The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of December 5, 2017. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Following members were present: Mayor Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Melanie McWilliams, David Scheibner, and Ms. Patire. Also present were Christopher Martin, Esq., Board Attorney; Village Planner Brigette Bogart; Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Barto was not present.

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

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics, Correspondence – Mr. Joel reported the Master Plan subcommittee received responses to the RFP and that committee members will review the responses and report back to the Board at the December 19, 2017 meeting.

Ordinance #3625, which amends Chapter 190, Land Use and Development to permit certain illuminated signs in the B-1, B-2, and C Districts - Ms. Bogart discussed the original ordinance introduced by the Governing Body on public displays and said several Village employees expressed concerned about the enforcement of the ordinance and its applicability to existing ordinance. Ms. Bogart said she had photographs of the existing conditions on Ridgewood Avenue and Board Members asked to see them as well as the video displays. She said the revised ordinance provides details on how to regulate window signs and window displays together. Mr. Torielli stated he thought the percentages proposed are too high and should be lowered. Board members had concerns regarding LED and neon lighting, flickering images and traffic safety. Mayor Knudsen said the basis for the ordinance is to address video displays.

Mr. Joel and Mr. Torielli indicated if this is the basis, additional research should be done on existing conditions, and a two-person subcommittee should be formed. Mr. Rutishauser indicated this is a substantial change in the ordinance that was introduced by the governing body and therefore a new first reading would be necessary. Mr. Torielli and Ms. McWilliams agreed to serve on the Subcommittee. They will meet and address the issues and report to back to the Planning Board.

200/210 South Broad Avenue, LLC, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan and C Variance, Block 3905, Lot 6 and 7– Pubic Hearing continued from November 7, 2017 - to be carried to January 16, 2018 without further notice and without prejudice to the Board – The application was carried to January 19, 2018.

Hopper Ridge Townhomes, Informal Review, Durar Avenue, Block 4104, Lot 3 – Carried from October 3, 2017 without prejudice to the Board - David Rutherford, applicant's counsel introduced the application. Mr. Latincsics presented the retaining wall project and detailed the need for the project based on the gradual failing of the existing retaining wall constructed in 1986. He asked for clarification of the Board's jurisdiction.  Mr. Rutishauser said the existing use as attached singles-family dwellings is a conditional use and there are a number of conditions that need to be met with regard to setbacks of structures. If these conditions are not met, a D variance is required and the Zoning Board would have jurisdiction. There will be a number of variances required for wall height. Mr. Latincsics said they had pre-meetings with the NJDEP and are moving forward with the permit process.  He said soil movement would exceed 3,000 cubic yards. Board members were concerned about the decaying retaining walls and potential toxins affect the community. Mr. Latincsics said the wood would stop rotting when buried.  He said the wall would be 16 feet in height and would need fencing. Board members asked why the entire retaining wall could not be setback twelve feet from the existing wall as has been done at the pinch point.

Mr. Latincsics said they proposed a spilt rail fence on top of the wall that is counted in the wall height. He said the proposed wall would not be tiered and they would need variances. A Board member asked if the residents on Cedar would be impacted by the visual of the new higher wall. Mr. Latincsics said there is a large buffer there and they would plant more material if necessary.

Mr. Latincsics said spicebush would be planted at the base of this wall, as it is a native species and not a rhododendron bush. Board members asked the applicant to narrow the gap between the walls, acknowledged it needs to be repaired, and asked the applicant to reduce the number of trees removed.

Robert Jennee, Minor Subdivision and C Variance, 246 Mountain Road, Block 2509, Lot 13.01- continued from October 17, 2017 without further notice and without prejudice to the Board – David Rutherford the applicant's counsel discussed the application for a minor subdivision and C variance. He introduced Thomas Skrable, the planner and engineer presented the details of the application and responded to Board member questions. Mr. Rutishauser and Ms. Bogart summarized their professional review memorandums and variances required.

Mr. Scheibner recused himself from hearing the application.

Mr. Rutherford summarized application and said it is a strict application of the ordinance of the lot width requirement that causes issues with the site development. He said the variance could be granted under C1 and C2 criteria.

The Board said the application is a C2 not a C1 and that it is a self-created hardship not warranting a variance. The Board made a motion to approve that failed then a motion to deny that passed. The application was denied.

Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from February 7, 2017 were adopted as written

The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
      

Michael Cafarelli
      Board Secretary

Date approved: December 4, 2018

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of November 7, 2017. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Following members were present:, Joel Torielli, Mayor Knudsen, Richard Joel, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Mr. Van Goor, Melanie McWilliams, Ms. Barto, and David Scheibner. Also present were Board Attorney, Christopher Martin, Esq., Village Planner, Elizabeth Mc Manus; Assistant Village Engineer, Jovan Mehandzic, and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Mr. Rutishauser, Ms. Patire, Ms. Barto, and Ms. Altano were not present.

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

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics, Correspondence – Mr. Scheibner reported the Site Plan Exemption Committee (SPEC) met to discuss two applications and both were approved.

Stacy Tsapatsaris, Minor Subdivision and C Variance, 144 North Murray Avenue, Block 2104, Lot 2 and 3.06 – Pubic Hearing continued from September 5, 2017 – Nick and Stacy Tsapatsaris were at the meeting and Mr. Tsapatsaris presented their application for a subdivision with no new variances. Board members asked about the dimensions, the reason for the subdivision and deed restrictions. Mayor Knudsen motioned to approve the application, Mr. Torielli seconded and all approved.

200/210 South Broad Avenue, LLC, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan and C Variance, Block 3905, Lot 6 and 7 – Pubic Hearing continued from September 5, 2017. (The following is a transcription of the audio file prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R. of the Village of Ridgewood Planning Board Meeting of November 7, 2017 concerning the 200/210 SOUTH BROAD AVENUE LLC application. Case begins at 18:40 on the tape counter.)  

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

The minutes from May 5, 2015 and December 20, 2016 were adopted as written

The meeting was adjourned at 9:17: p.m.      

Michael Cafarelli
      Board Secretary

Date approved: December 4, 2018

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of September 19, 2017. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Susan Knudsen, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman John Voigt, Melanie McWilliams, Dave Scheibner, Francis Barto and James Van Goor. Also present were Elizabeth McManus, Planner, Board Attorney Chris Martin, Village Assistant Engineer Jovan Mehandzic, and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Mr. Rutishauser and Ms. Patire were not present.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – Mr. Tuvel, attorney for KS Broad Street, asked if the Board would convene a Special meeting for the KS Broad II application. The Board deliberated and agreed to hold the meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 2017.

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates nor Agenda Items – Mr. Joel reported on the Master Plan subcommittee progress in preparing an RFP for a Master Planner. Mayor Knudsen reported the September Historical Commission meeting was cancelled.

Correspondence received by the Board – Mr. Cafarelli said a traffic report from Petry Traffic, a memorandum from the Village Manager about Companion Animal Pledge and Plan, and an email from the Board Attorney.

257 Ridgewood Avenue, LLC, Block 3703, Lot 4, 6, & 8.01, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan – Pubic Hearing continued from August 15, 2017 - Following is the transcript of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

CHAIRMAN JOEL: Our next item will be 257 Ridgewood Avenue, LLC, Block 3703, Lot 4, 6 and 8.01, preliminary and final major site plan, public hearing continued from August 15, 2017. 

The attorney on this is Tom Bruinooge and we've heard from the engineer, Mike Dipple on July 18th, and then on August 15th and we also heard from Tom Toronto from the United Way. I guess next up is probably the architect and traffic and others. But you have the floor, Tom.
MR. BRUINOOGE: Thank you. You're correct, and we have those witnesses and Mr. Englebaugh from Minno & Wasko the architect for the project did testify, I believe concluded what I would consider to be direct questioning at least from me and so what I anticipated doing with your indulgence is to put Mr. Englebaugh up and is available for answering whatever questions that the board may have had at this point, to be followed by Eric Keller, the traffic engineer who did a traffic report which was submitted to the Village and to John Jahr along the way and then finally John Szabo, one of the principals of Burgis & Associates on the planning issues. At the suggestion of MR. MARTIN and I believe, perhaps, somebody else on the board, we had filed with the Village a major soil movement permit application, which we have noticed pursuant to your ordinance. And to that end I have a proof of publication and an affidavit of service that the appropriate notice as required by the ordinance has been completed and I would like to have that marked and give it to Mr. Cafarelli for the record.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you, MR. BRUINOOGE.
MR. BRUINOOGE: What's the next exhibit that we have?
MR. MARTIN:  I'm on AR 10 L.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  So this would be  
COURT REPORTER:  11.
MR. MARTIN:  AR 11.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Fine.  AR 11 makes sense.
(Whereupon, Major Soil Movement Permit Application is received and marked as Exhibit AR 11 for identification.)
MR. MARTIN: The notice for the hearing on this was done months ago. 
MR. BRUINOOGE: This particular notice is focused on the question of the major soil movement permit.
MR. MARTIN:  As long as we have it. This is AR 11. And the notice is satisfactory. 
Thank you, MR. BRUINOOGE.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  You're welcome.
MR. MARTIN:  Here you go. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Having established the notice then the order would be at the conclusion of THE WITNESSes for the application, the main    for want of describing it a little differently, we'll finish up with Mike Dipple on the question of the major soil movement permit. 
We thank the Village for bringing along an engineer, Jovan, who has been in touch with Mike Dipple to address whatever questions we have at that point. So our hope is that we can conclude tonight and with that, Mr. Englebaugh is here. I remind him that he continues to be under oath and he is available to answer any questions the board might have with respect to the architectural issues that were presented at the last meeting.
B R U C E  E N G L E B A U G H, having been previously sworn, continues to testify as follows: 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Did he have any other direct testimony to present with respect to the   
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I don't believe so.
MR. ENGLEBAUGH:  No. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Would it help if he simply referenced the last exhibit or the exhibit that's up there? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah, I think it would.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Just to get us thinking about what we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, I think that would, yeah.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRUINOOGE: 
Q. If you don't mind, Bruce, thanks. 
A. Not at all.  I need the microphone. Testing. Hello? Okay. The drawing we're looking at right now is labeled "Site Plan." And it is Exhibit AR 7. Just to get you familiarized again, North Maple is going horizontally along the bottom. Franklin Avenue is off to the right. And Ridgewood is off to the left hand side going vertically (indicating). The building shown in green here is the here is the Sealfons building that's existing. And the only thing we're doing in the Sealfons building is adding special needs housing on the top floor. In order to accommodate that, we're going to make the elevator larger in the Sealfons building to accommodate handicap and wheelchairs. Over on the right hand side shown in tan, that is the new building that we're doing, The Enclave, you could see it's 39 dwelling units and it is basically four stories over top of a parking deck. It gets a little bit more complicated than that, because there's actually a two level deck with residential units in the front and then there's a second story parking deck in the back. So they interlock so to speak. The access to the lower level parking deck would be right here (indicating), off of North Maple Avenue. And the access to the upper level parking deck would be here up on Franklin Avenue. The front of the buildings where you could see here it says "roof terrace,". We've taken the top level off that faces onto North Maple Avenue and then in the back right here, this would step up to four stories. So it has a nicer scale, so to speak, when you're on North Maple Avenue because the buildings do appear much lower. So I don't know if you want to go into it a little bit more, like walking through the floor plans, things like that.
Q. That might help, because I think it's important that the board recall and   
A. Okay.  I'll just try to give you a re cap of  
Q. Yes, and I'd like you to touch specifically on the elimination of certain spaces of the Sealfons building and replacing it with special needs housing. 
A. Okay.  Last time we were up    I'll just go through these very quickly. If anybody has any questions, just stop me. We started out with this. This is an Exhibit AR 6 and it just shows some of the buildings in downtown Ridgewood. What we were trying to do, if you look at the lower right, you'll see that the buildings are broken up vertical and that happened back in the day because that's where the property lines where people built their buildings within their own identity and individual character. And that's what we tried to capture in the facade on North Maple Avenue. You also see in the lower level there's a horizontal line and below that there were usually retail shops. We tried to capture that vocabulary as well. And you'll see that when we get on the front elevation. The next exhibit is labeled AR 8 and it is the east elevation or the front Maple Avenue elevation. And this shows the existing Sealfons building over on the left side and the new Enclave building on the right. Here you can    actually, I'm not going to spend too much time on this because we have an enlargement and Mike will go in more detail on that. For this, just remember we have the Sealfons building over here and The Enclave building over here (indicating). If you have any questions, you can refer to that. 

This is an enlargement of what we're calling The Enclave. It's the same elevation that we just looked at, just an enlargement of the new construction that is going to take place. North Maple Avenue obviously is in the front here (indicating). This area over here is the ingress into the parking deck and this is the front door or the address of the building. Kind of thinking back to those images of downtown Ridgewood, you can see how we tried to break this up vertically so that each one of those portions has somewhat an identify, so to speak, is similar to the buildings in downtown Ridgewood. You also see the horizontal line that comes across here (indicating), the retail shops on Ridgewood Avenue, we kind of kept that same vocabulary on this design. Up above are the residential units, here you could see one, two, three stories of residential. We also have a fourth floor, but, again, this top level steps way back, when we get to a building section, you'll see that this portion of the building is set back about 32 feet from the base of this building    the base of this facade rather.
Q. Bruce, would you just mention the exhibit you are referring to?
A. This is Exhibit AR 9.
Q. Thank you. 
A. And the next thing we looked at was a flip chart of the floor plans. What we're looking at now is the ground floor plan. It's labeled Exhibit AR 10A. In the gray color here is the parking deck, the lower level parking deck. There are 46 public spaces. We were just looking at the elevations. The ingress into the garage at this point, this is the main front entrance at this point right here (indicating). We also talked a little bit about some of the red clouds that you see on these drawings. Those refer to responses to Beth McManus's memo. On this one you'll see a couple of red clouds. What we did is we added a turnaround space for the parking deck here. So that if somebody came in, they could turn around and get back out. And we moved that space over to this area, so we didn't lose any spaces when we made that revision. Up in the back here we put in double doors (indicating). This is kind of a service area and we wanted it a little bit wider. There's a ramp here so that a hand truck can get down here, if they need it. We just wanted some wider doors. As we go up through the building, I'll explain how the trash works, but right over here is the    what I'll call, the lowest level of the last place the trash gets collected. The truck would come in here (indicating). These dumpsters would wheel out. It would pull in and dump it into the truck. Back in here and turn around and go out. 
The trash, you'll see it on the upper level.  The trash comes down the chute and then the porter will take it over to this area, but, again, that's on the area up above. The next exhibit is    if I can take a break here and lift this up. Okay. This next exhibit is AR 10B.  It is the first floor plan now one level up, so to speak, from North Maple Avenue. This level you could see we have parking in the back. This is the second level parking deck and then we have residential units up in the front. We have two elevators right here. The larger one is a service elevator.  This other one would be the elevator for the residents. There's two stair towers, one over here on the left and one over here on the right side (indicating) towards the top of the sheet. But you can see as you come in off of Franklin Avenue via car you would drive underneath this portion of the building, what you see with the red diagonal stripes, that's the building up above. 

So you drive underneath that, find a parking place and then this is    what would for all intents and purposes will be the front entrance for the residents. We have a double loaded corridor and you could see we have residential units on both sides of that corridor (indicating). 
Over here is the trash    we're talking about the level below what would    the way the trash would be handled would come down this service elevator. It would    I'm sorry, it wouldn't come down the service elevator. It would go down the trash chute. There would be a compactor in here. A porter will take it out the trash room over to this holding area and there's a chute here where it drops down to the area below and that's where the truck would pick it up and take it out. The next exhibit is AR 10C. It's the second floor and the Sealfons building kind of a bluish color over here (indicating), this is the special needs housing. You could see we have a one bedroom and the rest are two bedrooms over here (indicating). And then we have a community room shown in this greenish color. Here is the elevator using vertical transportation. Over on the right hand side in the tan color is The Enclave. You could see it's double loaded corridor. We have the elevators in the center here and the trash room shown in gray and then a stair tower on each end. The third floor, we're now above the Sealfons building.  So all we're seeing is the new Enclave, it's the L shaped building with a tan color, very similar to the floor below. The next exhibit is the fourth floor. This is AR 10E. Again, you'll see that L shape. But the difference on this level is    and it's hard to see, because it's all the same color of tan, but this is that roof terrace in the front here. So the only residential units are above my hand to the back. So there's a single loading corridor here and then it turns into a double loading corridor. Again, the stair towers on each end and the elevators in the center and the trash room. This room up in the upper left is an amenity space. Again, that was added to Beth's memo about we needed more common space for the building. So this is a space that's accessible to all the residents. Next exhibit is Sheet A 6, the roof plan. And this is exhibit number AR 10. So you see where the terrace is down below, this lighter tone tan. Up above in this darker brown color is the roof. You could see we have the condensing units and there's a red cloud on here. What we did is we've added a louver screen so that you don't see the condenser units. It's just a series of louvers so that if you're standing    you actually wouldn't even see them from the ground. If you're up in the air on any of the surrounding buildings, you would see decorative louvers rather than the mechanical equipment. I won't spend too much time on this. This is Sheet A 7. This is a elevation. This is Exhibit AR 10G. These are basically the black and white versions of the colored ones that we looked at earlier. Down here on bottom of the sheet is the south elevation. We didn't really look at that. This would be Ridgewood Avenue (indicating) in the foregrounds would be Sealfons and the foreground as well. And then the new Enclave building would sit far back in the distance. So if you can see this from the ground here, this is Ridgewood, we're looking this way. Next sheet is sheet number A 8. It's more building elevations. And it's labeled Exhibit AR 10H.  On the top we have the west elevation. This would be the Sealfons building on the right hand side. And this would be The Enclave on your left side. So to get you oriented on the site plan, you would be looking at it like this, like that (indicating). The Sealfons building on your left, The Enclave on your right. This portion all in brick would be this wing right here (indicating) that comes towards you. The north elevation down below, this is what faces Franklin Avenue. This area here would be the ramp that you drive up (indicating) and then you would park underneath the building and then this is the three residential floors that are up above the parking and this is North Maple Avenue out here to the far left. 

One thing I did want to talk about that I didn't talk about last time was in Beth's memo, it's concealing the parking. We don't show the Brake O Rama building up here, but the Brake O Rama building is going to hide any of the parking. I think the Brake O Rama building is probably 10 feet higher. So any cars that are parked behind that building you're not going to see them. You will see them parked here, though (indicating). The next drawing is Sheet A 9. It's a building section. The exhibit is labeled AR 10I. This would be North Maple Avenue on the right hand side. You'll see here the three dwelling units, the three stories with a terrace up above that face out on North Maple Avenue. The garage down below, you can see that it's partially buried. You actually slope down a little bit to get into that garage and then by the time you get to the back it's pretty much fully there. There is an existing utility room that's there now. That's where all the utilities come in, actually for the Sealfons building and we're going to keep that room and it's going to be a service and utility room for this project as well. 
This wing in the back up towards the upper left    let me just get this site plan for you. So this building section we're looking at there will be a line cut through here (indicating). I know it's hard to see down here, I don't know if everybody could see it. Right through here (indicating).  So you're seeing North Maple to the right. The roof terrace right here. Parking in the back. And then you'll see this wing, which is this right here. That's this one right here. This is good, because it shows if there's someone on the sidewalk, even the offices aside the sidewalk on North Maple Avenue, when they look up, this is the sight line (indicating). So you could see that wall. This is the wall that we were talking about that was set 32 feet back. It's right here. So if you're on the sidewalk, you won't even see that wall. You will see the site here. 
Next exhibit is labeled AR 10J. It's sheet number A 10. It's a typical unit floor plan. On the left we show a typical one bedroom at 865 square feet. On the right is a typical two bedroom at 1,250 square feet. Just in general we tried to keep the kitchens and the baths in the back where we don't need the windows and we have the living and the bedroom spaces out here on the window wall.

Next exhibit was Sheet No. A 11. It's labeled AR 10K. It just shows the breakdown of the various square footages. There's a chart down in the lower left hand corner and it just shows the retail, office, residential and, you know, how they all total up. The last exhibit is a building height diagram. It's Exhibit No. AR 10L and what we did is we took several of the buildings that are nearby, such as Franklin Avenue, you can recognize it more with the images that are down on the bottom. That we had Franklin Avenue, Cottage Place. And then we put The Enclave project in the center and we compared the heights of the surrounding buildings. Just looking at The Enclave, the height per code is 54 feet, 11 inches or 54.92 feet. The thing to remember about this is it's averaged from an imaginary plane that's established by setting points around the perimeter of the building. We take an average of those points. That sets this imaginary grade plane line and we measure from there to the top. So that's how we can measure per code. Some of the earlier hearings that we had back    you know, dating back to 2014, 2012, there was a concern about high the building was from the sidewalk. So we took all the heights measured against the terraces, is taking the floor off the building in the front. So we took all the various heights, because you could see the parapets steps up and down. We averaged them together and from the sidewalk it averaged 46 feet, 4.5 inches. That's basically a quick recap of what we talked about last time. A couple of additional pieces in there. 
MR. BRUINOOGE: And so any questions of this particular witness on the architectural issues? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Jeff?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: The condenser units that will be on top of the building, how big are they?  How much do they weigh? 
THE WITNESS: How much do they weigh? I don't know. They're probably about 2.5 feet.  Maybe 3 feet would be tall.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So if you wanted to get them down, in other words, if they need to repair another, how would they    would they go through the elevator to get out? 
THE WITNESS:  No, they'd have to take them to the stairs.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So they're portable by human beings as opposed to, like, a crane? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, most times if they're doing a lot of them, they probably have a crane to pick them up.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So if they need to be removed, then a crane would come and remove them; Is that right? 
THE WITNESS: I can't answer that accurately. You know, if they had to come down the stairs, they could. I would say if a contractor has a crane, he'd probably use a crane to get them out of there. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Just wondering how big they are. Okay. And behind the building that's up on the Cottage Place side, can a vehicle go from one side to the other? Can they go south to north to get under the building, if they wanted to? 
THE WITNESS: You're saying back through here (indicating)? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah.
THE WITNESS:  Not on the property, no.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. So then it's basically really cut off, they just won't go through, right? 
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: This goes up a ramp and there would be a retaining wall here. Here you can see there's some stairs. So, yes, there's probably about an 8 foot drop.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. The property that's next to the building, Brake O Rama  
THE WITNESS:  Uh huh.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:     do you guys think there's going to be any issues with a new tenant    is that better? Sorry. So the property that's next to the Brake O Rama, do you perceive any issues with the tenants when that becomes something else? In other words, it becomes a high utility or a high utilization type of facility, like a restaurant? Is that going to be an issue for people who are living in that building? Will it affect their quality of life? 
MR. BRUINOOGE: Mr. Voigt, that's to be pure speculation to attempt to answer that question. You know, people will come in and be tenants in the building based on the amenities in the building, the unit that they want to occupy, et cetera and they will take a look at the neighborhood. There's no guarantee the neighborhood isn't going to change and that's just the way it is. Couldn't speculate as to what someone two, five, ten years from now would feel with respect to changes in Ridgewood or changes in the immediate neighborhood.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I'm just concerned that we might have people living in the building with the addition above the new facility next to it.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Well, if they're tenants they can not pay their rent, I suppose, and move.  There's a simple answer. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay.
MR. MARTIN:  But obviously MR. BRUINOOGE is not testifying.  So if you know the answer, don't know the answer, want to say what MR. BRUINOOGE said, precisely.
THE WITNESS:  I would concur with those thoughts. 
I mean, it's designed to comply with the building code.  So if anybody wanted to come in there and put a higher building, it complies with all the building codes. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I mean, we had   
MR. MARTIN:  Mr. Voigt, your witness.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you. We did have someone come before us a few months ago to propose a restaurant down there. And I don't know if that will come to fruition or not, but it's a concern. The size of the trucks that we get in and out of there, is that a traffic issue? 
MR. BRUINOOGE: That would be a traffic issue. I think it would be best directed to the next witness. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. The easement between that facility and the Brake O Rama, is there a space there?  Will there be a space, easement space? 
THE WITNESS:  Between the two buildings?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. 
THE WITNESS:  It would be tight up against each other.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Just so the record is clear, that's per code. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: That's it. 
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you, Jeff. 
Okay, Dave. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  You mentioned that the existing utility room that's subterranean is going to stay. I noticed on the plans that there's an indication that there's meters on the west side of the lower level. 
THE WITNESS: Correct.
MR. SCHEIBNER: So are those electric meters?
THE WITNESS: They're for gas meters there. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: Gas meters. But that's    but the gas actually comes in through the utility room? 
THE WITNESS: Uh huh, yes. The way we're going to handle that is    it's hard to see it, but we're looking at Exhibit AR 10I. This is the building section. Down in the lower left hand corner there's a plan of that utility room. The meters that you're referring to are over here (indicating) on the left hand side. We're not going to disturb that wall. What we're going to do is come off of that existing wall and probably put one to two columns and those columns will be about 2.5 feet, roughly, away from that wall and then there will be like about a 10 inch reinforced concrete slab that's going to cantilever over that, so we're not going to disturb that wall and then that    that floor will hold up the rest of the building up above. Does that answer the question? 
MR. SCHEIBNER: Not exactly. Have you ran this plan by the gas utility? You know, as far as locating the meters that far away from where the gas comes off of the property? 
THE WITNESS: To answer your question we've talked to the gas company. The second part of your question about how far they are, they're actually under the new building.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Yes. My experience with utilities is they like the meters to be as close to where the supply comes into the property to minimize the possibility of lines being tapped before they hit a meter.
THE WITNESS: There are two places for utility rooms. We have some located here on the right hand side of the building (indicating). We haven't finalized it. My opinion, I think they're best served coming into that utility room. It's right here in the corner of the building (indicating). There's a perfect place to bring a chase up through there. So I think that's a good place to have it, actually. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: So the    you haven't presented this plan to the utilities? 
THE WITNESS: I have not, no.
MR. SCHEIBNER: And you're planning to meter all the utilities separately for the different units? 
THE WITNESS: Usually that's how it's done. We have    you're asking some questions. Right now we're trying to get everybody to look at the big picture, is this an approvable project and then we can kind of dig in with that level of detail. We don't necessarily have to put all of those meters down here. They can go in the garage. Typically, when we do these residential projects, that's where the meters go. All I'm saying is there's an existing basement down here now. The meters for this building, the Sealfons building, are in that basement. We can build this without disturbing any of those. But sometimes when you actually get into the nuts and bolts of this, this is where we have to talk to the gas company. They may say that's high pressure service, you need all new meters, these are old meters. I don't know the answer to that. It's not unusual to come across that type of complexity once you start to dig into the details. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Okay.  That's all the questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Thank you. 
MR. BRUINOOGE, would you agree that any utility requirements will be followed by the applicant? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Sure, reasonable. 
We always hope that Public Service Electric & Gas is reasonable in their demands and requests, but certainly the intention is to provide that particular service both electric and gas from the current utility company.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Right.  And in the same manner you were being interrogated by a professional utility manager. I just want to focus on one other thing. Okay. That's acceptable.  Okay. Thank you.
Okay, Chief? 
CHIEF VAN GOOR: I have no questions. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I'm going to take over Chief's time. 
Bruce, thank you.  Bruce, right? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I have a few questions. 
The first, you're using the    let me just go to the first page of the site plan where    actually on every page of the site plan. 
On the front entrance way where the staircase is located, and you could see it actually on the ground floor plan A 1.  So  
THE WITNESS:  The main entrance?
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  That staircase there.
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Now, I'm reading that that's the road widening easement, it's in the easement; is that accurate?
THE WITNESS: I might have to defer to the civil engineer on that question. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Let me rephrase the question then. Because it's in a road widening easement, how would you redesign that as the architect to remove it and place it back on the road widening easement? How would you handle that? 
THE WITNESS: It looks like the road widening easement runs right through on the bottom line here and we're actually showing the stairway going up to the left there. 
So if that front stair, which is, you know, it's nicely designed, designed to be attractive, if that were taken away, the ramp still works and the stair over to the left would service it as well. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes. I think that that would have to be corrected, because I wouldn't want to compromise our everybody's hooked up down the road and to other issues that might arise. If I go to    well, if I go to page    oh, the same page, the    this plan shows the access through that 19 foot, if you look at the upper left corner, it actually would be the    that western side, correct?
THE WITNESS:  Right. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  A little over to your right. So you see that roadway, that 19 foot wide drive is going through the Village owned Cottage Place lot. Is that accurate? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So my question is: A dump truck or a garbage truck could actually come into the property and then exit through that, because there's nothing blocking a vehicle from taking that route; would that be accurate? 
THE WITNESS:  I would say yes, but I would say vehicular parking and circulation is probably best answered by the traffic engineer. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Actually I'm going to address it with him. But I just wanted to ask because you did testify about the    that other driveway running along the western side. Right? I don't think    is that 15 feet? I wanted to go through the elevations. Immediately, the front of this building is absolutely beautiful, the Maple Avenue side, it's beautiful, good job breaking it up.
And, actually, I think that you took the design elements and applied them appropriately because you really got it. 
THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: However, I'm a little concerned    and I love these little packets as opposed to a big plan, but the problem is I can't see the length of the buildings, the corridor lanes, it's 104. When I'm looking at    if I'm looking at the    so if I'm standing on Ridgewood Avenue and I see the Sealfons building exactly in the front and I see the new Enclave in the back, and I see that you appointed each of those units or structures, if you will, that break up point with the same finishes as the front of the building; is that accurate? So I'm seeing that if it's a brick face or brick veneer, they're all broken up as well with different finishes.
THE WITNESS:  They're not broken up to the same degree, but it is the same treatments, it should be brick and stucco.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yeah. So I think what would be really important to me, because as I turn also down to the Franklin Ave side, because there's so much attention that it gives some attention to the front of the building along Maple, and it occurs to me that the other three vantage points, whether you're standing from the north looking south, from the west looking east, from the south looking north, we're seeing a very significant structure and part of the design element    I think only never anticipated what was on the road in front and in this instance, because of the way it's kind of seen from four different locations. I'm interested in knowing how you could break those massive structures up, maybe a little bit more creatively, because it just looks like a wall of a building and I'm not quite understanding how it's going to visualize from different perspectives. 
THE WITNESS: I think one of the things that would have helped is if we saw it in color, because we're going to do some different colors on here, so that's one thing. The other thing that's difficult to see, we're going to put joints and stucco to help break that up. It isn't going to have the same articulation as the front. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yeah, and I think that it's such an important location. It is your entrance.  It is when somebody enters into our central business district, is the first statement that's going to be seen. This is a statement building. I think you would agree that it's going to be a very significant visual impact and I think that we really need to better understand how this is going to look from those perspectives because this is what everyone's going to see when they first are welcomed into our central business district. And I'm just interested in how you might give it more attention, if you could.
THE WITNESS:  Well, I mean, I could discuss that with our team. And as we know every time we add that kind of detail, it costs money at some point.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, I know it costs money, but, you know, the    but for the Village it's what everybody will see. When you're on Cottage Place, you see the    if you're looking at the big Board of Ed building, from every side is the same details with the same architectural elements. So everywhere you stand you can see that that particular building, you see it from every angle.  It's not like there's another building blocking it visually and so you see the beauty of the building everywhere you go. If you look at the Franklin Avenue, you go in that darker building, I think it has a name, actually, you see your brickwork, you see the details, you see the appointments to the building. So I'm thinking that needs a little more attention. It just looks like a plain wall. And then my last question on the front of the Maple Ave side, those balconies, are those Romeo and Juliette? Are those intended to be doors opening on that, that end unit?
THE WITNESS:  To the far right? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah. I mean, it's beautiful. I mean  
THE WITNESS:  Yeah, they're Juliette balconies. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  I just want to say Romeo and Juliette. Okay. Got it. Okay. All right.  I'm good for right now. Thank you, thank you, Bruce.   
THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie? 
MS. MCWILLIAMS: What is the space between the building once it's constructed and the Brake O Rama building?  I think we came to some feet, right. 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Okay. 
THE WITNESS:  Yeah, this area right here is tight up against it. When it gets back here, there's parking. I don't know what that distance is, maybe 10, 15 feet. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS: I think it was 12 feet.
THE WITNESS:  Twelve feet, okay.
MS. MCWILLIAMS: Okay. That's all I have for the moment, if I come back another round.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: One question on your Maple Ave elevations. You have the Romeo and Juliette balcony. You know those two areas that kind of project out on the left and right side? Yup, and then further down. Yeah. Keep going. Keep going. Right. So you've articulated the elevation really nicely. You have the shadow lines, so it looks like those two areas project out from the building, right?
THE WITNESS: This area in gray is like a little bay window that projects out.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Yeah. And it adds nice detail. I don't think it's reflected on your floor plans.
THE WITNESS: No, it's not. We haven't thought, even articulated that at this point.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: How far are you anticipating that projecting and did you include that projection in your square footage calculations? 
THE WITNESS: That is    that probably is not in the square footage calculations. I might say 6 to 8 inches it might project out. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  6 to 8 inches?
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay. It looks like    it looks like more than that based on the shadow lines, but if that's what you're saying, then I guess that's okay. It would be good to kind of match the plans, because on your plans you have kind of tiny little projections that don't really match the elevations. So it's a little confusing.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, the lines that you see on the plans pretty much reflect these vertical offsets. We didn't get into that level of, you know, detail, because we have to put together the unit plans. So that 6 to 8 inches is kind a estimate at this point. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Like I said, it looked like 2 feet, but you're saying it's less than that. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Thanks, Joel.
For the first floor with the residential and the parking there, is there some kind of ventilation that you have there, In the parking deck to get rid of exhaust?
THE WITNESS:  Typically that's required, yes. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  What are they just vents that just push it out?
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. And with the units on top that you're going to have the louvers, are they metal or they're painted or what are they going to be made out of? And what color?
THE WITNESS: They're usually metal. I don't know the color at this point. They probably have like a baked on anodized pinch, maybe. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Is it made to kind of blend in with the sky or, you know  
THE WITNESS:  I would say we do like our color selections.  You know, we put the whole palette together, the brick, you know, the fasces and, you know, when we pull all that together, that's probably when we would pick the color of that. My guess is it might match the cap on top of the parapet. We might take that color and use it for the louvers. Yes, it's probably like a darker, maybe a bronze color. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And when it's louvered, it's fully louvered that would block the view fully, but it ventilates?
THE WITNESS:  That's correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: And when you show the person standing on the road across the street looking up, is that an actual kind of estimation of the sight line or is that just an hypothetical?
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I thought you recognized me.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I couldn't tell who that was standing there. Was that you? 
THE WITNESS:  No, that's the actual sight line.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  That's actually what they're going to be seeing?
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And I do like the Mayor's comment on the state of the building.  You did a fantastic job on the front.  It makes it tougher for you to do the other side.  You did a too good of a job, maybe, but, you know, maybe you could do something with those other sides.  You know, really when you think about it, you're going to be revolving around the town when you come in around there and you're really going to be picking up all those views there.  So I think you have a good thing going if you give it that. 
THE WITNESS:  Thank you. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Could I just jump in? I actually    could I'd just see your beautiful elevation?  Yes. The Vice Chair raised an issue on that front piece there that's projecting out.  You know, it's interesting because I, too, see the shadow and I'm not sure how far it comes out, whether it's 6 inches or 8 inches. But just as a design element, it seems to be out of place to me, because everything else is sort of flat and really works so beautifully together. I just wonder is it essential to your design? Is it essential to the floor plans? Or is it something that, you know, maybe it's better if it weren't there. And I'm not looking to redesign your work, because it's absolutely beautiful, but I think that piece just doesn't seem to fit to me.
THE WITNESS: It doesn't    I see your point. I think what we were doing is articulating the element over top of the garage entrance just to say, hey, here's important, here's an important point. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I guess you don't want to be   
THE WITNESS:  I think is that point away when you saw that brick facade there? I think it would be just fine.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I think it would be so much    absolutely gorgeous. Yeah, I think it would be beautiful. Okay. Thank you. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  I have one more question on parking. Up on the top deck area where there's, you know, the seating in front of the windows, I think this got brought up with something and I'm not 100 percent sure if I ever    if I heard the answer. Is there any blocking at all of the windows in the units along that upper rooftop deck area from where people are sitting?
THE WITNESS:  Up here (indicating)?
MS. MCWILLIAMS: Yeah, up there.
THE WITNESS: We're showing windows up there, but if we looked at the plan, you will see that most of that is a hallway. So you're walking down a hallway that has a lot of windows in it. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  Does that answer your question?
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  No, yeah, I thought somebody had brought that up before and you decided the windows be put in, but that's significant.  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  How high was the parapet again for a balcony?  Like if you're on a balcony? 
THE WITNESS:  Up here?
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah.
THE WITNESS:  It's going to vary, because you see it going up and down.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah.
THE WITNESS:  The requirement so that nobody falls over the edge is 3 feet, 6 inches. Okay?  Now, we could have this at some points lower, like this one looks a little bit lower. So we could have maybe a horizontal bar, anything that gets you up to that 3 foot, 6 height. I'm going to say that it can vary between, you know, 2.5 feet to maybe up to 4 feet when you get to like the top of that, maybe even higher at that point.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Yes. 
MS. McMANUS:  If you're going to need to add a safety railing across that top floor where the terrace is, I'd like to ask that that detail be added to the plans just so that we can review that to make sure, you know, it continues or is consistent with your architectural treatment and the style of the building.
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I don't think that that would be sitting on top of a parapet. I think it would be pulled back. 
MS. McMANUS: It would be pulled back?
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  But we can show that.
MS. McMANUS:  Yeah.  I think that would be helpful, just so we have confirmation on how that is going to appear or if it's going to be visible.
THE WITNESS:  Yeah. It will kind of be colored in a way that disappears.
MS. McMANUS:  Good.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Anyone else? 
Beth can start off with the questions.
MS. McMANUS:  I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  That's okay. 
MS. McMANUS:  I actually don't have any additional questions. I had issued a memo on this application, dated August 14th and in that there were a variety of architectural comments, but as of the last meeting with one exception that was answered during the meeting, all of those comments had already been satisfied. And given my comments and questions this evening, I have nothing additional at this time. 
MR. MARTIN:  MR. BRUINOOGE, the planner remains sworn and qualified?
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
MR. MARTIN:  The planner remains sworn and qualified, right?  MS. McMANUS?  I believe  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Sure, absolutely.
E L I Z A B E T H   M c M A N U S,    
Having been duly sworn, continues to testify as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  We do have a new face. Mr. Rutishauser is not here. Can you raise your right hand, sir. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
MR. MEHANDZIC:  I do.
J O V A N   M E H A N D Z I C,
131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey,  having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  And just state your name and your business address.
MR. MEHANDZIC:  Jovan Mehandzic, Village of Ridgewood assistant engineer.  And the address is 131 North Maple Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.
And you're a professional engineer? 
MR. MEHANDZIC:  No, I'm not. 
MR. MARTIN:  And you're here [threw|through] the professional engineer, Chris Rutishauser, correct?
MR. MEHANDZIC:  Chris Rutishauser, yes.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.  All right.  Do you have any questions? 
MR. MEHANDZIC:  No.
MR. MARTIN:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  So no questions for the architect?
MR. MEHANDZIC:  No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  John, do you have any questions of the architect?
MR. MARTIN:  MR. JAHR, I don't know if we swore you in yet. 
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
MR. JAHR:  I do.
J O H N   J A H R, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 
MR. MARTIN:  John Jahr, traffic expert. 
MR. BRUINOOGE, do you  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Acceptable. 
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.  Go ahead. 
MR. JAHR: I only had two very minor questions. One is I always to refer to when we have parking structures and whatnot.  Have you shown the sight triangles? Are we sure we have a good, clear sight lines?  When I was looking at the plan, there was some plantings and some other things, can you make sure that on the plan you show the sight lines so we know that we have that for the future?
MR. BRUINOOGE: Yeah. Mr. Dipple happens to be here again this evening. I believe he will be happy to testify what the current version of the plan shows. 
MR. JAHR:  Perfect. That's the only thing that hasn't really that actual architectural part of this.  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Does anyone from the public have any questions for the architect?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Seeing there are none, call your next witness. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Eric Keller. 
MR. MARTIN:  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
MR. KELLER:  I do.
E R I C   K E L L E R, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  State your full name and business address.
THE WITNESS:  Certainly.  Eric L. Keller, K E L L E R, Bowman Consulting, 54 Horsehill Road, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
Q. MR. KELLER, would you be kind enough, if you would, tell the board a bit about your background, your training, your education and whether or not you hold any current licenses here in the State of New Jersey or any other jurisdiction?
A. Certainly. Professional engineer in the State of New Jersey since 1987. I'm also a licensed engineer in New York and Pennsylvania.  I'm a licensed planner in the State of New Jersey, although I'm not testifying as a planner this evening. I appeared before this board several times.  I have appeared before many boards thought Bergen County and other parts the state and other states and have worked on similar projects in a number of jurisdictions.
MR. MARTIN:  And MR. BRUINOOGE, MR. KELLER is being offered as a professional engineer with a  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Expertise in traffic, parking and related issues.
MR. MARTIN:  I believe    so accepted, MR. JAHR?  Any Board member    no issues?  MR. KELLER, you're accepted. 
MR. BRUINOOGE: Let the record reflect that MR. JAHR seemed to indicate that he accepted his credentials.
MR. MARTIN:  Yes, in a good way.  Thank you, MR. BRUINOOGE.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  You're quite welcome. 
I'm going to ask that this particular report be marked as the next exhibit, please.
(Whereupon, Traffic Report is received and marked as Exhibit AR 12 for identification.)
BY MR. BRUINOOGE:
Q. Now, MR. KELLER, I'm going to show you what's been marked for identification as AR 12.  Are you familiar with that particular document?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is it?
A. It's the traffic report prepared by myself on this application.
Q. And what, if anything, did you do with that application    excuse me, that report after you prepared it, other than sending it to the client and me?
A. Since then I've read it, I've prepared for this evening.
Q. Did you send it to the Village of Ridgewood and to their consultant?
A. I believe so through your office.
Q. Okay. Tell us, if you will, what precisely    or I shouldn't say precisely    what your role was on this development team and what your purpose of appearing here this evening is with respect to this application?
A. Our purpose is twofold on this application. One, is to access the traffic impacts of the redevelopment of this site and also to look at the parking and in particular prepare a shared parking analysis for this mixed use project.
Q. In preparing for this evening, did you look at any    or did you    have you had an opportunity over the years to prepare any other traffic studies?
A. Yes. I prepared a traffic study. The original traffic study was in January 2013.  We prepared an amendment in May of 2014, which included full range of traffic counts, which I discussed with MR. JAHR. We compared that data from 2013 to more current counts that MR. JAHR has in his records and found that over the past couple of years that the peak hour traffic volumes have not changed to any degree. So we have used those original counts as the basis for our analysis, but maybe appropriate adjustments for time in accordance with DOT standards.  Growth rates, our study also included the other developments, Dayton, Chestnut Village and the KS Broad application.  All of those traffic counts    or the site generated traffic from those developments is included in our no build calculations for this site.
Q. Now, MR. JAHR is here this evening and I know that you already testified that you had some dialogue and conversation with him with respect to your report and your conclusions; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you aware of a letter dated September 7, 2017 prepare by MR. JAHR, signed by him and addressed to the Board?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. In that letter a number of comments are made by MR. JAHR and essentially he has concluded or asked that you address certain points, if you would, to inform the board as to just what went on in    you doing the calculations necessary to come to the conclusions that you ultimately did?
A. Certainly.  Starting with number one of his traffic analysis comments, we followed standard trip generation calculation procedures. For these sites, because they're not on a state highway, we use the ITE Trip Generation Manual. And this case, the 9th edition, the DOT has their own rates for certain uses, but we have not used those in this case. And even if we had, because where    there's retail on the property today and we're reducing that by almost 16,000 square feet of retail that's being removed. That's a Hallmark floor building. And then some of the retail space within the existing building. That's being removed, so if we used a different trip generation rate, the comparison between the two is the same. You know, maybe the number in absolute is higher, but all we're doing is looking at the differential. So the trip generation would come out the same. But we did use ITE basic data. As we have on other applications in a downtown area such as this, we presented two measures of trip generation. We did it without a mass transit component. We used the standard ITE trip generation rates, which are for a more suburban location where you don't have the bus service, the rail service that you do in Ridgewood. Really, the numbers are fairly small when we look at just the proposed residential uses. Forget about what's there today and how much of the office and retail space we're removing. We are removing just under 14,000 square feet of office space out of this building. 
If you just look at how much traffic is being generated by the proposed residential uses, we're looking at 18 trips in the morning peak hour, 24 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 24 Saturday trips. We're looking at very low traffic volumes because of the residential use. So overall, when you look at the removal of the commercial space in the building, there's actually a decrease in the trip generation generated by this site based on ITE rates. We did not do that in our analysis. We took no credit. We counted the traffic. And that traffic that we counted at East Ridgewood and North Maple and North Maple and Franklin includes the traffic that goes to and from this site today. We didn't deduct anything. All we did was add the residential traffic. So our analyses are conservative in the fact that we didn't deduct any traffic. We just added more. 
Q. When you    essentially, I guess, you eventually compared a no build situation to the build situation; did you not?
A. That's correct and that's the incremental effect. There's going to be some level of traffic on the roadways. There's level of traffic today. There's    we're assuming that there's going to be more. As MR. JAHR had noted in Item 3 of his report, we used the two percent growth rate.  The latest DOT growth rate factors say we should have only used the one percent growth factor. So, again, we were conservative in growing that traffic that's not from specific developments, it's from other developments that haven't been factored in. Plus, we added the three other developments.
Q. I think you out to    this is probably just a good a time as any to tell the board your familiarity and what    whether or not that your familiarity with the existing conditions, mass transit opportunities and the other development that are taking place in the village, the impact of those on this particular project and its traffic. 
A. Well, it's    the board's seen me before on the KS Broad application, so we're very familiar with the traffic that's generated by that. This site obviously is a little bit further from the train station then the KS Broad site, but it's still a 9 minute walk. So it is certainly a walkable distance from this site to the train station. There's a bus stop outside the door. So there is    which is bus service to New York City. So there is good mass transit opportunities in the area and serving this particular site.
Q. I'm going to turn your attention then back to MR. JAHR's September 7th letter. In Item No. 2, he states that he has reviewed the engineer's trip generation and distribution and he was wondering whether you could please provide some testimony regarding the operation of the site's access points. So if you could identify those access points and talk to that particular issue, that would helpful. 
A. Certainly. I have Exhibit AR 7 on the easel three proposed    well, two proposed access points and an existing one that will remain. You have the existing two way driveway from East Ridgewood Avenue, which will remain as it does today. The existing exit only from the existing parking underneath the Sealfons building goes away. And is replaced by a new driveway generally where the driveway is to the surface parking lot for the Hallmark building, which will permit only right in and right out onto North Maple. That garage access leads to that same level of parking as is underneath the Sealfons building. 
This is Exhibit AR 10A.  The existing parking underneath the Sealfons building. There's a two way connection to the new parking level below the building addition, which is all integrated a total of 84 parking spaces on that level. You then have another driveway, new driveway to Franklin Avenue. This driveway serves the upper level of parking.  This parking area is limited to the residential units or 47 parking spaces on that level for the 39 dwelling units in the building addition. 
Our analysis in our report assumed that this was a right in, right out. MR. JAHR has opined on his    what he thinks should happen here. Myself, the Applicant would like to have the left in.  We're not even thinking about a left out. And the reason for the left in is if you don't have a left in and understanding that there could be some queuing issues, is that people are then forced to drive around the block and it makes it inconvenient. 
We certainly don't want to create an unsafe condition, but, you know, there are other similar situations to this where you have driveways in the vicinity of intersections and this is a fair distance back from the stop bars. We don't think it's unreasonable to have the left turns in. 
That's our request. Obviously, the Village has their opinion and ultimately Franklin Avenue is a County road and I know that the County Planning Board will have their opinions.
Q. Before we delve too deeply into whether or not a left onto the side from Franklin    we should get into detail, let's continue on with a more course of the issues, if you will, of the particular project. 
A. Sure.
Q. So    and I'm going to skip No. 4 in MR. JAHR's letter and go to the shared parking analysis, which I think really requires you to maybe talk a little bit about existing parking on site and then the proposed parking on site. 
A. Okay.
Q. And whether or not that results in a deficiency and any opinions that you might have with respect to that. 
A. Well, let's start with where we are today. The existing uses on the property based on the Village code require 181 parking spaces. There are 76 parking spaces today. So the current uses on the subject property have a parking shortfall by Ordinance of 105 parking spaces. 
Now, there are obviously shared parking opportunities that exist today because of the office and retail space, more so on a Saturday than on a weekday, but the    not as great with the proposed use, now we're introducing a residential use. So the residential parking characteristics are really almost 180 degrees opposite from commercial parking or at least office parking. 
Based on, again, the Village code the proposed uses would require 141 parking spaces when we add up the individual uses just by math. And 131 spaces are provided. It's a shortfall of 10, a factor of 10 we've improved the parking condition on the site. 
Q. And there's a variance the Applicant is asking for?
A. Correct. 
If it's necessary, because when we look at shared parking, which is contained in tables, I believe it's 7, 8 and 9    7, 8    6, 7, 8 and 9 of my report.  6 and 7 talk about the existing conditions, Table 6. And this is after Page 9. Table 6 is a weekday. Table 7 is the weekend. This uses the Village's parking requirements and it looks at the temporal differential of parking demand by use by time of day. So on a weekday with shared parking we're still 96 spaces short of what would be required on a Saturday, because the office use essentially does to nothing, we're 32 spaces short. Table 8 now introduces    first off, there's a significant reduction in office and retail square footage on the property. So that reduces the demand for those two components. We then add in the parking demand for the residential units. And what we've done, because the residential units, the residents themselves will have their reserved parking. So we've only looked at that parking that would exceed the capacity of the upper level lot. And what we find is that at a minimum we will have 41 extra spaces. We'll have a surplus of 41 spaces at 8:00 p.m. on a weekday, this is in Table 8. In a common area    that's total for the site. In a common area, we have at least 22 spaces available at the peak time, which would be at noontime. Table 9 is a Saturday. In this because the office demand essentially, again, goes to zero, the parking surplus in the common and for the site as a whole occurs at the same time, again at noontime and we have at least 37 spaces available based on shared parking. In other hours of the day when the demand is less, we have more parking available. So while we sum the parking demand of the individual uses based on Village code, when we look at it based on the hourly variation of parking behind, we have a significant surplus of parking. So there is no shortfall in my opinion. 
Q. I think it's important that you point out or I ask you to point out just how you went about doing that calculation and which standard you used, because I know you relied upon the Village Ordinance, but comparing that, for example, with the ITE Parking Generation Manual 4th Addition. There's a difference there, is they're not? 
A. Yes.  The ITE Parking Generation Manual    and I'll take a step back. The ITE Parking Generation Manual like the Trip Generation Manual has a compilation of parking demand studies that have been done at existing uses throughout the country and said they go out and count cars and how many cars are parked in the lot and they take the average of the peaks.  So they don't take the average of every observation. They take the average of the peak demand at these uses and come up with an average peak parking demand based on land use like we do for trip generation. And what that document has found is that the retail demand    your ordinance requires four spaces per thousand. The ITE Trip    ITE Parking Generation on a Friday, because Friday has a higher parking demand than a weekday is just under three for retail.  For an office building, it is    let me find it    I believe it is 2.84 and that's on a weekday.  So the ITE Parking Generation Manual has found that the actual observed peak parking demands are less than your code requires, but we didn't use that in our analysis. I wanted to take, again, a conservative approach. We used the standard demands. Now, your ordinance also uses the standard RSIS parking requirements for residential uses, which, again, is a suburban parking demand and doesn't account for a transit oriented development, a downtown development where you may have less and likely have less parking demand from the residential traffic.  But, again, we use those same RSIS rate in our analysis.
Q. So I guess what I'll ask you at this point is:  Is it your testimony then that the shared parking, the way you analyzed it using a very conservative approach, there really is no need for a variance in your opinion?
A. In my opinion there is not.
Q. But if there is, the request would be for 10 spaces, which is the perceived shortfall depending on how you want to calculate the demand, correct?
A. Correct.  You take a straight mathematical approach of the sum minus the demand, yes, it's 10. 
Q. Thank you. 
MR. JAHR speaks in Point 4 in his letter to capacity analysis using the highway capacity software. And he says he's reviewed the analysis.  He's asking that you provide a capacity analysis for existing conditions so he can perform a more thorough review of the proposed development. Has that information been provided?
A. It has not, but I will give that to him. That was    I didn't include it in here, because it was in the original report, but    and I'm not sure MR. JAHR reviewed our original report from three years ago.
Q. I see. 
A. He might have. I don't know. But it's easy enough to give it to him.
Q. He makes comment as well with respect to the traffic signal that's located on East Ridgewood Avenue and North Maple Avenue. He concludes that it's currently under a heavy stream    as he calls it    a heavy stream into existing traffic volumes.  Any traffic added to the adjacent roadways are overlap and peak hour traffic will have an effect at that intersection. 
So please, if you would, based on your professional experience and what you have concluded in your report, talk about just how you are advising the developer to deal with this issue and what  in your professional opinion is the proper approach to deal with the issues of the signalization at Franklin and North Maple. 
A. Well, his memo says East Ridgewood and North Maple.
Q. I'm sorry, you're right. 
A. Which, I mean, again, we have a small amount of traffic added there.  We received a memorandum from the Village Engineer about an improvement that the Village undertook there. I drove through there this evening and happened to catch that lead southbound left, zipped right through, it was perfect. So there is an improvement that the Village has taken on at that location to deal with the southbound left turn movement and any    that would, you know, obviously benefit the flow at that location. Now, North Maple and Franklin is challenged. It's challenged today. I'm not going to tell any of you what you don't already know, because you drive through it every day. It's challenge for a couple of reasons. One, you have an offset intersection, which because of its offset, it's a three faced signal. The east side of Franklin Avenue goes, the west side goes, and then North Maple goes. And if you're coming up from East Ridgewood Avenue and you want to make a left onto Franklin, you're going to sit there for a while, because there is no left turn arrow for that. The signal, like a lot in the Village is pre timed so even if there's nobody on Franklin Avenue on the eastbound side, you have to wait, because it runs through it's cycle. So what we had shown in our report    and this is summarized in Table 5 on Page 8    we looked at a mitigation measure that would include the addition of a northbound left turn movement on North Maple. So that those people who want to go onto Franklin, get a lead green like you now have it, East Ridgewood Avenue. Putting in an actuated controller. And making some adjustments to the green time. And with those changes, you go from the Level of Service E and F that you have on various approaches today to better than Level of Service D on all of the approaches. 
Now, we've also looked at what is the incremental impact of the subject development at that location. And as I said in my testimony, this project with the reduction in office and retail space would end up with a net reduction in traffic. Even looking at it with the residential, the amount of traffic that's added to that intersection is fairly small. So the problem exists today. It's only going to get worse in the future as traffic grows and this project has a very, very small incremental impact at the intersection.
Q. When we speak about off tract improvements in the business that we're all in, we normally talk about the logical or reasonable nexus between the project itself and the proposed improvement or impact assessment. 
What's your opinion, if any, on whether or not there is such an impact?
A. There really isn't. I mean, you know, we're looking at very small traffic volumes being added just from the residential use and then when you deduct for the loss, the 28 some thousand square feet of commercial space that's being removed, there's a net reduction in traffic from this project as a whole. But, again, I've been conservative. You just looked at the residential traffic. You're adding, you know, total for the project 24 trips of the p.m. peak hour which is the most critical and of those, you know, we're looking at 15 trips that go through Franklin and North Maple out of the total that go    that's there today, which, you know, is    you know, 1400.
Q. Well, I directed you to a sort of legal standard and I guess there's a practical aspect of this as well.  Are you asking in your professional opinion should this board sort of ignore whether or not there's any real improvement to the proposed development that will benefit from the improved signalization of that particular intersection? 
A. Well, I mean, the board has their opinion as to what should be done and can be done. All I'm saying from an engineering perspective is that the rational nexus, you know, the fair share contribution at that location based on trip generation and trip volume is small and practically negative.
Q. Let's get right to the heart of the matter then. Have you made a recommendation to the client as to whether or not a contribution based on that fair share is appropriate and if so, how much or what?
A. Well, we have discussed it and my discussions with the Applicant is that he'd be willing to based on what we think the improvements overall need to be, would be willing to make a fair share contribution to that, improvements to that intersection, of $50,000. Which is 20 percent of what we have estimated as the overall intersection improvement would be.
Q. So let's just circle back then and go back to the site itself and to sort of a summary restatement of what you looked at to get to the conclusions you came to. 
You've examined the site as proposed?
A. Yes.
Q. You understand the access points as proposed?
A. Yes.
Q. You've done any review of the parking as proposed; that's correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the traffic movements onto and from the site, as well as traffic in the immediate neighborhood, you've analyzed that as well? 
A. Yes, we have.
Q. Have you formed a professional opinion as to whether or not the project as proposed works from your point of view?
A. From a traffic and parking point of view, this project will work.  It will not have an impact on the adjacent street system and can be accommodated without burdening the operations at the existing signals.
MR. BRUINOOGE: I have no further questions of this witness at this time.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Thank you. 
Jeff, is there a question? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yeah. So here's my question or my concern.  You're using town ordinances for a number of spaces per square footage, one space per every 250 square feet; is that right?
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  The problem that may occur is that that office space may have a higher density of use depending upon who rents it. So as an example, if you have a realtor there and the realtor uses the office space, would you guarantee that it's going to be more than one car for every 250 square feet? As a matter of fact, it's probably going to be triple or five times that.  So that's one issue. It depends upon who's going to rent the space. Again, if you take a look at the retail space, if the retail space is a restaurant, if you look at other ordinances in other towns, they typically have for every three seats in a restaurant or every two seats in a restaurant you need one parking space. So if you put a restaurant in here and you have 60 to 100 seats, that's going to increase the number of spaces which you're going to need for people to park. So my concern is the analysis, while you say it's fair, a more fair way to do it, a more fair way to look at it is let's look at the worst case scenario. Let's assume that a realtor goes into that office space and let's assume that a restaurant goes into the retail space and let's assume that the ordinances that we don't have on our books, but others in other municipalities do, let's use those ordinances to determine the number of spaces that are needed. So I think that your estimate, to be honest with you, is probably under estimated as to the number of spaces that are needed there. And it's probably significantly higher. So I think for our own edification and for our own use, it would be important for you to look at probably a worst case scenario and let's see what happens. That would be my suggestion.
THE WITNESS:  Well, Councilman   
MR. BRUINOOGE: Excuse me. Is that a question, sir? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It is. Well, actually it's a recommendation. 
The other thing I'm looking at and I'm having a hard time understanding this. I'm looking at Table 5 on Page 8 of your report. And you look at as an example, northbound North Maple left.  And you're saying if we mitigate the intersection, if we do your improvements, we're going to improve the time waiting there by five, eight fold. And I'm having a tough time trying to get my hands around how bad it is now, how much better you're going to make it based on your mitigation.  I just    the map to me is a little funny. I'm having a tough time understanding how you're going to make it that much better than what it currently is.
THE WITNESS:  Okay. Well, we're looking    that's a Saturday condition. The  
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Well, even in the p.m. situation, you're looking at improving the five fold. I'm just telling you that's what I'm not understanding, how you could make it that much better. 
THE WITNESS:  Okay. Well, we'll look at p.m., we'll at Saturday.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. But this    help me understand that, because I just    I don't get it.
Let me ask the question now. But I'm just    I'm having a tough time. 
THE WITNESS: I'm going to try and answer your question and hopefully my explanation will help bring some light to this. You have almost 200 left turns in both the p.m. peak hour and then in a Saturday peak hour trying to make that left onto Franklin Avenue. Now, those 200 left turns are opposed by, because North    the left turns are also going to be impacted by people coming down from this building to make a right onto Franklin. So by looking at    in the p.m. peak hour we have 470 cars coming south and I'm trying to put 200 cars across that 400. That's a lot of traffic that are at odds and on a Saturday, we have 500 cars against those 200. So you got a lot of conflict. By providing a lead left turn, you can get four, five, six cars making a left every cycle, which means that there's very few cars that now come up northbound that are going to be in conflict with those, because they're going to have their own left turn like you now have if you turn around and go south on North Maple and make a left onto East Ridgewood Avenue. You have that lead arrow and you're not conflicted by people coming the other way, because they still have a red light. We're doing the same thing here, just in the opposite direction. So those left turns no longer have as much impedance because of opposing traffic and that's why the left turn movement, the level of service improves by a factor of five to eight. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I'm wondering if John you do have do it at this point I would like your opinion that how you make it that much better. So the other question I have is the fair contribution 50,000 and that's for the intersection of the Maple/Franklin intersection?
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So what's the total cost of that improvement?
THE WITNESS: I mean, we haven't done a detailed analysis, but knowing improvements of that type for that type of an intersection, you're looking at $250,000. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So the Village has to eat the 200,000; is that right? 
THE WITNESS:  Somebody does. I mean, yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So the other concern we had is    this was talked about in KS Broad the situation that the    on Franklin Avenue is the kind of conduit east to west and it's a county road and there are five of lights on that road. Okay? So you can    you can certainly improve this, this particular intersection. But then you just messed up all the other four. 
So the issue that we have I think from this standpoint and this is where we're having a tough time, I think we're trying to figure this out, because you can improve the one, but you're going to make the other three or four lights probably worse. And so the question we have is: Who's paying for that? And you know, if you're asking the Village to contribute to those five lights, I'm not sure that's fair for us to bear the brunt of these developments. And, you know, we're hoping at some point that the developers and, you know, there's probably a couple that are working on this, that they would    that they would probably contribute a bit more than the 50,000. I mean, because that    again, it's an unfair ask, to be honest with you, to have the Village really bear the brunt of this. And that's just a general comment. I don't think it's right, so...
MR. BRUINOOGE: Well, I'm going to ask that MR. KELLER not respond to that question. If it is a question, I don't think it is a question. It's a statement. But I understand what you're saying.  We told you what our position is. We believe that the law requires us to deal with improvements off tract that can be logically tied as a nexus between the project and its impacts and the proposed improvement. But beyond that, to engage in dialogue that you're suggesting we negotiate an approval, that's frowned upon by the case law. It's not something that we're going to participate in. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Thank you.
MR. MARTIN:  Just a brief    in terms of COUNCILMAN VOIGT's question. 
MR. KELLER, when I look at you sometimes I think of the other application, I apologize. 
Again, another great presentation. And MR. JAHR could talk about this, but    and everything's different, I understand that, but I believe up the road on Franklin, the improvement was approximately $400,000.00 that Shropshire and yourself talked about for that light.  I just didn't    your estimate was based upon your professional experience, 250.  Is there any support for that or are you    I don't care, I'm trying to get the Board to get it right, because obviously when you said $50,000, and that is 250. I agree with MR. BRUINOOGE, we're not negotiating at this point. It's a fair question. But where the heck do you come up with 250 as opposed to 400 and 150.
THE WITNESS: Well, I think Mr. Fran is 400 was not just the signal improvement at a location.  It was  
MR. MARTIN: Installation, perhaps?
THE WITNESS:  No, no. We talked about installation costs and when we do these, we do these based on public bidding prices, we don't do it. But it was the coordination of the signals. It was handicap improvements. It's a little bit more complicated at North Broad and Franklin because of the railroad overpass, you need a few extra signal heads, you know, but, you know, there was more than just the traffic signal was the 400,000. And that was his number, it was not mine. I think the 400,000 was on the heavy side. I've designed, I can't tell you how many traffic signals, bid them out, built them. $250,000 gets you a really nice traffic signal.
MR. MARTIN: You and MR. JAHR could come up with some fair estimate somehow, right? 
THE WITNESS: I think we can.
MR. MARTIN: Because I know as you say you're very fair about a challenge in terms of the area.  I mean, I remember as a kid sitting in between the front seat just looking out from the back and that turn has been there 1,000 years, so I'm not that old, but it's a challenge. So I think we need another look at that. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I did have one last question, I'm sorry. I apologize.
THE WITNESS:  Sure. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  It relates to the left turns. That's the one on Franklin going into    when you cross Franklin into the driveway itself, but it's left turns everywhere in this particular development. Probably would be certain left    it's a left turn on Maple, across Maple going into that driveway.
THE WITNESS:  No, this is right in, right out. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. And on the site there is a left turn there? 
THE WITNESS:  There is a left turn there today. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I don't have a problem   
THE WITNESS:  Not a lot of people use it and one thing    I'm sorry to interrupt.  One thing that we didn't do in our analysis, and Mayor you brought this up, there is a connection to the Cottage Place    Cottage Place municipal lot.  I'm having trouble talking.  We didn't miss    we didn't assume any traffic was going in and out of there for our development. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And you shouldn't.
THE WITNESS:  Well, we didn't. So    but we saw very few left turns into the site from East Ridgewood, but it is a permitted movement. 
MR. MARTIN:  MR. BRUINOOGE, the other right turn only was stipulated by the engineer last time? 
MR. BRUINOOGE: That's correct. Right turn    right in, right out on Maple and I believe there was that testimony with respect to right in, right out.  I think what's happened is the engineer has spoke with the client. I haven't had a conversation with the client to determine whether or not    he was here. I don't see him at this point, so I'll get that clarified as to where we are on that, but I think we can delve into that with MR. KELLER.
MR. MARTIN:  Thank you.
MR. SCHEIBNER: The existing signal at Franklin and Maple, does not have pedestrian signals or does it? 
THE WITNESS: It does not. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  So is adding pedestrian signals part of your estimate? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  How does that impact the amount of vehicular traffic if you go through that intersection? 
THE WITNESS: We didn't do pedestrian counts. There was some observations made.  The notes were that there was not a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic, at least at, you know, during the peak hour times. From what was observed, you do have crosswalks across both legs of Franklin Avenue and across the north side of North Maple above Franklin. What happens with that is that it's part of the phasing. The only approach that's fairly wide where you might need a little bit extra time for a pedestrian to cross is the western half of Franklin Avenue, but that's part of the timing. There's a different timing program for pedestrians to make sure that they have enough to cross. But that wouldn't effect the    you know, that lead left for northbound, because pedestrians aren't supposed    can't cross when there's a lead left.  Whether they pay attention to the red hand is another story.  But they would not be permitted to cross by the signal and then they would cross when there's the flow of traffic in a north and south direction. 
It has some impact on volumes, but it's not material because it's not, you know, a consistent heavy flow, you know, during the peak hour. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Peak hour is what? 
THE WITNESS:  From our counts, the a.m. peak hour was 8:30 to 9:30; p.m. is 5 to 6; and on Saturday 12 to 1 p.m. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  In my own observations the need for pedestrian traffic actually is in the middle of the day, because there's high school students. 
THE WITNESS:  Right. So that's    so there's more pedestrian traffic, but there's less vehicular.  So giving them more time to cross doesn't affect, negatively impact traffic flow, because you have lower traffic volumes. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  The other question I had was, again, about the right in, right out only.  This forces people to go around the block and I think that means more turns at the intersection of Cottage Place. And both of those intersections are controlled only by a stop sign and I'm just wondering if this is going to raise a hazard level for pedestrians.
THE WITNESS:  No. And the traffic that might go to Cottage Place is going to be the right turn movements. You know, because they can't make a left in here or left in here. I mean, if they can't make the left in here, they're actually going to come in on East Ridgewood, because this driveway, the East Ridgewood driveway and the North Maple driveway lead to the same parking area. So you have flexibility for that lower level, which is the larger parking lot. They have multiple locations to get in. The one that's a little bit more circuitous, which is why I had to put in my two cents of asking for the left turn in is this lot, the    which is residential only, if it's right in, right out, if somebody's coming from East Ridgewood and would otherwise make a left in, they'd have to go around the block. But it's a handful of cars. I mean, we're looking at 47 spaces and in the peak hour you're probably looking at, you know, that want to come in that way, five, six cars.  So it doesn't    it's not a material impact on  
MR. SCHEIBNER: The problem I see with the left in that Franklin Avenue entrance is that your queued traffic for, you know, the eastbound traffic on Franklin at that light, it's almost always queued up past that point. 
THE WITNESS: Today, yes. Because of the operation of that signal, the pre timed signal.  If there was an improvement to it, it would improve, the queues would be reduced. 
As a traffic engineer, what I look at is giving the person the flexibility to make a decision as to what they're comfortable with and somebody may say, I don't want to make that left, I'm going to around the block and make the right in. But if somebody else wants to do it, it's    that the way I approach and have approached, you know, design aspects for    since I've gotten into this business. That's what I look at. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  So there's really two distinct parking area? 
THE WITNESS: Correct.
MR. SCHEIBNER: And are the parking spaces assigned? Are the residents going to be all using the Franklin Avenue entrance? Or is  
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know if they're going to be assigned, but that upper level is for residents only. And there's more than    there's 1.2 spaces per unit.  So obviously every unit gets one space in that level. How they decide to get, you know, the extra 10 spaces, probably go to bigger units, but I don't know specifically, but every unit will have one space in that upper level and then there's a couple of extra. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  The reason I ask that is: Are there going to be people who are compelled to use that Franklin Avenue entrance?
THE WITNESS:  Yeah. I mean, all the residents will have one car    one space in that level.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  I see.
THE WITNESS: So    and when we did our trip assignment, we accounted for that separately knowing that there was    the residential traffic would be going to that level. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: So those of people who would be going out to the left hand turn, those are the people who are going to be going around the block?
THE WITNESS: Right. And the Applicant has indicated to me it's right in, right out. So forget what I said. It's right in, right out on Franklin. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: That's it. 
CHIEF VAN GOOR: I have no new questions. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have a couple of questions. The retail space existing, not the Sealfons building, but there's the Hallmark and then there's the other space downstairs, which was the Arthur Murray Dance Studio?
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Do you know how much space is allocated to the Arthur Murray Dance Studio? 
THE WITNESS:  I don't know the individual breakdown within the building. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  But when you contemplated that, you contemplated that as retail space, so that's how you how contributed to the calculations, so that would be under no build, is that how that works? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, we treated it    we have    yeah, the Arthur Murray space we treated as retail both in the current condition and in    well, it's gone in the after condition, but we treated it as all retail space.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I mean, the only reason I ask that question is because that was formerly a B 2 zone, they it became another zone and only retail could be permitted on the first floor, but that particular business had a variance to operate because that's the second floor business, because the low impact dance studio, but it's not retail, so I didn't know if that would change much or   
THE WITNESS: No, and that's why I said when we did our trip generation I didn't deduct anything for the existing uses. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I want to ask you about the intersection, that crazy intersection. When you're looking at improvements and I guess presumably there will be more pedestrian traffic generated for two reasons, because you're adding all the residential units, but also because the disabled, especially the housing component is    and I know that Tom is back there, but I see of a more independent oriented special needs housing. So the individuals that would reside there are a little more functioning independent. So, again, presumably there's more pedestrian traffic. And I just would be interested in understanding how you might improve the intersection for pedestrian safety and the reason I ask this is I walk all the time and the other day I was on way to the Board of Ed building and I realized that to get from my point A to point B, I actually had to cross three roads to get to the corner, which you should only have to make one movement for, so if you just can elaborate how that could work.
THE WITNESS:  Sure. You have three crosswalks. Once across each leg of Franklin and one across North Maple. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Right. And if I'm on the southeast corner    right there. 
THE WITNESS:  Okay.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I can't just cross  
THE WITNESS:  You can't cross over Maple. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I can't cross there.
THE WITNESS:  No.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I have to cross first, I have to cross that and I have to cross back.
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  One at a time. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Does that make sense?
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No, no.
THE WITNESS: It's also knowing  
MAYOR KNUDSEN: No, I know to know if an improved light, signalized light with pedestrian movement    and I'm just asking a question, I guess, unrelated, but if that would then allow that crosswalk to be installed, is that something you foresee is  
THE WITNESS: It's hard to understand why the county may not have permitted it there. Part of it is putting the crosswalk here. That crosswalk can't be used when this    the western leg of Franklin goes and it can't be used when North Maple goes. It would have to be tied to the signal for the east half of Franklin Avenue. I think it's possible, but that needs county input, but what we're looking at is pedestrian push buttons. So you hit the button and you have the new pedestrian heads, which will have the little man walking and white lights the hand and red and a countdown timer so that you know how much time you have before you need to run out of the street. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. Just going back to    to the Cottage Place lot and that 19 foot opening, is there a reason that you didn't use that in your analysis of who might pass through there?  Is it because that technically shouldn't be used? 
THE WITNESS:  No, I just wanted to be conservative and put as much traffic out to North Maple and East Ridgewood and Franklin. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  So when you    if that were open like that, you would    people would use it; would that be fair?
THE WITNESS:  I'm sure they use it today. And they will be able to use it tomorrow. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. The next question: Going back to that left turn in or right in and out  
THE WITNESS:  It's right in, right out.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah, so I'm just interested in knowing when    so now there's cars that are coming    they're actually passing there. If everyone's going to go right in, right out, as opposed to left, now they're going to have to do passes through lights, additional passes that otherwise they wouldn't have done; is that accurate?
THE WITNESS:  Well  
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  That those    if someone came    if someone came south on Maple and they made a right into Franklin and then a left into the lot? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  But now if you don't permit that, now they're making    they're going straight and now those trips are added to the Maple Avenue   
THE WITNESS:  That's the way I did my analysis.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay. 
THE WITNESS:  I didn't account for lefts in. So it's already counted for in the analysis.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So then in other words, if it were a left in, then that would be reduced significantly or what would that be? 
THE WITNESS: It's a handful of cars.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  A handful of cars, okay. 
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then to get the distance from that right in and out would be    the distance from that driveway to the southwest corner, like just in terms of car lengths or physical length. 
THE WITNESS:  From the driveway into the stop bar? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Yeah, that's perfect. The stop bar actually makes sense. What's the distance and how many car lengths could that be?
THE WITNESS:  It's about six car lengths, that's 120 feet.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  So any improvement of a light, even if it were improving it significantly, you won't prevent that    not a lot of cars to queue there pretty quickly. I mean, it's not like it's a lot. So it appears any improvement to the light there wouldn't impact that considerably, because I mean, you're talking about they still have to wait for the light. 75 cars to get in line is a lot.  If it were 20 cars, I would agree. But 75 cars is going up.
THE WITNESS: The separation meets design standards. You have to have a minimum of 100 feet from the stop bar to a driveway, which we do comply with. There is some improvement particularly during the Saturday, but it's still    with a right out, I mean, some of it may depend on what we call curtesy gaps. A person on Franklin allowing the person to come out. But, again, we're not looking at a lot of traffic in that level coming out. The peak time is a morning and in the morning is when the traffic on that light at Franklin is at its lowest level.  So we're looking at a, you know, in this case, a car every 5 or 6 minutes coming out of that driveway. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Okay. I have no other questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Frances? 
MS. BARTO:  I don't have any questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Melanie?
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  I think we asked some of these questions the first time around, but is there a way or any plan in place to block that driveway from any, you know, strange    anybody off the street parking in that upper level coming in off of Franklin? 
THE WITNESS:  Nothing.
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Nothing in place?
THE WITNESS:  Nothing.
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Because there was no turnaround in there. Also like if somebody were to get up, wasn't it that there was no  
THE WITNESS:  The turnaround issue was on the lower level and that's been redesigned based on a comment from your planner. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Okay.
THE WITNESS:  So there is turnaround. The upper level has circulation. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Okay. The right turn, right turn in, that's what we kind of covered, I actually wouldn't care if there was a left turn out of there at all, because honestly the queue would be up into that level and that would be the residents issue to deal with, not the street, but that's a whole another    I guess that's been done with already also. Would your    this $50,000 towards the signal, the contribution, is that in addition to any striping on the streets for crosswalks and sidewalks upgrades that could be needed in here?
THE WITNESS:  The $250,000 estimate includes striping, head heads, traffic signal improvements, that's the whole signal.  So the 50,000 is  
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Was your  
THE WITNESS:  Was the applicant's contribution, what he indicated to me he was willing to contribute.
MS. MCWILLIAMS: And you just gave the $400,000 estimate towards those lights? I mean, there's a couple of different MR. JAHR and other safety gentlemen    or traffic engineer had suggested that those were    and I believe Mr. Rutishauser also had suggested that that was a price for the lights. 
MR. BRUINOOGE: I don't believe there's any testimony with respect to a 400,000 dollar cost.  The signalization or improvements related to the North Maple, Franklin intersection.
MS. MCWILLIAMS: That may be    that may be true. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  400,000 dollar reference was, I believe, relative to some improvements of the intersection of Broad and Franklin near the Kent Smith site. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS: Can you just explain a little bit to me why you opted to go with a 2 percent when you were sort of more aggressive in your approach? I think that MR. JAHR was    he didn't strongly agree with your decision to go with the 2 percent increase in traffic.  Why did you choose to do that?
THE WITNESS: A lot of it was, you know, when we first started the study, 2 percent is what the DOT published. And they just    every two years they publish new rate tables. Well, this time around they dropped the rates for Bergen County. I didn't want to go back and redo it, especially since it was a lesser number. I said, you know, I'll stick with the 2 percent, because I've already done it and I don't want to change it and then have John go, why did you change it, why did you make it less?  I left it at 2 percent. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  Would you be amenable to    or I mean, this is going to be a question, I think, probably for the Village to look at, too, for some sort of blocking off of the Cottage Place lot so that there is no access there? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Can't do it.
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  What is that? 
THE WITNESS:  I'm deferring to another    to somebody else.  I have no  
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I heard somebody say you can't do it    I think it's the Village's property, so I don't    I just thought it would be something the Village would make a decision on.
MS. MCWILLIAMS:  I guess just would there be    there would be nothing to object to on that. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I mean, that's not something that    I don't  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  I haven't done the title search on this property or on the Village's property to the west.  But I would    my recollection is that over the years this board or the zoning board have granted a number of variances based on that free flow of traffic back and forth from one site to the other.  I just don't know where the relative rights are and responsibility would be as well.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I mean, I don't    I don't know why the question    I mean, I don't know that it is relevant to this, I don't think it's anything that Eric   
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Well, it wasn't factored into the calculations  
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Right.  It wouldn't factor into the calculations. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:     which are the basis of the report. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  And as I said, nor should it be, because it's    I mean, that would be a decision that the Village would make and past variances that were granted on past applications in my mind would be responsible. And not relevant to this. Not a decision at all to be made. 
MS. MCWILLIAMS: I don't think I have any further questions. Other than that I would actually see a pedestrian study in that area    I would of liked to see that looked at in more detail.  I travel that area all the time, all day, many times a day and I never felt safe, I never not backed up at any of those lights, at any of those intersections and rarely throughout the daytime is there not a pack of kids, you know, from morning until late in the afternoon coming and going from high school. It' right now a cut through area right now into some of those streets. So I just think it would be something I would have liked to see in this study. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel?
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: No questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. I guess you'll have adequate signs for the circulation around the building so people don't get confused. I guess right on Maple is right in, right out, right?
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. I just wanted to confirm that. 
But you'll have signage there indicating that they can't make the left and things like that?
THE WITNESS:  Right. We'll have all the appropriate regulatory signs, right turn only, no left turn, you know. You try not to clutter it up too much, but have enough so that people are clear that they can't make certain movements.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And clear markings in the garage for flow, too? 
THE WITNESS:  Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  For circulation? 
THE WITNESS:  Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Did you do any turning templates for any vehicles within the garage for any emergency or anything like that?
THE WITNESS:  The site engineer did. And my understanding is that in discussions with both fire and police and rescue    well, not police, but fire and rescue is that they would not put their vehicles in the garage. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And I guess the applicant is amenable to discussing modifications with the    our traffic engineer in agreeing in good faith to resolve any contributions. I think that would be fair.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  We can represent that we're always amenable to having conversations with MR. JAHR. 
MR. JAHR:  In good faith. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  In good faith, yes. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  So countdown, timer, get a lot of actuation on the lights? 
THE WITNESS:  Yeah, yeah. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. 
THE WITNESS:  We don't do pre timed signals anymore.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And I guess    how do you think the residents will react to that if you can't make that left in?  You think just people adapt and then there will be adequate flow going around there? 
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  I mean, the street network is such that they would have opportunities to make and they'll learn the way to get around. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No further questions?
Yes.  John Jahr will be the next person to ask questions. 
MR. JAHR:  Good evening. Considering the layout, I don't think I'm going to be able to get through my stuff by 10:00. And the board has other matters to deal with. So I'm not going to    I don't think it's fair to ask them delayed. What I would like to do is I'd like to get the Board's permission to meat with MR. KELLER to figure out exactly how he came up with 20 percent and exactly how he came up with the 250,000 and when we next back    come back for the next meeting, I could better understand how we've gotten to that place. And then report back to you on how the rational nexus of how we got from there to here. And I think it might be able to help to answer a number of questions that have come up with regard to the pedestrian study, which I totally agree. What I would rather do is I would rather have the opportunity to speak with these matters with MR. KELLER and maybe come up with a plan to simply improve the pedestrian access at that signal. I think it's something that needs to get done And it sounds to me like there may be a process that we're going to have to hear where    with regard to Mr. Voigt's comment or well, where we going with the 20,000. My request or my idea might be instead of trying to get that, maybe we can fix the light that's there up by putting in a controller and the pedestrian hits some buttons and make some reasonable improvements to the infrastructure that we currently have that is within a reasonable proximity to the impact they're having on the traffic. And so to answer how I'm getting from there    from one place to the next, if you look carefully at Table 3, there is MR. KELLER's future no build and future build.  And you'll notice that there is a difference to the negative from the no build to the build. And that's the rational nexus that gets us to asking them for some help to make some improvement from a traffic standpoint. So we're not just making it up. We actually have a real reason to ask for, you know, some modem of traffic mitigation. 
I will say that based on what I've heard tonight, it sounds like the offer is right in a reasonable range to the amount of traffic, but I need to look at the whole thing and with your permission if I can get MR. KELLER, I would suspect that when next we come back, a much more clearer picture that hopefully the board will feel more comfortable with. 
MR. MARTIN:  MR. JAHR, if I may add just to clarify for the record, if the board allows that and I think it's a great idea, can you also go over with MR. KELLER as to what the county may require of this project in terms of traffic issues?  I'm sure you guys can look into that. I'm sure you can get on the same page. The second thing is: I see Mr. Toronto is in the audience. He testified on behalf of the applicant. The individuals who are going to have the benefit of residing at this location, including those, I believe, Mr. Toronto, I might be wrong, but the term developmentally disabled and I believe there's a significant aspect of walking in the community that I think MR. BRUINOOGE pointed out when you have anybody walking in the community, this might have people walking in the community, this kind of development, so that's something to look into for the pedestrian flow, I think, as well.
MR. JAHR:  I think it all ties together and again, I need the Board's permission to do that.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Any comments on that? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  There's always a willingness to communicate professional to professional and address them collaborative in a cooperative way solution to problems. Frankly, I had understood that the level of conversation between MR. KELLER and MR. JAHR was fairly extensive and rather complete. We're intent on moving the application to conclusion. I don't want to impose on the time that this board volunteers, but I'm hoping to go as long as you'll let me go tonight. I got one other witness, plus Dipple back for the soil permit. Candidly, Michael has told me that the next available date, I believe, is November 21st, I think, or something like that? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, that's correct.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Which creates a burden.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I understand.  I mean, we can do the questions with our engineer and our planner, finish that, open to the public and then reserve John for the next meeting and then do your planner.  Does that  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  It's your hearing.  I'm just here to put a case on. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No, we try to work with  
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Thank you.  And I very much appropriate it.  You're very sensitive to the time that volunteers  
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah, we're very sensitive to the applicant.  There's costs and timing issues and things like that.  And we've had a whole plate and, you know, we try our best, also. 
All right.  So I guess our engineer can ask questions of the traffic expert if you have any.
MR. MEHANDZIC:  I don't really have any questions.  I just have two concerns for the Village. 
One is the garbage truck entering from the Maple    Ridgewood Avenue side.  The drainage system that runs under there is very shallow. And that is going to be a problem for us.  Extremely shallow. The other concern is our municipal lot. It's worn and it's not pedestrian friendly. For if not that we're going to have an overflow of parking, but people might say it might be easier to park in the municipal lot and walk over to retail. It's    it would need some improvements to make it pedestrian friendly and ADA complaint. That lot hasn't been touched ever in 50 years.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Do you have any questions? 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  He didn't really say that    I didn't hear him say that.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I didn't hear him say anything. 
THE WITNESS:  On the municipal lot I think there's a greater likelihood that there is usage of that municipal lot today because there's such a lack of parking on site. As far as the drainage system, I mean my understanding is that the trucks are going in and out of that driveway today to serve this site, because that's where the loading area is now. But obviously if there's any damage to that pipe, it affects the applicant and he's going to, you know, fix it to what extent he has to.  So there's probably going to be a reduction in truck traffic because we have that much less commercial space than we do today. So it's no worse or probably better than what you have today.
MR. MEHANDZIC: Thank you.
THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Could I just ask    when you talk commercial, I mean, on that commercial space, that's office space. What kind of trucks do you have going in and out of there?
THE WITNESS:  It's, you know, office supplies, garbage trucks. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay. Just asking.
THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Because it didn't seem like it's not like there's deliveries, like more goods or anything, so I'm just kind of interested, because I don't even know what offices are in there and what used to be. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  There used to be a furniture store. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  No, I know that, but I appreciate that there was furniture store, but I just was curious to know how much. 
THE WITNESS:  I don't know the specifics. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Beth, did you have any questions?
MS. McMANUS:  I have no questions of this witness.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Anyone from the public that wants to ask questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. There is no one.
All right.  So I guess we'll carry to November 21st, 2017. You're the only one that night. 
MR. MARTIN:  No further notice required as to the application inclusive of the major soil permit application and no prejudice to the Board, I believe MR. BRUINOOGE is okay with that. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  That's no further notice? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yeah, without further notice, without prejudice to the Board.
MR. BRUINOOGE:  That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Thank you for your professionalism. 
MR. BRUINOOGE:  Always a pleasure to be here.
MR. MARTIN:  Always a pleasure. 
(Whereupon, the matter is carried to a later date. Time noted: 10:01 p.m.)

Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from November 15, 2016 were adopted as written.
Executive Session – The Board moved to executive session at 10:05 a.m. At the conclusion of the executive session, the Board reconvened the public session.
Mr. Joel and adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
      

Michael Cafarelli
      Board Secretary

Date approved: December 4, 2018

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of November 21, 2017. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Joel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Following members were present: MAYOR KNUDSEN, Joel Torielli, Richard Joel, Councilman Jeff Voigt, Melanie McWilliams, David Scheibner, and Frances Barto. Also present were Christopher Martin, Esq., Board Attorney; Village Planner Kendra Lelie; Village Engineer Chris Rutishauser; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Patire was not present.

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

Committee/Commission/Professional Updates for Non Agenda Topics, Correspondence – There were none.

KS Broad Street II, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 76 & 80 Chestnut Street and 25-27 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11,12,13,14 - Following is the transcript of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

First item will be public comment on topics not pending before the board. Do we have any comments from the public? 

Yes, please approach the lectern, state your name? 

MR. UNLUSOY:  Sure. My name is Pulent Unlusoy, I am a resident   
MR. CAFARELLI:  Pardon me, can you spell your name?
MR. UNLUSOY:  Sure. First name P u l e n t. Last name U n l u s o y.
MR. CAFARELLI:  And your address please? 
MR. UNLUSOY:  102 Oak Street.
MR. CAFARELLI:  Thank you.
MR. UNLUSOY:  I'm an owner.
MR. CAFARELLI:  I'm sorry? 
MR. UNLUSOY:  I'm an owner.
MR. CAFARELLI:  Thank you very much.
MR. UNLUSOY:  Sure. So first off thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak and express some thoughts on this project that I was notified of by mail I had some paperwork, but I actually couldn't find it coming in this morning so   
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Is that on the agenda tonight or which property? 
MR. UNLUSOY:  This is not in reference to the    I think it's the KS II project, the apartment complex being built.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. That's being presented tonight. This is for public comments on topics not pending before the board so they're going to be make a presentation and there's certain opportunity you will have to speak   
MR. UNLUSOY:  Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:     at that point.
MR. UNLUSOY:  Sorry.  I do not realize the structure of the evening so   
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  That's fine.
MR. UNLUSOY:  So I guess I'll present some thoughts after their presentation.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sure.  Thank you.
Anyone else?  (No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing none, do we have any committee/commission or professional updates? 
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Seeing none. 
Michael, have we received any correspondence? 
MR. CAFARELLI:  No, we haven't.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. 
Our first item will be KS Broad Street II, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 76 and 80 Chestnut Street and 25 though 27 Franklin Avenue, Block 2005, Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14. The attorney on this matter is Jason Tuvel. Welcome.  
MR. TUVEL:  Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Jason Tuvel. 
I'm attorney for the applicant. Just before we get started, are there any more members that you're waiting for so that they're all eligible to vote? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: MAYOR KNUDSEN will be late. And Debbie can't make it tonight. So   
MR. TUVEL:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: So she said she would be about an hour.
MR. TUVEL: So we should get started then. All right. So thank you for having me back. This is an application for preliminary and final major site plans, soil moving and bulk variance for Block 2005, Lots 11 through 15. As everybody on the board is well aware, the board approved an application in June of this year for a 66 unit apartment building, mixed use building, with 5,500 square feet of retail. The 66 units with residential component, including one , two  and three bedroom units as a mix. And it also included an affordable housing component. During the course of those proceedings, and I think you've heard Mr. Saraceno at the end of those proceedings mentioned that although that application was as of right, we didn't have any variance relief that was associated with it, we did hear the comments from the board, as well as the public, with respect to certain aspects of it, and that we would continue to evaluate whether or not that project could be enhanced. So that's what we've done over the last several months with your board professional, who have been very helpful, in terms of reviewing the plan and the submission that we've done. So let me discuss some of the aspects of the project that have changed. So as I mentioned before, the initial project was for 66 units comprised of one , two  and three bedroom apartments. This application reduces the amount of units to 60. So we've gone from 66 to 60 units. And the makeup of the units are 45 two bedroom units and 15 one bedroom units. So the three bedroom unit component is no longer a part of this application. In addition to that, as the board is aware, in terms of the affordable units, there will be no affordable units at this project. As your ordinance allows in a B 3 R zone, we are providing these now off site at The Enclave project, 257, that this board approved very recently. In terms of the retail space, the retail space increases slightly by approximately 2664 square feet, but the overall size of the building, the footprint of the building    not the footprint, but the square footage of the building actually is again reduced. It was initially approved at 102,585 square feet, the new project is smaller. It's 98,243 square feet. Just discussing the density a little bit, the B 3 R zone on which the property is located allows for density of 35 units per acre in the B 3 R zone. The project that the board approved in June of this year had a density of 32.8. So you're allowed 70 units based on the amount of acres that we have, 66 units were approved at 32.8. The revised project or the application that you have before you is at 29.8 units per acre. So under 30 units per acre. So we're actually ten units less than what's permitted in the zone from a density requirement. The project still conforms and the site plan is nearly identical with all setbacks, coverages, parking. The application still complies with all of your aspects of zoning with the exception of one item which is height. So the application requires one bulk variance for building height where 50 feet is permitted in the B 3 R.  We're seeking a variance to go up to 54 feet 11 inches. And the reason for that, despite the fact that the density of the project is decreasing, we were allowed to get a better floor to ceiling height in the units, which we believe makes the units more attractive to future occupants. In addition to that, even though we are seeking a height variance, what you'll see through the testimony of our architect is that at the street level on Franklin Avenue the building is actually shorter than what was previously approved by the board, and the reason for that is that the fifth story, unlike the previous project, is actually set back 15 feet from the street. And you'll see that when the architect makes his presentation. The other item that    the other two items that I wanted to note in terms of change, the architecture has substantially changed from the last application. The board, as well as the public, had some comments relating to the architecture. We worked with your planner, we had a lot of talks about that during the course of our initial proceedings, and we think that the architecture that we're presenting this evening is a significant improvement for the area. Another issue that came up throughout those initial proceedings was the location of the exterior amenity space. As you remember, we had it right next to the railroad tracks. I think although it complied with the ordinance, I think most people on the board felt it could be placed in another location that would have, you know, better functionality for the residents of the area. So as you'll see, we did change that and worked with your planning staff to make sure that that was in a better location than what was previously proposed and approved. I reviewed, with our project team and our client, the board professionals' reports, so anything that's applicable from your board engineer's report we would comply with. A lot of them are substantially similar to the previous application, so again, we have no problems with that. Your traffic engineer's letter is identical, essentially, to the initial letter, and that's really because the application is essentially the same from a traffic standpoint. If anything, we've actually reduced, again, the size of the building and the number of units that are located within it, so all of the items stated in your traffic engineer's report are stipulated to and we have no problems complying with them. Your planner's report, the landscaping requirements, there were some landscaping recommendations made in Ms. McManus's report. We are happy to comply with those as well. The other items, there were several items that just required testimony and we'll provide testimony on those items. So I have the whole project team, literally the same project team that you heard testimony before on the prior application; our site engineer, traffic engineer, architect and professional planner. I only intend on calling our architect and our professional planner. As I said before, the site plan is substantially the same. We comply with all those elements of the Zoning Ordinance as to the site, and again, we stipulate to the items mentioned in the comments in your engineer's letter. So unless there's any questions for me, I'd be happy to call Dave Nicholson, our project architect, who was previously sworn and accepted by the board as an expert. I'm happy to go through his qualifications again, if you'd like me to, to present the change in the architecture, as well as some of the other features of the project.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. I just wanted to check, does anyone have any questions on anything? So it's a new application. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I have a question.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, sure.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Perhaps it's a stupid question. 
So supposing this doesn't get approved. Just, theoretically, what happens?  Do you stay with the old one, stay with the old application? Is that how it works? 
MR. TUVEL: So that's a good question. No, it was actually a very good question because there's actually case law on this issue. So there's case law that deals with    it's actually a pretty recent case, to be honest with you, I don't know why it was never dealt with before. But, yes, you are allowed to have two approvals on a property. You're allowed to do that. But the intent of the Applicant that I can represent to you is that should this project be approved, that we think it's a better alternative to what was previously approved, even though that was in full conformance with your Zoning Ordinance, this is what would get built.
MR. MARTIN:  We can probably put something to the effect that they're vacating the prior resolution and moving forward. But we can work with that. I believe, Jason, just parenthetically, you've had two pending applications on the same property at one time.
MR. TUVEL:  Yes. I mean, the    not to get too antidotal reasoning on it, it's just to give the developers, homeowners, just more flexibility in terms of what they can do with their property. But you have my representation that should this project get approved, this is the one that we want to move forward with.  And I could work with Chris on a letter to that effect, if we get to that point and when we get to that point.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Would the denial of this application change, in any way, the approval of the other application?
MR. TUVEL:  No. We would, that    that approval   
MS. McWILLIAMS: That's important. I was just asking.
MR. TUVEL: Yes. So they're two separate applications. If this one goes forward, we wouldn't move forward with the other one. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: MR. NICHOLSON? 
MR. TUVEL: I'd like to bring up MR. NICHOLSON. You could, I guess, swear him in again because it's a separate application.
MR. MARTIN:  MR. NICHOLSON, raise your right hand. 
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. NICHOLSON:  I do.
D A V I D   N I C H O L S O N,    
545 West 45th Street, New York City, New York, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  And just for the record your name and business address, please.
MR. NICHOLSON: David Nicholson. I'm a principal of SBLM Architects at 545 West 45th Street in New York City.
MR. MARTIN: You've previously been qualified before this board as an architect in New Jersey and you're so qualified tonight. Go ahead, MR. TUVEL.
MR. TUVEL:  And you're still licensed from the last time?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it's still valid.
MR. TUVEL: Terrific.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. TUVEL: 
Q. So, MR. NICHOLSON   
MR. CAFARELLI:  MR. NICHOLSON, could you use the mic, please
THE WITNESS:  Yes, sure.
MR. CAFARELLI:  Thank you.
MR. MARTIN:  Jason? 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:  The notice has been submitted to the board and it's in the package?
MR. TUVEL:  Yes. Everything's been submitted. My affidavit of service and publication, yes.
BY MR. TUVEL:  
Q. So, MR. NICHOLSON, why don't we start by just giving an overview of the site plan. Like I said before, it's substantially similar to the prior application, but I'd like you to, just for the record, indicate where the building is located on the lot and what we did with some of the exterior aspects of the building. 
A. Certainly. What I have here on the easel is a rendered site plan prepared by Maser, the site engineer on the project. 
MR. TUVEL: So we'll mark that as A 1. (Whereupon, Rendered Site Plan prepared by Maser is received and marked as Exhibit A 1 for identification.)
MR. MARTIN: Engineering site plan?
MR. TUVEL:  Yes, colored site plan.
THE WITNESS: And as MR. TUVEL mentioned, it is virtually identical to the one approved on the previous application. The building has an identical footprint. It sits in the identical location as the previous application on the corner of Franklin and Chestnut. The site's access points are identical and the parking layout is identical with 150 spaces (indicating).
BY MR. TUVEL: 
Q. Okay.  So, MR. NICHOLSON, the on site circulation and the access point, the location of the building, and the parking arrangements are identical to the prior application, but also conform with the ordinance requirements?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the setbacks of the building also comply with the ordinance requirements?
A. That's correct. There is no setback requirement on Franklin. There is a setback requirement on Chestnut, which we complied with in both applications.
Q. And we're proposing 150 parking spaces which is compliant with the ordinance. 
As indicated in Ms. McManus' letter, just wanted clarification as to the retail, there are 31 spaces plus two handicapped; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. In terms of impervious coverage, this application conforms with the impervious coverage requirements of the ordinance?
A. It does. 
It is slightly less impervious than the previous application.
Q. All right. And could you just explain why that is, because it also ties into what I explained before about the exterior amenity space being changed since the prior application.
A. That's correct, MR. TUVEL. The    we had proposed an exterior amenity space for the residents of the building as required by your ordinance in the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to the railroad trestle. And as you may recall, some members of the board felt that that was a location that had all sorts of issues, and so we have moved that exterior amenity to an outside terrace on the fifth floor of the building.  And I'll describe that a little bit more thoroughly later. So this   
Q. So that's as of right now   
A. This area is now going to have some landscaping and it is now pervious.
Q. Okay. And the other exterior amenity space, I know you're going to talk about that when you talk about the building, is located along Chestnut Street; is that correct?
A. That is correct. And that has not changed from the prior application. It has been, as we went through the prior application, changed, improved, based on comments we received from the board and from the board's planner, and it remains as previously approved.
Q. Okay. 
So all of the plans    all of the suggestions and comments from the prior application have also been integrated into this site plan; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Let's go to the architectural features of the application because I think those are the most significant changes that were made. 
A. I am going to put up two exterior renderings. The one on my left is the one we are proposing tonight.  The one on my right is the one presented to you at the last hearing for the previous application (indicating). 
Q. All right. So let's mark the new one as A 2 and the old one for the prior application as A 3. 
THE WITNESS:  The new one A 2?
MR. TUVEL:  Yes, and the prior one A 3.
(Whereupon, New Exterior Rendering is received and marked as Exhibit A 2 for identification.)(Whereupon, Old Exterior Rendering is received and marked as Exhibit A 3 for identification.)
BY MR. TUVEL: 
Q. Why don't you describe the differences between the prior application and the current application?
A. Several things are the same. The palette of materials is relatively the same. And I say "relatively" because several times the board members and the planner had previously indicated there were too many different kinds of material. So we have, using the same palette, reduced the number of materials. We've eliminated the Hardie plank. And we've eliminated the alternate roof material so it is now all synthetic slate roofing. And we have changed the corner element. And I'm sure that's the most prominent thing that you see when comparing these two elevations (indicating). But there are other significant changes, and those relate to both the size of the building; as you mentioned, this building is over 4,000 square feet smaller, and the fifth floor has been pulled back from Franklin with a 15 foot setback. So you'll notice that on the older design you see five floors along Franklin (indicating). 
On this design you see four, not five, because the fifth floor is set back and not visible in this view (indicating). In changing the design we also paid attention to a comment that was made by your planner that the building, in each of its segments, should have a bottom, middle and a top. The older design actually had more material variation in the vertical, and we've eliminated that (indicating). But as I mentioned before, most importantly, the corner element has been modified. It's a lot cleaner. It's a lot more classic in its design. 
Q. Okay. And you indicated that along Franklin, the fifth story is set back so is it, in fact, a four story on Franklin compared to the prior application? It's actually shorter, so what you see   
A. That's correct.  Even though we had increased the floor to floor heights of each of the floors for the reason you mentioned, this eave, this parapet wall here (indicating) at the top of the fourth floor, the effective height on Franklin is 3 foot 8 inches shorter than the eave line on the previous design. 
Q. Okay. Can you describe about where the exterior amenity space is located within the building? 
A. The exterior amenity space is on the fifth floor, and I have a fifth floor plan that was included in the board package. Beg your pardon. It's over here. It's an area of almost comparable size to the one by the railroad trestle.
Q. Just    I'm sorry, just refer to that, that was a sheet that was in the board's packet?
A. This is a fifth floor plan dated November 20th. 
THE WITNESS:  We'll make it exhibit? 
MR. TUVEL:  A 4.
THE WITNESS:  A 4. (Whereupon, Fifth Floor Plan dated November 20, 2017 is received and marked as Exhibit A 4 for identification.)  
THE WITNESS: You'll recognize the L shape, the L shape    the L shape of the building. Franklin Avenue is along the bottom, Chestnut Street is on the right hand side. And you can see that the fifth floor is set back from the Franklin Street property line by about 15 feet. This    these from the western corner to this point here, almost to Chestnut, those are private terraces for the fifth floor apartments (indicating). 
The    this larger terrace located adjacent to the corner element is for all residents (indicating). It's accessed from the door, via door from the public hall, immediately adjacent to the hall.
BY MR. TUVEL:
Q. And there was comment in the planner's letter regarding how that exterior amenity space would be used. It's my understanding in speaking with the Applicant that the individual unit owners, in terms of their apartments, would be able to use that exterior space as they so saw fit? In addition, as to the common floor areas by, you know, the management company would be able to utilize that as they see fit, whether it be tables, chairs, things of that nature, for the occupants of the premises to enjoy. 
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Let's talk about the roof a little bit. Do you have a roof plan there?
A. I do.
MR. TUVEL: Let's mark that. I think we're up to A 5. A 5 is the roof plan. A 4 was, if I didn't say it before, the fifth floor plan. (Whereupon, Roof Plan is received and marked as an Exhibit A 5 for identification.)
BY MR. TUVEL:
Q. So just for clarification, I don't want to spend a lot of time on the roof plan, but just to point out something that was mentioned in the planner's letter, all of the mechanical equipment or rooftop appurtenances now comply with the height limitations of the ordinance; is that correct?
A. That's correct. 
There is nothing on the roof that is taller than 58 feet above average grade.
Q. Okay.  And then in terms of rooftop coverage   
A. In addition to that, none of those elements that are above the base elevation exceed either 20 percent of the roof area or 20 percent of the length of the facade upon which they bear.
Q. So it's your professional opinion that those two items have now been complied with or you would stipulate that they would comply?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. The makeup of the units, just, could you just briefly, is the floor plan the same? If you could just reiterate what I had mentioned about the make up of the units in the building? 
A. Right. 
Of the 60 units, 45 are two bedrooms and 15 are one bedroom units.
Q. Okay. And in terms of the materials of the building, I believe there was some question regarding that, I think you might have went into some detail. Is there anything else you want to add?
A. I prepared modified elevations for conditions of the planner where we have identified all the materials. For tonight, I could tell the board members as before the base is manufactured stone. The principal materials for the elevations are brick and EIFS. And the roofing material that you see on the mansard roofs is synthetic slate.
Q. In speaking with the planner's letter, the planning recommendations, we would comply with those? 
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And then there were some architectural comments that Ms. McManus had in her letter, we can just go through those very briefly. Dave, would you be willing to submit a detail of the mansard roof; is that acceptable?
A. Yes. There was a comment    there was a comment relative to the details of how windows fit in with the mansard, we would certainly provide it. There was comments about signage. We had submitted, in September, after initial comments, a diagram concerning signage, which I'll just put up here (indicating). The design    the elevation of the building has provided for a sign band, and the intention is to require all commercial tenants to put their signage on that sign band, so this is a board entitled "Building Signage".
MR. TUVEL: So we'll mark that as A 6. 
(Whereupon, "Building Signage" board is received and marked as Exhibit A 6 for identification.)
THE WITNESS: And it has been drawn to comply with current Village ordinances concerning signage. It limits the signage to the sign band and to a size required by ordinance. We're proposing reverse lit channel letters posted off the building no more than the Village's ordinance requires. And so that's what we would intend for signage on this building. 
Of course, the tenants would apply separately for their own signage.
BY MR. TUVEL:
Q. So the signs would all conform to the ordinance. 
Can you just briefly talk about the lighting? There was also something that was mentioned in the planner's letter, the exterior amenity lighting. 
A. Yes.  As    as on the previous application, there are wall sconces along the length of the building to provide illumination of the sidewalk, in conjunction with the public lighting that is there.
Q. I think the last comment was about canopies above the retail space?
A. We're a little leery about canopies above that retail space, and I will explain the    in the sign exhibit would be the appropriate drawing, because the sidewalk slopes from a low point at the intersection of Franklin and Chestnut, to a high point about three quarters of the way down the facade, before the sidewalk starts and this ends (indicating) to the underpass, both underneath the railroad trestle, the distance between the sidewalks and the sign then becomes very short. And we would be concerned about retractable awnings, which is what the ordinance requires, being too low at that point. And we would want to see a uniform solution across the entire facade. So we're reluctant to incorporate those canopies into the design.
Q. So besides the canopy issue, everything else in the board planner's letter was acceptable?
A. That's correct.
MR. TUVEL:  I have nothing further for MR. NICHOLSON. I welcome the board's questions or   
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Jeff, any questions for MR. NICHOLSON?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yes. Who's going to talk about parking? Can we address parking here, the requirement for the members of the residential units or number of parking spaces. 
MR. TUVEL:  It complies with the ordinance.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. No, I understand. 
But I guess my question is, so there's 33 spaces that are required based on the ordinance. 
THE WITNESS:  Correct. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So 31 are going to be used for non residential, the other two are going to be for handicapped. Will those handicapped count towards that 33? 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Is that how the law works? I'm not clear on that. 
Chris, do you know? 
MR. MARTIN: What's that? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Is that the number of units that are required for non residential parking spaces? It's supposed to be 33, 31 are for non residential and you're going to use two for handicapped, do they count towards the 33 total, or is it 31? 
MR. MARTIN: I'll defer to our traffic engineer on that, Jeff. 
I am aware that the planner also has the same amount of spaces, so we have the traffic engineer.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.
MR. FERANDA: There are 31 parking spaces designated for retail. They allow 33 spaces for the retail, two of which are within the five handicapped parking spaces that are there. You wouldn't necessarily want to designate two of those for retail handicapped, you would want them shared, and they would be for resident and retail. The total number of parking spaces, 150 parking spaces on site, requires a total of five handicapped parking spaces. They provide that. Within those five handicapped parking spaces, because you have retail and because you have residential, there is a number required for residential, but three is the number required for retail, the two, which make up the five, five spaces are located centrally to the doorway for both the residential and retail. And my recommendation is that it not be designated retail handicapped parking, and that all the spaces be shared among the residents as well as retail.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So, again, my question is does it comply with the ordinance of 33? It sounds like it doesn't.
MR. TUVEL: No, it does comply with the ordinance. You don't have    whenever you do a parking ordinance you don't say, well, X amount of spaces plus a handicapped. So if you require the ten based on square footage then you don't add on more. So the handicapped is inclusive within the parking requirement, so just as in the other application, it complies with the ordinance. In fact, we don't even    we weren't even required to designate the spaces as retail, that was actually a suggestion that the board had and the board's traffic engineer and planner had, in terms of how it works. 
So what I was going to do, COUNCILMAN VOIGT, is that the parking requirements complies completely with the ordinance, and we actually went above and beyond by designating the retail spaces based on the recommendation of the board previously, so we maintain that. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I just wanted to be sure.
MR. TUVEL:  No problem.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I wasn't clear on that.
So you talked about the height, and I'm reading the planner's report, there's a power structure and there's some bulkhead structures, and those exceed the 58 feet that the ordinance signifies as maximum. So did you    were you going to talk about that in the in the (c) and (d) variances? 
MR. TUVEL: So I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear, but when I asked MR. NICHOLSON if the rooftop equipment complied with the ordinance, the answer was yes. And based on the comments that were received from your planner, and I have spoken to Chris about this, in order to be conservative, we felt as though they were accessory structures and actually weren't subject to that 58 foot limitation. However, we went back and forth on this several times. In order to be conservative, MR. NICHOLSON has reduced those below the 58 feet, so that issue has been eliminated.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. I just wanted to make sure. All right.
MR. TUVEL: And we're taking the conservative approach on that. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Okay. That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Dave? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  No, that    that answered one of my principal questions. So that the    what we used to call the tower structure really now we're calling it a corner feature, right? 
THE WITNESS:  It is    it is no taller than anything else that is at the very top of the building. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  And it still has a hip roof? 
THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry?
MR. SCHEIBNER:  It has the hip roof? 
THE WITNESS:  No, it does not have a hipped roof. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Oh, it doesn't.
THE WITNESS:  The limitation that was brought to our attention by the planner's report basically eliminated the possibility of having a hipped roof that    that had any meaning. I mean, we could have put in a very, very shallow hip roof and nobody would ever have seen it   
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Yes.
THE WITNESS:    in probability.
MR. SCHEIBNER: Which brings me to the next question I had, do you have a diagram that shows the sight lines from the street? Like from across the street? 
THE WITNESS: No, I do not. I can tell you that we constructed this model very, very carefully. You are standing as if you just came out of the day spa and looking this way (indicating), and it is true that if you walked to the corner of Franklin and Broad and you walked a little bit up the road you would see parts of the fifth floor. If you crossed the street here (indicating), you would not. If you walked down here opposite the building, you would not (indicating). But there will be vantages from the surrounding streets where you will see the fifth floor. I don't want to represent anything else.
MR. SCHEIBNER: No, I found that there was a    that sort of diagram was part of the presentation of The Enclave and I found it very helpful. And I just wanted to know if you had that. But, I think that's it.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: CHIEF ? 
CHIEF Van Goor: The only question I have is to get to the roof are the stairs going to extend all the way up to the roof. 
THE WITNESS:  The access from the fifth floor stair landing to the roof will be through a ship's ladder and on that BILCO.
MR. TUVEL: And just to go over that, the roof will only be accessible for maintenance people, correct? 
THE WITNESS: That's correct. The HVAC maintenance. The elevator will be maintained from the fifth floor. 
CHIEF Van Goor:  All right. Well, I'm just thinking of the fire department, if there's a problem on the roof, how would you get up there? 
THE WITNESS:  It will be    it will be accessible, but for the fire department and for HVAC maintenance personnel.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  How again? 
THE WITNESS:  Through a    through a roof    through a ship's ladder, which is basically a steep stair, and a roof hatch, BILCO   
MR. TUVEL:  The applicant   
THE WITNESS:    is a manufacturer.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Yes.
MR. TUVEL:  The application has to comply with all fire codes, there's no ifs, ands or buts about that. 
CHIEF Van Goor:  Right now looking at the plan it looks like the stairs went all the way up to the roof in the plans.  That's why I was wondering.
THE WITNESS:  In the    in the plan that you    that was submitted, that is correct. But this is one of the changes that we made in response to the planner's letter. So this roof plan would be a substitution of the roof plan you would have in your application packet where we would change that roof access to the BILCO hatch. 
CHIEF Van Goor: Okay. So we don't have that plan? 
THE WITNESS: You do not, sir.
CHIEF Van Goor: All right.
MR. MARTIN: This was a big issue in terms of height that I've got to give Beth credit, she was tenacious on that roof and just trying to make sure that the height was appropriate. But you are the CHIEF  and that's an excellent question. I mean, is there something that is a concern now that there's not stairs to the roof, even though it has complied with the fire safety code? 
CHIEF Van Goor:  I'll have to look into it more. I don't know    off the top of my head without seeing the plan with how when you come out of the stairs and you go right up? 
THE WITNESS: The access to    to the roof for the fire department will be only slightly different than how it was in our original submission or in the previous application in that it will still be a stair to the roof, but it won't be a bulkhead, it will be a hatch. 
CHIEF Van Goor: So the original one had a ship's ladder also? 
THE WITNESS: Our original application, during that process the stair bulkhead was not treated as an appurtenance that needed to comply with the 8 foot height restriction. However, because our roof was at 50 feet and our limitation was at 58, I had room for bulkhead, 8 feet you can just hit it because the headroom up the stair has to be 7 feet that gives you 12 inches for the roof, it works. With a height variance of 54 foot 11, now the difference between the absolute height limit of 5 foot 8 and 54, actually my roof is a little bit lower than that, I don't have room for the bulkhead.
MR. TUVEL:  Right.
But to the CHIEF 's point, the point is that there's still steps that lead to the roof? 
THE WITNESS:  Absolutely. 
MR. TUVEL:  I think that was more the question.
THE WITNESS:  Yes.  There will be access to the roof for the fire department.
CHIEF Van Goor:  Because of the setback we won't really use a ladder to get up to the roof from the front of the building, so we will need access. 
THE WITNESS:  Actually if    if the fire department was more comfortable with a ladder from one of the fifth floor terraces, we could accommodate the department that way. 
CHIEF Van Goor:  From one of the fifth floor   
THE WITNESS:  From the fifth floor terrace.
CHIEF Van Goor: Oh.
THE WITNESS: I'd have to go back to my fifth floor plan. So this is the fifth floor plan, there's our public terrace. 
CHIEF Van Goor: Right.
THE WITNESS:  A ladder against this wall (indicating), properly protected so only the department could use it, could also be another way to get to the roof.
CHIEF Van Goor:  Oh, I was thinking if it's closer to the stairs then it would be closer to the standpipe where we connect our hose to. So that's    if it was inside close to the stairwell it would be better.  If that's where you're planning to put it? 
THE WITNESS: I'm sure when we get into the building plan development we'll be meeting with the department to make sure we comply with all the requirements.
MR. TUVEL: That was actually one of the comments in Chris's report as well that we have to do that.
CHIEF Van Goor: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: And we have had resolutions where it says it has to comply with all fire department recommendations.
CHIEF Van Goor:  Right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes.  Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:
VOICE:  I think for the moment, I don't.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Joel? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Just one. 
How did you land at 54 feet? You used 54'11 as the height? 
THE WITNESS:  Correct. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: How'd you measure that height.
THE WITNESS: The    it was a balance of two factors; one was the desire to provide more ceiling height in the units. The other was for a technical reason about how we build the floors, whether we build the floors very, very thin using very, very heavy members or we use lighter members more widely spaced and have the ability to provide more superior acoustical treatment. Obviously in a rental building it's very, very important that you don't hear your neighbors either aside, above or below you. And being able to construct the floors a particular way that needed more height, gave us a much superior product. 
So it's a combination of those two factors.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Maybe it's a question for the planner, but the    looks like you're just under 10 percent.
THE WITNESS: Correct. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  So there's a (c) variance for the height. 
MR. TUVEL: That's correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  So another inch you'd be a (d) variance? 
MR. TUVEL: That's correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: So that probably factored in, too, right? 
MR. TUVEL:  Well, we wouldn't want to go higher. That's correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I think that's probably why you hit that number. 
THE WITNESS: Yes. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Any other questions? 
Did the unit, itself, pick up any increased height within it? 
THE WITNESS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: How much height does it pick up? 
THE WITNESS:  I'm trying to remember off the top of my head. I'm sorry. I have    I don't have that information with me.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Is it a sizable increase? What was it before, do you remember? 
THE WITNESS:  It was    it was just under 9 feet and now it's just over, well over 9 feet. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I have no further questions. 
Kendra, do you have any questions?
MS. LELIE:  Just a quick question.
MR. MARTIN: Well, Kendra, you might spill over into actually saying something more than just a question. So raise your right hand.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God? 
MS. LELIE:  I do.
K E N D R A   L E L I E, Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 
MR. MARTIN: And so stipulate to Kendra's qualifications   
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:    as a professional planner? 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN: Thank you. 
MS. LELIE: Just a question on the lighting. I didn't see any details of that. Do we have details of the wall sconces? 
THE WITNESS: There was, in the original application, and I apologize they weren't replicated. We can certainly provide those.
MS. LELIE: All right. That would just be an additional item.
THE WITNESS: Correct. 
MS. LELIE: And then the signage, so in the September submission you indicated that was part of this application. 
THE WITNESS:  Yes. 
MS. LELIE:  Okay.  That's all the questions I have. Thank you. No other questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Chris, do you have any questions? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Not at this time.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Andrew, do you have any questions? 
MR. FERANDA:  I just have one comment, but it's a minor comment.
MR. MARTIN:  We might as well get    do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God?
MR. FERANDA:  I do.
A. ANDREW FERANDA, PE, PTOE, C.M.E., Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And do you stipulate to qualify   
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:     as a professional traffic expert? 
Thank you. 
MR. FERANDA:  Within the parking comment that I had, No. 5, I recommend that signs be installed on the buildings stating that the parking in the parking lot are for residents and retail use    well, on site retail use, is that something that   
MR. TUVEL: Yes. That was fine. Then we indicated in the beginning that we were okay with your comments. 
MR. FERANDA: Okay.
MR. TUVEL: That was included in it, but just to be clear, yes.
MR. FERANDA:  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Next will be questions from the public. If anyone from the public wants to ask questions of MR. NICHOLSON, just come forward and just state your name and address. 
MR. UNLUSOY: Pulent Unlusoy, 102 Oak Street, Ridgewood.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Please go to the lectern. 
MR. UNLUSOY: Sure. Just a quick question. You guys had an approval on your first design and you want to change 66 units down to 60 units, 6,000 square feet retail, up to 8,000 square feet retail. Was the height the only reason that drove this change? What drove this change to now go back and get another approval? Why did you guys change it? 
THE WITNESS: Well, there were multiple factors. Jason, you want to tackle that one?
MR. TUVEL: Well, the answer was, I mean, it wasn't really an architectural question.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes and no. What drove the change, I mean there might be architectural explanations? 
MR. TUVEL: I mean, I think I went over that in the beginning of the presentation, which was we received comments from the board regarding several aspects of the application. The initial application that was approved was fully conforming. Despite that, the board did have some comments as to how the application could have been improved. We reflected upon that and we think we improved the architecture. We also think that we improved the exterior amenity space, and we think that we made the building a lot nicer. That was the goal here. We got the floor to ceiling space that we think gives a more attractive use to some of the occupants here. So we think that there are a lot of positives that come out of the application. Another thing that came out of the application is that the building is smaller and the density has been reduced. So we think that it's a win/win both for the applicant in terms of how the building appears and functions, and we think it's also a win/win for the town, for the board, and the Village in the sense that we accommodated some of the comments that were made during the initial proceedings.
MS. McWILLIAMS: I think what he's asking, and part of    I've actually be interested in the answer as well, was there a specific reason for increasing the retail space at this location? Do you have a specific    is there a tenant in mind?
MR. TUVEL: No. There's no tenant at this time. It's nonresidential space, same as we discussed at the first meeting. We would comply with the ordinance with respect to use, with respect to parking as it does now. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: You can keep asking questions if you have more. 
MR. UNLUSOY: That's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone else have questions of MR. NICHOLSON? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: You can move on to your next witness.
MR. TUVEL:  Okay. So the next witness I'd like to call    can you hear me on this mic? 
MR. CAFARELLI:  No, it's dead.
MR. TUVEL:  Are you still picking it up? The next witness I'd like to call is John Szabo, our professional planner. Mr. Szabo was also previously sworn and accepted as an expert and professional planner. If you'd like me to go through his qualifications again, I'm happy to do it.  
MR. MARTIN: That's fine. 
Mr. Szabo, raise your right hand. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God?
MR. SZABO: I do.
J O H N   P.  S Z A B O, J R. 25 Westwood Avenue, Westwood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:
MR. MARTIN:  Just for the record, your name and your business address? 
MR. SZABO:  John, middle initial P, Szabo, Junior.  I work with Burgis Associates as a senior associate there, 25 Westwood Avenue, Westwood, New Jersey.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  And so qualified as a professional planner tonight.
MR. TUVEL:  Thank you. I figured out you just have to press the button and then it goes on. 
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. TUVEL:
Q. So, Mr. Szabo, in connection with this application you reviewed all the application materials, plans and reports that were submitted?
A. I have.
Q. All right. And you've also reviewed the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the Village of Ridgewood?
A. I'm familiar, yes.
Q. And you visited the site and the surrounding area?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. All right.  Can you    we have one variance that is associated with this application, which is a bulk variance for the height. 
Can you give your professional opinion on this variance, starting with the positive criteria?
A. Yes. 
As a result of amendments and alterations to the original building design, there is now a height variance to exceed the 50 foot maximum permitted in a B 3 R zone. Now this has to be treated in response to the inquiry that an made earlier, it should be treated as a (c) variance bulk as opposed to a (d) because we are not exceeding the maximum height from the required 50 foot maximum, by more than 10 feet or 10 percent. So when we talk about relief, this request for the variance is recognized under what we would call the (c)(2) benefit standard of the Municipal Land Use Law which states that where an application or appeal relating to a specific piece of property, the purpose of this act would be advanced by a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirement and the benefit of the deviation would substantially outweighing any detriments that the board may grant the requested relief. We have to really tie this into the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law under 40:55D N.J.S.A. Section II. So when we go through our analysis and we look at the criteria and we look at the purposes of the act, we see that we satisfy five purposes that are enumerated in the statute. The application advances the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law in a number of broad ways. It's a proposed development that's permitted in the zone. It's in substantial compliance with the Village Zoning Ordinance. And, most importantly in my opinion, the application implements the recommendation of the Village's most recent Master Plan document the 2006 re examination report, the 2015 Master Plan/Land Use Amendment, and 2016 Master Plan Re Examination. So with only those three factors greatly contribute to the fact we are advancing the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law. But there is specific purposes that I'd like to focus on. There are five, as I've mentioned. I'm going to group a few of them together because they're related. 40:55D 2(a), to encourage municipal action to guide an appropriate use or development of all land in the state in a manner which would promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare.  Purpose E, to promote through the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well being of person's neighborhoods, community, and region and preservation of the environment. And G, to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, industrial uses in open space in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey residents. Those three kind of grouped together, and the reason we are advancing the purposes of those is the fact that we are, in fact, proposing a conforming development with the exception of building height. We are implementing the Master Plan document that is really seeking to diversify the housing stock, particularly in the downtown area, to take advantage of the nexus to the rail station and the availability of transit options. It talks about the need to provide affordable housing, which this development contributes to.  For all those reasons, we are advancing these purposes. In terms of densities,[it's noted that we are actually reducing the density on site in conformance with your code as a result of this redevelopment of the building design. So there is    the purposes of promoting the appropriate use of land is being advanced significantly by this application. 
Then there are two other purposes that I'll just group together more related to the design, and that would be purpose C, to encourage adequate light, air and open space; and purpose I, to promote a desirable visual environment, through creative development techniques and good civic arrangement. 
Now, you've heard the architect describe in detail the redesign of the building and why that was done.  And what this results in is a significant improvement in the overall architectural design of the building as you can see.  We are providing this terraced effect on Franklin Avenue which reduces the visual mass that you notice from the street, so that in the overall scheme of Franklin Avenue and pedestrian streetscape that occurs there, you're not overwhelmed by the building. The terracing minimizes the height discrepancy that we are asking for.
BY MR. TUVEL:
Q. So at the street line    just to that point, so at the street line the building along Franklin Avenue, is actually shorter than what was previously approved? 
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. 
A. So in terms of that, the redesign of the site and the building resulting in a decrease in impervious coverage, which is a benefit to this area, and there's greater improved amenity space that's being provided for the residents, which I think is a positive design related to the design, creating a design for their use. In terms of light and air, the increase in the ceiling heights makes the units themselves far more airy and not as claustrophobic for the residents, but I think that contributes to the benefit of the project in terms of the people who are going to live there. So for all those reasons I think that, as testified by the architect, these purposes are being well advanced by the redesign of the building.
Q. So you think having those open terraces along Franklin Avenue, as opposed to having what was in the previous design, which is five stories straight across Franklin Avenue, furthers that point about promoting light, air and open space?
A. Yes. And I also think that based on the prior testimony that was presented when we were looking at what the area architecture looked like, this blends in far better along Franklin Avenue than what was proposed originally. 
And a lot of this was done, I would remind the board and public, in response to concerns and questions that were raised as part of the prior approval, and they're being incorporated into the redesign of the building, into a better, far better design than what was originally approved. 
Q. Having the setback of the units on the fifth floor along Franklin Avenue, does that also contribute to purpose I, the visual arrangement, in the sense that the building will not be as intrusive, even if it could comply with the ordinance?
A. That is correct. The redesign of the building aesthetically blends in better than what was planned on Franklin Avenue as a result of these architectural elements.
Q. Okay.  So in terms of the positive criteria, you've hit purpose A, purpose C and purpose I. Were there any other    purpose G you mentioned as well, right? 
A. And    yes. And I talked about E, G, and then I guess I also talked about I. There were five purposes of the Municipal Land Use law that were advanced as a result in the redesign of this building.
Q. All right.  In terms of the negative criteria, let's first take substantial impairment to the zone plan or Zoning Ordinance.
A. Well   
Q. Do you see any substantial impairment?
A. Well, as the board knows, no variance can be granted without demonstrating that the relief be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance. That's one of the negative criteria. And I looked at this application and I conclude that there's absolutely virtually no impact over what was approved, and we actually ended up as a substantial benefit over the original design as a result of the changes that have been incorporated into the architecture of the building. The variance relief, in my opinion, is de minimus and results in a better architectural design. The height difference of 4.9 feet is not going to be noticeable to the public in any significant way. And, in fact, the terraces along Franklin Avenue greatly minimize that impact as a result of the redesign. So I think that addresses that issue. In terms of the parking, nothing has changed and the adequacy of the traffic and everything else has been provided to the board in both the engineering report that has been supplied by the applicant's traffic engineer, as well as the village traffic engineer. So I would also point out that this project results in a reduction in density.  Again, it's visually more attractive and functional. It implements the purposes of your own Master Plan and    as well as the land use law. And it really implements the vision that the Village has for its downtown area. So I think that in exchange for that modification in height, that the benefits of everything that I just described substantially outweigh any of the detriments associated with the 4.9 percent    4.9 foot increase in height.
BY MR. TUVEL:
Q. So just a couple of things I just want to focus on. Typical issues associated with raising the height of a building would be: One, if you want to raise the height of the building beyond the ordinance requirement, it's typically because you might want more density or more units. Is that right? 
A. That is usually the case.
Q. But in this situation it's actually the opposite. We're increasing the height of the building for better functionality, while at the same time reducing the density on site. 
Is that correct?
A. That is correct. It's actually sacrificing units to get a better interior design and functional design for the site.
Q. Okay. So, in theory, all of the issues that are typically associated with height, you know, additional parking that may be required, additional density, additional trip generations, that's not occurring here because of the fact that we're not adding density to the project. This is purely a functionality and architectural benefit for this project. 
Is that right?
A. This is clearly being driven by design issues and the desire to improve the project not, for the desire to improve the intensity. In fact, this is not as an intense development as compared to what could be provided there according to the ordinance.
Q. So in your professional opinion, the granting of this one variance that we're asking in connection with this application, the benefits of that variance substantially outweigh any detriments and, in fact, you didn't see any detriment, you only saw positives?
A. I only saw benefits associated with these changes as opposed to the variance that is being requested.
Q. Great.  
MR. TUVEL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Jeff, do you have any questions? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: How much taller is this building than the surrounding buildings? How much taller is this building versus the surrounding buildings in the area? 
THE WITNESS: That exhibit was presented at the prior hearing on this application. I don't have that exhibit with me.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Can you find that out? It sounds like it's going to be the tallest building in the area.  Yes? 
MR. TUVEL: I would have to ask the architect that question. The architect presented that at the last meeting. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: That's one concern I would have, just from a aesthetic standpoint, it becomes a very large mass. 
MR. TUVEL:  I would say that at the street line, again, Mr. Voigt, in comparison to the prior application that was approved of the street line, it's actually a shorter building than was previously approved.
THE WITNESS:  I don't think you're going to see the massing as an impact that is going to effect that area in any way whatsoever.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Why do you say that? 
THE WITNESS: Because 4 feet, with the terraces particularly on Franklin Avenue and the reduction in the building and the way this is being designed and the architectural features that are being incorporated into that building blend in a manner that I think is going to enhance the character. I don't see any impact at all. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: All right. 
THE WITNESS:  Not over 4 feet, given all those benefits. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: 4 feet from the other building, not from what people are used to seeing now.
THE WITNESS: Well, but that's what was contemplated by the ordinance. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: But to say there's not going to see a difference, it's, like, I don't know what    in what world? There is no light at all on the Chestnut side. You reference the Franklin side having the setback there will be more light. It is, you're right, there's a difference. 
On the Chestnut side there is a huge, huge shadow. There's no sunlight. There's nothing. There's nothing there now. The buildings there now are set back in its    you're in a shadow, a cold shadow at any time of the day in that area and that is just    there's no light. There's no air. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Well, so Jason, to David's point   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Sorry.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:     point earlier, is there any way you can show us a sight line from the other side? I mean can we get that? I'm wondering if we can do that at another meeting and at the next meeting we have, could you put some sight lines so we can actually see what it looks like when you're looking at the other side of Franklin Avenue, the south side?  
MR. TUVEL:  I'll answer the question, Mr. Voigt, before we leave tonight we will answer that.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Dave? 
MR. SCHEIBNER: I'm looking at the south elevation in the plans, A 201. 
It gives the vertical dimensions of, you know, the floor level to floor level. It doesn't give me a dimension of the parapet over the average ground elevation. 
MR. TUVEL:  What's your question, regarding the building height? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Well, how does the proposed parapet on the south side of the building compare with the top of the previous plan? 
MR. TUVEL:  I think that's more of a question for the architect. Can I bring the architect back up to answer that question, if that's okay? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Sure. 
MR. NICHOLSON:  I think I've answered the question, but I'll answer it again.
If you compare    you want me to get the old elevation back. If you compare the top of that roof to the top of that parapet wall (indicating), there's a 3 foot    this one is 3 foot 8 inches lower. And the reason    and you might think it should be bigger. The reason it's not bigger is because this has no parapet wall (indicating) our roof protection was a rail that was 6.5 feet back from the edge, just a protection rail. But this, of course (indicating), to protect the terraces of the fifth floor apartments, does have a 3 foot 8 inch    3 foot 6 inch parapet wall.  
MR. SCHEIBNER: Well, and the reason that I ask that question is because visually from a person on the street, that's the real difference between these buildings on the south elevation is that parapet versus where the top of the other original building was. 
MR. NICHOLSON: It's 3 feet 8.
MR. SCHEIBNER: I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: James? 
CHIEF  Van Goor: I wasn't here for the original, how much shorter is this building or how much taller is this building, compared to the original? 
MR. TUVEL:  So I guess that's a    I'll try to answer, just because we're going back again on this, but the deviation    I think what we've been trying to explain is that the overall deviation of the way building height is measured in the Village is 4 feet 11 inches. That's from a building height standpoint. 
However, I think the point that's been going back and forth that's been trying to be conveyed on the Franklin Avenue elevation is that because of the fifth story being set back, the floor to ceiling height makes the building taller than that 4 feet 11 inches, and on that side of the building, compared to the previous approval, that was an as of right application, it's actually 3 foot 8 inches shorter on the Franklin Avenue side at the street line. Does that answer your question? I know there's a lot of numbers.
CHIEF Van Goor:  I think so.
MR. TUVEL:  From an overall perspective, in terms of variance relief, it's 4 feet 11 inches. 
CHIEF Van Goor:  Okay.  So it's 4 feet higher than the original   
MR. TUVEL:  Correct.  The original complied at 50 feet.
CHIEF Van Goor:  Oh, 50 feet high.
MR. TUVEL:  That's correct.
CHIEF  Van Goor:  That's all.
MR. MARTIN: So there's no increase in stories, just height? 
MR. TUVEL:  What's that?
THE WITNESS:  No. 
MR. MARTIN: There's no increase in stories.
MR. TUVEL: No. The number of stories are the same and as we mentioned before, the density has been reduced.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Frances? 
MS. BARTO:  I don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  So that's the difference on the Franklin side. What's the difference in height on the Chestnut side now?  Is that taller    bigger, taller, more massive on that    on the Chestnut side now? 
MR. TUVEL:  You want to answer that. 
MR. NICHOLSON:  Yes. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm looking at   
MR. NICHOLSON:  This    on    on the Chestnut side, in the old design, that line was 50 feet above average grade.  This line is 54 feet 11 inches (indicating).
MS. McWILLIAMS:  So it's taller there.
MR. NICHOLSON:  It's taller there. 
But as you recall, on that street we're at 20 feet back from the street. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  You're 20 feet back from the street? 
MR. NICHOLSON:  We're 20 feet back from Chestnut. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Chestnut.
MR. NICHOLSON:  We have a 15 foot zoning setback and there's a 5 foot easement that was given or was reserved for the Village. So this building wall (indicating) is well back from its   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Yes. 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes, and not only in terms of the other elevation as you remember from the last time, there there's a zero foot setback   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Right.
MR. TUVEL:     because that's what's required in the zone, in the B 3 R along that frontage. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I mean, I like the rendering a lot better. I feel this is much more realistic than that (indicating).  But     I mean it's definitely better, I just feel that the Franklin side    or the Chestnut side, I mean, it's    you can see the    I struggle with the light and air that you see.
MR. NICHOLSON:  I'd just like to point out that    and it doesn't show in this view, but you recall Chestnut climbs.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Oh, I know.
MR. NICHOLSON:  And Chestnut climbs   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I'm very familiar with that area   
MR. NICHOLSON:    over half a story by the time you get to the end of our building. So    
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I've sat in traffic there pretty much every day. 
MR. NICHOLSON:  Yeah.  That's the mitigating factor with the height, right, but that the grade is going up.  And it's going up quickly. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Mr. Szabo    
THE WITNESS: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:    some of your testimony you talked about the light, air and spacing, that was your fourth prong of your positive criteria argument. 
THE WITNESS: Yes. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: And you mentioned there'll be far more air and space inside the dwelling units? 
THE WITNESS:  Well, by raising the height of the ceilings, you're creating a more comfortable environment, lighting is brought in. It's taller. It's a better design, more comfortable. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Isn't that part of the criteria, isn't that typically related to the public, light, air, open space and not inside the building? 
THE WITNESS: Well, I think it's both because when you are looking at light, air and conditions, you're looking at not only the site design, but how the whole project is working in terms of compliance with the zoning and with the design features. 
MR. TUVEL: And I think just    I'm sorry, just to expand on your question that you just asked about, I guess it was purpose C, that Municipal Land Use mentioned    they both mentioned is I think you were indicating that the fact that the light, air and open space with the terraces provides a public benefit in terms from a visual standpoint as well as from a massing standpoint.
So in addition to inside the units, you're taking about   
THE WITNESS:  It's also related to the terracing and the way that the mass is handled on the Franklin side and the changes that have been made and improvement in the design at this site.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I understand. I'm really glad you brought that up, Jason. That was going to kind of be my next question. I feel like it's a little bit of a swap meet here, right, so you    you reduced it by about 4,000 square feet? 
MR. TUVEL:  The building in total?  Correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yet increased in height by almost 5 feet, right? 
So it's a little bit of a swap. 
So the real question is, and I'm sure it'll be easy for you guys to figure out, have you compared the volume of the building originally, to the new volume? 
MR. TUVEL:  That would be something for the architect to answer again. 
Well, when you say volume, can you just clarify what that means? You mean square footage?
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Cubic feet? 
MR. NICHOLSON:  I have not run that calculation. I understand what you're asking. I have not run it.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I understand you don't have the numbers, but in your opinion, as somebody that designed both buildings, do you think it's about equal? Did the volume increase? 
It's hard to judge based on the exhibits, but I feel like you're saying, oh, we're bringing everything down, but in reality, it's a bigger building as well as a bit more light, air, space inside the building, which makes it less light and space on the site.
MR. NICHOLSON: Can you give me a couple of minutes? 
MR. TUVEL: Sure. Okay. 
Give him time to run that calculation.
MR. MARTIN:  Yes, that's fine. 
MR. TUVEL: I'm sure with the   
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: It's more    I don't expect you to calculate the volume. It's not realistic, but I just want to get an idea since you designed both of these what's your general feel on the volume? Do you think they're about equal?  Do you think it increased, decreased? What do you think? 
MR. NICHOLSON:  Off the top of my head, it's probably increased slightly, because the reduction in floor area on the fifth floor is 4,362, but the entire floor plane is about 25,000 square feet. So I think we're probably a little bit bigger in total volume. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Slightly.
MR. NICHOLSON:  But I really want to crunch the numbers to give you a hard number.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yes.  No, like I said, I don't expect you to sit there, that would be ridiculous but just wanted to get where you thought it was. I think that's pretty relevant when we're talking about taking a little bit of square footage out and you're actually making a taller building. So it's not a    I don't think it's a reduction. You're scaling it back from the streetscape, but it's still a massive building. The volume actually increases. And your argument is    one of your arguments of the positive criteria is that it    maybe you help restate about the light, air and open space. I don't want to misstate your argument on that.
THE WITNESS:  You have taller windows. You have setbacks to the building. You have other architectural features that break up the facade. When you look at light, air, zoning regulates light, that was the purpose behind creating zoning in the first place, way back when you created this. And we complied with the    substantially complied with the zoning for this    for this area. And if you compare the building you can see that you're still having a five story building on both sides of Chestnut and Franklin. So we're talking about 4 feet. And as a result of the design that incorporated that recommendation, 4 feet. So 4 feet, a little lower than this podium (indicating). So I don't see    I think that is di minimus, frankly, from what was approved. And for the benefit that I described, in exchange for that, in terms of, you know, reducing the density of the project, being able to provide a better amenity in order to kind of enhance the site, I mean architecturally I feel that's a far superior building. 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I don't disagree with you. 
In your first prong you talked about, again, you were talking really fast, I was trying to take down notes really fast. 
THE WITNESS:  Sorry about that.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: You were talking about from the public health.
THE WITNESS:  General welfare.
Well, let's look at the purposes. Purpose A   
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: It's really important because we have to understand   
THE WITNESS: Purpose A, to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which promotes public health, safety, morals and general welfare.  That's a general statement. And generally speaking, we've satisfied that because we're advancing the purpose and the intent of your Master Plan. I spoke to that at the last hearing when we talked about the project, and implemented the vision that the Village contemplated for the site in the B 3 R zone.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Okay. 
THE WITNESS:  And that's pretty straightforward.
MR. TUVEL: And also think about what we've done since the last application, just think about what we've done. The architecture, we all agree. So I'll throw that out. We all talked about that already. 
We've changed the amenity space, which I think was a big issue for the board and the public. And I kept saying "it complies," "it complies," which it did. But I think right now we have a better planning alternative with respect to the amenity space. This allowed us to do that by putting the terraces and the amenity space on that fifth floor. So that's a better functionality aspect of it. And in terms of density, everybody talks about the size of the building. You just said it yourself, you thought it was massive to some degree, but you really can't say that if you look at the zoning regulations that's our baseline. And we're below the impervious coverage amounts, we're below the density amounts, and we're below the FAR amounts. So from an intensity standpoint, you know, from looking at it objectively from the ordinance, there's no way that this could be viewed as an intense development based on the ordinance. 
But what we've been able to do in changing the plan is make the functionality of the building, create a better planning alternative, based on comments that we received back from the board, while decreasing the density.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I understand all that. I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that the    how we ended up here tonight because I'm sure Mr. Szabo, MR. NICHOLSON, I mean, you don't redesign a building, it takes a lot of time, you're well compensated, a lot of time and money went into redesigning this whole thing, just based on comments. It seems a little... 
MR. TUVEL:  So do you remember that at the initial application   
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Sure.
MR. TUVEL:     one thing that we had to do was go to the architect    one of the conditions of the approval is that we would meet with an architectural review committee made up of your planner and maybe some of the board members, right? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Sure.
MR. TUVEL:  We would have gotten to this point probably by doing that. So the client basically said, I know I'm going to have to make adjustments to this, based on the comments that the board had when I meet with the architectural review committee. How can I make this better? Well, we looked at it, and this is    I didn't look at it, but the client and the professionals looked at it, right, and this was a better alternative. So they said, well, we can make the architecture better, but reducing the density was part of it, the floor to ceiling height was a positive, and that's how we got here. 
So we were going to have to do that anyway.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Okay.
MR. TUVEL:  So, I mean, that's kind of    and the result of that redesign was a variance, so we had to come back here. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here.
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Right.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I just think that this was the obvious first choice to begin with, and it doesn't seem like it took that long to get to this huge leap to get to here. And I'm with Joel, and I'm wondering when you day it's, like, you know, we went back and thought about it. You know we thought let's go with everything you guys suggested sort of   
MR. TUVEL: But, so    so look at it this way, okay, so you hear a lot of applications before this board and you see a lot of applications. This is our application so we live and breathe it. We weren't just here for one month. We started in October of 2016 and heard comments over almost a year. 
So as your comments came through, obviously thoughts were in people's minds. So it wasn't like, Melanie, we got approved and next week David designed this building. So we understand the comments of the board. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  So, Jason, isn't it true that you have a fair amount of    you have more flexibility now without having affordable units in that building and putting them in The Enclave, you've got some flexibility to do different things that you wouldn't have been able to do. Is that    is that one of the reasons?  It seems to me it is. 
MR. TUVEL:  What do you mean by "flexibility"?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Well, you've then rearranged the units so they can maximize profits. And so, you know, based off this, you know, you've got units in there that are market rate units that you can do more things with. You can become more flexible. So I think, you know, that's one of the reasons why we're here tonight is the fact that it has to do with they have more flexibility based on the fact that they're market rate units. And you could do more things to maximize the space and to maximize the rent. And that's fine. I mean, I think that's one of the reasons why they're doing it. 
MR. TUVEL:  The issue of the affordable units in The Enclave is also something that evolved over time.  It wasn't something that was part of the initial application. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I don't have a problem with that. I think that's one of the reasons we're here.
MR. TUVEL: No, I just didn't want it to seem like, you know, we left here and then we just flipped a switch and this plan showed up. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I think we're just saying we don't believe that at all. I am.
MR. TUVEL:  Okay.  
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right. Well, we're half and half on that. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Sorry, Joel.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right.  I don't have any    do you have any more questions? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  No.  That's it. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Yes, I have no questions. We'll go to our professionals if they have questions. Kendra, do you have any questions for John? 
MS. LELIE:  Just one question with regards to the materials that    I don't think it's shown actually on this perspective, but the material that's surrounding the AC units, it's described as a metal screening.  Can you talk about how that mitigation    oh, there it is. Oh, there it is.
MR. TUVEL:  We thought that was a question for the architect.
THE WITNESS:  I thought that was an architectural question. 
MS. LELIE:  Well, I think it    I think it may be both, but is the screening similar in nature to materials of this buildings.
THE WITNESS:  I'll defer to the architect.
MR. NICHOLSON:  No.
MS. LELIE:  No? 
MR. NICHOLSON:  No, because it's a perforated metal screening that is designed to do two things; one is to cut down on noise transmission and the other is to make the units, so you can't see the units. 
MS. LELIE:  So, for instance, on the Chestnut Street side, on that rendering you don't necessarily see it, but this does    it does kind of go up to the    I guess within 5 feet of the parapet wall. What will you see?  I mean would it be in conformance with the architectural elements of the facade of the building? 
I think that's we're the    maybe the    some of the comment on the thought process about how you mitigated that. Yes, it's going to be 54 feet 11 inches. Yes, we still are    you know, we're within 58 feet of what the ordinance says would be perfect for this, but the materials will be in such a way that they are in conformance with one another so you wouldn't feel like there's these things just sticking up on the top of the roof? 
MR. NICHOLSON:  Well, if you recall, it's only 3 foot 6 inches tall   
MS. LELIE:  Right.
MR. NICHOLSON:    off the roof surface. And there is a small rise at the edge of the roof for flashing details and things like that. The design intent is to use the perforated screen, paint it a medium gray, because it disappears against the sky, so you don't    the idea is that you don't see it. It's not supposed to be part of the architecture. That's the design you have.
MS. LELIE:  Okay. That's the only question I had, is relating to the height issue. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Chris, do you have any questions? 
CHRIS: No, thank you.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I have one more question.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  One of the things you mentioned was the benefit, you said that you decreased the impervious coverage on the property. Is that right? 
MS. LELIE:  Yes. 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes. The reason    the reason that was the case and    yes, the    I think MR. NICHOLSON explained this, remember the amenity space, Councilman, that was near the railroad tracks that we initially had? So that's been removed and now that's become pervious or green space. And that's been enlarged. So there were a few spots on the site that we were able to provide more impervious    no, I'm sorry    more pervious surface. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Not a lot, but there is some.
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay.  
MS. McWILLIAMS:  That amenity space up on the roof, I know you said    I just want to clarify   
MR. TUVEL:  That's okay.
MS. McWILLIAMS: That's for everybody, anybody within the building that wants to use it will follow whatever rules and guidelines that exist to utilize that amenity space up there. 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes. There's like a plaza    there's a plaza that public amenity space, for all the floors of the building. 
MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: So they can all use it? All right.  
MR. NICHOLSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Andrew, do you have any questions?
MR. FERANDA:  No comment.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  I just want to know, what is the top height on the corner of the tower? Is that   
MR. NICHOLSON: (Indicating).
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes.  What is that? 
MR. NICHOLSON:  58 feet.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. 
MR. NICHOLSON:  58 feet above average grade.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: And then what's the height at the back corner on Chestnut from the ground going up? 
MR. NICHOLSON:  That data isn't on my plan, if you'll give me a minute. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes.
MR. TUVEL:  Mr. Chairman, do you want to open it up to the public in regards to Mr. Szabo while MR. NICHOLSON is getting that information, just so we're using the time wisely? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, sure. 
Does anyone from the public want to ask questions of Mr. Szabo?
MR. UNLUSOY:  Yes, I have a quick one.  Thank you.  
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Sure.
MR. UNLUSOY:  Thank you. So   
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Just state your name again, just for the record. 
MR. UNLUSOY: Yes. Pulent Unlusoy, 102 Oak Street. 
So I have a traffic related question. So the southwest corner on Franklin, the access is controlled by a traffic light right there by the bridge across from the Broad Street, correct? You've got 150 parking places inside, and so the traffic light controlled area, if that backs up people are going to revert back to the exit that's on the east side of the building into Chestnut. So if you have a ton of cars trying to go onto Chestnut to access Franklin, MS. McWILLIAMS said that she sits there in traffic every day as is, with that kind of volume of traffic flowing out of Chestnut to Franklin, how is that planned to be handled?  Is there going to be a traffic light on Chestnut or Franklin corner? It's a traffic density nightmare the way I see it that this could turn into. So what are your plans and solutions for a traffic flow control at that spot? 
MR. TUVEL: So I guess you weren't here at the original application. 
MR. UNLUSOY: No, I was not.
MR. TUVEL: No, that's okay. And we talked a lot about this, but we submitted a traffic report and the board engineer and the board's traffic engineer reviewed it. And the applicant is responsible to pay a pro rata share contribution with respect to street improvements that are necessitated as a result of the application. And that was agreed to at the prior application, and that's been agreed to in connection with this application.
MR. UNLUSOY:  What street improvements are planned? 
MR. TUVEL: Again, I'm not    I'm not    I wasn't planning on going over this because we addressed it previously and there's nothing about the traffic aspect of the application that doesn't comply.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  In a general statement form, you know.
MR. TUVEL:  In general.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Andrew can answer in general. 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.  
MR. FERANDA:  At the previous hearing for the original application, there was extensive testimony, and the focus was on the traffic. There would be significant improvements to the traffic signal to allow the time to be more efficient so that the residents and retail use will be able to use that signal. 
And by efficiency of that reprogrammed signal, more traffic will be using that intersection than would Chestnut and the balance of the traffic is shown in the report to be acceptable levels    
MR. UNLUSOY: When you say   
MR. FERANDA:    after the improvements.
MR.  UNLUSOY: When you say the signal, you mean the signal over on the southwest corner?
MR. FERANDA:  At   
MR. UNLUSOY: How do you control the people not going out on to Chestnut to cause that congestion.
MR. FERANDA: Well, the residents and the retail use will have the option to use either driveway. If there's significant delay, as you're suggesting, if there's backup past the driveway then certainly that becomes a less desirable exit for vehicles, they would then use the signal because it will be reprogrammed, improved, and allow more residents out that driveway. So they have the option to use those driveways. And, again, there was a traffic study with detailed information showing that the delay balance would be at acceptable levels of service, which means not too significant a delay. With the change, and that's what we're talking about here, there's more retail, there's less residential, the change increases slightly. There's a few more trips. But improvements at the traffic signal are significant enough that it can handle the additional trips, as well as the site, typically residential units and 8,000   
MR. TUVEL: Yes.
MR. UNLUSOY: I apologize for not having been on the earlier hearings.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: No, that's okay. 
Did that answer your question? 
MR. UNLUSOY:  Not completely.  I have further questions, but I'll ask them later in the hearing.  
MS. McWILLIAMS: Then ask your questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: He's going to give a report after    I guess this is the only witness that they had left and then Andrew will fill it in a little more, but did you have any planner type questions for Mr. Szabo? 
MR.  UNLUSOY:  No. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No?  Okay. 
Did you have any other witnesses? 
MR. TUVEL:  No.  I was just going to ask if we can take a two minute break, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes, sure.
MR. TUVEL:  Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right Let's take a two  to three minute break.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Really, two minutes? Really?
(Whereupon, a brief recess is taken.)
(MAYOR KNUDSEN is now present at the hearing at 9:16 p.m.)  
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Let's call the meeting back to order. 
We'll have roll call, Michael.
MR. CAFARELLI:  MAYOR KNUDSEN? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Here. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  COUNCILMAN VOIGT?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Here. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  Mr. Joel? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Here.
MR. CAFARELLI:  MR. SCHEIBNER? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Here. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  Mr. Torielli? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Here.
MR. CAFARELLI:  MS. McWILLIAMS?
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Here. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  MS. BARTO?
MS. BARTO:  Here. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  CHIEF  Van Goor?
CHIEF  Van Goor:  Here.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thanks, Michael.
MR. TUVEL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point that I was talking about with counsel, which is we do need a variance for the height in terms of the average grade to the roof line, but I just want to make one thing clear, is that in the initial proposal where we were at 50 feet in terms of the average grade with the roof appurtenances, it was still 58 feet. In this one we're exactly the same instance where there's nothing above 58 feet. So we're still within that range where none of the roof appurtenances go above 58 feet. I just wanted to make that clear. There's the building's height and then there's the roof appurtenances. And in terms of that, we're still in the same boat as we were the last time. I just wanted to make that clear.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thanks.
All right.  We're going to move on to the board's experts. 
Kendra, would you like to start? 
MS. LELIE: Sure. So we have a    excuse me    a report dated November 15th, we went through this project, it's been pretty clearly gone through all that. With regards to    there's really two issues that I don't think were specifically dealt with, so under number 2.0 zoning compliance, which is Sheet 2 of 8, so mixed use is permitted in a B 3 R, as you all know. However, there's a condition that when you mix residential and nonresidential, in this particular zone that a portion of it obviously has to be for affordable housing. There is a section within this zoning district that allows for a developer to request from the Planning Board an exception from that, which is found under subsection (g), so I have turned to page 3 of 8. And in    on that page you'll see those items that    there are specific conditions that need to be met, that you, as the Planning Board, need to find and the applicant needs to talk about. And I know that you're familiar with The Enclave application. And we provided a little bit further down what has been approved, which is at The Enclave    so the idea is that the affordable housing units, of which there were ten originally, I believe there are ten; is that right? Yes, originally there were ten. In this particular development now with the reduction in the number of units, a requirement of nine is necessary. And what's being proposed is that that go to The Enclave site. And so on The Enclave site we're looking at 39 market units that 8 special needs. What we provided for you was to say there's 39 units. They are required six affordable housing units. And in this project, nine affordable housing units are required. So obviously then 15 is what's going to be necessary in The Enclave. So what this section of the ordinance requires is that the applicant and the developer demonstrate that there's a realistic plan, so there may    you may need to have some testimony, I think, from the applicant to give you a better idea of what's being proposed at The Enclave that their    you know, that those units are going to be completed within a certain timeframe, that it's in conformance with the zoning requirements. At this point we know we have an application that's been approved, but I don't think necessarily that the number of units, affordable housing units to accommodate what's coming from this particular application have been discussed, and that's something that I think the applicant should talk about, and then the execution of an agreement. So the Planning Board does have some work to do on this because in some instances it's    the mixed use, to some degree, could be considered a conditional use because there are conditions that there's affordable housing units provided on site. They're not being on site. They're proposing to go off site. I think that needs to be flushed out a bit more for you, as the planning board, to find that they've met these particular conditions. So that's kind of point number one. I don't know if you guys want to deal with that now. There's really only one other point that I have to make through our report. 
MR. MARTIN: Well, Kendra, that's a good point. 
What would the second point be before we have   
MS. LELIE: It's the exterior amenity areas. There's a minor issue on Chestnut Street.
MR. MARTIN: You want to hold that in abeyance, and address    that's probably a good idea, and I think we can both stipulate that we would do a developer's agreement on tis.
MR. TUVEL: Yes. I'll agree with Kendra. I think maybe    I had Mr. Szabo explain the off site units, but if you want him to just go into a little bit more detail, the principals of the two entities are similar, so it's obviously an agreement between the two principals as to the off site. It will be done in accordance with a plan that we have that's been approved by this board, so that's already there. It meets, as your planner indicated, the amount of units between the two    between the two developments, the nine for this one and the six for The Enclave. So that's met. So the completion of such units within the phase in timeframe required to complete the development, that would be part of the agreement that would be executed, so that timeframe would likely be in there, so that's not a big deal. Again, the principals are the same, so it's all within one person's control. So I think we meet all these prongs. This board is aware, I know, for instance    I was not the attorney on it, but I know that there was substantial testimony heard from not only the Applicant, the Applicant's professionals, but also somebody who was going to be implementing the affordable housing at The Enclave, so I know that this board has all that information, but what I can stipulate to is that we meet all these prongs and there will be 15 units there. If there are any other questions that you have, I mean, that's pretty much    it's meeting those requirements. I don't know what else you would want to hear from us.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: When was that agreement put together? 
MR. TUVEL: What's that?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: You guys put that agreement together or did we put that agreement together? 
MR. TUVEL:  Well    
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: It's a joint effort? 
MR. MARTIN: It's a joint effort.
MR. TUVEL: Yes, that's a very common in developer's agreement between municipalities, based on Planning Board approval that's    you guys get to lay into us on some things about how quickly it has to get done and we have to have insurance on it and things of that nature, in terms of that, but that's standard practice.
MR. MARTIN: And Chris is pretty    MR. RUTISHAUSER is pretty active in all that? 
MR. TUVEL: We have to post a bond, you know, inspection fees, those are    those are things   
MS. McWILLIAMS:  So are you increasing the number of units that are at Enclave then? They were    what were they at?  Is it the 39 that they were at, and so now they'll be at 45 or... 
MR. TUVEL:  No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No. 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  No? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  No.  What they propose and what was approved. They're just getting credit for it.
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Okay. 
MR. TUVEL:  So if there's any other information you want, but I know you're fully familiar with The Enclave project so...
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Thank you. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I just have one quick question. Kendra, you're not suggesting that the introduction of the retail space created a scenario that required the affordable housing to be on site because the ordinance does state that the affordable housing can be   
MR. TUVEL:  Off site. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:     off site. 
MS. LELIE:  Correct. 
MR. TUVEL:  Correct.
MS. LELIE:  No, no, no, I was not    if I    if I stated that, I misspoke.  It    
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I just want to be clear on what you're exactly saying.
MS. LELIE:  What the ordinance says is that a mixed use is    has residential and nonresidential. When residential is proposed as part of the mixed use, there's an affordable housing component required on site, but it gives you the flexibility to do it off site, provided the criteria that the counsel just mentioned is met. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Okay.  So I may have just misunderstood what you were saying.
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.  And we will meet all these prongs, and I believe, even your planner    I know Beth has also opined about the off site units being eligible for the credits for the    for The Enclave.  So all these prongs have been met in subsection (g) of the B 3 R.
MS. LELIE:  And I just wanted to make sure it was on the record. 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.  No, that's fine.
MS. LELIE:  It's part of the zoning and it is obviously different from your prior application.
MR. TUVEL:  That's fine. 
MS. LELIE:  So the only other question that we had that I don't think we've necessarily specifically dealt with is on sheet    or sorry.
MR. TUVEL:  The furniture outside. 
MS. LELIE:  Yes.  No.  It's page 7 of 8, 4.1, exterior amenity area for Chestnut Street. 
I know you had mentioned about the    you know, the upper space, the space on the roof the   
MR. TUVEL:  That's the outdoor furniture on Chestnut Street. 
MS. LELIE:  On Chestnut    yes.  So    well, and I'm wondering if it might be more than just considered outdoor furniture.  So Chestnut Street, there is an area that is being designated for the outdoor amenity area, and what we asked for is that they provide a design of that space. And the reason why is because there is some pedestrian movement occurring on that sidewalk, and the way that it traverses the front of the building, we just want to make sure that they're meeting the minimum requirement for the space, you know, for the square footage. And also that it's functional. It's not just a flat plastic area that nothing ever happens. The outdoor amenity area is obviously meant to be functional and an amenity for the residents. And so we just ask that the Applicant provide a design for that space, whether it's use of outdoor furniture or planters or a mix of something.
MR. TUVEL: Yes. That's fine. We outlined it on the plan to show the percentage, but if as a condition of approval we need to submit something that Kendra that's a little bit more detailed in terms of furniture and plantings and things of that nature, that's perfectly acceptable. 
MS. LELIE:  And those are all the comments I have. The Applicant has indicated that they're going to comply with the planting requirements that we have in the ordinance, specifically in the letter    
MR. TUVEL: Yes.
MS. LELIE: And the architectural we've already talked about. The only thing that they're not proposing to necessarily follow our recommendation on is the canopies, and I don't    I really, I don't think it makes a difference one way or the other with the canopy. But it would be a nice element from a pedestrian scale, but if there's some issues which was described that there are some height issues, especially as you get to    I think it was Chestnut Street, with where the canopy, kind of, was as far as height was concerned or headroom, then I understand that it's not necessarily feasible. But other than that, they've taken out all of the building height appurtenance issues that we brought up on page 5 of 8, so there's really nothing to comment on that at this point because those variances are not needed for those items, for the appurtenances. So I really don't have any other comments. Any questions? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Kendra, you did    on page 6, you talked about consideration of the    you talked about appearances of the surrounding area from a height perspective. Can we just get some more    I know, Jason, I asked you this at some point for more clarification as to how this is relative to    and I know you talked about this before. I don't have it here, so just help us understand what the surrounding area is from a height perspective. 
MR. TUVEL:  All right.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Jeff, do you have any questions for Kendra?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I do not.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  David? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Yes, help me get clarifications on the affordable housing component at The Enclave, as approved it includes enough that this    it can absorb the units from this development? 
MS. LELIE: They require 15. My understanding is they received approval for 15. I wasn't here for that application so...
MR. TUVEL:  Yeah, so   
MS. LELIE:  Okay.
MR. TUVEL: Correct. So at The Enclave project, which I believe there was a lot of testimony on that, specifically from the United Way person that was going to implement it, but, yes, there would be 15 units that would be approved. 
MR. SCHEIBNER: Because of the nature of the affordable housing, it isn't separate units. And I just want a clarification that it was sufficient, so that there's actually no change in what was approved for the United Way in order to absorb the affordable housing requirement for this developer.
MR. TUVEL: That's correct. Yes. And we vetted that with your planner regarding that issue. 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  I just needed clarification. Thank you.
MR. TUVEL:  That's okay.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  James? 
CHIEF  Van Goor:  No questions.
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  No questions. 
MS. BARTO:  I don't have any questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  No. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Joel? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  I have no questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.  Chris? 
MR. MARTIN:  Raise your right hand, sir. 
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, I do.
C H R I S T O P H E R   R U T I S H A U S E R,
Having been duly sworn, testifies as follows: 
MR. MARTIN: And, MR. TUVEL, you stipulate to the village engineer   
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN:     as being a professional engineer? 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.
MR. MARTIN: Go ahead, Chris. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay, thank you. I was presented for this application, there's a tremendous similarity   
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sorry to interrupt. Did anyone from the public have any questions for Kendra?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: As MR. TUVEL has presented, this application has tremendous similarity to what has already been presented to the board, so a lot of my comments are similar to both. There are a few exceptions.  Some parking spaces were widened from 8 feet to 9 feet. All of the spaces, as proposed, in this application were shown to be 9 feet wide and 18 feet deep. That's a nice, generous parking space. 
They also show on their plans for refuse collection areas around the parking lot. They've added a bicycle rack for residents on the interior. I don't believe they had that on the prior application. I do have a request for the Applicant to consider possibly one or two backless, like resting benches, for the pedestrians along the Franklin Avenue frontage. I have been working a lot with Age Friendly Ridgewood. And they're stressing that the Franklin Avenue sidewalk corridor is a primary walking route for their senior population from Ridgecrest to reach a number of the food stores and the shopping district, and on their way back with, let's say, purchases from Stop and Shop, a resting bench or two in this area would be very beneficial to those folks before they cross at the Broad Street light, went through the train station and back at Ridgecrest. It's just something to be considered.
MR. MARTIN: I believe there would be a stipulation to that? 
MR. TUVEL: Yes. That's fine.
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. That would be great, thanks. This application had a geotechnical report that I don't recall was in the initial application. The geotechnical report mentioned several ground densification methodologies that may be considered. They are based on ramp, piers, steel piles, micro piles. My concern on behalf of the Village would be if any of these methodologies were employed, that the Applicant be required to provide for seismic monitoring at the property line to ensure off site seismic problems do not occur. I have, in my own experience, had concrete demolition occurring where we had a vibration damage two blocks away where a house's foundation on the sand matched the frequency of our demolition work and they got large cracks in their foundations. I'd like to make sure we could avoid that for any of the buildings in that area with any of the densification methodologies they may consider. The geotechnical report also mentions groundwater observed. That triggered something in my memory I added it to my report a map that we have had in our files from 1980    no    1881, that shows a stream that transects the parcel and goes through to the central business district. We do know that that stream now acts subsurfacely and it is a conduit for a contamination issue we have on Chestnut Street that reached all the way down East Ridgewood, so we provided that information to the applicant. Just review it, see if it has any bearing to what they propose. And that's basically it, if the board has any questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Jeff, do you have any questions? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I do not.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  David? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  James?
CHIEF  Van Goor:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Susan? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  I have no questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Frances? 
MS. BARTO:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  I don't have any questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Joel? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  No, sir. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay.
MR. MARTIN: Just in terms of the seismic, I'm a little slow so can you help me out with that? So Jason is pretty quick and I'm just sort of confused. How can we make this happen? What do we need? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: I would recommend that any resolution of approval the board considers, that there be an obligation for seismic monitoring if ground densification processes are employed during the construction phases.
MR. MARTIN: Is this just during construction?
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Well, I don't see any reason to densify the ground once they're done.
MR. MARTIN: The railroad had some issues I've have in other towns so...
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Well, I mean, the railroad is there. They do provide    there is some vibration from the railroad, that should be relatively stable now. The most recent work was done ten years ago, I believe.
MR. MARTIN: So it's just during construction. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes. If they    again, if they follow certain recommendations in the geotechnical report, I would like the resolution to have the ability that the Village could provide for monitoring to ensure no off site issues occur.
MR. TUVEL: That's a common request on projects of this size where the monitoring takes place during construction. It's usually recommended by the geotech report as well, so that's fine.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you. So I guess you'd stipulate to review construction with the engineer and then any requirements   
MR. TUVEL: Yes, there's vibration monitoring during the course of construction to ensure that it doesn't affect, have a negative impact on it; that's fine.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I have another    because that was actually my question, I was trying to formulate in my mind, so thank you, that was just what I wanted to know how to monitor that. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does the applicant have any questions for Chris? 
MR. TUVEL: No. Think we would comply with his letter as applicable I don't think we're a major development, that was the only item    
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes, there were a couple issues with stormwater management that we were talking about. 
MR. TUVEL:  So we'll agree to work with you on those issues.  Okay.  So we're fine.
CHAIRMAN JEL: Anything else to add, Chris?
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does the public have any questions for our engineer?
MR. UNLUSOY:  Yes, I have one. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Sure. Come forward, state your name   
MR. UNLUSOY:  So let's just say    sorry.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Because we're recording it. 
MR. UNLUSOY:  Sure.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: State your name.
MR. UNLUSOY: Pulent Unlusoy, 102 Oak Street. Chris, let's say during the demolition efforts they    something happened and a crack occurred on the foundation of a nearby house. Who is liable? Is the city liable because they permitted this to happen? Or is the contractor liable because they didn't follow some of the seismic recommendations?
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Okay. That's a liability question and I'm an engineer, so I don't pretend to be an attorney. I'm not qualified to. But if it could be shown that work on the development project was the cause of that, then that individual has grounds for a possible claim. Again, there's a lot of legal niceties that are involved. It's not that quick and easy. You know, the condition of the structure has something to do with if there is a damage, the nature of any demolition work, you know, if the demolition work was, as I gave you an example using a hoe hammer, hydraulic hammering then there might be grounds. If the demolition work was simply using a loader, an excavator to remove the building, there may be less of a case because those are very common practice.
MR. MARTIN: There's permit safety, a number of conditions, there's going to be insurance   
MR. TUVEL: It's part of the application, we will have to comply with all construction code requirements, all of these are construction code requirements. But, yes, Chris, we also have to post a bond and also provide necessary certificates of insurance.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So here's another question, questions beget questions, right? 
Did we notice residents    I know sometimes we get a notification that somebody is doing demo work or something, you know, in your neighborhood thing, how do we notice residents that something like that would be going on? What is the procedure that we follow? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: It's part of our building permit, the building department permit for demolition. 
For example, right now our contractor will be demoing the garage at the shelter property. They have to notify the neighbors. They have to provide documentation of that notification when they apply for a permit. They also have to show that all the utilities have been shut off, for us the sanitary sewer is done through our offices, we witness the lateral that's excavated and capped properly. PSE&G has to provide those letters from gas, electric cable, all the utilities, water company, and so forth.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: And then what is the    is it the same 200 foot radius that gets notified or do we go beyond that, because as this gentleman is speaking from Oak Street, I don't know where his house is on Oak Street. It could be right across the street, it could be 500 feet away, you know, so I'm just wondering what is the distance of notification?
MR. RUTISHAUSER: I think the building department doesn't use 200 feet, I think just they use adjacent to the property. I'm not 100 percent certain. We could certainly look into that.
MR. MARTIN:  Or areas that they'd be engineering would determine could be affected.
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Again, they have    I think they have a statutory established criteria. Again, I don't know if it's in the board's purview. It's up to your, counsel, whether, as part of an approval resolution, a notification could be done on a certain radius distance as the Mayor has suggested.
MR. MARTIN: No. That would be definitely under the construction aspects. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  So I would have to defer to what the building department is using.
MR. MARTIN:  Right. There's one other issue I think the Mayor brought up there's also a major soil movement permit    
MR. TUVEL: Correct.
MR. MARTIN: And that will be outlined as it normally is, in terms of securing any kind of soil that's taken off site or brought into the site.
MR. TUVEL: Right. 
MR. MARTIN: And   
MR. TUVEL: So Chris's report addressed that and we're complying with everything in his report. We obviously are also subject to Bergen County Soil Conservation District as well, and we would comply with those regulations in addition to that. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 
Andrew, do you have a further report to provide? 
MR. FERANDA: Again, as noted in other professional's reports, the new application is significantly similar to the original approval. And that's the case for traffic and parking as well. Access and circulation, there's no change. The Applicant has agreed to the comments in our letter, one of which I state that they're subject to the original conditions of the original approval. They've agreed to that. For the parking, there was a question about is the parking    now for the new application, does it meet the ordinance. There are now 60 units of residential based on the 15 one bedroom and 45 two bedroom units there will be 117 parking spaces required by RSIS. For the retail space, 8,164 square foot at one space per 250 square foot, there would be 33 spaces required. That's a total of 150. Previously the requirement for the residential was 127. That's ten more. Because of the reduction of the bedrooms, it's now ten less. The retail space was 23. It's now 33. That's ten more. There's a trade off. It's the same number of parking spaces. So they do meet the ordinance requirements in both cases, retail and residential. Again, any parking conditions are subject to the original approval. Traffic wise, the site does have a slight increase in trips in the morning time. The total trip increase would be six trips. That would be six trips in and out of the site. That would not be a significant increase knowing that they have two driveways to distribute six trips in and out, that's roughly three in/three out with the two driveways. It's a very small increase in the trips. In the p.m. it would be an additional 15 in and on Saturday it would be an additional 22 trips. Again, based on the trips from the site distributing over the two driveways, during a peak hour timeframe, the additional trips is not a significant increase and can be accommodated within the analysis that was provided in the original traffic report. The parking, with the new application there was a temporal analysis, a temporal demand analysis, what that is an analysis throughout the day of how many parking spaces will be available during each hour of the day based on information available for retail and residential. Residential typically peaks overnight when residents are in their units. Retail typically peaks during the day. There's an offsetting, this is part of the shared analysis that was provided. And based on the shared analysis, during a weekday there will be a minimum of 32 available parking spaces, and on a weekend there would be a similar number of 32 parking spaces available, in addition to those being used. So we have 150 parking spaces on site. There will be 32 spaces available within that 150 parking spaces, based on the analysis of demand for the residential and retail use. So with that said, the new mix of retail and residential, there is adequate parking within the provided 150 parking spaces. 
And the last comment I would have is the fair share analysis that was done for the previous approval still applies. They've agreed to do that as part of the original approval, and that would remain as part of this approval. The fair share analysis was not tied to number of vehicles for the site per square footage.  They have agreed to construction of certain items or improvement of the traffic signal. The agreement for the original approval was they're contributing or there'll be the fourth leg at a currently a three leg approach at the intersection, they're the fourth leg. They will contribute 25 percent, I think was in the original agreement. And they've agreed to that already, so that still applies. It's not based on the number of units or intensity of the site. The one condition of the original approval that still applies was the look back study, and I think it's more important that that look back study done now with the increase in the retail space, not knowing the tenants that will be in there, the travel demand for that retail space will be picked up in that look back study, and that can be used to program the traffic signal so that it's appropriate for the use that comes into the site. And that would be my last comment.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Thanks. 
Jeff, do you have any questions of Andrew?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I actually have a question for Chris I forgot to ask. It has to do with the soil, soil permits.
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Sure.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So there's a soil permit. There's cubic yards estimate of 2300 and 4300 cubic yards of soil being shipped back and forth. How many truckloads is that? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Generally figure about 15, 16 a truckload. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. So that's a six, seven    600    no, I'm sorry. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: The Applicant provided a range of their displaced soil movement. They haven't been able to provide completely, I think that may be related to some environmental issues they have to address first also.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Right.
MR. RUTISHAUSER: So say you want the 2500. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yeah. Let's go on the high end, 4300. 
MR. RUTISHAUSER:  Okay. 2500 at 16 yards is about 156 trucks, and what was the other number? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: 43.
MR. RUTISHAUSER: 43, again at 16, you're talking 268.75, 269 rounded up 270 truckloads. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Thank you.
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Those truckloads, that would be tandems or tri axle, 72,000 pounds to 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Is there any issues with any of the roads being able to support that weight? 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: We wouldn't want them necessarily on residential streets, but they're going to go down Franklin Avenue, a county road. They'll get on to Maple Avenue, a county road, and then depending where they go, they'll probably the county routes through the Village and then to the end destination. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: So, obviously, there's going to be some kind of a schedule for that so it doesn't disrupt... 
MR. RUTISHAUSER: Yes. The would need a resolution that's going to be prepared for the council, for the other mayor soil permits they need to provide a trucking route. Police department and I will review that, and they'll post some escrowed funds. We would look at restricting trucking during prime walk to school times or school inflow and outflow times for these, one of these other soil permits that I presented to council, I had stipulations that no trucking in front of the religious institutions at the very start of the trucking route was having an event, again, so as not to interfere with that. Those    the stipulations I have in the resolution for the governing body are usually about eight to ten items. If there's anything specific the board would like to be considered or included, feel free to let me know. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Thank you. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Questions for Andrew?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Dave? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Just to clarify, the slight increase in the number of trips is due to the increased amount of retail space? 
MR. FERANDA:  That would be the retail space, correct.
MR. SCHEIBNER:  That's all.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  James?
CHIEF  Van Goor:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Susan? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Frances? 
MS. BARTO:  No questions. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS: A question, I used to remember this off the top of my head, but I don't right at the moment. When was the traffic study done that we're basing this on? When    how long ago was it? 
MR. FERANDA: That was part of the original study that was done for the  
MS. McWILLIAMS: For the Village. 
MR. FERANDA: Correct. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: Before 2015, that was 2015, right? Or 2016? 
MR. FERANDA: That was 2015, correct. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: February 2016? I believe even that was the person that did that study or if I recall correctly his testimony in February of 2016 or whatever was that the traffic study should be redone, I think it was, every two to three years. And I'm wondering, I mean, we can say all we want it's going to increase this, you know, a couple of carloads or car trips in and out, and I know there's a science behind it, but we all live it and sit in the traffic backed up past where this all will be and I mean we still don't know what exists for retail, what's going in that retail space. Is there worth    I mean is there any    are we left with any ability to see another traffic study done, an updated traffic study. 
MR. TUVEL: That's actually in your conditional approval.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. TUVEL: No, I just wanted to answer your question.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. TUVEL: It ties in to the approval that we previous got and also the condition that Andrew put in his letter that we would agree to as to this approval, as well. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: No questions.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: So the look back will start after they're approval for all the residential and commercial is approved and then when it's fully tenanted? 
MR. FERANDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: And then you start, is it a year, what is the look back? 
MR. FERANDA: A year would be a good timeframe. That doesn't mean all the units have to be filled or all the retail. There are ways in traffic, you can work on a rate, if half the retail is filled, if they don't have a tenant in all of the retail space they can determine that half of the retail wasn't used and maybe a couple of the units weren't used. And they could work up a rate for that, and then multiply that by the empty spaces. But a year after would give you a good idea of the occupancy, it will be sufficient to get a good rate developed.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I just have a question.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes. Sure.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: You just refreshed my memory on something, and I could be misremembering, so    at one point we were discussing this application and there was a discrepancy on some of the traffic numbers, and I seem to recall there was some question as to whether or not we should go back out and do those counts to just corroborate the numbers or do a study. Am I not remembering that or is that   
MR. MARTIN: I think your memory is accurate. My recollection is that Andrew suggested that may be a more material study if it was done after as a look back as conditions change. Am I right about that? 
MR. FERANDA: Right. That was the discussion. We were looking at the signal, itself, and how that was analyzed and maybe me looking at that intersection and the thought was we could do it now and get the existing conditions, but that would not tell us much of what needs to be done once the building comes in, and that's why we decided on the look back, because that would take into account the actual impact of the occupied building and then they would have to mitigate impacts, adjust the signal timing based on the traffic that's actually coming from the site. If we count now, we're just recounting existing conditions and it doesn't really have the site traffic built in.
MR. MARTIN: And I believe the Applicant would abide by those recommendations. 
MR. TUVEL: Yes. We already agreed to that the first time. And we agree to those now. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Do you have any questions for Andrew? 
MR. TUVEL:  No.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Does anyone from the public have any questions for our traffic engineer?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing none. All right. I guess we're up to the public testimony. Is there anyone from the public that wants to testify, to present any facts? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Seeing there are none, we'll have a motion to open to the public comment. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: I offer.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Melanie. Second? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Second. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All in favor?  (Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Anyone opposed? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  All right. We'll open for the public comment. 
Does anyone from the public want to come up and make a comment on this application?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Motion to close to the public comment. 
Is there a motion? 
MAYOR KNUDSEN:  Motion.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Susan. And second? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Second. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Second's, Melanie. 
All in favor?  (Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone opposed? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. So you can make a closing statement.
MR. TUVEL: I think at this point you've heard all of the testimony. I think that what I said in my initial remarks is the arguments that we've put forth which is the following; after the initial approval, I know, as I said, it was permitted as of right and complied with all the regulations. However, during the course of those proceedings, not just at the end, but during the course of the entire seven hearing process that we had, there were comments that were made by the board in connection with various things. And I think the two major issues that were brought up were one was the architecture of the building, which we think we've significantly addressed in connection with this revision. The other was the use of the exterior amenity space, which I think we've made serious adjustments to, to the betterment of the project. I think that the one variance that resulted from the architectural adjustment as well as a decrease in density does not    meets the (c)(2) criteria test, we've provided ample evidence demonstrating that certain purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law are met. On Franklin Avenue the actual height of the building and the street are actually less than what was previously approved by the board based on the actual    because of the setback. In terms of the negative criteria, as your traffic engineer indicated, there's no negative impacts with respect to traffic, which are typically issues related to height. In addition to that, we've reduced the density.  As I said before, the density in this zone is 35 units per acre, which means that we can build 70 units on this property because the property is over two acres. The initial proposal that this board approved for 32.8 units    sorry, 32.8 units per acre. 
Based on this revision, going down to 60, we're now at 29.8 units per acre, so under 30. So this project is significantly less from a density standpoint. In addition to that, we've decreased the impervious coverage by adding more green space by eliminating the exterior amenity by the train track and putting more landscaping and things of that nature there. So I think we've met the negative criteria for the (c)(2) variance that we've requested. In addition to the site plan and the soil movement permit, if I could just recap, we've agreed to comply with your traffic engineer's report. We've agreed to comply with your civil engineer's report. We've addressed, I think, all the items in your planner's report. The affordable housing that will be off site, not at this location. And we meet all of the ordinance requirements with respect to that. In terms of your planner's report, as well, we went through some of the variances that she brought up there; most notably, the exterior roof appurtenances. We've reduced all those to make sure that they're compliant with the ordinance. That was something that was raised. We went back and forth as to what was an accessory structure, what was a principal structure, and in order to be  conservative on the issue, we've eliminated the height of the roof appurtenances so they comply. We've also eliminated the rooftop coverage issue that your planner suggested was violated in the letter in our plan, by reducing the amount of equipment on the roof. So we've complied with all of those ordinance requirements. Like I said before, the initial proposal was for 50 feet for the building height from grade. Right now we're at 54 feet 11 inches. However, the initial building went up to 58 feet with respect to the roof appurtenances. This building also goes up to 58 feet with respect to the roof appurtenances. 
So I think if you take the totality of the revisions that we've made from the initial proposal to this proposal, it's a much better planning alternative to the Village and was based off the dialogue that we had with this board and the public at the initial meeting. So I would respectfully request that the board grant the application as proposed.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Thank you.
MR. MARTIN:  Chair, point of order. Kendra, Jason mentioned something about the (c)(2) variance, which is the variance that's at issue?  I just want to be sure of that.
MS. LELIE:  That I agree with that? Yes. 
MR. MARTIN:  I happen to agree as well. 
MS. LELIE:  Yes, I do.
MR. MARTIN: All right. So the variance, the one variance on this application is the (c)(2) variance.
MR. TUVEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: All right. Do I have a motion to formally close the hearing and go into decision mode? 
MR. SCHEIBNER: So moved. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. Dave? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: Second. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Second is Joel. All in favor? 
(Whereupon, all Board Members respond in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Anyone opposed? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOEL: So we formally close. Jeff, you can start, provide your thoughts.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. A couple of things on the nonresidential space. I know we put a stipulation in The Enclave where we requested any time a new tenant went into that space that they would require Planning Board to compare the intensity of use was not so overwhelming that it created a parking issue. I'm just wondering if you might consider that as a stipulation? I'm having some problems with the benefits outweighing the detriments. I mean, I don't see how unless    there has to be winning argument here, to the benefits and detriments. And I'm having some problems trying to wrap my head around that. There were a couple of outstanding issues that we're going to look at, Jason. One is the height of this building relative to everything else in the area. And then you've got to look at some of the sight lines as it relates to people on the other side of Franklin looking at the building. And I'd ask for those, I know we're right now in decision mode, but they may help. They may help a little bit. 
MR. TUVEL: Yes, we can provide that information to your planner. That's fine. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: Are you were asking for that as a conditions or before you vote? Before you even     
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  No, no, I guess I'm asking for a condition. We need to make sure that    I mean if you look at the sight line that I really can't see that, you know, the height of the building, if you're looking at the other side of Franklin. That would be one thing I was hoping, you know, we could take a look at, if there is a problem, then we really can address that. Is that okay? 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes. We can work with your planner, as a condition of approval, to provide the appropriate sight lines. That's fine. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Okay. Yeah, so those are my    my concerns. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Any comment whether you're favorable, unfavorable? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yes, I am    I'm inclined to say yes. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. Dave? 
MR. SCHEIBNER: My feeling is that it's a number of tradeoffs. The volume, the actual enclosed volume of the building I think is a little bit bigger, but it has probably less visual impact. So that's    I mean, that's a good trade. The intensity of use of the residential side is going down, going up in the retail. Again, it's pretty much a wash. The amenity area, I think, is far more useful, the outdoor amenity area. That is a definite improvement. As far as the visibility of the fifth floor on the south elevation from Franklin Avenue, if you just kind of guesstimate that the distance to the other side of the street is maybe 60 feet, from    well, maybe 70 feet from the front of the building to the other side, you can kind of visualize it's probably, you know, like a 30 degree angle. And from the parapet to the top of the fifth floor over a 58 foot distance, that would be like another 6 feet or so. I believe from that particular spot you probably aren't going to see a lot on the fifth floor. I'm just kind of guesstimating. But, you know, it's going to be visible from some places, and I don't think that's a terrible thing. The fact that it's set back    it's also set back from the west side a little bit, too, if the elevation I was looking at is correct, the fifth floor doesn't go all the way to the edge of the fourth floor on the west side. So it's    I don't think that imposes, so I'm inclined to approve.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Okay. James. 
CHIEF  Van Goor:  I wasn't here the first time it was approved, but I agree with Dave. I think by setting it back to make it look shorter, I think is a little better look better. And I think the rendering is a lot better than the first one that was approved. So I would be inclined to say yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay.
MR. MARTIN:  With the satisfaction of fire code? 
CHIEF  Van Goor:  Yes. As long as we stick to the code   
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.
CHIEF  Van Goor:    and see how it goes. 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes, of course. And that's in Chris's letter, as well.
MR. MARTIN: Through the Chair, since the Mayor was able to address thing that she requested we put it to a vote. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: I was in church actually so just for the record.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: You addressed the closing statement.
MAYOR KNUDSEN: Yes. No, I'm actually going to speak to the special needs units. I don't know if you recall, the Sealfons' building, because technically they're not in The Enclave either, and I think there's some confusion here, right.
MR. NICHOLSON: Yes. 
MAYOR KNUDSEN: So I think the    what is accomplished here is a benefit to the community at large because these special needs units are very much needed, and the opportunity to provide that is critical for some people, crucial for their family members people so I mean, that's a good    it's a good outcome.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Yes, you can watch. Frances?
MS. BARTO: My thoughts are, you know, this is a much more attractive plan and I don't think we deviate much from what was initially approved. And I'm inclined to vote for it.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Melanie? 
MS. McWILLIAMS: My struggle is, for sure, I have to pick this one or we're stuck with the other one. 
MR. MARTIN: I don't think you're stuck with the first one, if you like this one better.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Right, I agree, but my concern is if this one were to be declined the other one   
MR. MARTIN: Technically the question that you started with about two hours ago   
MS. McWILLIAMS: My point is I like this better   
MR. MARTIN: Essentially the other one would need to be vacated, for lack of a better term, at this point. But if this one was not approved, they would still have the approval. 
MS. McWILLIAMS: Okay. That was my question. I like that better. Do I have to say yes or no? 
MR. MARTIN: No, just your thoughts.
MS. McWILLIAMS: That's a way better design.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Joel? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI: I think Dave did a really good job summing up a lot of the positive changes. 
Here's what I'm struggling with, is I think that the Applicant appreciates all of the positive changes to go to 60 units, they reduced the square footage. They can do the nice setback, less visual impact. And they can do that all without a variance. They don't need the height variance. They don't    I mean, and I know we're having, I think, we're kind of creating it, so they're asking for the height so they can market the units so they have premium ceiling heights. I think they can do everything. They could put the    take out all the amenity space, fifth floor or have who can, you know, friends over, do whatever, and that's great, that's positive. But you'll have another variance. That's the only part I'm struggling with, the positive criteria you gave, it's not a black check to say, oh, you know, public health safety and welfare, weigh there in space and now we're going to go up and out. This is an unusual site. And that's for a (c)(1), (c)(2), that's the only part that I'm struggling with. No one's going to argue that it's a superior design. It looks a lot better. It's just I think they can do all this without going up 5 feet and it's going to be just as big of a building, make it a little bit bigger by doing this. That's my only reservation.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Again, Dave's comments, which I thought were spot on, on this tradeoff. You give on something and you take on another. And    but I think there was a good dialogue on it. I think it's a better project. It's better looking, better design. And there was a lot of good things, I think, that came from the process for it. And they worked with the comments that were provided. And that was nice that Susan mentioned the special needs because I think that's overlooked because we're just kind of looking at this site and the other site as, you know, the affordable special needs at another place. It is part of the timeline on this. Again with the variances, there is the struggle with the volume aspect. And, you know, can it be brought down and not needed? But then again, I mean, the argument is that it was previously approved at 58, it's 58 now. So, I mean, all things being even, I think this is a better project. I liked it. I'm inclined to look on it favorably. Does anyone else have any other comments or want to discuss any motion on this?
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: I would like to make a motion to approve it based on just some of the stipulations we've discussed previously, the ability to look at it or understand who's going to be in that space that's on the nonresidential side and some of the other things that we had mentioned as it relates to sight lines.
MS. McWILLIAMS: Did you agree to that? 
MR. TUVEL:  Yes.
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: Yes. Related to the sight lines, they will take a look at that, they take a look at that.
MR. TUVEL: Yes.
I said we would give that to your planner and take a look at that. 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT: There was something else. I don't remember. 
So, yes, based on that, I would recommend that we make a motion to approve. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Thank you. Do we have a second on the motion? 
CHIEF  Van Goor: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Okay. James seconded it. So we have a motion by Jeff to approve the application and James seconded it. Michael, you want to call the roll? If you vote yes, you're voting for approval.
MR. CAFARELLI:  Only those eligible? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Only those eligible.
MR. CAFARELLI:  MR. SCHEIBNER? 
MR. SCHEIBNER:  Yes.
MR. CAFARELLI:  COUNCILMAN VOIGT? 
COUNCILMAN VOIGT:  Yes. 
MR. CAFARELLI:  VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI? 
VICE CHAIRMAN TORIELLI:  Yes.
MR. CAFARELLI:  CHAIRMAN JOEL? 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Yes.
MR. CAFARELLI:  MS. McWILLIAMS? 
MS. McWILLIAMS:  Yes.
MR. CAFARELLI:  MS. BARTO? 
MS. BARTO:  Yes.
MR. CAFARELLI:  CHIEF Van Goor? 
CHIEF  Van Goor: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOEL: Application was approved. 
MR. TUVEL: Thank you very much. 
CHAIRMAN JOEL:  Have a good night. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
MR. TUVEL:  Have a Happy Thanksgiving. 
(Whereupon, this matter is concluded. Time noted 10:11 p.m.) 

Adoption of Minutes: The minutes from October 3, 2017 were adopted as written.

Executive Session – The Board went into Executive Session at 10:15 p.m., returned to open session at 10:30 p.m. and the meeting was adjourned.
     
Michael Cafarelli
      Board Secretary

Date approved: December 4, 2018