public comment. If you signed up last Thursday night, you must sign up again tonight, since we did not begin public comment on Thursday. So I hope everyone has signed in on the sheet here. I think there's also a sign‑in sheet downstairs, so for those of you who are downstairs, please sign in. When the time comes for you to come upstairs, you will be called. Tonight's signup list will be the one used for the order of public comment speaking, and you should have signed in and taken note of your sequence number on the signup list. When I announce that the hearing is open for public comment, we will call the names in sequence from the list and in order. So if you wish to speak and have not signed up, please do so before your term. There will also be a signup list for those of you who are participating from the senior center downstairs, as I stated. When your name is called, you will be asked to move immediately to the microphone and slowly say and spell your name and street address for the record. You will also be sworn in at that time, since all comments must be made under oath. If you change your mind about speaking when your name is called, simply indicate "pass," and we will move on to the next person. Please note that if you pass, your time will not be donated as extra time to another speaker.

Each speaker will be given five minutes to speak. There will be a timer indicating when one minute is left and again when each speaker's time is completed, and we ask that you respect that timer to allow for everyone to get their chance to speak. The five‑minute time will begin only after the speaker has provided his or her name and address for the record and has been sworn in. We ask that each speaker strictly observe the time limit, so that everyone is given the opportunity to speak. You may read a written statement into the record, so long as it does not exceed the allotted five minutes.

At the four‑minute notification, please finish your statement within the remaining one minute, so that the next individual in the sequence can have their chance. As directed by the court's remand order, everyone who wishes to comment will be given the same five‑minute time period. I will call on everyone who is in line, only once, until everyone on the list has had their five‑minute opportunity to comment, and we will try to get to everyone who signed up on speaking tonight.

Please keep in mind while the board will attempt to hear from everyone who wishes to speak, there's no obligation under the law or the remand order to entertain repetitious comments. After members of the public have had the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan amendment and the matter has been concluded, the board may then take action to approve the amendment or decline adoption of the amendment, but this is something we will discuss at the end of the evening, based on how things proceed tonight.

Before we begin public comment, let me say again that not everything that is said during public comment is likely to be agreeable to everyone. And, therefore, there is a level of patience, respect and cooperation that must be maintained throughout the process by all of us. When a speaker is at the microphone, please don't interrupt, shouting, applause, insults, or other disruptions are not permitted.

Also let me again remind everyone that attorneys who represent an interested party may interject with an objection‑assertion during public comments. Please know that such objection‑assertions should not be perceived by the public to be disrespectful or a rude thing, it's simply a necessary procedure for allowing attorneys to promptly note objections to the record. Remember, that you can speak either in favor or against the proposed agreement and the changes to the amendment.

FEMALE AUDIENCE VOICE: May I ask a procedural question?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Sure.

FEMALE AUDIENCE VOICE: What if you're signed up on the list, and it gets past 11 and you can't stay past 11, are you going to be able to speak tomorrow evening?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: How many do we have on the list? I'll try to address the question.

1. RAZIN: So right now we have 22ish and four downstairs right now.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's try to get through everybody this evening, if we can. We'll see what time it is at that point. Please stay, if you can, it's only 8:40 now.

1. DeVITA: Would you give a time when you plan to stop comment?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think at this point with roughly 25 people, what is that, two hours, right? So at 10:30ish, 11:30, it's roughly 11:30. So it's likely that, if we can proceed efficiently, it will probably be around 11:30.

1. DeVITA: More people might choose to speak after.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We have to play that by ear.

1. DeVITA: I'll come back after the game. Go Villanova!

(Applause and shouting.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So ladies and gentlemen, why don't we begin. The first person on the list this evening is Ms. Paul Smith. Please come forward.

Hi, MR. SMITH.

1. SMITH: Hello.

P‑A‑U‑L S‑M‑I‑T‑H.

Address, 231 Burnside Place, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. SMITH: I do. First, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'll try to stick with the issues related to the redline portions in the plan. I'll save the vim and vigor for the council meeting.

But, starting at the intensity of use, yes, the final total of hospital floor area represents a decrease as well as the above enclosed upper grade area, but at the same time, the limit of the above grade coverage increases by about 23,000 square feet to approximately 311,000 square feet. Tying that to the reductions in maximum height inclusive of rooftop mechanicals, it appears more of a height versus breadth and depth scenario.

Then for the improvement coverage, coverage by buildings and pavement now increased by about 12,000 square feet to, I guess, around 480,000 square feet, which is exclusive of other impermeable surfaces, such as sidewalks and patios. While that is trivial, there is a bit of a difference in ground total. But, overall, what we're talking about the difference being is probably half the size or less than half the size of a women's softball field, and for people that don't know that, that's about 31,000 square feet. So picture like that area being spread around the perimeter.

My last concern with the redline portions of the plans with regard to the existing trees along the rights‑of‑ways. It is stated that if trees can be removed, they should be replaced in a manner similar to better and function at maturity. What would be the timelines associated with the plantings from inception to maturity. It sounds like the looming building views would not be mitigated to the maximum degree by these plantings for several years.

Overall, I truly empathize with everyone on the board. I've been in participation in numerous mediation sessions and regulatory negotiations myself, including the fiduciary rule coming around on Wednesday. So, yes, to a degree I to understand the difficulties in mediating this issue, but by the same note and my opinion, the amended plan is not much of a compromise. We have switched height for breadth and depth. In my opinion that is more window dressing, if you look at square footage in the overall picture. However, I do realize that the Planning Board has to make a decision to align with judicial mandates and timelines. Plus, what was said by her Honor, Lisa Perez‑Friscia, who stated the term: "Public interest demands that a municipality look beyond its own borders in determining whether its legislative act serves the public interest in general."

So I guess it makes it official that Valley is regional for the greater good, but I think it's absolutely in every resident's best interest for the town government to manage expectations based on her honor's specific quote, as well as the fact that this has been a long, long, journey so far and it is likely there will be yet a much longer journey to this end result, if the board says no. And I am willing to support that no on the longer journey any way I can. So with that, thank you for listening, and I want to thank everybody on the dais, the planner, for their efforts, and thank Valley counsel for their transparency and professionalism. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MR. SMITH.

Lisa Paterson.

1. PATERSON: Hi. I live at 307 Graydon Terrace.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. PATERSON: Yes. Many of you know who I am and some of you don't, so I'd just like to tell you a couple of brief things what I'm known about in this town. One is, I'm a mother of twins, one of which has a very significant disability and you may hear him, he's waiting for me out in the hallway there very patiently. I'm a 9/11 widow, and I have a long career as a teacher, an advocate, and a volunteer with children, from the inner city streets of New York, to the suburbs of New Jersey. And I'm a licensed school counselor and currently the director of a very hip writing studio for teens in Ridgewood. My late husband and I picked this town back in '98, because of the obvious reasons, it felt peaceful and friendly, a lovely place to raise our twins. And we did appreciate the comfort that Valley Hospital was nearby, and which really helped us when Wyatt began having seizures.  

When the terrorists murdered by husband, it was this very Village that rallied around my family and me and to help me pick up the pieces. Many of them are in this room right now, and many of them have been at your meetings. I have not been to any of your hearings yet, this is my first time. Quite frankly, I haven't been because I have been showing up for my children as the only parent, and I have been trying to secure Wyatt's future, which is a herculean effort to help the intellectually disabled after 21. But I'm here tonight and I come with a different perspective.

The issues that are being proposed on this overexpansion are so personal and paramount to me for all the children of Ridgewood, so that's why I want to speak. The problem is not having this bigger hospital, the problem is all the complications that will and can come from expanding it. We really need to stop and understand this from a kid's perspective. As a former BF teen told me, it would be completely distracting if I had to watch construction or hear it going on. Aren't kids wise?

As I mentioned, I currently work with teens, and they're from all over Bergen County, based right here in Ridgewood. Some are affluent, some are middle class, and others are from a group home in the foster care system. I listen to kids. I know that kids, what they need to excel academically, socially and emotionally. They need space and an environment that is calm, quiet, and safe. Okay. So you want to go wider and not taller? Is it really better to bring the hospital with construction even closer to BF, closer to the sidewalks where the children walk? Who will suffer from that expansion? Our children.

Our kids live in a world of unrest, turmoil, and unpredictability already. Do you want to add to that or do you want to nurture them from their core? It's hard enough to get them focused and excited and engaged in learning. They don't need distractions. I've worked in many schools, and I know that schools serve as inherently beneficial uses. I know the kind of work environment that is crucial for teachers and staff that have to show up for their students. When I work with the kids, the setting must have a vibrant learning culture with little interference. I know how easily kids could be distracted.

So why would you or anyone knowingly put a child at risk? We all know that construction sites are very dangerous places. People have stood here, I've heard, and told you their concerns, the dust, the racket, the traffic, the commotion, the accidents, and, yes, the cliché of the leering looks that some of these workers do present. And they're so right to be distressed, uneasy and fearful. I've heard that you have a plan for keeping kids safe. Really? Because we all know that we can make those plans, but we can't always keep everyone safe. So why would you force away a child's right for a peaceful, safe, and fun childhood? My neighbor recently told me, it's so good to see ‑‑

 

1. CAFARELLI: One minute remaining.
2. PATERSON:  ‑‑ Lucy and Wyatt doing so well.

I remember when you used to walk them to school and Wyatt was crying for this daddy, and you held him and soothed him while keeping Lucy engaged. I had no choice but to walk them through their grief to school, but you all have a choice. Why force this overexpansion on all the kids in this town? There's been so much added and unneeded stress put on these families because of this issue. It comes down to respect, to those that are teaching at BF, to the families living here, and, most importantly, to the future of our children. So if I were going to come and look at this town with this expansion with my late husband, and I saw it, I'd drive right through. And that saddens me, because I love this town.

So you all have an extraordinary chance to be proactive and expand in a different way. I don't want one child hurt or any parent to lose a child through this expansion, that would be the worst. If just one child is irreversibly affected by this expansion, that's one too many, so the solution is in your hands. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

I think it's a gentleman, Dan Gioia. There's no number next to your name, so why don't we have you come next so that we can then resume.

1. GIOIA: Dan Gioia, G‑I‑O‑I‑A, 447 Fairway Road.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. GIOIA: Yes. As you see, I don't have a speech prepared. I'll give you about five arguments over this past ten years or so this is been going on. But I'm glad I followed Lisa, because that's why I'm here. You know, I live far enough away from the hospital, where it's not going to matter, as far as the size and what I see. What matters is how it affects my kids going to BF. How it affects every other kid, all the other kids going to BF, kids going to Travel, kids going to the high school walking past BF and the hospital. That to me is the most disturbing piece. I don't exactly understand why we think, you know, a three percent reduction is a compromise. I would look at that as a 97 percent increase, not a three percent reduction.

I'm not exactly sure, and I don't know if I can say this or not, but I'm not exactly sure how you got to that point, but it's pretty pathetic from my perspective and I'm sure a lot of other people's perspectives here too. We're putting up trees, we're putting up vegetation to cover penthouses. That's a joke. This compromise is a joke. It's not even something we should be talking about. We got a judge who basically sets a rule and says what we can and can't do, how long you have to talk about it, how long we have to debate about it. Please, it's a total joke. Being here, take the responsibility that Lisa talked about, it's about the kids. It's about the neighborhood and the kid walking past there for the schools. It's your responsibility to keep track of these kids with respect to the Hospital Zone and what can and can't be built there. The monstrosity that you've negotiated, if you call that a "negotiation," you know, just is something that it shouldn't even be on the table. So with that, I'll accede to the next person.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thanks.

Brigid O'Brien.

1. O'BRIEN: B‑R‑I‑G‑I‑D O‑B‑R‑I‑E‑N, 227 Bogert Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. O'BRIEN: MR. REILLY's words at the last vote still ring in my ears, "It's just too big." So I missed that meeting, so I'm not sure if I'm repeating, but I definitely am repeating some other people saying that it is just too big. I pulled out some old notes and I looked at the ‑‑ this is from the Master Plan of 2013, and I realize there was something wrong with what we were presented with at the original, at the first meeting. And I see these buildings are all broken up. And then I looked at this and I realized what was wrong. Everything is all pushed together. We have a massive clump of buildings.

So me, as a resident, I'm walking down the street, just getting past the North Building and the West Building, it's more than a six breadths of an average house. There's no measurement here of the breadth and there's no measurement here of the breadth, so we're just facing a humongous set of buildings along the road as one walks. And not only that, it's just far too close to the street. And I'm just supportive of what other people have said, it's far too close to the street to the people walking by. And I just want you to consider that clump of buildings as being entirely too big and unattractive, and not fit to be in the Village of Ridgewood in a residential area, houses on three sides and a school and children walking to Travel, to BF, and students coming out from the high school. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thanks, Ms. O'Brien.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Brian Ward.

1. WARREN: What number are we on?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We're number four on the list.

Number five is Kevin Mattessich.

1. WARD: B‑R‑I‑A‑N W‑A‑R‑D, 35 Coventry Court.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. WARD: Yes. My name is Brian Ward. I have lived in Ridgewood since 2004, but grew up in nearby Franklin Lakes for much of my childhood. The Ridgewood community has been part of my life since 1978, and I actually learned how to swim at the Ridgewood Y.

There are very good reasons why my wife and I chose to live and raise our children in Ridgewood. We love this town, its people, and the wonderful things it offers. I work for a large financial services company, we're on the global head of corporate and U.S. head of Delta 1 trading. Within my scope of responsibility, I manage $3 billion portfolio, as well as price and negotiate multimillion and billion dollar deals. I tell you this, because I have extensive experience in negotiating complex problems, but the negotiating counterpart is very smart and very determined. I'm an expert in complex risk management, and, as you can imagine, know my way around securities law. The ability to compromise is a key skill in negotiation. The strategy one needs to employ and the level of aggression you're willing to use with any negotiation will depend on several factors.

One of the most obvious factors for any group or person to consider is your future relationship with the other party. Will I intersect with this group or person in the future? And, if so, is it important that we all walk away from this process with a clean respect for one another and will I be in a position that may require more negotiation about this topic or some unrelated topic down the road? Valley's inability to truly compromise and then its shortsighted decision to employ extremely aggressive and, quite frankly, bullying tactics has disturbed me a great deal. There has been a relentless campaign that has cost this town a tremendous amount of both time and money. Money that could have been used to give our first responders a pay raise, hiring more teachers for our children, or adding new school programs to assist families with two working parents.

Valley Hospital has full‑time staff dedicated to accomplishing this outrageous expansion in our east Ridgewood neighborhood, and probably have been quite surprised by how organized our local response has been, given that most of us are working full‑time. I have come to the conclusion with regard to Valley, and, given their aggressive legal action against this Planning Board and the Village, they have declared war on Ridgewood. This is not going out without a game. You cannot simply pick up your hospital and move it to another neighborhood. What you have done is starting to become permanent. You are destroying relationships with your direct neighbors, and you are making incredible miscalculations. The price for using this miscalculation will only be determined over time. You may need us for something down the road, and, who knows, you may be looking at a future Ridgewood mayor.

1. WARD: To our elected and appointed officials: Change is good. Change is inevitable. We cannot stop progress, nor should we want to. None of us on the other side of the table have never said Valley can't expand, Valley can't stay modern. Anybody who does have this view is simply not reasonable and would not be welcomed or helpful at any negotiating table. What has troubled me is the lack of leadership that I would expect, particularly from our mayor. These issues have torn a wedge between not only private citizens, but the citizens and institutions of which we should all be respecting, like our hospital. What I equally find disturbing is the appearance of backdoor dealings and cozy relationships, and I hope I'm very wrong about that.

The details of the mediation process are under seal. I'm not a lawyer, so don't know when these details would emerge or why a remand order was put in place at all. I suspect there may be some embarrassing details there. I do hope when this information is none, and it will be known at some point, all persons involved in these negotiations will be proud of their actions.

To conclude, no single person or single entity should be big enough to push this town around. Our town strategy with regard to Valley needs to change. We are in constant defense against relentless people who have clearly shown us all that their business and financial interests come first and at all costs, including the extremely high cost of destroying relationships within an entire community. The town needs to have its own strategy, which includes an offensive strategy. Whenever in the boardroom and the playground, and I have experience in both, there is only one way to deal with a bully.

To Valley: Sometimes you come across people and groups of people, and you should not have treated or you should have treated with more respect. You still have time to re‑think this path you are on and rebuild your relationship with the people and the community that wants to rebuild things with you. There is a compromise here and it's really up to you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I would ask if you can hold your applause so we can allow everyone and not have to stay too late.

The next person is Kevin Mattessich, number five.

1. MATTESSICH: Good evening. Kevin Mattessich, 836 Morningside Road.

M‑A‑T‑T‑E‑S‑S‑I‑C‑H.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. MATTESSICH: I do. I'd like to clarify what the procedures are going forward in terms of further public debate. I think issues were raised this evening that I don't feel I'm at liberty to address fully at this point in time. I may as a private citizen make a motion with respect to the manner in which this proceeding has gone forward and with respect to issues that have been raised outside the context of the public meeting that I feel totally undermine the process. Now, we can go about that in two ways. We can wait until the decision of this body is made and then engage in further legal proceedings, or we can try to get those issues out in the open now.

I'm not in a position right now to consider what I'm able to say or not say or how to further address the issue. I'd like to do some research on it. There's obviously time considerations, time considerations imposed by the judge. And perhaps we need to go to the judge and say that there are citizens concerned about certain very central core, you know, crucial and determinative issues that are not being put into the public realm at this time and possibly need to be addressed. Alternatively I can go forward as a private citizen tonight and raise those issues for what they're worth, but I don't feel that would be a service to the community or to the board, if I simply speak off‑the‑cuff without having the opportunity to further research.

So I'd like to know when our next hearings are, how we're going to proceed, and whether they'll be additional opportunity. I do frankly think that we are in a position to go back to the court and say that the timeline imposed is simply unrealistic, unfair, and deprives the community and this board of the right of due process, as well as Valley. Because, at the end of the day, if the issues that are raised are not properly addressed now, are not addressed with due process, and are not brought forth to light, then they're going to come back and haunt us all later, and that's going to be years and years of more hearings, years and years of more litigation, which is just, we've been torn too far apart by this proceeding already. So that's my question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: This is the time for comment. I'll acknowledge your statement. I think a lot will depend on what transpires over the course of this hearing in terms of the continued public comment and then the deliberation of this board. But, depending on what that is, there are a variety of avenues that you might want to comment on.

1. RAZIN: I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, if you're referring to ‑‑ I mean I'm not sure if you're at liberty to say.
2. MATTESSICH: I'm referring to the fact that there's a conflict issue that's looming out there with respect to your firm, and it's my personal belief that your firm should be recused at this point in time. And, in fact, your law firm may have jeopardized that. You've asked me and so I've told you.
3. RAZIN: If you let me finish my sentence.
4. MATTESSICH: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
5. RAZIN: Well, this board took action in closed session earlier this evening. I don't know, I think you were aware of that. Correct?
6. MATTESSICH: Correct.

FEMALE AUDIENCE VOICE: It was in closed session, nobody was aware of anything.

1. RAZIN: So I'm not sure if it's appropriate for you to be commenting right now.
2. MATTESSICH: That's my question.
3. RAZIN: Actually it wasn't your question, your question was on the timeline and I was going to respond as to whether or not we were going to proceed this evening or tomorrow evening and continue this matter. Right, that was your question?
4. MATTESSICH: That was my original question, but I understood you asked me something substantively and I responded to it.
5. RAZIN: Okay. So we haven't decided if we're going to proceed tomorrow evening, it's going to depend on how far we get this evening. If you have legal matters that you feel are necessary, I think you better speak as a ‑‑ you're entitled to raise them as a private citizen, just as anybody else as a private citizen is entitled to raise legal matters.

However, if you're speaking of matters that were raised in closed session, then that's a real serious issue, because you may or may not know certain issues, and that's a real serious issue that you might want to discuss with me offline.

1. MATTESSICH: And that's my point, and I haven't raised that ‑‑ I raised my point with a preface.
2. RAZIN: So ‑‑
3. MATTESSICH: So what is procedure going forward?
4. RAZIN: So the timeline question is, right now we're going to proceed as far as we can this evening. Depending on how far we get, we may open and continue public hearing tomorrow night and the board may carry this matter to tomorrow night. We've indicated, each night, as we have before, that we're going to continue this matter and the board may take formal action, but we are going to continue to see how that goes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think, with the number of people we want to hear tonight, I don't think our interest would be to begin deliberation at a very late hour. So if that mimics or confirms Katie's comment. I would like at this point to stick with the comment portion, and that's why you're here. So if you wouldn't mind taking your time to make public comment.

1. RAZIN: If you'd like to come speak to me separately at the break, I'd be happy to speak with you about the separate issue.
2. MATTESSICH: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So I take it that was your comment, Kevin? No comment then.

1. MATTESSICH: I have no further comment.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you.

Elizabeth Clothier. Did I get that right?

1. CLOTHIER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: State your name, spell your name and provide your address.

1. CLOTHIER: Elizabeth Clothier, C‑L‑O‑T‑H‑I‑E‑R, 462 Overbrook Road.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. CLOTHIER: Yes. Dear Planning Board members, thank you for the opportunity to address the board and for your continued efforts. This has been an interesting learning process for all of us, and I appreciate your diligence. I had a similar learning process and experience this morning, when I suggested to my seventh grade daughter that we walk together to BF. I wanted to experience for myself what it was like to walk along Van Dien on the way to school.

Much like this process, there was a presentation of facts, lengthy negotiations, my husband stepping in as the judge to mediate, the rendering of a solution, and ultimately my capitulation to walk with my dog. I learned there are boundaries to our relationship. And as I prepared my presentation for this evening, I referred back to a statement I wrote to the Planning Board dated April 2, 2013, about "inherently beneficial uses."

Valley and BF both share this land use classification, but there is a huge disparity in the services offered by each to the residents of Ridgewood. And to me, that is the heart of the issue. At current BF enrollment rates, 745 Ridgewood residents receive the inherently beneficial service of an education. Past testimonies indicate that less than 10 percent of the patients receiving Valley services are Ridgewood residents. Mr. Brancheau has acknowledged that the Valley Hospital expansion would cause detrimental effects on adjacent land uses. Those being impacts from increased intensity of use; loss of light, air, open space; and increased visual impacts related to height, building mass, setbacks, buffer and building design.

The proposed mediation changes are nominal and diminutive in their scope, nor do they come close to addressing or reducing the enormity of the proposed project. Further, this proposal will subject two generations of BF students to a constant barrage of construction vehicles and compromised learning environments, and thereby dramatically reducing BF's ability to offer its inherently beneficial use to Ridgewood residents.

Good planning is balanced, and this proposed settlement is completely unbalanced. It tips the scale away from an inherently beneficial use offered by a Ridgewood institution for Ridgewood residents, and compromises BF's ability to contribute and uphold Ridgewood's educational system tradition of excellence. BF and beneficial uses it provides for Ridgewood students should come first. Accordingly, the Planning Board should deny Valley's application and these proposed changes. Thank you for your consideration.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Leigh Warren.

1. WARREN: No one can hear you with your microphone, just saying.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: How's that?

1. WARREN: Much better.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you for pointing that out.

1. WARREN: L‑E‑I‑G‑H W‑A‑R‑R‑E‑N, 140 Washington Place, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

30. WARREN: I do. I don't know why we're here. So, my big thing is, I'm not sure why we're here. I know that I was told to come at 7:30, so I switched plans, switched a job, to be here at 7:30. If you all want to have a meeting behind closed doors, when you've called a meeting at 7:30, I suggest you make every effort to come at 6:30 and do it then. We had children here that wanted to speak. We had children that wanted to tell you how they feel, so you know from them. As a teacher, they shouldn't be here past 7:30. So for them to be here was great. But they're gone now, because they have to go to bed. A lot of people don't come to these, because of this kind of shenanigans. You tell us to come, we come, you go away. You need to re‑think that. I'll get to wondering why we're here.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

1. WARREN: Three percent, really? Big change. Not really.

Has it changed any of the problems that the previous councils and previous Planning Boards had said no to? Did it really change any of those problems? It doesn't. I think Valley should really think about their neighbors, think about the people who are here. I've lived here for over 20 years. Not once when I was considering moving here was I like "Oh, yeah, hospital." Never once. Don't know anyone here who does that. We have open space laws here. We voted open space. We acquire open space. Why? If we're just going to let the space we have be built up. I think it's kind of hypocritical. I'm a teacher. I teach in New York City. When we have these tests, like the PARCC test, we have ELA, during that time in our school, no one plays gym, no one goes outside, so the kids can focus because they're so easily distracted. You're going to have how many years of construction going on? That's not fair to those kids. It's not fair to anybody. It's not fair to the teachers. It's not fair to that neighborhood. Sure, traffic, yeah, "No, there won't be a problem."

But I think there will be a problem. And during the years of building Valley Hospital too big for its location, that traffic is all going to switch. So it just goes to Linwood over to Ridgewood or to Glen, making those two arteries in and out of town even worse. We have a problem coming from the west side to the east side because of a new sign, new bike lanes. Things just seem to be thrown up. You all need to think about what these things, the impact they have. And I hope that you're paying attention and listening to people. And, yes, why are we here? We already said no. It's our Village. It's not Valley's Village.

Thank you.

(Applause.)

1. WARREN: One last thing and this will help you. Don't clap, because it will take too long, if you do this, that means you agree and they can see it (indicating).

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Kelly Nakasone.

1. NAKASONE: Hi. Kelly Nakasone, K‑E‑L‑L‑Y N‑A‑K‑A‑S‑O‑N‑E, 321 N. Pleasant, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. NAKASONE: Yes. As I was leaving tonight, my eight‑year‑old wanted to know why I was going to another meeting. And he said, "What's this one about." And I said, "Oh, Valley wants to build a bigger hospital." And he was like "What?" He was like, "Valley is already so big." And I was like, "Okay, yeah," because for an eight‑year‑old it probably is already so big. And I said, "I know, but they do want to build a bigger hospital," because he did not believe it. And then he said, from an eight‑year‑old, "Well, that's going to ruin BF."

And we walk through BF to get to school. We walk around that block. We ride our bikes around that block. It's already crowded. It's already crazy. It's already viewed as dangerous. So my eight‑year‑old is already concerned. He also knows at eight that three percent is not a compromise. When him and his sister fight over who gets more TV time or who gets to watch their show and she tries to tell him at five that she gets to watch 25 minutes and he would get to watch five, he knows that's no good. And that would even be more than three percent. But he knows that that's not a compromise. So I hope you would consider this from an eight‑year‑old's perspective that he knows and that he can see that it's dangerous and he would worry that it would impact his career at BF. If he's worried about it, I'm more than worried about it. So please think about not just what Valley wants, but what all the residents and the kids want in this town.

Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Jill Feeney.

JILL FEENEY, SWORN.

1. FEENEY: F‑E‑E‑N‑E‑Y. 525 Stevens Avenue.

Hi. I didn't come with anything prepared, and I wanted to thank the board for their time. Probably it's my lapse, but I had likely thought that this was already asked and answered and the answer was no, that the expansion was just too big and too much of a disturbance for the BF middle school students and the Travel students and the neighbors.

I'm here, because I do not understand why we are allowing this massive expansion to possibly go forward. Valley is a regional hospital. They do own several commercial properties within 10 minutes of their hospital here in town, and I would like to try to understand why the Luckow Pavilion or the newly acquired children's pavilion are not considered sites for their expansion. They are off of 17, which would make them more convenient to other communities who come and use the Valley Hospital. They already are zoned commercially. They will not disturb any residents, because they are in a commercial zone, and they can build a sky high hospital with a sky high parking garage, and not disturb the school kids at BF middle school. The same problems that occur, that were spoken about years ago with air quality, noise distractions, will still exist today. Nothing has changed. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Feeney.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: JAMIE MILLER.

1. MILLER: J‑A‑M‑I‑E M‑I‑L‑L‑E‑R, 254 Steilen Avenue, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. MILLER: I do.

I don't really have much more to add, except that I second everything he said, she said, she said, she said, he said. I think this is repetitious, and I do hope that the board sees to ‑‑ I'm sorry, I'm terrible at public speaking ‑‑ I hope that you do serve your Village and not Valley. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: JENNIFER TESSEYMAN.

1. TESSEYMAN: JENNIFER TESSEYMAN, T‑E‑S‑S‑E‑Y‑M‑A‑N, 222 Steilen Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. TESSEYMAN: I do. First, I want to say is I think when people hear that I live on Steilen Avenue, they're like, well, of course she's against Valley Hospital. Two things about that. I bought my house knowing that there was a hospital behind me. So I'm one of the residents that knew what was behind me. I knew what I was getting myself in into. My bought my house, it was built in the 1920s, that was there before the hospital. It's beautiful, I fell in love with it. My husband and I said we're going to have a family here, and I still love it to this day.

What I didn't think was going to happen was that they were going to build a new hospital behind me that was going to take 10 years of construction, and I think that's where I have an issue. I have three young children that I picked this house, because they could walk to their schools, they could walk to the middle school, they could walk to the elementary school with me, they could walk to the high school, they could walk to town. That's why I picked my house. And I don't think it's fair that now they can have the possibility of going through 10 years of construction and never be able to enjoy the fact that they could have walked to their schools.

I also have a child that has an attention disorder, and for him I worry because although Valley's claiming that it's not going to be disruptive and the construction is not going to bother anybody, I don't understand how that really could be taken seriously. My son is taken out of the classroom to take a math test with 30 questions, and he's given extended time.

Now, if he's in class and there's trucks driving by, giant construction trucks for 10 years, I don't see how that's not going to affect him and his education. I moved to Ridgewood, because it has a great education system, and I just don't think it's fair. Like everyone else has said here, it's not that I didn't think Valley was going to change or renovate or get up‑to‑date. I don't want a dilapidated hospital behind my house, I don't, but I don't think it's fair that I have to live through it for 10 years, and then wait and then live through it again. Ten years is just way too much time. My kids, that will be their entire education in Ridgewood at this point. So I'm against the proposal, obviously, and I hope you consider the families and the children. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thanks, MS. TESSEYMAN.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The next person is Melanie McWilliams.

1. McWILLIAMS: Melanie McWilliams, M‑C‑W‑I‑L‑L‑I‑A‑M‑S, 431 Bogert Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. McWILLIAMS: I do. I live close enough to Valley Hospital that I walked to give birth to my fifth child. That should tell you right there who the neighbors of the hospital are and what they use it for. I love that story. I think that's fantastic. But I don't want to send those five children to school next to a facility that could so quickly stop thinking about them and their needs. Three percent of a decrease in what was asked for from Valley is not a compromise in any way. Go back to the drawing board.

I know this has gone on for years and everything that seems to be going on in this town at this point seems to be, well, we've been talking about it for years so we just have to do it. If things were easily fixed, they would be fixed quickly. If there were quick solutions, things would be solved quickly. Go back to the drawing board, come back to your neighbors and understand who they are. You as the board have a responsibility to your neighbors, to understand that this three percent is not a compromise. And should you vote to pass this, you have to understand why your neighbors will look at you and question and wonder why. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Pete McKenna.

Peter.

1. McKENNA: Peter McKenna, M‑C‑K‑E‑N‑N‑A, 420 Meadowbrook Avenue, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. McKENNA: I do.

To start with, I am the president of Concerned Residents of Ridgewood, but tonight I am speaking as a private citizen. We are keeping our legal coffers for other reasons, it appears, so here is my statement. We have endured 10 years of this. And I, more than anyone, want this to end, but don't rush to judgment on the basis of the court order on our behalf. The taxpayers who opposed Valley tripling in size made the costly decision to initiate a lawsuit regarding this very issue. We knew we were paying for both sides of the fight and committing our time, but we persisted. It was necessary, as we felt our rights to a fair process were violated by the 2010 decision.

We were willing to settle that case in exchange for an opportunity to have a fair process in front of this board. We got that chance. And after a year of hearings, common sense prevailed and this body rejected the 2014 amendment by a 5/2 vote. Both yes votes came from the members that voted for the 2010 amendment and were still on this body. Every member of this board who was hearing the evidence for the first time decided that the 2014 plan was inappropriate for this sensitive location in Ridgewood and they rejected that 2014 amendment. I see that fact pattern as vindication that our concerns about the 2010 process had merit. That rejection, combined with the 2011 rejection of council, should have compelled Valley to finally work with the community to come up with a modernization that would be acceptable. Instead, Valley initiated their lawsuit to overturn the reasonable actions of this board and the council. This proposed settlement de facto reverses the settlement that CRR reached with this body in 2013. So what fairness and justice has CRR received, if this amendment is approved by you?

We have never been unreasonable. We think that modernization at this site is possible, even if it involves some demolition and construction. The 400,000 square feet above grade or space in your face we currently have is the result of decades of hard fought negotiations and was repeatedly viewed by the Board of Adjustment as the most bulk this site could handle. This proposal still has the million square feet of space in your face, two and a half times the previous limit, materially the same as the plan you rejected in 2014. So you are left with a very difficult decision. You can accept this version of the rejected 2014 plan or you can reject the amendment, put it back into the court process, where it may go anyway.

Paraphrasing MR. DRILL's opening statement, you can accept this amendment and retain local control of the Master Plan or you can reject it and let the courts decide what is in our Master Plan. You decided in 2014 to reject this applicant's attempt to change our Master Plan in this way. This proposed amendment is no better for Ridgewood than the one you rejected. Please don't accept it for the appearance of retaining local control.

I request that this body reject this amendment and force the applicant to go back to court to get their way. Even if they prevail in court, we will all know that whatever actions they take will be in direct opposition to the actions of reasonable people in positions of authority. Entrusted with the protection of their values that Ridgewood holds dear, we, the residents, the taxpayers, want you to maintain the high standards that have made Ridgewood the place it is, a place we love enough to fight this hard for it. I repeat my closing sentence from 2014, we won't know how creative Valley can be until you say no to them.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thanks very much.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we are switching our court reporter, so we're going to give them about five minutes. So if you just bear with us, we'll take a five‑minute break, resume at 20 minutes of.

(A short recess is held.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It's 9:45. We're going to take roll again. We have our new court reporter. We're about halfway through and we've had the addition of a few names. And it looks like we will continue this tomorrow. So if there are children that are here that need to leave, we will hear their comments tomorrow.

Michael, please call the roll.  

1. CAFARELLI: MAYOR ARONSOHN?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Nalbantian?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: MR. REILLY?
2. REILLY: Here.
3. CAFARELLI: MS. DOCKRAY?
4. DOCKRAY: Here.
5. CAFARELLI: MR. THURSTON?
6. THURSTON: Here.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Michael.

Before I begin, let me just remind you there's a five‑minute timeframe, Michael will notify you after about four minutes. Try to please focus your comments on the changes that were made to the 2014 plan.

So having said that, Marla Sherman is the next person on the list.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can you tell us what number we're on, please?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes. We are somewhere around number 14.

1. DRILL: Fifteen.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No, we skipped 14 and Peter was 15, then we had one additional, so Marla was 14. After Marla we're going to go to 16 which is Ann Walsh.

1. SHERMAN: Okay. Marla, M‑A‑R‑L‑A, Sherman, S‑H‑E‑R‑M‑A‑N, 449 Beverly Road. Good evening.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. SHERMAN: I do. Thank you. Good evening. When I was thinking about this process, I couldn't get over the absurdity of why it is that we're here again. The only thing that I could compare it to is the Donald Trump campaign. In this comparison the role of Donald Turnip will be played by Valley Hospital with all the same ridiculous assertions. And I can't do a Donald Trump impression, but you can just put it in your own mind, but the whole, We love Ridgewood, isn't our plan terrific? And, Yeah, we're going to build a wall. In fact, we're going to build two. But we're going to hide them behind hypoallergenic shrubs so that those pesky kids from BF and those lowly homeowners on Steilen won't sneeze on our 1.2‑million‑square‑foot building.

Now sure, it'll take 10 to 20 years for these shrubs and bushes to get to maturity but heck, it'll be worth it; right? Because we're going to be the best hospital in the world right here on these 15 acres. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to ask the Planning Board to change their Master Plan and they're going to do it because I say so. And if they don't, well we'll just sue. So if Valley is The Donald, then you the Planning Board members, the ones that actually sat in a room with a mediator and Valley Hospital's representatives and agreed to move forward with this less than 3 percent reduction or compromise, then that makes you guys Trump supporters and us out here the residents are like Megan Kelly and the Republican National Committee trying everything that we can do to have a contested convention. So please, vote no and make Ridgewood great again. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Next is Anne Walsh. Good evening.

1. WALSH: Good evening. Anne Burton Walsh, A‑N‑N‑E, B‑U‑R‑T‑O‑N, W‑A‑L‑S‑H, 112 South Irving.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. WALSH: I do. This will be much, much less funny than the last set of comments. I'm a parent at Somerville School with three children in fifth, third and first grades. I believe that the proposed 2016 H‑Zone Amendment to Ridgewood's Master Plan may result in chronic and terminal illness as well as vehicular injuries and death in our student population.

It would be much easier right now to just trust that if the expansion goes forward, Valley will use advanced methods for containing asbestos, cement dust and other pollutants during demolition and construction. However, I can't assume this for two reasons. One, my understanding of Valley as a neighbor in this town is that Valley has made promises to residents, including on Steilen Avenue, regarding noise mitigation and other buffers and has not lived up to those promises. Two, I know because of my work as a defense attorney on behalf of property owners whose contractors used asbestos that inhaling even a few fibers can cause scar tissue in the lungs and later cause tumors to form; i.e. mesothelioma. I assume that Valley will provide masks to its workers, and if Valley believes that it's in the best interest of our middle schoolers to wear masks, Valley must notify us immediately.

If the town joins ‑‑ the Village Council joins the Planning Board in approving this settlement, I am asking that Valley set up and fund a one‑ to two‑month health study of as many children whose parents give consent as we can get. Such a study would track the health outcomes of our children for the next 15 or 20 years into adulthood, it might require another ten years, and I believe that hundreds if not thousands of parents whose children will be affected or subjected to this will be willing to give consent. By comparing this data to data from otherwise similar population of young adults, there will be evidence of whether this exposure has caused a disproportionate number of cancers and other illnesses among our children. This will provide us and our children legal recourse for the future.

I also request that the town begin providing a regular report to Ridgewood residents on traffic safety in the vicinity of Valley if they don't already, and continue to do so if construction is approved and through the construction period. This will track the injuries and fatalities that will likely flow from thousands of children walking and biking past this construction site every day for up to three years each. Over a course of six years, CRR estimates that there will be 132 truck trips back and forth in front of BF daily. It goes without saying that no parent would ever choose legal recourse over the health and safety of his children. Still, these two studies should be done and is the least that Valley and the town could do, given that Valley is choosing to expand on this scale in a residential walking and biking neighborhood right next door to a school.

I recognize that Valley provides great emergency medicine and other services and is therefore very valuable to our community. I also recognize that it's an aging facility and must renovate. However, this expansion plan goes far beyond that. I urge the Village Council to not change course, but instead continue to vote against this expansion in every form. If this settlement is approved, however, I request that the data collection on health and vehicular safety begin as soon as practical. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Walsh.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Meegan Shevlin.

1. SHEVLIN: Hi, it's Meegan, M‑E‑E‑G‑A‑N, last name is Shevlin, S‑H‑E‑V‑L‑I‑N. And I live at 512 Van Buren Street.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

2016. SHEVLIN: I do. Valley Hospital expansion was wrong for Ridgewood in 2010, was wrong in 2014 and is still wrong in 2016. This so‑called neighbor has come back with a mediated settlement that has no significant difference from the proposal that was soundly defeated in 2014 and is insulting again to residents. The roof is now 56 feet plus the rooftop mechanicals of 24 feet equals 80 feet. That's only 14 feet shorter than the, quote, stop 94 slogan from 2014. Plus, there is now a standalone smoke stack that is 90 feet, only four feet lower than the stop 94 slogan. How can Valley claim to be a good neighbor while continuing to sue both the Planning Board and the Village Council for a huge hospital that has clearly been rejected by the majority of residents and continues to insult our intelligence?

And don't be fooled by the lower heights. Most of their square footage is just moved around. The North building is now only 40 feet at its closest to the BF property line. That's right, 40 feet only. The first phase, first phase only, will last six years. That is two generations of kids at the BF middle school that will only know a learning experience damaged by construction noise, dust, pollution, et cetera. The hospital will tower over BF. We all want Valley to modernize. Yes, we want private rooms. And no, I don't want to walk to a trailer behind the emergency room to get my frequent PET scans. But this is not the right location. And the Village Council told Valley this decades ago. They said you have to figure out a way to move your services to different sites. Decades ago.

Valley has very successfully opened several off‑site centers including Luckow, which has the breast center and two MRI centers in the Bolger Center. Valley has land it can develop on Nagle Avenue and other places to move ‑‑ to further move services off‑site so it can renovate and modernize and not have to go so big. This is not a compromise at all, it is insulting to all residents, and it is a danger to the learning of all the children that attend both Travell and BF. It's just too big.

(Applause.)  

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MS. SHEVLIN. Walter... Walter Balbosi? Linwood Avenue? No?

Kelly Gazzini.

1. GAZZINI: Kelly Gazzini, K‑E‑L‑L‑Y, Gazzini, G‑A‑Z‑Z‑I‑N‑I. 523 Lotus Road.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. GAZZINI: I do.

Thank you, Planning Board, for the opportunity to speak this evening and for the countless hours you've invested in the research and dialogue on this matter. As a licensed professional within the medical industry, I can fully appreciate the need for Valley to evolve within today's changing healthcare standards and technologies. However, that being said, the expansion proposed within this amendment is in no way acceptable within the framework of a residential community and neighboring middle school occupying 747 children and 92 employees.

Within your amendment to the Master Plan you state on page 4: "Given the scale of the hospital buildings and the location of the site in a single‑family residential neighborhood, the visual impact to the surrounding area resulting from the mass of the hospital buildings and parking decks should be minimized." For this reason you based your recommendations, which were the following: Your amendment proposed an actual increase in land lot usage of 33,000 square feet, going from square footage of 288,000 square feet in the Master Plan concurrent to 311,000 square feet in this proposed amendment, in addition to bringing the structure even closer to Benjamin Franklin Middle School property line at 30 feet.

In regard to building height, principal buildings are amended to 56 feet, but this excludes the rooftop mechanical penthouses or the 24‑foot mechanical screen, which brings the structure to a total of 80 feet. The current building facade as we know it to be 48 feet, this is an increase of 66 per zone. Total square footage: In 2014, Valley proposed an expansion total of 995,000 square feet. Negotiations settled at 961,000 square feet, a reduction of 34,000 square feet. This is only a mere 3 percent reduction in size from what was voted down in 2014. In addition, it proposed a five‑story garage at 245,000 square feet, which will bring the total size of the project to 1,206,000 square feet. This is more than double, nearly tripling the size of Valley's current square footage of 105,000 square feet. I ask the members of this Planning Board, how can you settle on this proposal telling the residents of this community that this is an acceptable compromise? We're more than doubling the scope of the current structure in square footage, increasing in size by 66 percent and bringing it even closer to our middle school property line and increasing the land lot usage by 3 percent from the Master Plan.

Having attended countless meetings on this plan in 2014 and standing here once again two quick years later fighting against such an outrageous amendment is incomprehensible to me. This is a far cry from an acceptable compromise within any stretch of the imagination, and I honestly cannot believe that this community is being asked to withstand this once again.

In your final deliberation of this amendment, I implore the board to please consider the negative impact a project of this scope will have on our children and the residents' health and safety due to the inevitable air pollution, noise and increased vehicular traffic over the course of six years during the Phase I demolition and construction. Moreover, Valley's expansion of such tremendous proportion will have a permanent urbanizing effect on our village, the likes of which were not envisioned when homeowners initially chose to settle here and may likely be a deterrent to future home buyers.

Thank you for your time and attention.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MS. GAZZINI.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Tom DeVito.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: He left.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Kelly Gioia.

1. GIOIA: Yes. Am I the last one? No? That's all right. I was excited for that.

Kelly Gioia, 447 Fairway Road, Ridgewood. G‑I‑O‑I‑A.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. GIOIA: I only have two things ‑‑ well, maybe three, three things to say. I want to thank Pete and CRR for fighting a good fight, and I want to say once a bad neighbor, always a bad neighbor. I was the last president at Travell and the hospital could give a rat's bum about us. And I have one other thing to say, stop the madness. Stop the madness. It's all about the money, money, money.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Marisol Romero.

1. ROMERO: Marisol Romero, M‑A‑R‑I‑S‑O‑L, R‑O‑M‑E‑R‑O, 258 Steilen Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand.

1. ROMERO: Sure.

THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

1. ROMERO: Yes, I do.

Can I give out my pictures now.

1. RAZIN: Yes, you have exhibits that you want to enter?
2. ROMERO: Yes, I do. I have two pictures.
3. RAZIN: Do you have exhibits you want to enter? I just want to use the mike.
4. ROMERO: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
5. RAZIN: No, that was me. I didn't use the mike.
6. ROMERO: Okay.
7. RAZIN: How many exhibits do you have?
8. ROMERO: I have two pictures. This is the ‑‑
9. DRILL: Can I just see them?
10. RAZIN: Yes. Can I just get them? Okay.

Did you ‑‑ there are two pictures, did you take the photographs yourself?

1. ROMERO: Yes, I did.
2. RAZIN: And can you just tell us approximately when the photographs were taken?
3. ROMERO: On my birthday, March 31st, 2016.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Happy Birthday.

1. RAZIN: And you were here?
2. ROMERO: Yes. And I was here. Somewhere around here.
3. RAZIN: They were taken from your property.
4. ROMERO: Yes, they were taken from my backyard of my house.
5. RAZIN: And what do you ‑‑ what do they represent?
6. ROMERO: They represent the view of the hospital from my backyard.
7. RAZIN: Okay. If you could just show them to MR. DRILL and if he has no objection. You have enough copies for the board?
8. ROMERO: Yes, I do.
9. DRILL: Yes, no objection.
10. RAZIN: Okay. I'm just going to mark these as ‑‑ I'll mark them together as O ‑‑ I'm going to mark them, since they're yours, I'm going to mark them, from the same person, as O‑1A and B.

(Whereupon, Two Photographs are received and marked as Exhibit O‑1A and O‑1B for identification.)

1. ROMERO: And a quick thank you to the Village Police and Fire Department for helping to make things run smoothly.

All right. Good evening.

1. RAZIN: Want to just give us ‑‑ let me just ‑‑ give me one second.

(Applause.)  

1. RAZIN: Marisol, can you just send Michael by e‑mail ‑‑ do you have e‑mail available?
2. ROMERO: Yes, they're on my iPhone.
3. RAZIN: Okay. Can you send Michael ‑‑ after tonight could you send Michael the originals?
4. ROMERO: Yes.
5. RAZIN: That would be great, thank you very much.
6. DRILL: Which one is O‑1A?
7. RAZIN: I marked O‑1A this one and O‑1B this one.
8. ROMERO: Oh, this is A.
9. RAZIN: A and B.
10. ROMERO: I'm sorry, okay. Good evening. I would ask the Planning Board to rescind the expansion plans that Valley Hospital wishes to proceed with. The hospital cannot guarantee that the air and noise pollution caused by its renovation will not dramatically impact the health of our residents, including our children. Likewise, I am very doubtful that the hospital will be able to seamlessly blend into the Village skyline. As evidence of this last statement I am submitting two pictures, which I just did, taken from my backyard. The first picture, which I believe you said was ‑‑ well, the first picture I'm going to talk about is this one. This is B, picture B. Was taken from my second‑story bathroom window and clearly shows the hospital, even with trees, which by the way are trimmed back continuously every year, so that when the tree does bloom it looks pretty, still ‑‑ I can still see the hospital. I mean, it looks pretty bare because they keep trimming back the limbs all the time.

The second picture, which is A, was taken in the earlier evening hours and shows the office lights on shining visibly through the trees and making the hospital visible not just during the day, but at night to Steilen Avenue properties. So basically 24/7 we're looking at the hospital in one way or the other. So I ask you, with the expansion plans, how would the hospital be able to camouflage its building when it does such a poor job of it now? If the expansion plans are allowed to proceed, the health and sanity of my three young children are at stake, one of which has special needs which includes severe inattention issues and he has severe allergies. Ironically and sadly, the same hospital which helped to bring into this world my beautiful, healthy, three‑month‑old daughter Sophia will now potentially contribute to any health problems she, along with all the children in our village, will now have if these plans are allowed to go through. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Denise Angeles? Denise Angeles?

Patricia James?

1. JAMES: Right here.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Come on up.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please state your name for the record.

1. JAMES: Patricia James, P‑A‑T‑R‑I‑C‑I‑A, James, J‑A‑M‑E‑S, 61 Warren Place in Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Is that Warren Place?  

1. JAMES: Warren, W‑A‑R‑R‑E‑N,

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. JAMES: I do. Having moved to Ridgewood two years ago this month, I've spent my free time over the last fortnight trying to educate myself on the proposed expansion of Valley Hospital. I have been looking through the media reports and reading the information on the website with fresh eyes, and of course I can't see because my Internet is ‑‑ I have without ‑‑ I don't have the knowledge base that many of the residents who spoke here tonight possess, but that also provides me with fresh eyes to look at everything without the influence of the history either for or against the expansion.

With that being said, I am concerned about two main points that I would like to focus on this evening: Construction duration and the compromised total size. The construction duration is currently scheduled to take place, as I understand it, in two phases; Phase I lasting six years and Phase II lasting four years with a ten‑year break between the two phases. This means that the total construction duration of the project will last 20 years. And frankly, 20 years is giving the construction timeline the benefit of the doubt because I don't know any project of this magnitude that finishes on time.

That being said, the proposed timeline is going to span a generation. For the children entering kindergarten of the year construction actually starts, it will not be completed upon their graduation. Or, to look at it from a different perspective, the kids today attending neighborhood Benjamin Franklin Middle School will likely have graduated, gotten married and had their own children entering the school system before this project is completed. The impact for our community, especially our school‑age community members, is the greatest, and it is not fair to ask them to carry the largest portion of the burden.

This leads me to my second main point: Compromise total size. From 2014 to 2016, the square footage has decreased from 995,000 to 961,000 square feet, which is a reduction, as said so many times tonight, of approximately 3 percent. A compromise of 3 percent is not a compromise where each side has come to the table to find a reasonable agreement. Noting the project's proximity to Benjamin Franklin Middle School is a grave concern to the community residents. I would have hoped that the compromise would have increased the buffer depth from a minimum of 12 feet to a minimum of at least 20 feet along the school's property line which was noted in the proposed March 15th, 2016, Amendment to Land Use Plan, a 20‑feet minimum buffer depth would have been aligned with the surrounding avenues, which I still think is too short, but at least it would have given the same respect to the reference that you've outlined. I would like to see a minimum buffer depth of equal distance or greater where the hospital borders the middle school, which is not only a school to the students that attend there, but is host to many events throughout the community and surrounding communities. This compromise does not demonstrate a true compromise.

I am not against development for the sake of development. Valley Hospital does provide a benefit to Ridgewood and its surrounding communities, but it's a delicate balance between what the hospital needs and wants and its home community, especially the neighboring school. This has not been found in its current proposal. I thank you for taking the time to listen to my comments and your litigation. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Jiffy Vermylen.

1. VERMYLEN: Good evening. V‑E‑R‑M‑Y‑L‑E‑N. Jiffy Vermylen, 241 North Walnut.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please spell your fist name?  

1. VERMYLEN: J‑I‑F‑F‑Y.  

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. VERMYLEN: I do.

My family and I relocated from California to Ridgewood almost two years ago. I was seven months pregnant at the time, and Valley Hospital's excellent reputation for maternal fetal medicine and labor and delivery certainly made purchasing a home less than a mile ‑‑

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Please speak a little slower.

1. VERMYLEN: Do I get extra time?

THE COURT REPORTER: If you want it on the record I have to be able to hear it. Labor and delivery?

1. VERMYLEN: And delivery certainly made purchasing a home less than a mile from the hospital quite attractive. Indeed, about eight weeks after we moved I had a wonderful experience with the birth of my second child and as you can see, I'll be there again in six to eight weeks with the same intent and high expectations. Less than two weeks after my son's birth, however, I had the opportunity to experience another side of Valley. He became ill on day twelve of life and was admitted for a nine‑day stay in the pediatric unit. We were told our immuno‑compromised newborn would not be guaranteed a private room. No parent with a child in a vulnerable state should have to add germ transfer from a roommate to an already long list of concerns.

So I get it. I understand Valley's need to modernize in order to provide a higher level of patient care. In the competitive healthcare market, top notch facilities attract top notch physicians. We, as patients, deserve high quality care from high quality doctors and Valley's proposed changes will help facilitate this public good for our community. I support modernization and expansion, but not at the proposed scale of this particular location. In light of the numerous other properties owned by Valley, I'm shocked by the need for such a voluminous project. I realize we are not privy to the details of the mediation process, but it appears on the surface as though the village has conceded too much.

I would urge further negotiation on total size and more specificity regarding the conditions outlined in last week's testimony. A 3.5 percent decrease in square footage just isn't significant movement from the 2013‑'14 plans, especially considering the transfer of the fifth floor to a new ground level space not included in '13‑'14. In the event of eventual construction, I'd like to share some perspective from my career in the fields of sustainability in the built environment. I've worked for a large general contractor and for Stanford University. I've been a LEED accredited professional for ten years and I'm currently chair of Ridgewood's Green Team Advisory Committee. I have documented experience in managing high performance design and construction projects, including ample time spent working in trailers on job sites. Construction is a messy process and adjacent properties are always affected.

In this case we have three vulnerable routes worth noting: The public schools, residential neighbors and the patient population. I've seen firsthand how owners promise sensitivity and best practices during construction and how the integrity of that promise degrades with each transfer of information from the owner to the GC, the GC to the subcontractors and finally, from the subs to the actual construction workers. I heard the testimony from Valley regarding the conditions agreed upon for construction, but there is much more detail that should be specified. I ask the Planning Board and Valley, please do more to ensure the safety and well‑being of our entire community.

I suggest frequent demands, site‑specific mitigation that is well in excess of the, quote, industry standard referenced in public documents. These measures should minimize dust, noise, vibration, storm water degradation and other adverse effects. California has excellent models that can and should be referenced by all parties. Adopting a green building in construction standards as a minimum requirement to obtain building permits for projects in the village, as many New Jersey communities have already done, would be a small starting point, but a step forward nonetheless. Ridgewood is behind in this regard relative to its peers.

I recommend that all parties revisit the site plan and further decrease the percentage of impervious surfaces, require the new buildings to meet high performance standards from both the material and operational perspective. Testimony on March 30th referenced seeking LEED points, but is unclear if the village will require or whether Valley will actually pursue formal LEED certification. Revisit the construction duration. A six‑year project with more than three years of outside work might be decreased by the use of more innovative methods and technologies. Again, a more significant decrease in the total project scope would decrease construction duration.

1. CAFARELLI: One minute.
2. VERMYLEN: Valley recently joined Project Green Help, a national organization committed to increasing its members' operational efficiency and environmental stewardship, but I see little mention of how Valley will use the available resources with respect to sustainable design, engineering and construction.

Instead, Valley's on‑line sustainability presence focuses on meatless Mondays, waste management and some limited efficiency improvements. These are hardly substantive efforts and are not exactly cutting‑edge practices. Consideration of low or no‑VOC paint is mentioned as being considered when it should be standard in a hospital setting.

Reference is made to reducing Valley's carbon footprint but where's the baseline data? No emissions inventory has been made public and from that I can only conclude that nothing official has been calculated or recorded. Nowhere could I find a listing for a director of sustainability and the vice president of facilities testified she is not a LEED AP.

1. CAFARELLI: Time is up.
2. VERMYLEN: I welcome more evidence of Valley's commitment to sustainability and responsible construction management. Who will actually be in charge? I have no doubt many things will be promised to the community with regard to construction practices, proper use of smoking areas for tradesmen, background checks and so forth, but professional experiences make me skeptical of the follow‑through and execution.

The list of conditions should be expanded and made more explicit. I'd feel much more comfortable seeing all details along with enforcement procedures prior to any final agreement on project scope. My sincere hope is that the Planning Board pushes for the same and rejects the current amendment.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Janet Daly. Good evening.

1. DALY: Hi. Janet Daly, D‑A‑L‑Y. 386 Ponfield Place. P, as in Peter, O‑N‑F‑I‑E‑L‑D.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. DALY: I do.

I have lived in Ridgewood 43 years and I have been involved in the Planning Board and Village Council meetings regarding the Valley Hospital for maybe ten years, I don't know, I lost track. I know you ‑‑ you've been here, too. I'm so happy to hear from all the people who spoke tonight. I was at the Planning Board meeting in 2014 when the Planning Board voted against the Valley Hospital expansion. Since there was little change between 2014 and 2016 Master Plans, I really don't see any reason to go through with this, to vote for this plan. The North building may be down one level, but it is still over 300 feet long from North Van Dien to Steilen Avenue. In other words, it's a four‑story building that's bigger than a football field will be running along the border of BF Middle School. Can you hear me? Is this working right? Okay. It will only be 40 feet from the border. Recently I applied for a permit to put central air in my house. I was told that the compressor had to be 40 feet from my property line and if it wasn't, I would have to get a variance. How can a municipality require that my compressor, which is about 3 feet high, it's about that high, and 3 feet wide, be the same distance from my property line than Valley Hospital's 80‑foot‑high, 300‑foot‑wide North tower is planned to be? I was a village resident when Village Council told Valley that they could not build any more on the 15 acres on North Van Dien and Linwood Avenues. And I believed them. I believe that. I still believe in it. But I believe that was true. I was also a village resident when Valley requested permission to expand their ER and Valley Hospital agreed to take down another building in order to stay within that required size restriction. And I thought great, that's the way to do it. Work together and stick with the requirements that were set down by the village.

I am against this Monmouth expansion for several reasons: The size, the traffic, the noise, the air pollution, not being able to sell your houses. Remember all the signs that were up the last time we were going through this and people couldn't sell their houses, they had their houses on the market for years. The reason that I got involved is because of the children who attend BF Middle School. That was my ‑‑ the original reason. And my main concern is for the health and safety of the children who will be adjusting to a major demolition and construction project for ten years.

I am concerned with their exposure to the air pollution, especially the diesel particulate, no one's mentioned that, from the many trucks passing by. I am also concerned for their safety as they walk or bike back and forth to school with all the additional truck traffic. And I ask you to stand up to Valley again, you did it before, please do it again, and vote no. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Daly.

Antenette Lam.

1. LAM: Hi. My name is Antenette Lam. First name is A‑N‑T‑E‑N‑E‑T‑T‑E. And the last name's L‑A‑M. My address is 276 Eldon Court, E‑L‑D‑O‑N.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. LAM: Yes. Okay. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my concern regarding Valley Hospital expansion. I actually never speak up in such a big crowd before and ‑‑ but I feel very passionate to speak up for the right reason. I understand the Valley Hospital claim that they will do the background check on the construction workers and however, who will be the police for this? How can Valley Hospital guarantee every single person that they hire will conduct a background check? Will the residents be able to review those records? Will Valley Hospital do background check every single year? Will we have additional police presence to ensure our children's safety?

One of the main reason why I am against the expansion is because of the Ridgewood childrens that will attend the BF and the children's that will attend the Travell Elementary School. Growing up in New York City I saw a grown man masturbate in front of me while I was in a park with my friends. He was watching us and once he realized that we try to leave he chased us, after us. And I was also a victim of robberies in my own home, held at gunpoint and tied up. I never wish upon this on anybody. So we decided, once my husband and I got married we decided to move out of New York City. We move from New York City to Fort Lee and from Fort Lee to Ridgewood because we felt that Fort Lee is too crowded and too busy to raise our two daughters. I still remember like it was yesterday, we park our car at downtown Ridgewood, my husband and I walk around the downtown and we both knew that this was the right place for us to raise our children, because Ridgewood offered an excellent education system and a safe environment for our children.

By expanding the Valley Hospital I no longer feel safe for my children. There will be over a hundred trucks drive by BF each day and a hundred more strangers in town. How do we know the workers are not watching the residents' schedule? Spending six to ten years in the same place and watching the same people and the girls walk by, the workers will pick up the residents' pattern. I'm sure the construction workers know that this is a pretty wealthy town. How do we know there's no other alternative motive? How do we know our girls would not be harassed by the workers? Several times when I walk to pick up my daughter at Travell Elementary School the landscaper make some comments to me while they were sitting outside during the break. Things like this happen everywhere. It doesn't matter if it's New York City or Ridgewood. Our daughters and our children's and our town don't need this kind of trouble. I guarantee you by allowing the Valley expansion, our daughter will endure these unpleasant experience and they will not know how to protect themselves.

Please don't forget about the air quality as well. If expansion do happens, our children would have to wear mask to school everywhere and they will ‑‑ and they go ‑‑ everywhere that they go, and they will not be able to avoid air pollution and this will affect everyone's health. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Lam.

Lisa Baney?

1. BANEY: Good evening. Lisa Baney at 136 Brookside Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. BANEY: Yes. So I don't know how, like, a 3 percent smaller reduction in the size of the above ground size of this project and, you know, adding some, let's see, green roofs, ivy, plantings and water features and little things like that really makes this a more palatable amendment, and I guess the best word I have been able to come up with for what happened is capitulation. Capitulation, not really a mediated agreement. And something that makes me very sad and ‑‑ and I have to say I can't really stop thinking of this as my ‑‑ that image of it is that the Village was basically put over a barrel and, shall I say, has been violated by a bully. And ‑‑ and ‑‑ any why? Because I think that the ‑‑ the litigious party in this case that's suing a very, very careful Master Plan processed quasi‑judicial super serious restrictive process has an unlimited war chest of, last time I looked at a balance sheet, over $800 million in short‑term assets, and how can the Village of Ridgewood really be in this situation of going to litigation? And I have a lot of compassion for the members of the Planning Board and for the village because I think that it was kind of an impossible situation. But somehow or other, it has to be held firm.

And I have been involved for so many years, you know, with so many, so many people and just to go back, I mean, literally, let's say, I've been to hundreds and hundreds of hours of meetings. And let's see, a party, for example, with my husband and all of his friends from the Dad's Night Band and all the other musicians that he, you know, so many of them playing at a party in the backyard, raising money so we could hire a good planner who comes to talk about why this is not good land‑use planning and what happens? Well, the hospital unfortunately throws out the best part, frankly, of what we paid for with all our donor moneys which was an example of what a reasonable Master Plan ‑‑ what a reasonable expansion might look like, what reasonable land use might look like. And it got thrown out because they said that if we had wanted to present that information, we should have to apply for our own Master Plan in order to be able to present that example of what might be reasonable. So I mean, just process has just been, you know, evidence thrown out and so forth.

So, but I think there is a fundamental problem that is the artifice that ‑‑ well, there's a couple things. First of all, when I read the lawsuit my heart sunk and I said, well, the pressure is going to be for our government to settle. It was obvious because, you know, the threat of the litigation costs. But two things gave me hope. One was the main premise of the lawsuit was that the Planning Board had decided on behalf of a small number of, I forget if the word was residents or neighbors, instead of the regional beneficial, or regional benefit of ‑‑ litigation ‑‑ beneficial use.

And first of all, I don't know how any judge or jury, you know, with all due respect, could say that it was a small number of residents. What, they were people ‑‑ hundreds of hours of testimony, you know, just hundreds of people speaking who were from all over ‑‑ all over ‑‑ all over town, at least some from the west side, from almost all parts of the east side, not an immediate number of neighbors, so I thought that meant a lot. Okay. Secondly, half the kids in Ridgewood coming up through the school system are going to be going to BF, so how can that be a small number of residents? That's just hellacious. Secondly, it was ‑‑ every Planning Board ‑‑ first of all, this term of inherent beneficial ‑‑ inherent beneficial use is a great piece of vernacular. I understand it's code, it's a term, and it's a legal term. But how far are we going to take the absurdity of it would be like ‑‑

1. CAFARELLI: One minute.
2. BANEY: ‑‑ just think of something is the university or a hospital, what, in theory it can just keep expanding forever and ever and ever and ever because it's a regional beneficial use? So ‑‑ and then there are also municipal land use laws that says the Planning Board can use its own best judgment in determining if the local detriments exceed the regional benefits and there's broad latitude and the board went to great detail saying that ‑‑ acknowledging both and most of the members ‑‑ all the members who voted against felt that the detriments exceeded the benefits because that's their purview.

Finally, there's the circular argument and an artifical box that construes everything that goes in this, which was the Planning Board said we can't discuss alternatives, which I asked about in the nicest voice for years, years and years, like ten years practically, and they would say, well, we can't discuss alternatives if they're outside the confines of Ridgewood, so maybe doing something over by the beautiful new Luckow Pavillion where there's all this open, commercially‑owned property that's much more accessible to the rest of the region because it's on highways, without being in a residential or school setting ‑‑

1. CAFARELLI: Time.
2. BANEY: Just one more sentence. We can't discuss it because it's outside the jurisdictional realms of the Planning Board, and then the hospital would have to go beyond saying it was too expensive and outside their vision because they didn't have to discuss their personal business. So it was an artificial box and that is not even logical. So here we are getting sued, over a barrel and recapitulating everything that the Planning Board worked so hard. Thank you. And I just think it's really wrong.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Baney.

Is there another list of folks that just signed? While that's coming up, there are a couple of people that I called before, Walter, is he here? Did Tom DeVito return? If there are people downstairs ‑‑ I think most people are up here, but if there are people downstairs that have signed or if they're downstairs and they would like to speak, please come upstairs in the courtroom.

Denise Angeles, is she here? Okay. So we have on this current list Jeanette LaRocco.

1. LAROCCO: Jeanette LaRocco, J‑E‑A‑N‑E‑T‑T‑E, LaRocco, L‑A capital R‑O‑C‑C‑O.  

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. LAROCCO: Yes.

THE COURT REPORTER: Your address please?

1. LAROCCO: 454 Bogert Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: And please speak slowly and clearly?

1. LAROCCO: Yes, I know. I will. Thank you. I had to do this over ten years. I haven't missed many meetings. I missed the last two and I had not planned to speak so I didn't have anything written down, but I have a unique perspective. The reason, ironically, why I wasn't here, my husband had elective surgery Tuesday, he was there till Friday, so I made some observations. He had full knee replacement, we were in the Cheel building, fourth floor, and had a unique perspective of seeing Steilen Avenue from the windows. So certain things I observed. One, I do agree that certain things have to be renovated. Last year my daughter was in the ER and yes, it woefully needs to be modernized; also, I'm sure the surgical rooms, I'm sure the operating rooms, et cetera.

However, certain observations that I made, one was my husband's surgery, two of the things that they consider big issues are what can happen is you can develop an embolism or you can then develop an infection. Now, he didn't develop an infection; in fact, he's at CareMark getting rehab and he wouldn't be allowed to if he was sick because you're not allowed to have elective surgery if you're ill. And he had no patient in his room, co‑patient, until Thursday and he was there until Friday, and the reason is because that patient had back surgery, also elective, did not have an infection. And the other thing I noticed was the nurses. By the way, we had fabulous ‑‑ we were fabulously taken care of, a professional service by this staff, all the staff. Now, the nurses, some of them had gloves, some didn't, and I was concerned, but then I realized one of the rehab people was using it outside and that's why I couldn't tell, there were outside and inside hand sanitizers. So that was one observation.

Another was seeing the building. From the perspective, my building, seeing Steilen, and the short wall. Now, I didn't realize until I read the transcript on the weekend, some of it, I didn't get to see both because the second one came out today, and I've been visiting my husband back and forth, but one thing I realized, 20 feet, you know what it reminds me of? Three possibilities: One, the wall's on the highway to prevent the people from seeing the highway who have homes, one, a prison to keep the prisoners in or the third one, a zoo to keep the animals in. It's not an attractive prospect. And even at 20 feet, when your building is going to be ‑‑ the Cheel building is 45 feet and even with the setback of 70, that's not good enough. These poor people, when they moved into those houses, had no clue that's what they were going to see.

Now, the other thing I realized was that the parking, one of the things in the transcript was moving the employees. Now, I saw a few employees who were parking in not the employee area going into the building because you could see their clothing. So ‑‑ and one entered from the side, that employee only entrance. So I realized, why not, from now on through eternity, take people ‑‑ take the employees, have them park somewhere else and then shuttle them? Because one of the problems with employees' individual cars is they have certain times of their shifts, like the nurses, they work certain shifts, so they're going back and forth, back and forth, so you get a lot of traffic. I also got the perspective because not only did I drive there but I also walked there, and so you could see ‑‑ I could ‑‑ my daughter ‑‑ how difficult it was, how certain times of the day we were often ‑‑ and afternoon and dinnertime and I could see how many cars were constantly pulling in and out. And in order for employees to get in and out quickly, it would make more sense if you have ‑‑ it would be safer for the children and anybody else crossing.

Now, also there have been other solutions ‑‑ like single rooms. Since my husband did not get an infection, as a friend mentioned, certain people need to be isolated, why not only build some rooms as single rooms, because this is supposedly why we need so many buildings, and some keep them two people in a room and modernize it ‑‑ I'm not saying you can't modernize it, but I'm saying there's no reason ‑‑ there's no less of an infection risk for certain patients.

And what else did I want ‑‑ there was one more thing. I guess that's ‑‑ oh, I guess that's it except for saying that 3 percent is not a compromise in any way, shape or form. I have been doing this over ten years. I've seen so many different things going on. And I am far enough even though I'm on Bogert, still I won't be affected, I may move some day when my children are grown, what about those other children?

My children have all ‑‑ I have three children that went to BF, they went through all the school system, and I can't imagine ‑‑ I could see ‑‑ I was there at times when the crossing guards were there and cars going in and out and I thought to myself, I pray that no child will ever get struck by a car. When there are trucks and there are so many people going back and forth that possibility is always there and it's a concern for me. And so I'm not doing this for myself, I'm doing it mainly for the other people who are going to move into Ridgewood, the people on my street who have many children, one of them is Melanie McWilliams, so that's my concern, and I want you to please think about it and please vote against this and make them compromise. There ‑‑ oh, one other thing.

Why don't we take all outpatient services ‑‑ most surgeries today are outpatient, one day. Why don't you move all those services out? You'd have room to build without building to the extent that you want to go all those thousands of feet, hundreds of thousands. It would be more tenable. Then I think we would object less to that and buildings wouldn't have to be as wide because that is a problem. You may shorten the buildings but if you're spreading them out that way, they're getting too close to the school, too close to the neighbors, and I think we should think about the residents. We'll be here a long time. We'll always be residents of Ridgewood and I think we're most important. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. LaRocco.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Paul Hogan.

1. HOGAN: Hi. I'm Paul Hogan, H‑O‑G‑A‑N. I live at 93 Sherwood Road in Ridgewood. Before I lived at 207 Emmett Place in Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. HOGAN: I do.

I'd like to thank the board for allowing me the opportunity to speak. Like some of the other folks here I wasn't planning on doing it but I was ‑‑ I felt compelled to do so since I'm a long‑term resident of Ridgewood. My parents bought our house here in 1960, so I'm ‑‑ I guess I'm dating myself in that regard, and for all the reasons that have been mentioned here, the fantastic schools, the great community, the great people, professionals, all types of people, all walks of life. I play with a ton of great musicians, I am one of them I like to think, fantastic arts here, fantastic place to live and grow up. My father always told me one thing about Valley Hospital; Valley Hospital was always, always intended to be a local hospital. And that rings in my ears every day when I'm going through this. This was not supposed to be a regional hospital, especially with other options, other lands, other places. You already have facilities in other places like Waldwick and other places that you can I think safely do the things that you need to do.

To be frank, I am astounded we're back here yet again. I know you folks have put in a lot of time and I do appropriate that, but I'm always astounded ‑‑ and I've come to a bunch of these meetings, and even though we don't live as close to the hospital as we used to, we care very deeply for our neighbors and for this town. And I am very, very astounded that the passion and the caring of your constituents, your constituents that you are hearing, hundred to one, hundred to zero, are saying the things that we're saying and this is still being debated. Something of this size.

As I said, we now live on Sherwood Road. We moved there about three years ago. We needed the room. But I would be lying if I didn't say that Valley Hospital was a consideration when we moved. It was always in the back of our minds that this day could come. I have always felt and my wife has always felt and our children have always felt solidarity with our neighbors. This is about the health of children. This is about the learning of children. The future of this town. The health of the children should be paramount to everyone in this room, let alone the fact that the property values around the hospital will be destroyed. Don't kid yourself. Along with the apartment proposals that are going on, this town one day might actually become less than desirable, something my parents and my family would never, ever even think about.

Renovation may be needed. Some things need to change. Understood. But not to this scale, given the fact there's other locations to be leveraged. The overwhelming responses of these witnesses, your constituents, should tell you all you need to know. I'm curious to know here how many of you have children of school age that go to Travell and BF and I wonder what you'd be thinking right now if you knew an active construction site would be there for decades to come. I also work in commercial real estate and construction and I can tell you assuredly that all is not well on some of these construction sites and what goes on. This is about the children and the children and the children. Your vote can either free them or potentially subject them to a slow death sentence. You folks got it right in 2014. Please get it right again and do the right thing. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Hogan.

Diane Palacios. Good evening.  

1. PALACIOS: Good evening. Diane Palacios. Diane, D‑I‑A‑N‑E, Palacios, P‑A‑L‑A‑C‑I‑O‑S. 342 North Van Dien Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. PALACIOS: Yes. As far as ‑‑ as I ‑‑ I wasn't planning to speak but a few days ago last week there was something in the newspaper about Valley Hospital that made me realize that they really share our values. They share my deepest values for how I want to live my life. And that is if you remember or if you read when they found out that Teterboro Airport was changing the route and it was going to be a ‑‑ a limited operation of jet planes going over Valley Hospital and making some noise, my goodness, their objections, you could hear it throughout Ridgewood. They had a fit.

But yet ‑‑ so then I thought, well, if they're ‑‑ they understand noise, so maybe they will revise their hospital plan and realize that the neighbors too don't want noise pollution, traffic; that they will understand that we're people, not just objects to be used at their will. So, but they ‑‑ no, no, they propose a ‑‑ basically a cataclysmic, virtual cataclysmic destruction of our peace and quiet for the foreseeable future. Now, is that being a good neighbor? So, but anyway, I don't want Valley Hospital to be in harm's way with those jet planes, those few jet planes of the limited operation of Teterboro. Also, I live near it too, but I'm not worried about that. What I am very concerned about is living right in front of BF, Benjamin Franklin. And I just love the kids. The kids are perfectly quiet. I've lived there since 1978, never had a problem with a kid. But the idea of all those trucks going by my house ‑‑ and I am a musician. I practice the piano all the time and I value quiet. That would be very disruptive to my way of life.

So I have a suggestion for Valley Hospital. Keep them out of harm's way. Build a smaller hospital. Have your private rooms but make it smaller so that you can have what you want in a smaller scale. Don't build so high and then you won't have to worry about those jet planes because you won't be high like Hackensack. You won't be high like those apartment buildings next to Hackensack. The Hackensack Hospital people were saying that when the jet planes went over that they thought they were going to hit them. Not only couldn't they hear their own thoughts.

And then I have another point. I ‑‑ last time at the last hearing was a few years ago when we were at Benjamin Franklin and what I've read in the newspaper, if I have this information correct, one of the reasons Valley wants to expand or renew or get larger is that they want to prepare for people like me, senior citizens, I'm 72 years old, and they foresee me using the hospital and they want me to have a hospital to use. Well, I have to answer honestly since I am in this venue of being honest and I have taken the oath to tell the truth and express my deepest feelings. Now, I don't mean this as any insult to Valley. It is a great community hospital and it should remain that way. But as a senior citizen from the age of 65 on, I have had two conditions that were kind of rare and could have been devastating. I don't want to talk about it in detail, I don't have time for that.

1. CAFARELLI: One minute.

THE WITNESS: And I consulted a Valley doctor and they weren't sure that they could help me, so I went to a major hospital in New York City and I was cured. So as a senior citizen if I have to take a cab if I can't get a ride I am going to do all my health care in New York. I mean, I have one of the ‑‑ Valley Hospital's concerned about my health insurance, I have a great plan and I budget for it. It's expensive. I'm not wealthy, I'm a poor musician. But I know when I'm 75 it's going to go up $50. It's the Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield standard. And when I'm 80, 85, it's going to go up. And it goes up more and they say because they're helping you. So I care about my health. I am budgeting it but please, don't save a room for me.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Palacios.

Lee Nun? He's not here? And Say Soon Nun? They're both gone? Is there anyone here that was downstairs and needs to speak or did I miss anyone that signed the list?

1. REYNOLDS: Can I speak?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, come on up. Good evening, Lorraine.

1. REYNOLDS: Good evening, Charles. Here we are again. Ten years later. I think you're the last man standing. You've been here for ten years, I've been here for ten years.

Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. REYNOLDS: Yes. Obviously I didn't plan to speak tonight. I'm flabbergasted that we're even here talking about 3 percent. I really just don't understand it. This is no different from the 2014 plan that you voted down. It has to be voted down again. All of the reasons why it was voted down in 2014 still exist. There ‑‑ it's just unbelievable to me that they can ‑‑ Valley can believe that a 3 percent reduction in square footage could be a compromise.

When I started, my main concern was I didn't want my kids to be going to BF when this construction was going on. I'm past that, my youngest child is a freshman in high school. But I fear for all of the upcoming children, all of my neighbors, it's ‑‑ it's going to be devastating. It really is. And for a school which I feel is inherently beneficial, a hospital is inherently beneficial, the school has to come first in my opinion. There's too many kids that will be affected by this for years to come. So many people spoke very eloquently tonight all of the reasons why this should be voted down. I don't need to repeat them, they're on the record. But I urge you to listen to you ‑‑ you know, yourselves, listen to the people that voted in 2014, all of the reasons they voted no in 2014 still exist today. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MS. REYNOLDS.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a comment.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please come up to the board.

Just a show of hands, is there anyone else this night that would like to speak?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I know that people were under the impression that you were going until tomorrow.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We are.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay, thank you.

1. DALONZO: Hi.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: State and spell your name.

1. DALONZO: Sure. Gil Dalonzo, G‑I‑L, Dalonzo, D‑A‑L‑O‑N‑Z‑O. 170 Walthery Avenue, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. DALONZO: Yes, I do. So these are unplanned comments. I didn't plan on coming here to speak tonight so I don't have anything prewritten, but I just want to share some thoughts and maybe some things both with you all and also with the group. So I'm relatively new to the neighborhood, only about 14, 15 months in now at this point. My kids are into their second year of school here and we moved from about 90 minutes south on the Turnpike up into the Ridgewood area. And moved here because of everything we heard about the community and how great Ridgewood was and so far up until this point, that has lived up beyond my expectations.

The schools are amazing. The community is unreal. When I tell people about, hey, what was it like for the move, do you like where you are, they tell me yeah, I love where I am actually, it's unbelievable. The schools are great. They have this thing called Dads' Night, which I know you're aware of, and thanks for being a part of it this year in your way.

A little disappointed though in some of the things that I've heard tonight to be honest with you, and I think what Dads' Night does is it speaks to the level of commitment and the kind of stick‑togetherness that the community has. And I was so impressed with the number of people that were here tonight. I only heard about this honestly within the last week and started doing some research on my own and was just blown away at what had transpired. I just couldn't believe it. I live three blocks away from the hospital and I think what's concerning, I have three daughters. One's in fifth grade this year and will be going to BF next year and my other ones are in third grade, they're only a couple years away, it's like, I don't know, seven, eight years of this where they're going to have to walk to school from where I live. They'll walk the three blocks.

And what's concerning is the only viable thoroughfare I see for the kids to walk to school is through Van Dien. If they go through the neighborhood and they go through Flynn they're passing through all the areas where the trucks go. And if the estimates are true, the 132 trips a day by the trucks, I did the math, 12 hours a day, which is more than the school hours that exist or more than a normal working hour, even at 12 hours it's basically a truck every ten minutes going down the street. And they're not going to work 12 hours a day, these guys are going to compress all those trips into normal working hours I would assume, maybe a little bit stretched. That's horrific to me. That scares the shit out of me. To be honest with you, I've got three young girls that have to go up and down that street walking back and forth to school? Never mind car traffic and people dropping off, I think it's just terrible. It's awful.

And I would just say to the community and to everybody else we've heard, you know ‑‑ and by the way, my daughter broke her arm last year, we went to Valley Hospital because it was the closest place, they did a nice job. But I've also heard a lot of stories tonight about elective surgeries and elective things that the community can do in terms of decisions as to where they get their healthcare and I think as much as we stick together and we rally on that point, we also have a choice as to where we become customers to hospitals in the area. We have a choice as to where we want to have our babies. We have a choice as to where ‑‑ maybe not so much of a choice in an emergency situation, but we have many opportunities where we can make choices as to where we go for our care and I've got to tell you, this goes down the way it's going, I will make every effort possible to get my care somewhere else.

(Applause.)  

1. DALONZO: And I think also, we had a Trump example earlier. Love him or hate him, a lot of commentary has gone to the power that he's had to social media. We have ‑‑ I'm a media professional by trade. We have television, we have radio, we have Internet, we have advertising. We have ways that we can create our own campaigns, all the way up to protests or other things if we need to. Anyway, I just think it's a sad situation and I do feel like we're kind of bowing over and we shouldn't be doing that at the expense and safety of our children. We have choices to make as a community. That's all I would say. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If there is no one else this evening ‑‑ last call. I would say at this point what we'll do is continue here tomorrow. We'll begin at 7:30 p.m. here in the courtroom. There will be additional folks who I know will be here to comment if you haven't tonight. Again, everyone is permitted one set of five minutes. Also, please note that after comment is concluded, the board may take action. We'll know more tomorrow when we get to that point.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Will there be an executive session tomorrow as well?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Not that I am aware of.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: If there is can you post it at least two hours before the meeting?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, transcripts will be posted as quickly as possible. I believe Michael has been doing a very good job with that. Okay. That concludes tonight's meeting. We will carry again to tomorrow at 7:30.

Is there a motion to adjourn?  

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Second?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All in favor?

(Whereupon, all board members respond in the affirmative.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Any opposed?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you.

(Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date. Time noted 11:04 p.m.)

The meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Michael Cafarelli

                                                                                                Board Secretary

Approved: June 6, 2017

 

 

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of March 31, 2016. 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. Nalbantian, the Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Mr. Nalbantian, Councilwoman Knudsen, Ms. Bigos, Mr. Joel, Ms. Dockray, Mr. Reilly, and Mr. Thurston. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney, Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary. Ms. Altano and Mr. Abdalla were not present.

 

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

 

Correspondence received – Mr. Cafarelli said none was received

 

“Whispering Woods”  Public Hearing on Settlement and Consideration of a 2016 Master Plan Amendment pursuant to Remand Order entered by Honorable Lisa Perez-Friscia, J.S.C. on the matter known as The Valley Hospital, Inc. v. Village of Ridgewood Planning Board, et al. - Following is the transcript of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

Mr. Nalbantian: Tonight's meeting has been convened for the purpose of continuing the board's Whispering Woods hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the building of Ridgewood Master Plan, pursuant to settlement terms reached with Valley Hospital following litigation which commenced in 2014.

For those of you who were not here yesterday I will again briefly review relevant history and where we are with the process. I will also repeat the rules that have been set out for these proceedings. As a brief recap of how we got here, at the conclusion of the board's hearing held in 2013 and 2014, the board voted against adoption of the Master Plan Amendment that would have revised the 2010 plan that is currently in effect today. Since a further amendment was not adopted by the Planning Board in 2014, the 2010 Master Plan Amendment remained in place.

Subsequent to the board's action to reject the proposed 2014 Amendment, legal actions were filed and the board engaged in a mediation process that was recommend by the Court late in 2015.

During that process, which occurred over several months, the terms of the settlement were reached between the Planning Board and The Valley Hospital and are now being put forth to the public in these hearings as consideration of a new 2016 Master Plan Amendment.

In addition, the board is proceeding under the guidelines of a remand order issued by the courts that establishes a framework of the settlement which specific procedural requirements and time linings for these hearings must be strictly continued ‑‑ we'll strictly continue to follow.

During last night's meeting, the board attorney, Katie, walked through the key elements of the court remand order, including certain legal highlights of the proposed settlement. And Valley Hospital's attorney, John Drill, also made introduction remarks regarding their intended testimony.

The board then heard testimony from the Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, as to the proposed 2016 Master Plan Amendment document that was drafted in the context of revisions to the previously proposed 2014 Master Plan that came about as part of the settlement terms reached with Valley Hospital. Both the board and members of the public had opportunity to cross‑examine Blais on his testimony, and now that process is completed.

Next, the board heard testimony from Maria Mediago, Vice President of Facilities Management at Valley Hospital, who is responsible for property acquisitions and planning, design and construction of capital facilities for Valley. Her testimony included review of the proposed changes to the project, including the building height and size, and proposed architectural landscape design features as compared to the 2014 Amendment.

Several exhibits were also reviewed as part of Ms. Mediago's testimony. The exhibits presented last night have been posted on the Village website.

Following Valley's initial testimony, the board had an opportunity to begin its cross‑examination and some questions required follow‑up.

We also opened up questions for Ms. Mediago to the public and everyone who wanted to ask questions last night was offered the opportunity, as we stayed around until after midnight for that process. So we'll continue this evening with follow‑up responses from Ms. Mediago and proceed with any additional questions regarding her testimony. After we conclude Valley's testimony, board cross‑examination and public questions, the board will begin its process to hear public comment on this matter which may begin tonight.

Let me again review relevant procedure and rules; first, public questions regarding Valley's testimony from last night and this evening. The remand order entered by the Court specifically provides that only revisions to the 2014 Master Plan Amendment are relevant and material for purposes of questions and cross‑examination of this matter.

So if you have questions for Ms. Mediago regarding her testimony in this regard, later when I open the floor to questioning from the public, you will be asked to form a line and I will call on you in that order.

When it's your turn you'll be asked to slowly say and spell your name and address before beginning with your questions. Also, as defined in the Court's remand order, each of you will have up to five minutes to ask your questions. You must also ask your questions together at one time and within the allotted five minutes. Then please take your seat so your questions can be answered.

Again, the questions must be relevant to only the testimony that was given by Ms. Mediago last night and this evening. I will call on everyone who is in line only once. Now, let me review again the procedure for public comment later. When you arrived here this evening you were asked to sign up for public comment. This list will be used for the order of public comment speaking. If you intend to make statements to the board during public comment later tonight, you must have signed in and take note of your sequence number in the sign‑up list.

Later when I announce that that hearing ‑‑ that the hearing is open for public comment, I will call on the names in sequence from the list and in that order. So if you wish to speak and have not signed up, please do so now. Mary Pat is in the back corner.

1. PORCELLI: I Mean over here now ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: She's here.

1. PORCELLI: ‑‑ but it's still back there.

 

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The sign‑up is in the back.

When your name is called you will be asked to move immediately to the microphone and then slowly say and spell your name and street address for the record. You will also be sworn in at that time since all comments must be made under oath.

If you change your mind about speaking when your name is called, simply indicate "pass" and we will move on to the next speaker. Please note that if you pass, your time may not be donated as extra time to another speaker.

Each speaker will be given five minutes to speak. There will be a timer indicating when one minute is left, and again when each speaker's time has concluded. And we ask that you respect that time and allow for everyone to get their chance to speak. The five‑minute time will begin only after the speaker has provided his or her name and address for the record and has been sworn in.

We ask that each speaker strictly observe the time limits so that everyone is given the opportunity to speak. You may read a written statement into the record so long as it does not exceed the allotted five minutes.

At the four‑minute notification, please finish your statement with the remaining one minute so that the next individual in the sequence can have their turn.

As directed by the Court's remand order, everyone who wishes to comment will be given the same five‑minute time period. I will call on everyone who is in line only once ‑‑ in line only once, until everyone on the list has had their five‑minute opportunity to comment. And we will try to get everyone who signed up tonight.

It should be understood that while the board will attempt to hear from everyone who wishes to speak, there will be no obligation under the law or the remand order to entertain repetitious comments.

As members of the public have had opportunity to comment on the proposed plan amendment and the matter has been concluded, the board may then take action to approve the amendment or decline adoption of the amendment.

It was pointed out yesterday that the board has scheduled five nights of hearings; however, the board will proceed to take action when public comment is concluded. The Court was very clear that it wanted this matter to proceed; thus if public comment is finished before the fifth night, the board may move to end at an earlier date.

After tonight, the next meeting is scheduled for next week on Monday, April the 4th, at 7:30 p.m. at the courtroom in Village Hall.

Before we return to hearing Valley's testimony this evening, let me say again, not everything that is said is likely to be agreeable to everyone. And, therefore, there is a level of patience, respect and cooperation that must be maintained throughout the process by all of us. Shouting, applause, insults or other disruptions are not permitted. And please remember, those of us who sit here on the board are your neighbors, we are Ridgewood residents who volunteer our time to serve our community and we deserve to be treated as you'd want to be treated.

When a speaker is at the microphone, whether it's a board member, witness, attorney or member of the public, please don't interrupt them. And when questions are posed regarding testimony, let's do so in a polite manner.

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful cooperation throughout this process.

Mr. Drill, before I ask you to continue with your testimony, I'll ask, Katie, if you have anything you want to say?

1. RAZIN: I don't think so. I think you covered everything.

 

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.

17. DRILL: John Drill on behalf of Valley Hospital. Before we continue with the questioning of Maria Mediago, I want to supplement and clarify the statement I made during last night's hearing session regarding that list of conditions that Ms. Mediago read into the record and we entered into evidence as Exhibit A‑17.

In the event this board approves the settlement and adopts the proposed 2016 Master Plan Amendment, all issues referenced in that list of conditions will be further developed and/or refined at the time of either ordinance adoption, time of site plan review, or during the drafting of a developer's agreement.

(MAYOR ARONSOHN is now in attendance.)

 

1. DRILL: The details of the vast majority, if not all of those conditions on the list, will be worked out between The Valley Hospital, this Planning Board, the Village through their professionals, the Board of Education at a later date.

The reason the list was required to be compiled by the remand order was to reiterate the hospital's commitment and agreement to stand by all of the representations made by its professionals during the 2013‑2014 hearing sessions, in response to suggestions made by Planning Board professionals, Planning Board members and the Board of Education.

And it is also to reiterate the hospital's commitment to work with the Village, to work with the Planning Board, to work with the Board of Education going forward on all issues. And, as I hope you witnessed last night, on any other issues that might arise also.

The point I'm trying to make is that you don't have to finalize that list, you don't have to agree upon the exact language in that list as part of this process. The finalization and the detailing should be done at the appropriate time, again, either ordinance, site plan or developer's agreement. And it should not have to be done at this time if the board doesn't want to.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Jon. Before you go on, let the record indicate that MAYOR ARONSOHN has joined the meeting.

1. DRILL: With that, I'm going to ask Ms. Mediago, there were a couple of follow‑up questions that she said ‑‑ we said we'd get back to you on. So I guess the ones what we said we'd get back to the board on, I want to do that right now before she then finishes having questions asked of her.

M A R I A M E D I A G O,    

Having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:

CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DRILL:

1. So you answered most of the questions that were asked of you last night, but there were a few questions you said you would have to answer tonight after researching the answer. Are you now in a position to answer those?
2. Yes, I am.
3. Okay. So first ‑‑
4. RAZIN: Ms. Mediago, you were previously sworn last night?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was.

1. RAZIN: You remain under oath this evening.

THE WITNESS: I understand.

1. RAZIN: Okay, thank you.

BY MR. DRILL:

16. Okay. So first, the board's planner pointed out that there was an arithmetic mistake on Exhibit A‑16. So I asked if you corrected that and whether you have a new exhibit to reflect that correction?
17. Yes, we do.

And I ask that Exhibit A‑18 be put up on the screen.

1. Yes. So we have ‑‑ to answer these questions, so the public can see, we kind of need the screen.

I mean, we have hard copies. Again, just for the record, I have handed out, there are three exhibits. There is Exhibit A‑18 which corrects the arithmetic mistake.

Then we have Exhibit A‑19 which is a portion of a plan based on a survey.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Do you have a projector?

1. DRILL: Oh, yeah.
2. RAZIN: Yes, it's all set up.
3. DRILL: We're all set. We're all queued up.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.

1. DRILL: Exhibit 19, again, will show ‑‑ it's not going to whack you on your head. You'll be all right.

Exhibit A‑19 is going to show the answer to where the property line is along Van Dien. And Exhibit A‑20 is going to show where the property line and the concrete existing wall was that one of the members of the public asked for.

(Whereupon, three exhibits are premarked A‑18 ‑ A‑20 for identification.)

BY MR. DRILL:

1. So, Maria, do you see that exhibit up on the screen?
2. Yes, I do.
3. What exhibit is that?
4. It's the now new Exhibit A‑18 which corrects Exhibit A‑16, I believe.
5. Yes.
6. In comparing both of these exhibits, all of the numbers in Phase I column, Phase II column remain the same.

All of the numbers on the lines for the North building, Cheel building, Bergen building, West and South as to the difference between Phase I and Phase II remain the same.

There was an error in the totaling, this third column, but all of these numbers remain the same. So in A‑16 that number, I believe, was 48,000 [sic].

1. The number in A‑16 was 45,800?
2. 800. And then the right answer is 52,500.
3. Now, a board member wanted to know the length of the perimeter of the mechanical penthouse on the North building. And I'll also ask you to provide the dimensions of the mechanical penthouse for that board member.

1. So the top of the North building consists of an enclosed mechanical penthouse. The dimensions of that enclosed penthouse are 300 feet long by approximately 100 feet long, which adds to a perimeter total length around that structure of 800 feet. I was then asked what the perimeter was around the open enclosure for the cooling towers. That enclosure measures approximately 60 feet in width by 100 feet in length, for a total perimeter of 320 linear feet.

1. Okay. Then again the board member ‑‑ either that board member or another board member wanted to know a setback of the mechanical penthouse from North Van Dien.
2. As depicted in the revised Master Plan that MR. BRANCHEAU presented last evening, the setback of the penthouse of the North building from North Van Dien is 90 feet from the property line.
3. Also, you were asked where the setback was measured from, and when you responded last night you said the property line, which led to another question being asked, where the property line was along North Van Dien.

So can you answer that and have you looked at a survey of any other plans to come to that answer?

1. Yes, I looked at the survey that was prepared for the hospital. It is a portion of whichshown on Exhibit A‑19, which I request be put up on the screen.

So ‑‑ right. I hope everybody can see the distinction. The heavy black line is the location of the property line of our property along North Van Dien. And it continues similarly all the way down to the intersection of North Van Dien and Linwood Avenue.

As you can see, within our property line is the 5‑foot‑wide concrete sidewalk. So the property line is on the curbside of the sidewalk.

1. Now, again, I'm not suggesting this, but if the board wanted the hospital to move the sidewalk off [it's|its] property onto Village property, because it looks ‑‑ at least it appears in the plan that the Village has some right‑of‑way ‑‑
2. Correct.

Q.‑‑ between the curb and ‑‑

1. Property line.

Q.‑‑ and the property line, would the hospital be willing to move the sidewalk?

1. Yes.
2. And I'm not asking if you think it's a good idea now, I am just asking if the Village asked the hospital to move it, would you move it?
3. Yes.
4. Okay. You were also asked where the property line was in relation to the existing concrete wall which is adjacent to the backyards of the residences which front on Steilen Avenue. And can you answer that?
5. Yes, I can. And I ask at this moment that Exhibit A‑20 be put up on the screen.

 

1. DRILL: Pat, on this one, do you think you could ‑‑ that's it. Up a little higher. Keep on going. No, down.

THE WITNESS: The other way. The other way.

 

1. DRILL: Yes, scroll it down, perfect.

THE WITNESS: Okay. You can stop.

 

1. DRILL: Just like that.

THE WITNESS: All right. So what's depicted here, to the left is Valley Hospital property, you see parking stalls for the cars that park head‑first into the curb.

On the other side of this strip, and I'll get into the details of this in just a second, are the backyards of the Steilen Avenue homes.

BY MR. DRILL:

1. And by the way, up on the screen we can see it looks like two residential properties, you have the note "property line" with an arrow, and a note "existing wall" with an arrow?
2. Correct.
3. Do you know the lot numbers of those two lots that are up on the screen?
4. This lot is Lot 37 (indicating) and this lot is Lot 38 (indicating).
5. So the lot on top of the screen is Lot 37?
6. Correct.
7. And the lot in the bottom of the screen is Lot 36?
8. Lot 38.
9. 38, I'm sorry.
10. That's correct.
11. And remember that we were talking about last night a home located at 258 Steilen where a picture was taken from the backyard?
12. Correct.
13. Do you know where that lot is?
14. It's this lot right here (indicating).
15. So could you explain ‑‑
16. DOCKRAY: Can you state the number, because we can't see. What lot number is it?
17. DRILL: Can you go to ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The bird's‑eye view.

2. DRILL: Exhibit A‑2.

THE WITNESS: Exhibit 2.

1. DRILL: The bird's‑eye view?
2. CAFARELLI: Jon, the board has hard copies.
3. DRILL: They have hard copies?
4. CAFARELLI: Yes.

BY MR. DRILL:

1. Let's go to Exhibit A‑2, it makes it easier to look at. Okay. So A‑2 is up on the screen, with the laser pointer can you point to lot ‑‑
2. Lot 36 is this house right here. And Lot 37 is this house right here (indicating).
3. And continuing ‑‑
4. And 258 Steilen Avenue is the next one.
5. RAZIN: Can you hold on a second.
6. DRILL: If the board members just come down for one minute just to take a look.

BY MR. DRILL:

1. So can you start with pointing out where Lot 36 is?
2. Lot 36 is this home (indicating).
3. How many lots in from the corner is Lot 36?
4. Six.
5. With the pointer, can you count?
6. One, two, three, four, five, six (indicating).
7. Sixth lot in is Lot 36?
8. Lot 36.
9. What's the seventh lot?
10. Lot 37.
11. And the eighth lot?
12. Lot 38.
13. And that's ‑‑ and the address?
14. And that corresponds to 258 Steilen Avenue.
15. We'll now we go back to Exhibit A‑20.
16. 20.
17. And can you explain ‑‑
18. What we said.
19. Right.
20. DRILL: And, again, Pat, can you scroll that down a little?

There we go.

BY MR. DRILL:

1. So Lot 37, do you see Lot 37 right there? And the lot below that is Lot 36; correct? So it's ‑‑
2. It's Lot 38.
3. Lot 38, I'm so sorry. All right. So can you now ‑‑
4. Right.

The Valley Hospital property line is depicted along this line (indicating).

The existing concrete wall is on The Valley Hospital property, and it's shown by the two closely‑spaced parallel lines.

1. How many feet from the property line?
2. Approximately 4 feet from the property line.
3. Okay.
4. This is the electrical trenching lights for the bollard lights that are on our property showing into the parking lot. This is the curb against which cars parking (indicating).
5. That's existing?
6. This is ‑‑ we were asked where the existing concrete wall is.
7. That's right.
8. So this is the existing condition, okay.

So the curb line that the board asked about, this is the logical trenching line to feed these lights, concrete wall still on Valley Hospital property right here (indicating), 4 feet later is the edge, the easterly edge of Valley's property.

 

1. DRILL: Okay. So now Maria has answered the leftover questions from last night and now she would then be made available to have people to ask her any questions to ask questions.

 

1. RAZIN: Okay. Before you do that and while you're on this property line, I think there was actually just one follow‑up question for Blais on the property line question from one of the members of the public and, Blais, do you have an answer on that question?
2. BRANCHEAU: I believe so. Is this picking up?

 

1. DRILL: Hold on now. Got to get your mic on. Now go.
2. BRANCHEAU: I believe the question ‑‑
3. RAZIN: Wait, before you go on, before you continue.

You were previously sworn last night?

1. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I was.
2. RAZIN: And you remain under oath as well.
3. BRANCHEAU: Yes.

B L A I S   B R A N C H E A U,    

Having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows:

1. RAZIN: Okay. So I think there was one question relative to a property line.
2. BRANCHEAU: Yes. I believe the question related to what the setback was in relation to where it was measured from. And I had indicated last night that the setback was measured ‑‑ we always measure it from the property line.

And the question ‑‑ all the question was where is that in relation to ‑‑ in relationship to the sidewalk. And I believe Exhibit A‑19 shows that the sidewalk is, in fact, on the hospital property, just inside of the property line.

So, therefore, if a setback of, say, 47 feet for the North building were measured from the property line, the setback from the sidewalk would be ‑‑ it indicates a 5‑foot‑wide walk and the walk may be 1 foot inside, so the setback from the sidewalk would be approximately 41 feet from the side ‑‑ the setback of the building at its closest point would be 41 feet more or less from the sidewalk.

 

1. DRILL: And again, if the board wants that sidewalk moved off of Valley's property and applicant Village property, we're not suggesting it, but if you want it done, the hospital will do it.

Now, before Ms. Mediago has further questions asked of her, I just want to remind ‑‑ what I did last night, I just want to say I don't want to have to object to any questions that are asked of her, so I am just asking the board if you can enforce that remand order provision it would be greatly appreciated.

And if I don't object, I don't plan on and hopefully I won't, I don't want to have anyone say that I waived my right to object just because I kept my mouth shut.

 

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We can start ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Charles, I have one quick question ‑‑

 

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: ‑‑ while you have A‑20 up.

1. DRILL: Microphone. You have to use it.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Sorry. While you have A‑20 still up.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It's ‑‑ and I could probably figure it, but you have the existing wall roughly 4 feet. Can you show roughly where the new wall would be with your marker? It's hard to tell with this, just to give me a concept of where that is.

THE WITNESS: In the same place, 4 feet on the hospital's side of the property line, it's below the retaining wall ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ 20 feet further into the property line is the higher wall.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's what I am referring to.

THE WITNESS: So that the higher wall will be 24 feet in from the property line.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Where is that relative to this drawing is what I'm asking, roughly?

THE WITNESS: Well, the parking stall is approximately 18 to 19 feet deep, [about|bought] half of that would be 9 ‑‑ I would say where this first dashed line is (indicating).

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: First dashed line.

THE WITNESS: Oh, no, 20 feet, so it is almost to the end of the parking stall.

From here, from the property line it's 4, and we want another 16 (indicating). So you're probably within the parking spot.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay, thank you.

1. BRANCHEAU: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.

1. BRANCHEAU: Can I ask a question?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please.

1. BRANCHEAU: The Master Plan itself does not ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you wait.

1. BRANCHEAU: The Master Plan itself does not specify a particular design of the wall. That is one of those items that I said, like, last night, I said when you're sure, be specific. When you're not sure, establish the principle and the objective and then let the details work out at the time of site plan review.

Although the hospital may have a particular design in mind with the way the Master Plan is written, it merely says: In addition to a landscape buffer, a sound barrier/wall, dense wall and other features, as appropriate, should also be required adjacent to the Steilen Avenue properties and the Ben Franklin school property in order to mitigate noise from loading activities, truck traffic and other activities. Fences and/or walls should also be required in other buffer areas or locations where necessary to provide adequate screening. And the key ‑‑ the key sense is here where it says: The extent and specific design of such barriers and other features shall be determined by the Planning Board at the time of plan review.

So although there may be a conceptual plan that you're going to comment on, I think [its|it's] important to understand that that's one of those items that, to have full input, have the full plan before us. It's difficult to finalize that at this time, but the objective is there.

 

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you, Blais.

Other follow‑up questions? Why don't we begin from this side tonight.

Debbie, do you have any follow‑up questions for Maria?

1. PATIRE: They clarified it and I understand the 47 feet. I understand, thank you for clarifying that.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Wendy?

1. DOCKRAY: A couple of questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You want to speak in your mic, move closer to it.

1. DOCKRAY: I'm not speaking into it? Now am I? Okay.

You pointed out, I think you said it was Lot 38 from which the photograph was ‑‑ the simulation was done; am I correct? And it was focused on the North building. Do I have that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DOCKRAY: Can you tell me how far away that picture was taken.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DOCKRAY: What was the distance? Because I looked when you showed the ‑‑ you gave us the exhibit here, it doesn't appear that Lot 38 is the closest to the North building. It seems it's much closer to the Cheel building.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. DOCKRAY: So there are properties that will be closer to the North building which will have a far more direct impact from the North building visually; is that not correct?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. DRILL: Again, just like I said last night, we ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The locations of the simulations ‑‑

1. DRILL: ‑‑ without revealing any confidential discussions in the mediation, the locations of those photographs came from the mediation process.

THE WITNESS: It was chosen in order to be able to illustrate the southeastern portion of the North building. If you got any closer to the North building you wouldn't be able to see the details of it.

1. DOCKRAY: Right. Because all you would see is the North building when you looked out; is that not correct? If you looked straight back?

THE WITNESS: Actually the photograph from in front of 318 Steilen Avenue, the numbers change significantly once you get closer to the dead‑end on Steilen.

1. DRILL: Why don't we put that picture up?

THE WITNESS: Sure, that was ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: That was from the front yard, I'm worried about the backyard. So it's adjacent to the backyard.
2. DRILL: We do not have a photo simulation from the backyard.

THE WITNESS: From the backyard.

1. DRILL: From what you're asking about, we don't have one.

THE WITNESS: From the backyard.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay, all right.

I have ‑‑ last night I asked, I don't know if you had any luck finding the original photograph that you worked off of, I think you said it was from 2010, which was taken from the BF ball field, and then you put the new ‑‑ the proposed North building on that photograph, but I inquired as to whether the original photograph existed so we could line them up so we could see what the difference, you know, provide a perspective from what exists now, from what was in the original photo to the simulation. I just wondered if you had any luck finding that.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall. I do not recall that I was asked to produce a photograph. I was asked if I used a photograph or how it was produced.

1. DRILL: Yes, that's my recollection too. You were asked about it. You have ‑‑ if you had asked for it to be produced it would have been here tonight.
2. DOCKRAY: All right. Is it still possible then?
3. DRILL: Well, we'll see how long the hearing goes, if we get past ‑‑ if we're still coming back we'll do it. But if we're not, if we get to the point of a vote, then we'd rather have the vote.  
4. DOCKRAY: Well, I'm sure you would. But I think its an important piece of information in terms of ‑‑ in order to have a good perspective on the size of that particular building because it looks very, very large and ‑‑
5. DRILL: Again, if you're asking to see what the existing building looks like in that photograph and compare it, the remand order indicates ‑‑ the remand order indicates that what is supposed to be compared is 2016 to 2014, not to existing. But again ‑‑
6. DOCKRAY: Yes, but I'm not trying to make a direct comparison, but I'm just trying to gain perspective on what you're proposing and that's one way of getting the perspective because you obviously had the picture and you superimposed the simulation on that picture.
7. DRILL: Right, we have the pictures, no question.

Let's see how far we get.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I agree. Let's proceed and then see if ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Wendy, any other questions?

1. DOCKRAY: No, that's it for now.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Kevin, any questions?

1. REILLY: No questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Richard, any questions?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: No questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Paul?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: No questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Susan?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I obviously have a couple of questions. But ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's just have a discussion for a minute.

(Whereupon, off‑the‑record discussion               is held.)    

1. DRILL: Do you know when we're going to be taking a break?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I was thinking of taking a break after the public, after public questioning of Maria.

Is it possible to get the image during a break?

1. DRILL: Yes, it's possible that we can get that image during the break.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, why don't we try to shoot for that.

We will allow for public questions.

1. DRILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Take a break, come back and address that.

1. DRILL: If we can take a 15‑minute break, we're feeling fairly confident that we can get that image, get it onto a memory stick and get it into that computer.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That will be great.    

(Whereupon, off‑the‑record discussion               is held.)

1. DRILL: MS. DOCKRAY, did you hear what we're doing?
2. DOCKRAY: Pardon?
3. DRILL: Did you hear what we're doing?
4. DOCKRAY: No, I'm sorry. I didn't.
5. DRILL: On a break ‑‑
6. DOCKRAY: On the what?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The break.

1. DRILL: When we take a break ‑‑
2. DOCKRAY: Okay.
3. DRILL: ‑‑ we think that we can locate that picture ‑‑
4. DOCKRAY: Okay.
5. DRILL: ‑‑ get it transferred to one of the laptops, get it transferred to the memory stick and then put it on the projection laptop.
6. DOCKRAY: Okay.
7. DRILL: That's the plan.
8. DOCKRAY: Thank you very much. If you can do that, that would be great.

Thank you.

(Whereupon, off‑the‑record discussion               is held.)

1. RAZIN: Mr. Drill, can I just ask a clarifying question?
2. DRILL: Yes, did you hear ‑‑
3. RAZIN: No, I didn't hear anything.
4. DRILL: On the break ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: During the break they're going to see if they can ‑‑

1. RAZIN: Work it out?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: ‑‑ produce the image that Wendy was looking for.

1. RAZIN: Okay.
2. DRILL: Transfer it to the laptop, get it onto a memory stick and get it onto that computer and projector.

We think it would be about 10 or 15 minutes to do that.

1. RAZIN: My question to you, just to clarify your language, the ‑‑ I'm not sure if you ‑‑ just to clarify your language, the photo simulations, the rendering or perspectives, whatever term has been put on them, were a result, those ‑‑ the entire package of them were the result of the mediation?
2. DRILL: The mediation.
3. RAZIN: Not necessarily the exact particular locations; correct?
4. DRILL: Again, without revealing anything confidences ‑‑
5. RAZIN: Without revealing anything.
6. DRILL: ‑‑ I ‑‑ my understanding was those exact locations were as a result of the mediation.
7. RAZIN: Maybe you and I need to speak off the record, let's do that ‑‑ we'll do it during the break.
8. DRILL: Yes. I can tell you during the break because I can't say it in public ‑‑
9. RAZIN: Correct.
10. DRILL: ‑‑ exactly who picked those.
11. RAZIN: Right. So we'll just deal with it at the break. We'll talk about it.

Let's continue with the questions.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

Maria, I feel like I have an obsession with chillers, but we're back. So I want to go back to that penthouse, the chillers and the mechanicals.

So your testimony is that the north side of that is 100 feet; right, that's 100 feet wide? Is that correct? Is that what ‑‑

THE WITNESS: In the north/south direction?

1. DRILL: North ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: North/south, I'm sorry. Yes.

1. DRILL: Can you put up an exhibit, like, can you say A‑2 ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: We don't have it.

1. DRILL: We don't have it, okay.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. That's okay. We are on the same ‑‑ we understand each other.

THE WITNESS: The north/south direction is approximately 100 feet.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: The east/west direction, which would be from Van Dien towards Steilen ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And that was 300 feet.

THE WITNESS: 300.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: But then there was an additional 60 feet for the other portion; is that what you were stating.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: For a total linear footage of 360 feet.

THE WITNESS: That is correct, yes.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Good.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: All right.

If we were to take a look at the 56 foot height of the North building, just that part of it, and not excluding the mechanicals, the rooftop mechanicals, what is the actual of that ‑‑ just the highest part of the building, what is the footprint of that portion of the building?

THE WITNESS: So it's another 27 feet.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So from the north/south is 127.

THE WITNESS: No. No, no, no. One second.

The plan, the westerly direction, so east/west, so from Van Dien to the back of Steilen would be another 27 feet over 360, so it's approximately, let's say, 390.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. So that is 390 linear feet of building.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And then of course the ‑‑

THE WITNESS: And then the north/south is approximately 100 feet.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So the north/south facade of the actual structure is the same width as the ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Penthouse.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: ‑‑ penthouse.

So then there's no setbacks to the north or south side of the building where the mechanicals were, there's no ‑‑ it's not stepped in at all.

THE WITNESS: That's correct. So you refer back to the setback diagram that MR. BRANCHEAU produced in the revised ‑‑ proposed revised Master Plan, you will see that the setback from the property line along BF Middle School property to buildings that are lower than 30 feet is 47 ‑‑ is 40 feet and any structures above 30 feet, the setback is 70 feet.

1. DRILL: And this diagram you're referring to is on page 6 of Exhibit B‑4 which is the redline Master Plan?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

1. DRILL: Okay.
2. DOCKRAY: Excuse me. Did you say 70? I didn't hear you correctly.

THE WITNESS: Buildings over 30 feet tall ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Right.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ are set back from the Ben Franklin Middle School property line 70 feet.

1. DOCKRAY: And then, Susan, are you asking if there's an additional setback for the mechanicals, is that ‑‑ and she said yes or no on that?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: No, what Maria is stating is that the width ‑‑ the ‑‑ the east ‑‑ no, the north/south width of the building is 100 feet and the rooftop mechanicals is an equal width ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: ‑‑ resulting in no setback on either the north side or the south side of the buildings ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: ‑‑ where the chillers or the louvers or any structure would be.

THE WITNESS: Where the structure would be around the cooling towers.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Exactly.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Do you have that?

THE WITNESS: The cooling towers are within that area, the screening.

1. THURSTON: On the diagram you have 75 feet; is that correct, not 70?

THE WITNESS: I stand corrected, I'm sorry. These are not for vision. [It's|Its] 75 feet. [It's|Its] exactly as depicted in that exhibit.

1. THURSTON: Thank you.
2. DOCKRAY: So the penthouse is only set back on the Van Dien and the Steilen side or only on the Van Dien side?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: The west side of the building. The west facade of the building is the only portion at the 56‑foot height that there would be a setback on the rooftop mechanicals.

Did you also refer to the same diagram?

1. DRILL: The diagram is on page 6 ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Page 6 of Exhibit B‑2 [sic].

4. DRILL: ‑‑ of Exhibit B‑4.

THE WITNESS: Sorry, Exhibit B‑4. On the Steilen Avenue side, structures up to 45 feet high are set back 70 feet from Steilen Avenue property line. And structures that are over 45 feet are set back 120 feet from the Steilen Avenue property line.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I'm asking from the actual ‑‑

THE WITNESS: From the penthouse.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: ‑‑ penthouse setback to the ‑‑

THE WITNESS: This space to this (indicating).

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Right. So in other words, it's a straight up from ‑‑ on those sides except for the west facade of the building.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. So in ‑‑ so really what we learned here is that a ‑‑ there is just no space for any green screen anywhere on that structure, which I think we discussed.

THE WITNESS: No, I did not say that.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: If we were going to put a green screen then we would have to adhere it to the face of the structure and we would literally make space to do that by bringing, tucking in the penthouse enclosure by such distance as to allow the attachment of the green screen. I mean, you're looking at perhaps 6 to 8 inches as a stand‑off from that structure in order to do that.

1. DRILL: That green screen versus, you know, plants and the green roof, a green screen is what you described last night as vines and material like that; correct?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: But that couldn't happen, so that could happen at the first 300 feet, but not to the next 60 feet as we're heading east to the building because of those chillers can't be blocked; is that accurate or...

THE WITNESS: What I said ‑‑ well, let's start with the first part of your question. If it was determined that a green screen would be desirable along the southerly face of the penthouse structure, as well as the northerly face of the penthouse structure, we would be required approximately 6 to 8 inches upon which the stand‑off for the screening, thread‑like strings, to be attached. It's not a very deep structure. I believe we could find 6 to 8 inches on either side.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

1. DOCKRAY: Just ‑‑ I'm ‑‑ I'm trying to ‑‑ excuse me. I am trying to understand something I heard last night. I understood, at least in the north side, the BF side, the penthouse, that's all louvers and you could never put a green screen over louvers. Is that correct?

THE WITNESS: And that does not contradict the statement I just made. If it were determined that we had the ability to do that, you're correct. We cannot block the louvers.

1. DOCKRAY: Right. So it's all louvers, there will be no green screen on that side.

THE WITNESS: I also said last evening that I would charge the engineers to look at unique ways to position the air handlers that require the louvers in such a way that we could, I would ask them, to look to see if we could arrange them in such a fashion as to provide some solid space where the green screens could be attached. These are all design details that we could ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Take a look at.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DOCKRAY: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Remember, the concept of a green screen was not something that was before us when we were asked to come with such amount of detail.

1. DOCKRAY: Right, but it's in the – but it's in here (indicating), in the proposed amendment, that it will be green screen, so ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's correct, that's correct.

1. DOCKRAY: And I'm just trying to understand how much that is. And, therefore, how effective it may or may not be in mitigating the height of the building vis‑a‑vis the neighborhood.

THE WITNESS: I understand.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. So just for the purposes of kind of walking me through and then for the public, the members of the public as well, would you be good enough just to go over the height of the West building, of the actual physical structure, and then the rooftop mechanicals on that?

3. DRILL: Can we go to Exhibit A‑3.

THE WITNESS: Sure.

The West building is the same height as the North building. So it's four stories plus the penthouse, 56 feet of building, 24 feet of penthouse.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And the Cheel building?

THE WITNESS: The Cheel building right now, the building, itself, is 45 feet tall and mechanical penthouse is 17 feet.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And that's not changing.

THE WITNESS: That is not a change.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: The South ‑‑

THE WITNESS: And as I stated last evening, the only building that remains on campus ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I got it.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ is the Cheel building.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Presumably it wasn't changed, but I just thought it was important for you to ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Right.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: ‑‑ point it out.

THE WITNESS: The South building, again, is proposed to be four stories at 56 feet and mechanical penthouse at 24 feet.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And, of course, the garage is ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Overall height, the garage, including the parapet wall, is 45 feet and there is a provision in the elevator override space of an additional, I believe it's 20 ‑‑ 20 feet. I can check that as it's written.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So a 65‑foot elevator...

THE WITNESS: Only at the elevator ‑‑ at the garage elevator structure which is positioned on the easterly side of the Phillips garage.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So on the easterly side to the north or the south.

THE WITNESS: To the north.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Do you know what the dimensions of something like that would be, just rough, and then the ‑‑

1. DRILL: Again, this is not a change.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I know, I'm just walking through it.

1. DRILL: I mean, it's all in the exhibits.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I know.

1. DRILL: This has not changed.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I know.

1. DRILL: I'm trying not to object to the best I can.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I appreciate that.

1. DRILL: Because she's prepared to talk about the change. If you're going to ask her the same way that you don't recall, you know, what happened in the past, I'm going to have to have Maria go through the exhibits. Maybe I'll have her go through the exhibits.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's stay on the course on those items that changed. I think we need to stay the course with that. So if there's a way to ask your question that may relate to one of the changes then that really is encouraged.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Well, I mean I think it's certainly fair in terms of the changes, that if we took a level off of the North building it's important to understand how it relates to the other surrounding structures, and for members of the public I thought it was an important exercise to at least go through.

1. DRILL: For the record, the remand order says the changes list the garage ‑‑
2. RAZIN: Okay. I mean, I think the majority of the heights have been answered, so I ‑‑
3. DRILL: Correct.
4. RAZIN: I Am, if you're comfortable with that ‑‑
5. DRILL: Yes.
6. RAZIN: ‑‑ I mean we can ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yeah, I just thought it was important to note how it ‑‑ what's the relationship now the ‑‑ you know whether it was ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well, the garage is 44 ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: ‑‑ you know, it's important to understand whether or not it was shown with the other buildings and ‑‑ and for the public's information to just to better understand the relationship of those buildings. I'm sure you would agree that that's a visual that is important.

THE WITNESS: The top of the elevator shaft is less than the overall height.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Thank you. I don't have any more questions.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Nancy?

1. BIGOS: No further questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: David, do you have any questions?

1. THURSTON: Forgive my stupidity for a moment, but if I'm standing where that famous picture is, and I'm looking at what we're talking about, the louvers and the green screen that would be there, would you even be able to tell the difference between the green screen and the louvers.

There's an architect ‑‑ we have an architect. Blais, maybe you can answer. If I was standing where that picture was taken from the ball field ‑‑

1. BRANCHEAU: On Ben Franklin.
2. THURSTON: ‑‑ would I even be able to see a green screen.
3. BRANCHEAU: I think that really depends upon the specifics of the design. If the green screen were of a material that contrasted significantly from the screening, I think you could. And if it was large enough I think you could. If it blended, however, with the parapet, it might not stand out and show as a different ‑‑ and I think that's one of these details that you really work out at site plan.
4. THURSTON: All right. But I think it's important to note that if you have a green color matte or a blue color matte, that the addition of the green screen wouldn't be a significant difference, that's really kind of the question I'm asking.
5. BRANCHEAU: Yeah, we've all seen, for example, like Boston ivy growing up the wall, all right, on a brick wall. And you would obviously tell that's different from the brick because ‑‑
6. THURSTON: Because that's a contrast.
7. BRANCHEAU: There's a contrast there.

Obviously if you painted that screen the same color as the vegetation, you might not really notice it. It depends on your distance and that sort of thing. It's ‑‑ it's really impossible to say without getting into specifics at this time.

1. THURSTON: So in our site plan if we designate a color that would be akin to a green screen which would accomplish the same thing, would that not be as acceptable as a green screen.
2. BRANCHEAU: Well, here is what I'm going to say, my own opinion on this.

In my opinion a green screen would provide a benefit of providing variety and also reducing the hardness, you know, the flatness of a wall, providing some texture, if you will.

On the downside, if one were trying to make the screen invisible by painting it a color that blended more with the sky, and we typically see this like, for example, with a water tank where they paint it a light gray or a pale blue color so that it doesn't stand out as much, whereas if you had a dark green foliage, that's going to stick out more.

So on one hand the foliage does provide texture relief and a break in pattern of materials.

On the other hand, because of its dark color it will be more visibly prominent than, say, something that's painted a color that blends more with the sky in the background.

So there is sort of a trade‑off there that I think needs to be worked out in a design review, but ‑‑ excuse me, as part of a site plan.

1. THURSTON: Then let me ask THE WITNESS, are you going to work with us on those elements when we get to that point.

THE WITNESS: As I stated last evening, the hospital is very eager to work on texture, color, material; whatever we can do to make this mass seem less.

1. THURSTON: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: With interest.

1. DOCKRAY: Can I ask, Charles, a question?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, yes.

1. DOCKRAY: A work with question. This's kind of a little bit off to the side, but not completely.

A couple of years ago I ‑‑ I was reading a Boston paper, I think it's Newton‑Wellesley Hospital, don't quote me on this. And they had a project, I think it was a parking garage. And they were working with the neighborhood in terms of how to mitigate, you know, the visual impact of the garage, and one of the things they did is they provided funds to the neighbors to increase the landscaping in their particular properties to mitigate specifically, you know, so that they were able to make the necessary adjustments on their property that can't simply be made on the hospital side, you know, next to the garage. And I thought that's kind of a, you know, that's perhaps something that might be considered, you know, for immediately adjacent neighbors where you're trying to work on the space you have to mitigate and, you know, they know what they see out of their windows. They know what they see from their decks. They know where to put the tree or the bush or the ‑‑ or whatever to make it better. Just an idea.

THE WITNESS: MS. DOCKRAY ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: I know it's a little out there.

THE WITNESS: No, no, MS. DOCKRAY, but I don't know if you're aware, that The Valley Hospital landscapes the backyards of everyone's house on Steilen Avenue that agreed to have it done prior to my coming to the hospital.

And, in fact, they have provided the easy access to 258 Steilen Avenue's backyard because that was one of the properties that we maintain. So we do it now.

1. DOCKRAY: So if ‑‑ if moving ahead the neighbors can say, okay, you know, we now want new landscaping to help us mitigate, you know, the vision of, you know, the ‑‑ the view of this building, you know, we need money to put or we need to put a tree, a tree there, a bush here. You're willing to do that? I'm just curious. I'm looking for ‑‑
2. RAZIN: I don't think ‑‑
3. DOCKRAY: I'm looking for ‑‑
4. RAZIN: I know, but I don't think that that's ‑‑ that's not part of ‑‑ I don't think that we can ask them if they're going to ‑‑ we're not going to change the Master Plan document to make the monetary request.

If that's something that either did happen in the past or has happened or if they want to continue that practice, so be it.

1. DOCKRAY: Well, I only bring it up because they said they weren't ‑‑
2. RAZIN: No, I understand. I understand the context in which you brought it up.
3. DOCKRAY: Yes.
4. RAZIN: I'm just saying it's not going to be ‑‑ it's not going to be part of this Master Plan document to deal with monetary contributions, the board is not going to ‑‑ I think it's proper for the board to intertwine that in the Master Plan document. So I'm not saying ‑‑ I understand your context. I just don't think the board should be dealing with it at this level at all. It's a Master Plan.
5. DOCKRAY: Yes, I know. I understand.
6. RAZIN: And we're not going to make financial obligations on a ‑‑
7. DOCKRAY: Right, but we have been looking at, you know, solutions to mitigating the impact.
8. RAZIN: Right.
9. DOCKRAY: It was just a thought, you know, stretching my imagination here. Okay, thank you.

Thank you for sharing that with me.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Susan, you had a couple more questions.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes. So ‑‑ and I just wanted to speak to Dave's ‑‑ MR. THURSTON's comment, in that in my mind and the reason I asked these questions specifically about the green screening is without giving away the details of the mediation, just that this wasn't specific details, but it was part of a conversation that it was important to understand that that was a doable, an achievable goal to allow for that.

So when you say that the ‑‑ those baffles and chillers are flush going up, presumably there's no space, but you explained it that you have that ability to step back and achieve that if we so desire.

THE WITNESS: That is correct. We're talking inches as opposed to 5 to 10 feet.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Right. And I just think it's an important issue to vet now before we find out later.

1. RAZIN: Okay. Good.
2. PATIRE: May I ask one question? I am not sure if this is on.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.

1. PATIRE: You guys have to guide me, this is my first time doing this, but in and during the design processes, we were looking at setbacks, so specifically speaking of the setback on North Van Dien Avenue, and I am sure there's a reason for this so I am asking an expert, is there a reason that they didn't look to extend the South building closer to North Van Dien in order to not have a 47‑foot setback on the North building.

THE WITNESS: The first building to be built in Phase I is being built to replace the beds that exist in the Phillips building currently.

So the size of the North building is determined by the number of beds. There are one‑for‑one replacements. And that ‑‑ and also recall that the state requirement for patient rooms are to have windows, so the platform of the North building is sized to replace the beds in the Phillips building.

So the North building goes up first in Phase I, followed by the dismantling of the Phillips building, and on that site the Phillips garage gets built.

1. PATIRE: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Debbie.

1. THURSTON: One last line, if I might.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please.

1. THURSTON: You have been intimately involved in this process from 2013 through today; would that be accurate?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. THURSTON: And in your expertise, you've watched how its changed and you're confident that you can achieve what you need to with what's in this amendment?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.

1. THURSTON: Are you confident that when 10 years comes after the 16 ‑‑ after the 6 years of construction is finished, that you won't be asking for more at that point.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.

1. THURSTON: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Any further questions, Susan?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: To follow up to that question, because your hesitation, you know, spoke volumes, I guess, I don't know ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I mean certainly you don't ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No, I think I needed ‑‑ in my head I was walking through the phases ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ to make sure that the hospital maintains its bed capacity.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So, you know, when you're walking through that, I mean presumably this is something that you've looked at and that you have a long‑range plan so ‑‑ and I'm just speaking to the hesitation because I would imagine that a long‑range plan would be something so set in stone, certainly you don't have a crystal ball, but a long‑range plan is something, as much as you know this like the back of your hand, I mean, I see you, Maria, and I know that oftimes you don't even look at your notes. It's so committed to memory.

So what strikes me is that a long‑range plan with a tremendous amount of confidence and right off‑the‑cuff. But you don't have a crystal ball. And you don't know what the future holds.

So to say that with any degree of certainty, can you say that with any degree of certainty? Without ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DRILL: Anything further.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Other questions from the board?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Are we done with questions?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. All right. So then if you agree, what we're going to do now is I'll ask if there's a motion to go to the public that would allow the public to ask questions regarding your testimony as they relate to the changes in the Master Plan. So is there a motion?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to go to the public.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there a second please?

1. PATIRE: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Michael, please call the roll.

1. CAFARELLI: Mayor?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: Ms. Bigos?
2. BIGOS: Yes.  
3. CAFARELLI: COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Nalbantian?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: MR. REILLY?
2. REILLY: Yes.
3. CAFARELLI: MS. DOCKRAY?
4. DOCKRAY: Yes.
5. CAFARELLI: MR. THURSTON?
6. THURSTON: Yes.
7. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE?
8. PATIRE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.

So we're going to open to public question and let me walk through this process. Yesterday we kind of took a shortcut for those folks that weren't going to be here tonight, to be able to ask their questions.

The rules state that we can allow five minutes of questioning for each member of the public. So if you have not asked your questions already, i.e., last night, then please form a line in the middle.

You will be given five minutes to ask a series of questions, go through all of them, and then please take your seat and the questions will be answered.

The questions need to be specific to Maria's testimony and relative to the changes in the Master Plan. At the four‑minute mark, Michael will provide a warning and that will give you an idea of where you are if you've got a lot of questions.

So please come forward.

1. ROMERO: Can I ask a question? Am I ‑‑ when I'm making my ‑‑ when I'm asking my questions am I allowed to submit a picture to better help to visualize if it's related to my question?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Your questions were asked yesterday. And that's the point that I made.

1. ROMERO: So I ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It's difficult. We've provided for a process for everyone.

1. ROMERO: But not if it's ‑‑ but if it's different questions than last night I'm not allowed to request, to ask for another question?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Unless ‑‑

1. ROMERO: But they're different questions.
2. DRILL: The remand order states what it says for that reason, but she could put that in, you know, when she gets her public time to comment, public comment.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, yes. That was one of the things to think about from last night, so let's go through the rest of the people who have questions. I think we need to stick with the rule for those purposes. So ‑‑

1. RAZIN: You will have the opportunity at the end of all of this process of the questioning to make a statement as well, so separate from the questioning there is also going to be an opportunity for public comment.
2. ROMERO: But I won't be able to ask my questions during that public comment?
3. RAZIN: But you ‑‑ we ‑‑ there was an opportunity last night for questions. I mean, I think you asked the most ‑‑ I think you asked nine questions. So I think everybody tried very hard to get everybody's questions who were here.
4. ROMERO: I understand.
5. RAZIN: So ‑‑  

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We have to be fair to everyone.

1. ROMERO: So then if someone else asks the question, then that's okay.
2. DOCKRAY: Charles, we've always said that ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No, this is a different process because we're directed by the remand and the rules were defined in that. And that's what we're to follow.

1. DOCKRAY: And the remand says even though there's been no testimony that the residents can't ask questions?
2. DRILL: She's answering questions. This is ‑‑
3. DOCKRAY: Yes, I know, I know, but in answering her questions, sometimes she provides more information ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Wendy, because it's no different ‑‑ but, Wendy, it's no different than an answer to a question during that question process.

1. DOCKRAY: So we should have told people just to wait until the board's totally finished, don't ask a question because you'll only ever get one chance.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's what I said.

1. RAZIN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Last night.

1. DOCKRAY: I didn't understand ‑‑ we have always allowed people to wait until everyone gets through and then if there's time then someone has ‑‑ they can come back on.
2. RAZIN: Well, I think last night we were trying to be accommodating by staying later so that people could ask their questions? Why don't we start and see ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.

1. RAZIN: And see if by going through it maybe people's questions also will already be answered and we can eliminate the issue. Maybe somebody can ‑‑ during the break we can resolve other issues. Let's just start the process and see where we go.

I think that's the best way to start, and once we get the questions going a lot of times people's questions are answered by other people. So let's ‑‑ why don't we start?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please come forward.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: The remand order actually states that each member of the public has five minutes to ask questions. It doesn't say that they can't use those five minutes over the course of two different questioning so if she didn't use five minutes, presumably ‑‑ I would think ‑‑ it doesn't say that those five minutes are limited to one shot. She can ‑‑ does that, I mean if she has five minutes in total, maybe she has two minutes last night, maybe she has three minutes now.

But it says that each member of the public would be permitted to have up to five minutes.

1. RAZIN: So let's get started and maybe we can resolve the issue during the break.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: All right.

1. RAZIN: We can figure it out.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please come forward, sorry about that.

1. HALLORAN: No problem.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please state your name, spell your name and provide your address, please.

1. HALLORAN: Do I come up to the ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, please.

1. RAZIN: Please.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And state your name and spell your name and provide your address please.

1. HALLORAN: Yeah, my name is Kevin Halloran, H‑A‑L‑L‑O‑R‑A‑N. I live at 202 Walthery Avenue. And I would like to commend the board for its ‑‑ its efforts and its careful consideration and ‑‑ and all of the time you put into this.

But we spent a lot of time talking about a green screening. And I would like to pull us a little bit out of the weeds, if I could. And my ‑‑ I have a simple question: Would you say that the current proposal is materially and substantially different than or materially and substantially the same as what was rejected in 2014?

THE WITNESS: In my opinion, the reduction of one floor level from the ‑‑ from all the buildings proposed results in a better plan for both the hospital and the neighbors and the community we serve.

1. ROMERO: Okay. That was not my question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You have to ask, sir, please. Ask all your question now.

1. HALLORAN: That was ‑‑ that was not responsive to my question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Oh, okay.

1. HALLORAN: I didn't ask if it was better for the hospital. I didn't ‑‑ that's not what I asked.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: MR. HALLORAN, just to be clear, is that your only question?

1. HALLORAN: That's my only question. That's why I would like an answer.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So why don't you have your seat, take your seat and let's try to address that so ‑‑

1. DRILL: The question was whether it was substantially and ‑‑
2. HALLORAN: Materially different ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Materially.

1. HALLORAN: ‑‑ or substantially and materially the same? Which one.
2. DRILL: Or substantially and materially the same; that's what he asked.

THE WITNESS: I consider the reduction of one floor off of all three buildings materially different.

1. HALLORAN: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: That's 20 percent.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Does anybody else have questions or ‑‑ yes, thank you.

Again, just as a reminder, since we had a sidetrack there, if you could ask all your questions after you've provided your name and address.

1. JAMES: Right.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes. Thank you.

1. JAMES: My name is George James. I live at 421 Linwood Avenue.

I need a clarification on the height of the main buildings. According to this, the height of ‑‑ of maximum height of the principal buildings will be 56 feet excluding mechanicals. And then it says the rooftop mechanical equipment will be 24 feet.

Am I ‑‑ that being said, this is going to be 70 feet, the building, right, or the facility; is that correct?

1. DRILL: That's your first question, right?
2. JAMES: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Do you have other questions.

1. JAMES: Yes. The second question is, in your consideration of the changes, did you ever consider coming down more than 31,000 or whatever it was, to a point where you say ‑‑ you would say this has been a real problem for the residents, the height, I mean the size of these buildings, the square footage, and so let's make it less, let's make it 100,000.

Did that ever come up where you could say ‑‑ where you could say, Well, we'll give them that and we can get our plan accomplished with less space. And we're still talking about an amendment that is to be voted on, would you ever consider cutting back more space because we are talking about a 15‑acre plot and although you have done very impressive work on your setbacks of the buildings and the green screens and all the other things that you've added, it's still an awful lot of space being taken on a very small space.

So that's ‑‑ that's the ‑‑ those two questions: Did you consider and would you consider now, cutting back?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MR. JAMES.

1. DRILL: So the first question is on the height.

THE WITNESS: The building, principal buildings are 56 feet in height, the penthouse mechanical spaces a maximum of 24 feet in height, and I believe that's 80 feet and not 70 feet.

1. DRILL: And the second question was: Did you ever consider reducing more than 31,500 square feet? That was his question.

THE WITNESS: So remembering that this project is to have ‑‑ has its goal, the systematical replacement of the patient rooms as the buildings age on this campus, so Phase I removes the Phillips building and replaces the beds that are in the Phillips building with the new North building. Again, the geometry of each room floor are set to replace that number of beds.

In the future, the next step of the plan is to replace the Bergen building and the number of beds that exist in that building. In order to do this, the building, we're replacing approximately half the beds in the West building, taking down the ‑‑ a portion of the Bergen building, building the South building to accomplish the replacement of the remainder of the beds and then completely removing all of Bergen.

So the thing to accomplish was the geometry, looking to diminish the size of the buildings was based on the geometry and the square footage required to replace the numbers of beds. So we've looked at reducing the floor off the North building, which then led us to the wedding cake geometry.

Again, the goal is to replace the beds and I'm sure the configurations can move into the future as we consider taking down the Bergen building. Again, we're looking at this point in time only. We did the best we could to reduce the size of the square footage.

1. DRILL: What was reduced was the maximum that could be reduced?

THE WITNESS: In Phase I, yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is that all the questions?

1. DRILL: Yes. He only had two questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Next person, please.

1. DEVITA: Good evening, Tom Devita, D‑E‑V‑I‑T‑A, 226 Oldis Court. Thank you for your testimony.

So quickly, the height on the north property, it's lower, but it's closer to the property line, I think, the setback is 40 feet. The buffer is narrower than the courtroom last night. I'm sorry I wrote this last night so I'll just read quickly. Do I understand that the buffer will now have, like, water features, garden on campus and the emergency access path? Would there also be room for a visual vegetative screening at the north end?

Can you clarify the invisible parapets? MR. BRANCHEAU said he did not know. Do you know how much of the perimeter will be invisible parapets and how much will be 24‑foot mechanical screening or is it just cable in front of the screening? Where in your experience has green screening been used to 56 feet high? Many times it's used to soften first and second floors such as a parking garage. Was vegetation simulated at maturity in the Phillips building slide? Is the North building vantage point from BF field an exhibit from 2013 and '14? I think the answer to that is no. It's shorter now, but higher. I just want to confirm that. With respect to the north visual, can you confirm that the vegetation in the north visual is added and not just what is there? Can you estimate the height of that mature vegetation since the photo was likely over 100 yards from the property line from BF? I think we're working on the photo from where the visual was created.

Do you have an estimate of the height of the flue stack presently? I think you weren't going to do that, according to Mr. Drill's comment. But what was used in the depiction given the measurements that you have done?

If not, what's the height of the current roof and the difference between the flue that's there?

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

1. DRILL: Okay. First question, he wants to confirm that while the height of the North building is being reduced, the setback is also being reduced; can you confirm that?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DRILL: The second question is, since the setback is being reduced, talk about the landscape buffer in that area.

THE WITNESS: We will incorporate as much landscaping, water features, meandering paths as can be accommodated within that space and in conjunction with landscape architects that would be the professionals to assist in designing those spaces in conjunction with the Planning Board, the Village representatives, the community.

1. DRILL: His next question was, he wanted a clarification on the invisible parapet versus mechanical screening. He didn't say this, but that's because the remand order says the invisible parapet if you can, you know, if it is just for safety, but if you need it for mechanical screening. So his question is: Do you know now how much of each, how much invisible parapet you have versus how much mechanical screening?

THE WITNESS: No, I do not.

1. DRILL: Okay. His next question was, do you know where green screening has been used at 56 feet high anywhere?

THE WITNESS: My personal knowledge is on the outside of the convention center in San Diego, and that structure is probably 45 to 50 feet tall.

1. DRILL: Okay. He wants a confirmation that the photo simulation of the North building taken from the BF ball field was not part of the exhibits that were shown in the 2013‑2014 hearing. That's what the question was.

THE WITNESS: Was that your question.

1. DEVITA: Just want to confirm ‑‑
2. DRILL: He wants to confirm it.
3. DEVITA: Never ‑‑ the photo was taken in 2010 has never been ‑‑ we've never had any ‑‑ we never had visual, never exhibit number, never shown to anyone.

THE WITNESS: 2010?

2010. DRILL: No, he's not asking that. He knows it was taken in 2010. He wants to confirm that this visual has now been introduced in 2016, but it wasn't introduced in 2013‑2014. It wasn't introduced as an exhibit and it wasn't in the package before the Planning Board.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. DRILL: He wants to know if you have an estimated height of the existing vegetation that we're showing in that picture from the BF field to the hospital.

THE WITNESS: Actually I had the height of the existing trees laser measured yesterday afternoon. They range in height from 35 feet to 38 feet.

6. DRILL: And then his last question is: Do you have an estimated height, I don't know what he called it, but he's talking about the smokestack, so an estimated height that was used in elevation and he didn't say the exhibit number, but I am going to give you the exhibit number, the exhibit number is A‑6.

And he said if you don't have an answer about the height of the stack, can you give me the height of something in reference to the stack so we have some idea of estimating.

THE WITNESS: At a minimum, it will be 94 feet.

1. DRILL: And how do you get that estimate?

THE WITNESS: There is actually a physical formula that says that the smokestack needs to be at least 4 feet higher than the height of the closest roof. Again, that's the minimum height.

1. DRILL: Roof.

THE WITNESS: Roof.

1. DRILL: So it ‑‑

THE WITNESS: In order to prevent a down flow, and down draft ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last word that you said.

1. DRILL: So what is the height, what is the height of the top of the mechanical penthouse on the North building?

THE WITNESS: 90 feet.

2016. DRILL: Understand this proposal, with this, this is not the old one, this is 2016.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. It's 80 feet.

1. DRILL: Okay. So ‑‑

THE WITNESS: It's 90‑foot setback, 80 feet in height.

1. DRILL: Okay, so ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well, 84 feet is my answer.

1. DEVITA: That was good. Thank you.
2. THURSTON: I think he had one other question, if I heard, and maybe I misheard, the current stack, how high is that above the roof.

THE WITNESS: Actually the current stack on the freestanding facility, a freestanding smokestack, the height of that smokestack is 90 feet.

1. THURSTON: Thank you.
2. RAZIN: MR. DEVITA. MR. DEVITA, did you also ask with the ‑‑ or insinuated, I don't know, in your question, I just want to make sure, did you ask if the trees at the BF simulation, and you can correct me if I am wrong, were existing?
3. DEVITA: She mentioned.
4. RAZIN: She mentioned. They're existing.
5. DEVITA: The others they're added it, but they measure to the ‑‑
6. RAZIN: So you're good.
7. DEVITA: ‑‑ I think she said 38 feet.
8. RAZIN: Okay. Just checking. Thank you.
9. DRILL: Next.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Next person, please.

1. WARD: Brian Ward, 35 Coventry Court.

So, thanks for the lawsuit.

My one question or two questions is the proportion of land before you finally got rejected versus the proportion of land covered in the new proposal including the parking garage, I'm talking structures only, not [pavement|payment], proportion of land covered before that got rejected versus proportion of land covered in the new proposal including the parking garage?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is that your only question?

1. WARD: No.
2. DRILL: That's your first question; is that it?
3. WARD: No. Then I want to know the square footage in the previous proposal versus the square footage in the new proposal, and I don't want you to tell me whether you think that's a substantial change versus what this town told you was unacceptable the last time.
4. DRILL: Which type of coverage are you asking about, above grade structure coverage or are you talking about improvement coverage? There's two different ones in the Master Plan.
5. WARD: There is where I don't know ‑‑
6. DRILL: Huh?
7. WARD: Total buildings, total building coverage, this is basic geometry. I want to know the exact area of land mass cover by every structure you guys had in mind last time versus this time. Basic geometry.

THE WITNESS: On page 4 of the proposed Master Plan Amendment ‑‑

4. DRILL: Which is Exhibit B‑4. Yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

The amount of coverage by above grade structures in the 2014 Master Plan Amendment was 288,000 square feet.

1. WARD: Which is what proportion of the total land available.
2. DRILL: Go ahead. Answer the questions that he asked you.

THE WITNESS: All right. And right now in the 2016 Master Plan Amendment, it's 311,000 square feet.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay, MR. WARD, if I can just interject, I'm a little bit confused. Your first question was what was just answered. What was your second question?

1. WARD: The square footage before versus the square footage now. So what I'm trying to gauge is they claim it's substantially different because of one floor, so they've come down. That's terrific. We're moving in the right direction.

I want to know land coverage and square footage.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Are those the only two questions?

1. WARD: And then I want to know if that's a substantial difference between what was rejected and told you no the last time and sued us over it.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you. Square footage.

1. DRILL: There's a misnomer in that question.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

7. DRILL: The remand order, in paragraph four, actually says that the 2016 Master Plan Amendment shall be substantially similar to the 2014 Master Plan Amendment except for the following revisions. And then it lists revisions A‑1 through‑7 and B‑1 through ‑7. So the underlying question, when you put the substantial change in it, is incorrect. The change ‑‑ in other words, the remand order what the proposed settlement is that it's going to be substantially similar except in these particulars, so, you know, it's easier ‑‑
8. WARD: I'm sorry, so you're saying everything is substantially similar because I ‑‑ I'm not a lawyer. I do math for a living.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: MR. WARD ‑‑

1. RAZIN: Wait, let's start ‑‑ let's go back to the first question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's let them answer.

1. RAZIN: ‑‑ do you look ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let them answer the questions.

1. RAZIN: Has your first question as to coverage been answered? Let's start there.
2. WARD: Well, I don't know, has it? I mean he's got to find the answer.
3. RAZIN: Well, Maria has ‑‑ Ms. Mediago answered ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Right.

1. RAZIN: ‑‑ the difference from ‑‑ was it 288? 288,000?

THE WITNESS: 288,000.

311. RAZIN: To 311.

THE WITNESS: To 311.

311. WARD: I'm sorry. So 388 to 311.
312. RAZIN: 288,000.
313. WARD: 288 to 311.
314. RAZIN: 288,000 ‑‑
315. WARD: Yeah.
316. RAZIN: ‑‑ to 311,000.
317. WARD: So we're going up in cover.

THE WITNESS: Up in cover.

1. RAZIN: Up in coverage.
2. WARD: Up in land coverage.
3. DRILL: That's correct.
4. WARD: Up in land coverage.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. RAZIN: That's correct.
2. WARD: That's down? Up?
3. RAZIN: That's correct.
4. WARD: Now, in square footage where are you?  
5. DRILL: See, you got the question. We have it.
6. RAZIN: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. RAZIN: So that's the answer.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So, MR. WARD, please have your seat and let them answer the second question.

1. WARD: I'm trying. But there's all kinds of confusion.
2. RAZIN: No, just wanted to make sure that question has been answered, that's all.
3. BRANCHEAU: I'd like MR. WARD to clarify square footage of what? Are you talking about building coverage or floor area?
4. WARD: I don't know.
5. BRANCHEAU: Well, you said square footage.
6. WARD: See, the problem involves ‑‑

I want to know the relative size difference ‑‑

1. BRANCHEAU: The relative size of what?
2. WARD: Square footage.
3. BRANCHEAU: Square footage of what?  
4. WARD: When you walk into a building how much square footage ‑‑
5. BRANCHEAU: Floor area.
6. WARD: Yes, floor area. Versus what? Because they're your plans ‑‑ I don't want to get the wrong ‑‑
7. BRANCHEAU: No, floor area above grade, below grade? The whole thing?
8. WARD: Above grade.
9. BRANCHEAU: Above grade.
10. WARD: Above grade. We don't care about tunnels. We don't care about tunnels. Tunnel all the way to the North Pole, so I don't care.
11. BRANCHEAU: The question is what's the change in the total above grade floor area. In other words, the mass of the building.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you,     MR. WARD.

1. DRILL: This is the exhibit that you're looking at.

THE WITNESS: The answer to his question is found in Exhibit A‑15 where we delineate the changes in floor area above grade and below grade.

The resultant above grade floor area reduction is 31,500 square feet.

2016. DRILL: That's the difference between 2014 and 2016.

Again, if you look at Exhibit A‑15, there's a reduction of 34,000 square feet but you have to subtract 2,500 from that.

THE WITNESS: Yes, right. The question was asked about above grade ‑‑

1. DRILL: Because he asked above grade, not below grade.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ floor area. Right.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And then you answered the first question and the third question, is that what we're trying to answer?

1. WARD: Yeah, so what was the answer? I'm sorry.
2. RAZIN: 31,000 and how many.

THE WITNESS: 500.

1. RAZIN: 31,500 square feet above grade below.

THE WITNESS: Square feet above.

1. DRILL: Below, a decrease.
2. RAZIN: A decrease.
3. WARD: Decrease? 31,000‑square‑feet decrease.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.

1. RAZIN: Correct.
2. WARD: From what to what?
3. RAZIN: Above grade ‑‑ from above grade ‑‑
4. WARD: Just so we have the ‑‑
5. RAZIN: ‑‑ square footage, in above ‑‑ 31,500 square feet in above grade square footage, total 34,000 square feet because 2,500 of that is underground.  
6. WARD: So what's the total before and after then? Just give me the math.
7. RAZIN: If you look at exhibit ‑‑ I just don't have ‑‑
8. WARD: Is it a million to 950? That's what I want to know.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Sorry.

1. RAZIN: So that's a different ‑‑ I know you've asked the difference so they did the subtraction. So now ‑‑
2. WARD: So it's going from a million to what?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: They want to know the math, what are the two numbers that you used to come up with that?

1. RAZIN: Right. They want to know what are the two numbers that you used to get to the ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: What did you take the ‑‑

500. RAZIN: ‑‑ the 31,500.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: What did you subtract?

THE WITNESS: Right. It's on Exhibit A‑15.  

15. DRILL: It's on Exhibit A‑15.
16. WARD: Just tell me, I want you to say it.
17. DRILL: It's right on the screen.
18. WARD: Okay. So you're saying that the new plan is 995.
19. DRILL: No, that's the 2014.
20. WARD: Okay, I'm sorry. That's 2014. And then you're saying an additional 31.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No.

1. DRILL: No.

THE WITNESS: No.

1. DRILL: But there is an additional 31,6 in the first level North building, but we're taking off the fifth level of the North building ‑‑
2. WARD: Okay.
3. DRILL: ‑‑ so that takes off 58,100 square feet.

Then we agreed to take off an additional 5,000 square feet from the North building above grade. We also agreed to take off 2,500 square feet below grade, but you don't want to know about below grade. So if you take the 995,000 from 2014 ‑‑

1. WARD: Yes.
2. DRILL: ‑‑ and do the addition of the 31,6, the subtraction of 58,1 and subtraction of 5,000 you get 31,500. That says 34,000 because it includes 2,500 ‑‑
3. WARD: Understood. Understood.
4. DRILL: ‑‑ below grade and you didn't want to know about below grade.
5. WARD: Got it. You're right, I didn't because I'm here about ‑‑ so 995 down to about 963. So total coverage went up and square footage went down a smidge.  
6. DRILL: Well, that's your characterization, a smidge.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Exactly.  

1. WARD: Okay, you're saying that that's material.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: MR. WARD, take your seat, then you can answer the third question.

What was the third question?

1. DRILL: His third question was, was that a material change? And I'll repeat again, under the remand order it's supposed to be substantially similar. Other than those specific changes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Great. That's what I was looking for. Okay. Thank you.

Next person, please.

1. SHERMAN: Good evening, Marla Sherman, 449 Beverly Road.

Several of my questions require that photograph that I think that you're trying to get during the break, so I'm not sure if I should ask the questions now and then have them answered when the photo appears.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Which photograph are you talking about; the one before the building was put up?

1. SHERMAN: Correct.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That is the one that was referred to prior?

1. SHERMAN: It's the comparison of the two that my questions are about.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Obviously those can't be answered unless they're questions of a ‑‑ they can try.

1. DRILL: I think she should ask them at least to find out if it's a, you know, legitimate question or not.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So you need the photograph for the question?

1. SHERMAN: Well, you're going to provide them, correct?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Why don't you ask the question.

1. SHERMAN: Okay. Okay. So I ‑‑ in my belief, there are discrepancies between the way the visuals look, the building ‑‑ the North building looks, in sight to then what it actually will look like when the building ‑‑ if the building is built.

So I would like to see the original photograph and how this image that you provided overlays or compares to the image that you've ‑‑ that you have given us.

One of the exhibits that you had was a parking lot view with the lots on Steilen Street that you were enumerating, Lot No. 35, 36, 37, 38.

1. DRILL: The bird's‑eye view, you mean?
2. SHERMAN: The bird's‑eye view of the parking lot, correct, and the backyards, I guess, the lots on Steilen.

One of my questions was: Is there a place on that parking lot that you can say that the North building will now begin at? Like, where ‑‑ where in that parking lot is the 70‑foot setback within that? Okay.

And then I have ‑‑ when I see the photograph that they're providing I might have additional questions, but without the photograph I can't ask questions about something that I don't see.

So ‑‑ and then I guess my last question, right, is when you hesitated when you answered the question about will Valley Hospital ask for any additional growth on this property, did you ‑‑ do you realize that 30 years ago Valley Hospital was told that they can no longer build on that property and they should seek other properties in which to expand?

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Those are all of your questions?

1. SHERMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you very much, Marla.

1. DRILL: Okay. So the first question is, you have to wait until the break and we get that picture.

The second question is, can we bring up the bird's‑eye view, which I believe is Exhibit A‑2. And the question is, where does the North building start, and I take it that what she means is where is the existing parking lot? That's what I figure she's asking.

1. SHERMAN: Can I just make a correction before we go further.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If you want to clarify something.

1. SHERMAN: That's not the image that I was talking about.
2. DRILL: Go to A‑1 then. That's the only other bird's‑eye view.

THE WITNESS: No, she's talking about the survey.

1. DRILL: Oh, the survey?
2. THURSTON: The one from today.
3. SHERMAN: The one that you were enumerating Lot No. 35.
4. DRILL: Oh, A‑20. Okay. That's the question, on that exhibit. She wants to know will the North building, I take it, be anywhere in that paved area.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is that the image?

1. SHERMAN: That is the image. Does it continue? Is there another image of that where you get more of a bird's‑eye view, but my question was where, with regard to the parking lot that's presented there, will that North building begin? What would 70 feet end to the property line?
2. DRILL: We think we understand the question. That's an existing ‑‑ that exhibit shows the existing condition; correct?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DRILL: So ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The parking along the Steilen Avenue property line will no longer be there.

The dimension between the two parking stalls plus the driveway is approximately 60 feet, but none of that parking will be there.

1. DRILL: And, again, I believe she's also asking what's the setback between the property line and the North building.

THE WITNESS: It's not on here.

1. DRILL: I know that, but that's what she's asking you. You have to answer.
2. SHERMAN: No, I understood that.

THE WITNESS: The setback from the Steilen Avenue property line to the back of the North building for structures that are up to 45 feet high is 70 feet.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.

1. SHERMAN: Do you have the laser pointer.
2. DRILL: Next question.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: We want to know where on the picture the 70‑foot mark would be.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: She wants to know where if it's visible.

THE WITNESS: It's off the picture.

1. SHERMAN: It's off the picture.

THE WITNESS: It's 10 feet off the picture.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It's 10 feet beyond.  

THE WITNESS: It's 10 feet off the picture.

1. RAZIN: Yes.
2. SHERMAN: Okay.
3. DOCKRAY: It's not the visual to the north upward, two, just to the left?

THE WITNESS: Given that parking stalls are about 18 to 20 feet in length, you've got two lengths of parking stalls,      this looks to me that would be 40 feet (indicating).

This looks to me like it's probably another 20 plus 22, I'm doing it by eye. So it's 60 feet from here (indicating). Where the fence will be located along the property line. And the building is another 10 feet in this direction (indicating).

1. DOCKRAY: I thought Lot 37 was behind the Cheel building, not the North building.
2. DRILL: That we need A‑2.
3. DOCKRAY: I could be wrong.
4. THURSTON: The setback is 70 feet to the Cheel and 70 feet to the North ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. THURSTON: So coming off the property line it's 70 feet for those buildings.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DOCKRAY: I think she was trying to determine, though, where, specifically, it is in that particular diagram.

Maybe I'm wrong.

1. DRILL: It won't be on that.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It won't be on that. It's beyond the boundaries of the diagram.

1. DRILL: But those lots are opposite the Cheel building. They're not opposite the North building.
2. DOCKRAY: That's right.

So it wouldn't be on this one at all, period.

1. DRILL: Well, that's been said ‑‑
2. DOCKRAY: It would be two directions, it would be upward and outward, correct?
3. DRILL: To the north of that.

THE WITNESS: To the north and to the west.

1. DRILL: The north and to the west.
2. DOCKRAY: Right. Yes. So it wouldn't appear ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well, that was the question.

1. DRILL: But that was her question though, we're answering it.
2. DOCKRAY: All right. I am just confirming that's what you're saying.
3. DRILL: Yes.
4. DOCKRAY: Okay. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DOCKRAY: Thank you. I wasn't sure.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Was that all of the answers?

1. DRILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Next person who has questions, please come forward.

1. SHERMAN: I'm sorry. Was my last question answered?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: They didn't answer it.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: What was the last question?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Valley Hospital asked again ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Oh.  

1. RAZIN: When you hesitated did you ‑‑
2. DRILL: I can't hear.
3. RAZIN: When you hesitated about where Valley will ‑‑
4. DRILL: Oh, oh, oh. I'm sorry.

Did you realize 30 years ago that Valley was told that it could no longer build?

THE WITNESS: I was not employed by Valley Hospital 30 years ago and any response that I give is hearsay testimony.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Oh, please.

1. DRILL: Do you know the answer to that question or not.

THE WITNESS: No.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ma'am, please come forward. How are you?

1. CLARKE: My name is Noreen Clarke. I am a resident at 318 Crescent Place.
2. RAZIN: Could you spell your last name? I'm sorry.
3. CLARKE: C‑L‑A‑R‑K‑E.
4. DRILL: Your first name is Maureen?
5. CLARKE: Noreen.
6. DRILL: Oh, Noreen.
7. RAZIN: Noreen.
8. CLARKE: I'm also a teacher at BF Middle School and a parent of a Travell student.

My first question, what exactly will be done for the BF Middle School students to provide healthy air quality and noise reduction during the 6 to 10 years of construction with the fact that those middle school students have 70 percent of their time in their P.E. classes outdoors?

1. CLARKE: Question No. 2 ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: First of all, there is no applause. And second of all, I am going to ask if you can direct your question to the changes that ‑‑

1. CLARKE: I ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: ‑‑ I know that, for the record, changes to the things that are existing that are being    discussed today and relating to her testimony.

1. CLARKE: Right. So when will you be discussing air quality and BF Middle School?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If they ‑‑

1. CLARKE: Because I'll come back that night.
2. DRILL: It's already ‑‑ it's in this 4‑inch binder of the hearings ‑‑
3. CLARKE: I'm sorry, but if your job is to try and make me go away ‑‑
4. DRILL: ‑‑ of '13‑'14.
5. CLARKE: ‑‑ that's not going to happen.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No, it's not the intention ‑‑

1. CLARKE: And if I come back another night, I will come back with another 100 parents with me.
2. CLARKE: So either you want to answer my questions or you're just going to get us more annoyed.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: MS. CLARKE, this hearing, unfortunately, is very focused in terms of it's boundary, and the purpose of the hearing is to look at the proposed changes that are in the settlement agreement to what was already discussed in the amendment of 2014. If there were ‑‑ if your questions relate to things that were addressed and not changed during the 2014 hearings, the data is there. That's all Jon was suggesting. On our website we have a lot of information that relates to testimony from ‑‑ and I don't recall the person's name but there was an expert ‑‑

1. DRILL: Dr. Shannon Magari.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: ‑‑ Dr. Shannon Magari that spoke specifically about the testing that would be done. I think Mr. Drill commented to that effect at the beginning of yesterday's hearing.

1. DRILL: Correct.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And if you would like help in finding that, Michael ‑‑ Michael or even Katie will help you identify that as to where all that testimony is. And there was extensive testimony. When that testimony was given last year ‑‑

1. CLARKE: So can you answer the question or no.
2. RAZIN: Let me just mention one more assistance on that.

Last night a list of conditions was put forward that addressed a number of issues relative to monitoring issues relative to construction and that The Valley Hospital has stipulated to the details of which Mr. Drill said would be worked out at the time of ordinance/site plan or developer's agreement, not necessarily at the time of the Master Plan because that's when they're typically done, later in the process, in any application process. So with those conditions, if you take a look at them, they're now posted on the website, the exhibits have been entered, maybe somebody even has an extra copy with them this evening, but those conditions, many of them, several of them deal with the construction issues and specifically with air monitoring. So that might also address some of your questions this evening as well.

1. CLARKE: Okay. So there's no answer tonight.

No. 2, I may be at fault for asking this, how would I ‑‑ would Valley Hospital be providing an alternative space for Ridgewood Middle School during the time of construction, during that 6 to 10 years in Ridgewood? The same thing.

No. 3, this is probably ‑‑ am I only asking them questions or I can ask you questions, too?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Directed it to the testimony.

1. DRILL: I'm writing your questions down in order.
2. CLARKE: So my question No. 3 is: Why would a town that has opposed this for years, why would you think that now it's okay to come back and us to say yes to this monstrosity?

No. 4, why can't Valley Hospital expand in their more commercial zones like Luckow Pavilion in Paramus where the roads are actually there to provide for something that big? And why is a large hospital in a residential area more conducive for your business? And that would be the end.

1. DRILL: As to Question No. 1, air quality, I don't want Maria to have to reread the conditions she read last night so...
2. RAZIN: Do you have an extra copy? Do you have a copy of the ‑‑
3. CAFARELLI: They're on the website.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, it's on the ‑‑

1. RAZIN: They're on the website but let's ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: But she's here now ‑‑

1. RAZIN: ‑‑ maybe we can find a copy.
2. DRILL: Exhibit A‑17.
3. RAZIN: Right, I know.
4. DRILL: A‑17 is the list of conditions.
5. RAZIN: Right, okay.
6. DRILL: So I don't want ‑‑ because it will be repetitive.
7. RAZIN: No, we're not rereading that.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mrs. Clarke, if you see Michael he'll have a copy of that for you tomorrow.

1. CAFARELLI: I'm not available tomorrow.
2. DRILL: Because that's all ‑‑ yes, all of that is in that document. The second question ‑‑ the third question ‑‑ well, the second question and the fourth question I have to object. I mean, they're totally irrelevant.

The third question, why would the town want to settle? I have an answer. Do you want me to answer?

THE WITNESS: No.

1. RAZIN: No, no.
2. DRILL: Okay.
3. RAZIN: It's not your ‑‑ I mean I don't think it's your ‑‑ it's not within her testimony.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: What's the answer?

1. DRILL: Because again ‑‑

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: What's the answer? Are you kidding me? Do you care about the children?

1. RAZIN: I don't think that that question is appropriate for Ms. Mediago's testimony as to why the town would ‑‑ why a town or this town would want to make ‑‑ to do something like that. That's really not in her ‑‑ it's not in the scope of her testimony nor is it in the scope of her expertise. So I don't think it's relevant to what she testified to this evening.
2. DRILL: She's not an expert in that. So next question.
3. RAZIN: But, again, to the extent that we can help you find testimony and the proofs, I'm happy to help you, I will speak to you during the break and then I'll get you ‑‑ I can help you get to that list of conditions which I think will at least address some of your preliminary concerns, preliminary questions. But I will be happy to help you and will work with Michael on that.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Next person?

1. BANEY, I think there's ‑‑ you had questions yesterday. We're back to that same issue.
2. BANEY: No, I didn't ‑‑

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, she asked questions of the first man, Blais.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Oh. I'm sorry.

1. BANEY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please come forward, my apologies.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you. For the correction.

1. BANEY: Hi, Lisa Baney, B‑A "N" like Nancy, E‑Y, 136 Brookside.

Before I start my five minutes can I just ask that a slide be pulled up so I don't use my seconds for that? But that slide that showed was a picture ‑‑ I don't know the number of the slide, the exhibit, that showed from Meadowbrook Avenue looking towards the North building.

1. RAZIN: Was it a long ‑‑
2. BANEY: I don't remember. I don't know.
3. DRILL: The long view is A‑9 and the closer view is A‑10.
4. BANEY: I guess the long view, I ‑‑ the close view is fine.
5. DRILL: Here's the long view.
6. BANEY: Great. That's fine. That's great. Either one. Thank you. All righty. All righty. I am ready and here we go. So my first question would be ‑‑ well, the first thing is I just hope Marisol Romero could please ask a question because we had five nights set aside for this; if it wasn't for the purpose of this then I don't what it could have been for. Aside from, you know, because we've got four more nights, I think, three more nights set aside.

Okay. So Question No. 1 is in that simulation, okay, now my understanding in looking at one of the vertical bird's‑eye view on page 6 of what was the new amendment, it looks like it was three different heights that are referenced there because there's three lines, you know, there's a setback of 47 for the buildings that are up to 20 feet high and then up to 74 feet high and 90 feet high, but looking at that I feel like I only see two planes or two things and my guess is looking at it from the street you would see three levels or is the idea that one of them is invisible and so I am confused about that. Second question, are there any photos from the BF property line that are closer than the photo that was provided, because a lot of times people are going to be seeing this new building from much closer. So to see what that would actually look like with the floor taken away or with a wider situation that used to be there before that is different. I think that is important if the board's going to evaluate that and vote on that.

No. 4, the setback from the sidewalk that MR. BRANCHEAU described, I just wasn't clear maybe, you know, because I don't know if you know the area, whether it also included the strip of grass, because there's a sidewalk and then there is right‑of‑way grass, so how far is it to your buildings from, you know, the curb as opposed to from what it looks like the street? I think you know what I'm saying.

No. 3 ‑‑ oh, I'm sorry, this was going back to looking at the buildings from the ball field or from this vantage point, even though it's for the setback in the wedding cake thing there, it's not closer to people when they're walking down the street or school kids walking by, so I want to know if you think, in the words of the dear, much beloved, departed Annie Zusy who used to be a member on this board back when this was first discussed when she talked about "space in your face," whether that really reduces space in your face when its, in fact, closer to the street and when you're standing in the BF area closer to the property line.

No. 6, talking about air quality, I know that there was reference to what was already in the testimony, but I would hope that that list, that people know that also there be any comment with regard to all the things, there were many questions about those provisions that the community members and board members had questions about that were part of the testimony and I see assurances are back, but not with some of the questions that were attendant to it that were kind of left hanging, about things like are they going to be measuring the air quality in the middle of the field? And I don't think they have got back to us on that. They said they can probably tell from the property line, but that doesn't talk about the diesel from the trucks that might be going down the streets or things that blow during certain wind and that would be accountability to the students and also the track, the kids who run, all the school's teams.

And also there was a mention about that they would not have ‑‑ do construction if there was sports activities, but my feeling is that there are kids out there every day doing sports activities.

1. CAFARELLI: One minute.
2. BANEY: ‑‑ and Saturday there are also ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: MS. BANEY, please focus on the questions.

1. BANEY: Okay.
2. CAFARELLI: One minute.
3. BANEY: All right. Well, it's also Saturday, the people are out there all the time.

No. 9 ‑‑ No. 10 ‑‑ No. 9, is there any way that they can control smoking? People outside, the public is out there smoking every day. If they can't control employees and guests smoking at the entries of the walkways, then I don't know how they're going to control those other things. And then last, but not least, if there's a 10‑year space between the end of the first phase and it was described and the next phase, that would be ‑‑ let's say the phase starts in 2017 by the time it does Council and then site plan, that would mean Phase II would start in 2033. And I'm just wondering how any of us can know by 2033 that they really want to do specifically this, in which case what is the point? Can you possibly know? Going through all this in this regard.

Thank you very much.

That's my five minutes, look at that.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Mr. Drill?

1. DRILL: Okay. The first question is a question that starts on Exhibit A‑9, which is up on the screen already, and the question is: How does that compare to the diagram on page 6 of the redline Master Plan which is Exhibit B‑4?

THE WITNESS: The landscape buffer that you see in front of the North building, the brick portion, the first floor is only 14 feet high, and from this long view the first floor is hidden behind the landscape buffer.

What you're looking at and what you can see at this view are levels three and four of the North building and then the penthouse.

So from this view 20 ‑‑ the first 28 feet of the building structure is obstructed or hidden by the landscape buffer.

1. DRILL: The second question was, do you have any closer photos from the BF property line to the hospital property?

THE WITNESS: No, we do not.

1. DRILL: The third was a running commentary and, quite frankly, I could not make much out of it, so we'll go to the fourth now.
2. RAZIN: I have ‑‑
3. DRILL: Unless you ‑‑ do you have a third?  
4. RAZIN: It's that the ‑‑ does the sidewalk ‑‑
5. DRILL: No, that's number four. The setback from the sidewalk or from the curbs is number four. She said number four.
6. RAZIN: I don't think there was one ‑‑ I didn't have one in between.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Why don't you answer them and we'll make sure they're all asked.

1. BANEY: Number three ‑‑ number four was about the ‑‑ number three was about the setback from the sidewalk.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DRILL: Well, she said number four.
2. RAZIN: Okay.
3. BANEY: I'm sorry.
4. DRILL: So number four on my notes was the question about she understands that the setback is from the westerly side of the sidewalk because that's what the exhibit shows. She wants to know what would it feel like if you're on the road, what is the setback to the curb? In other words, if you went beyond your property line so the setback is to the property line, but you added the green space that belongs to the Village to the curb, how many feet would that add to the setback?

THE WITNESS: It varies between 3 and 4 feet.

1. RAZIN: I'm sorry, what?

THE WITNESS: It varies between 3 and 4 feet.

1. BANEY: Add or subtract?
2. DRILL: Then she asks what about now?
3. RAZIN: Add 3 to 4 feet.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: To the curb?

1. RAZIN: To the curb.
2. DRILL: From the westerly ‑‑
3. RAZIN: It varies.
4. DRILL: ‑‑ edge of the sidewalk.
5. RAZIN: ‑‑ about 3 to 4 ‑‑ between 3 to 4 feet to the curb, so ‑‑
6. DRILL: Yes.
7. RAZIN: Right, so ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DRILL: Yes.
2. RAZIN: With the green space and the curb, the addition of the green space and the curb, that's what you're asking within the width of ‑‑ dimension of ‑‑

THE WITNESS: From the western ‑‑ on the curb side and the sidewalk to the curb there is a planting area that varies in width between 3 and 4 feet.

1. RAZIN: We got that.
2. DRILL: And that 3 to 4 feet belongs to the Village; correct?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DRILL: Okay. The next question was, how would the setback impact school kids?
2. BANEY: No, space in your face.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.

1. BANEY: I thought I asked that.
2. DRILL: You said setback as to school kids, you know, space in your face. I don't know the space in your face, but I heard the setback so how does this space in your face?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: The wedding tier.

1. BANEY: Well, I'm sorry. I'll explain the wedding tier aspect. One of the things that this Planning Board has tried all along to do was to try and think about and mitigate and be aware of the ‑‑ what's the big planning land use thing is the space in your face which was Annie Zusy's shorthand for building bulk and how it effects the view to people on the street, on the sidewalk and in the field and all of that nearby.
2. RAZIN: So I think the question is does that ‑‑ does the change in setback impact people walking along ‑‑ I guess North Van Dien where the setback would be different, in your opinion?

THE WITNESS: In my opinion the wedding cake feature along North Van Dien was the best attempt we could make to step back a little bit away from North Van Dien.

1. DRILL: The next question was on air quality again and that ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's not my area of expertise and the conditions are listed ‑‑

1. DRILL: Right, so no change.

And, again, the conditions that you read into the record deal with what the hospital proposes to do and that's part of the record.

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

1. DRILL: Okay. Seven and eight, again I'm not ‑‑ this is my characterization, but running commentary, I couldn't figure it out. We could come back there. I have nine as: Will we control smoking? And, ten, the duration between construction. Do you have anything for seven and eight?
2. RAZIN: What about the sports question? Was that part of ‑‑
3. DRILL: Yeah, that's ‑‑ so the next question I have: Is there anything that the hospital can do to control smoking with employees outside the hospital? That was the question.
4. RAZIN: Let me ask you this: There was a condition, I think, that talked about kind of ‑‑ as I recall, I think there was a condition that talked about potential alteration of construction and construction vehicles when there were outdoor ‑‑ certain outdoor activities; correct?
5. DRILL: Correct, correct.
6. RAZIN: So that, I think, attempts to address the sports activities question, maybe not. To the best we can right now. Controlling smoking, that was my next ‑‑ smoking was my next question.
7. DRILL: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Valley Hospital campus is a smoke‑free zone.

1. RAZIN: Why don't we ask it this way, maybe this would be better. If somebody has a complaint, is there somebody that they can ‑‑
2. DRILL: Report.
3. RAZIN: ‑‑ report to?
4. DRILL: Can people report them? If someone's smoking in a smoke‑free zone.

THE WITNESS: There's a hotline that people can use to complain about smoking. It would also be part of the conditions, we agree to establish a hotline for all the complaints.

1. RAZIN: So you would agree that would be something that could be monitored as part of the conditions?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DRILL: The last question was, in light of the fact that the duration between Phase I and Phase II ‑‑ I'm putting words in her mouth, but it was ‑‑ if it turned out to be a decade, her question was if Phase II is not going to start until 2000 ‑‑ I believe she said ‑‑ 33, how could ‑‑ or whatever ‑‑ whatever year she used, how could you possibly know that you will, in fact, do a Phase II?

THE WITNESS: That was the reason for my hesitation in the first place when I was asked the question.

1. DRILL: In other words ‑‑

THE WITNESS: But it doesn't materially change what we're proposing to be the component of the Phase I and Phase II of the Master Plan.

1. DRILL: So if there is a Phase II and the hospital has agreed that it won't commence construction of Phase II until 10 years after the completion of Phase I ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DRILL: ‑‑ but what you're saying is there's no guarantee that you would build Phase II basically, or ‑‑ or was that what the hesitation was that after 2033, so how could you have a crystal ball?

THE WITNESS: I could not speak for the future generations. The Phase II component of the project ‑‑

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Come on. Come on.

THE WITNESS: The Phase II component of this project was sized for the replacement of the beds that exist on the campus. And the phases laid out an orderly plan to do that over a period of time, with Phase II commencing no earlier than 10 years after Phase I.

1. DRILL: Okay, next.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is that all the questions?

1. DRILL: Those are all the questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you,     MS. BANEY.

It's almost 10:00.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have one more question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: What we're going to do is take a break. Why don't we say a ten‑minute break, we'll begin at 10:00.

1. ROMERO, I would like to speak with you during the break and get an idea of your questions at this time, so why don't we resume at 10:00.

(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, would you believe me if I said my watch stopped a half an hour ago? My apologies. We had a couple of very unexpected matters that we had to address, and I know it's taken personal and precious time away from you, so please accept my apologies. We're going to continue now with questions. It looks like ‑‑ it's very late. We're going to try to get through the remaining questions that people have and then we'll begin public comment probably next week or, yes, Monday the 4th next week.

So, is there a motion to open?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to open.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Second, please.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you. Michael, can you call the roll, please.

1. CAFARELLI: MAYOR ARONSOHN?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Still here.

1. CAFARELLI: Ms. Bigos?
2. BIGOS: Yes.
3. CAFARELLI: COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Nalbantian?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: MR. REILLY?
2. REILLY: Yes.
3. CAFARELLI: MS. DOCKRAY?
4. DOCKRAY: Here.
5. CAFARELLI: MR. THURSTON?
6. THURSTON: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you.

1. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE.
2. PATIRE: Here.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Sorry. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. During the break, we were able to speak with Mrs. Romero, specifically about her questions. And given that she did have some time left in that there were some follow‑ups today, we're going to allow her to come back with two additional questions. So, at the appropriate time, when she wants to come into the line, she may.

So, I'm just going to call the next person up at this point. Again, whomever it is, please come forward. Don't be shy.

Please, again, remember to ask all of your questions together. You'll have five minutes to ask your questions. We're here to hear the questions. And Maria will answer the questions as best as she can. Please keep them focused, again, to the changes and to her testimony of last night and today. Please state your name, spell your name, and provide your address. Thank you.

1. O'BRIEN: Yes. Thank you. My name is Kevin O'Brien, O‑B‑R‑I‑E‑N. I live at 227 Bogert Avenue, B‑O‑G‑E‑R‑T.

I have some particular questions about the numbers. The first thing that I would like to say is that when I consider something significant, I consider something that's 5 percent difference to be almost significant, but possibly significant.

I'm looking at these numbers, and I'd like to understand what the Valley's position of significant means. When I look at the overall square footage, I see it goes from 1,000,056,000 to 1,000,024,000, which I calculate to be 3 percent down. And then I look at the other number which is the coverage, the lot coverage, which goes from 469,000 to 481,400, which is 2.6 percent up. Now, whether it be up or down, those don't seem to be significant to me. I'd like to understand if, first, they are considered to be significant by Valley. And second, was the intention for them to be significant? That is, during the mediation process, were we looking for significant changes in those two numbers?

The second question I have or third, possibly, is regarding the North building. There was a statement said more than once about the design of the North building being based upon the having of single rooms or the replacement for all single rooms. So the footprint, the size, everything about it, it's precluded based upon the number of single rooms.

So my question is: Was there ever a consideration of putting those rooms into a different building or on a different site?

And my next question on that was: During the medication process, was there ever any intention of considering those approaches to this plan? My final question is related to the conversations about future requirements and what would happen possibly in 2031 or something of that sort. And I, myself, have no crystal ball. I have no way of determining it, and I don't know that anybody else has it. However, I'm not ‑‑ I mean I don't claim to be a hospital planner, but I'm looking at the ‑‑ again, this requirement associated with the single rooms. And I'm going to take some hypothetical numbers, again, remembering that I'm not a hospital planner. But the ‑‑ the single rooms or the rooms that were previously created when Cheel and the other buildings were put out. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we gave each patient 300 square feet. And then now, the requirements are going to force us to allot 600 square feet per person so that they can have their own space. There will be no commonality. We're going to need extra room because, obviously, we're using more space.

Now, let's say in the future that the state says 600 is not enough; 1,200 is what we need, because we really have to be careful of contagious diseases because there's a lot of them. My question is: Based upon the approach that has been taken during mediation ‑‑

1. CAFARELLI: One minute.
2. O'BRIEN: ‑‑ is the intention of making the North building accommodate all 164 rooms, each twice as big as they were envisioned today? So, I'm asking about the approach that is being done during this mediation process and during this planning process for our Master Plan. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

2. DRILL: Okay. The first question, looking at the numbers, he estimated there was a 3 percent reduction in square footage, but a 2.6 percent increase in lot coverage. And the question was: In your opinion, is that significant? Again, it's a mis ‑‑ it's a misnomer.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Let me ask you this: I don't think the question is is this a substantial difference, right.

Ms. Mediago, you, I mean are you a planner? Like a professional planner? Maybe that's not the right ‑‑ maybe she's not the right person to ask the question to because ‑‑ right? I mean, I'm just trying to ‑‑ I don't know. I mean, well, you can answer yes or no, but I mean, I'm trying to assist because ‑‑ right, maybe ‑‑ or answer it in the context of your facility's operations.

THE WITNESS: Right. In the context of the existing healthcare facilities guidelines, the change that occurred between the 2014 Master Plan and the 2016 Master Plan goes right up against the limit of what can be accomplished in replacing the beds in the Phillips building only, not 452 beds. In the Phillips building only, in the available land in order to do that.

1. DRILL: The second question was: During mediation, were they looking for significant changes? And I don't want to breach the mediation agreement. If you can answer the question ‑‑

THE WITNESS: We were asked to ‑‑

1. DRILL: Without revealing any confidences ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Right.

1. DRILL: Without revealing any confidence, I don't think that we should answer that question.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

1. DRILL: Then the question was: If the purpose of the North building was to replace the single rooms, was there consideration of putting those rooms on a different site?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: A different building or a different site.

1. DRILL: A different building or a different site. That's not in remediation. They want to know if Valley Hospital considered putting rooms in a building or on a different site.

THE WITNESS: If it were a different building on the existing site, it would require a change to the existing ordinances and, therefore, we'd start the Master Plan process. On another site, it would require a Certificate of Need Application and the State of New Jersey does not permit hospital in‑patient beds to be split across two separate locations ‑‑

1. DRILL: Okay. Fourth ‑‑

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ at this time.

1. DRILL: The fourth question was: During mediation, was that discussed? And again, you can't answer that because of the mediation agreement.

And the fifth question was a future construction question. Again, the question said: If the existing rooms were built based on 300 square feet and the new state regs said they had to be 600 square feet, what happens in the future if 30 years they say they have to be 1200 square feet? Basically, I think he's asking if the hospital will agree they're not going to ask for it an increase to 1200 feet. I think that's what the point of the question was.

THE WITNESS: Again, this plan was put into place based on what we know today. I can't conjecture what would happen 30 to 40 years from now.

1. DRILL: And that's the same reason that you were hesitating with one of the others, you were thinking about ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Exactly. It's a plan based on what we know today to replace the existing beds on the campus as the buildings they are in become outdated to provide the service per codes and specs.

1. DRILL: Those are the questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Those were all of your questions. Okay. Great.

Would the next person come forward, please.

Thank you very much, MR. O'BRIEN.  

1. CARIDDI: Hi, my name is Jamie Cariddi, C‑A‑R‑I‑D‑D‑I, and I live at 467 Overbrook Road.

I am a life‑long resident of Ridgewood and one of my biggest concerns right now is the safety of my children while they are attending BF. I walked to BF when I was growing up, and I can tell you two times that I was there that I got a knock on the window from a patient trying to get my attention. And I also had someone pull me aside when I was walking to school. I also work in New York City and every day I pass millions of construction workers, and if you have boobs and a vagina, you're getting a catcall. I want to know: How are you going to protect our children from getting a catcall from however many stories high or ‑‑ a hotline's not going to do it. When my kid comes home and says, You know, some guy with a construction hat yelled down to me, that's not good enough for a hotline. So how ‑‑ I understand you spoke yesterday about background checks and so forth. Are there security cameras? Are Valley Hospital employees going to be out there when our children are walking to school? How are we going to protect the sidewalks where the cars are coming in and out of? The people aren't paying attention. They're on their cell phones. I can't even let my third grader walk to school by himself now, which ‑‑ by the way ‑‑ when I was in second grade I could.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Just focus on the question.

1. CARIDDI: I am. I'm concerned about the safety. So, can you tell me what the plan is, and also if Ridgewood, the town, is going to be responsible for, you know, the police or the lawsuits or Valley Hospital to be on the phone?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Are those all of your questions?

1. CARIDDI: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please have a seat.

1. DRILL: So the first question was the safety concern question ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please no applause.

1. DRILL: So, the first question was the safety concern question, but the stuff after the second question went into the safety concern question. So, the safety concern question, we're going to keep the catcall question as a separate one for second. So, the safety concern question, what is the ‑‑ is there a plan? What's the plan for safety for kids walking to BF during construction; cars, sidewalk, et cetera?

THE WITNESS: The list of conditions that I ran through last night provide for the development of the plan. In more detail, the cooperation with the school and those details will be worked out at the time of the site plan developer's agreement or an agreement, you know, with the school.

1. CARIDDI: So does the town ‑‑

THE WITNESS: We agreed that that would be worked out.  

1. DRILL: And how do you then ‑‑ second question was: How do you prevent catcalls from construction workers?

That's the question. Let me put it this way: I'm going ‑‑ I'll object to the question because it's not relevant and any construction site in the entire Village could be subject to that same question.

THE WITNESS: I can't answer that question because it's not part of my testimony.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's beyond the scope.

1. DRILL: It's beyond the scope of her testimony also.
2. CARIDDI: But it's not ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The next question. Please don't argue.

1. CARIDDI

: ‑‑ because she said they're going to have background checks, right?

1. RAZIN: But she indicated that those issues would be addressed later, so when we're addressing those details ‑‑ if we get to a point where we're addressing those details, certainly they'll be worked out.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If I could just add to that, yesterday during her testimony, with regard to that list, background checks were included as part of that plan.

1. RAZIN: That's what we talked about.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yeah.

1. RAZIN: But I think that the extent that the details about construction, security guards, and safety issues, those details, again, and the parameters of which ‑‑ and I don't know if those are just ‑‑ those are just the details by the way. The conditions that were agreed to in the 2013 and 2014 Master Plan process, I am going to venture to say they're not ‑‑ the only conditions that are going to be agreed to if this process moves forward. There are likely going to have to be other conditions relative to safety construction and traffic, and everything else going forward.

So, those are just what was agreed to thus far as a required condition of the remand order. They're not ‑‑ I'm going to venture to say, the only conditions that are going to be, you know, provided so ‑‑ as we move forward in this process.

1. DRILL: Those are the questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Those are all of the questions.

1. DRILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Could I just ask ‑‑ I just wanted to clarify one question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please before it gets ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I'm sorry?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please, do.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So, I'm sorry. Just one moment. I just ‑‑ Maria, earlier MR. WARD had asked a question about improvement coverage. And I think the way the question was asked may have led to some confusion in relative to floor area ratio. And I just wanted to re‑ask his question because I understood what he was trying to ask and hopefully you'll just help me along because I know he was looking for the answer. In terms of just improvement coverage, we know that we went from 469,000 square feet to 481,400 ‑‑

1. DRILL: Where are you reading from?
2. DOCKRAY: Page 6.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Page 6.

1. DRILL: Page 6 of Exhibit B‑4?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Correct. I just wanted to make sure his question was answered properly, appropriately. So, that improvement coverage, Maria?

THE WITNESS: That improvement coverage, as stated at the beginning of the sentence, it was coverage by buildings and pavement.

The question that I thought MR. WARD asked was the coverage of the buildings.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: He did say ‑‑

1. DRILL: I thought he said above grade buildings is what he ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Well, actually, I heard him say pavement and that's why I wrote down ‑‑

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

1. DRILL: We didn't ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Maybe you missed it, but I did ‑‑ I actually heard him say pavement and that's why I'm asking.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So, in other words, we went from 469 to 481 and based on the square footage, it's approximately a 15 acre site, is that ‑‑

THE WITNESS: 15.6, yes.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. So, it's roughly from about 67 percent improvement coverage to 69 percent, give or take a percentage; would that be ‑‑ I just wanted to make sure his question was answered.

1. DRILL: Cranking out a calculator, do you want ‑‑ if that's what you say it is.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. All right. And then, just for his information, it didn't include coverage by walkways, sidewalks, patios, planning buffers or the landscape areas, and a green roof. So I just want to make sure his question was answered.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: MS. ROMERO, before you begin, if I could just ask: How many more people have questions for THE WITNESS? Okay. We'll probably wrap it up after you this evening since it is getting late, but why don't we continue with MS. ROMERO.

1. ROMERO: Good evening, thank you for letting me speak.

Marisol Romero, M‑A‑R‑I‑S‑O‑L, R‑O‑M‑E‑R‑O, 258 Steilen Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey.

And my two questions are really clarification questions. So, again, the first one is: Will the Steilen Avenue setbacks be changing in any way and in any relation to the Cheel building, especially if it will be 65 feet high from my understanding? So that's the first ‑‑ question one. Again, this is clarification because I can't tell what they are ‑‑

1. DRILL: We got it. We got it. We got it.
2. ROMERO: Okay. And then the second one is: Without any evergreens, you can clearly see the Cheel building again from along the Steilen Avenue properties. So, has the hospital taken into serious consideration mature, tall evergreens ‑‑ year‑round vegetation ‑‑ to be planned along the Steilen Avenue properties?

And from my understanding, I guess any vegetation will be built on top of the 20‑foot wall? So, that's the second question.

1. DRILL: Yes. Will the Steilen Avenue setbacks change? The question is will the construction on the Cheel building, but that's your question.

THE WITNESS: The Cheel building is not changing from where it is right now. However ‑‑

1. DRILL: In other words, the Cheel building exists now?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DRILL: Some part of the Cheel building is coming ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Down.

1. DRILL: ‑‑ down?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DRILL: So, the setback is not going to get any closer to Steilen because that part or the Cheel building ‑‑

THE WITNESS: With the Cheel building.

1. DRILL: ‑‑ is remaining.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DRILL: She says, without evergreens, she can see the Cheel building, and she wants to know what the proposal was for the landscaping from her backyard. I mean, I'm going to let Maria answer, but I thought she was going to ‑‑ I noted yesterday I told her to go to Exhibit A‑12 and look at Slide 10 to see the detail.
2. RAZIN: We're working on that.
3. DRILL: Okay. Obviously, she hasn't seen that, but ‑‑ can you describe from Exhibit A‑12, Slide 10 ‑‑ you don't have that on the computer. Slide 10, what the landscaping in this proposal is?

THE WITNESS: The landscaping proposal is to build a 20‑foot‑high wall on the hospital property. And then closer ‑‑ another 20‑feet closer to the property line, a lower wall approximately 6 feet.

1. DRILL: I'm reading off the detail. It's 6 feet.

THE WITNESS: Right. And then in between the high wall and low wall, that would be filled with planting material to support the planting of shrubberies, high trees. And the concept at that point in time, was to prevent or to mask the image of the buildings from the second floor of the Steilen Avenue residences so that, from their bedrooms, they would not have a view of the buildings on the hospital property.

1. DRILL: And does Slide 10 show evergreens?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it does.

1. DRILL: And does Slide 10 show the tops of the evergreens being higher than the wall, not being planted on top of the wall?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. DRILL: Okay. Those are the answers to those two questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

1. HENKY: Hi, my name is Liz Henky. And I have similar questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you ‑‑ before you, can you speak slowly, state your name, and spell it, please, and provide your address.

1. HENKY: Liz Henky, H‑E‑N‑K‑Y. And I live at 266 Steilen Avenue.

So similar to ‑‑ well, first, I would love to hear about the landscape that Valley provided in my backyard because I haven't ‑‑ I haven't seen it, and I've been there since 2008.

With Marisol's question, was it like a 20‑foot wall and then the vegetation and then another 6‑foot wall.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. HENKY: Okay. Can you let me know what materials are in that cement wall that they're going to build behind the houses on Steilen? Will you test the air in the yards on Steilen like you would over at the middle school? And with the vegetation that's being planted in between the two walls, and what kind of chemicals will you do to treat all those vegetation there, and where will it be draining to? That's it.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

1. DRILL: Okay. So the first question is details about wall and the landscaping. They're saying that you already answered that. If you have any other details to give, why don't you give them.

THE WITNESS: I don't have the details of the drainage or what type of chemicals would be used to treat the soil. That will be forthcoming with the landscape architect when we design ‑‑

1. DRILL: How about ‑‑

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ the planting structure.

1. DRILL: Do you know what ‑‑ she said cement wall. It's a concrete wall. Do you know what materials are in the concrete wall?

THE WITNESS: The wall would be sturdy enough to withhold the strength of the berm leaning up against the 6‑foot low wall.

1. DRILL: I think she means what materials go into a concrete wall; cement, sand, stone? I think that's what she's asking.
2. HENKY: Yup, and what other kind of chemicals and materials.
3. DRILL: If you know.

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

1. DRILL: If you don't know, you don't know.

THE WITNESS: And all these walls are on the hospital property by the way.

1. DRILL: And then the last one was: Will there be air quality testing done on that side of the site like it's going to be done on the BF side of the site?

THE WITNESS: I believe a list of conditions says that their monitoring plan will be put into place at the property lines.

1. DRILL: In other words, the entire property lines?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DRILL: Not just the BF side?

THE WITNESS: At the construction area, at all property lines.

1. DRILL: Right.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, MS. HENKY.

1. HENKY: You're welcome.
2. DOCKRAY: Charles, I just wanted to ask a quick question.

Why are we doing two walls again, the six and the twenty. Is that because it's a better visual buffer? Is that what it is?

1. DRILL: Again ‑‑

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Holding up the berm.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Structural.

THE WITNESS: I would think if you go back into the record and find the initiation of this idea ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Okay.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ and how it came about.

1. DRILL: In other words ‑‑

THE WITNESS: And we're not ‑‑

1. DRILL: ‑‑ it didn't come from us.
2. DOCKRAY: Okay.  

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ proposing to change it.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay. Okay.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you cite again the exhibit there?

2014. DRILL: Yes. This is Exhibit A‑12 Slide 10 from 2013‑2014.
2015. DOCKRAY: All right. Just tell me again, exhibit ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The description goes back to 2010.

10. DRILL: I understand that. Exhibit A‑12, Slide 10.
11. DOCKRAY: Okay. I'll take a look. Thank you. Sorry.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Sorry.

1. REYNOLDS: Hi. Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue.

Okay. Maria, you said there would be no construction on Sundays unless there was an emergency. What specifically constitutes an emergency and could you give us a list?

Number 2, you discuss some safety issues. We frequently hear about cranes falling. How many cranes would be on The Valley Hospital property? How tall would they be? And where would they be located?

Number 3, you said that the 24‑foot‑high mechanical would blend into the sky. Can you give us a location where we could see an 80‑foot building in a residential neighborhood that blends into the sky?

Number 4, you said that 15 to 20 percent of the mechanicals on the west side of the north tower and that most of the mechanicals on the north side of the north tower would be chillers. You've also stated that chillers could not be green‑screened. How can these views from North Van Dien Avenue and Benjamin Franklin Middle School Glenn Avenue be buffered?

Number 5, you said that Phase I would be completed in six years. Originally, in 2006, we were told that Phase I would take 10 years to complete. It was reduced to six years. Do you have a timeline for the construction of Phase I? And do you agree that six years is a long time for people in a residential town to endure noise, dust, and traffic associated with a major demolition and construction?

Number 6, did the hospital or the hospital architects ever consider to design a plan to update the hospital that was less disruptive to the residential community. And if so, what was it?

And the last one is: With the changes in this plan from the 2014 plan, change the 100 or more trucks per day going by BF during peak construction time? That's it.

1. DRILL: Okay. So ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you,     MS. REYNOLDS.

1. DRILL: The first question is, the list of conditions includes a condition that says no construction on Sundays except in the case of an emergency. The question is: What would constitute an emergency?

THE WITNESS: The North building attaches to the Cheel building in a few locations. If there were fire in the Cheel building and you needed to have a horizontal evacuation and that building was enclosed, that might be a chance for us to open the connection between the two buildings. Particularly, that would constitute an emergency for us.

1. DRILL: Okay.

THE WITNESS: We have to have construction workers on‑site to enable us to get in.

1. DRILL: Okay. The second question I'm going to object to, the safety issue of how many cranes on‑site. That's a construction issue. If you ‑‑ also if the board recalls, there were also questions about that in 2013 and 2014 regarding the construction manager. Those were all answered. It's all in the book of exhibits.

Question 3, do you have any examples of mechanical penthouses on tops of buildings this height that don't look as intrusive and don't look like they're just sitting on the building.

THE WITNESS: Mountainside Hospital in Montclair, New Jersey, is a four‑story, above‑grade patient tower. It has mechanical penthouses in the form of triangles of a different material and lighter color, so that it would blend into the sky. Personal knowledge of that project.

1. DRILL: Okay. Question 4, this might be a misunderstanding on her part, but the question is about the chillers on the north tower and you can't put a green screen on the chillers. Could you just explain, again, about the chiller and the screening and the difference. In other words, do you understand what she asked?

THE WITNESS: No. I was confused because she spoke about chillers being in two separate locations and there are only in one specific location on the North building roof.

The part of the North building roof ‑‑

1. DRILL: Is a chiller a piece of equipment?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

1. DRILL: Do you have screening to screen the equipment so the equipment won't be seen?

THE WITNESS: The cooling towers are screened, open to the air so that the water can evaporate into the atmosphere. The water ‑‑ the chilled water from the cooling towers is used to chill down the air in the chillers that are inside the enclosed mechanical penthouse and then fed through the part into the building.

1. DRILL: Okay. So, the more accurate thing to say that the air handlers are the equipment that have the screening around them without a roof and the chillers are ‑‑ no?

THE WITNESS: No.

1. DRILL: And the chillers ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No. The cooling towers run water through thin tubes and exchange the temperature from the air to the glycol that's running through the tubes to then chill areas. And the chillers ‑‑ that cold air runs into the chillers that are inside the enclosed mechanical units.

1. DRILL: So, the chillers ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Chillers are out ‑‑ the chillers are inside.

1. DRILL: Okay.

THE WITNESS: The cooling towers are outside.

1. DRILL: Okay. Are the cooling towers, any part of the exterior of the cooling tower going to be seen ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No.

1. DRILL: ‑‑ from the ground level?

THE WITNESS: No.

1. DRILL: And why is that?

THE WITNESS: They're screened.

1. DRILL: Okay. So the other question was, then, would there be any green screen on the cooling towers and the answer ‑‑

THE WITNESS: It's a possibility.

1. DRILL: The answer would be the screening, possibly, but you wouldn't have green screen on the cooling tower because that's ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Oh, the cooling tower itself, no.

1. DRILL: Yes, okay. Because that's what the question was.

THE WITNESS: It won't be on the cooling tower it will be on the screen.

1. DRILL: Okay. The question was: Is there construction scheduled for the Phase I six years? And again, it's not changing beyond the scope, and the answer is yes. It's in this book as one of the exhibits.

She said Phase I ‑‑ the question was 10 years to 2006, that's beyond the scope. She then said, she asked a six year ‑‑ that the hospital announced there is a construction schedule for that. I'm saying rather than have you run through that schedule because there's no change, that schedule is in the exhibits ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. DRILL: ‑‑ in this black notebook that was submitted in 2013, 2014, correct?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. DRILL: Did the hospital ever consider an alternate design plan for the site? She's not asking putting them on another site because someone already asked that and you answered that.
2. RAZIN: That was less disruption.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.

1. DRILL: Huh?
2. RAZIN: Less disruptive.  
3. DRILL: A less disruptive design plan. That was her question.

THE WITNESS: I believe, given the square footage of this building, the foundation is what's driving disruption. And the ‑‑ the ability to dig below grade to provide the foundation for this building did not change because, remember, the lower level of the North building was always 47 feet to Van Dien area and the area of the lower levels.

Even when it was two levels, it was always the same footprint. So, in order to excavate for the foundation on that site, it remains the same throughout the two different plans.

1. DRILL: And her last question was: When you compare the 2016 plan to the 2014 plan, will any of the changes in the 2016 plan result in an increase in the number of trucks during construction?

THE WITNESS: No.

1. DRILL: No?
2. RAZIN: No. There's trucks during ‑‑ that are going to go past BF, right?
3. REYNOLDS: Yeah. I didn't ask if there was going to be an increase. I asked if the ‑‑
4. RAZIN: Will the changes in the plan change the truck routes that are going past ‑‑
5. REYNOLDS: Right.
6. RAZIN: ‑‑ BF based on the 2016 plan.
7. REYNOLDS: Right. Are they still going to be ‑‑  
8. DRILL: Oh, my ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The truck routes?

1. DRILL: Will the truck routes change?
2. RAZIN: Are there still going to be the same number of trucks that go past it, yeah, based on this 2016 plan.
3. DRILL: Can you ask the question?
4. RAZIN: What?
5. DRILL: Can you ask her the question?
6. RAZIN: Based on the 2016 plan, are the same number of trucks going to be going past BF?
7. REYNOLDS: Every day during peak time.  
8. RAZIN: Well, but ‑‑
9. DRILL: Well.
10. RAZIN: But ‑‑
11. REYNOLDS: Is it a 100 more trucks ‑‑
12. DRILL: Well, that's a misnomer ‑‑
13. RAZIN: That's ‑‑ I mean you can answer ‑‑
14. DRILL: Right, that's a misnomer because we agreed in the conditions to coordinate with the school on that. I thought the question was: Is the construction that's proposed in the 2016 plan versus the 2014 plan going to change the number of trucks going by ‑‑
15. RAZIN: BF.
16. DRILL: ‑‑ BF?
17. RAZIN: That was the question. That's the question, but it presumes that trucks are going past BF which has not yet ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Been established.

1. DRILL: Again, there was presented ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: There was testimony in 2013 ‑‑

1. DRILL: Right, a truck route but the fact ‑‑ the hospital also presented that if you want some other route, tell us and we'll do it. That's not changing.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That would be part of the construction agreement.

1. DRILL: It's ‑‑ right. Correct. Part of the construction agreement and that's ‑‑ that's in this binder.
2. RAZIN: Maybe the secondary part of it, is there going to be change in the number of trucks?
3. DRILL: That's what I asked a minute ago ‑‑
4. RAZIN: Okay. I'm just trying to get a secondary, to help Lorraine, I'm just trying to get ‑‑ since we can't answer the first part, I'm trying to get a second part, so maybe there's not going to be ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes, I don't think there's going to be a change.

1. DRILL: Will there be a change?  

THE WITNESS: In my opinion, right now, I believe that the number of trucks would remain the same.

1. RAZIN: So now we've answered ‑‑ we've covered her both ways.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Could I ask just one thing. That was relative to an 80 foot or 84‑foot structure, and you responded the hospital in Montclair. And part of her question was specifically in a residential neighborhood; is that in a residential ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Do you know the location of that?

THE WITNESS: Yes. It at the intersection of Bay and Highland avenues, Montclair, New Jersey. Actually, the hospital straddles Glen Ridge and Montclair, so it's in a residential area.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you.

1. REYNOLDS: There was one question I don't think you answered.
2. RAZIN: About ‑‑ wait.
3. REYNOLDS: It was about the 10 years of construction going down to six; like, how did it from 10 years down to six.
4. DRILL: I said there's a construction schedule that compressed things and it's in the ‑‑ the notebook ‑‑
5. RAZIN: Let Maria answer that about ‑‑ just your ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Although it's not a Difference between 2013‑14 to 2016, the construction of Phase I in the original 2010 Master Plan, was six years, ten months. Phase I was never ten years.

Now, we are saying in 2013‑14 and 2016, that the construction of Phase I will take six years.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.  

1. THURSTON: Bottom line saying 45 percent then is interior or exterior? I can't ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Interior.

1. THURSTON: So ‑‑ and is that ‑‑ the extra ‑‑ the entire six years or do you do the exterior then the interior?

THE WITNESS: It's a combination ‑‑

1. THURSTON: Okay.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ because we're building a building, but there is an exhibit.

1. DRILL: A construction schedule has ‑‑ it tells you when you're outside, when you're inside.

THE WITNESS: Inside, when you're outside again. And when you're inside again ‑‑

1. THURSTON: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ it's in the 2014.

1. THURSTON: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Next person please come forward.

1. DELANY: Jean Delany, D‑E‑L‑A‑N‑Y, 323 Fairfield Avenue.

And I just have a quick question. I heard a lot of discussion on heights and buffers and setbacks and size of the buildings and the mechanicals. When, if at any point, are we going to see an actual scale model or some much more sophisticated architectural renderings? I mean, everything we see is very foggy, schematics, handwritten things. These are all very simple things to visualize with computer graphics, and we haven't really seen anything sophisticated. And I just want to know when we're going to actually see something because I think it's very difficult for the general person to imagine what something is until they see the volume and scale from somebody's little house on North Van Dien to the hospital buildings.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

1. DRILL: I never heard a question. I mean?

THE WITNESS: I'm laughing because ‑‑ and it's not a comical thing. The hospital completely designed ‑‑ completely designed a hospital in order to answer and present a Master Plan Amendment back in 2010. In 2013‑14, the hospital, yet again, with its architects and engineers, made modifications in order to bring forward a Master Plan of reduced size to the Planning Board. At this point in time, we've relied upon that same architect to depict what was a fully‑designed building to eliminate the fifth floor, to take that same design and perform the addition on Level 1, the additions on Levels 2 through 4 and the penthouse. And the West building modifications based on a completely designed hospital. To the best of my knowledge, these simulations depict what the building would look like if it were designed today with the same parameters. In order to restart this project again and to completely design a building upon which a model and more sophisticated renderings could be based, we need to understand the parameters within which the envelope within which we would be permitted to design this building. That's my response.

1. DRILL: In other words, this is a Master Plan Amendment. Quite frankly, it's unheard of the level of detail that the hospital's going into on a Master Plan. Those sorts of things are generally done when you're applying for site plan approval.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If I could just add that, MS. DELANY, yesterday we spoke briefly about this whereby what we're trying to do here is establish a general policy statement which is what the Master Plan is. If this proceeds and there is an amendment that's approved, then the ordinance or the laws are designed and developed in questions that are processed through the governing body which is the Village Council. That defines the specifics which is what you're referring to in terms of the boundaries and the specific guidelines. Following that, when there are laws in the form of ordinance that correlate to the Master Plan, then there's something called the site plan which is where the very specific design, the details that you're speaking of are presented to the Planning Board to make sure that they do tie with the laws that are defined in ordinance, as well as in this case, a lot of the provisions that are within the conditions of tonight. So it won't be until site plan when you can get an official design of what the building looks like. But I hear testimony now that this is, today, what the intent could be, what it would like, conceptually.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. SHEVLIN: Can you, seeing the BF ‑‑  

THE COURT REPORTER: Please state your name and address.

1. SHEVLIN: I have to say my name before?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes. State your name and spell your name.

1. DRILL: And your address.
2. SHEVLIN: Meegan, M‑E‑E‑G‑A‑N, Shevlin, S‑H‑E‑V‑L‑I‑N, 512 Van Buren Street.

Can Exhibit A‑14 be put up on the screen?

1. DRILL: Exhibit A‑14, put it up on the screen.
2. SHEVLIN: I apologize for my voice. I have a very bad cold. And I also apologize I wasn't here last night. I came late tonight, so I have five questions. And if they all can't be answered, then I understand.

My first question is: I don't understand why we can't ask questions on a plan that was already defeated twice.

My second question is: Why the Court's ruling says that the plan has to be substantially similar to the plan voted down. I thought the whole purpose of going to mediation was for the two sides to come together, not the plan to stay substantially similar.

My third question is: The plan only reduced the square foot by 34 feet. The highest square footage quoted by Valley ‑‑ sorry. The highest quoted by Valley, the incinerator was for a standalone structure of 90 feet, which is only 4 feet lower than the top 94 that was voted against. And the North building height is 80 feet, which is 6 feet over the roof plus 24 with the mechanicals. Can you please confirm those numbers for me?

Question Number 4, Valley stated this is the best offer that it can give based on the footprint. I'd like to ask if they provide all the vacant land on Maple Avenue that Valley owns. The enterprise building to the town line of HoHoKus, shouldn't that be planned to be developed as an off‑site center like Luckow and Bolger center before the Planning Board decides to agree to move forward to any mediated plan.

My last question on this picture. The trees there, they're evergreens and I assuming, and I'd like confirmation of that, I guess, that they will have leaves in the winter as well, all year round. Is that true? And with all the plantings that Valley's planning on doing, are they ‑‑ is Valley subject to the same stage for any restrictions on water as the rest of the town is? And what happens when the plants start to die due to the increased droughts that we've seen lately? Thank you.

1. DRILL: The first question's not for us. It's for you. Why can't questions be asked on issues other than the remand order.
2. RAZIN: I'm sorry. What was the ‑‑ wait, I didn't get ‑‑ I didn't get the entire question ‑‑ I didn't get the entire question, so will you just ‑‑
3. DRILL: Her question was: Why can't she and others ask questions other than on the change between 2016 and 2014? That's not a question for Maria.

THE WITNESS: That's correct. It's not a question for me.

1. RAZIN: The provisions of the remand order were entered into by the parties and it was executed by the judge and those are the terms, and that's what we proceeded on thus far and that's what we're going to continue to proceed on, but it's not a question for Maria. It's just a procedural ‑‑ it's part of the process. It's part of the legal process and part of the Whispering Woods process that we've been following. And I can speak to you further about it, maybe off the record, if you'd like.
2. DRILL: The second question is: Why does the remand order say that it's supposed to be substantially similar? Other than the specific changes.

That's not for Maria.

1. RAZIN: Right.
2. DRILL: The third question is for Maria, and that is: Could you please confirm the square footage reduction, and could you please confirm the height ‑‑ I'm interpreting this, 2013 to 2014 versus 2016.

I know you already testified about it, but could you please confirm the square footage reduction from 2014 to 2016 and the difference in height from 2014 to 2016.

THE WITNESS: The reduction in square footage from 2013‑14 to 2016, is a negative. We've lessened the square footage by 34,000 square feet. The differences in height, let me see. The 2013 plan had the building at 70 feet, five stories of 14 feet each, 70 feet for the major buildings, and 24 feet of mechanical penthouse, for a total of 94 feet.

The 2016 plan has four stories at 14 feet, which is a total building height of 56 feet with a 24‑foot mechanical penthouse bringing the total height to 80 feet, a reduction of 14 feet.

1. DRILL: Okay. The fourth question is: Did the hospital consider vacant land on Maple, and I assume what that meant was, did the hospital consider moving some of the facilities to the vacant land on Maple?
2. RAZIN: That was testified to already in other proceedings. And I think the second part of that is should the planning board ‑‑ should the other properties be developed before the Planning Board agrees? And I ‑‑ in terms of what's before the Planning Board, we consider things that are on the timeline that's before us, and so we have to consider things as we go on certain timelines. We're under remand order in this particular case, but, even if we weren't and it was a matter before us, we'd have to consider it under whatever timelines are prescribed under the Municipal Land Use Law or otherwise, so...
3. DRILL: The fifth question was, Exhibit A‑14, which is up on the screen, her question, I think, was: Are those evergreens indigenous?

THE WITNESS: Deciduous.

1. DRILL: Deciduous. I'm Sorry. I'm forgetting my trees.

THE WITNESS: It is true, the deciduous trees run along the fence line. They're actually on the BF property. The trees along the hospital property are a form of evergreen that grow tall, and you can actually see behind the backstop here. The fence that separates our property, some cars come into the parking lot because these types of evergreens grow tall with their evergreen top. They're evergreen, they're a green color and needles at the top of the trees. Those are on our property. The deciduous trees that are shown ‑‑ and they run along this line. The deciduous trees shown here to the right are actually on the BF property. They have leaves that fall in the fall and autumn and bloom again in the spring.

1. DRILL: Okay. And the last was: Is the hospital subject to the same water restrictions that the rest of the Village is subject to?

THE WITNESS: Valley Hospital has abided by the water restrictions that the Village of Ridgewood puts into place for its residents.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's a yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DRILL: So how ‑‑ I guess the follow‑up question was: If you're subject to those water restrictions, how would you make sure that the new landscaping will grow?

THE WITNESS: It's about our selection of the shrubberies. There are more hardier than others, as you could do around your home. Valley takes pride in its appearance and we have replaced bushes and trees as they may have expired over the course of the years. We make a commitment to the campus as best as, you know, as we possibly can.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you. Thank you, Maria.

1. SHELVIN: There was one question, question Number 3 that didn't get answered. In the answer to a previous resident's comments you talked about an incinerator that was a standalone structure. That was 90 feet.
2. DRILL: You did not ask that question. I'm just telling you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: She just referring to the question.

1. SHELVIN: You can ask the minutes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: What's your question?

1. RAZIN: Just ask your question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you state your question again?

1. SHELVIN: There was mentioned an incinerator as a standalone structure, that's 90 feet which is 4 feet lower than the top, 94 that we voted against.
2. DRILL: You meant the smokestack.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yeah, if you want to clarify.

1. DRILL: The smokestack, not an incinerator.
2. SHELVIN: Yeah, I wasn't. Yes, I had ‑‑ that's why I put it in quotes, obviously you can't see that, but that was ‑‑ I thought it was referred to as an incinerator.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: She just referred to it as an incinerator.

1. DRILL: So what's the question?
2. SHELVIN: Can you confirm that it's 90 feet and it's a standalone structure somewhere on top of that building.

THE WITNESS: No, it's not there.

1. DRILL: This was testified to last night. If you want her to repeat it.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: She brought it up yesterday when the question was asked: How tall the existing one was? If you could answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Ms. Knudsen asked me the question about the smokestacks in the North ‑‑ the smokestacks in the North building. Actually, this evening, she asked me can I compare it the height of the existing freestanding smokestack that's on our property. The one that exists today, closer to Linwood Avenue, is at 90 feet from its base to the top where the aviation lights are installed. The smokestacks for ‑‑ the smokestack in the new North building, because the building is 80 feet, I think the smoke ‑‑ and I thank you for correcting me at the time ‑‑ would be at minimum, 84 feet. But in my opinion, the NJDEP will probably require us to have it higher. They will make that determination, and we will have to abide by that determination.

1. SHELVIN: Can you give me the exhibit number of the 90 foot one?
2. RAZIN: But we need to clarify, the existing one's going away.
3. DRILL: The existing ones being taken down.
4. SHELVIN: Oh, the existing one is going away?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DRILL: The existing one's a being taken down. It's being replaced.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You mentioned you weren't here yesterday. That was part of the testimony yesterday, but that one's going to be removed and a one will actually be within the structure of the new building.

1. SHELVIN: It will be on the North building instead?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, correct.

6. DRILL: And if want, if you go to Exhibit A‑6. If you go to Exhibit A‑6 you'll see where the new smokestack will be. And you see most of it is enclosed in the top part that comes out, you'll see it coming out.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you. Thank you.

1. DOCKRAY: Just a quick follow‑up question. You said there's aviation lights on the current smokestack?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DOCKRAY: How high ‑‑ at what point do you have to put lights on?

THE WITNESS: You're required to put them at the top of the structure.

1. DOCKRAY: Of whatever the structure is?

THE WITNESS: Of the smokestack, yes.

1. DOCKRAY: Any smokestack?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DOCKRAY: Even if it's 20 feet or something?

THE WITNESS: No, I believe that there's a minimum height and then above which you need to ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Right, I just wanted to know.

THE WITNESS: There's a red blinking light up there.

1. DOCKRAY: Right. Right. But ‑‑
2. DRILL: She wants ‑‑ you want to know what the minimum height is?
3. DOCKRAY: Yes, I just ‑‑ if you don't know, that's okay.

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

1. DOCKRAY: I was just wondering if we're going to see aviation lights on the building or the smokestack.
2. DRILL: Well, you obviously didn't know there were lights on the one that exists, right?
3. DOCKRAY: Pardon?
4. DRILL: I said you obviously didn't know there were lights on the one that exists so maybe it'll be the same thing.
5. DOCKRAY: Right. I know, I'm just curious.
6. DRILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Who else has questions for this process?

Thank you.

1. RYAN: Denise Ryan, R‑Y‑A‑N, 370 Litchfield. My question is in terms of the actual construction. When will the exterior construction be done, like in terms of the time of the year, specifically, the school year? And then, what's the difference, I guess, in terms of the sound pollution between exterior construction and the interior construction? I guess also, how will you actually monitor disturbance of the construction to the students at BF?
2. DRILL: All of those three questions ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Details are included in the list of conditions.

1. DRILL: And also they're throughout the 2013‑2014 exhibits and the testimony.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It was a great deal of testimony in the 2013‑14 program.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is that all of the questions?

1. DRILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Does anybody else have questions who hasn't asked their question already? Is this a process question?

1. SHERMAN: It was about the photograph. I said that I needed to come up when the photograph was available.
2. DRILL: Yes, we have it. Great. Perfect timing. Can you put up ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you for the lead‑in.

21. DRILL: We don't have an exhibit number yet. This photograph will become, I think, Exhibit 21. Yes. That's going to become Exhibit 21.

(Whereupon, Photograph is received and marked as Exhibit A‑21 for Identification.)

1. DRILL: Maria, can you identify that photograph that's up on the screen.

THE WITNESS: The photograph that's shown up on the screen is taken from the ball field on the Glen Avenue side of the Ben Franklin Middle School. It was taken between March and June of 2010. This shot looks south towards the existing Cheel building.

1. DRILL: And how is that photograph used to produce the photo simulation that is marked as Exhibit A‑14?

THE WITNESS: So the architect superimposed the ‑‑

1. DRILL: Was it first blown up, so to speak?

THE WITNESS: Actually, exactly.

If you look at the Exhibit A‑14, you'll see that in order to ‑‑ we moved closer to the property line actually.

1. DRILL: You can use that. You should take your laser pointer.

THE WITNESS: The Exhibit A‑14 moves the photographer closer, on the exhibit you see just the fringe of the infield where it meets the outfield. The existing building, this is the existing Cheel building here. And the architects were asked to superimpose the new North building in its place. That's it.

1. DOCKRAY: Can you flip to the other one now just to ‑‑
2. DRILL: The other one is A‑14.
3. DOCKRAY: Yes, thank you.
4. DRILL: Can you go back one more time?
5. THURSTON: Put them side by side.
6. CAFARELLI: Just tile them. Tile them.
7. DRILL: Yes, you can tile them. You can open them both, put them side by side.

(Whereupon, off‑the‑record discussion               is held.)

1. THURSTON: It's interesting because if that tower, the smokestack is 90 feet on the left? It seems that the building is bigger than it should be.

THE WITNESS: This building? We are closer.

1. THURSTON: But not that much closer though.

THE WITNESS: Well, remember, the Cheel building is at 45 feet and 17 feet, so the total there is 62 feet as opposed to 80 feet.

1. DRILL: The only way to do them scale, is to get the photograph on the left and to do a close‑up on the same exact perspective. I don't know if we can ‑‑
2. DOCKRAY: We can do ‑‑
3. DRILL: ‑‑ get, come in any closer or not, but that's the base photograph.
4. THURSTON: It's too big.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. It's actually closer in.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Those are the same photos, those ‑‑ sorry. Thank you. So if this is the same photo those ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That is from closer in. And you start to ‑‑  

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Actually, if you maybe want to zoom in on that.

THE WITNESS: Here's the backstop (indicating).

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: It's a little shed, that's the little shed.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Correct.

THE WITNESS: Here's the cars through the trees. Here's the cars through the trees. Moving closer ‑‑ I mean, if you got right on top of this photograph with the simulation, you can see the little scoreboard. It's clearer here because it's the digital photograph, but now it's, you know, stepped forward.

14. DRILL: And again, the trees you're seeing on the 2010 on the right‑hand side are not even in Exhibit A‑14 because the photograph is blown ‑‑ it was brought in closer so the whole right‑hand side there, the 2010 photo is off the screen on Exhibit A‑14.
15. WARD: So this is not to scale?
16. DRILL: Correct. The two photos are not to scale; that's what I'm trying to say.
17. WARD: So, what's the freaking point?
18. DRILL: The question was for the base photo. There's the base photo.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So but in other words, this photo here ‑‑

2010. DRILL: The 2010.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: ‑‑ is ‑‑ 2010 is the photo exactly that's used here?

THE WITNESS: The photographer cropped the picture.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: No, no. I understand. It's just zoomed in?

1. DRILL: Yes, that's exactly correct.
2. DOCKRAY: Okay. So can we zoom that in like so we can see ‑‑
3. DRILL: I don't know how to do it.
4. DOCKRAY: See that little pen button at the top?
5. DRILL: Yeah.
6. DOCKRAY: There. I think that ‑‑ edit.
7. DRILL: Can I make a suggestion? You guys can do this at home because what we can do is, these exhibits will be on the website and ‑‑
8. DOCKRAY: Okay.
9. DRILL: ‑‑ if somehow it's not, you know, maneuverable or something, we can see. I don't know if we can do it or not.
10. DOCKRAY: Fair enough.
11. DRILL: You asked for the base photo, and that's the base photo.

You have another question?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So you have one follow‑up question on that?

1. SHERMAN: No, I have ‑‑ I have several questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ask them all together.

1. SHERMAN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And ‑‑

1. SHERMAN: But I need to see the visuals in order to ask them.
2. DRILL: Which one, the 2010?
3. SHERMAN: You can put them both up the way you had it before. I think that will make it easier rather than flipping back and forth.

By the way, Marla Sherman, 449 Beverly Road. Thanks.

Okay. So clearly, there's a question as to the scale of the photographs and ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's been addressed.

1. SHERMAN: ‑‑ we've agreed that we'll all zoom in at home and look at it. But when I do that, what I'd like to know is: In the picture on the left, you can see the scoreboard, The Valley Hospital scoreboard. And where's that in this picture?
2. DRILL: Right there.
3. SHERMAN: So, would you say from this picture ‑‑ would you surmise that the northeast corner of the North building is closer to Steilen or closer to Van Dien than that scoreboard? Does that make sense?
4. DRILL: We're writing them down.
5. RAZIN: On the new one? Just so I know, because I'm not ‑‑ I'm sorry. Just so ‑‑
6. SHERMAN: Okay.
7. RAZIN: On the 16 rendering?
8. SHERMAN: On the ‑‑ right. The 16 renderings.
9. RAZIN: You're asking if ‑‑
10. SHERMAN: Where is the ‑‑ where is the North building.
11. RAZIN: ‑‑ the North is further, if the corner of the North building closer to Steilen or closer to ‑‑
12. SHERMAN: Well, where is that ‑‑ where is that setback? Is it closer to Van Dien or closer to Steilen in comparison to the scoreboard? Does that make sense? Is it east or west?
13. DRILL: We wrote your question ‑‑ we wrote her question down.
14. RAZIN: Is it east or west of the scoreboard.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ask your next question.

1. SHERMAN: Okay. So ‑‑ and also, if you look at the trees, it's ‑‑ how are the trees the same height of the current building as they are in a building that is going to be 40 feet higher? So, there's definitely something peculiar about these photographs and how the renderings are. So, I guess we'll all kind of ‑‑ we'll ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: What's your next question?

1. SHERMAN: Will we be able to question this further, after we all go home and zoom it in because they couldn't do that.
2. DRILL: No. You can make comments about that after we go home. That's in the public comment.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So during the public comment if you have an observation, you can share that.

1. DRILL: Right.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

1. SHERMAN: Okay.
2. DRILL: Okay. She has a question as to scale, so without asking you to repeat yourself, can you just repeat yourself? Is one zoomed up closer than the other?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DRILL: Okay. The second question ‑‑

THE WITNESS: In the photograph and visualization, so on the hospital side of the fence behind the scoreboard, if you take a measurement of the height of the scoreboard and understanding what that dimension is in relationship to another point in the photograph, and then adjust the scale in this photograph to match the relationship been the height of the scoreboard with a reference point and do the same.

1. DRILL: Okay. Along the same lines, are the trees the proper scale, so I ‑‑
2. SHERMAN: Can you go back to the scoreboard?
3. DRILL: And then the second ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The scoreboard's right here (indicating). When you get right on top of this, or if you look at the printed version, you're going to see it very clearly.

1. SHERMAN: And I see that. So in the rendering ‑‑  
2. DRILL: And her second question was: The northeast corner of the North building closer to Steilen than the scoreboard; that was her question.

THE WITNESS: Well, actually, if you look at the bird's‑eye view, in my opinion.

1. DRILL: The bird's‑eye view is Exhibit A‑2?

THE WITNESS: A‑2. I'll just speak to it. In my opinion, it's probably right behind the scoreboard.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you repeat that, please?

THE WITNESS: In my opinion, the northeast corner of the North building ‑‑ now, remember, here's the stopper, that the scoreboard is in about this location (indicating), in my opinion because then you have to backstop and the second ball field.

1. DRILL: Okay, next.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.

1. SHERMAN: That's incorrect.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I'm sorry?

1. SHERMAN: That's incorrect.
2. DRILL: So she can make those comments when she is sworn.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: This is the testimony that we received.

1. DRILL: Right. This is question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: She answered your question based on the bird's‑eye view.

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: She's entitled to cross‑examine. This is not cross‑examination. This is oral interrogatories. She's allowed to challenge THE WITNESS' answers.

1. RAZIN: Sir, it's ‑‑

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: She's entitled to cross‑examination.

1. DRILL: I'm not responding, I don't even know if that's being recorded ‑‑

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: She's entitled to cross‑examine THE WITNESS.

1. DRILL: Even if it's picked up in the record, it's out of order.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please don't comment. Continue with the next question.

1. DRILL: That's it. We just ‑‑ we finished her questions.
2. SHERMAN: I paced out the 70 setback. And it is at least 30 feet before that scoreboard. At least 30 feet before that scoreboard. So the picture is completely deceiving. It shows the building for more to the right than it actually will be. It will be at least 30 feet further to the left.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Maria, are these ‑‑ is ‑‑ to your knowledge, are these renderings accurate? And did you provide you architect and artist specific instructions to put them to scale?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And he used measurements?

THE WITNESS: Yes, he did in his software, in order to superimpose it, on the scale.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So to the best of your knowledge it is to scale?

THE WITNESS: They are it to scale, to the best of my knowledge.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you. Dies anybody else have any questions?

Anything further.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So we've concluded the cross‑examination. You have ‑‑

1. DRILL: I have nothing further. I ask that THE WITNESS be excused.  

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's fine. Is there a motion to come out of public?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to come out of public.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there a second please?

1. DOCKRAY: To what?
2. THURSTON: Second.
3. DOCKRAY: Oh, we're done.  

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Michael, can you call the roll.

1. CAFARELLI: MAYOR ARONSOHN?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: Ms. Bigos?
2. BIGOS: Yes.
3. CAFARELLI: COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Nalbantian?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes. Mr. Joel?

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: MR. REILLY?
2. REILLY: Yes.
3. CAFARELLI: MS. DOCKRAY?
4. DOCKRAY: Yes.
5. CAFARELLI: MR. THURSTON?
6. THURSTON: Yes.
7. CAFARELLI: And MS. PATIRE?
8. PATIRE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Michael.

1. DRILL: I have no further witnesses.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. This concludes your testimony?

1. DRILL: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So, the next stage of this process will be public comment.

And will begin public comment on Monday the 4th next week. It will be at the courtroom at Village Hall. And it will beginning at 7:30 p.m.

1. RAZIN: I just want to make a clarification. I stated something earlier, I just want to clarify, we've just been here a long time, but I think I accidentally stated this was the Village's proposed settlement or I spoke in the context of the Village and I meant to say the Planning Board. So I apologize if I stated that inaccurately.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Kate.

1. RAZIN: But we will continue on Monday the 4th.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We will continue on Monday, the 4th, 7:30.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can I ask a quick question? Are you going to stick to the same order?

1. RAZIN: Well, yes. So that's what I just wanted to ‑‑

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay.

1. RAZIN: So I think it's best to start the ‑‑ we will look at that sign‑up sheet and we'll start with that, but we wanted ‑‑ our intent was to start over each night so that people, in case they weren't here ‑‑

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah. I'm just worried if I'm late or something, you know.

1. RAZIN: I think we'll probably ‑‑

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Start fresh?

1. RAZIN: Let's see how it goes. We'll probably start fresh ‑‑

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, start fresh.

1. RAZIN: ‑‑ because we don't want people who signed up to make any, you know, to not be here or whatever ‑‑ however, it goes.

So, I think we'll start over as we originally announced. We'll just stick with our plan on that.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We'll start fresh.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good. Okay.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there a motion to adjourn?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to adjourn.

1. REILLY: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All in favor.

(Whereupon, all board members respond in the affirmative.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Anybody opposed?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Take care, everyone. We'll see you on the 4th.

Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date. Time noted 11:55 p.m.

The meeting was closed to the public.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Michael Cafarelli

                                                                                                Board Secretary

Date Approved:                June 6, 2017                                                                                                                    

     

                                                               

 

 

Ridgewood Planning Board March 12, 2016 Page 1

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of March 12, 2016. 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. Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. The following members were present: Mr. Nalbantian, Mayor Aronsohn, Mr. Thurston, Mr. Joel, and Mr. Reilly. Also present were: Katie Razin, Esq., and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Councilwoman Knudsen, Ms. Bigos, Ms. Altano, Ms. Dockray, Mr. Abdalla, Ms. Patire, Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney, Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, and Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer were not present.

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

Resolution memorializing vote on the settlement of litigation docketed as, The Valley Hospital, Inc. v. Village of Ridgewood Planning Board and Village of Ridgewood, Docket No. BER-L-9305-14, all pursuant to a Whispering Woods Hearing and adoption of the amendment to the Master Plan concerning the H-Zone – Mr. Nalbantian read the resolution and Mr. Razin found several typos and errors. She discussed the pages that would need to be changed. Mr. Thurston asked that 'not de minimus' on page 13 be removed and Mr. Rielly asked to change the word 'may' to 'will' on the same page. There was further discussion about the changes and all agreed that three changes would be made to the resolution.

Mr. Nalbantian motioned to adopt the resolution with the corrections, Mr. Thurston seconded, and the resolution was adopted.

The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Cafarelli

Board Secretary

Date approved:

 

 

 The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of August 23, 2016. 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. Torielli called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. The following members were present: Mr. Torielli, Mayor Knudsen Councilman Voigt, Mr. Thurston, Ms. Patire, and Ms. McWilliams. Also present were: Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, Mr. Joel, Mr. Scheibner, Mr. Reilly, and Ms. Altano were 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 – Board members discussed receiving documents twenty four hours in advance of meetings, RFQs, Professional services performance - should be reviewed annually, should Board members evaluate contractors, and the Planning Board's By-laws are outdated and need to be reviewed and updated.

Executive Session – The Board moved to executive session.

Appointment of Legal Counsel – Legal counsel was not appointed.

The Board reconvened the public session and the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Michael Cafarelli

                                                                                                Board Secretary

Date approved: September 6, 2016