The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of March 30, 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 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: MAYOR ARONSOHN, Mr. Nalbantian, COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN, MS. BIGOS, Mr. Joel, Ms. Dockray, Ms. Altano, Mr. Reilly, MR. THURSTON, and MR. ABDALLA. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney, Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary.

 

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

 

Correspondence received by the Board – None

 

“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.:

 

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to begin.

Before we start, I just want to mention, in case we have a large number of people who wish to attend tonight, what we've done is we have a life video feed that's serving the senior center downstairs. So if we meet the Fire Department capacity up here, then people can observe downstairs and they'll come back and participate during the question session when we get to that.

So why don't we begin. At this time I'd like to call the Special Meeting of the Ridgewood Planning Board to order this Wednesday, March 30, 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 rise for the flag salute.

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

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you all for coming, and welcome to tonight's meeting, which has been convened for the purpose of commencing a proceeding hearing called a "Whispering Woods hearing." This hearing is 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.

While the board's attorney, Katie Razin, to my right, will be providing additional background information, I would like to briefly set out some relevant. Please listen carefully.

In early 2007, the Valley Hospital submitted a request for consideration of a Master Plan amendment and modifications to certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the H‑Zone. Over the course of many work sessions and then public hearings held over three years, the board reviewed the original amendment request and made changes to it. They heard testimony from Valley Hospital and its experts as well as from the Planning Board's own experts and professionals.

Michael, why don't you call the roll, I apologize.

(At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken with MS. BIGOS, Chairman Nalbantian, Vice‑Chairman Joel, Mr. Reilly, Ms. Dockray, MR. THURSTON, MR. ABDALLA, and MS. PATIRE present, with MAYOR ARONSOHN, COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN, and Ms. Altano absent.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Michael, and thank you, Kevin for reminding us.

Let me repeat. I'll begin. In early 2007, the Valley Hospital submitted a request for consideration of a Master

Plan amendment and modifications for certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the H‑Zone. Over the course of many work sessions and then public hearings held over three years, the board reviewed the original amendment request and made changes to it. They heard testimony from Valley Hospital and its experts as well as from the Planning Board's own experts and professionals.

At the conclusion of that process in 2010, the board voted to adopt an amendment to the Master Plan relative to the H‑Zone.

That 2010 action was challenged in court and the challenge subsequently resulted in a dismissal agreement whereby the Planning Board was directed to review a new amendment proposed by Valley in 2013, as an attempt to address concerns in the adopted 2010 amendment. That new amendment called for a reduction in the overall square footage of the proposed hospital buildings, as well as a number of other changes to the layout.

At the conclusion of those proceedings in 2014, the board voted against an adoption of the revised plan. Since a further amendment was not adopted by the Planning Board in 2014, the 2010 Master Plan Amendment remained in place and is currently in effect today.

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 recommended by the court late in 2015. During that process, which occurred over several months, the terms of a settlement were reached between the Planning Board and Valley Hospital.

So, beginning tonight, with these hearings, those settlement terms are now being put forth to the public as consideration of a new 2016 Master Plan Amendment, and that's why we're all here tonight.

Please keep in mind that the Master Plan is a policy framework that provides a foundation for the more detailed zoning ordinance which would be established by the Village Council and which would serve as a basis for site plan considerations in the future.

Now, after I review the procedures and rules, I will quickly walk through the format for this evening's meeting, and then we will hear important information regarding key legal elements of these proceedings from Katie.

It's also important to know that the board is acting pursuant to a remand order from the court, and must strictly follow the schedule and procedure set forth in that court order. So please listen carefully and take note of the following schedule for this proceedings.

After tonight, the next scheduled meeting on this matter will be tomorrow, March 31st, 2016, at 7:30 p.m., and it will be held at the Ridgewood High School Student Center, located at 627 E. Ridgewood Avenue.

Then next week, we expect to continue with meetings on Monday, April 4th, here in this courtroom; on Tuesday April 5th, also here in the courtroom; and on Thursday, April 7th, at Ridgewood High School again.

All meetings will begin at 7:30. I'll also repeat this schedule at the end of tonight's meeting. These schedules are also posted on the Village website and on the bulletin board in the entrance lobby here at Village Hall.

Planning Board hearings are conducted as dictated by the laws of the State of New Jersey, and the Planning Board is vested with the discretion to establish certain additional rules and regulations for the conduct of those hearings, and has been done for this matter pursuant to the remand order entered by the court.

The hearings will be organized in the following manner:

After introductions from counsel for both the Planning Board and Valley Hospital, we will hear testimony from the Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, as to the proposed 2016 Master Plan Amendment document that has been 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.

You will then hear testimony from Valley Hospital witnesses.

At the conclusion of each testimony, we will open the floor to questions for the witness regarding his or her testimony from the public.

Please remember, this part of the process will not be the time for public comment, which will come later, only questions to be posed relative to that particular witness' testimony and only regarding what he or she spoke about, and those questions should be directed to that witness.

As Katie will review in more detail, 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 in this matter.

So, if you have questions in this regard, when I open the floor to questions from the public after each witness, 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.

As defined in the court's remand order, each of you will have up to five minutes to ask your questions. You must ask all of your questions together at one time and within the allotted five minutes, and then please take your seat so your questions can be answered by the witness. Again, questions must be relevant to only the testimony that was given by that witness.

I will call on everyone who is in line only once, until everyone has had their five‑minute opportunity to ask questions of that witness. Please do not ask questions that have been asked and answered by someone else before you, as repeat questions may not be entertained.

If any other party or entity presents a witness during the course of the hearing process, the same procedures would apply. We will need to know right away as to any intent to bring legal counsel and who will be represented in that regard.

Following the conclusion of all presentations and at the end of the hearing process, the board will hear public comment. The board has established certain rules of procedure that will be followed, which I'll review now and once more at the beginning of the public comment portion of these hearings.

So, beginning tomorrow, individuals will be asked to sign up for public comment upon arrival. And we'll also have provision for that for those who may be down in the senior center for those days that we have overflow. The list will start over each night, meaning it will not carryover, to the extent possible, since we will do our best to complete the list of speakers present who signed up for that night.

This list will be used for the order of public‑comment speaking. Should we get to public comment later tonight, we will have a signup sheet at that time. So, remember, if someone intends to make a statement to the board during the public comment period, they must sign in and take note of their sequence number on sign‑up list.

When I announce that the hearing will be open for public comment, I will call the names in sequence from the list, in order, for that evening. When your name is called, you'll be asked to move immediately to the microphone and slowly say your name and street address for the record, so that the transcriber is able to receive that information. 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'll 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 is completed, and we ask that you respect that timer, to allow for everyone to get their chance to speak.

The five minutes 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 as long as it does not extend beyond the allotted five minutes.

At the four minute notification, please finish your statement within the remaining one minute, so that the next individual in sequence can have their turn. As directed by the court's remand order, everyone who wishes to comment will be given the same five minutes of time.

Again, we'll try to finish the list for reach night such that if people are present on one night and cannot attend the next date, they will have an opportunity to speak.

We will move along with that process with the intent to accommodate everyone's schedule, but there must be an understanding that the board has a strict schedule to keep as well. In addition, it should be understood that 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. Further, as Katie will point out in her review, the remand order provides that only provisions to the 2014 Master Plan shall be relevant and material for purposes of public comment.

Please know that petitions cannot be accepted by the board, nor any written statements by parties not present at the hearings. This is a rule established by New Jersey case law, that all parties seeking to put information before the board must be available for cross examination.

It is simply improper for a board to examine or discuss a petition, and consideration of such a document is certainly outside the scope of the board's decisional process.

For everyone's reference, I'll review a summary of these instructions again when we get to public comment.

After members of the public have had an 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 should be kept in mind that although the board has scheduled five nights of hearings, 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 hearing night, the board may move to act at an earlier date.

Regarding these hearings as a whole and how they're conducted, it's important to keep in mind that not everything that is said is likely to be agreeable to everyone. In addition, there is a level of patience, respect, and cooperation that must be maintained throughout the process by all of us. Again, please listen carefully, as the following instructions are important, not only from a procedural standpoint but also from a point of order.

This board will not entertain shouting, applause, insults, or other disruptions.

Each of us will have our turn to ask questions of witnesses and then later offer comment. So, for this process to work well, these hearings must be conducted in a manner that is orderly, organized, and respectful.

Those of us here who sit on the board are your neighbors. We're Ridgewood residents who volunteer our time to serve our community, and deserve to be treated as you would want to be. Furthermore, all witnesses, whether they're representing the Village or Valley Hospital or any other entity, are here to discuss their views and have the right to do so. They too deserve respect, and when questions are posed to them regarding their testimony, we need to remember that such questioning must be done in a polite manner. The speaker who is at the microphone, whether it's a board member, a witness, attorney or member of the public, has the floor, and that individual should not be interrupted by shouting, jeering, applause, or any other demonstrative displays of emotion.

Now, this is also a good time for me to point out one easily misunderstood procedural aspect of these hearings. Since the Planning Board public hearing process has procedures which are akin to those used in a court of law, attorneys for any party may interject with an objection‑assertion at any time, including periods of public questions or comments. Please know that such objection‑assertions should not be perceived by the public to be disrespectful or rude, but, rather, a necessary procedure for allowing attorneys to promptly note objections to the record.

My hope and expectation is that these rules and procedures will be followed and the process for these hearings will proceed well in this manner.

Please note that if anyone chooses not to comply with these rules and therefore causes the hearing process to be interrupted, they may be asked to leave. Of course, I don't expect that to be necessary. So having said that, let me thank you in advance for your thoughtful cooperation throughout this process.

Remember, coming to these meetings is the best way to hear what the board hears, and to have opportunity to participate in the process, and, if the procedures I just outlined are followed, I think everyone benefits.

So tonight's meeting will run as follows: First, Katie will provide some additional legal framework on the matter. We'll then proceed to hear from Jon Drill, Valley's counsel. After that, we'll hear testimony on preliminary information regarding the amendment proposal from Blais, and then we'll proceed to hear from Valley's witnesses.

Again, after the witnesses begin and conclude with their presentations, questions will be appropriate. I'll begin the process with the board's cross examination of the witnesses, and then move to open the questioning to the public for that witness.

We'll probably break sometime between 9:30 and 10. At that time, I think THE COURT REPORTERs are going to switch positions. And then we'll begin promptly at the time that I suggest we begin.

So this concludes my opening remarks, I'll now turn the microphone over to the board legal counsel, Katie Razin.

1. DOCKRAY: Hi, Charles. Can I just ask a couple of questions?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Sure.

1. DOCKRAY: On the April 7th date, if we finish on April 5th, are you saying we won't continue to the 7th? So we need to make the public know that they can't necessarily come on the 7th.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's what I said, that's correct.

1. DOCKRAY: Yes, but I think we should publish that, so people know that.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We will know that at the end of each meeting where we are in the process.

1. DOCKRAY: Yes, but that requires people to go to all of those meetings. I think if we're not going to do the seventh, if you're not here on the fifth to sign up, then don't expect the seventh to happen.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think that's implied. I think that's a good point. If you're interested in attending and participating in public comment, you need to be aware of what the process is, because we're going to go through the witness testimony in whatever time it takes to cross‑examine the witnesses, and then when we begin public comment, it will begin that night, where it's likely to occur on the agenda. I can't say when that is now, because we haven't started, but we will update that information.

1. DOCKRAY: I believe next week is school vacation, so you may only have people saying the only night I can come is April 7th, and ‑‑
2. RAZIN: I think it's ‑‑

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think it's a good point.

1. DOCKRAY: The main concern is, some people might think the only night they can come ‑‑
2. RAZIN: Charles is making that announcement. So let's see where we are at the end of this meeting. I think we'll have a better idea at the next meeting where we are anyway, but Charles made the announcement and now that's where we are.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The intention is to move this according to the remand order, which is to be done in a timely fashion, and we can't define that until we know where we are after each session.

Our objective is to make sure you have the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses during testimony. We don't know how long that will take. It may take one day or it may take several days.

MALE AUDIENCE VOICE: Why can't we do the right thing and uphold the original decision?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We're not taking comments right now.

1. DOCKRAY: My second question. My husband says the only time he can come is April 7th to make his comment, he's not coming but somebody says I won't want them to think that the hearing was canceled because he didn't come on April 5th or April 4th. Some people may only have that one night and we told them that's going to be the hearing. So all I'm saying is if that may not happen, because we considered the hearings over before then, we need to put that on the web and on the notice, do whatever, so someone doesn't count on that one day.
2. RAZIN: The notice actually says ‑‑
3. DOCKRAY: What does it say, go ahead.
4. RAZIN: I'm about to read it. Okay.

So the notice says that the board may take official action during these Special Meetings. So it doesn't say at the end of the Special Meeting, it just says at the end of the process.

So based on Charles' announcement and based on the wording of the notice, the action can be taken at any of the Special Meetings, it doesn't have to wait until the termination of the meeting on the seventh.

Now, Charles and I can have a discussion on the break, if we think that an extra piece, I don't think that's objectionable, but he made the announcement, it's in the notice, official action will be taken.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think it was ‑‑

1. RAZIN: We will have a discussion if there will be some further notice on the website.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think it was implied, if it wasn't clear, I want you to know that the intent here is to involve everyone and not to create a problem. However, we do have strict guidelines in the remand order we need to follow. So as the process proceeds, we're going to do our best to make sure people are informed, and we will find ways on how to do that appropriately. I think let's take it one day at a time and let's see how this proceeds.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay. I have one other question. This is the first I've seen of the amendment. I didn't get it by email. Can we take some time to read it? What's supposed to happen here?
2. RAZIN: The amendment has been on file for ten days, and I believe that Michael sent it to the board.
3. DOCKRAY: I didn't see it. I apologize.
4. RAZIN: The redline and the cleanup version have both been on file for ten days.
5. DOCKRAY: Michael, you e‑mailed me this and I missed it?
6. CAFARELLI: Yes, last week.
7. DOCKRAY: Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Then I'll just have to go through it as we go along.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Katie, sorry about that.

1. RAZIN: No. Okay. So the first thing I'd like to acknowledge ‑‑ good evening, everybody. The first thing I'd like to acknowledge is that there's a quorum of the board and that proper notice has been made by the board secretary in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Land Use Law. I'd like to mark that notice as exhibit B‑1.

(Public Notice is marked as exhibit B‑1 in evidence.)

1. RAZIN: My intent is to provide a brief overview, although it won't be brief, but a brief overview of the board's review process from a legal perspective. The primary step is to review the status of this matter and the Valley's proposal before the board. First, I'd just like to review the history which brought us here to where we are today, which is a Whispering Woods hearing, as Charles mentioned. A Whispering Woods proceeding is named after a case, Whispering Woods at Bamm Hallow v. Middletown Planning Board, NJ Super 161 (Law Division 1987).

Whispering Woods confirmed the authority of local planning and zoning boards to settle disputes with applicants and proponents that challenged board determinations and set forth certain procedural requirements that needed to be met as part of that settlement process, such as issuance of required public notice, the holding of a public hearing, a vote taken in public, and the drafting of a resolution.

In that case, the board had denied a development application, and a lawsuit was brought by the plaintiff soon after. Later, the board considered a revised version of that plan in a closed session meeting. The board agreed informally as to certain terms that would make the plan workable and developed the language of a stipulation of settlement. That stipulation was then voted on in public and filed with the court. Public notice was provided and a public hearing was held to consider the additional evidence relating to that settlement plan. The board then voted in favor of the revised plan. Against various legal challenges, the court determined that that process was valid, primarily because courts favor settlements so long as the public interest is not disserved.

The court in Whispering Woods stated, if the settlement is made known to the public, subject to the public voice and voted upon in legal fashion, the public interest has been served. Thus, a settlement must be conditioned upon a public hearing on the agreed plan and all the statutory conditions necessary, including notice, public hearing, public vote, and a written resolution. All of these procedural steps have been taken here or will be taken here, as we go forward in this process.

Now, as to how we got here, as Charles mentioned, in June 2010, the board took action and voted to adopt a proposed amendment to the Village Master Plan relative to the H‑Zone. This was done after three years of work sessions and public hearings. That approved Master Plan Amendment is still in effect today.

The actions relative to that adoption were challenged by CRR, a citizen group, in Superior Court, Law Division. No decision was made by the court on that challenge. Rather, it was determined by consent order entered into by all parties that new efforts would be made to proceed outside of the courtroom and back before this board.

Valley indicated that it would submit a new amendment proposal, and the board agreed to review it and CRR agreed to dismiss their lawsuit. The board then proceeded to hear Valley's revised proposal in 2013 and 2014. In June 2014, the board voted to reject the Proposed 2014 Master Plan. That left the 2010 Master Plan in place, which, as I stated, is still currently effective for the H‑Zone today. Valley challenged the Planning Board's denial and simultaneously also included a count against the Village governing body as to the zoning ordinance as its application to the H‑Zone.

During the course of that litigation, the Planning Board engaged in a court approved mediation process with Valley, led by former New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Virginia Long. Through the mediation, the Planning Board, after months of work, voted to proceed with a settlement of the litigation against it.

It should be clear that while the settlement proposal and Master Plan Amendment being considered by the board at these public hearings, the issues that were considered by the board during the mediation process and corresponding executive sessions are not subject to discussion or disclosure during these present hearings. The mediation process is complete and was governed by the Rules of Evidence and a mediation agreement that was entered into by the parties.

That agreement specifically provides that nothing offered during the mediation process may be offered as evidence against any party in any proceeding. That agreement further binds all parties to the mediation to keep all information, records and documents completely confidential and private. Evidence Rule 408 further addresses the nondisclosure and lack of admissibility of statements made in a settlement negotiations. The board is bound by these rules in these current proceedings.

What can be and will be made public during these proceedings is the remand order, which reflects the terms of the settlement, as well as the proposed 2016 Master Plan Amendment which is under review by the board as part of this process. These documents have already been on file with the Board Secretary as well.

The remand order which was entered by the Hon. Lisa Perez Friscia is going to be marked as exhibit B‑2.

(Remand Order is marked as exhibit B‑2 in evidence.)

1. RAZIN: I'd like to take the public through some of the key provisions of that order. It's also on this PowerPoint, which I discovered is minute, so I apologize, but it's on record with the Board Secretary and I'm going to read through some of the provisions, so we should have a clear understanding, and we'll get some copies as well.

So some of the key provisions and just so you know, when we get to the content of the Master Plan, which is some of the details which are also contained in the remand order, I'm going to skip over that section and I'm going to let Blais take you through that portion when he goes through the Master Plan documents, so I will sort of see where that skips over.

So the beginning of the order talks about the procedural background, and it says the plaintiff, The Valley Hospital, and defendant Planning Board reached an agreement in principle which would resolve Count 1 of the complaint and make a trial on Count 1 moot, provided that the Planning Board adopted a proposed amendment to the Master Plan pertaining to the H‑Zone, as set forth below upon the conclusion of a Whispering Woods hearing.

The court hereby remands Count 1 of the complaint to the Planning Board for a hearing pursuant to Whispering Woods and N.J.S.A. 40:55D‑13 for action on a 2016 Master Plan Amendment to the H‑Zone (the "2016 Master Plan Amendment"). The 2010 Master Plan Amendment is the policy document currently in place for the H‑Zone.

 

Scheduling of the hearing and decision. The hearing shall commence on March 30, 2016, and, if not completed (this alludes to what Charles was mentioning about condition of the hearings, shall continue until completed, on March 31st, 2016;

April 4, 2016; April 5, 2016; and April 7, 2016. The Planning Board shall vote and take formal action on the 2016 Master Plan Amendment upon the completion of the hearing. The Planning Board shall adopt a resolution memorializing its vote within seven days of the vote, but no later than April 14, 2016.

 

Parameters of the hearing. The Planning Board shall provide all interested parties with the right, through their attorneys if represented, or directly if not represented, to cross‑examine witnesses that are presented by Plaintiff, The Valley Hospital, and/or Defendant Planning Board for testimony during the hearing, subject to reasonable limitations as to the amount of time allowed for such cross examination.

In accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D‑10d, five minutes per person asking cross examination questions per witness is presumed to be a reasonable time limitation to ensure that the hearing proceeds efficiently and in a timely manner that affords all interested parties the opportunity to participate. All members of the public present and who wish to testify during the hearings will be given the opportunity to do so, but, similarly, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D‑10d, five minutes of sworn testimony per member of the public is presumed to be a reasonable time limitation to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient and timely manner.

The Planning Board shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the hearings are not delayed and that repetitious questions and comments are controlled. The next section of the remand order goes through the specific provisions of the Master Plan, which will be discussed in detail through the testimony that's given by Blais. At the end of the provisions of the Master Plan detail, there's another section called

Addition of Conditions.

That section reads: The 2016 Master Plan Amendment also contemplates inclusion of a list of conditions previously generated during the 2013‑2014 Master Plan hearings.

Said conditions shall be included as an exhibit and made part of the record of the 2016 Master Plan Amendment process. Only revisions to the proposed 2014 Master Plan Amendment are relevant and material for purposes of questions and cross examination and sworn comments by the public.

While the technical rules of evidence are not applicable to the hearing in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D‑10e, only revisions to the proposed 2014 Master Plan Amendment shall be relevant and material for purposes of questions, cross examination, and sworn comments by the public.

So that takes you through the main elements and procedural elements of the remand order almost verbatim, except for parts where it says it's going to be served on another party and minute details, and Blais will take you through the rest when he goes through the Master Plan language.

As to some further procedural issues, I'd like to just summarize how we're going to proceed.

Today we'll hear, again, from John Drill, counsel for Valley Hospital, and then from

Blais, our planner, regarding the proposed 2016 Amendment, which reflects what was set forth in the remand order. We will then hear from Valley's witnesses. With regard to some of the procedural issues that were raised by Charles, it is pivotal to point out the following:

As I stated already, this process is a Whispering Woods hearing. The relevant considerations now pursuant to the remand order are to review the modifications to the proposed 2014 Master Plan Amendment.

For public comment, all witnesses and speakers will be sworn under oath.

Just like any other public hearing, the right of cross examination exists to be posed towards any person who speaks.

Please avoid making hearsay comments, which are essentially comments made by someone other than yourself. Even though the rules of evidence that are applied in a court do not technically apply, witnesses must have personal knowledge about the statements they make and must be able to answer questions about their statements.

If you are capable of introducing evidence that's personally known to you, that you have direct knowledge about, that is something that we are capable of receiving, that is something that we are capable of receiving from individuals.

It is also critical to remember that the board cannot accept letters, petitions, or other writings in place of live testimony. That sort of material is not admissible for the hearing process, and it would be subject to cross‑examination.

Parties wishing to provide comment must do so in person during the meeting. Any written submissions that provide comment on the process or amendment will be kept in the overall file but will not be reviewed by the board in consideration of the amendment.

Before hearing from Jon, I'd like to also mark exhibits B‑3, which is the proposed 2014 Master Plan Amendment dated February 28, 2014, with revisions to June 9, 2014.

That was the Master Plan document that was considered by the board in '13 and '14, and ultimately rejected by the board. I'm going to mark that as B‑3. (Proposed 2014 Master Plan Amendment dated February 28, 2014, with revisions to June 9, 2014 is marked as exhibit B‑3 in evidence.)

4. RAZIN: The redline version, which the board has received and which there are copies on the back table of, it's the redline version of the proposed 2014 Master Plan document with changes up to March 15, 2016, I'd like to mark that as B‑4. (Redline version of the proposed 2014 Master Plan document, with changes up to 3/15/2016 is marked as exhibit B‑4 in evidence.)

5. RAZIN: And the proposed 2016 Master Plan Amendment, clean version, with changes to March 15, 2016, as B‑5.(Proposed 2016 Master Plan Amendment, clean version, with changes to March 15, 2016, is marked as exhibit B‑5 in evidence.)
6. RAZIN: And, again, there's also copies of that document on the table.

And those documents have been on the website as well, and you can also find them there as well.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Drill.

1. DRILL: Good evening. I'm Jon Drill from the law firm of Stickel Koenig Sullivan & Drill, representing the Valley Hospital in this proceeding.

We're here tonight in an attempt to settle part of an ongoing litigation between the Valley Hospital and the Planning Board and the Village. Specifically, we're here to attempt to settle that aspect of the litigation which challenges the Planning Board's rejection of the proposed 2014 Master Plan Amendment.

Through the mediation process, the Valley Hospital has agreed to make revisions to its proposed upgrade and modernization project that was contemplated by the proposed 2014 Master Plan Amendment. And the Planning Board has agreed to consider a new proposed 2016 Master Plan Amendment, which would accommodate such a revised project.

If the Planning Board adopts the 2016 Master Plan Amendment, a trial on the issues with a judicial decision, rather than a Planning Board decision, will be avoided. While there are important changes that have been made to reduce the scope of the project, I will present a witness to describe those changes and will not spend time during this introductory statement on that.

I want to stress in my comments what is not being changed, and I will have our witness confirm that at the time she testifies. So, the first thing that's not being changed is that the basements of all buildings contemplated by the 2016 Master Plan Amendment will not be increasing in size or depth from that contemplated in the 2004 Master Plan Amendment. Once our witness testifies, we have exhibits to show sections through the buildings as proposed in 2013 and 2014, and sections through those buildings as proposed in 2016, and you will see that the basements are identical.

This is important, because it means that there will be no change in the geotechnical and hydrologic issues related to rock removal, excavation, and dewatering. The undisputed expert testimony from both the hospital and the board during the 2013‑2014 hearing, was that there be no geotechnical or hydrologic problems resulting from the construction, and I stress, that was both from Valley's expert and this Planning Board's expert. The second thing that will not change. The overall square footage of the project contemplated by the 2016 Master Plan Amendment will actually be less than contemplated by the 2014 plan amendment.

The same traffic intensive services that the hospital agreed to move off‑site as part of the 2014 Master Plan Amendment will be moved off‑site as part of the 2016 Master Plan Amendment. This is important, because there will be no change in the traffic generation or parking, between the 2014 plan and the 2016 plan. And, again, just to refresh members who were here recollection and also there's a full record that's on your website that has copies of all the transcripts, all the reports. I just have my black notebook up on the desk, which is a four‑inch or maybe even five inches of just the exhibits from that proceeding, but all the transcripts are also on your website.

The undisputed expert testimony from both the hospital and the board traffic experts was that traffic to and from the site would only not increase, it would actually decrease. The third thing that's not changing. The hospital presented unrefuted expert testimony from Dr. Shannon Magari, an occupational and environmental health and safety expert. Dr. Magari addressed the issues of fine particulate matter and contaminants, and she concluded that the construction project would comply with all applicable air quality standards, which would ensure community protection.

The hospital agreed, as part of the 2013‑2014 hearing, to implement and execute an air monitoring plan which would be developed by Dr. Magari, and would include pretesting, monitoring testing during construction, and post testing.

Again, I want to stress, the issue before the board in 2014 was not whether fine particulate matter is or is not harmful. The issue is whether the hospital would have systems in place to detect the presence of fine particulate matter and to stop any fine particulate matter from migrating to anywhere where harm would be caused.

And, again, once our witness testifies, and your counsel mentioned I believe it was paragraph possibly five in the remand order, where the hospital is required to present a list of conditions as an exhibit. We have such a list. It will be presented.

It will be read into the record, and you will hear that in those conditions the hospital agrees to do all the things it said it would do during those hearings to pretest, monitor and test during construction, and post test, so that to ensure that no fine particulate matter would migrate to anywhere where harm would be caused.

The fourth and last thing that's not changing is the time of construction. The time period for construction of Phase I is not ten years. The time period for construction remains the same as contemplated in the 2014 Master Plan Amendment. Six years for

Phase I. It's in the transcripts, it's in the expert reports. And that's even with the basement of the West Building that's now going to be constructed as part of Phase I instead of Phase II. You will hear testimony about that change.

So, to repeat, even with the construction of the basement of the West Building, that in 2014 would have been constructed as part of Phase II, even with that basement being constructed in Phase I, the duration of construction for Phase I will not exceed six years.

Additionally, during the 2013‑2014 hearing session, the hospital ‑‑ pardon me, misstatement. During the mediation, without revealing anything that was said in the mediation, but as part of that mediation, I can tell you right now that the hospital commits, and you can add it to the list of conditions, that Phase II will not be constructed for at least a decade after Phase I is completed. So, again, the hospital will agree, and you can add to the conditions, that Phase II construction will not commence until at least a decade after the construction of Phase I is completed.

And the duration of the construction of Phase II, as contemplated by the 2016 Master Plan Amendment, is also going to remain the same, as the duration as contemplated in the 2014 Master Plan Amendment, four years. But the change is a commitment to not start that Phase II for a decade.

My final comment is to remind everyone of something that the board's counsel has already said, and that's paragraph six of the remand order provides that only revisions to the proposed 2014 Master Plan Amendment shall be relevant and material for purposes of questioning and cross examination. And only revisions to the proposed 2014 Master Plan Amendment shall be relevant and material for purposes of sworn comments by the public.

And with that, that's my introduction.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Drill, okay.

Katie, unless you have any comments, I'm going to hand this over to Blais.

Blais Brancheau is our Village Planner.

1. RAZIN: Blais, can I swear you in?

1. BRANCHEAU: Yes, you may.

1. RAZIN: Blais, do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

1. BRANCHEAU: Yes, I do.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. RAZIN:

1. And you're going to take us through the provisions of the Master Plan which is, there's a redline document and a clean document, correct?
2. Yes.
3. And you prepared that document?
4. Yes, I did.
5. And the date on the document is March 15, 2016. Is that correct?
6. Yes.
7. And your revisions?
8. Yes.

1. RAZIN: And, Jen, if you could just scroll down until you get to the redline, you can follow through on there as well. Again, I apologize ‑‑

1. DRILL: The redline is exhibit B‑4?

1. RAZIN: That's correct, it's exhibit B‑4, but again there are copies on the table as well. A. What I'd like to do is just go through page by page and comment on what's not changed and comment on what is changed.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, are you going to use the redline?

THE WITNESS: I'm using the redline as the basis for my testimony. A. So, the oath change on the cover sheet is the date on the revision, March 13. The first page provides some introduction and background. That hasn't changed.

The second page shows the boundary of the Hospital Zone. That's not proposed to change.

The same page includes the permitted land uses. That's not proposed to change either. Page three talks about lot area. That is similarly unchanged, and again that's the entire area within the districts outside of the right‑of‑way, the idea being no subdivision or reduction of lot area for the hospital, it will remain as it currently is.

Under Intensity of Use, there are some changes, some minor word changes, dealing just typographical changes. And then a key change in the third bullet at the bottom of that page is a reduction in the total hospital floor area of 34,000 square feet from 900 to 866,000 square feet. That I note does not include, nor is it included in the prior version of this, the deck area or the rooftop equipment area.

On page 4, under Building Mass and Building Coverage, there's a change of a reduction in the amount of floor area and roof area located at or above grade, and it's a reduction of 31,500 square feet. And it went from 1,056,400 to 1,024,900. And then there's a breakdown of each of those, and it shows the reduction of 31,500 feet for the hospital, and then the rooftop area remains the same, the parking deck remains the same, atriums and courtyards remain the same. The next bullet indicates a change in the amount of coverage by above grade structures from 288,000 to 311,000. It's my understanding that this change was brought about by a reduction in the fifth level story, and some of that ended up becoming at grade on the first story.

The next section deals with Building Height. And the change in building height is a reduction from 70 feet and five stories, to 56 feet and four stories, so a height reduction of one story or 14 feet. The rest of that page is unchanged. The next page ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Blais, I just want to confirm that 24 feet remains the same in addition to the ‑‑

THE WITNESS: For the rooftop screening, yes.

1. DOCKRAY: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: That's in the second bullet on that page. You'll see that that's not changed.

A.(Continuing) Dealing with Yards/Building Setbacks, beginning on page four, going on to page five, just a change from "shall" to "should." Again, the Master Plan is an advisory document to the governing body, so we changed "shall" to "should." We are recommending that the governing body adopt an ordinance. That would then make it mandatory. But the Master Plan itself does not have the effect of law.

There's a change in the diagram reflecting the setbacks. And the first diagram is to is replaced with the second diagram. I'd like to go through briefly some of the changes. In order to accommodate a lower building height, there was an increase of building area on the ground floor, still a net reduction but there was some increase that resulted in a reduced setback on the Van Dien frontage in the northerly portion of the site. Whereas, it used to be the North Building was setback 120 feet from Van Dien Avenue; under the revised proposal, the first floor would be setback 47 feet, all other floors would be setback 74 feet, and the rooftop screens would be required to be setback at least 90 feet.

Similarly, in the case of the West Building, which is just south of the North Building and towards the N. Van Dien Avenue portion of the property, the original plan had the West Building at 100 feet. Now there's a ground floor two story portion of the West Building that is setback 55 feet from N. Van Dien. The rest of the building remains the same as it was in the 2014 plan, that is 100 feet. And then there's a setback of the rooftop screen which is 115 feet, which wasn't depicted in the 2014 plan.

On page six, in the section entitled Improvement Coverage, there is an increase of 12,400 square feet of coverage by buildings new pavement, and again it's my understanding that this was a result of this built that out of the ground floor of the building to accommodate a lower building height. I'm sure the hospital will testify in more detail about that. That's it on that page.

On page seven, some minor word changes in the beginning, and then three bulleted items are added. These have to do with landscaping and greenery. A paragraph was added to deal with a variety of landscape design features, for two primary purposes. One is to mitigate the mass of the buildings on the property. Second is to create a campus atmosphere throughout the property, much more greenery than currently exists.

The second bullet deals with replacement of any trees that would be lost due to the construction activity and the change in the building and pavement areas. And there's a statement here that's requiring that any replacement trees be equivalent or better in function than the ones that are removed.

And then a new provision is added dealing with the first floor of the North Building, that it be covered with a green roof that will mitigate the visual impact of that building and its setback from N. Van Dien Avenue.

Page eight, Parking and Access, that remains unchanged. Illumination remains unchanged. Under Building Architecture, two bullets were added, this deals with rooftop safety features. When those, typically parapets or railings, are going to feature design –

COURT REPORTER: I am sorry, Blais, I am going to get closer to you, because I can't hear you.

(Short pause.)

A.(Continuing) I'm going to back up a little bit. Under Building Architecture, there's two new bullet items that were added on page eight. The first bullet item talks about where features are needed at the roof level for safety purposes.

Typically, when you have service personnel on the roof maintaining the HVAC equipment, the building code requires safety features so they don't fall off the roof by accident. Those can be built of solid design or they can be built of railings that are open, and this adds a provision that requires that they be open when not needed for screening. And, again, the purpose of this is to reduce the inherent physical mass of the building from any solid parapet by making it open.

It also says that when you can't have an open feature, that it be done in a way that provides an appearance of transparency, either through ‑‑ the design's obviously something that would be worked out either in the code or in the site plan review phase of it, but the whole intent of this bullet is to reduce the apparent height and the visual impact of the rooftop features and safety features on the roof.

The second bullet deals with variety of building materials for the rooftop features where they are required to be solid. And the intent, again, is to break up a single monolithic appearance of these things and make them more visually appealing.

On page nine, there's another bullet added, and that provided for a vegetative screen in the front of the exterior of the penthouses of the North and West Buildings, except where they're in front of air louvers. And, again, this is designed to achieve the same purpose of providing more attractive appearance for rooftop equipment, as opposed to the typical utilitarian design that we often see for rooftop equipment or rooftop screens.

The rest of the page dealing with Signs is unchanged. The next section dealing with Traffic and Street Improvements, that is similarly unchanged. And those are the changes that are proposed by this amendment.

1. And it's your understanding that the terms that was in your discussion and your testimony is representative of the settlement that was reached?

1. Yes, it is.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, why don't you take some water before we get any questions, first from the board for cross examination. All right. I will begin at my right. David, if you have any questions for Blais, we will continue with Nancy.

1. THURSTON: Two things, Blais.

The first thing is, when it talks about trees at maturity, what is the timeframe, is that a small tree or some larger tree when we get to the maturity timeframe?

THE WITNESS: Maturity is something that is a fluid concept. This would have to be detailed in more specificity in the ordinance, but in dealing with ‑‑ what it is essentially saying is that getting a tree from a nursery is very difficult, if not impossible to get a tree ‑‑ if you're removing a 30‑foot tree, it's very difficult to get a tree that is immediately 30 feet tall. What this means is that within a reasonable period of time, the tree will function at that same height.

So I know typically maturity in the case of trees is periods of 10 to 20 years. Obviously, some trees live a lot longer than that and there's no precise definition of maturity, but I would say within a period of 10 to 20 years, it is expected that there would be equivalent function.

It's not just the size of the plans, but it's the design. It can be spacing and layout of trees, and it can be the grade that the trees are placed on, for example, placing a tree on a berm. So there's a number of ways in which the equivalent height and function. It's not just height, it's the density of the planting, there's a number of ways in which that can be achieved. So that's about how I would answer that, but I would expect that if and when we get to an ordinance, that the ordinance would spell that out in more clear detail.

1. THURSTON: On your third additional paragraph on page nine, you have some typographical errors. After the word "building," you need a space, before the parenthetical.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

1. THURSTON: In the third bullet, which begins "A vegetated screen," after "Building," before the parenthetical, a space is needed there.

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, I agree.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Nancy.

1. BIGOS: Thank you.

Blais, under yards and building setback on page six, you reviewed the setbacks along N. Van Dien Avenue. Can you tell me if there's an increase or a decrease or that those setbacks are remaining the same?

 

THE WITNESS: On N. Van Dien?

1. BIGOS: Yes, the top floor.

THE WITNESS: For the North Building, everything was 120 on the old plan. In the new plan, the first floor is a minimum of 47, which is a reduction. The other floors are minimum of 74, which is similarly a reduction. And the rooftop screens are 90 feet, which is also a reduction. Everything is less than 120.

For the West Building, the prior plan had everything at 100.

Under the new plan, the ground floor is 55, so it's obviously a reduction. Every other floor is 100, which remains the same as it was. And 115 for the rooftop equipment, which was not indicated on the prior plan. So that rooftop screen was at 100, this would be an increased setback.

1. BIGOS: And then all of the other setbacks remain the same?

THE WITNESS: All of the others remain the same.

1. BIGOS: Okay. Thank you.

 

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Richard.

VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: No questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Kevin.

1. REILLY: No questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Wendy.

1. DOCKRAY: Blais, were all these setbacks in the remand notice?

THE WITNESS: I don't know, I haven't seen the remand notice.

1. DOCKRAY: Even for the West Building?
2. RAZIN: Yes, there's a diagram with an attachment at the end.
3. DOCKRAY: They were in the remand notice that we were given?
4. RAZIN: (Shakes head.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Any questions, Wendy?

1. DOCKRAY: Not at this time. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Debbie.

1. PATIRE: Not at this time.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Khidir.

1. ABDALLA: No questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I have a quick question.

With regard to rooftop screening, is it your opinion that they intend that to help buffer the visual aspect of the taller floors on the first floor, and will that first floor also, the visual impact of that be mitigated by some of the landscape provisions?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I mentioned there was a green roof on the first floor, and that was there to help mitigate the fact that that's now closer to the street.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So from Van Dien, with a green roof, the visual aspects of the building would be reduced because of the tree growth and other items. Is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I expect there to be tree growth between the buildings and the street as well as building planting.

That planting on the roof will also help reduce the visual impact of the upper floors of the building, not just the first floor, because as that tree grows up, those plants grow up, they will reduce how much you see of the upper floors.

Obviously, that design is yet to be seen, but I would imagine that it would have some benefit.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And the other question is: Do you believe that with only a first floor having a reduced setback, do the landscape revisions again, can an ordinance in essence require some form of treatment again that will block the visual aspect of those buildings from the road or from the neighborhood?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I think within ‑‑ I mean, you will need to have some clearance of the building, you'll not want to have trees right upon the building, but you should be able to get fairly dense planting within that setback area to mitigate the visual. For example, today the ordinance today for the H‑Zone requires the 40‑foot setback, regardless of height. So this is compared with what exists in the ordinance today, this is actually requiring a greater setback for even the ground floor and a much greater setback for the upper floors.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.

Kevin.

1. REILLY: That was in the back of my mind, the tree removing. I had a sense that it was going to be more extensive tree removing by discussions.

COURT REPORTER: I am sorry, I can't understand what you are saying.

1. REILLY: Oh, okay. I see in the proposal here that the green roofing pertains to level one of the North Building. And my question is: My sense is, during some discussions I thought there was going to be more extensive green roofing, so I'm kind of following up on Charles' point, are there other locations that landscape and green roofing shrubbery, trees, could be put in above grade on some of these setbacks or on the roof itself, even the parking area?

THE WITNESS: Well, the plan always contained the provision for green roof for the service areas of the building, and that's found on page seven, and that hasn't changed. So, yes, in that sense, it is, it's not proposed to be changed from what it was, but there always was a provision for green roofs in that location.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, maybe for Kevin's comment, I think you discussed provisions around mechanicals as being capable of being transparent or the use of the materials to minimize the visual impact. That could include either living or artificial greenery efforts?

THE WITNESS: Right.

1. REILLY: In a sense, the green roofing.

THE WITNESS: Yes, that's not quite green roofing, but it is greenery on the roof. By "green roofing," we basically mean that the roof is planted almost as if it were ground level, and you can often put shrubs, include even trees, on the roof properly designed to provide some ‑‑

1. REILLY: My concern is in the proposal where's it's limited to, if it's the first level, there's other buildings, there's other setbacks?

THE WITNESS: Well, the thing is if you're putting trees on the roof of a four story building, my feeling is that, you could have the effect of that increasing the height of the visual impact of the building, if it's that high up in the air.

In addition, the higher up you go, you're dealing with other issues related to not only structural load but wind issues and so forth. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm just saying is that to try to put it on the roof, I don't know if there's room, I think the hospital would have to deal with that, because you do have to deal with the rooftop equipment that's up there. And if you add trees, I don't know that that is going to be of much benefit to someone to have a tree up there as opposed to nothing.

1. REILLY: Would it be feasible to have terminology in here along the lines of, well, where feasible additional green roofing might apply, which leaves it open to, you say wind or climate, conditions that make it infeasible, but I would just like to kind of open that up a little in terms of site plan saying would that come up?

THE WITNESS: I don't think it hurts to say that, but, again, I'll leave it to the hospital to testify as to the feasibility.

I don't know, for example, why the West Building doesn't have a green roof, maybe there would be a reason for that. But I can't imagine putting it on a parking deck, because you need it for parking.

1. RAZIN: I'm sorry, if that's something, I mean, that's the language that Kevin asked about "where feasible," is that what you said, greenery where feasible, I just want to get your language.

1. REILLY: Yes.

1. RAZIN: So maybe that's something that they can address more comment in there ‑‑

THE WITNESS: If that's feasibility, then we'll let them do it at their time.

1. RAZIN: Maybe they can take a minute and they can address it now or you can address it with your testimony.

1. DRILL: I consulted with Maria Mediago, who is the Vice President ‑ Facilities at the hospital. No problem to add the language "where feasible," but we can offer upright now, it was intended to also have a green roof on top of that first floor of the West Building, so if that isn't there, it was an inadvertent omission.

THE WITNESS: That could be added, I would imagine.

1. DOCKRAY: Then I'm confused, what's the vegetative screen around the exterior of the penthouse?
2. DRILL: We can't hear.

1. DOCKRAY: I'm sorry, I don't know what's wrong here. Either I am too loud or not loud enough. Page nine, what is the ‑‑ it says:

"A vegetative screen should be incorporated in front of the exterior of the penthouse"...What is that then?

THE WITNESS: I view that as something akin to the preceding bullet, which talks about building design, incorporating the use of varied materials (texture and color) at the exteriors of mechanical penthouses.

I view this vegetative screen as perhaps vines or similar ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: As what?

THE WITNESS: As perhaps vines or similar material that is, instead of paint or a hard material, using a vegetative material to improve the appearance of those screens. So I don't view it as trees, as much as I'm thinking of vinery or some type of plants.

1. DOCKRAY: Vinery?
2. RAZIN: Blais, something that you thought maybe was vertical but could be vertically rather than green lawn that would have horizontally?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

If you go to Newark, you'll see a building there that has like three different kinds of vines growing on a wall, sort of almost like an art design, and it's designed to get away from the hardscape appearance of a basically a flat building wall, and provide some variety and softness through the use of vegetation. That's what I envision this to be.

1. DOCKRAY: Yes, but it sounds like, but the only thing you can think is of is vines. I'm just curious.

THE WITNESS: That's what I understand it to be. Now, if the hospital has other ideas, then, you know, obviously that could be discussed, but that's my understanding, is vines. There may be other things, there may be like, you know, sometimes you'll see planters, but again, it's something that needs to be able to survive, maintained, or withstand wind and things like that, and, you know, the details of that are unclear.

1. DOCKRAY: And it's all around the exterior of the penthouse?

THE WITNESS: Well, this says ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: I didn't know if it meant the front or exterior.

THE WITNESS: It says the front. I think when it says the front, it means the side facing the street.

1. DOCKRAY: So it's not along the side ‑‑

THE WITNESS: That's not what this says.

1. DOCKRAY: Along Benjamin Franklin, behind Steilen?

THE WITNESS: My understanding is the street.

1. DOCKRAY: Hum.

1. DRILL: We will address that in the testimony, but when you see our exhibits, you'll see that that's filled with louvers so you can't have a greenscape in front of the louver, the air can't flow through it, but Maria Mediago will address it. It's basically green vines that grow on a mesh that are out in front of the material. And the only problem is, when you get in front of an air louver, that you need the air to come in through, you can't put it there, and some of those other areas have air louvers.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, just again, the clarification. The specifics around this can take form in ordinance and also discretion as to the effectiveness of that would be reviewed during site plan, if it gets to that stage?

THE WITNESS: Yes. We're working in a spectrum of detail, the Master Plan is the most general, the ordinance is more specific, and the site plan is the most specific. And just to caution, general principle is, when you know specifics in advance, there's no harm in saying it, but when you don't know, you can sometimes hurt yourself by removing flexibility by establishing detail, when you're not sure of the ultimate design. So, as a general rule, I would say when you're unsure, establish the principle guideline that you're hoping to achieve, if you can refine that in the ordinance, do it, but ultimately in the site plan is when the final detail will get worked out. And, again, sometimes when one thing changes, something else has to change, so you want to provide a certain amount of flexibility to allow for design change without creating a variance, for example, in order to respond to something the board or the public may ask for, and if you do that, now we create a variance for something else, because we were too narrow in how we define how something can be done.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Thank you, Blais.

Are there any other questions for Blais? If not, is there a motion at this time to open to the public question?

VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to open to the public question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: May I have a second, please?

1. THURSTON: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Dave.

Okay. Can you call the roll?

(At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken and the motion is passed by a vote of seven in favor, with MS. PATIRE not voting, and MAYOR ARONSOHN, COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN, and Ms. Altano absent.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: How many of you might have questions or have questions for Blais? Let me see a show of that hands.

Can I just see by a show of hands the people that have questions?

Great. Can you form a line. And the procedure that we have here is you'll come up, you'll state and spell your name, please do it slowly for THE COURT REPORTER, and ask as many questions as you can in five minutes. And then sit down, allow those questions to be answered. So take your time, ask them slowly so Blais can take note of them and then reply to them.

Please come forward, state your name, spell your name and provide your address.

1. SMITH: I'll be happy to spell it.

Paul Smith, P‑A‑U‑L S‑M‑I‑T‑H. Address, 231 Burnside Place.

The question was around the facing toward BF School. I was curious in terms of, I guess, what kind of greenery or, you know, buffers that you put up between the North Building and BF?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is that your only question, Mr. Smith?

1. SMITH: That is my only question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you very much.

Blais.

 

THE WITNESS: There's no change, as I understand it, in the plan concerning that issue. So what was in the plan as far as the north side of the property facing Ben Franklin is unchanged. There is a 40‑foot setback from minimum requirement from the North Building to the property line. I imagine there would be some planting in that area, but the Master Plan doesn't go into detail as to the specifics of that.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you.

1. RAZIN: I think there is some language about additional landscaping and shrubbery in the eating area.

THE WITNESS: Was that specific to Ben Franklin?

1. RAZIN: Yes.

1. DRILL: Page six of the remand order, it's 4(b)(3) on page six.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, there is something. On page seven of the redline version of the plan, it gives examples, it says, where I had mentioned about landscape design features to both buffer and provide a campus atmosphere. Examples in the Master Plan are cited, which include the addition of landscaping and shrubbery to the outdoor eating area along the common property line with Benjamin Franklin Middle School and a number of other treatments, but they aren't specific to Ben Franklin. But as to the main screening, the bullet above that, which remains unchanged from the last plan, says that:

"In addition to a landscaped buffer, a sound barrier fence/wall and other features, as appropriate, should also be required adjacent to the Steilen Avenue properties and the Benjamin Franklin school property in order to mitigate the noise from loading activities, truck traffic and other activities." And it says, "Fences and/or walls should also be required in other buffer areas or locations, where necessary to provide adequate screening."

And it basically goes beyond to say that the details of that, this specific design will be determined by the board at the time of site plan review. So, again, that was in the plan and that's not proposed to change with this amendment.

1. DOCKRAY: Blais, I'm a little confused here. Between the North Building and Benjamin Franklin, between that 40 feet there's an outdoor eating area?

THE WITNESS: I don't know if it's in the 40‑foot area.

1. DOCKRAY: I'm just reading in the amendment, it says not limited to additional landscape to the outdoor. 

COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay.

Page seven, you were just referencing that, what is it, the third paragraph that there's a change, and you said such features should generally include but not limited to the addition of landscaping and shrubbery to the outdoor eating area along the common property line with the Benjamin Franklin Middle School. So that reminds me there's an outdoor eating area between the North Building and the property line?

THE WITNESS: I think I'd have to defer to the hospital on that point, because I haven't seen a specific design that shows the location.

1. DOCKRAY: Will you address that later?

1. DRILL: This is not proposed, it's existing, but Maria will address that later. It's there as we sit here tonight. It's been there.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay, but it's within that 40‑foot setback?

1. DRILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Why don't we allow the public to ask. We are currently in public questions.

1. DOCKRAY: No, I just got confused.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Next person, state and spell your name.

1. VOIGT: Jeff Voigt, V‑O‑I‑G‑T, 99 Glenwood Road, Ridgewood. It's actually a procedural question. Mr. Nalbantian, you made a comment, I wanted to kind of ask if it's possible to ask you this comment you made, a question related to it?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The questions are specific to the testimony, just as we have questions we're permitted to do that.

1. VOIGT: Could I ask you when we could ask you a question on an introductory comment you made, because you made something that I'm a little bit curious about.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Introductory comment just now or at the beginning?  

1. VOIGT: At the beginning, yes.

It was a comment relating to this being approved and then it would go to an ordinance to the council. Is that correct?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, I'll just interject. We're focused here on basically the Master Plan, which is a policy statement, if you will, it's broad brush. The Village Council has a responsibility for the laws, for the ordinance, and the two should match typically.

So following this process, if there is an amendment to the Master Plan that requires an ordinance, that would be determined through a process by the Village Council, which would also include hearings, and that would be the specific ordinance where the laws are then in concert with the overall policy of the Master Plan. That's what I meant by that.

1. VOIGT: Okay. So, I'm going to ask another question, maybe you can't answer this, but I'm going to ask it anyway. So we currently have four people who are on the council, one's been recused, so what happens if it's a 2 to 2 vote?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's just not go there right now. Let's allow us to continue this process. I did you a favor by clarifying my point I made earlier. I'd rather not talk about the process, we will not interrupt the process; however, later on when we get to a vote, we will have a discussion as to what that process will be from.

1. VOIGT: For the Village Council, right?
2. RAZIN: We're not going to talk about the Village Council.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's a different body.

1. VOIGT: So I ask that question of the Village Council, is that what I should do?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes. Absolutely.

1. VOIGT: Okay.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Voigt.

Next person, please.

1. BANEY: Lisa Baney. My address is 136 Brookside Avenue, B‑A‑N‑E‑Y. So I do have one quick, again, because you were trying to give us a lot of preface to the evening, just I would like to respond to one of those things, which is regarding the public ‑‑ the number of hearings that are coming.

I really would ask if you please, it was not implicit that they won't go to the end. Please, they do need to be posted on the website, because it is not implicit they won't go to the end. Please, because I know someone, for example, who said they are taking their son on college trips and they'll be back next Thursday. It needs to be clear, what you said. What it says on the remand is like continuing, it says continuing, that's not on the notice.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I'm going to talk about the notice at the end of the meeting. This is the time where Blais is giving testimony.

1. BANEY: I know, but this is my only chance to mention this.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I heard your comment.

1. RAZIN: I think if anyone has a comment, you can come to up at a break.

1. BANEY: But I'd also like to be on public record, please, also. I think it should be clearer that it would possibly end.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Your comment was noted.

Do you have a question?

1. BANEY: Thank you.

Yes, I actually have four questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ask your questions and then be seated.

1. BANEY: Okay. Well, one of them, one question is very simple and would form my second question, so I might just ‑‑ the first question is, what is the difference between the chart on page six and the chart on page five with regard to the drawings and the setbacks? Is one before 2014 amendment and one 2016?

THE WITNESS: Yes, this was done with the tract changes featured in Word, and unfortunately Word does not do a good job when it comes to showing a diagram that's being deleted, which is the first diagram.

1. BANEY: Because that's not current, that's the old one?

THE WITNESS: That's the old one. The second one is the new one, and that's underlined in red.

1. BANEY: Okay. Then I have three questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please proceed with your question. Blais, wait for her to ask all of her questions.

1. BANEY: Thank you, sir. I couldn't ask question two if I didn't know which chart. Forgive me. Thank you.

So my first question would be, so these setbacks, like, for example, 47 feet, is the smaller setback at Van Dien. I can't tell on these drawings, is that to the street or to the sidewalk?

The second question is: As a planner, if I'm looking at this chart and the coverage, if that were my home, do you think that would be approved as an appropriate amount of footage to cover in my property?

And my third question is: So, in the changes that were made here, I know that there was a balancing act that was also subject to the lawsuit was the detriments versus the benefits. I just was wondering with regard to all the detriments that the Planning Board spoke very clear about that concerned them, in the 2014 amendment, these changes, whether and how they might reduce the detriments or on balance increase the benefits to make this a settlement that settles some of those concerns.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Baney.

THE WITNESS: All right. First question is: What is the 47‑foot setback measured to?

That's actually measured to the property line, and that is not defined by the sidewalk, it's not defined by the curb of the street. It's typically, but not always, on the building side of the sidewalk, how far it varies from case to case. So, I will tell you that it's measured from the legal ownership limits of the property line, and it's farther than that to the actual street or the sidewalk typically.

1. BANEY: But in this case.

THE WITNESS: In this case, I'd have to actually look at the survey to see where the sidewalk ends and where the property line is, but I can't tell you as I sit here which one is where. The question of whether a residential property would be permitted to have the same amount of coverage as was proposed here, I assume you meant by that, percentage of the lot area coverage, not total area of coverage. But the answer to that question is probably not, and when we write zoning standards, we write them that are appropriate to the use in question. And typically a single family home would not need the same amount of coverage as a hospital facility, and so we don't write the standards the same way.

And then as to detriments versus benefits, obviously this is a situation that involves, as I have said before at the prior hearings, both benefits and detriments. And the board's decision involves a balancing of both benefits and detriments; benefits not just to the community but to the region, as well as detriments to the community, and to some extent to the region as well.

There is always a balancing act going on, and that balancing is not something that is done via a mathematical equation, there's an element of judgment that the board exercises in doing their balancing. In this amendment, we've identified some of benefits of the lower building height, increased and improved treatment of rooftop areas, as well as increased and improved plantings and buffering. There are some detriments. We've identified reduced setbacks for a single story in the case of the North and the West Buildings and some coverage related to that, increased ground floor portion of the building. Those are detriments, and we've identified as well.

But, again, the decision both by this board and by the council and most zoning cases involves a balancing of benefits and detriments. As to whether the benefits could be increased and the detriments could be reduced, that is something that I'm sure that was discussed in the mediation that occurred, but I was not privy to that and it was closed, so I really won't speak more to that.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.

Are those all the questions for MR. BRANCHEAU?

Next person please come forward and state your name, provide your address.

1. DeVITA: My name is Tom DeVita, D‑E‑V‑I‑T‑A, 226 Sollas Court.

Thank you.

Blais, a question for you. Just to get clarity, if not, Mr. Drill can get it in his testimony. With respect to the safety railings and the invisible parapet, do you know yet the, I'll call it, the perimeter footage that's going to have the invisible parapet versus the mechanical screening, if you will?

THE WITNESS: No, I do not.

1. DeVITA: That's it. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Others have questions?

Please come forward.

1. SALERNO: Hi, Matt Salerno, M‑A‑T‑T S‑A‑L‑E‑R‑N‑O, 164 N. Van Dien Avenue, Ridgewood.

Just three questions for Blais. First is just one of clarification. You testified earlier that the setback on the N. Van Dien and Ben Franklin side was an increase from the current ordinance, which requires a minimum setback of 40 feet, you said?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. SALERNO: As I read the current hospital ordinance, it requires a minimum rear yard and side yard setback of three feet per one foot of building height, which would equate to a 60‑foot setback for a 20‑foot tall building; 144‑foot setback for a 48‑foot tall building; and the new ordinance provides for a 47‑foot setback for a 20‑foot building, compared to a 60‑foot and 74 feet for a 48‑foot tall building versus 144 feet for a 48‑foot tall building.

Was your testimony before inaccurate or were you comparing it to a different ordinance; i.e., a proposed ordinance for 2010 or 2014, or were you comparing it to the ordinance currently on the books?

THE WITNESS: Is that the only question?

1. SALERNO: No. The next question is: The document, the existing ordinance uses the word "shall" with respect to all of the landscaping and vegetation requirements; in other words, if you're going to put something in the space, you shall meet these minimum requirements. This document only uses the word "should," which implies a recommendation that the hospital can or cannot comply with in their judgment. That strikes me as an inappropriate exercise in discretion for them. Would you agree with that?

And, in your opinion, should the word "should" everywhere in this document be replaced with "shall" and make it a requirement of the plan? And my last question picks up on a question raised by one of the Planning Board members, which goes to the use of the word "at maturity" with respect to vegetative screening. It strikes me again that if the function of the screening is only required to be equivalent to the current function at maturity, as you said, there could be a 10 to 20‑year interval before there is equivalent function of screening, and that the hospital could today choose to plant a sapling, for example, that would take 20 years to reach equivalent function, why shouldn't the hospital be required to replace with equivalent functional screening today?

That's it.

1. RAZIN: I just didn't hear, I think it was your second question, the "should" versus "shall," I just want to know, you said the "shall" is in the zoning ordinance, right?

1. SALERNO: "Shall" is in the current hospital ordinance, yes.

1. RAZIN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: When I referred to the increased setback, I was referring to the front yard setback only. You're correct in that the side and rear yard is three times the building height, and the proposal now and before was less of a setback than the current ordinance requires. But the current ordinance front yard is 40 feet, and this proposal at the very least is 47 and it increases up to 200 feet, depending upon which building we're talking about and which floor of the building we're talking about.

So, when I was talking about an increase, I was only referring to the front yard setback. And the front yard setback on both Linwood and Van Dien is proposed to increase in this plan from what is currently required in the ordinance, but not the side and rear yard. As to "shall" versus "should," I thought I had spoken to that but I'll say it again. This whole document is advisory. It's advising the council of what the ordinance should say, not what the developer should do.

So, when I say "should" here, I'm saying that the ordinance should require, and the ordinance should say "shall," not that the ordinance should allow discretion. So when the ordinance is written, then it would say "shall." And then as to the ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Blais, given, but it may not necessarily have to say "shall." I mean, they may not have to write the ordinance that way then. Is that correct?

THE WITNESS: No, no. I mean, I took "shall" away because it implied that this document had the effect of requiring it, when it fact it doesn't. Only the ordinance can have the effect of requiring compliance. The whole Master Plan document, the Planning Board has no authority to impose requirements that have the effect of law, they can only recommend to the council that it adopt ordinances or other programs that have that effect. So, the change was to avoid that confusion, that this document is in fact a parallel zoning ordinance, it's not, it's the basis for an ordinance, and we're saying that the ordinance should require this. All right.

The council may disagree and may require something else. So it's advisory and discretionary only to the council. This is what the Planning Board is, if adopted, recommending that the council's ordinance do, and that's the simple answer. It was not in intended to allow discretion.

Now, there may be some provisions where there may be more than one alternative approach that achieves the same end, and in which case you may allow discretion in that case, but if that were to happen, you should say what the end result should be; we don't necessarily care how you get there, but this is what we want you to have at the end. So there's a case where you would say shall do this, but how you shall do it is maybe left open for discretion.

But, clearly, this is not intended to provide an option to do a good thing or not, that would be mandated by the ordinance.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Blais, bottom line, by changing the word "shall" to "should," have you taken anything away from the purpose of the document?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. We can say "shall" or "should." We could say "mandated." We could say whatever. It wouldn't give it anymore teeth than saying "shall." It's the ordinance. Now, if the ordinance says "shall" versus "should," then yes, then you have a point to make, that if the ordinance says "should," then that implies an option for only a suggestion as opposed to a legal requirement and not the Master Plan.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.

THE WITNESS: And then the question of "at maturity," the simple answer to that is that it's practically impossible in many cases, particularly when you're dealing with older trees, to replace them with equivalents. You could do, like I said before, a number of things to try to achieve immediate equivalence, but you can actually have a ‑‑ how do I say it ‑‑ a reverse effect. They've actually done studies in the planting of trees, and they have found that, as is often the case, the larger the initial planted size, the greater the transplant shock. And by "transplant shock," I mean the larger the tree, the larger the root system.

When a tree is dug and moved, that root system is damaged, and it takes a tree a long time to recover from that damage. When you cut the roots of the tree, the top of the tree, the branches and the leaves, show that effect. And typically in a nursery, when you dig up a tree and you move it, you're cutting the roots, putting a bulb and burlap around those roots, but you're also cutting the top of the tree to compensate for that loss of root system.

And the bigger the tree, the more you're having to compensate for the loss of that root system.

And what they have found in studies is, they planted large trees with that concurrent greater transplant shock and smaller trees with less transplant shock, and they found because of the recovery period of the larger tree, within a fairly short period of time, the smaller tree actually caught up to and passed the larger tree in size.

So, you can try to say, well, we'll have equivalent sized trees. A, you may not be able to buy them from a nursery, because if you're taking down a 30‑foot tree, most nurseries aren't stocking trees that size, because there's very little demand. And because of that higher risk of transplanting of the loss or decline of that tree, they just don't do that very much at all. And because over time a smaller tree may actually outperform the bigger tree in its initial size, within 5 to 10 years, that smaller tree may actually be bigger than the bigger tree and you have less risk of losing it.

So although it would be nice if equivalency could be achieved immediately, there are a number of practical difficulties to doing so. And that's why it says at maturity, like I said, if it can be achieved in other ways, such as a denser planting or using berms or things like that, then I'm sure that's something that would be explored at the time of site plan. The principle is laid down here, but the details of that, obviously have to wait for site plan and how that can be achieved.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais, and thank you.

Other people who have questions for Blais? Again, specific questions for Blais. You've already asked your questions.

1. BANEY: I know.

In good faith, this is not going to be troublesome, I promise, it's just a to put closure on the fact ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Come forward, Ms. Baney, and I am not going to allow this again.

1. BANEY: I'm sorry, but the answer I got did not answer, he said I don't know.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Just ask the question, please, Ms. Baney, spell your name.

1. BANEY: Lisa Baney, B‑A‑N‑E‑Y, at 136 Brookside Avenue.

I just simply wanted to ask, I think you said you didn't know. If you could get back to us at maybe the next hearing, whether it would be 47 feet from the building to the street or 47 feet to where the kids walk on the sidewalk, that's all, to the edge. Thank you. That's a yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I'll check it.

1. BANEY: Thank you very much, I'm so sorry about that question.

THE WITNESS: It may be the hospital knows it as well and they can answer it.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Are there other questions from the public. Again, this is questions for Blais regarding his testimony.

1. ROMERO: Oh, I'm sorry, I have questions about this document. Would that be ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If it's a redline section that he spoke about, the answer is yes. If it's something that's existing, no. Come forward, we'll tell you if it's appropriate.

Please state and spell your name.

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

And I'm sorry I'm late to the game, I had to put my kids to bed. Forgive me. And obviously living on Steilen Avenue, I have a lot of questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You have five minutes to ask your questions, so what I would suggest is just go through them, allow Blais to take note, and then he'll answer them.

1. ROMERO: Okay. On page seven, this is under the title Buffers ‑ Site Landscaping, you know, I see, I circled adjacent to Steilen Avenue properties 20 feet, and then I looked at the details, I guess my question is: When it talks about a sound barrier, fence wall, are we talking about a cement wall? What do we consider a sound barrier fence wall? I guess that would be my one question, how would that look. Especially because with the way I'm looking at the diagram on page six and where my house sits, because I do backup to the hospital, I think, if I'm gauging this right, my house would backup to the Cheel Building, I don't know if I'm saying that right, and actually it's one of the houses that would have the shortest distance to the proposed buildings. So it would only be 70 feet, if I'm reading this right. And again, forgive me, I'm not used to reading diagrams.

So I have obviously a concern about and questions regarding the sound barrier wall and how would that look. And I know it says mitigating noise from loading activities, truck traffic and other stuff. And I also had a question about on page eight, the Illumination, it says, I'm just underlining here quickly: "If necessary to ensure adequate protection of surrounding residential areas, the top levels of decks should not be used during nighttime hours and the illumination of such levels turned off."

And one of the questions I have is: Who determines this, if necessary? I guess I just have concerns, like when we use language "if necessary, if applicable," who really ‑‑ in my eyes or my mind it's not firm designated verbiage that strictly says yes or no. I guess my big question is: Who determines whether the lights go on or off and at what time?

And then also on page nine ‑‑

1. CAFARELLI: Two minutes remaining.

1. ROMERO: Sorry.

Page nine, talking about Traffic and Street Improvements: "Synchronization of the signal timing at the intersections of Linwood Avenue and Van Dien and Linwood Avenue and N. Pleasant Avenue". I guess I'm just curious how that would affect or, I mean, would you have additional ‑‑ because I'm thinking about my children walk to school. Even with the synchronization, et cetera, of signal timing, they should have additional crossing guards in those areas, especially because, you know, we see all the traffic from the children walking, not just BF, but Travel, and also coming back from the high school. That was it.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

1. RAZIN: I'm going to try and address a couple of your issues, because I don't know if you were here at the beginning of the hearings.
2. ROMERO: No, I was putting my children to bed.

1. RAZIN: One of the issues we went over is the document that ‑‑ you have the redline version?
2. ROMERO: Yes.

1. RAZIN: So the redline version, we're here to discuss the changes to the 2014 document that have now been revised to the 2016 proposed Master Plan.
2. ROMERO: Okay.

1. RAZIN: So the document that has the redline, if you see the redline, what's that issue and what's the ordinance and what Blais testified about. I think, unfortunately, all the things that you asked about are not redlined, but I think you can probably get your questions answered if you either go to Michael, the Board Secretary, or look online, you can probably get a better idea of what all the barriers and the buffers along Steilen Avenue will look like based on, because there's no change.

So whatever was proposed in 2014 is still in effect, and that will continue to be in effect or continue to be part of the record. So the record is on file and part of the file is still available online. And if you have any trouble with that, Michael can contact me. With regard to the top level, the issue about the "if necessary," that can maybe be addressed in conditions that Valley is going to be forwarding or whether that's necessary language as to whether the illumination can be turned off.

And the traffic and street improvements were all part of the '13 and '14 amendment and no testimony about traffic and street improvements was provided. In fact, in the very beginning, Mr. Drill said that this witness will confirm that there's been no changes, so there's going to be no inquiry on traffic testimony this evening.

But you can read, as I think MR. BRANCHEAU said, that all the traffic reports and all the transcripts are still available from the '13 and '14 hearings and are available for any review. So certainly you can get a good scope of what that testimony and all the reports said at that time, but that should answer your questions. To the extent that those details were worked out at the time, because with respect to traffic, there's county road issues and some of those details are not yet finalized at all.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Just to also clarify, the information is available, Michael can help you find it, if you have difficulty online. We're just not permitted to get into that detail during this process. We're actually restricted from getting into that, so that's the reason why we're not answering your questions.

1. ROMERO: Okay. Is there another meeting that talks about just that process?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: They were in the past, and that's why the records are all on the website.

1. ROMERO: Okay. All right.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Why don't you see Michael at the end of the meeting, and maybe he can point you to the best way to find out.

1. ROMERO: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MS. ROMERO.

1. ROMERO: Thanks.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there anyone else with questions for Blais with regard to his testimony?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. If there aren't anymore questions for Blais, why don't we end.

1. DRILL: I just have one question.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DRILL:

1. BRANCHEAU, you are a landscape architect in addition to a planner, correct?
2. I was.
3. Okay. Thank you.

1. I have a degree in landscape architect. For many years, I maintained a license as a landscape architect.

1. DRILL: That's all.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Katie, do you have any questions for Blais?

1. RAZIN: No.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you very much.

Is there a motion to close public?

VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to close public.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there a second, please.

1. BIGOS: I'll second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Michael, will you call the roll.

(At this point in the proceeding roll call is taken and the motion is passed by a vote of seven in favor, with MS. PATIRE not voting, and MAYOR ARONSOHN, COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN, and Ms. Altano absent.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So we're now closed for public questions for Blais. We're going to take a ten and a half minute break, at 9:45 we'll reconvene. During that time, Laura is going to resume as THE COURT REPORTER and Kim is leaving. Let's start again in ten minutes.

(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)

(Exhibits A‑1 through A‑17 are premarked for identification.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to begin to take our seats. It's ten minutes to ten almost. Okay, let us begin. I will just note that COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN has joined us in addition since we started the meeting.

1. DRILL: The mic's not on.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I will just note that COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN has joined us in addition since we started the meeting.

Michael, roll, please.

1. CAFARELLI: MS. BIGOS?
2. BIGOS: Here.
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: Here.
3. CAFARELLI: Ms. Dockray?
4. DOCKRAY: Here.
5. CAFARELLI: MR. THURSTON?
6. THURSTON: Here.
7. CAFARELLI: MR. ABDALLA?
8. ABDALLA: Here.
9. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE?
10. PATIRE: Here.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Michael. Okay. Before the break we concluded the testimony and cross‑examine and questions for Blais with regard to his presentation. And at this time we will proceed with Valley Hospital and their call of witnesses.

Jon?

1. DRILL: Yes. I'd like to call Maria Mediago as my witness, next witness.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. MEDIAGO: I do.

M A R I A M E D I A G O,    

                                                   Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. Please state your name and just spell it for the record.

1. MEDIAGO: Maria Mediago, M‑a‑r‑i‑a M‑e‑d‑i‑a‑g‑o.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DRILL:

1. Can you identify yourself for the board and your relationship to Valley Hospital?
2. I serve as the vice president of facilities management at Valley Hospital.

1. And what is your area of expertise?
2. Primarily there are two areas that are relevant here; the first one has to do with health care facilities management and construction, and the second is health care construction, project planning and management.
3. And how do you come to the task that you acquire this expertise?
4. Primarily through on‑the‑job training. I graduated from Columbia University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in electrical engineering and have served in construction management and planning, project management, facilities planning and maintenance positions since that time.

I have primarily served at an executive level in facilities positions at a variety of hospitals.

My first job was at Exxon Research and Engineering in Florham Park, New Jersey, where I worked from 1974 to 1983 as a project controls engineer. My career in construction started there as I served as the owner's representative on many of the projects that I designed during their construction.

From 1984 to 1988 I worked for the Mountainside Hospital in Montclair, New Jersey, where I acted as the director of construction and the owner's representative, responsible for the design and construction of their new North building.

From 1988 to 1995, I worked for Cathedral Health Care System in Newark, New Jersey, as the corporate vice president of facilities development. In addition to operational responsibilities of the day‑to‑day running of the hospital facilities, I was in charge of the design and construction of a new project at the St. Michael's Medical Center that included a brand new 252,000‑square foot new building and a resulting 82,000 square feet of renovation to older buildings on the campus.

From 1995 to 1997 I worked for Jersey City Medical Center in Jersey City as vice president of construction, and was responsible for the planning and design of the new relocated medical center. From 1997 to 2002, I worked for St. Joseph's Regional Medical Center in Paterson, New Jersey, as the assistant vice president of facilities. I was completely responsible for the planning, design and construction of the new St. Vincent's Nursing Home that was built in Cedar Grove, New Jersey. And I was also responsible for the development of an eight‑phased Facilities Master Plan for the Medical Center at St. Joseph's. And since 2002, I have worked for The Valley Hospital here in Ridgewood as vice president of facilities management.

1. And what are your job responsibilities as vice president of facilities management for the hospital?

1. I have a broad scope for the exercise of independent initiative and judgment and have direct oversight and fiscal responsibility for the departments of facilities development, plant operations, engineering, environmental services ‑‑ otherwise known as housekeeping ‑‑ materials management, food and nutrition, property management, park safety, security and traffic guards. In that regard, I report directly to the chief operating officer at The Valley Hospital.

In addition, I have complete responsibility for the planning, design and construction of all capital facility projects for the hospital system. All architects, engineers, planners, contractors and vendors working for the hospital in the areas of planning, design, construction and construction management all report to me. For these efforts, including for this project, I report directly to the president and chief executive officer.

1. Now, with specific reference to the proposed upgrade and modernization project, which was the subject of the 2013 to 2014 Master Plan Amendment hearing which is the subject of this 2016 Master Plan Amendment, what responsibilities do you have?

1. I am responsible for overseeing the development of the plans and designs for the proposed project. Again, all architects, engineers, planners, contracts ‑‑ contractors and vendors working on this project report directly to me.

1. Have you ever testified before a planning board or a board of adjustment in the State of New Jersey?

1. I believe that I have participated in one working session here at the Ridgewood Planning Board that was conducted during the development of the 2010 Master Plan, but I did not testify during those public hearings. I attended all of the public hearing sessions on the proposed 2013‑2014 Master Plan Amendment, but I did not testify during that hearing. This is my first time to testify during a board proceeding.

1. DRILL: I would like to say there's always a first time. So at this point I want to ask the board to accept MS. MEDIAGO as an expert in healthcare facilities management and construction, and as an expert in construction project planning and management.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Does the board have any questions with regard to this?

1. DOCKRAY: Just one quick question, I assume this is not something that would be a license ‑‑ for which you would get a license?

THE WITNESS: No, it is not.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay, just want to make sure.

Thank you.

THE WITNESS: You're welcome.

1. RAZIN: Maria, did we swear you in?
2. DRILL: Yes.
3. RAZIN: We did?
4. DRILL: Yes.

1. RAZIN: Sorry, just double checking.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The board accepts her as the witness.

BY MR. DRILL:  

1. Okay. Can you summarize for the board, before you get into the details of your presentation and for members of the public, the purpose of the proposed project and the reason the hospital is seeking this 2016 Master Plan Amendment?

1. The major purpose of this project is to replace the outdated Phillips building which contains two‑bedded patient rooms with single patient rooms, to construct new operating theatres, to accommodate new technology and the mechanical infrastructure to support all of the above.

We need to do this in a code compliant manner and within health care standards.

1. Can you describe the differences in the project as contemplated by the 2016 Master Plan Amendment now being considered by the board as compared to the project that was contemplated by the failed 2014 Master Plan Amendment?

1. Yes, I can.

The best way for me to do this is to first describe the project contemplated by the 2014 Master Plan Amendment.

I ask that you put the 2013‑2014 Master Plan bird's‑eye view exhibit up on the screen, which we have marked as Exhibit A‑1 in these proceedings ‑‑

1. DRILL: And just for the record, so there's a thumb drive which has all 17 of our exhibits that we're going to be showing. I made hard copies of all these exhibits and premarked them and gave them to Michael before the hearing commenced, and once the hearing is over that thumb drive is the property of the Planning Board, you could put it up on your website or whatever. Every single individual 17 files on the thumb drive, I have done it by, it says "2016, A‑1," "2016, A‑2," and then there's a description after it and the file names so you can just post them right on the website and anyone who's interested could then click on any exhibit and not have to hunt around and see what they are.

BY MR. DRILL:

1. Okay. So A‑1 is up there on the screen, Maria.

2013. Okay. This visual slide, as you can see, is page ‑‑ slide 28 from Exhibit A‑2 that was entered into evidence on April 2nd, 2013.

Exhibit A‑1 reflects the fact that the only building that would remain on this site after both phases of the project are complete is the Cheel building.

1. And you're indicating with your laser pointer the Cheel building which is in the dark color?
2. Yes, I am.

It also shows the new proposed North building ‑‑ again, this was the 2013‑14 ‑‑ as a five‑story building with a mechanical penthouse.

The new North building at that time would have a height of 80 feet with a 24‑foot high mechanical penthouse on top, for a total of 94 feet.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Maria, excuse me.

Let the record show that MAYOR ARONSOHN has joined the board.

(Whereupon, MAYOR ARONSOHN is now present at the hearing.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Now I ask that you proceed to the new 2016 Master Plan bird's‑eye view.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Maria, may I ask, if you could, just for the public's sake, if you could delineate the locations of the roads because it is difficult to see on there.

1. DRILL: Okay. We'll do that with this new exhibit. We've labeled this exhibit.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It's hard to see.

1. DRILL: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So this exhibit shows the proposed 2016 Master Plan bird's‑eye view. This is North Van Dien Avenue (indicating).

By MR. DRILL:  

1. Again, when you say "this," you're taking the laser pointer ‑‑
2. I am pointing to ‑‑

Q.‑‑ and you're pointing to the image that's up on the screen; correct?

1. Correct. I am now pointing to North Van Dien Avenue now on the exhibit (indicating).

This is Meadowbrook Avenue (indicating).

To the north is the Ben Franklin Middle School driveway and property (indicating).

To the east is Steilen Avenue (indicating).

And to the west is Linwood Avenue (indicating).

1. To the south?
2. To the south is Linwood Avenue.
3. Right?
4. Excuse me.
5. Right.

1. You can see that the North building ‑‑ well, it will now have a height of 56 feet with a 24‑foot mechanical penthouse on top, for a total building height from grade to mechanical of 80 feet.
2. And is that because the fifth patient floor was eliminated?

1. That is correct.

And some of the eliminated square footage would be placed in a wedding cake style stacking on the North Van Dien side of the building.

1. Again indicating with the laser pointer?

1. Right here, grade, levels two through four, and the mechanical penthouse set back even further (indicating).

And I want to point out that the same holds true for the West building which I am now indicating with the pointer (indicating).

The grade level of the West building, step back levels two, three and four, and further step back the mechanical penthouse (indicating). I also want to point out that the basement levels of both the North and the West building remain exactly the same as they did in 2013 and '14. And the basement of the West building, which is under grade level, I am indicating here with the pointer (indicating), is being built now in Phase I instead of Phase II as proposed in the 2013 and 2014 Master Plan.

1. And that's just the basement, the rest of the West building from the first floor up to the top floor is going to be built as part of Phase II; correct?

1. That is correct.

I ask that you please put up the 2013‑2014 Master Plan site section exhibit up on the screen.

1. And that would be Exhibit A‑3?

1. That is correct.

Okay. This is the 2013‑2014 site sections. This visual slide is actually a slide 18 from Exhibit A‑12 that was entered into evidence on May 29th, 2013.

Exhibit A‑3 shows the West building, which I'm pointing out right now with my laser pointer, on the bottom section of this slide ‑‑

1. Could you point to the garage of the West building also, let me describe it, with the ‑‑ with the basement of that West building ‑‑
2. Yes.

Q.‑‑ with the laser pointer?

1. Now, again, that reference point of grade, I am pointing out right here (indicating) with the laser pointer. I'm sorry my hand is shaking. The basement level is shown in white, and that's the basement level of the West building (indicating).

1. DOCKRAY: Excuse me. Is this ‑‑ the top is existing and the bottom is 2016?
2. DRILL: No, no.

THE WITNESS: There is no West building in the existing site.

1. DOCKRAY: That's what I mean so the top is?
2. DRILL: This is all 2014. We haven't gotten to 2016 yet. This is ‑‑
3. DOCKRAY: Okay.
4. DRILL: This is ‑‑
5. DOCKRAY: So 2014 is the bottom.
6. DRILL: Yes.

THE WITNESS: The bottom ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Okay.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ existing is on the top.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay. And you have the basement extending out from the building?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DRILL: And it's been that way since ‑‑

THE WITNESS: And it's not ‑‑ and it has not changed.

1. DOCKRAY: And so it's just underground and there's no ‑‑ it's just underground?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DOCKRAY: You just have basement?

THE WITNESS: Yes. It's a lower level that in 2013 and 2014 was proposed, it was an area that was proposed to be built below grade.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: And the rest of the floors, grade through four, were shown on top with the penthouse on top of the entire floor. The upper floors were at a setback back in 2013‑14 at 100 feet from the property line. And the lower level was 47 feet from the property line (indicating). This was the 2013‑2014 Master Plan Amendment.

If we can now move to the next slide...

BY MR. DRILL:

1. The next slide, the next slide is going to be the 2016 Master Plan cite Section D exhibit, which we've marked as Exhibit A‑4?

1. That's correct. You'll now see that the West building still has a lower level that's projected below grade to be within 47 feet of the North Van Dien property line. Our proposal is to build the first grade level with a setback of 55 feet to North Van Dien. Levels two, three and four remain as they did in 2013‑2014 at 100 feet from the North Van Dien property line. And the penthouse is set back even further at 115 feet from the North Van Dien property line.

1. And did we just stipulate and agree before that we would add a green roof on top of that first floor level of the West building?

1. Yes, we did. And that is planned right here (indicating). I will now move on to the next slide which is Exhibit A‑5 in this presentation.

1. And is that the 2013‑2014 Master Plan site Section E exhibit?

2013. That is correct. And it is the visual slide 19 from Exhibit A‑12, that was entered into evidence on May 29th, 2013.

Here we show that the North building then was contemplated to have its basement, lower level, within 47 feet of the North Van Dien property line.

Levels one through five, grade through five, were going to be stacked right on top of it, at a setback of 120 square feet with the mechanical penthouse on top of the whole building. If we now proceed to the 2016 proposed site section ‑‑

1. That is the 2016 Master Plan Site Section D exhibit which we've marked as Exhibit A‑6; correct?
2. This is Section D, Section E.
3. Section E?
4. Right.
5. If I said "A" I misspoke.
6. Okay.

Yes, this is what we're now proposing in the 2016 Master Plan Amendment.

Again, the proposed North building, lower level remains exactly as it did in the 2013‑2014 proposed Master Plan Amendment. It's setback from the North Van Dien property line 47 feet. However, levels two, three and four are now set back at 75‑feet from the North Van Dien property line. And the penthouse is set back 90 feet from the North Van Dien property line.

1. And, again, just to reiterate, there is a ‑‑ there is proposed to be a green roof on top of the first floor of that proposed North building; is that correct?

1. That's correct. And it would be built in this section (indicating).

I also want to point out that the building roof, which is in the back of the property, has always had a green roof on top of it, and that is not changing in this proposed 2016 Master Plan.

1. And could you just point out one other thing that's not changing, the wall on that rear property line?

1. Correct. In answer ‑‑ back in 2013‑2014 the hospital was asked to include in its Master Plan, and of course this is a slice across the property (indicating), a 20‑foot high wall, which is shown by this vertical straight line (indicating), that then sloped back ‑‑ this is all on the hospital property ‑‑ sloped back towards the Steilen Avenue backyards to provide a high‑planted buffer so that the residents who live in houses along Steilen Avenue would have an even greater, even a higher buffer of the back of the North building.

1. And to answer ‑‑
2. Of the property actually.

1. And to answer Marisol Romero's question about what would that wall look like and whether ‑‑ and if there's a buffer, in fact, so she doesn't have to ask Michael tomorrow, isn't Exhibit A‑12, slide 10, of Exhibit A‑12, show the wall and the landscaping on that sloped area?
2. That's correct.

1. You don't have this exhibit, Maria and I were just talking about.

All right. So let's move on to the next exhibit, let's deal with the setbacks.

So I ask that the next exhibit now be put up, which should be the 2013‑2014 Master Plan Setback exhibit, and that's been marked as Exhibit A‑7?

1. Correct. This is also the visual slide 21 from Exhibit A‑29 that was entered into evidence on July 16th, 2013.

The only changes to the setbacks that will change from Exhibit A‑7 are along the westerly sides of the North Van Dien property line in front of the North building and the West building and ‑‑

1. And we'll show that on the next exhibit and Blais has been through this, so why don't we just go to the next exhibit instead of us being duplicative.

So can you go to the next exhibit which should be ‑‑

1. That's it.

Q.‑‑ Exhibit A‑8, which is the 2016 setback exhibit, and that's actually a ‑‑ that's from the proposed 2016 Master Plan; correct?

1. That is correct.

1. And, again, unless you feel a burning desire to talk about it, since it's already been discussed, don't feel compelled to talk about it.

If you have anything you want to say about it, say it, maybe people will have questions for you, but do you want to say anything or not?

1. Yes, I do.

I think this is an opportune time to point out what's happening within this 40‑foot buffer on the northern side of the North Van Dien ‑‑ of the North building. Within this 40‑foot buffer, in addition to a heavily landscaped buffer right along the property line, there is also a fire lane that employs the use of vegetative hard surface so the grass can grow up in between these hard surface bricks, so to speak, that provide enough support for a fire truck if it needs to.

1. So these are something that some people refer to as planted pavers?

1. Correct, correct. And right now there's a gate between the Ben Franklin driveway and the hospital property to allow emergency vehicles access to the hospital property in order to fight fires or respond to other emergencies. And this whole wing, after ‑‑ inside of the heavily landscaped buffer, not at the gate, is planted in that manner.

Also, the curb ramp of the grade above level four of the North building called for our Kurth Cottage and visitors dining to be in this area of the North building (indicating). And there is a potential for some tables to be out around this corner, in good weather only.

1. And, again, you're indicating with the laser pointer ‑‑
2. The northwest corner of the site with the 47‑foot buffer along North Van Dien and slightly turning the corner within the 40‑foot buffer on the northern side.

1. So what did the hospital agree to do to mitigate the changes in those westerly setbacks along North Van Dien by virtue of a westerly side of the North building, which will be constructed in Phase I, and the westerly side of the West building that's going to be constructed in Phase II, being closer to North Van Dien than in the 2014 plan?

1. The key to mitigating these decreased setbacks along the westerly side of the North and West building is additional landscaping and varied building materials as provided for in paragraph 4B of the remand order.

I will read from the remand order in this regard, because the additional landscaping and varied building materials are not limited only to the westerly sides of the West and the North buildings.

The remand order provides, in paragraph 4B, that: "In order to create more of a campus feel and appearance, and to further enhance the aesthetics of new construction and to mitigate visible mass, the 2016 Master Plan shall provide for the following: Addition of pathways for use by patients, visitors and employees; addition of existing landscaping design such as water features and outdoor gardens and patios, with the inclusion in other areas of the property; addition of landscaping and shrubbery to the outdoor dining area along the common property line between the Benjamin Franklin Middle School."

1. And not to cut you off at this point, I am going to start you up again, but can you take the laser pointer and point out where that area is because there was a board member question about that?

1. It's right at this corner (indicating).
2. You're pointing to the?
3. The northwest corner of the property and the northwest corner of the North building. It doesn't extend fully down this buffer (indicating).

1. And that's an existing condition proposed to continue; correct?
2. Existing condition in the 2013‑2014 Master Plan. And it's proposed to continue into the 2016 Master Plan.

1. All right. Can you continue on the ‑‑
2. DOCKRAY: At the same physical location within that buffer, the 47 feet, that's where the outdoor dining was.

THE WITNESS: It was going ‑‑ it is ‑‑ it was proposed to turn this corner (indicating). So there is an exit door out of Kurth Cottage that was proposed, in order to provide an opportunity ‑‑ an opportunity for outdoor dining when the weather is good.

47. DOCKRAY: But it was 120 feet back, not 47.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. DOCKRAY: Thank you.

                                                  

1. DRILL: Just putting it out there, if the board wants us to get rid of that, we'll get rid of it. We thought it would be, you know, nice for the hospital staff and everything, but if you don't think that it should be there because it somehow takes away from landscaping, we will eliminate it, just let us know.

THE WITNESS: Right.

BY MR. DRILL:

1. Can you keep on going?
2. On the addition of landscaping and ‑‑ ‑ oh, I just did that one.
3. Yes.

1. Provisions for mandatory replacement of all trees eliminated in the Linwood and/or North Van Dien right‑of‑way due to off‑street improvements.

Provision for the use of "invisible" parapets, where safety features are required and parapets are not needed for screening.

1. And we're not going to go into details about that because Blais did it.

1. Correct. Provision for the use of varied building materials, texture and color, at the exterior of the mechanical penthouses, including but not limited to the mechanical penthouses of the North building and to be used in the construction of any parapets that cannot be constructed as "invisible" parapets necessary for screening of rooftop mechanical equipment of a "green screen" shall be installed in front of the exterior of the North building and the West building mechanical penthouses, only with the exception of areas that are not directly in front of air louvres.

1. Again, just to ‑‑ we had a board member question about that, we gave a little answer, but could you give a more detailed answer about exactly what is a green screen?
2. Surely.

1. And what areas around the mechanical penthouse facade it would be?
2. A green screen usually provides for a mesh or strings of metal offset from the building structure, in the area of two to four feet, upon which growing vines, ivy, crawling, creeping plantings can grow.

It is proposed that those vegetative screens, green screens, would be placed wherever there are not louvres along the mechanical penthouse perimeter, so as not to impede the intake and exhaust of air from the mechanical room.

1. Okay. You can go back to the ‑‑ I think you just have one more point to hit on that remand order.

1. "In addition, an addition of a green roof with planting in addition to grass on the one story of the western elevation of the proposed North building" ‑‑
2. And we also ‑‑

A.‑‑ but we also tonight, we talked about we never intended not to plant a green roof on the one‑story addition in the West building.

1. Okay. Changing topics, were photo simulations of the new buildings prepared under your supervision and control?

1. Yes, I directed Steve Evers, the project architect, to prepare photo simulations.
2. And can you briefly describe to the board and the public how the photo simulations were created?
3. It's okay.

1. Give the preparation before we go into the first one.
2. Sure. The base photographs were taken in 2010 using a digital camera at each location. Now, for this, I'd like to go back to slide ‑‑ is it A‑1? Yes.
3. It's ‑‑

1. Correct. Thank you very, very much.

So there were six locations that I'll point out right now on this full color bird's‑eye view. There was ‑‑

1. Actually, let's use, if you don't mind, Exhibit A‑2 instead of A‑1, the next one. This is the 2016 bird's eye.

1. Correct. So photo simulations were done from the ball field at Ben Franklin Middle School to the northern side of the North building. They were also taken from the intersection of Meadowbrook Avenue, one house west of Van Dien, as well as at the intersection which is off ‑‑

1. Off the chart.

A.‑‑ off this chart at the intersection of Meadowbrook and Bogert Avenue.

Photo simulation was done in the approximate location of the existing southerly driveway into the hospital campus. That driveway in the proposed 2013 and continuing into the 2016 Master Plan Amendment was moved north. The view is in front of the garage.

1. So the view the photo simulation is going to show is what the Phillips garage would look like from that area?
2. Correct.

1. And not to backtrack, but the photo sims from the Ben Franklin Middle School ball field and the two points along Meadowbrook would show the North building; correct?

1. Correct.

There are two other points where photo simulations were taken. They were taken from the rear yard of 258 Steilen Avenue, as well as in front of 318 Steilen Avenue.

9. Okay. So now can we go into the photo simulations, so I guess the first one would be Exhibit A‑9.

A.A‑9.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can we turn the lights out so we can maybe see the contrast a little better in the photos?

THE WITNESS: Sure.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is that all right?

1. DRILL: There we go.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Oh, yeah, thank you. Much better.

THE WITNESS: All right.

So here we are taking a long view shooting eastward from the intersection of Meadowbrook and Bogert Avenue towards the new North building (indicating).

Here we tried to depict a change in material; instead of it being all brick as it was in 2013‑2014, the change in texture and color.

Again, it's not definitive at this point but the intent ‑‑

BY MR. DRILL:

1. Hold on. Well, let me put it this way: These photo simulations, you've obviously depicted colors or materials for the photo simulations?
2. Correct.

1. So when you're saying it's not definitive, it's not like Valley's saying whatever color we want we get. What you're saying is whatever color when we get to the site plan application that the board wants ‑‑
2. Right.

Q.‑‑ the board would get; is that correct?

1. That is correct.

1. So can you specify, when you're looking at this exhibit, the long view from Meadowbrook Avenue, what portion of the North building is in brick and what is the portion that to me at least, appears to be green, or when people look at this exhibit on their own computer it might be blue?

1. The portion of the structure of the North building that's in brick represents level ‑‑ grades, level one on grade through level four, and the area depicted in the light green is the mechanical penthouse.

1. Okay.
2. Again, the intent is to have the top of the building be a texture and color so as to give the appearance that it blends into the sky, thereby diminishing the overall appearance of the building.

1. And the design of the building 2014 had brick all the way up, and can you explain why the ‑‑ why there is a mechanical penthouse? Why don't you just have mechanical equipment on top of the roof with screening?

Why is it enclosed with a penthouse?

1. The mechanical room is enclosed in the penthouse to offer visual ‑‑ to, A, to block it from view and also for sound attenuation, so as to keep the workings of what's in the penthouse quiet to the neighbors and also blocking it from the view of the neighbors.

10. Would you move to the next slide which should be Exhibit A‑10.
11. Correct. And this gives you a better close‑up view of what we were just talking about on the long view. This is taken again on Meadowbrook, looking east towards the North building. And we're one house back from the intersection of Meadowbrook and North Van Dien.

Here you can see a more ‑‑ in better detail the brick stops at the level four patient level and then the textured material used on the penthouse, again in a color that will aid in making the bulk of the building appear less imposing.

1. And, again, not to lock ‑‑ not to lock the value of the board into any material, but does that happen to be metal panels that are either like green, blue or grayish in that exhibit?

1. That would be a material that we would consider because if we're going to add some green screen in these areas, you're going to need a substantial backing in order to anchor the green screen, of some strength.

1. But, again, if the board, when they get to site plan approval, wanted some different color, that would be acceptable to the hospital; correct?

1. That is correct.

1. And I just noted from looking at this photo simulation, it looks like the mechanical penthouse is on the same plain with the brick of the first floor ‑‑ the first four of the stories; is that mechanical penthouse in the same plain or is the mechanical penthouse set back a little?

1. The patient tower is set back at 74 feet, the face of the penthouse is set back 90 feet, so there's a difference of 16 feet.

1. Okay. Can we go to the next exhibit?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Excuse me, I just have a question.

THE WITNESS: Oh, sure. Sure.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Sorry. Maria, just real quick, when I am looking at this mechanical penthouse it has kind of a bluish green color, to the left of that I see what appears to be brick building on top of the trees; is that ‑‑

THE WITNESS: What you're seeing is the stair tower that is at the back of the building. It's an egress stair tower and it's depicted on some of the elevation sections. It's not close to the street at all, it's at the back of the North building.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And what is the ‑‑ the setback from Van Dien from where we have been working all along from Van Dien to that particular structure, that particular part of the mass?

1. DRILL: You're talking about what's the setback from the stair tower to Van Dien?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yeah, exactly. Like, if I took a ‑‑ just a sight line from the top of that brick to Van Dien, how far is ‑‑ what's the distance from the ‑‑ from the property line to that particular brick work, roughly?

THE WITNESS: It's roughly 200 feet.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. So that ‑‑

1. DRILL: And, again, if the board wanted the stair tower in a different material, Valley would make the stair tower in a different material. If you think, because it's a stair tower, brick looks more prominent and you want it to blend in more, then again, at site plan, if the board chose and said, yes, you know what, we want the top of that stair tower, or the whole stair tower for that matter, to be other than brick, different material, different color, what would Valley say?

THE WITNESS: Of course. That would be fine, of course.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. DRILL:

11. Can we go to the next exhibit, which I believe should be Exhibit A‑11.
12. Correct. Now, you may recall that I discussed the fact that the existing hospital driveway is in this exhibit location that it will no longer be in when this project, if it should be built, is built. This has not changed from 2013‑14 to the 2016 proposed Master Plan Amendment. So I can tell you that this part of the simulation and to the right, as well as the foreground, about up to this point, and then all of this into the left (indicating), is actually taken from a photograph. And in order to depict what the Phillips garage would look like, we ‑‑ I felt ‑‑

1. With ‑‑ with landscaping?
2. With landscaping, which is part of what we would be doing, mature landscaping.

1. And you simulated the landscaping?
2. We simulated the landscaping from this point over to this point (indicating).

Again, this is the southerly entrance into the campus in front of Kurth Cottage as it exists today.

1. So now can we go to the next slide, which should be Exhibit A‑12?
2. Okay. We prepared the simulation of the North building from Steilen Avenue in the street ‑‑

1. This is the front of 318 Steilen?
2. The front of 318 Steilen.

1. Can you take the laser pointer and identify, you know, point to the North building.
2. Absolutely.

It's sitting in between the trees right here (indicating).

1. And what is that, that looks like it's like grayish parallel lines?
2. Those are louvres at the back of the mechanical penthouse so on the eastern side of the mechanical penthouse.
3. Okay. And could you go to the next slide, which should be Exhibit 13?
4. This is the photo simulation taken from the rear yard of 258 Steilen Avenue.
5. Just again, for the record, these photos were taken in 2010; correct?
6. That is correct.

1. And in 2010, the property owner gave consent for your photographer to go on the property and take the picture?
2. That is correct. And in order to access this backyard we needed permission to be accompanied by the owner to travel through their house to get to the backyard. And the entire photo, the photograph includes all of the existing vegetation that was in the backyard at that time.

What you're looking at is the southernmost, southern face of the North building, cooling towers in this area with louvres (indicating), the smokestack of the central power plant (indicating), the closed area of mechanical equipment screen ‑‑

1. Is that actually a screen for mechanical equipment that actually ‑‑
2. Right.

Q.‑‑ cannot be enclosed because those are chillers?

1. Yes, yes. Air handlers and chillers, and then the start of the enclosed mechanical penthouse, and these window sections, again, are louvres (indicating).

1. I don't know if I could ‑‑ that's Exhibit 13?
2. That is correct.
3. Okay. So let's go to the last photo simulation.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Could I just go over that ‑‑ I have one more question please go back, Maria. So again now to the left ‑‑

THE WITNESS: This is the Cheel building (indicating).

1. DRILL: Cheel.

THE WITNESS: That's our existing building now ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And that does not change either FOR Phase I or Phase II.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Maria, just for perspective, what is the height of the Cheel building presently ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The Cheel building ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: With mechanicals, what I'm seeing there, what would that height be?

THE WITNESS: Yes, the building is 48 feet tall with a 17‑foot mechanical penthouse so the overall height is 65 feet.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Great. Thank you.

BY MR. DRILL:

1. Can we go to the last photo simulation, which should be Exhibit A‑14?
2. Remember these pictures were taken in 2010, so the running track that currently exists at the Ben Franklin Middle School was not there; however, the ball field, you could see the end of the infield as it proceeds (indicating) into the outfield. And, again, the second baseball diamond in this section (indicating). This depicts the northern side of the North building and the eastern side of the North building.

Susan, this is the stairwell (indicating) that you saw off in the distance when we were looking at it from the street, from North Van Dien Avenue. And, again, there is some screening of rooftop mechanicals. The smokestack is enclosed in a section next to the stairwell. And then, again, louvres of the mechanical penthouse (indicating).

1. And, again, this mechanical screening looks, for lack of a better word, color of silver or gray, but again, if the Planning Board in the site plan process wanted it some other color, I assume that the hospital is fine with that?
2. The hospital is fine with that. And that's why we show the silver on this side and the green on the northern side (indicating) so as to give you the ability to understand that once you go by the color it actually fades or moves into the sky and diminishes the appearance.

 

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So, Maria, in order for ‑‑ for me to have seen that on that other perspective, from that other vantage point, is that actually closer to the property line or is that the same setback from BF?

THE WITNESS: It's within the 40‑foot setback.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Is that the stairwell?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DRILL: I mean, is it fair to say that these perspectives all depend on where you're taking the photograph from, the further back you are ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes. No, I understand, I just wanted to be clear on that.

And just one more time, because you said those ‑‑ did you call them chillers? What did you call those things that can't be enclosed?

THE WITNESS: These (indicating)?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes.

THE WITNESS: The chillers can't be enclosed, they need to evaporate water ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I just wanted to get the word ‑‑ the term that you used.

1. DRILL: Is a chiller an air conditioning type, piece of equipment?

THE WITNESS: Well, it's ‑‑ there are two pieces of equipment. There's the air handler that chills the water from the cooling towers to create chilled air that's then run through the buildings.

The chillers are enclosed, the...

1. DRILL: The air handler.

THE WITNESS: The air handlers are enclosed ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Oh, okay.

THE WITNESS: The chillers are not.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: ‑‑ I can't hear, if you're not using the microphone.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. The air handlers are enclosed. The chillers need to be open to the atmosphere.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So, now, when ‑‑ when we're talking about the enclosures and the penthouse, the penthouse is designed for sound attenuation?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So the question then is on the ‑‑ that ‑‑ those chillers, now those produce noise. What is ‑‑ because that sound is not enclosed, so there's no sound attenuation material to diminish ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Actually these screens are made (indicating) with sound attenuation insulation. And they come in various thicknesses and sound tempering, so we would design those enclosures to be appropriate to meet the New Jersey noise codes.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay, but they would have essentially the same effect as the enclosure that has the sound attenuation material, so it would be the same ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Correct. So ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: ‑‑ noise reduction?

THE WITNESS: So, for example, things that would be enclosed within the enclosed penthouse, are things like pumps, the air handlers that require daily checking, maintenance, you know, in order to make sure that things are functioning properly.

The chillers have to be, by engineering principles, exposed to the atmosphere, water needs to evaporate.

BY MR. DRILL:

1. Some of the pumps and the other things that need more constant maintenance, I assume that those are a little noisier and ‑‑
2. Well, sure, they're whirring and ‑‑
3. The board doesn't know that.
4. Okay.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So ‑‑ and typically what is the materials that the chillers are ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Excuse me, Susan. I know you missed the first part. We're going through a process, I know it's difficult with the images. But we're allowing testimony to be given, as we did with Blais ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: ‑‑ and then when we're done then all the board members will be have an opportunity to ask questions. I know it's awkward but let's try to stick to the rules.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Do you mind if I just follow with my last two little pieces?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Last piece.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Good. Thanks, because Maria is being so nice to me.

What is the material that those are typically made of?

1. DRILL: Which are the "those", the chillers?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Of the chillers.

THE WITNESS: The chiller enclosures? Metal.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And then are they also the same 24 foot height.

1. DRILL: Say again.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Are they the same height as the [receive|rest] of the mechanicals.

1. DRILL: Are they the same height as the rest of the mechanical penthouses?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: As the rest ‑‑ right, the penthouses.

1. DRILL: Are they 24 feet high, you want to know.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes.

THE WITNESS: At this point, they're depicted to be 24‑foot high.

Chillers are not small pieces of equipment. So we don't want to go above 24 feet, we want to make sure that they're blocked.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: That could be tweaked as we move into further design.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Now Charles won't let me ask any more questions until you're done.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you very much.

BY MR. DRILL:  

1. Okay. So, Maria, listen very carefully, without revealing any of the conversations that took place during the mediation, is it correct that the photo simulation locations were chosen as a result of the mediation process?

1. That is correct.
2. Okay. So did I ask you to put together an exhibit that would show how the hospital intended to comply with paragraph 4(a) of the remand order, which provides for the reduction in building floor area from the project contemplated in the 2013‑14 Master Plan Amendment to the current 2016 Master Plan Amendment?
3. Yes, you did.

1. Is that up on the screen right now as Exhibit A‑16?
2. Yes, it is up on the screen. And it is our Exhibit A‑15, which shows exactly how the hospital will reduce the floor area as required by the remand order. So let's ‑‑ if we're doing this in a comparative way, we'll start with the 2014 building components. The total hospital above‑grade square footage was 685,000 square feet, the rooftop floor space was 95,000 square feet and the lower levels floor space, below grade, was 215,000 square feet, for a 2014 proposed building floor area at the completion of Phase II of 995,000 square feet.

In 2016, in order to...

1. Eliminate?
2. Eliminate the uppermost patient room floor, we added 31,600 square feet, which is depicted on the wedding cake stacking diagram, the elimination of patient floor above grade eliminated 58,100 square feet, the entire level. We agreed to find and reduce the North building above grade floor area by 5,000 square feet and the North or West building below grade square footage of 2,500 square feet, for a total floor area reduction of 34,000 square feet.

1. DRILL: Could you move that exhibit up a little because we have like a ta‑da on the bottom.

FEMALE ASSISTANT: That's as high as it goes.

1. DRILL: Can you ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Can you, on the right‑hand side can you scroll down?

1. DRILL: ‑‑ enlarge it?

THE WITNESS: No, no, she needs to scroll down.

1. DRILL: There we go. Now push it up a little.

THE WITNESS: And now scroll down. And scroll to the right. Thank you.

So the total 2016 proposed building floor area will be 961,000 square feet.

BY MR. DRILL:

1. Okay. Did I also ask you to put together an additional exhibit that would show the building floor area by phase of the project?
2. Yes, you did.
3. Can we go to the next exhibit, which should be Exhibit A‑16?
4. That is correct.

1. Would you walk the board through this exhibit?
2. Yes. Sure, I will. In Phase I, the North building, building square footage is 448,500 square feet. That's above grade and below grade. The Cheel building as it exists today is 280,000 square feet. The Bergen building as it exists today and will remain during Phase I is 215,000 square feet. Going to build the lower level of the West building ‑‑

1. You mean the basement; correct, when you say "lower level" ‑‑
2. The lower level, the level below grade, we'll call it basement, the lower level, of that West building that was going to be constructed as part of Phase II is being constructed now in Phase I. So the total site area after ‑‑

1. The total building floor area, right?
2. Correct. At the completion of Phase I will be 980,500 square feet.

1. Now walk us through Phase II.
2. In Phase II, the North building already exists at 448,500 square feet. The Cheel building will be reduced down to 193,000 square feet. The Bergen building will be dismantled so it will not exist after Phase II. The rest of the West ‑‑ well, the entirety of the West building will now be built out for a total of 135,000 square feet. And the South building, which does not exist now, nor will it exist during Phase I, will be built in Phase II, for a total of 184,000 square feet. So that the proposed building floor area at the end of Phase II would be 961,000 square feet.

1. I know it says it up there, but at the end of Phase I, the building floor area is 908,500 square feet; correct?
2. Correct.

1. At the end of Phase II, it is 961,000 square feet in increase from Phase I to Phase II, because you're eliminating one building and eliminating a piece of another, is an increase of 45,800 square feet. That's a question?
2. That's correct.

1. Okay. Now, switching topics again, are you aware of paragraph five of the remand order which provides that a list of conditions previously generated during the 2013‑2014 Master Plan hearing must be included as an exhibit and be made part of the record of the 2016 Master Plan Amendment process?
2. Yes, I am.

1. And has the hospital put together such a list? And if so, can you read it into the record and make it part of the record of this process that the remand order required?
2. Yes, I will. Can we please go to the next exhibit.

17. And just for the record, this is the list of conditions generated during the 2013‑2014 Master Plan hearing and this is now being made an exhibit as Exhibit A‑17. And can you ‑‑ I need you to read each one of those conditions. And at certain points, if it addresses a question that's been asked, I'm going to want you to comment on that.
18. Okay. There are seven pages here so please bear with me and they are grouped into certain categories so...

1. Let's just get the categories first.

1. The categories are general and design related Master Plan conditions, general construction process related conditions, construction related conditions for specific inclusion in future developer's agreement with specifics to be determined post‑site approval, traffic related conditions to be further detailed at site plan and/or for specific inclusion in the developer's agreement, the Board of Education recommended condition not covered elsewhere herein, and I think that's it.

1. Right. Now, could you go back to the beginning and before you, you know, when you go through the list, first give the category of condition.
2. Uh‑huh. So the first category are the general and design related Master Plan conditions.

"No. 1, The construction timeframe for Phase I of the development is reduced to six years with approximately 45 percent of the construction to be interior to the buildings.

"No. 2, Installation of approximately 20‑foot high wall along Steilen Avenue border with landscaped buffer consistent with slide 10 of Exhibit A‑12 presented during the 2013‑2014 Master Plan hearings.

1. And that was the exhibit I referenced before?
2. From Ms. Banyra (phonetic), yes.

"No. 3, Provision of firefighting and emergency apparatus deemed required by emergency service departments to handle emergency and fire related emergencies that may occur in the parking garage.

"4, Loading bays to be sealed to mitigate acoustical impacts.

"5, Compliance with the New Jersey State Noise Coding.

"6, The top level of the Phillips parking garage not to be used at all, no parking on the top level of the Phillips parking garage from dusk to dawn. Security lighting only on the top level to be used dusk to dawn."

1. So in answer to another question that was asked about why does the "if necessary" language I believe in the Master Plan have to be there, since we've agreed to this as a condition, if the Planning Board wanted they could take out that "if necessary" language out of the Master Plan Amendment; is that correct?

1. That is correct.

Continuing, "No. 7, Trash and recycling compactors to be internally fed.

"8, No parking stalls facing the 20‑foot landscape buffer along Steilen Avenue."

Now proceed to the next category of general construction process related conditions. "Dewatering is not to exceed 300,000 gallons per day during construction with the average daily being 200,000 gallons per day. "No use of structural tiebacks outside the boundaries of the hospital property.

"No. 3, Subject to County of Bergen, Village and New Jersey Department of Transportation approval, The Valley Hospital shall install, at its sole cost and expense, new traffic signal equipment at affected intersections, including video detection systems to add additional green time in the proper directions, not video cameras, and countdown timers including ADA hearing impaired timers.

"4, Subject to County of Bergen, Village and New Jersey Department of Transportation approval, The Valley Hospital, at its sole cost and expense, shall complete all traffic improvements along Linwood Avenue, including at the intersection of Van Dien, North Pleasant and John Street. This work shall include, but not be limited to, widening, installation of improvements to the intersection and possible signal retiming, and shall be completed prior to the commencement of Phase I unless, otherwise approved by the Village Engineer.

"5, Demolition of all existing buildings on‑site shall be through dismantling.

"6, The project shall comply with all applicable air quality standards which will ensure community protection.

"7, The Valley Hospital shall monitor noise, sediment and vibration throughout the construction process." Moving on to the next set of conditions, these are construction related conditions for specific inclusion in the future developer's agreement with specifics to be determined post‑site plan approval.

"No. 1, Any blasting shall be "controlled blasting".

"No. 2, Prior to any blasting and/or dewatering, The Valley Hospital shall conduct structural assessments of every home which grants access and permission within the circular rings depicted in the cone of depression drawings contained in Exhibit

A‑11 presented during the 2013‑2014 Master Plan hearings. Valley Hospital shall take photographs and videos of existing conditions and then return after blasting for post‑blasting survey. The Valley Hospital and/or its contractors and/or subcontractors shall provide insurance coverage to cover any damage.

"No. 3, Dewatering noise shall comply with the New Jersey State Noise Code.

"No. 4, Prior to construction, The Valley Hospital shall generate a site specific air monitoring plan covering interior building locations and exterior locations on the property.

"No. 5, As part of the monitoring plan, The Valley Hospital shall have a system in place to monitor absolute contaminants and markers, tracers of contaminants.

"No. 6, The monitoring system shall review data in real-time on a continuous 24‑hour basis to ensure all air levels are acceptable. Reports of same shall be provided to the Village Engineer on a schedule to be determined by him or her.

"No. 7, The contaminant monitoring shall occur at the interior work zone at the property lines with weather and wind impact checks.

"No. 8, There shall be oversight of The Valley Hospital construction process by an independent village consultant to be paid for from The Valley Hospital escrow pursuant to law.

"The Valley Hospital shall establish and provide a chain of command for all responsible personnel" and means ‑‑ I'm sorry, "and methods of communication including e‑mail addresses, cell phone numbers and any other relevant contact information. The list shall include both on‑site personnel and off‑site Valley Hospital representatives and shall be provided to the Village Engineer. The on‑site construction consultant, the Village Manager and any other village representatives designated in the developer's agreement.

"No. 9, Prior to construction, The Valley Hospital shall develop a safety program to include contractor screening and background checking, and implementation of a worker identification badging system, which program shall be subject to the review and the approval of the Village Engineer.

"No. 10, The construction site shall be secured with fencing and with gated entrance.

"No. 11, Noise abatement technology shall be used during construction, including sound blankets and sound deafening material on the inside of the fence surrounding the property.

"No. 12, Prior to any construction and as an exhibit to any developer's agreement, The Valley Hospital shall establish a list of construction related issues or items addressed and agreed upon with the Ridgewood Board of Education, including but not limited to any additional pedestrian safety measures, crossing guards, walking patterns, sidewalk modifications that are to be implemented.

"No. 13, Except in the case of an emergency, no Sunday construction shall be permitted.

"No. 14, The Valley Hospital shall provide a standby generator for use in case of dewatering shut off or power failure.

Moving on to the fourth set of conditions, these are traffic related conditions to be further detailed at site plan and/or for specific inclusion in the developer's agreement.

"No. 1, All construction workers shall be shuttled to the site by bus or by shuttle. Contractor parking shall not be permitted on village streets.

"No. 2, Employees shall be shuttled to the site during construction with implementation of a system using swipe card assignment.

"No. 3, Preparation of a parking management plan prior to the commencement of construction.

"No. 4, Developing construction trucking routes inclusive of truck and delivery access times to and from the site with coordination of the village professional and the Board of Education.

"5, There shall be no idling of construction trucks.

"6, Jake brake on trucks shall be prohibited.

"7, Prior to construction, preparation of an off‑site staging location plan for trucks to be filed with the Village Engineer. Moving along, the fifth set of conditions, the Board of Education recommended conditions not covered elsewhere herein.

"No. 1, Preparation of an environmental baseline study performed at the Benjamin Franklin Middle School property line prior to the commencement of any construction.

"No. 2, Continuous monitoring system for contaminants with signal when levels of dirt, dust and pollutants become higher than acceptable based upon guidelines established by independent experts. Action levels defined for each contaminant which if exceeded will trigger immediate investigation of work practices, modified work practices and work stoppage until concentrations have returned to below action levels.

"No. 3, To the extent feasible, building demolition shall be completed in the summer months or alternatively, use dust reduction demolition techniques to be employed when summer demolition is not possible.

"No. 4, Control dirt and dust in the air and if dust or dust leave the property and migrate to the Benjamin Franklin or Travell schools, clean those schools of the dust and dirt.

"5, Adjustments to construction, traffic schedule, based upon school events and field events.

And "6, Retention of security guards on a 24‑hour basis on The Valley Hospital site."

BY MR. DRILL:

1. Okay. My last question is whether you could ‑‑ my last question is whether you can confirm the fact that other than the elimination of the fifth floor in the North building, the decrease in the building floor area of the project, the revisions to the setbacks of the North and West buildings along North Van Dien, and the construction of the West building basement in Phase I instead of Phase II, could you confirm that there are no other changes in the project from that contemplated in the 2014 Master Plan Amendment?
2. Yes, I confirm that.

1. And I'm not going to ask you to repeat the four items that I mentioned in my introduction, I'm just going to ask you to confirm that what I said was correct?
2. DRILL: Unless the board wants to hear Maria repeat what I said about the four thing that weren't changing.

Anyone want to hear Maria ‑‑

BY MR. DRILL:

1. Can you just confirm that those four things I said, which was basements in the buildings not increasing the size or depth, overall square footage of the project decreasing, the expert testimony from Dr. Shannon Magari regarding the issues of fine particulate matter and contaminants and how it will be dealt with so it won't result in any adverse harm or health impacts, and fourth, the time period for construction. Everything I said in my introduction is correct?

1. Everything you said in your introduction is correct.
2. DRILL: So I have no further questions for MS. MEDIAGO.

Before I turn her over for questioning, I would want to ‑‑ I want to reiterate something that was already said, and just ‑‑ I want to place like a prophylactic objection on the record. I don't want to object to any cross examination of Maria by anybody. So I'm just asking that everyone respect the remand order and keep the questions to what she testified to and keep the questions, if at all possible, and I am pleading, to changes from the 2014 to the 2016 Master Plan. I don't want to interrupt the flow of cross‑examination, and so I'm just stating that, hopefully, this will prevent any of those questions being asked. I just want to make it clear, if I choose not to object I don't want that held against me, I don't want to be deemed to have waived any objection if I just sit idly by and say nothing if that stuff happens.

So MS. MEDIAGO is ready for questioning.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: You want to comment or should we proceed with questions?

1. RAZIN: Yes, we've tried to repeat that throughout the evening and so we will continue to try and work on those efforts and hopefully everybody will be cooperative.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. We'll continue again as we did with ‑‑

1. RAZIN: Can I just have, just to clarify ‑‑ I'm sorry. The clarifying condition, I just want to double check, the conditions ‑‑ these were conditions that were generated from the ‑‑ primarily from the transcript of the ‑‑ ‑
2. DRILL: Very good point. Right.
3. RAZIN: ‑‑ of the 2013‑14 hearing.

1. DRILL: Right. These conditions were generated during the 2013‑2014 hearing process. The way they were generated was going through all the transcripts and going through all these exhibits in the notebook. The combination of going through all that picked up these conditions. And as I said before, the ‑‑ we missed ‑‑ it wasn't a condition and it wasn't in the consent order, but we've agreed to add as a condition or add it to the Master Plan Amendment, whatever the green roof over the West building, and there was something else that wasn't picked up that we said before we would do. And it's just escaping me.

1. RAZIN: So to that end these were stipulations by potentially various other experts that have already testified in those proceedings, and they're not necessarily ‑‑ they're not changes, they're just ‑‑ you're just re‑asserting them as a list of conditions and confirming them for the record this evening and will be part of what we carry forward if this ‑‑ if this was ultimately approved.

1. DRILL: That's correct.
2. RAZIN: Okay.
3. DRILL: Yes, we're not just doing it for that reason. We're also doing it, hopefully, so people who maybe weren't here won't ask those questions because we dealt with them.
4. RAZIN: These are not changes.
5. DRILL: That's absolutely correct. This ‑‑
6. RAZIN: These are not changes. These are ‑‑
7. DRILL: These are not changes. These are things that we agreed to over the course of ‑‑
8. RAZIN: The 28 hearings.

1. DRILL: ‑‑ 28 hearings over two years.

I mean, it was painstaking for the people involved to have to go through and pull these conditions out of all those transcripts and reports, but this is the right way to do it.

1. PATIRE: Can I ask a question? Are those ‑‑ are those new as of today or have those been submitted.

1. DRILL: No, I'm saying, these conditions ‑‑

1. PATIRE: No, no, no, this, this document (indicating).
2. DRILL: Yeah, this is an exhibit because the remand order said ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The document is on the record.

1. PATIRE: This is on the record.

1. DRILL: This is ‑‑ yes, this is brand new. And this is Exhibit A‑17, and this exhibit is on the memory stick. And so this exhibit will be ‑‑ presumably all these exhibits will be ‑‑
2. RAZIN: We'll put them up on the website.
3. DRILL: ‑‑ on the village website.

1. DOCKRAY: Yes, but we never discussed these.
2. RAZIN: What ‑‑ what Jon ‑‑ I'll let Jon answer, go ahead.
3. DRILL: Yes. These are conditions that, quite frankly, had the board approved the 2014 Master Plan Amendment, the board would have imposed these conditions, because these conditions were generated from one of three places; either, A, a board member asked for it; B, one of our experts offered it; or C, one of the Planning Board experts suggested it.
4. DOCKRAY: Yeah, but we didn't all agree on it.
5. DRILL: Well, because you rejected the plan.
6. DOCKRAY: Right, okay. So that's ‑‑
7. DRILL: Right.
8. DOCKRAY: ‑‑ that's still up for us to decide on these conditions. Since we didn't all agree on them since they weren't brought to our attention specifically.
9. DRILL: Well, they were absolutely ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: You might have one board member who said ‑‑
2. RAZIN: Yes.
3. DOCKRAY: ‑‑ let's have this condition, but we didn't all say, Uh‑huh, let's agree on that condition.
4. DRILL: There were ‑‑

1. RAZIN: Well, the testimony is I think what it is. I mean, I don't ‑‑ I mean I think that the ‑‑ they're not changes, so I think whatever stands in the documents that go back to 2013 and 2014 ‑‑ that's why I asked that question, because the various witnesses testified to them or they were stipulations that were placed on the record at various points in the proceeding in 2013 ‑‑ they didn't come out of thin air or were never discussed ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: I just ‑‑
2. DRILL: We prepared this with the transcripts, they were mentioned by various ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Right. I don't think we all decided. Let's ‑‑ on those various conditions. Some of those are, you know, things that I thought we would discuss at a later date. So prior to the developer's ‑‑  

1. RAZIN: Yes, well, I think what you ‑‑ well, that's why if you go to the list of the headings, and most of ‑‑ I would say after the first heading, most of the conditions are being addressed with any kind ‑‑ with any kind of specificity at a later date. I think the only ones are the first set which talks about construction in six years which was, I think, one of the first things we talked about. So ‑‑
2. DRILL: Right. But we wanted to make clear ‑‑
3. RAZIN: So ‑‑

1. DRILL: ‑‑ that we were standing behind the testimony and the representations that were made.

That's why we ‑‑ that's why the remand order required us to do this. And we are offering them up as conditions against ourselves because these are representations ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We can keep track of them.

1. DRILL: ‑‑ that we tell you.
2. RAZIN: Right.
3. DOCKRAY: I understand.
4. RAZIN: One second, one second, one second.
5. DOCKRAY: Okay.

1. RAZIN: Not only did the ‑‑ not only did the remand order request it, but the board requested it as to become part of the settlement process earlier, that's how it became in the remand order, so then that carried forward in the remand order language and that's why there was a generated list of conditions.

Ultimately, I would probably agree with you, Wendy, that the exact specifications of some of those conditions when you get to a developer's agreement and when you got the site plan, if that day ‑‑ if that day ever comes, they might be different or something might be slightly different. I mean that's why I think in the language is general and some of it kept open and that's why there's categories ‑‑ I think the attempt was, I assume the attempt was to keep it categorized to show that there are things that just can't be decided at a Master Plan level with such specificity.

But the stipulations that were placed on the record are being carried forward without change to this process. That was the intent. Because there was a specified provision in the remand order to carry forward a list of conditions that Valley had agreed to. That's it. That wasn't ‑‑ that was the only intent by ‑‑ by that process.

1. DOCKRAY: I just need to think about it some more, if that's okay.
2. RAZIN: Well, we are going to keep going ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Yeah, I'm just saying, I need to think about it, because there were a couple things in here I'm not sure that we all ‑‑ a couple things that we all thought were a great idea and there are a couple things that I thought might be tweaked, so ‑‑ and I want to go back to the Board of Ed letter because that was incorporated and I remember something from there and I want to make sure it makes sense basically what you put forth here, I thought the Board of Ed letter said they didn't want trucks ever going around the corner of Van Dien and Linwood ‑‑ I'm sorry, Van Dien and Glen, ever. I don't see that in here, but you're incorporating the letter. So I want to go back and read it and then see where we, you know, where we are on that. I just think it's a lot to absorb at 11:10 at night.

1. BIGOS: Mr. Drill, can ‑‑ can you tell me please if the seven pages ‑‑
2. DOCKRAY: Yeah.
3. BIGOS: ‑‑ of conditions have been reviewed by the professional staff?

1. DRILL: Yes, they have.
2. BIGOS: Okay. So then ‑‑

1. DRILL: The professional staff obviously cannot agree to anything on behalf of the board because the board has to review it.
2. RAZIN: I don't know if Chris ‑‑ and Chris hasn't looked at it. I don't know if Chris has looked at it, but I mean ‑‑

1. DRILL: Right.
2. BIGOS: Chris and Blais.  
3. DRILL: The board counsel reviewed it to make sure there were accurate. In other words, that we weren't making stuff up or that we hadn't left anything out.
4. BIGOS: All right.
5. DOCKRAY: We sat through all this ‑‑
6. RAZIN: But certainly, I mean, I ‑‑ understanding that it's 11:10 at night, but this is not ‑‑ what I meant by my question is this is not the first time you're agreeing that in a sense they came from a prior ‑‑

1. DRILL: Right.
2. RAZIN: Prior ‑‑ prior proceedings and ‑‑
3. DRILL: And ‑‑

1. RAZIN: ‑‑ they were generated then ‑‑
2. DOCKRAY: But I'm just saying I'm not sure we agreed to all those things so...
3. RAZIN: I understand. I understand.
4. DOCKRAY: So that's my ‑‑
5. DRILL: And, again, we're not ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: We all had some different perspectives on a few of those.
2. DRILL: Without revealing any confidences from the mediation, all I'm going to say, this wasn't my idea.

1. RAZIN: Let's move forward.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All right.

1. DOCKRAY: Charles, do you think ‑‑ it's 11:10? This is kind of a lot to absorb. Is there any chance that ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: What I would like to is while we have this fresh, I would like to continue with the board in terms of its cross examination of the witness. It's 11:10, it's still not that late, we have a lot of ground to cover later with the public who might have questions.

So why don't we begin cross‑examination and we can continue that at the next meeting.

Davie?

1. THURSTON: I will pass for now.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Nancy?

1. BIGOS: Yes, I'm fine. Thank you for your testimony.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Susan?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Well, I have to go back to the chillers, because I'm fascinated by chillers. I don't know. Do those get blocked with the green screen? Is that ‑‑ what is the ‑‑ on the exterior of that? I know we had a discussion about green screen and that was to mitigate the effects of visual.

THE WITNESS: The efficiency of the evaporation of the water coming from the cooling towers, I would not recommend that the screen around the cooling towers be blocked with green screening.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. So if you were to define the measurements, if I were, say, on the ‑‑ let me just get this right, the east side of the North building, the north side of the North building and the south side of the North building, what would the measurements be around those? Like, how big is that? What's the size of the chiller?

THE WITNESS: Of the chiller or the building.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Well, no, the actual piece, that the ‑‑ the metal mechanical that we're seeing that can't be covered with green screen.

THE WITNESS: I'll have to get that answer for you tomorrow.

1. DRILL: Are you asking if any part of the chiller can be visible with that screen in front of there ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No, she's asking ‑‑

1. DRILL: ‑‑ or are you asking ‑‑

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ for the dimensions around the ‑‑

1. DRILL: Excuse me, did we measure the screening the ‑‑

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ cooling towers.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I'm looking for the size of the chiller.

THE WITNESS: Right.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Right. Maria understood. She's got it.

1. DRILL: Okay.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And then just you mentioned the dewatering, I just want to go back to that for a second. What was the number of the dewatering, how many gallons per day?

THE WITNESS: 300,000 gallons a day, but on average it would be running about 200,000 gallons per day.

The gallons per day would be dependent upon rainfall and precipitation and the length of time and the quantity of water that falls and then percolates into the ground.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Right. So you don't know the amount, you just know that it would be the amount of ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Right.

1. DRILL: We didn't hear what you just asked. She heard what you asked but we didn't.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Sorry. Okay. I'm just going to let someone else go. And then I have a couple more questions. Wait, let me ask one more question. When you're talking about visual mass, you kept mentioning 95,000 square feet of rooftop mechanical, and those are 24 feet high?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So that's 95,000 square feet of rooftop mechanicals is maybe like 58,000 square feet on the North building; is that roughly ‑‑ could you tell me the breakdown of that on each of those buildings?

THE WITNESS: Ok.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Let's start ‑‑ start there. Okay, and ‑‑

THE WITNESS: No, I'll ‑‑ you want an answer, I want to give you as precise an answer as I can.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. So you're going to get back to me.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And then so my ‑‑ while your calculating that in terms of square footage if we were doing this and an exercise in floor area ratio, would you ‑‑ because floor area ratio gives you the essence of visual mass; would that be accurate? Like floor area ratio gives you an idea of what the visual mass is.

1. DRILL: Floor area ratio was included below grade floor. When you do a floor area ratio, it's not just above grade.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I understand, I understand. But the above ‑‑ okay, let's rephrase.

The above grade floor area ratio. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That was helpful. So when you talk about above grade floor area ratio, it gives you like a sense of the visual mass, do you think ‑‑ is that an appropriate ‑‑ just to count that 95,000 square feet because it's 24 feet high. It is essentially two stories, is that like if you would calculate the floor area ratio, would that necessarily be counted twice, you went through the exercise about the atrium ‑‑

THE WITNESS: All right.

1. DRILL: Are you asking ‑‑

THE WITNESS: So it depends ‑‑ it depends ‑‑

1. DRILL: ‑‑ what's ‑‑ if there was no roof on it, and it was screening, it wouldn't count. So the board is saying that you'd rather have the roof removed from the rooftop so it's not ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Well, no, no, I think Maria understood what I was asking. I think ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Well, it also depends on your definition of floor area ratio.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I can't hear you because somebody else is speaking.

THE WITNESS: It depends on the definition of floor area ratio, but in Ridgewood the mechanical penthouse would be included in the floor area ratio calculation.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Thank you.

1. BRANCHEAU: I don't ‑‑ I don't agree.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Oh, Blais is disagreeing with something.

1. BRANCHEAU: You know, when we ‑‑ in the Master Plan we actually have ‑‑
2. DRILL: You're not on. Your speaker is not on.

1. BRANCHEAU: Sorry. In the Master Plan we actually have two different sections. One section deals with intensity of use and the other one deals with building mass. And in the intensity use we talk about floor area ratio. And we talk about the total floor area of the hospital includes below grade floor area. But we exclude the rooftop area. And we exclude the parking deck. The reason for that is when we're talking about intensity of use, it's a different concept than mass. You could have a big empty warehouse with very few employees, very few visitors, very little traffic, but lots of mass. On the other hand, you could have an office building of the same size with lots of employees, lots of activity, and that's much more intensive, but has the same building mass. So we make a distinction between ‑‑ and floor area ratio is, at least for non‑residential uses, is typically a measurement of intensity of use.

You'll note that we don't use the term floor area ratio in here, we just use ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Right.

1. BRANCHEAU: ‑‑ because we're only talking about one lot. We basically use an absolute number. And it equates to a floor area ratio number. You could ‑‑ you could calculate a percentage based upon the floor area here.

On the other hand, when we talk about building mass and building coverage in the plan, we only are looking at above grade area because that's all that really contributes to mass, although below grade contributes to intensity of use; whereas some above grade doesn't contribute to intensity of use like a parking deck, the people are there already, the structure is not contributing to the intensity, it's just where they park.

And the same thing with rooftop equipment, that's not contributing to the intensity of the use, that contributes to mass and bulk. So we're really treating them separately and that's why I said we wouldn't really count the rooftop equipment within the intensity of use, the floor area ratio regulation.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Got it, okay. Thank you.

1. BRANCHEAU: We don't say, they're not covered anywhere.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Right.

1. BRANCHEAU: In fact, they exclude mechanical space in an attic or in a basement that's not used as work area.

1. DRILL: Just so you know, we don't think it would be the right thing to do, but if the board wanted the roof taken off the mechanical penthouse so it's no longer a penthouse and if you wanted screening, we would do it. We don't think it's the right thing to do, but we would do it ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: No, no, and I wasn't asking that question, I was asking...

THE WITNESS: And that's why I started my answer with it depends on how you define floor area ratio.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And I understand you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Maria.

THE WITNESS: Different towns define it differently.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Thank you. That's my questions. Thank you.  

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Paul?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Thank you for your testimony. I don't have any questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I have a follow‑up question. So for the mechanicals, other than the screening around the various sizes ‑‑around the varies sides, does that change at all, does that change at all in terms of the size overall since 2014?

THE WITNESS: No, it did not.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It was identical, so just the screening that happens to be outside?

THE WITNESS: It was always screened, it was now a different color, texture and the addition of the potential green screen where possible.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. And also to follow along with the question with regard that screening where the baffles are on the shutters ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The louver.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The louvers, thank you, is there any way of visually reducing the visual impact of that, even though ‑‑ and still allow also the air flow through there?

THE WITNESS: In my opinion you would use a different color, I think.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So color would blend with the sky is that it?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. And then on one of the charts that you have that talks about the overall size, are you able to ‑‑ would you be able to provide, what is it, above grade versus below grade in terms of the change from 2016 and 2014? I don't recall the exhibit number particularly, it's the chart.

16. DRILL: It's either Exhibit 14 ‑‑ it's either Exhibit 15 or Exhibit 16 or A‑15 or A‑16.

THE WITNESS: Right.

1. DRILL: I guess it's A‑15, that's ‑‑ that's A‑16, that is up there. But we'll go back one exhibit? Yes, could you ‑‑ yes, move it up a little. There you go.

1. RAZIN: Is there ‑‑ I think ‑‑ I think we're talking about ‑‑ what Charles is asking, I don't want to speak for him, but I think what Charles is asking is there a difference from 2014 and 2016, in terms of what's above grade and then although ‑‑ is there any difference whatsoever ‑‑ is there any difference between what's below ‑‑ and also is there a difference between '14 and '16 below grade, below grade to below below grade in '14 and '16, above grade to above grade '14 to '16? I know this is ‑‑ I know this number, but it's not depicted numerically on this chart. I think that's what Charles wants.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay. So the below grade floor area in 2013 and '14 is being reduced by 2,500 square feet in the 2016 Master Plan Amendment.

The rest of the change in the building floor area calculations are taken from the above grade structures.

So the North building loped off a level at 58,000. We did a wedding cake that came closer to Van Dien that added square footage, and then we agreed to take an additional 5,000 square feet off the North building above grade, and then the only below grade that we agreed to was the 2,500 square feet in this go‑round. So out of the 34,000 square feet difference between 2013 and 2014 to 2016 is 31,500 square feet is attributable to above grade structures and 2,500 square feet is attributable to below grade structures.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Richard?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: No questions, thanks.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Kevin?

1. REILLY: No questions.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Wendy?

1. DOCKRAY: Okay. I do have a few. Somehow I always end up asking my questions in the middle of the night. I don't know why that always happens, but here we go. Can we go back to the slide that has the simulation from Meadowbrook?

THE WITNESS: Sure, that's A‑9 and A‑10.

1. DRILL: The long view or the short ‑‑
2. DOCKRAY: No, the closer one, the close‑up one. I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: A‑10.

1. DOCKRAY: Yes, that's it. That's it.

THE WITNESS: A‑10.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay. It's hard for me to see here, but what are those slats on the top of the penthouse? You know I see ‑‑ is that ‑‑ I see the gray frame, and the blue frame what is ‑‑ what is that, the gray slats that I'm looking at there?

THE WITNESS: Oh, it's an architectural feature to provide an eyebrow or shadow effect to define the top of the building.

Again ‑‑ this is all up to ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: They're not the louvers?

THE WITNESS: You're talking about this line right here (indicating).

1. DOCKRAY: No, well, come down. Those lines. Are those the louvers?

THE WITNESS: These?

1. DOCKRAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1. DOCKRAY: That's louvers?

THE WITNESS: And again the vertical representation was in line with keeping the window mullions of the patient floors below.

Again, this is an architectural feature that can be discussed at site plan application.

1. DOCKRAY: But it's not something you could put green screen over.

THE WITNESS: No.

1. DRILL: She's correct.

THE WITNESS: The green ‑‑ the green screen is intended to go in between the louvers.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay.

So, in general, can you tell me then what percent of the penthouse will be green‑screened? It would seem very, very small as a ‑‑ as a percent of an area that is presented.

THE WITNESS: I would guess on the east ‑‑ on the westerly side of the North building you're probably talking about 15 to 20 percent.

1. DOCKRAY: Is that true all the way around.

THE WITNESS: No. Because if you go to the northern elevation which is ‑‑ yes, A‑14, yes, A‑14, you can see that most of that side is louvered.

1. DOCKRAY: Oh, my goodness. Okay. So there would be really no green screen there or very, very little.

THE WITNESS: Very little.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay. While you have that picture up, you said that this was a simulation on a photograph taken in 2010?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

1. DOCKRAY: Okay. So is there any chance you have the [original|rig] picture of what is exactly, what is there from 2010 so we can ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Yes. These pictures were taken with a digital camera. I have the jpeg on my computer in the office.

1. DOCKRAY: Pardon?

THE WITNESS: These pictures were taken in 2010 with a digital camera, they are jpeg files, they're on my computer in my office. I sent them to the architect, Steve Evers, his firm designed this building, asked him to reduce the height of the building by eliminating the fifth floor and then superimpose the two scale version of the buildings in each one of these digital images.

1. DOCKRAY: Right.

THE WITNESS: This is not unlike some of the images you may or may not have seen of the depiction of the parking garage. Again, a digital photograph upon which an architect superimposed the proposed ‑‑

1. DOCKRAY: Right. I was just trying to figure out, okay, as I look at this, where am I standing compared to if I were standing there now, where am I? And how is what I see now compared to what I would see in this picture?

THE WITNESS: This fence (indicating) is the fence that separates the parking area which is to the left of this picture, from the field. The track is running around the perimeter of the whole field. Right now there is a series of red wood colored sheds or utility buildings in this location (indicating).

1. DRILL: On the school property.

THE WITNESS: On the school property.

And at that time there was a ball field in the foreground and also another ball field in the southeast corner of the Benjamin Franklin Middle School. So this is infield clay or sand, grass in the outfield, and on this ball field, this is the end of the infield and beginning of the outfield (indicating).

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Before the running tracks were installed.

1. DOCKRAY: Right, right, I understand. I just ‑‑ I cannot grab the ‑‑ it looks pretty immense to me, but I don't know I'm going to go back over to Benjamin Franklin and see how it looks now to get the sense of ‑‑ I was like, oh, it would be nice to ‑‑ because it looks so immense to me, you can see how it looks compared to what's there now.

But if you don't have it, that's okay. And I know we're not supposed to compare things to what exists now, but just in terms of visual, sometimes that happens, it makes it easier. The last thing is under the simulation, did you do any without trees ‑‑ tree and leaves, you know, without leaves on the trees?

THE WITNESS: Did I do any simulations without the landscaping?

1. DOCKRAY: Yeah, without ‑‑ well, without the leaves on the trees? Just, you know, December or January as opposed to midsummer.

THE WITNESS: We took the pictures in June of 2010.

1. DOCKRAY: Yeah, so you didn't do any when the leaves were off the trees. Okay.

So ‑‑ and let's see, I have a ‑‑ I'll ask Blais later, I think. I have questions about the conditions, but I really would like to think about them some more and go back to the letter of the Board of Education and if you don't mind, okay. That was a lot to absorb all at once, to be really honest. So, thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Debbie?

1. PATIRE: Everyone asked the questions I had so.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Khidir, any questions?

1. ABDALLA: Just a quick clarification about the green screens and the colored green walls which you described. It's my assumption, and correct me if I am wrong, that whatever green wall or green screen that its going to be installed, it's going to be a full grown green wall; correct? Meaning that the vegetation, we're not ‑‑ we're not expecting some gray structure with some ivy waiting to grow in a month or is it going to be a fully grown system that is going to be installed to look green for the entire time?

THE WITNESS: There are various systems that are manufactured, some of the sub‑structures are a green pattern, they're usually a heavy gauge metal wire. Some of them are vertical wires that look like strings upon which the individual greenery grows in a vertical fashion. This is certainly open to a site plan application where we can present different types of green screen walls. And we can discuss the preferences at that time.

1. ABDALLA: Thank you.
2. PATIRE: Charles, can I ask a question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.

1. PATIRE: Sorry. I recognized that you asked a lot of them but I'm just curious, Maria, it sounds like you have wonderful experience and you've been a lot of places. But a couple of things you had mentioned about, you know, the outdated Phillips building, the new operating rooms, the new technology, can you talk a little bit about some of the technology and things that we have at The Valley Hospital should this happen? Can you talk a little bit about that?

1. DRILL: She can if you want her to.

1. PATIRE: Are we not allowed to.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think it's in the testimony ‑‑

1. RAZIN: Yes, it's ‑‑
2. PATIRE: Yeah, I read some of that. I just ‑‑ I kind of understood ‑‑  
3. RAZIN: Let me see if I ‑‑ I will try to find out for you.
4. PATIRE: I read the bible, as I call it.

1. RAZIN: Yes, I will try to narrow it down where it and if there's anything that's really specific.
2. PATIRE: I'm just saying that when that was submitted, technology changes in the course of a day so I am curious based on her experience and what she's been doing if anything has been, you know, updated from ‑‑
3. RAZIN: You know ‑‑

1. PATIRE: ‑‑ since that ‑‑ so ‑‑  

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Some of the questions were answered in the past so Mike can ‑‑

THE WITNESS: All right. First of all, I am going to tell you that in order to accommodate things like a biplane neurointerventional suite, in our current ORs we had to take two ORs and three bays out of the recovery space in order to do that. And as you know we're a designated stroke center. And in order to do that our ‑‑ there isn't enough room in our operating rooms to accommodate that nor are there the appropriate mechanical air systems that needed to be changed out in order to do that, which require greater floor to ceiling heights so the duct work can be above that technology.

You know we would continue to have MRIs and CAT scans. It's a matter of accommodating the technology for which we do not have appropriate floor to ceiling heights, as we move forward, most of it to improve and increase our equipment for what we have.

1. PATIRE: Okay, thank you.
2. RAZIN: Can I say ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Can I just ask ‑‑ I had another question.

1. RAZIN: Go ahead. I had a question on the slide, but go ahead.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. I wanted to ask a question too on the slide.

So, Maria, just so I understand, so we had a conversation about these green screens, green screens are essentially to mitigate the visual appearance of this mass. But we're understanding now that there can be no green screening along the north side of the North building now; is that correct? Based on this image and your statement that that whole side of the 24‑foot high mechanicals is all louver, so then what I'm to understand is that along the north side of the North building there can be no green screen up there? Just I mean it's ‑‑

THE WITNESS: As depicted in this exhibit, yes. Can we challenge the engineers to come up with larger areas or defined areas of louvers and place equipment within the penthouse so that we can reduce the surface area for louvers? I think that that's a challenge we should give to the engineers.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So then if I were standing, I guess in the southeast corner on Steilen towards the southeast location of the North building then that side too, is that all louvers as well, the opposite side.

THE WITNESS: No. There is some of the enclosed penthouse and there is where the cooling tower area begins. Then the lower there is a smaller area of mechanical equipment and that view you saw in Exhibit A‑13 from the back of ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So if you ‑‑

THE WITNESS: A‑13 ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: If you could go back, I would like to just scoot back to that one ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Sure.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: For a moment.

THE WITNESS: It's only one exhibit back. It's A‑13.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So you got ‑‑ that's the southeast ‑‑ south elevation facing you east on the side, here's the mechanical penthouse which ends and the cooling tower location begins.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And down on the lower floor, at the end of level four, there's a small area here of mechanical equipment (indicating).

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And so, going back to that area that we saw, let's look at the ‑‑ the lower right part of the mechanicals. That seems to be with the bricks around it. Now, what is ‑‑ what would that material be? Because we're actually ‑‑ we're kind of not seeing that because presumably those shrubbery was Photoshopped in there. Is that what you've added just to give it ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Right. In here, actually, it was part of the shrubbery that was in the back yard at that time.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Oh, that's existing.

THE WITNESS: However ‑‑ however ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Again, I would venture to guess that some of this is architectural in nature in order to repeat the rhythm, and we can look at ‑‑ again, the placement of the louvers and where to create areas to either change the material of the brick at this level. It's a solid base. Or, you know, to do something else architecturally in texture and color.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. And again, that's just ‑‑ that's mechanical there?

THE WITNESS: From what we know today, as the building's designed today.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. So now, could you just go back one more time to the other slide, the north side of the North building.

THE WITNESS: So go down to 14.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: You know the numbers? I know direction.

THE WITNESS: So, from the previous slide, this is the wraparound that we saw (indicating).

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Well, this level's the patient rooms actually. This is level four coming around here, so those are windows. And then this is ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Where can I see that? That's ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The material change. The material change.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Then on the very northeast corner of that North building, that ‑‑ those ‑‑ that's a smokestack sticking out? Is that what that is?

THE WITNESS: Correct. The power plant is a two‑story space, in the area on the back side of the stair towers. See these windows, these are in the stairs (indicating). And in order to avoid a freestanding smokestack, as you visualize that ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: We had that whole conversation, right.

THE WITNESS: Right. You've extended the enclosure around the smokestack so as to be continuous as it's always been. That you see is what protrudes from the top.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: And do you know the height of that? What that ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The height depends upon the DEP telling us what the wind direction on a normal day is and the dispersion of the flue gas that comes out of the boilers, so...

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Right. Now you don't have them?

THE WITNESS: Typically ‑‑ typically, your house should have a chimney that extends 4 feet above the roof of your house. So, by nature, it's going to be at least 4 feet above the highest point in this building. But then again, the height will be determined by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. We have no recourse to make it any shorter.

 

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: You're welcome.

1. THURSTON: Maria, staying ‑‑ just for a moment, staying on the louvers, the color could be akin to what a green screen, would be; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

1. THURSTON: So, you don't get the actual vine, but you get the same coloring of it?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I mean, I've always been one that ‑‑ I mean I've seen vines on top of a tall building, I mean unless it's a brownstone, you know, it's like one of those crazy things that just doesn't seem right to me.

But just to that point, I mean you're just talking about changing the color. You're not getting the spirit of, like, what we kind of agreed to ‑‑

THE WITNESS: Right. That all can be determined at the site plan application.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If I can interject on that point, I think the intention of the language that Blais went through about ‑‑ the language was there predominantly to allow, during site plan, the ability to scrutinize and to maximum the effectiveness of making the rooftop mechanically blend with the sky to reduce the height factor.

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So, at site plan, there can be a great deal of debate in architectural emphasis from the board or from ‑‑

THE WITNESS: The materials, texture, color.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Right. So, this is one concept to display that material might blend with the sky, but green screens, other materials, et cetera, would then occur at site plan.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Wait. I'm not just missing that, I certainly know that. I think it's an important conversation to have because it was an essential part of mitigating the effect that to understand that that entire north wall of the North building, the 24 foot high mechanicals is ‑‑ has to be louvers whether the front of it ‑‑ essentially, you'd have 50 percent green screen covering. Is a ‑‑ is a ‑‑ it's significant, it's not insignificant or inconsequential. So that's ‑‑ I ‑‑ I appreciate your point, but I think that that's not inconsequential.

THE WITNESS: We appreciate that ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I'm just saying, we put a lot of time into that point at site plan.

1. DOCKRAY: But it might not work. It might not help.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: That's actually my point, thank you.

1. DOCKRAY: It may not help. It would have been, you know, I think we have to make our judgement based on what we see.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Okay. Thank you, Maria.

THE WITNESS: You're welcome.

1. RAZIN: Can I ask a question?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes.

1. RAZIN: Looking at this visually are the mechanical penthouse, when you look at it from this vantage point, it doesn't look like it's setback, when you ‑‑ because of the rendering ‑‑ do you want to call it rendering?
2. DRILL: The sections.

1. RAZIN: The sections.

If you look at it this way, it doesn't look like it's setback, is it ‑‑ can you just confirm if it's setback from ‑‑ from this vantage point, what the setbacks would be?

THE WITNESS: Confirm what a setback is.

1. RAZIN: I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: I will confirm what that setback is.

1. RAZIN: Okay. The setback from the ‑‑ I'm not saying distance from here (indicating).

THE WITNESS: No. Right.

1. RAZIN: I'm saying from the building, the edge of the building.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Exactly, I will confirm that.

1. RAZIN: Thank you so much.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Other questions from the board?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So...

1. BRANCHEAU: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, please, Blais. Sorry.

1. BRANCHEAU: Maria, could you put up the exhibit that compared the before and after floor area. There was a couple of them.

THE WITNESS: A‑17.

16. DRILL: A‑16.

THE WITNESS: A‑16 starts the ‑‑

1. BRANCHEAU: Yes. I think that's the one.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

1. BRANCHEAU: And I was a little confused by the numbers, particularly with the indication that the Phase I to Phase II there was a change of 458 and the right column. Whereas, if I look at 961 in Phase II, and I compare that with 908,5 in Phase I, I get a difference of about, 53,500, I think it is. 525, I think. There's a difference in there of about 7,000 square feet that I don't know where ‑‑
2. DRILL: The arithmetic's wrong, the 961 minus 908?

8. BRANCHEAU: Minus 908 isn't 45,8. It's something higher than that. And I don't know where the mistake is.
9. DRILL: There's obviously a mistake. So, we're coming back in any event, we're going to have to correct that.

Thank you.

1. BRANCHEAU: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: So it's 53. Okay.  

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Blais.

1. BRANCHEAU: You're welcome.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So, I think what we'll do is wrap up now ‑‑ wrap up now and continue tomorrow with any follow up questions from the board and then have the public questions for these issues ‑‑ for the witnesses tomorrow. Is that good for everyone? Is anyone not going to be here tomorrow?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can we just find out how many people have questions right now?

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm not going to be here.

1. VOIGT: Yeah, I ‑‑ I ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Because if it's, like, only three people so I'm sure we can get them done.

1. VOIGT: So ‑‑ so supposing you're ‑‑ you're not around to address these particular witnesses ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I'll allow you to ask tonight ‑‑

1. VOIGT: ‑‑ can you ask the questions at a later time or no?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: As long as the witness ‑‑  

1. VOIGT: You know, because, you know, I may not be around tomorrow to ask these people questions.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Right.

1. VOIGT: I'd like to ask ‑‑ I have several questions for these people. I'm not going to be here early tomorrow evening. I'll be here later. I want to ask ‑‑ you know, are you going to let people ask these questions, but I'd like to ask some questions.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: So ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Does the board think it's okay if we continue a little bit and open to the public and allow public to ‑‑

1. VOIGT: Yeah.  
2. DRILL: That's fine with us. We'll stay as long as you want.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Why don't we continue so people in the audience can ask questions if they're not going to be here ‑‑

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Or conversely, I mean, I'm just looking at the clock. We could actually ‑‑ sorry, Jon.

We could actually have Maria come back on ‑‑ not tomorrow.

1. DRILL: No, no.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: How many people ‑‑ how many people have questions?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Well, let's not ‑‑ I think we should continue. Thanks for bringing that up.

All right. So, is there a motion to open to public questioning for the witness?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to open to public questioning.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there a second, please?

1. THURSTON: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mike, please call the roll. All in favor?

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

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Anyone opposed?

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.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?
2. JOEL: Yes.
3. CAFARELLI: Mr. Reilly?
4. REILLY: Yes.
5. CAFARELLI: Ms. Dockray?
6. DOCKRAY: Yes.
7. CAFARELLI: MR. THURSTON?
8. THURSTON: Yes.
9. CAFARELLI: MR. ABDALLA?
10. ABDALLA: Yes.
11. CAFARELLI: MS. PATIRE?
12. PATIRE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Mr. Voigt, again, you have five minutes to ask your questions. So ask them ‑‑

1. VOIGT: My questions are going to be in rapid order.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Great. Excellent. Thank you. Before you begin, please state and spell your name and provide your address for the record.

1. VOIGT: Jeffrey Voigt, V‑o‑i‑g‑t, 99 Glenwood Road, Ridgewood, New Jersey.

This ‑‑ this relates to your initial comments, it relates to the two lawsuits. I'm assuming there's two different lawsuits or does this particular ‑‑ this particular forum address the two lawsuits, one against the Planning Board and the one against the Village Council. I'm not sure about that.

1. RAZIN: I don't ‑‑ well, Mr. Drill's going to object, but I don't think Maria's ‑‑ I don't think Maria's the appropriate witness to answer ‑‑
2. VOIGT: No, yeah. But you ‑‑ but I wasn't allowed to ask this guy questions. You told me to wait.
3. RAZIN: You're not allowed to ‑‑
4. VOIGT: You told me to wait.
5. RAZIN: I ‑‑
6. VOIGT: You told me to wait until this time, so you got to let me do that.
7. RAZIN: Sir, excuse me. There's no reason ‑‑ we just extended the meeting. Everyone's a little edgy because it's quarter to twelve, but let's ‑‑ if we could just, let's keep it relaxed.
8. VOIGT: Okay. Mr. Nalbantian, remember you said I could not ask this question until ‑‑
9. RAZIN: Sir, right what I'm going to explain to you ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: But we are ‑‑

1. VOIGT: ‑‑ until it was ‑‑
2. RAZIN: What I am trying to explain to you is that if you ask a procedural question, we will try our best, I'm sure, Mr. Nalbantian, myself, Mr. Drill, would be happy to do our best to try to answer a procedural question for you.

But for Maria's sake, let's try and get ‑‑

1. VOIGT: Okay. So, sir, can we put this question saying okay for now ‑‑
2. RAZIN: ‑‑ let's ‑‑ no ‑‑  

1. DRILL: With all due respect we're not going ‑‑
2. VOIGT: No, no, no.
3. DRILL: ‑‑ THE COURT REPORTER cannot take down all these speakers at one time.
4. RAZIN: Sir?  

THE COURT REPORTER: No, I cannot.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please let counsel ‑‑

1. RAZIN: Let's try and be ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: ‑‑ respond to the question.

1. RAZIN: I'm happy to answer any legal questions you have. Mr. Drill can answer a legal question, but I'm not going to do it while there's people waiting to ask MS. MEDIAGO questions.

1. VOIGT: Got it. Okay. That's fair enough. Your, your, your rendition in A‑14, I think is a bit deceiving to be honest with you. It looks like the City of Oz from three miles away. I would respectfully ask that ‑‑ and this is a request, that you take an actual more recent photo of that, probably closer to the building so we can actually see what it looks like. Because I'll tell ya, that is really deceiving.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: What are your questions, please?

1. VOIGT: That's my ‑‑ my question is: Can you take another picture that actually looks realistic?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Next question, please.

1. VOIGT: Got it. The question on dewatering, does that mean less watering or more watering? Can you talk about dewatering?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Next question.

1. VOIGT: Got it. You talk about blasting being controlled, and then you mention that you're going to have ‑‑ you're going to gain permission from the households around the area; is that correct? That's a question. Okay. My next question is: Supposing the houses do not want to have blasting happen, what do you do?

My last question is: Continuous monitoring of air containment systems, where will these systems reside, in what locations? That will be helpful to know.

Thank you.

2014. RAZIN: Can I just comment very quickly, I think the first question is that the ‑‑ the first question is up to Maria and Mr. Drill. The last three on dewatering, blasting, and continuous monitoring are all conditions that were stipulated to. Whether or not, ultimately, that's ‑‑ we're going to have further discussion on them is another issue, but there are conditions that have not changed since 2013 and 2014. So they're not part of Maria's testimony.

One is Maria's testimony, that's why I asked Mr. Drill where they ‑‑ did it come from the transcripts and were they potential stipulations or testimony from other witnesses during those proceedings or come from exhibits during those proceedings from other witnesses, not necessarily Maria during this proceeding. So those are ‑‑ and they were not changes, so I don't –

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: And they're in the record?

1. RAZIN: And they're in the record. So, as to question one ‑‑
2. DRILL: Yes, I can answer question one. The others, I agree, are inappropriate questions. There's one lawsuit. I filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writ.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Can you speak into the microphone.

1. DRILL: It had two counts.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Jon, can you say it in the mic?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Can you speak into the microphone? I would can't hear you.

1. DRILL: You can't?
2. RAZIN: That was not the question. The question was that was ‑‑ that was not question one. Question one was about the request for additional pictures. Let's deal the legal issues off.
3. VOIGT: Okay.
4. DRILL: We can't get the picture done with the ‑‑ with the simulation done in time with respect to the remand order, so we have to respectfully turn down your request.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay.

Now, please come forward. State your name, spell your name, and your address.

1. VERMYLEN: Hello. My name is Jiffy Vermylen. That's spelled J‑I‑F‑F‑Y. Last name, "V" as in Victor, E‑R, "M" as in Mary, Y‑L‑E, "N" as in Nancy, 241 North Walnut Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey.

Question pertaining to qualifications discussed by the witness. First question is: Are you a LEED accredited professional? Second question would be: Is anyone on the your Valley staff or involved in the project a LEED accredited professional? And I'm wondering if you can describe prior experience of yourself and/or Valley with respect to sustainable design and construction, specifically implementation, experience with the conditions listed with respect to air quantity monitoring.

 

1. RAZIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Did you get that, Laura?

1. VERMYLEN: I know I speak quickly.
2. RAZIN: It's okay. I just couldn't get all of them.

THE WITNESS: Regarding my ‑‑ whether I'm a LEED accredited professional, no I, am not. However, there are four people on my staff that are. And every single member of the Torcon Construction team is currently on site and would be part of this project construction are. The architects for this project maintain a full staff of LEED accredited professionals. And the engineers are as well, our engineers. And to the extent that we can employ ‑‑ a goal of this project, is to have ‑‑ to obtain the most LEED credits that are possible. There are some elements of green that cannot because of our site and or location in Ridgewood that are thing we couldn't change. But Valley Hospital ‑‑ I don't know if you saw it in The Record today, we are committed to sustainability in everything we do.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you for your question.

 

1. ROMERO: Marisol Romero, M‑A‑R‑I‑S‑O‑L, R‑O‑M‑E‑R‑O, 258 Steilen Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey. Basically, all my questions relate to the redline of landscape and design features. And especially after seeing the pictures, I have a lot of questions. So, I'll just go down them quickly.

Will the existing ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ will the existing cement wall that's along Steilen Avenue, you know, be removed and replace them with a 20‑foot wall? Who will determine the types of vegetation that will be planted? And the reason I ask that, are seasonal allergies taken into consideration when selecting the vegetation? A lot of people, including my son, has extremely severe seasonal allergies.

Will the trees be evergreen and mature in height? Can it by required that they be at least a minimum number of feet in height? Like, for example, I don't want a Charlie Brown Christmas tree in my backyard along the Steilen Avenue border especially. Can ‑‑ and ‑‑ and I know you already said you can't, but I was disappointed that visual pictures were only in the summer because six months out of the year ‑‑ and I know this because I stare at the hospital from my backyard ‑‑ it's a big difference.

When you see, you know, vegetation, the trees in the back with leaves on it and then without. So, I am disappointed that all these renderings are during the summertime and not during the winter because then, especially with a max building, you're going to see a lot more of the height of the hospital. Are the 20‑feet high chillers included in the final heights of the buildings or would it be on top of the height of the buildings? So I know, for example, I think the final height of the Cheel building, which I don't know if it has chillers on it, is 65. So if it has a chiller on it, are we saying it's 65 plus 24?

With a green roof ‑‑ because I've been hearing about a green roof, a green screen, would a green roof even be visible from the street if the building is so high, and is that vegetation also evergreen? Is the setback on Steilen Avenue ‑‑ and again, I'm going to use the example the Cheel building, of 70 feet, taken from the property line or the existing cement wall because ‑‑

1. DRILL: Repeat that one.
2. ROMERO: Okay. Is the setback on Steilen Avenue ‑‑ and I'm using the example of the Cheel building, which is going to be 70 feet, is it taken from the property line or the existing cement wall? Because technically, the cement wall which is currently there, sits on the hospital property line. So then, if I'm assuming it's really not 70 feet from the cement wall, it's really before that. And I just want to confirm that. And then the other two, like you said, if it has to do with the blast question, it's not appropriate right now, correct?

1. RAZIN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If it's regarding the previous testimony, no.

1. ROMERO: It was will houses ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ask the question ‑‑ you have to ask the questions and if they can be answered they will be answered today.

1. ROMERO: Okay. I'll ask it, okay. I'm sorry. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If it's not, they will not answer it.

1. ROMERO: Will houses on Steilen Avenue also be checked for damage in regards to blasting? And then, again, I don't know if this is appropriate, but why would you build up the Cheel building in Phase I to 208,000 square feet to then lower it to 193,000 square feet in Phase II? That's it.

1. RAZIN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you for your questions.

Was everybody able to get those okay?

 

THE WITNESS: All right. I think the first question has to do with the wall along Steilen Avenue. The existing concrete wall that exists along Steilen Avenue adjoining properties would be removed. There is a section of the northeast corner of the site that has the 20‑foot high wall with the landscape buffer. And then the remainder of the property line has a fence, and we talked about material in all of the Master Plan Amendments. So whether it's a vinyl fence or some other structure, that was to be determined during site plan application.

1. DRILL: The next question was: Who will determine the vegetation. Her son has allergies.

THE WITNESS: The project team consists of landscape architects who will propose the types of vegetation that will be in conjunction with what the ordinance is asking for us to plant. And I'm sure we can direct the landscape architects to look at the types of plantings in order to minimize the effect of those plantings on seasonal allergies. Again, there's a whole cadre of plantings. I'm sure Blais will help us out in reviewing what we plant.

1. DRILL: Will they include evergreens?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they will.

1. DRILL: Are they going to be planted at a certain minimum height?

THE WITNESS: The intent along the 20‑foot high wall section along the Steilen Avenue wall property was to block the view of residents on their second floor looking towards the hospital. So it's a sloped berm. Actually, it's, you know, two walls, one is 20‑feet closest to the whole hospital and a lower wall which ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you speak into the microphone.

1. DRILL: Again, are you referring to Slide 10 on Exhibit A‑12?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am. A 6 or 8 foot wall on the lower side, with a berm planted in the middle and then evergreens, you know, on top of that. Again, that was proposed.

1. DRILL: Does this section show that the top of the evergreens exceeds the top of the wall?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it does.

1. DRILL: You took pictures only during the summer, can you do winter simulations without the trees? Again, I answered the same question, respectfully, we can't. The remand order is on a tight, tight timeframe and we can't do the additional simulations to comply with the order. The next one ‑‑ her question was: Are the 20‑foot chillers included within the screening or do the 20‑foot chillers extend above ‑‑

1. RAZIN: Are they included in the height calculation.

THE WITNESS: Okay. So, I don't believe I said the chillers are 20‑feet tall.

The area that they sit in would be screened at the same height or slightly shorter than the 24 feet depending upon the mechanical absorption rate that needs to be achieved with chillers. They are included within the 24 feet of the penthouse height, so there's the four floors of 56, plus 24 feet of mechanical penthouse. It includes the chiller area.

So, for an overall, 80 feet. It's not another 24 feet on top of the 80.

1. DOCKRAY: It's not 20 feet above the 80?

THE WITNESS: No.

1. DOCKRAY: It's not.

THE WITNESS: Nothing will be above 80 feet, with the exception of the smokestacks that I cannot ‑‑ they're going to be at least 84 feet, but I guarantee you the DEP's going to make them a little bit taller.

1. DRILL: The next question was: Would the green roofs be visible from the streets since they'll be up so high? The question implies that they're going to green roofs higher than the first level buildings.

THE WITNESS: The green roofs would be on the roof of the first floor projections and on the westerly side of the North building. On the westerly side of the West building. There is currently a green roof between the Bergen building and the Phillips building which will be reinstated after the garage is built. There is a green roof on the loading dock canopy. And wherever else there is an ability to add green roofs, I think Blais testified that depending upon structural concerns, whether or not it's a full planted green roof, or some green screen wall, it needs to be calculated as to its place.

1. DRILL: The next question was ‑‑
2. RAZIN: But, just ‑‑ but, you'll ‑‑ but they're not ‑‑ so would they be visible? I think the question would be: Are they going to be visible as green? You would see them as green? I think that's the question, would you see them as green.

THE WITNESS: I can't opine on the ones that are taller than the first floor roofs.

1. RAZIN: No, correct. But that's ‑‑ I think that's the question. The first floor ‑‑ the ones that were testified to this evening at first floor, you'll see them as green because they're at the first floor level.

THE WITNESS: Absolutely, absolutely.

1. RAZIN: Okay. I think that's the question.
2. DRILL: Right. I was saying, the question assumed it was higher. I was trying to ‑‑
3. RAZIN: Right. So they're not going to be ones that are ‑‑ so the question, I think, right is sort of ‑‑ not the ones that are higher, if they're not higher than the first floor which means the ones on the first floor will be visible, but they're not going to be placed higher than the first floor, right?

THE WITNESS: The loading dock canopy because of the ‑‑

1. RAZIN: Loading dock.

THE WITNESS: ‑‑ the slope on the back ‑‑ on the eastern side of the site would be taller than the first floor.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So I would assume that that would be ‑‑

THE WITNESS: In between the first and second ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: ‑‑ visible to the homes on Steilen Avenue?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely. On the Steilen Avenue, from the ball field, from our own site as well.

1. DRILL: Okay. The next question was: Are the setbacks on Steilen Avenue measured from the property line or the concrete wall?

THE WITNESS: From the property line.

1. DRILL: The ninth question was ‑‑ oh, are the houses on Steilen going to be ‑‑ have to survey. And so the question really is: Are the houses on Steilen within that...

THE WITNESS: Cone of depression?

1. DRILL: Yes, the cone of depression.

THE WITNESS: Not all of them are.

1. DRILL: But I believe that we said during the 2013‑2014 ‑‑ I'm just thinking about this now, it's not in the conditions, that if anyone else wanted their house checked, we would add them onto the list.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

1. DRILL: So, we said it. And I did not purposely not put it in that list of conditions, but it's just ‑‑ I just realized it now. And the last question was ‑‑ oh, it was about the Cheel building. I think there's a misunderstanding but I'm going to let you answer that.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

The Cheel building exists today, and it will exist throughout the phases.

However, during the second phase, there are areas within the Cheel building on the first floor levels that will be eliminated and, therefore, the reduction in square feet of the Cheel building.

1. DRILL: And the only remaining items, I guess, the most number of questions within five minutes by far, winning the award.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Also, MS. ROMERO, there is a lot of information from the 2014 that relates to the wall, the landscaping, that you'll be able to read if you go online.

1. ROMERO: Okay. Thank you.
2. BANEY: May I ask, are we having questions tonight from anybody with questions for the hospital experts or can just the people who have to go today ‑‑ can some of us come back?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Do you have a question?

1. BANEY: I do, but I respectfully would rather the people who can't come back ask theirs and perhaps utilize the additional nights ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Is there anyone else this evening that is not intending to come back that would like to ask their questions?

1. BANEY: No. I would rather ask tomorrow. Next ‑‑ tomorrow.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We can continue.

1. DRILL: We're coming back tomorrow.
2. BANEY: Okay. That's what I wanted to know.
3. DRILL: We have agreed to stay as long as you want. If you want to cut off at midnight, we're not going to object. We'll stay as long as you want.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think if there aren't ‑‑ is there anyone else that has a question for Maria tonight? Please come forward. Let's state your name, provide your address.

1. McWILLIAMS: Hi, Melanie McWilliams, M‑c W‑I‑L‑L‑I‑A‑M‑S, 431 Bogert Ave.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Can you say that again, slowly please.

1. RAZIN: I know it's late.
2. DRILL: We didn't even get your first name.
3. McWILLIAMS: That's fine. Melanie McWilliams, M‑C‑W‑I‑L‑L‑I‑A‑M‑S, 431 Bogert Ave.

My question ‑‑ it's like an ‑‑ it's an observation, sort of, mixed with a question regarding the ‑‑ the ‑‑ some verbiage and your safety ‑‑ some of the safety stuff you had brought up. You've referred to the change to Valley it's going to be a campus feel, more of a campus feel. And I look at it, and I see that. I worked at Hackensack Medical Center for eight years and it's very similar. We pulled in to a ‑‑ to a driveway on Prospect, I think was the street, Prospect, off of Essex Street, and entered into a parking garage off to the right. Basically, every employee did this.

And it looks like, if I'm reading this correctly, that's what's going to happen here. I have concerns about traffic backing up doing that during change of shift times, the 7 to 3 shift, the 3 to 11 shift, 11 to 7 shift. At the change of shift times, you know, a half an hour before, it gets ‑‑ you have every employee for that shift entering the hospital. They're all entering to park in one location at that point and there's only one entrance to that garage, which is what I thought I saw. How ‑‑ I know you said you'll be implementing some new traffic signals, which brought me to another point and another question.

How ‑‑ will that ‑‑ will ‑‑ will you be able to mitigate the traffic in that area which is already backed up at 3 o'clock for school and 7 o'clock for school drop off and pick up, to the point where you can't get down the street.

Which brings me to the point that on January 11th, the Council interviewed and hired a traffic ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: MS. McWILLIAMS, if you could focus on your question.

1. McWILLIAMS: I am going to focus on it because he actually referenced Valley. And Gordon Meth was his name. He was interviewed at Ben Franklin middle school. And he found that traffic ‑‑ you had mentioned the traffic reports here were about three years old. He said that ‑‑ and we hired him within our village, so I assume we think he's an expert.

So, he said that traffic reports are ‑‑ after about three years, are outdated. He also said he found discrepancies within your traffic studies that were presented, and that was his exact word, "discrepancies." So I'm curious if, in that vein, and given that traffic studies can be outdated, would you be doing new ones before any of this commenced?

My last questions was about the louvers and the building, some of the photos of the building, or the renderings here. They're shiny. They're very shiny, that one from the field at BF, it looks really bright and shiny. So, I'm wondering sun glaring onto that reflecting, you know, into that driveway where the school is, where, you know, into the school building, I ‑‑ you know, I don't want to go so far as to say it would create heat or issues like that, but is that something ‑‑ and I noticed that they'll be metal. It'll be metal facades where the green screens are attached ‑‑

1. CAFARELLI: Two minutes.
2. McWILLIAMS: Where the green screens will be attached to it.

So, I'm curious if there's any concern about the shine or the heat or anything like that. But by my main question is regarding that traffic area because there is no other entrance there, so any way, thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MS. McWILLIAMS.

1. DRILL: So I think the first one by the campus feel, was ‑‑ I think the campus feel was an editorial comment.

The change of shift, she's asking questions about what's going to happen with the change of shift, will traffic back up?

THE WITNESS: Well, it's not shown here, but it's always a part of this plan, is that there is an entrance and exit to the Phillips garage off of North Van Dien and there is an exit from the Phillips garage into the driveway on the ‑‑ on the easterly side of the garage that allows people to exit into the Linwood Avenue driveway to the hospital.

So that was done on purpose to reduce the traffic that can only enter and exit on the north Van Dien side. That's always been a part of the 2010 and 2013‑2014 and it continues to be and it will be a part of the 2016 Phillips garage.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No charge to any of that?

THE WITNESS: No change to any of that. And I think there was traffic testimony regarding the fact that that would reduce the number of cars entering on to North Van Dien Avenue.

1. DRILL: That also takes care of the next question: How many entrances will there be to the garage.

Question four: Will you be able to mitigate the existing traffic conditions on the street? And I can just make a representation again. This is no change. But part of the testimony we put in, was that since we were reducing the number of trips. I believe by 430 trips per day, that we didn't have to do any off‑site traffic. But we ‑‑ but we're proposing to do off‑site traffic improvements as part of the plan, because even though Valley's not responsible for that traffic, our employees, our patients, our visitors have to sit in the same traffic everyone else does. So it's to our benefit to do that and that's part of our plan. That hasn't changed. Maria, next one? Well, this one, I was unclear if the Village or the Board of Education hired a traffic expert, but that's, I mean, far afield, that guy would have to be brought in here to testify. That's hearsay. And we don't even know his name. So, on that one, this is the only time I'm going to object tonight, specifically.

1. RAZIN: Okay. Well, to the ‑‑ but if you went ‑‑ if you went forward and if there was a further process and if, at that point, the Village Planning Board asked for a ‑‑ Village Planning Board experts asked for an updated traffic report, you would produce that?
2. DRILL: Absolutely.

THE WITNESS: Absolutely. Yes.

1. RAZIN: The ending part of that question ‑‑
2. DRILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: MS. McWILLIAMS, there's a lot of information on the traffic study going back to 2014 and beyond. And the testimony just now was that in the future during site plan, additional traffic studies would be addressed.

1. DRILL: And then the last question is: The louvers look shiny. Will they reflect on the school? So I'm going to ‑‑ that's the first question.

The second question is: Are you wedded to metal, silver metal as a material?

THE WITNESS: Louvers would be metal, I'm not wedded to silver, shiny. It could be a matte finish. It could be green. It could be blue. We're not wedded to shiny silver.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Again, that detail would occur during site plan at some point.

1. RAZIN: So, to further answer the question, do you have ‑‑ is there a concern about sun glare or heat or anything like that? Is there, that's the question. I think that was the second part of the question.

THE WITNESS: That could be mitigated in texture and color.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you. Thank you, MS. McWILLIAMS for your questions.

Are there others who want to ask their questions now because they will not be here tomorrow. (No response.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So we're going to continue this tomorrow.

1. BRANCHEAU: We're already there.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Tomorrow ‑‑ later today.

1. DRILL: Right.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So before we adjourn, I wanted to, again, reiterate the schedule. The next meeting is tomorrow. It will be at the high school student center at 7:30 p.m., 627 East Ridgewood Avenue. Again, April the 4th at 7:30 p.m. here in the courtroom. Tuesday, April the 5th here at the court room. And also April the 7th here in the court room ‑‑ at the high school ‑‑ sorry. April 7th at the high school.

1. RAZIN: So, tomorrow being March 31st and the April 7th meeting will be at the high school and April 4th and April 5th meetings will be here.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: That's correct. Okay. And so if there is ‑‑

1. RAZIN: To the ‑‑ and to reiterate what Charles said before. The meetings will be held only as needed. So, we will post that if we full it's necessary further on the website. But we're making an announcement, this is the second announcement that the hearings will only go until they are necessary, until public comment and then the board concludes all its comments and everybody's finished with the proceedings and then the board will ‑‑ once the proceedings are concluded, the board will proceed to take action on the matter.

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to adjourn.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there a second, please?

1. THURSTON: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Everybody in favor to adjourn?

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

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.)

Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date. Time noted 12:15 a.m.

The meeting was closed to the public.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Michael Cafarelli

                                                                                                Board Secretary

Date approved: May 16, 2017

 

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of March 15, 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 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Mr. Nalbantian, Councilwoman Knudsen, Ms. Bigos, Mr. Joel, Ms. Dockray, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Thurston, Mr. Abdalla, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney, Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer, and Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary. Ms. Altano was not present.

 

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

 

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates – Ms. Knudsen reported on the Historical Preservation Commission actions and Ms. Dockray asked about the construction of Capitol One Bank.

Sonic Wave dba Tito's Burritos, Minor Site Plan and Variance Application: Memorialization of Resolution of Approval, 166 East Ridgewood Avenue, Block 3704, Lot 5 – Chairman Nalbantian and Mr. Joel were not eligible to vote and Mayor Aronsohn was not present to vote. Ms. Knudsen motioned to approve the resolution, Ms. Dockray seconded, and the resolution was adopted.  

Approval of Minutes: The minutes from April 7, 2015 were adopted as written.

Executive Session – At 7:51 p.m., the Board moved to executive session and returned to Public Session at 9:15 p.m.

Mayor Aronsohn arrived at 8:48 p.m.

Open Session

Valley Hospital Litigation Matters – Ms. Price described the litigation settlement, process, pending remand order regarding the Whispering Woods hearing, dates the court said the Planning Board must hold public hearings, and development plan modifications. Ms. Price discussed key sections of the remand order. She said the litigation filed against the Planning Board consists of two counts, one that challenges the 2014 denial of the Master Plan and a request to have a Master Plan amendment that would have 995,000 square feet hospital to be constructed on the hospital grounds in the H-Zone compared with the 2010 Master Plan 1,266,000 square feet. She said the court indicated the Planning Board is under a tight deadline to resolve these matters and provided dates for the Board to conduct public hearings, known as Whispering Woods hearings. The dates the Board has to hold the meetings are March 30, 2016, March 31, 2016, April 4, 2016, April 5, 2016, and April 7, 2016. During the hearings, the Board will review the proposed Master Plan amendment, receive testimony from Valley Hospital and public questions on testimony, and receive public comment.

All prior testimony would be in place and the areas involved would only be modifications to the 2014 Plan. This includes modification of the north building height to be reduced by one story from 94 feet to 80 feet and to include a reduction of square footage from 995,000 to 961,000 square feet, a net reduction of 34,000 square feet from the prior plan. The above grade modification to the north building would have a setback of 47 feet from Van Dien Avenue. A series of aesthetics and visual improvement to be part of the plan, walkways, water features, green roofs, landscaping, mixing building materials to make it look like a campus development.

Ms. Price said the Planning Board needs to authorize the Whispering Woods hearing to move forward so notice can be effectuated and the public hearings can start on March 30, 2016. Mayor Aronsohn asked if Ms. Price would explain what the Board would be voting on. Ms. Price said the vote is not to approve a settlement, a plan, or any of the terms but to determine if a settlement was feasible and appropriate.

Mr. Thurston motioned to move forward with the Whispering Woods hearing and Ms. Bigos seconded. Ms. Knudsen abstained, Ms. Dockery opposed and all other approved the motion.

Work Session – Housing Element of Master Plan – Mr. Brancheau reviewed the housing plan and the Village obligations from EConsult. He discussed the draft AH-3 Affordable Housing District ordinance. Board members questioned the setbacks, type of housing permitted, household income, affordable housing, income range, the maximum number permitted by the State.  Members suggested the planner look at Normandy Court in HoHoKus and their setbacks. Mr. Brancheau said he would provide a layout and proceed with completing a draft plan for the next Planning Board meeting.

Reexamination Report of Action Items Prioritization – Mr. Brancheau discussed the memorandum distributed to the Board. He said the report consisted of 118 action items that were segmented by urgent, easy, and or neither category. Mr. Brancheau guided the Board on where and how to focus on the items.

Correspondence received by the Board – There was none.

Other Business - Mr. Brancheau and Mr. Rutishauser reported on the status of the Church of God. Ms. Price said she would review the resolution and enforcement procedures. Ms. Price said that there were Planning Board MLUL courses at Bergen Community College for Board members who have not been certified.

The meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m.

                                                                                                Michael Cafarelli

                                                                                                Board Secretary

Date approved: May 16, 2017

 

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of January 5, 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: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Ms. Bigos, Mr. Nalbantian, Councilwoman Knudsen, Mr. Thurston, Mr. Reilly (he arrived later), Ms. Altano, Mr. Joel, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Patire. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Mr. Abdalla was not present.

               

Correspondence received by the Board – Michael Cafarelli reported a letter was received from James Turteltaub asking the Board to consider allowing gas stations and retail services on Route 17 corridor. Mr. Turteltaub gave an overview of the changes that have taken place with gas stations adding convenience stores and he asked that the Board recognize the change and incorporate it into Zoning ordinances.

 

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – Mr. Turteltaub came before the Board to discuss his letter. Mr. Brancheau provided background on Mr. Turteltaub's letter.

Continued discussion of the reexamination of the Master Plan and development regulations – Non-Residential Land Use & Non-Residential Zones – Mr. Brancheau discussed his report.  He talked about the existing master plan and land use ordinance provisions concerning nonresidential uses and zones, the status of the 2006 reexamination recommendations, and proceeded to present his current recommendations for the B-1 Zone, B-2 Zone, C Zone, P Zone, P-2 Zone, H Zone conditional uses, signs, and special regulations including awnings, and exterior air conditioning. Mr. Brancheau asked the Board for authorization to allow him to include his recommendations in the draft report. The Board agreed.

Board members had questions about combining all the various master plan documents into a single document. Mr. Brancheau said that doing so is recommended, but that it made sense to move forward with separate plan amendments that will eventually be combined.

There were questions on houses of worship, drive-in uses, signs, and if it was permitted for business to have a sign on the awning flap, and if the Village had any ordinance for “Air bnb,” i.e., the practice of transient rental of rooms or dwelling units. Mr. Brancheau responded to the questions.

There was a suggestion that the Board set aside one meeting per month to discuss the master plan.

Approval of Minutes – The minutes from August 5, 2014 were adopted as written.

 

Executive Session – 9:10 p.m. The Board went into executive session at 9:10 p.m. to discuss pending and threatened litigation and returned and meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Michael Cafarelli

                                                                                                Board Secretary

Date approved: January 19, 2016

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of June 21, 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: Chairman Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Aronsohn, Ms. Bigos, Chairman Nalbantian, Councilwoman Knudsen, Mr. Joel, Mr. Abdalla, Mr. Reilly, and Ms. Peters. Also present were: Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney; Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer; Blais Brancheau, Village Planner, and Michael Cafarelli, Board Secretary. Mr. Thurston, Ms. Dockray, and Ms. Altano was not present.

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

Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Cafarelli said there was none.

World Mission Society, Church of God – Mr. Brancheau reports on the status of compliance with the Resolution, outstanding issues and next steps. The Board discussed a July 31, 2016 as a new deadline for everything to be completed except the landscaping, September 30 for the landscaping, and 14 days of approval to complete the fire lane. The application was continued to the July reorganization meeting and applicant will need to appear and report on status.

Public Hearing on Housing Element of the Village Master Plan – Mr. Brancheau provided an overview of the Housing Element to the Board. He said the Village need to comply now by the court order. Mr. Brancheau discussed the court's opinion and municipality obligations to provide housing. He reviewed the Affordable Housing estimates by the E-Council and said that Fair Share established an estimate of 1,000 units.

He discussed the vacant land adjustment, the Village statistics, higher income, population flat, lack of vacant land, the Village is relatively affluent, and there are more elderly and fewer millennials than the County and State.

Mr. Brancheau reported on the four key elements, and discussed the charts he sent to the Board in detail. He said the AH3 Zone maximum number of units would be eight. The Board said only three units could be developed.

Board members questioned the ordinance and asked if it could be tweaked, could the type of zoning increase density to encourage developers to create six to eight units per acre? Mr. Brancheau said it could be cost prohibitive. Members asked about the size of lots, the buffer area, and the units would be closer together to resemble single-family lots.

Public Questions

Charles Nowinski asked about the developer requirements for the entrance and exits of the building. Mr. Brancheau said access would be from Route 17.

Nancy Friedman, 526 W. Saddle River Road, asked is Mr. Brancheau could be specific about the buffer to protect the residents on the West side of the road and if it could be changed at a later date. Mr. Brancheau said it could be changed in the ordinance but not in the Master Plan.

Donald Henke, 524 W. Saddle River Road, asked how utilities and sewage would be routed to the lot. He said that years ago the State of New Jersey disapproved of a building on the premises because of the egress from Route 17. Mr. Brancheau said if the State will not allow utilities then it would not be build. He said eventually something would have to be built there and that changes could be made to the zoning. However, if the State will not allow utilities then nothing can be build.

Dylan Flamn, 22 Carriage Lane asked if the setback would be applied to the side of Carriage Lane, and if development would be in the middle of the park walkway would the developer build around it. Mr. Brancheau said they would.

Public Comment – Ms. Nancy Friedman, 526 W. Saddle River Road, expressed concern about the Schedler property, deforestation, and enforcement of the code.

Board Deliberations – Board members had concerns about the density of B-3-R and the AH-2 zones. Members were generally favorable towards the report and recognized it was a difficult issue.

Mr. Joel motioned to approve the report, Councilwoman Knudsen seconded and all voted in favor.

Adoption of Minutes – July 7, 2015 were adopted as drafted.

Executive Session – Executive Session was not held.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Michael Cafarelli

                                                                        Board Secretary

Date approved: May 2, 2017